Some critical questions of how Land Registry being operated - and what is right and lawful?

Waiting for an internal review by Land Registry of their handling of this request.

12 July 2016
FAO: Mr Graham Farrant - Chief Land Registrar

Dear Chief Land Registrar,

1. Please can you tell me, why does Land Registry admit that they rely SOLELY upon the PRESUMED integrity of a solicitor, acting on a property owner's Estate, to conduct dealings on the owner's Register without first doing any Anti-MLRA compliance checks?

2. And why does LR only check the status of the solicitor (to ensure he or she is qualified and SRA registered etc) without doing the more obvious and important check of ensuring the solicitor has due LAWFUL AUTHORITY and a POWER OF ATTORNEY granted by the Equitable Title holder, to conduct dealings and transactions on their Estate, WITH the owner's consent?

3. Specifically, why does LR allow any solicitor (who may not even be KNOWN to the rightful property owner, let alone instructed by them), to freely transact dealings (even fraudulent ones) and even to apply or create void "deeds" using forged signatures etc etc which do NOT comply with the Law of Property (Misc Provisions) Act 1989 on the owner's estate, without first checking if there is a CLIENT ACCOUNT in the property owner's name, opened up by the said solicitor?
Surely this is paramount importance to prevent stealing and property theft where no client account exists to route the transactions through?? Isn't this elementary?

4. Why do LR advertise misleading leaflets saying "protect your property against theft - by registering it" - when the Registration process appears to do the EXACT OPPOSITE to protecting one's property?
Indeed, it is widely known by many victims of Organised Crime and White Collar fraud that LR are always involved in unwarranted property thefts which almost all come down to one or more of the following unaddressed causes:-
a) VOID "deeds" being used which are non-compliant with LPAMP 1989
b) Conveyancing fraud by unauthorised solicitors, acting on an Estate without due authority in Law, not even checked or detected by LR!
c) Fraud by third party interlopers who bring 'claims' based on fraudulently obtained "charges" which are falsely registered with LR without the compliant paperwork nor POA and as above
d) Mortgage fraud, where no debt exists, yet a charge is put on a Register without any valid mortgage contract (also never checked by LR) and with no valid deed (void deeds being created is even being invited by LR), and with no POA for a solicitor to be acting on a party's estate, and/or with no consideration taking place for the contract being relied upon that results in the charge, and/or with no Terms & conditions contained WITHIN the body of a valid contract duly signed by both lender and borrower in wet ink signatures to support the creation of a deed, and/or where no moneys are advanced to the alleged "borrower" yet LR puts a charge on the Register nevertheless just because a soliictor applied for the said 'charge', and it is processed mindlessly?

5. Why, also, do LR so frequently fail to enter a charge correctly, even omitting the name of the beneficiary of the charge, and omitting the AMOUNT of the alleged borrowing and the relevant interest to be accrued or added? how can such critical details be omitted? and why is this always happening? Why does LR fail to take responsibilty for doing any compliance into such important details, which invariably result in innocent people being divested of their homes, down the line?

6. Does LR keep a list of rogue conveyancing solicitors who have been caught out conducting illegal and unlawful transactions and dealings on a property owner's Estate without due authority in Law? or engaging in money laundering on a clients estate? or acting with a conflict of interests for BOTh sides, lender and borrower, preventing independent l egal advice as is required in LPAMP 1989 and in the signing & execution of all valid deeds?
Do they get struck off the conveyancing list for misdemeanours? if not, why not? what steps are taken to warn other property owners and to alert the SRA regulators ?

7. Where is the punishment for wrong-doing by rogue solicitors who act dishonestly on a person's Estate, which LR seem to blindly accept as correct without doing any checks and balances to protect the property or Title owner? Why is the trust in solicitors disproportionate to the trust in the property owner? why the inequality of arms? what is fair about that?

8. Why is LR's Data Protection officer, Gurmale Sondh, so incredibly dishonest and notorious for refusing disclosure under SARN - even sending back the £10 fee in our own case? How is he allowed to get away with this AND stay in his position as the Data officers, engaging in such unacceptable maladministration in Public office?

9. What is the Public Liabilty insurance policy details for LR's indemnity fund? please provide full details. Are these displayed publicly anywhere? Who are the underwriters of this indemnity fund? What is the procedure to claim upon the indemnity fund, and why is it so closely guarded as to render it questionable to the Public that it even exists? (especially given the rapid rise in LR frauds and injustices being meted out on a monumental scale).

10. Why is John Pownall now acting as the Head of Litigation AND the Indemnity fund (surely this is a conflict of interests)? Especially when he used to be the Weymouth Land Registrar - where is the separation of powers?

11. Why are LR ignoring evidence put before them of open-shut frauds on certain Estates, and allowing a blemised Register to continue uncorrected, whilst condoning the undue pressure and hardship it imposes as a big burden on innocent property owners who have been opportunistically targetted by White Collar crime and the like?

12. What does it mean when a 'Transfer of whole' document has been created IN FRAUD by an uninstructed solicitor, acting without ANY POA and above all, with NO CLIENT ACCOUNT in place for the rightful Title owner's name and then has an erroneous Title number attached to it? What remedy exists to correct this state of affairs, especially when it is discovered 22 years 'after the event' due to criminal concealment in those intervening years - all made possible because LR only send the notices of activities on the Estate to the registered Owner, correct? So if a Title has been stolen by a rogue solicitor, it will by-pass the true owner, correct? (this has happened to us)

13. Why do LR allow 'charges' to appear on a Register, without checking that a lawful transfer actually TOOK PLACE - from Transferor to Transferee? how is this check not carried out? What about all the millions of cases where no transfer ever occurred to the alleged "borrower"?

14. Why does John Pownall at LR insist that victims of property or conveyancing frauds, have to go to HMCTS for their remedy? especially when HMCTS are frequently being hired privately ("shadow courts") and operate ultra vires outside of the Law, in a conspiracy to steal an Estate, for example? why isn't this being detected or dealt with by LR's Fraud team, who seem to be about as effective as a chocolate teapot?
It would surely be a very different ballgame if it was happening to THEM!

15. Why has John Pownall from LR consistently and adamantly refused to serve the B-142 Notice to the alleged beneficiary of the fraudulent 'charge' in favour of 'Governor of the Bank of Scotland" in our own case, and instead served it only to Eversheds - who ARE NOT INSTRUCTED BY BOS! And who have fraudulently purported to be acting for the said Bank, contrary to what the Bank have said and where no contract even exists and a void deed has been used? (as with our case) - how can something be based on nothing? What is Mr Pownall's objection to serving the notice to the Bank itself, who will then be able to immediately confirm that they do NOT have any ;Mortgage in the Watson's name!

16. How can a 'charge' exist without any Mortgage ?

17. How can a 'charge' exist on a "registered lease" (fraudulently created by David Webb, bent solicitor of Matthew & Matthew who is being illegally protected by Dorset police and so has escaped prosecution for 22 years so far) ? especially a 'lease' with a fake Title number?
How can a "LEASE" possibly be charged???? It is clearly a nullity. So why are LR ignoring this topic which is critical?

18. Who is the owner of the Freehold Title DT66145 which I personally paid for in December 1993? Why isn't there a Freehold Title deed in the Watson's name, given that we paid for it in full as CASH BUYERS, 22 years ago? Why have LR refused to disclosure who, in fact, has managed to obtain or sequester that Freehold Title by evidently misappropriating the purchase moneys to pay for it in Dec 1993? What does it take to get LR to listen?

19. In late 2013, I telephoned the Bank to find out why we had an unrecognised bank statement showing a debit balance of £407,024.19 DR in our names - only to discover that the account did not exist on the Bank's ledger and had used a fraudulent account number and fake sort code. As a aresult the Bank offered to send a letter of release, and when I reported this back to John Pownall, believing he asked for the names of the Bank staff who offered this remedy - then why did he ask me for the names within the Bank of who had agreed to send a 'letter of release' to us to enable Mr Pownall to remove the charge BUT THEN report back to UNINSTRUCTED Eversheds, who immediately intervened and perverted the Course of Justice to prevent the Bank from sending us the letter of release, all because of Mr Pownall tipping them off?
We've had to endure yet further unmitigated hell because of the above!

20. I showed LR a letter from the Bank of Scotland dated 14 October 2013, confirming that a certain sort code used by them on alleged accounts, was "fraudulently opened" - and after all, I also showed evidence that Eversheds alleged 'possession claim' was BASED on those two fraudulent non-existent "accounts" being alleged 'in default' - and this was being used as the backdoor method to try to steal our property since 2008.

So, why didn't LR take any notice of the evidence presented to Mr Pownall, and why has he continued to be allocated to deal with this worrying matter when clearly he appears to be impervious to evidence and is apparently turning a blind eye to rampant fraud and money laundering, and is evidently also condoning identity theft by David Webb, against my husband and I ? We feel we are being unjustly victimised by John Pownall, as a result, who claims he is above the Law and "immune from prosecution" - is this REALLY true?

21. It has been uncovered that a clone (shadow) set up that was operating within the Bank of Scotland PLC back in 2001 called 'IN PARALLEL SOLUTIONS" was a mere domain name all along, and that it was not on the Bank's ledger or balance sheet, having NO RECORDS kept anywhere. They utilised what has been revealed to be a fake trading address, being a landfill / building construction site, which the Bank itself has also advised "is not a valid or legitimate trading address" - so it begs the question - why did John Pownall send his 'notices' to the spoof 'trading address' - although we note he was careful to remove its postcode beforehand, which of course revealed its bogus status ?

22. Is it true that Land Registry does not have to declare OVERRIDING INTERESTS to a property or Title holder?

23. Is it true that LR has information which is kept secret behind "a curtain", because of private interests created on an estate, possibly without the lawful owner even realising this?

24. How can LR deem itself to be "a mere register" when they are evidently players in a key role which features in many conveyancing and property thefts and frauds? If they were not, then why do they have an Indemnity fund? And why is that indemnity fund not independently dealt with by an independent Regulator?

25. Why is Alisdair Lewis noted as being the Head of LR's Legal department, when he is impossible to get hold of, and makes serious mistakes in his correspondence when asked to deal with issues on an estate like our own?

26. Is it correct that Michael Westcott-Rudd is LR's Company Secretary and has no Law degree or practicing certifcate as a solicitor, and yet he is in the role of Legal Services director? If correct, how does this square up? what is the true position please?

27. What is the expenditure of LR's staff on an average year? where can the accounts be reviewed?

28. How many employees are there at LR and where do they get their funding from to cover their expenditure?

29. Is it correct that a property, once it is registered, is in effect, gifted to The legal fiction known as "THE CROWN" ? Why does it create the rightful freeholder who has paid for their land, into a 'tenant in common' and how is this lawful?
Is it optional, or not? If not, why not?

30. Why are County Councils able to get the assumed right to charge "council tax" without any contract with the land or property owner, by calling themselves a "local authority" when they are merely just another privately owned company - frequently with an Offshore holding company that is squirrelling away tens of millions of pounds PROFTS exotrted from unsuspecting property owners in over-charged Council tax, every year? And all of this without open disclousre of their financial accounts and predatory practices? Is this some sort of contractual partnership between County Councils and local Land Registries?

31. Does LR profit or share in the profits from County Councils up and down the UK PLC?

32. Why are there up to 5 "Proprietors" on a property, and how is this meaningfully possible or practical? Why isn't the owner shown on the Register?

33. Does LR offer a mediation service for dispute resolution anywhere?

34. How does LR define a "misdemeanour"? What is the procedure where their own staff or employees may have engaged in a misdemeanour, or aiding and abetting one and how is this rectified?

35. Why is the 2002 Act being relied upon when it was not in force when a 1993 Estate was fraudulentely dealt with by rogue conveyancing solicitors acting in a conspiracy to steal.

36. Does LR have any obligation to intevene where a fire sale is being attempted on a stolen property using conveyancing fraud etc, when it is discovered that no Writ of possession exists nor can be obtained because no jurisdiction exists in Law? If not, why not, given the LR will have played a critical part in the injustice in such a scenario as this?

37. A growing number of us are painfully aware that there are fire sales occurring and auctions up and down the country, which involve stolen properties - so why is nothing being done at source, with Land Registry?

38. Given that a growing number of members of the Public have become aware of a large-scale of racketeering going on between rogue solicitors / "court officers" and gangster-style banksters who mis-use their positions, and rely upon one or more of these things: non-disclosure, abuse of court process, forgery, fake accounts, perjury, money laundering, Fraud Upon The Court, collusion with judges who are being hired in a private capacity, courts being hired in a private capacity operating 'ultra vires' of the Law and disregarding the law, using third party interlopers like alleged "debt collectors" to peddle a false and unproven 'debt' through HMCTS due to incorrect records held at LR, false paperwork, false accounting, void deeds etc etc - then why is LR failing to address their key role in permitting and/or condoning and/or failing to take action in the Cause of natural justice to prevent such things?

39. Last but not least, is it MANDATORY to register a property, or not? If so, why? and where is it written in Law?
If not, how does one reverse a property registration, if they so choose?

Thank you, in anticipation of your thorough responses. And apologies for the length and number of the questions that have had to be raised. If I think of any others, I will, of course, add these and send them through to you.

Yours faithfully,

Liz Watson

Dear Land Registry,

one thing I missed -
what exactly is a "DISENGAGED CLIENT" and why is this term used?
Why are the Public called "clients" when we have never contracted with Land Registry in any way and have merely inherited dealings with them by default?

Who is really controlling Land Registry - is it correct that it is the Rothschild family?

Yours faithfully,

Liz Watson

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi Liz,

Land Registry's disengagement policy is not a lawful process and yet it is used to hold back cases where legitimate records exist that amount to absolute proof of Land Registry refusing to admit guilt of errors / mistakes or just gross misconduct of their staff. The exposing of 20,000 complainants a year over a decade that were all gagged by the PHSO is sYnominious with events now unravelling at Land Registry. The misdirections that allowed for a dominent Land Registry creating the Land Registry Act they themselves wanted , with even the setting up of the AHMLR to channel cases under the wire by stealth to clear hundreds of thousands of cases from Land Registry's books that were cases that breached the HRA in that property and land was deprived from the recorded and rightful owners, without any paymRent made. Land Registry even lied to The Right Honourable Michael Fallon MP who wrote to them on my behalf , telling him that the ICR had investigated my case twice. Now it turns out twenty -two cases were referred from the AHMLR to the ICR for Land Registry wrongly referring them in the first place , in the same timeframe as the error of my case being wrongly referred. I know there were many other cases at that time that should not have been referred either. So there must have been a highly organised campaign in process to think up misleading the UK Public with massive inconsistancies and wrong information on the two websites of Land Registry and the AHMLR and then there was the circulated misleading literature of both , designed to reach a high percentage of the UK property / land owning Public. This kinda puts the mis-selling done by the banks in the shade when it comes down to the amounts involved. Make the staff at Land Registry culpable for their actions l say. Acting outside of their prescribed remits and involving themselves in telephoning errant solicitors, needs to carry a suitable punishment. For the amounts of cash involved , prison sentences need to be laid down. Spell it out loud and clear this behaviour will not be tolerated.

Liz Watson left an annotation ()

Interesting, Diane - thank you for sharing that.
Its clear things are far from right at LR
they appear to be acting in tort and are unnaturally reluctant to correct those torts - John Pownall in particular who used to be the Weymouth Registrar but is now entrusted with the LR Indemnity fund I understand.
several conversations I've had with Mr Pownall have conveyed that he believes he is above the law and is 'exempt'. Gurmale Sondh in Data control adopts a similar stance - scary!
What is democratic about that? nothing.

Pownall, John, Land Registry

Dear Mrs Watson

 

In reply to your email dated 12^th July, addressed to Mr Farrant, I would
reply as follows:

 

1.      The Law Society and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority oversee
the conduct of the solicitors’ profession. On that basis, Land Registry
may rely upon the professional capacity of a solicitor acting as a
conveyancer for the purposes of Rule 217 of the Land Registration Rules
2003.

2.      Land Registry is empowered to register legal estates, and the
disposition of legal estates. Land Registry does not handle dispositions
by equitable owners. Applications may be made by conveyancers on behalf of
applicants. AP1 is the default form for applications to land Registry when
no other form is specified (Rule 13 (1) of the LRR 2003). AP1 may be
signed by an applicant or their conveyancer. Conveyancer is defined to
include a solicitor (Rule 217).There is no requirement on the part of Land
Registry to investigate the actual authority behind the ostensible one
expressed by a conveyancer’s signature/lodgement.

3.      It is not the function or within the power of Land Registry to
investigate the accounting arrangements of law firms.

4.      Registering land is a bulwark against adverse possession, commonly
referred to as land theft. In terms of fraud, the proliferation of fraud
has been widely documented and commented on, and Land Registry has taken
many measures to help prevent its impact on land registration fraud, for
example, the introduction of the Property Alert scheme.

5.      The sums secured are never part of the entry in the register. I
have pointed out before that a charge entry is in fact split into two:
first the charge itself, and second its beneficiary.

6.      As I have said, the SRA and Law Society has purview over these
matters. If a solicitor is struck off, then this would prevent them from
making an application as a conveyancer on behalf of an estate owner or
other applicant.

7.      I am afraid I do not agree that these criticisms are valid.

8.      Land Registry will make no comment on this accusation, save to say
that is wholly inaccurate.

9.      Indemnity is paid out of the Registry’s fee income; in other
words, as Land Registry is a public body, it is met from public funds. If
anybody wishes to pursue a claim for indemnity they may, ultimately go to
court (Schedule8, Paragraph 7 to the Land Registration Act 2002).

10.   Separation of powers is a doctrine which governs the constitutional
law of the state, not the allocation of tasks and duties within a
Government Agency. Conflict of interest is not relevant in the context of
a civil service role which takes in a range of the statutory functions for
which the relevant department or body has been established.

11.   Any evidence of registration fraud is taken seriously, and
scrutinised carefully.

12.   Any person who has prima facie evidence of registration fraud,
usually by way of forgery of signatures, may apply to Land Registry for
alteration of the register. Any application is judged on its merits.

13.   Only registrable charges entered into by the registered proprietor,
or the person or persons entitled to be so registered, will be entered in
the register.

14.   There is nothing further to be said about the current application.

15.   See 14 above.

16.   I suggest you take legal advice on matters of general law.

17.   There is nothing further to be said on this point which has been
explained on several occasions.

18.   See 17 above.

19.   See 14 above.

20.   See 14 above.

21.   See 14 above.

22.   Please see Practice Guide 15 (PG15) which explains the position
regarding overriding interests.
[1]https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registrati...

23.   Please see Practice Guide 24 (PG24) which explains the position
regarding trusts of land.
[2]https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registrati...

24.   If you have questions about the overarching policy governing
registration, these might be better directed at your local MP. Land
Registry carries out the statutory functions imposed by the Land
Registration Act 2002 and the LRR 2003. Schedule 8 governs indemnity.
Practice Guide 39 (PG39) explains the position regarding indemnity.
[3]https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registrati...

25.   The Director Legal Services is Mr Alasdair Lewis. I am conducting
matters relating to your application for alteration.

26.   Mr Westcott-Rudd is a qualified solicitor with a law degree from the
University of Cambridge.

27.   The most recently published accounts for the year ending April 2015
can be viewed at
[4]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

28.   See 27 above.

29.   I do not recognise this legal fiction. A “tenant in common” is an
optional mode of holding the equitable interest in a property. I would
refer you to PG 24 para 1.1(see 23 above).

30.   There appear to be two questions asked here. As to the first: I do
not know, I suggest you contact your local authority. As to the final one;
no.

31.   Unequivocally, no.

32.   The limit of registered proprietors is 4, in fact. The registered
proprietor is always entered in the register.

33.   No. Such a service has been offered by the Tribunal Service, but I
cannot provide any details of that. You would need to contact them.

34.   Such a word is not a defined term in the Land Registration Act 2002.
I am not aware of any process regarding misdemeanours. However, if you
wish to raise a complaint, I suggest you contact the Independent
Complaints Reviewer who may consider complaints about, for example, bias,
delay, discourtesy etc. Her website details are:
[5]http://www.icrev.org.uk/

35.   The 1925 Act was repealed by the 2002 Act and so the terms of the
1925 Act cannot be relied upon in relation to any current application to
alter the register.

36.   There are two question to this: the first; no. The second; there is
nothing in the Land Registration Act (in any guise - 1925 or 2002) which
relates to such matters.

37.   See 36 above; second answer.

38.   See 37 above, save that in the case of a proven forged transfer,
lease, or charge, an application may be made to either the Registrar or
the Court to alter the register in order to correct a mistake.

39.   See Land Registration Act 1925, Section 123  and now, Land
Registration Act 2002, Section 4, both of which compel registration in the
event of a transfer or conveyance of previously unregistered land.  There
are no provisions in either act for “de-registration”. However, if a
registration has been effected by mistake, then this can be altered if
there is evidence of such mistake. In the case of your own property, the
registration of the title appears to have occurred originally in 1979. One
cannot simply de-register a price of land voluntarily.

 

I understand that you wish to visit this office on Friday of this week. I
am happy to attend, although I am not entirely sure what the purpose of
the visit will be. All our files relating to your ownership have been
disclosed to you and, indeed, at our last meeting copies of everything in
them were provided to you. Your application to alter the register is
currently with the Tribunal and there is nothing further which we can do
in relation to that application. I have made this clear on many occasions.

 

Yours sincerely

 

John Pownall

 

Our email addresses have changed, the new format is [email address] which replaces [email address]

Land Registry is the definitive source of information for more than 24 million property titles in England and Wales. Since 1862 we have provided security and confidence in one of the most active property and mortgage markets in the world. We are working to support economic growth and data transparency as part of the Public Data Group. Find out more at www.gov.uk/land-registry

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registrati...
2. https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registrati...
3. https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registrati...
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
5. http://www.icrev.org.uk/

Christopher Barrs left an annotation ()

The land registry is completely infested with crooks, I have evidence (on their own paperwork) of crimes that they have committed, their response? They won't answer me. They are open to bribery and I can prove it. Answer me you crooks.

In the Public Interest

Dear Pownall, John,
The message was sent to Mr Graham Farrant, the Chief Registrar, so why has it not been answered by him, please?
You will be well aware that you are heavily conflicted to be having ANY dealings in this matter, as you have acted with a self-evident conflict of interests over the past 3 years in particular, and seriously prejudiced our position, we believe, by ignoring compelling evidence of compound FRAUDS upon our Register from the point of our property purchase - and over the past 7 months, significant new evidence has emerged - which I require to be dealt with by an INDEPENDENT internal reviewer and not yourself for obvious reasons.

This, coupled with the fact that things have moved on significantly since 7 months ago when I visited LR and met you and your legal representative on 1/12/2015, and duly noted the following with grave concerns:-

1. that you have been unable to provide an original freehold Title certificate for our property DT66145 despite several requests for it over the past 8 months;

2. that you have failed to respond to my question as to who has this Freehold Title since it is not us?

3. That you have failed to respond to my enquiry as to whether the freehold Title still rests with Michael Vincent Baynham, the vendor?

4. That you have failed to serve and consistently refuse to serve the B-142 Notice to REMOVE the two invalid charges by sending these Notices appropriately and correctly to the alleged beneficiaries of the two void "charges" (which "charges" do not exist in Law, but only exist in the fiction of your clearly blemised Register for our Estate DT66145).
Thus, your inaction in blocking the alleged beneficiary of the nullity "charge" from even correcting these torts - which is a further tort and a grave injustice.

5. That you persistently refuse to accept that Eversheds are NOT instructed by Bank of Scotland and have no basis to be instructed either, since no debt exists nor has been proven and THERE IS NO MORTGAGE against our property!

6. You have failed to detect that there is no charge because there is no valid deed for either BOS nor Santander. You as an experienced Land Registrar, must know or ought to know what consititutes a valid deed from a void one.
This is the basis of the respective AP1 applications to be made which must result in the false charges being removed from your blemised inaccurate Register immediately.
This requirement is based on the Law of Property (Misc Provisions) Act 1989 sections 1 & 2 which have NOT been complied with in our case.

7. You have misdirected yourself by saying 7 months ago that you were "satisfied" that Eversheds 'are instructed by BOS LTD' but you have no basis in Law to say this, based on the evidence already provided to you - not least the fact they are alleging a 'default' on 2 "bank accounts" which the Fraud unit at Lloyds Banking Group have confirmed DO NOT EXIST and are FRAUDULENTLY OPENED ! And they are provably claiming NOTHING on their unsealed "claim" form - which you probably havn't even taken the precaution of examining. Had you done so, you would understand immediately that there is no jurisprudence whatsoever.

8. and no valid Contract exists for any possession on our property to be enforced let alone ruled upon in HMCTS! It is noted how you have misled me for several years on this matter.

9. There is the further major issue that there does not appear to be any valid transfer document in our names to show the F/h title was ever transferred to us on the correct Title number

(and your "offer" to "correct" the erroneous Title number of the fake 'transfer of whole' document that you emailed to me 7 months ago, was declined by me on the basis we did NOT purchase a registered lease (which you've refused to address) nor do LR rules permit any alteration or amendment after 56 days have lapsed under the slip rules - which you ought to realise);

10. you have no TR-1 form on record, which demonstrates our property was never actually transferred to us by the vendor Michael Baynham - so what kind of Register are you running, Mr Pownall?

11. that you have no Completion statements nor any indication whatsoever to show any valid transfer of the Freehold Title to ourselves as the Freehold purchasers of our property, which we paid CASH for via a 30 day notice Postal account at NORTHERN ROCK;
(and have since established this money has never been accounted for and appears to have been misappropriated by David Ross Webb of Matthew & Matthew, acting for the vendor Mr Baynham, with your personal help.)

12. that you have ignored the erroneous Title number on the false 'Transfer of whole' document which you emailed to me out of the blue in mid Nov 2015, being a fraudulent document which had never been seen by me before! Fraudulent because: it was a "Registered lease" (which we never bought) and reflected the wrong purchase price (£18,000 less than the offer price made and accepted by Michael Baynham), and was never disclosed to us at the material time

- and how did YOU come to have the purported original of it then????

In addition, the reason your previous stance (which I trust you will now review in the light of this information and new evidence to be forwarded with the AP1's), can no longer hold up is because:-

a)* There is compelling evidence of a conspiracy to defraud and steal our property and assets by David Ross Webb of Matthew & Matthew, acting in evident collusion with David Monk ex Bennett Thomas solicitors (now de-registered since about 4 years ago) and with The Rothschilds (Central Bank - covering, in this case, dishonest and suspicious activities with HBOS PLC, Alliance & Leicester, Santander, Woolwich Barclays, Northern Rock now T/A Virgin Money and Bradford & Bingley).

b)* In addition it has come to our attention that David Ross Webb and Monk are directly responsible for the misappropriation of at least £200,000 from my Northern Rock account, and of at least £50,000 equity from my husband's Poole property sale.

c) * Over the past 22 years, we have now established with the help of a Forensic accountant that we have had more than £250,000 in 'loan interest' deceitfully stolen from us through compound deceptions of the above parties, and further substantial sums exceeding £1.5 million stripped from the equity of our property - on account of the evident theft of the Freehold Title.

MOREOVER -
d) * it has come to light that David Ross Webb, who we are now satisfied (after inspecting your Register) has personally created the void "deeds" through fraudulent deception, in collusion with his agent David Monk, is being aided and abetted by Dorset police who have refused to investigate this matter since at least 2006

e) * and, once again, David Webb and Monk had NO power of attorney as we had no Client care letter nor account in place in our names as this was evidently a deliberate act and they conspired to defraud us.

f) * We merely 'inherited' dealings with Webb because the orally instructed conveyancing solicitor, David Monk of Bennett Thomas, was colluding with Webb behind the scenes all along before he became an employee of Webb's, in or around 2001 or possibly as early as 1997.

g) * David Monk did not provide any letter of engagement nor client account, either! They took advantage of our disabled status, it appears.

h) * Mr Webb of Matthew & Matthew knows that he had NO client Account in our name, which he would have had to have had in order to conduct transactions on our Estate, and so was laundering money / handling stolen goods.

i) * David Webb turned up at Bournemouth County Court before a dishonest bent excuse-for-a "judge", Martin Alan Gordon Dancey, on 30 June 2015, and pretended through his fake 'witness statement' that he had acted for the Watson's and the "bank" without disclosing the truth that he had NO INSTRUCTION FROM EITHER!

j) * Worse, it later came to light that Webb and Dancey had worked together for several years since 1991 and have their own property business together (no doubt stolen goods, ably assisted by LR's lax policies about failing to vet the compliant status to act for conveyancing solicitors) and were colluding - all verifiable in the Public domain and at Companies House!

k) * all of the above has been run through a 'shadow' court system or 'escrow courts' operating ultra vires of the Law with privately hired "judges" who are in the back pockets of these criminals - (bought and paid for by desperate Eversheds and their sidekick Paul Mitchell (of hail-the-sham chambers) the latter has since been disgracefully promoted to "QC" status for his criminal misdemeanours executed for the cabal he works for) - rest assured, these things are all being noted.
God help the British Public with rogues like these laundering millions of pounds through HMCTS alias set ups!

l) * In addition, there is the new High Court Ruling which rightly upholds the LPAMP 1989, and has set a legal precedent that a charge MUST be executed validly in front of you, and must be accurately dated at the time of execution and have two independent witnesses in the room at the time of its execution - without which, there is no deed (see para (9) below.

13. There is no valid legal mortgage in existence which complies with the statutory law of mortgages. Since the judge's decision was founded on the false claim that the contrary is the case, his orders are void on that ground alone.

14. In addition, the 'Limited Civil Restraint Order issued by 'judge' Peter Blair QC without any court seal nor even a signature and vexatiously pushed for by Paul Mitchell - who has nothing of any substance to produce in court - is also void ab intio and must be set aside on the ground that due process of law was completely ignored by the judge, who dismissed numerous authorities and statutes by which the court was bound as “wholly without merit”, including [without limitation] the Garguilo decision by the Land Registry Adjudicator, Underhill J's decision in R [Mercury Tax Group] v HMRC and sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

15. We also have evidence that the "bank" breached its own offer terms by directing the phantom "loan" to an offshore account that was personally nominated by Fraser Mackay (the HBOS ex Head Auditor of 34 years standing, who master-minded the $233 million heist under the wing of James Crosby.

16. Its no coincidence that its subsequently been discovered that Mr Mackay had his own commission account held at that very same bank, for a substantial sum in it exceeding $214,000! - all ignored by "judge" Blair QC, who we now realise was quite obviously hand-picked by Eversheds and Paul Mitchell of Hailsham Chamber, to do the "dirty deed" of defying gravity in a kangaroo "court".

It has been witnessed that these presumably intelligent men are mis-applying their intelligence for deceitful acts of tort.
These strange "court officers" are knowingly causing harm to innocent people like ourselves, by trading their conscience and integrity and professional ethics for pecuniary gain and a criminal cover up.

YET NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
With greater freedom and positions of trust and power, comes greater responsibility and duty to act with honour.

Please note that there are yet further grounds for the void charges to be immediately removed without the necessity or recourse to any other court, on the basis of legal precedent requiring the same action of removing void deeds (ironically, against one of the same banks that we are dealing with here), with another Land Registry in the UK - details of which I will discuss face to face with Mr Farrant next Friday 22nd July - I would prefer a 12 or 2pm appointment please.

I will address your other points shortly and notify you why I reject most of what you have submitted by way of a response.

For the avoidance of doubt you need to finally please take note of the following:

a) Since no mortgage exists, No right of redemption exists either nor has ever existed.
b) There is no mortgage or loan contract and you have not seen any valid Contract. therefore there is nothing to enforce in any court of Law, despite you having insisted this must be determined in court, this is wholly incorrect if there is no contract, which is the case here.
c) The 'offer letter' which Eversheds have treated as a 'contract' is NOT a contract as it has no exit to it and no repayment vehicle.
d) False instruments by way of 'bank accounts' have been used by BofS, operating from a spoof trading address (building construction site) in Edinburgh - where you personally lremoved the postcode, obviously realising it was a 'toxic address' ?
e) It is not possible for a non-existent fraudulent "bank account" to be in default
f) It is not possible for a non-existent fraudulent "bank account" to be regulated nor traced if it is not on any ledger in any bank as required under the Bankers Book Evidence Act 1879
g) It is not possible for a debt to exist where no draw down has occurred and where none of the Banking Rules have been complied with
h) It is not possible for a charge to exist where no valid deed exists nor was ever granted by the equitable Title holder
i) It is not possible to transact a matter involving multi-layered frauds and conspiracy through deploying HMCTS over 22 years as an easy money-laundering vehicle, and then expect to escape Justice for ruining our lives, health, business, Family life, marriage, finances, happiness, etc etc
j) It is not possible for something to be based on nothing: and this is a false "claim" that is based on NOTHING!
k) It is not possible for for a victim of crime to be both intimidated and heinously deceived by a criminal "judge" (in this case Peter Blair QC of Swindon CROWN Court, who obviously took the risk of sitting on this matter in a PRIVATE CAPACITY because he fancied the ££££££), who knew or ought to have known exactly what he was doing and that it was criminal and compounding tort upon tort, but then sought to get round the issue by purporting to "issue" an LCRO against me.
l) It is not possible to appeal something that was discovered early this year is actually unappealable because it has never been issued by HMCTS in the first place, being non-compliant with CPR 2.6 and having no seal of the court and nothing to say it is validated by the court;
m) It stands to reason that it is not possible to be refused permission to appeal where there is open-shut evidence of fraud and torts unless the said 'judge' is acting privately and for his own pecuniary advantage.
n) Nor is it possible for a judge who has refused permission to appeal, to then be the SAME judge who sits at the oral "hearing" - thus preventing a fair hearing
o) It is not possible to expect a vicitm of crime to swallow a phoney 'judgment' based solely on technicalities and gibberish, white noise and flim-flam, whilst omitting to make a solitary comment nor provide reasons for "refusing permission" on the LAWFUL CONTENT of the APPEAL ISSUES RAISED AT ORAL HEARING!

I have witnessed extreme dishonesty by certain court staff and "court officers". I have noted the vile genocide of Apartheid practices of dishonest employees within HMCTS, hiding behind the artificial persona of a corporation, like cowards.
I have witnessed the inhumane conduct and insolence of Public office of liars, masquerading as qualified "laywers" and "judges" who deliver their queer mummery and sophistry with a polite smile on their face, whilst turning the knife in to one's back.

It is not possible for a legal right to arise from an unlawful act or omission: JUS EX INJURIA NON ORITUR

The date for the visit to deliver the AP-1's and other issues to be discussed with Mr Farrant, needs to be changed to a week on Friday, but I hope to confirm this shortly to Mr Farrant.

Given the new evidence to be shortly provided to accompany the AP-1 forms for each of the respective invalid 'charges', then the Land Registry are compelled to remove both of the fake charges.
Meanwhile, I am not satisfied in any way with your responses, which unfortunately do not answer the important issues raised as I trust you will appreciate - I will write further on this in the near future. Meanwhile, I trust you will give this your serious thought and put matters right before it gets any worse.

It is also materially relevant to establish precisely what your role is at LR, Mr Pownall?
I am confused by what you've said in the past which its now come to light may have been intended to mislead me.
You had told me the day before I came to inspect the Register on 1st December 2015 that you "are no longer the Land Registrar", but now it seems you are instated as the 'head registrar for Weymouth', correct?
If so, then it is inappropriate for you to be corresponding with me in this matter as stated previously in the Notice I sent to LR giving very clear reasons to Mr Graham Farrant - to which I havn't had the courtesy of any reply, notably.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

Pownall, John, Land Registry

Dear Mrs Watson

I shall not be in the office on 22nd Friday. Mr Farrant will not be present. Firstly, he is not dealing with this matter, I am; and secondly, he is not based at Weymouth.
If you attend on Friday 22nd July to deliver AP1s for consideration, that is entirely up to you, of course. Any fresh application will then be treated on its merits, although not immediately on that day. However, you are welcome to lodge your papers for subsequent consideration.
I have to say that if those applications are considered defective, they will be returned to you.

Yours sincerely

John Pownall

show quoted sections

Christopher Barrs left an annotation ()

Dear Liz Watson.
I can assure you that John Pownall is just another one of the criminals who has been involved in my case. He told me that the land registry have done nothing wrong whilst at the same time refusing to look at the evidence I possess. John Pownall is no more than a common criminal.

Liz Watson left an annotation ()

Dear christopher Barr
I've been greatly troubled by john Pownalls gross malfeasance, too.
He's overwhelmingly biased in favour of rogues and criminals with Law degrees. He appears to have no scruples or morals or ethics.

There's evidence that he and some others are in a private coterie and are disobeying the laws of the Land, mis-applying their powers, and apparently participating in criminal activity for evident private gain b ignoring open shy evidence of fraud and torts- to conspire in stealing properties by pen and paper, it would appear.
I noticed recently on 13/7/16 that all the telephone numbers I'd been speaking to john Pownall on for the past 3 years, have all suddenly been disconnected!
Was I even dealing with LR after all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z0ZDT1gC...

Check out the above farce concerning the ex Head Auditor of HBOS, one Fraser Mackay.
Ably assisted by Pownall and others, Eversheds managed to get the BBC to gravely misrepresent the facts - eg there is overwhelming evidence that HBOS & Mackay knew it was a fraud! Mackay, we discovered, was running RH show!
We have hard evidence that Mackay was laundering billions of pounds of client money's through a domain name run off ledger of the bank and using a bogus trading address!
We hold proof and have eyewitnesses that Mackay was the one setting up thousands of fraudulent and void "bank accounts", run off ledger with no paper trail, and stole what must have been tens of millions of pounds of client money this way.

The evidence strongly indicates that Mackay is a primary Rothschild agent as Pownall appears to be. Asset stripping and escaping undetected appears to be their game. They play it well.

Acting in a private shadow capacity seems to be becoming increasingly common - in HMCTS, LR, legal profession, banking fraternity etc
Now that the Chairman of the PHSO and Data Protection ICO have been sacked /forced to step down, it begs the question whether the likes of Pownall will be next?
He's indicated in no uncertain terms that he believed he has "immunity from prosecution" - if more come forward, who knows, perhaps this will get put to the rest?

FAO: John Pownall
16 July 2016

Dear Pownall, John,

Re: Compound frauds reflected in a toxic Register of DT66145 (3&3a), the alloidial Title for which belongs to Elizabeth & Craig of the watson family who paid CASH for this property in Dec 1993 & have resided there for over 22 years!

As previously advised to your Chief Land Registrar, Graham Farrant earlier this year, you are clearly conflicted to deal with this, and due to aready being caught 'red-handed' in refusing to send the B-142 Notice to the alleged beneficiary of the charge (and taking no action whatsoever on the fake '2nd charge; in favour of Santander, amongst other misdemeanours), on this basis I do not consent to entrust the matter to you as you are clearly complicit in the frauds.

In point of fact, your behaviour is so overwhelmingly biased that it is a wonder that you tenaciously continue to cling to this case like a crazed limpet, and therefore unsurprisingly, you have handled this matter in a grossly inadequate and reprehensible manner, to date. Obviously you would not be doing this if you did not fundamentally believe that you, as an employee of HM Land Registry Corporation, are above the Laws of the Land?
Let's recap:-
* You have turned a Nelsonian blind eye to multiple fraudulent and discrepant documents.
* You have inexplicably refused to serve the B-142 Notice to the BANK itself, only to Eversheds (UNINSTRUCTED by Bank of Scotland PLC)
* You have ignored that Eversheds own Collections Unit revealed to me in 2013 (on tape) that "There is no instruction from Bank of Scotland PLC to Eversheds, Mrs Watson, and no collections or debt against your property"!
* You have criminally colluded with Eversheds and con-man "QC" Paul Mitchell from Hail-the-sham Chambers.
* You have tipped off Tim Pyle that I discovered there is no debt which I foolishly shared with you in trust that you were an ethical Land Registrar, once I'd heard "from the horse's mouth" in the Private Banking Unit on 20 September 2013 for the first time that no draw down existed and there have never been any collections against our property.
* You obviously did this unconsciable act so that Tim Pyle could unduly influence and mislead senior Bank staff that eversheds were handling the matter, and so pervert the course of justice to ensure that all bank staff did u-turns and so failed to fulfil their promises to send a "LETTER OF RELEASE" to remove the void "charge" in favour of "Governor of the Bank of T" (purportedly Bank of Scotland PLC)
* All of this was flimsily based on your falsified, UNSIGNED, and incurably void "despatch instructions" supplied in 2013. (Tim Pyle fled Eversheds in a panic in late January 2015 by the way, and chairman John Heaps suddenly resigned over this matter only to re-appear as a "litigant Partner" a few months later, along with the sudden resignation of the Chief Financial Ombudsman, Natalie Feeney in December 2013)
* You have ignored the fraudulent "certificate of Title" linking the alleged 'completion' of our property purchase by uninstructed David Webb of Matthew & Matthew, some EIGHT YEARS AFTER WE HAD MOVED IN and he had withheld all conveyancing documents from us!
* You have condoned and turned a blind eye to David Ross Webb's criminal acquisition of the neighbouring property to us at No.3 of BH3 7EF, securitising a £181,500 "loan" with Woolwich Barclays tied in to the unauthorised Jan 1994 paperwork (never previously disclosed to us in 22 years) which you tried to hide from me at LR on 1/12/2015, along with a £493,500 Santander "loan" on the back of the equity of OUR PROPERTY - explaining the void "1st charge" sitting on your blemised "Register" since June 2010 - put there with NIL Lawful authority!
* You have ignored the absence of a TR-1 form, indicating that the Freehold Title has never been transferred to us, despite us paying for it in cash 100%!

In particular, it is now on record that you have coerced and duped me into having to attend Court for all these years (and are now attempting to prolong the nonsense by involving the Property Chamber Tribunal whom you control in your back pocket it appears), IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE where you have known all along (or ought to have known), that NO CHARGE EXISTS against our property DT66145, and VOID DEEDS been used - by an uninstructed third party solicitor, acting for the vendor, without any Power of Attorney.

If you have 'missed' all of these points due to some kind of human error or mental aberration, that is one thing, but it is simply not believable that a Head Land Registrar who says he is now the Head of the Litigation unit and the LR Indemnity fund, could make such a grave error of judgment.

Not only this, you have openly ignored the fact the 'claim for possession' that was vexatiously attempted by Eversheds to launder money in Serious Organised Crime via HM Shadodw courts, since nearly 8 years ago, has no defined claim whatsoever, and it is claiming nothing in fact (as can be seen from the claim form itself), using 2 fraudulently opened bank accounts (confirmed by the Bank of Scotland PLC itself!) and has no contract whatsoever to enforce because NO DEBT EXISTS.
Yet you have ignored all of these things. And you apparently continue to obfuscate the matter in order to protect your paymaster who is evidently employing you using the proceeds of crime? You should hang your head in shame, John Pownall.
Be assured, that If this continues, then you WILL be held answerable to a criminal private prosecution, of that you can be assured. But we hope this will NOT prove necessary, if you correct these compound torts right away and fully restore our position.

It is just as well that you will not attend the office next Friday, for the reasons stated above, and after your extremely unhelpful and discourteous treatment last December 2015 when I attended LR with my elderly mother accompanied by two other witnesses, I do not particularly wish to be subjected to such insolence in Public Office ever again, thank you.

We left on 1/12/2015 feeling traumatised and drained at the shameless compound White Collar fraud involved in this case, where LR has apparently lent itself as "a willing player" to assist with the attempted theft of our property - to say nothing of the quarter of a million pounds at 2001 values which has been misappropriated via fake "bank accounts" which do not exist on any legitimate Banking Ledger anywhere!

Nothing short of a sincere and genuine written apology from you for getting things so wildly wrong, along with an urgent rectification of the Register, will persuade me to continue dealings with you as you've made it very clear thus far that your mind is dangerously closed off, your eyes are blinkered, your listening is shut tight, and you are evidently 100% focused on fulfilling your agenda or inappropriate contract to assist the attempted theft of our property involving money-laundering by Martin Alan Gordon Dancey and ably assisted by Peter Blair QC in Bournemouth & Swindon County Courts respectively, who it can be easily proven are wilfully assisting White Collar criminals whom you elect to give credence to. It begs the question: how much are they paying you ? It must be a great deal of money to do the things you are doing.

Lastly, your comments below are noted, but the only thing that is defective is your thinking, Mr Pownall. I require an internal review of this matter, and intend to deliver the two AP-1 applications in person with my legal counsel, and so will require to see a qualified practicing solicitor at Land Registry next Friday on 22nd at 1.30pm when the Customer Service Centre has confirmed the appointment has been set for.
In addition, I will be makiing a visit to Croydon LR to meet with Graham Farrant soon afterwards if this is not swiftly resolved because you are incurring substantial damages, daily, through these torts, and I reserve the right to claim not less than £10,000 per day for the delays of LR in correcting the Register and for failing to run an accurate or honest Register in the first place dating back to December 16th, 1993.

Last but not least, did you forget that you send a fraudulent "Transfer of Whole" document to me on your own volition last November 2015, bearing a fraudulent Title number on a fake 'Registered Lease'?

Did you also forget that when I called round to LR in Weymouth, it came to light that you held the "original" of this fake alleged 'transfer' bearing our forged / altered signatures, thus making LR liable for holding such a toxic, void, document which has never previously been disclosed to us? So WHO exactly is responsible for drawing up this void document? David Webb again? Or you? Or someone else?
And WHO has possession of our Freehold Title Certificate NOW, please?
The clock is ticking, Mr Pownall. And time is running out.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

From: Pownall, John
Land Registry

14 July 2016

Dear Mrs Watson

I shall not be in the office on 22nd Friday. Mr Farrant will not be present. Firstly, he is not dealing with this matter, I am; and secondly, he is not based at Weymouth.
If you attend on Friday 22nd July to deliver AP1s for consideration, that is entirely up to you, of course. Any fresh application will then be treated on its merits, although not immediately on that day. However, you are welcome to lodge your papers for subsequent consideration.
I have to say that if those applications are considered defective, they will be returned to you.

Yours sincerely

John Pownall

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi Liz,
the assistant registrar at my own local Land Registry Office was John Edon.
He allowed himself to be directed by orders from Land Registry Head Office on the 23 rd July 2009 to hound me by telephoning and shouting at me that l was to contact the Adjudicator's Office to put in a stay , as the actual excepted owner of the land being sought had turned out to not be dead. He then went on record writing to Steve Coveney his line manager and the registrar for Kingston upon Hull Land Registry , saying he "held Land Registry Head Office in dereliction of their duty towards Diana Smith ". Following this apparent attack of conscience he then carried on doing many more atrocities to prevent correction of the register and blocked communications from this then newly contacted and recorded owner of the very bit of land that the whole omnishambles was about. Seven years on and nothing has moved forward as every time anyone in authority contacts KUH Land Registry on my behalf , like The Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP did, they are lied to . Now it turns out there were many cases referred to the adjudicator that should not have been, and it's all been covered up. Registered titles are meant to be protected by Land Registry's indemnity, being the whole reasoning behind registered property and land. But instead we have out of control staff at Land Registry receiving hand outs to enable false claims to protected registered property / land, to be filtered through our courts disregarding all legal protocols , simply because its obtainable as Land Registry is perceived to be acting with clean hands. Ask yourself this, if in my deeds was the very certified land registry document on a form for registered land , that prevented any claim to the bit of land , why did the numerous solicitors and barristers l instructed , allow it all to go to court in the first place? There is the fact Claire Holland as the Customer Services Manager at KUH Land Registry telephoned my acting solicitors on the 23rd October 2007 to arrange with them that the declarations the whole claim was "solely based upon" , were not disclosed by either Land Registry or these same solicitors, who had themselves witnessed them in full knowledge of them being part of a even larger fraudulent claim to property and land , that in total involved five parties committing fraud in seeking to obtain properties and land already registered according to the official and proper documents under Megarrys Land Law. When there is such out of control dealings happening and the full involvement of Land Registry Staff in covering up and tipping errant solicitors off, you have to ask why these solicitors and Land Registry Staff are not behind bars?
A footnote to anyone seeking to purchase any property or land, just obtain a copy of " The Conveyance Fraud" by Michael Joseph, and seriously think about conducting the purchase yourself. As the author himself puts it , if you are capable of applying for a passport , you are capable of conducting a conveyance.

Liz Watson left an annotation ()

Thank you, Diana, for sharing that very important information. Which, in effect, is further EVIDENCE to suggest and even prove that Land Registry ARE committing FRAUD against innocent people, by abusing their positions of presumed power to keep a clean and honestly run Register - when in fact they are evidnetly doing the exact opposite!

Fraud by misrepresentation
Fraud by non-disclosure
Fraud by abuse of position

then, they will argue, of course that the Fraud Act 2006 "didn't come into force until 2006", but it replaced the Theft Act 1968.
John Pownall and his murky colleagues know, or ought to know, the Laws of the Land and Common Law of we, the indigenous people of England.
this is OUR country. This is OUR land. Any monarch can only SERVE the people of the land. They do not OWN the land. Yet the fictional entity, which they call "THE CROWN" purports to get al of the people of the Land to GIFT their property and land to the Crown!
Insane or what?
This is the same as the Banksters, getting people to gift their homes to the banks for a "loan" of debt-based currency (so creates a debt out of a debt) which they then steal your home on the back of because of financial fraud being transacted to a 'T', by disobeying the Law (void deeds invalidly executed etc etc)
Anyone with wealth or assets in England is surrounded with parasites and passengers, seeking to ride like trojans on their backs, to steal and acquire their assets and wealth off them through abusing their positions of trust, in effect. A dishonest day's work. Fat cats riding on our backs. Sound familiar? This is what the Banks are doing. And LR's partners-in-crime, the County Councils, up and down UK PLC, who are collectively squirrelling away over £22 BILLION a year to their offshore holding companies - and that's official!. It is all based on EXTORTION. Charging for far more than they NEED.
All Community services are paid for by Central Govt, very little is paid for b y County Councils, who do sod all for the most part, for the people.
They purport to provide a 'service' by force-feeding with cooked books and no disclosure of the profligacy within their private corporations owned by private offshore interests - are we all mad to be condoning this??

Millions are complaining that the County councils are often bullying and cheating and lying and forging "court orders" through Magistrates courts, issuing fake "liability order notices" and then purporting to "enforce these through HMCTs at the County Court level"!
The final slap in the face is when they put an alleged "Final charging order" against your property Register, in collusion and ably assisted by the voracious predator we call "LAND REGISTRY". oh my....
They aren't clean-handed.
they have no contract with any of us. They have no RIGHT in Law to extort thousands of pounds per household on property - all put up to it by the Public liability organisation known as Land Registry.

They hold false certificates left, right and centre. LR turns a blind eye wilfully to most property transactions, with the apparent single focus of acquiring it by stealth, eventually at least.
Is THIS the reason why LR want to be "privatised"? So all the fat cats can have one massive feast off all of us?
We, the fools, who are propping up their pyramid of power?

So, it appears this all comes back to Alloidial Title.
We are the victims of a corrupt system.
None of us ASKED for this.
The courts are collapsing and closing with corruption
the Government is collapsing with self-serving corrupt politicians who have no vision for the future and only seek gain for themselves, for the most part.
Arguing the toss all day long in parliament "talking shop"
Mal fides, acting in bad faith in many cases....

It isn't just banking that became like the Wild West 15 years ago, but the Land Registry and Parliament, too.

Allodial title - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_t...
Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land.

‎Legal concept · ‎United States · ‎See also · ‎Notes
Allodial Title - a Freedom of Information request to Land Registry ...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
12 Jun 2009 - Allodial title describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations. Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever.

My family and I have been extremely uneasy about the way that John Pownall has been conducting himself for some considerable time. Ditto, Gurmale Sondh, entrusted with people's private data which he then withholds disclosure of and arrogantly returns the £10 fee!
their acts of apparent deception and gross malfeasance are unconsciable.
I now have absolutely no doubts that HM Land Registry are a thoroughly corrupted Organisation that is dishonestly run and is serving a private agenda which is undisclosed to the trusting British Public.

Worse, the fact that there isn't a single man or woman in "UK PLC" who has ASKED for there to be a "Land Registry". (who are they, after all?)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
They are using their position to steal our properties - more anad more of us are now waking up to this harsh realisation
and feeling the pain of this APARTHEID consciousness!

And surely, given their shockingly misleading leaflets entitlied "Protect your property from fraud by registering it" give false information because they do the exact opposite, this indicates that registration of properties is NOT Mandatory!

therefore, what can be registered (for a convincing 'reason), can also be de-registered! So why aren't we given this FREEDOM and OPTION to do this as we wish?

Instead, it appears the LR are cheating people to the tune of millions of innocent folk, across the Nation. I have certainty this is happening, going by the appalling number of illegal evictions involving false instruments, fake "charges" using VOID DEEDS, fraudulent paperwork, crooked solicitors, bent "judges" - NOTABLY< ALL RUNNING THROUGH SHADOW SET UPS. I define "shadow" as "bought and paid for PRIVATELY".

they are operating in a private capacity. The unsuspecting PUblic need to wake up and put an end to these practices immediately. The safe option is to de-register all of our properties. There is absolutely no doubt about this. One can not be coerced into trusting a pack of wolves masquerading as "keepers of a Register" as if it were some perfunctory innocent task:
were this true, then why do LR have an indemnity fund? Does an indemnity fund even exist, I ask myself?
Is this all just a veneer of deception they put up to further mislead us?
If they were just "a mere register" as they purport, then why has there been such a massive increase in property frauds?
Why are they unaccountable?
Why has their regulator the PHSO Chairman, recently been sacked?

Why are the LR (and Pownall in particular), insisting that everyone must go by the 2002 LR Act, even when this wasn't in existence when their conveyancing was fraudulently conducted?

Maybe John Pownall knows too much? Maybe he is behind the sanctioning of the frauds? The evidence is very disturbing and is stacked high against him - he appears to be abusing a position of power that he has garnered over many years, and the way he conducts himself indicates he really does believe he is above the Law!

there appears to be a kind of racketeering going on between certain staff at LR, bouncing things between each other.
- One example is that I've noticed they keep changing phone numbers and then disconnecting previous numbers (IS THERE A SHADOW LAND REGISTRY AS WELL< THEN ?)

Pownall continually obfuscates and obstructs Justice. It is disgusting how he behaves. He belongs behind bars. Many people have said the same thing. He pointedly told me on 1st December 2015 that he is "immune from prosecution". I found Case Law and a legal reference to show he is entirely mistaken!

You rightly say: "But instead we have out of control staff at Land Registry receiving hand outs to enable false claims to protected registered property / land, to be filtered through our courts disregarding all legal protocols , simply because its obtainable as Land Registry is perceived to be acting with clean hands" - OMG, that explains everything!

SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME? I fear this may be true.

Let's see what further overturning takes place. With the 'false flag' attacks going on in Turkey etc, who knows what is next. These people are crazies, who are passengers and are living off people with assets - because they work for a bankrupt corporation called "UK PLC" otherwise known as 'The Government'. What a sorry state of affairs....God help us all.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Land Registry are not complying with EU legislation to keep accurate index mapping that is accessible by the UK Public. These were previously called SIM's ( Search of the Index Map) , and you could apply to request who was the owner of land.
After Kingston upon Hull Land Registry ( John Edon , Assistant Land Registrar), wrongly referred my case involving my registered title , to The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, for a Land Registry Hearing on the 28 th & 29 th May 2009. The outcome of that hearing was the deputy adjudicator ( being a barrister and commissioner for Legal Services Commission named " Angus Andrew"), agreed with me that the owner of the bit of land sought by adverse possession was a Mr W----.
I was able to then apply for a SIM in 2010 , that shows clearly this bit of the land was not given to the persons requesting adverse possession of it.
As prior to the hearing in 2009 , KUH Land Registry had refused the extension of this bit of land that then joined it with my fields, also to these same claimants, the result of all the involvement of the AHMLR only served for no part of an access from the road to mine and the neighbouring farmers fields, to be given away.
Rightly so as the land ( both adjoining pieces) is recorded on Land Registry certified documents on forms for registered land , to have been registered on the 3 rd November 1987.
SIM's were a useful tool to obtain information that Land Registry is now ignoring EU legislation in failing to comply in providing the UK Public with mapping information and are confusing anyone who try's to pin them down , to where the actual mapping responsibilities lay with.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

LR mapping is very confusing.

How can there be a complete 'hole ' in it - with land you can walk on- but doesn't exist on its register?

I'd also be very interested to know why the LR can move boundaries without explaining why on its records..apparently by a ghostly hand ....as there is nothing in its files and no change in Ordnance Survey mapping.

As a public service, the LR should be prepared and willing to give solid explanations for all it does.

Seemingly the LR views every FOIA request as a legal challenge- and either tries to shove requesters off to court, or ignores the point of the request.

If you ask the 'why' of anything off WDTK -it refuses to respond.

(That was after confidently stating that it is NOT subject to FOIA requests).

So I wish you luck with this request - and will be very interested to read its outcome.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

LR mapping is very confusing.

How can there be a complete 'hole ' in it - with land you can walk on- but doesn't exist on its register?

I'd also be very interested to know why the LR can move boundaries without explaining why on its records..apparently by a ghostly hand ....as there is nothing in its files and no change in Ordnance Survey mapping.

As a public service, the LR should be prepared and willing to give solid explanations for all it does.

Seemingly the LR views everything as a legal challenge- instead if an FOIA request and either tries to shove requesters off to court or ignores the point of the request. (That's after confidently telling me that it is not subject to FOIA requests).

So I wish you luck with this request - and will be very interested to read its outcome.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

I checked archive records of newspapers at my local library , to find going back to the "1960's" ,any maps for the area of my property with the ELDC ( East Lindsley District Council) insignia shown, the ELDC " badge" , covers the very area of the access ( " Green Strip"), in affect hiding record of it.
As my " neighbour" had previously lied on a planning application in 1991 and then while working for ELDC in planning then lodged a claim to the " Green Strip" on the 26 th July 2007 , when the " bit" of land was confirmed as registered land with my title on Land Registry certified documents on LR Forms for registered land dated the 3rd November 1987, and had been confirmed by Yvonne Owen at KUH Land Registry on the 15 th February 2007 to me as my registered protected land according to the records they held. My best guess is that COUNCILS run with LAND REGISTRY , to cover up crucial pieces of land , as in my case the " green strip" is the ONLY MEANS to access two fields that were ear-marked in the 1960's for building a mains sewerage works on. This village is a flood risk area and my house is the BENCHMARK ( highest land point) , and the only suitable area to build such a works on. Considering this places the " green strip" in the realms of being a " RANSOM STRIP", expotentially the value could be in excess of TWO MILLION POUNDS. Common sense of the recorded ownership gets thrown out the window when COUNCILS / LAND REGISTRY and THEIR STAFF see a buck can be made.