Seemingly the Land Registry has broken the DPA on several occasions ( four times for me)

Yet nothing really seems to be done. Because it happily continues to do so.

Safe in the knowledge that the ICO will not chase consistent breaches the of the law.

Hi JT Oakley,
my DPA(SAR) was lodged in March 2009 after two years of evasion by Land Registry to questions lodged under the FOIA.
Gill Miles as their then Information Officer resigned her post while not providing me with the information she stated in writing to me she would comply with within the timeframe of the DPA.
I lobbied the ICO from July 2009 until they finally came on board in November 2010.
The written advice of the ICO was to put in my DPA(SAR) again to Land Regiatry and to word it exactly as l had with my first request.
This would more than suggest l had worded it correctly.
Land Registry continued to ignore my requests up until my attending their offices for a pre -booked appointment , where they summoned Humberside Police on a 999 call to have me and a fully trained CAB Generalist and my other helper ( a man of 86 years old) removed on the 1st February 2011.
The later findings of the ICO were that the Land Registry had breached the DPA as of the 21 st January 2011.
In other words they were in breach when they had me removed.
The removal was a personal attack on me as a disabled person with limited mobility and the twelve staff laughed their socks off while we were escorted out.
The person who had made the 999 call was already on record for her conduct to me for my DPA(SAR) and her previous conduct acting outside of the remits of Land Registry by her telephoning my acting solicitors to arrange non-disclosure of the very paperless documents that was the sole basis for theft of my already confirmed and recorded to be registered land..
Also this person published defamation about me to other Land Registry Staff regarding personal information contained within a statement l had been directed to make in October 2007 to the Kingston upon Hull Office.
This " customer services manager " stated in communications that " she owed God one" for the Direct Lightning Strike to my home that terrified me and my 75 year old mother when it split the house at 1 am in the morning.
When the information for my DPA(SAR) was sent on the 26 th September 2011 with the usually offered Internal Review by Gurmale Sondh , l replied quickly on the 9 th October 2011 requesting such.
It never came .
Now Gurmale Sondh having offered me Internal Review recently is again typically denying me it.
I view Land Registry as completely out of control and complete liars when it comes to fronting it out with the ICO.
Land Registry lied in 2009 to The Home Office stating the land was unregistered when their own forms record it as my registered title.
In the real world producing the original documented evidence would be all that was needed, but this is not the real world and Land Registry except totally paperless claims without any lodged fee being paid , which in my book makes a complete mockery of the whole registration process.
Heads should roll for their bad behaviour and a panel needs setting up to completely overhaul how the ICO perceives they can continue to twin their behaviour along the realms of fantasy of refusing to view obvious criminal behaviour in highly profitable property / land thefts,

Diana Smith.

Duane Smith.

I agree. It's extraordinary given its record, that the Land Registry continues to get away with it.
The insult that you read about yourself in record is appalling - and the following treatment extremely substandard for any Public Authority,

From my point of view, being told that the LR was 'not subject to Foia' ......to having my personal information - and that of others- put in the internet.

So I can verify what you say -It has a cavalier and dismissive attitude to the public.

In addition, the relationship with the ICO is extremely suspect.

Four DPA breaches of my information alone and nothing done?
It appears that the last two breaches were never investigated.

When it wasn't busily trawling for gossip stared as 'digging' about me in the internet,( from DPA internal documents) the LR employees were misinforming the ICO about data on my personal files. Which is even more infuriating.

:::

However, before I made the request I knew the requested information existed.
And that it should be available under FOIA.

The Land Registry stated categorically it didn't exist.

:::

The most incredible thing was, due to the complaint time lag, ( it took ages to investigate as the caseworker didn't seem to entirely grasp the complex Land Registry procedures * ) my complaint to the ICO was described as frivolous -vexatious...By the same ICO caseworker

*Apart from telling me about her ill health problems - at length - and her complaint that the ICO had not given her the ability of sending me anything from her home.

But mindbendingly, her wrongful accusation about me was made AFTER the Land Registry had finally produced the requested data to me - in a private email. How could be 'frivolous' if I was proved right?

I've asked the ICO - but received no explanation.

So no apology from the ICO, of course.... Even though I produced incontrovertible proof - by sending the email of my requested LR data.

So now I'm banned from writing to the Land Registry on an entirely false premise ....and a wrongful piece of information.

:::

On this issue alone, - and there are many - the Land Registry said 'jump'... and the ICO not only jumped in its favour- on no evidence - but decided that I was to blame ......for evidencing the fact that the ICO that the Land Registry had made a completely false statement.

Shocking really! And, on this basis, I believe every accusation you have made above.

Hi JT Oakley ,
after eighteen court hearings where l was denied the information of my stolen conveyance document or Land Registry Office copy of it for my DPA(SAR) , at the nineteenth hearing on the 3 rd February 2012 , l got the result l needed.
However Land Registry are ignoring HH Justice Peter Smith stating in his decision that if a miscarriage of justice has occurred then it must be put right.
Legal Advice and Police Advice is NO ONE HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE MY CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT and this is certainly the miscarriage of justice the Judge refers to.
I caught Land Registry's Corporate Lawyer red- handed with my stolen conveyance document and even through Lincolnshire Economic Crime Unit said they must return it , this lawyer refused.
This Land Registry Lawyer provided a certified copy of the document and gave his word and legal advice that the judge at Grimsby Courts would accept it as if it was the original document itself.
Then he failed to come forward when the Judge at Grimsby Court refused to consider the certified copy.

JT Oakley, If as you say you have been banned from writing to Land Registry have they given you a referral to a different person who will deal with this matter?

I cannot make any FOIA requests. Because, according to the ICO, I made a 'frivolous' complaint.
The fact that the ICO put my personal information on WDTK FOUR times doesn't count.
The fact that the frivolity if asking why the Land Registry denied the information that I later obtained and added to the WDTK request didn't count.

The data didn't exist ...and therefore I was frivolous to complain about its existence...even when I had sent it to the ICO!

It is the worst ICO decision that I've ever seen.

If you complain, and the person you are complaining about is part of a certain team, the supervisor of the team automatically backs the person up..... even though they are CLEARLY and patently illogically in the wrong.

.....

It was the same situation in the PHSO ...until I got the complaint out to an independent advisor, who came down on my side.

The PHSO has now ditched the people who knew anything about the complaint subjects, the external advisors, so I would presume it would go back to the supervisor.

And supervisors clearly won't admit their staff are botching stuff up badly...because it reflects on their OWN management.

You have no proof of what's said in phone calls... as phone calls to both the PHSO and ICO are not recorded.

So if it's your word against theirs- it's Always theirs which is believed.

However, the old trick of the supervisor saying ' I was in the next desk and I heard everything' is alive and well at the ICO.
So your complaint is never upheld if it's about a phone incident.

Knowing what I know, having been through this corrupt system ( and won thee times, once with the Welsh Ombudsnan, once with the external advisor and once in court vs ICO protecting the PHSO ) I'd say -don't bother. The ICO is so supportive if Public Authorities it's not worth complaining because they are almost always believed,
Even when there are consustent complaints about Authorities nothing hapoens because the ICO prefers to chase commercial companies, which it can fine. It can't find Public Authorities and there is very little point of saying Tut
to them.

And don't expect any improvement via the Ombudsman. I found that even with an upheld Decision, The NHS just ignored it.

Advice...Get yourself to a lawyer if you can.

If you disbelieve me..here's the proof.

LR process was requested .
I knew it existed so knew what to ask for- Land Registry wouldn't give it to me
I complained to ICO ..which did nothing just agred with Land Registry.
The Land Registry then sent me the data -the process - which I put it on the WDTK request for other people to read

Then the ICO and stated that MY complaint that the Land Registry was frivolous..vexatious for insisting the data ( now on WDTK) existed.

You really couldn't make it up!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

JT Oakley; Are you aware that it is a legal requirement for them to provide a steer to someone else that can deal with your complaint?

No.. please provide.

Because even if you write to the ICO, fairly explaining what went wrong, you don't get a response ....other than one from the supervisor of the person who botched up. If there's a way round that I'd like to know it.

Dear J T Oakley,
I hold record from Helen Grant as the then under secretary of state for Justice stating how understanding the judiciary are if a document has not been available for a hearing and how reasonable they are about allowing appeals in such cases .
Record reveals after many years of my efforts including involving two judges in 2002/ 2003 over errors of my information and that of my registered title, no correction was made.
So after some twelve years of such negligence , once again in February 2007 , l had cause to contact Land Registry again.
Whereupon l was lied to that the errors would be corrected .
A PROPERTY AND FIFTY ACRES OF LAND WAS REMOVED FROM MY TITLE THE VERY NEXT DAY.
When investigated Land Registry relied on a Statute that was not in place for the date they relied on it for.
Land Registry later said they knew it was coming in.
The Advertising Standards Authority provided their adjudicator ruling of the 30 th May 2007, where Land Registry stated that NO ONE can claim registered land by adverse land possession.
So ignoring that twelve years had not passed and the fact Land Registry had confirmed their holding of copy of the paperwork for the land being already registered to me, and their own declaration on the ASA ruling, goal posts were insanely moved .
My neighbours solicitors made contact with Land Registry in May 2007 , two months after l had recieved confirmation of it being my registered land.
A FIRST REGISTRATION FORM was filed for my neighbours claim to my already registered land on the 26 th July 2007, exactly a day after the second adjudication of the ASA against Land Registry, where the ASA stated LAND REGISTRY HAD MISLED THE UK PUBLIC OVER OVER-RIDING INTERESTS.
Gurmale Sondh as information officer for Land Registry has admitted over 6,500 cases were referred by Land Registry for judicial involvement without the crucial information of this ruling.
Gurmale Sondh then blocked my request made to The Land Registry Rules Committee , that was for the statistics / numbers of members of the public that had received misleading literature from The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry.
I already have confirmation from Kevin Sadler of the AHMLR dated late October 2009 that the information was misleading information and mirrored the same wrong information on their website for the same period.
So cases passed by Land Registry without the much needed information , were then subject to even more misleading literature on their arrival wIth the procedures of the AHMLR?
Worse still the correct AHMLR literature was published in February 2009 but was not the literature handed out to members of the public.
During the months between February 2009 - October 2009 , TWENTY- TWO CASES that Land Registry had passed to the AHMLR were investigated by The Independent Complaints Review as to why these cases had been referred in the first place.
My case for this window was told to me by the ICR in March 2009 to take up with the PHSO who were over the AHMLR for complaints against them.
The PHSO when alerted by me through my elected MP that the upcoming case before the AHMLR was related to the previous issues l had had and were once again with Land Registry and Legal Service Commissions involvement , was ignored and a commissioner with LSC who had a perceived conflict of interest , was allowed to sit as a deputy adjudicator in breach of his oath as a barrister.
This commissioner / adjudicator / barrister , then ignored a written request by the other sides solicitors for the issuing of a certificate to enable them billing direct solicitors who had timed me out.
This was for £21,400.00p that l was not deemed liable to pay.
Then this commissioner / adjudicator / barrister , ignored the directions of his chief adjudicator , in refusing my appeal that my then acting solicitor had recieved an extension in order to present.
I was then chastised in writing by this chief adjudicator becaquse he thought l just could not be bothered to put in to appeal.
And the appeal was all because of the existence of the actual owner of the land , that this commissioner / adjudicator / barrister agreed with me in his published decision , was the correct owner of the land , but was thought to have died.
That's right after TWO YEARS of Land Registry and my neighbours attempts to file to allow a claim against already acknowledged registered land , Land Registry failed to request a stay on the decision because of the existence of the owner, which was entirely their responsibility to do.
Neither Land Registry or this commissioner / adjudicator / barrister for the AHMLR would reply to if they had considered the evidence of the existence of the excepted owner of the land .
I sent this information twice as did my then appointed legal advisor .
To prevent me sucessfully approaching the civil courts to this day Land Registry and the First Tier Land Tribunal still do not respond.
The procedure rules do state that Land Registry cannot refer a case for judicial involvement if a known caution is in play.
I had reported the incorrect information held in Kingston upon Hull Land Registry caution register , back in March 2000 and was able to supply the proof of the LSC forms of a legal aid charge for this person worded as if she resided at my home .
Police paperwork had not been correctly filed in October 1999 as if to hide on behalf of the solicitors l was using at the time , which then turned out to be my neighbours solicitors.
The head doctor ( being the doctor who was meant to examine me for the police statement l was making) at my own doctors appears to also have profited property / land for the postcode of the properties / land , with the registered title l purchased and confirmed by Inland Revenue , l had l had paid full stamp duty land tax for.
The level of orcastrations across all UK based agencies makes your head spin....