Impliance of governance role of Michael Mire as Non- Executive Chair for Land Registry.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Land Registry should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Michael Mire via Land Registry,
I seek reply through the quoting , as is my right, The Freedom of Information Act.
Under the above Act , l am entitled to request the information of any meetings to do with myself or my legally registered title , including those parts, of that are accounted for in the covenant document, that like my conveyance document , was stolen , with certain compliances of Land Registry's involvement , being staff at their Head Office.
I demand and assert the providing of copy of meta data , copy of all transcripts of minutes of meetings, telephone records and electronically held information , pertaining to the two villages of Theddlethorpe , that l name here to be known as Theddlethorpe St Helen's & Theddlethorpe All Saints ( previously also known as Theddlethorpe St Mary's) .
I am entitled to the providing of these informations in view of the total ignoral by Michael Mire / Graham Farrant / Mike Westcott- Rudd / Alasdair Lewis / Gurmale Sondh / Jane Allen / Susma Ayaria and their many cohorts , to the many crimes being enacted upon me , by the refusal to communicate direct with me, while there is the giving of all my information and that of my registered title , to aid in theft and deprival of valuable property and lands , in defiance of The Human Rights Act .
As there have been in excess of a thousand communications by myself addressed to Land Registry , there will be details of many meetings , where there has been record of why Land Registry feel they do not need to answer me and l understand under the FOIA , l am entitled from Michael Mire that he supply full disclosure of the extent to which l have been defamated and made out to not be the legal owner , in defiance of the correct documents that l hold and in view of the legal advice l have sought in regard of HH Justice Peter Smith's decision of the 3 rd February 2012 , where it remains for Land Registry to rectify the register , something that was promised me by Mark Lawson on the 26 th September 2008.
Please reply in correct business terms to me as the owner of a legally registered title and not the fabrications of my being someone who uses alias's , when the only name difference was that l was a single person when purchasing this registered title , to then have a change of name when l married.
Under The Equality Act 2010 according to Mick Conboy of The Crown Prosecution Service in his consultation paper recently , he stated that the arrival of this Act has greatly reduced Hate crimes and disability hate crimes.
As a registered disabled person with limited mobility and only having partial hearing ( life long condition) , l have been made for too long to run the guantlet of the atrocities of being treated as sub- human and someone not entitled to hold the rights of other UK Citizens when it comes to my home and assets, something l feel needs addressing , starting with the decision of this High Court Judge , now five years hence,

Yours sincerely
Diana Smith ( nee Stannard)

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear Diana Smith (nee Stannard)

Thank you for your email dated date 6 July addressed to Michael Mire requesting information of any meetings to do with yourself .

Please note that we have already dealt with your previous information requests dated 21 January 2011 on 28 September 2011 enclosing all information held by us. Land Registry disengaged from you on 2 October 2009. Your email is an attempt to re-open correspondence on registration issues which has been concluded. You do not raise any new registration issues for Land Registry to consider, therefore in accordance with terms of the disengagement, we do not propose to reply any further on this point.

Yours sincerely

Andrea Barr
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services

===============================================================================================================

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,
your correct acknowledgement to my pre-marital name of Stannard is duly noted and l welcome at least that has now become a matter record is made of.
However the rest of your reply negates any response on my part as Land Registry passed a case over known to be registered land to The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry , refusing to investigate the fact the involved land had already been confirmed to form part of my registered land "according to records held there at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry".
I have been affectively prevented from correction to the register , even though Angus Andrew as a deputy adjudicator , ruled in his decision that he agreed with Diana Smith over the true owner of the land named "the green strip".
KUH Land Registry / Mike Westcott-Rudd and Angus Andrew's involvement with the theft of my own conveyance document and also the covenant document belonging to me are issues where you Gurmale Sondh are involved in complicated frauds of my legally owned properties / lands.
No consideration as yet has been given to the decision of HH Justice Peter Smith made on the 3 rd February 2012, where he stated "if a miscarriage of justice has occurred, it must be put right".
The advice of my solicitor is that the theft of my own conveyance document by Land Registry , is such a miscarriage of justice and there must be rectification of the register .
The further recorded proof of Land Registry's breaching of the Data Protection Act for their failure to comply , when their Information Officer ( Gill Miles)promised in writing she would comply, further amplifies the lengths KUH Land Registry & Land Registry Head Office were prepared to go to , rather than provide any form of copy of my own property, being my own conveyance document, for use at the AHMLR hearing they wrongly referred a case for , in full knowledge of the land being already my legally recorded registered land.
Also there is the involvement of Keith Bristow of The National Crime Unit who passed matters to DS Ian Jarman head of The Economic Crime Unit and their finding that no- one , including Land Registry , had the right to hold my own conveyance document, which is my own property.
Land Registry documents on forms for registered land and dated the 3 rd November 1987 ( within the timelines of the registration and the three -consecutive conveyance documents, under Megarrys), disproved any possibility of the declarations of my neighbours reliance on an unprobated will dated as written in April 1987 , that does not in fact mention any land , only the words " whatever and wherever".
As DS Ian Jarman so rightly pointed out , the will -writer would have had to first of owned the land in order to be able to bequeath it.
What we have here is many years of KUH Land Registry failing to address the issues of an error in the caution register over wrong address and name for someone else , that l brought up many times.
A legal aid charge for someone else is exactly that , a charge for someone else and not someone posing as me and pretending to live at my property.
The fact KUH Land Registry hand in glove with Legal Services Commission and The National Audit Office wanted to leave these errors in place , is questionable to what they had to gain by this?
My neighbour 's ( who made and lodged the declarations) who had many years previously fitted a listening device hidden here under the eaves of the house that was found by a BT Engineer , were reporting back to the other parties for the caution and seeking to obtain that land, being the fifty - acres .
Land Registry have already in writing admitted a point in law against themselves for their non-disclosure of the declarations the whole spurious and "totally paperless claim" was "solely based" upon.
Where Land Registry's argument for disengaging with me falls down completely is the hiding and further theft of the covenant document, that is also my property and that l have accurate record of it being my property.
There was non-disclosure by KUH Land Registry / Bridge Mc Farland Solicitors & John Barkers Solicitors , of their being a request made to KUH Land Registry by John Barkers Solicitors for copy of The Epitome of Title for the involved land.
I am entitled to presume this is additional information l was entitled to full disclosure of , especially when the solicitors doing the asking are the very same ones who wrote The Epitome of Title in this case, for previous owners of my home.
So under Land Registry's Terms of Business, l ask for a planned meeting with a set out agenda where l can introduce the information set out here , for KUH Land Registry & Land Registry Head Office , to answer me fully and to my complete satisfaction , over issues you Gurmale Sondh are in dereliction of your duty as Information Officer in not answering under the FOIA & DPA,

Yours sincerely,

Diana Smith (nee Stannard)

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear Michael Mire,
I am resending my e-mail to you , as l have now posted it in the public domain as accurate record of your failure to commit to your role as Non-Executive Chair at Land Registry.
Your predecessor Mark Boyle also ignored me despite the fact l was directed by named persons at four government agencies as to procedures for contacting Land Registry via it's Non-Executive Directors and it's chair, being correct procedures to engage upon.
Am l to imagine you intend to continue in the same vein of Mark Boyle, who frankly by his ignoral , has become involved in serious recorded crimes against me ?
Yours sincerely,
Diana Smith Tel . 01507 473053.

diansmt5@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: diansmt5 <diansmt5@aol.com>
To: michael.mire <michael.mire@landregistry.gov.uk>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:51
Subject: LAW OF CONSEQUENCIES

Diana Smith,Corner Farm,Rotten Row,Theddlethorpe St Helen,Lincolnshire,LN12 1NX.30 th June 2017.Dear Michael Mire ,I draw hope from the recent rulings over The Hillsborough Disaster that have taken over thirty years to muster, and alert you tomy fear that the death toll of persons targeted of their homes, that involves Land Registry, runs to many thousands.Land Registry's lead involvement together with assistance of local councils / Legal Services Commission. ( now The Legal Aid Agency) / The Staff of The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry / The Independent Complaints Review ( mostly people who have previously worked for Land Registry) and The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, amounts in my eyes to not only maladministration in public office ( punishable by up to ten years prison term) , but also vast criminisation aimed mainly at the most vulnerable of society.A senior barristers opinion sought by a campaigning body using funds raised from the UK Public and based on just three of the public domain documents l have sourced, stated that TWENTY - THOUSAND ( 20,000) COMPLAINANTS A YEAR OVER A DECADE ( TEN YEARS) , HAD BEEN GAGGED USING TWO PIECES OF GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION THAT WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE THEY WERE USED FOR.That amounts to in excess of TWO- HUNDRED THOUSAND CASES ( 200.000) of which not one ( 1 ) case to date , has received justice / redress.Land Registry staff tune in to the climate of enabling thefts of property and land, even to the point of putting persons entitled to the protections of The Equality Act 2010, at risk of becoming statistics living rough on the streets.This is reministic of the horrors inflicted on mental health patients , when there was previously the scam involving Land Registry and The National Health Service's selling off of hospitals , to dispose of mental health wards.The toll of lives vastly exceeds that of The Hillsborough Disaster , but is no less as horrific.The setting up of Land Registry was meant to be to record and register properties and land in an economic way and offer protection by way of state guarantee of title by and through Land Registry.Instead Land Registry has become a listening post for out of control and greedy Solicitor's and others.The Human Rights Act states no one can be deprived of property / land without receiving payment for it.But Land Registry when faced with having to comply with the HRA , decided to get the vast backlog of property / land thefts off their books , by setting up the AHMLR , and getting these cases under the wire by stealth.Jeffrey Littman on his chambers website exposed enough of what was happening to enable Sweet & Maxwell to investigate and publish their findings in November 2012 ( Emmett and Farrand on Title).This threw up the knowledge of it having been a dominent Land Registry together with one Commissioner Harpum ( Law Commission) , that in fact created the LRA2002, and the setting up of the AHMLR in which to get away with what was bodacious crimes against the very homeowners Land Registry were meant to protect.Misleading literature to the UK Public by both Land Registry ( ASA Adjudication 25 th July 2007 ) , followed up by more misleading literature published by the AHMLR in 2009 ( most cases referred between the two agencies took two years to occur).As a CASIA member l attended the funeral of Paulette Cooper , her death aged just 60 years of age , brought on by the theft of her hotel ( also her home) , that was stolen using a fake document with not even the required attached registration number for companies house.Paulette had managed to video the taking of her hotel and the admittance that day by Philippa Fleetwood ( Manager at Lincoln Courts) that the unlawful court paperwork being used , had been the same documents already used for the ten years years of evictions , she had at that point held her job for issuing and enforcing.I on many occassions wrote to your predessessor , pointing out his role as Non Executive Chair of Land Registry , meant he could be perceived to be liable for the many cases brought about by the maladministration in public office that was occurring.I only ever received one reply from Mark Boyle and that was to gloat and tell me l did not know what l was talking about.CASIA had four - hundred and fifty members ( 450) and many more followers being copied into their knowledge of the atrocities inflicted upon ordinary people who had become targeted of their homes.CASIA has not disapated , it's members have been absorbed into far larger groups , that are still active today.I know that Land Registry uses it's disengagement process ( not a lawful process) to seek to disempower those it has committed the most cardinal of sins against.I have much record of the sins committed against me and have researched material to support the smoke and mirrors Land Registry have relied on , when they have lied to The Home Office in 2009 , saying the land involved in my own case was not registered land .I have original documents stamped by Peterborough Land Registry on forms for registered land dated for the 3rd November 1987, within the timelines of the registration for the amount of the land , that show the access marked in red as registered land.Yvonne Owen confirmed to me on the 15 th February 2007 that this land formed part of my registered land , " according to records held there at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry".The admittal to me by Darren Corvill ( Land Registry Solicitor) regarding the telephone call Claire Graham ( CSM ) made to my acting solicitors on the 23 rd October 2007, to enable their joint actions in non - disclosure of the all crucial declarations , and it being according to him , a point in law in my favour against Land Registry, failed to include the further non- disclosure of the request for copy of my epitome of title , held at that time by these acting solicitors.I here on record state and affirm these were further restrictions being made on my legal estate / registered title, in the matter of the covenant document , which like my own conceyance document , is my property , and no one else had the right to have either of these documents.I had already previously involved both District Judge Toombs ( March 2002)and District Judge Hudson ( July 2003) and placed a lien on my documents / files , with Richard Dale ( Dale & Co Solicitors , Lincoln) on the 4 th January 2004.As l hold accurate and decisive proof to the covenant document , being my own property / document , and it having been held in my files at Dale & Co Solicitors , then l was correct to challenge it being used by Ian Robinson ( John Barkers Solicitors) and to state the conflict of interest of the document being accepted by Land Registry to enable a restriction against my home / title.Land Registry may well be able to shapeshift to get away with breaching of covenants , but not when the evidence illustrates they have been party to breaching the deeds, as is the case of Ms Graham and her allegance with Bridge Mc Farland Solicitors on the 23 rd October 2007.For the part Mr L----- played in lying already on a planning application in 1991 and then falsifying documents for a AHMLR hearing , when there is proof in his and his wife's own handwriting from 1991 , to stupify completely what was presented before Angus Andrew, and that l sent copy of the complete file for the 1991 planning application to Angus Andrew for by registered post in 2009.It is required to follow rules before engagement of claim, and yet Land Registry appear to have allowed Mr L----- in his role working for East Lindsey District Council Planning Office , to conduct his own surveying of the access / orchard, that l was only copied into by Miriam Brown ( Land Registry Solicitor) at a much later date after involvement of the AHMLR.The survey had to have been personally photographed by Mr L------ himself and the written accompanying plan by someone else , as none of the listed positions on the plan matched the taken photographs .What kind of game plan do Land Registry employ , where it is hidden and not disclosed to anyone recorded as owning the land being surveyed or even the owners of land abutting/adjoining the land being informed prior to it happening?There would appear to have been a reliance on non- challenging of the caution of the fifty - acres ( 50 acres) , to enable the paying off by giving of registered land ( access / orchard) to Mr & Mrs L----- for their contribution in spying on my telephone calls for many years , for the parties involved in the caution fraud?However l had reported the incident of a serious crime to Lincolnshire Police involving one of the cautioners on the 18 th October 1999, that would have exposed the wrong address at Land Registry and the reliance of someone else ( her) as living here.British Telecom themselves discovered the listening device on my telephone line.I received and sent back legal aid documents for the cautioner J----- S---- in March 2000 , at which time she had already changed her name by deedpol to similar to my own name ( J------- DE vere SMITH, taken from 192.com in 2000) .I sent an accompanying letter with the documents l sent back in March 2000 , addressed to the person in Land Charges ( Legal Services Commission) , l had spoken to about the matter.I also know all the documents pertaining to the non- payment of the S-----'s ( J------- & Colin S---- ) mortgage for the years 1989- 1994 , are lodged in Alliance and Leicester Archives as the first chargee .I demand Land Registry make account of themselves to me , for their involvement in refusing to keep not only accurate records regarding my lawful and fully registered title , but also to the defamation caused to me by their holding of inaccurate records regarding myself,Yours sincerely ,Diana Smith. Tel 01507 473053.diansmt5@aol.com

© 2017 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved

CEO Mr Newbold (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Diana,

Can I suggest to you that you provide Andrea Barr with the dates of your correspondence stating that you have not concluded this matter to your satisfaction?

It could be that she is not aware of these documents. Can she additionally explain if Andrea Barr is an HMLR Board member?

CEO Mr. Newbold.

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,
I spoke to Land Registry Customer Services yesterday as an e- mail sent to Colin Oakley ( registrar) as the legal person for registration matters bounced back saying he could not access his e-mails at the present time.
For Land Registry to ignore three judges decisions previously and then to ignore a High Court Judges decision in February 2012 calls into question how Land Registry feels it can rely on it's own made up disengagement process that is unrecognised in law.
As the Information Officer for Land Registry your levels of performance in conducting that role fall far short of the expectations of holding such a post and needs Scutiny by The Information Commissioners Office.
I am entitled in law to make information requests via Information Acts , which after all are Act's of Parliament.
It is not your remit , or is it lawful for you to block such requests and yet that is exactly what you do.
I now make request for internal review regarding this information request , as l am in law fully entitled to do,

Yours sincerely,

Diana Smith

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear Diana Smith,

Thank you for your email of 64 September 2017 requesting an Internal Review of Land Registry’s handling of your Freedom of Information request concerning "Impliance of governance role of Michael Mire as Non- Executive Chair for Land Registry".

Your request will be referred to one of our lawyers in the team and will be answered within twenty working days following the date of receipt. If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion, we will keep you informed.

If you have any queries about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Gurmale Sondh
Senior Corporate Information Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Email : [email address] Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AQ GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook

=================================================================================================================================

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,
l need you to reply with correct date details and correction to your further grammatical errors to avoid the confusion that perhaps my correspondence was not read properly or had been misunderstood in any way ?

Yours sincerely,

Diana Smith

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear Diana Smith,

Thank you for your email dated 10th of September 2017. I apologise for quoting the incorrect date of your email in acknowledging your request for an internal review. The correct date of your email is 6th of September 2017 and not 64 September 2017. It was merely a typing error.

Yours sincerely,

Senior Corporate Information Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Email : [email address] HM Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AQ GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook

===================================================================================================================

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,
your apology is accepted . Now if we could get on with matters in hand regarding the complete cover up of allowing fraudulent claims to land with my registered title , where Land Registry is deemed guilty by its association with the solicitors and parties involved and the theft of what l can prove unequivitally of my own lawful ( and protected ) documents and my personal information.
Registration is meant to be an economic means of protection and is meant to come wIth a state guarantee by and through Land Registry , covered under the LRA ( indemnity).
The remit of Land Registry is not covered by one of their Customer Service Managers taking time out to telephone solicitors to arrange a plan of action for non- disclosure of documents prior to referral for judicial involvement.
The land is registered and was always registered from the start of this fiasco and what' s more had been confirmed as being registered.
The refusal by Land Registry to investigate why they would confirm the land to be registered and allow a council employee to lay claim to land, while assisting the on-going " error caution " that Land Registry should have dealt with by rectification of the register in March 2000 ( and even earlier had the police bothered to file my statement of the 18 th October 1999).
These two fictionally " arranged " claims were run together with my telephone line listened in ( BT engineer found listening device hidden under the eaves of my home) on to make sure that all the times l sought correction of the wrong details held at Land Registry, l would not find out that in fact no corrections were made.
The UK Public need to know that there has been complicated and engineered frauds , whereby even the involvement of the courts over many years , failed to remove an error of a legal aid charge for someone who stopped living at my property in 1989.
The legal aid charge and the lodging of it in 1999 , was preventable if Lincolnshire Police had filed my statement.
The legal aid charge was preventable with my sending of the other persons paperwork and my having to return it to " Land Charges" ( LSC) in March 2000, in the guidelines of the principles of the " privacy statements " between Land Registry and LSC.
Many other incidents where this " error charge" should have been corrected then followed and l mention two here in the public domain :-
1) Land Registry's own memorandum filed in my title's file of the 27 th Ocober 2002 , marked URGENT regarding the details of the address l had reported as incorrect where it stated someone should contact me.
2) Auditing of my title file in 2005 where the auditor ignored the memorandum at (1) and also ignored the fact plans in my title file instead of being for the 3.42 acres and 50 acres were in fact TWO IDENTICAL PLANS of an altered view of the 3.42 acres.

Even when The Information Commissioners Office ruled Land Registry had breached the DPA for the date of the 21 st January 2011 ( ruling made in August 2011) and must provide the information for my request, Land Registry on the 7 th September 2011 gave my fifty - acres away and held off providing my files of information until the 28 th September 2011 after the dirty deed was done.

This shows the disregard Land Registry has for bodies like The Information Commissioners Office.

The parties for the caution together with the party working in planning at the council here , have involved others who have also benefited in planning matters and with obtaining further parcels of land.

Is this why there is the confusion of making what are two villages , out to be just one village ?

To cover up all the occassions where plots of land ( some with properties on them ) have been unlawfully passed with Land Registry's help to parties who have in no way made any payment to obtain such?

Yours sincerely,

Diana Smith

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

For follower's of my quest to expose the breach's of Information Acts ( being Acts of Parliament), by Land Registry, it appears the registrar Colin Oakley, who is the person to handle legal matters involving registration matters; still after five working days , has no access to his e-mails?
Five working days is the timeline quoted as being the response time to expect reply in such matters.
Copying others at Land Registry e-mail addresses into communications sent to Colin Oakley's e-mail address also is devoid of reply.
Notifying Land Registry's Customer Service's of Colin Oakley's e-mail address being non-functional and providing all my contact details including TWO e-mail ADDRESSES in which to be able to contact me , as well as providing my telephone number and home address / registered title number , has not aided in receiving any response from them either.
All amounting to clear record that communication with the agency known as Land Registry is all about whether you hold legal charter of being a solicitor , because if you are a Property / Land Owning Member of the Public,( even in cases of it being a fully registered title) , you have absolutely no chance of Land Registry applying their own stated service clauses to anything you are trying to obtain.
In previous years Land Registry's website advised that "ALL" of the Public's requests for information were dealt with under The Freedom of Information Act and advised this therefore meant there was no need to quote this Act when requesting information.
Was this a blind alley to walk us all up , as if there then becomes need for court action, not even the quoting of the FOIA , would be there to protect us?
The setting up of "Commercial Customer Services "( who the Financial Ombudsman Service directed me to be the correct department at Land Registry to contact with my own concerns), at Birkenhead Land Registry , was short lived and only had a DEFUNCT telephone listed for the UK Public to ring.
I myself have the evidence of John Edon ( Assistant Registrar for Kingston upon Hull Land Registry) , avoiding all telephone calls or messages being left on his telephone messaging service for some seven weeks from late July 2009 to early September 2009 , to distance himself from "why" he failed during that period of time , to contact the office of " The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry" in regard of it being his ( and Steve Coveney as Chief Registrar and John Edon's line manager) role and responsibility , to request a "STAY ON THE DECISION OF THE AHMLR" .
In a telephone call John Edon made to me on the 23 rd July 2009 , he shouted loudly at me saying "YOU MUST CONTACT THE AHMLR AND REQUEST A STAY ON THE DECISION ", his reasoning was the AHMLR were not answering him, as he knew the legal advice in writing from my acting solicitor Keith Lomax ( Davies, Gore, Lomax Solicitors, Leeds), was that Land Registry needed to request a stay.
Elizabeth Derrington of The Independent Complaints Review in March 2012, provided copy of the file of the ICR that records John Edon in July 2009 was telling them the AHMLR was not answering them to do with my case.
This is what forms part of the ARMOURY of Land Registry's abuse of process , when they seek to cut off victims from any redress of their errors/ mistakes/maladministration and don't forget throughout they pick up the telephone to enable keeping up informing the parties / solicitors , seeking to illegally claim valuable property and land that already in law has recorded ownership of the properties and lands being targeted.
I own a fully registered title, where it has all been smoke and mirrors of several claims working in tandem , by their theft of my own documents that even Lincolnshire's Economic Crime Unit and Elizabeth Derrington of the ICR say Land Registry had no right to have .
Directions of the powers of the ICR are for Land Registry to pay me £250.00p for the inconvenience of not having those documents.
This is in tandem with the amount the Legal Services Commission on record said they would recompense me for the extra and unneeded hearing of the 1 st July 2003, that had already been decided in my favour on the 6 th June 2002 by District Judge Toombs.
THIS IS STATED RECORD THAT NEITHER LAND REGISTRY OR LSC HAVE EVER PAID ME THE AMOUNTS ALREADY AWARDED TO ME , and in fact disengaged in unison with me in JULY 2009 , to cover for both their criminal actions against me.
Here we have maladministration in public office by LSC and Land Registry who shared "Privacy Statements" to supposedly ensure both of their "LAND CHARGES DEPARTMENTS" acted in unison, where persons seeking LEGAL AID , became lambs to the slaughter , targeted for any homes they happened to own or were tied into mortgages for.
Horrifically the person at LSC who knew full well the vast statistics of such targeted victims , was their Head of Civil Bills ( Robbie Crane), who had worked at LSC from April 1996- October 2014 ( being 18 years and 7 months).
I was introduced to Mr Crane in 2001 as the person who would sort out the problems l was having with someone else's legal aid charge causing me problems.
In January 2004 it was Mr Crane who instructed me to put the lien on the solicitors files with Dale & Co Solicitors (Lincoln).
In early March 2009 it was Robbie Crane who directed me and worded my DPA(SAR) to Land Registry prior to the AHMLR hearing and then panicked just after the hearing when he learnt the Deputy Adjudicator at that hearing was the live in partner of his boss Ruth Wyatt.
Mr Crane then went working in November 2015 for EXPERIAN as their SENIOR FRAUD RESOLUTION SPECIALIST.
I spent months chasing Experian before l eventually was told that Mr Crane's employment with them had been short lived.
To anyone reading this , it does not matter if you have never had legal aid , as Land Registry as proved with my own case, will use other people's legal aid paperwork , lodged in the file for your property / land , and hidden in registers you are not allowed to access.
Back in 2004 , l made the comment ( not knowing l was such a targeted victim) , that it would only be a question of time before some poor soul would be targeted and would end up loosing their home to the debt of someone else.
I stupidly thought because l had involved complaint's bodies, the CAB, my MP and the Courts , throughout 1999-2005 ,that l was though all the problems and that corrections had been made by the LSC and KUH Land Registry.
No such luck though as although both the parcels of land , were confirmed on the 13 th February 2007 ( by TID) & on the 15 th February 2007 by Yvonne Owen ( "according to records held there at KUH Land Registry" ), by early May 2007 my immediate neighbours had started instructing their solicitors and on the 26 th July 2007 , KUH Land Registry allowed the lodging of a FR1 with a declaration saying these neighbours had "purchased" some of the land , with no paperwork to support such a claim.
The gaps of allowing claims of this type is beyond most persons natural thinking , as after all we think if we have done everything in our power to ensure our homes are protected and have had the proper legal representation , then such things cannot happen to us.
Think again !!

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Today is meant to be the naming by Land Registry of a further three Non-Executive personal .
The system of having a Non-Executive Chair and Non-Executive Directors is one that is meant to enable members of the UK Public that remain dis-satisfied with treatment / service being metered out from HMLR to write saying just this to what is meant to be people who will listen and address concerns "differently", as in change should occur to meet the criteria's being challenged.
WRONG!!! THINK AGAIN.
A total of four people l can name all at different Government / Ombudsmen / Complaints Agencies , who directed me to write to a Non-Executive Director at Land Registry via their Chief Executive's Head Office Address; need to know that upon my writing in this way with my letter sent special delivery and marked - Private / Personal / Confidential / FAO only of Dr Catherine Raines Non- Executive Director.
The letter not only never reached Dr Raines, it was opened and read by many Land Registry Staff and not just at their Head Office , it was passed to many staff at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry and between them all they elected John Edon Assistant Registrar at KUH Land Registry to reply to me.
I was told in writing by him that in no certain terms and on no account was l to try and contact Dr Raines again .
I achieved speaking to Dr Raines at her day job for Stafford Council and she was speechless .
She told me her instructions to Land Registry were that if someone wrote to her she wanted to see it.
She asked me very politely would l please write to her again sending it via the Chief Executive of Land Registry's Office.
I did this and included copy of the communications l had to prove the scurrilous passing of my previous letter between the mischief makers at Land Registry and also included copy from the CEO from one Government Agency who had responded to how l had been treated , saying that Land Registry had no right to tell me not to write to one of their Non-Executive Directors as this is how the system worked and they could not change that.
My re-writing to Dr Raines was never replied to .
This is the revolving doors of a not fit for purpose complaints system, where anything set up to glean out when things do not work, is used as a means of not changing anything.
As in Land Registry "arranged" to be the dominant party regarding the setting up of The Land Registry Act2002 and it's cohorts The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, so they continue to rule , while assisting in depriving the UK Public from valuable properties and land.
It was a Commissioner Harpum of The Law Commission , already in the camp of Land Registry who helped to swing things Land Registry's way.
The only assumption l can make is that our government were busy looking the other way for why the setting up of the AHMLR was allowed.
This year see's The Law Commission publishing a consultation paper on the LRA2002 , no doubt another hand in glove running with what has been happening at Land Registry since the government opted for the open register in 1990 that until the sting operation of BBC's Radio 4 programme in March & April 2009, allowed Land Registry to NEVER CHALLENCE THE LODGING OF DIFFERENT ADDRESSES FOR SERVICE.
For the uninitiated this is when someone poses as the owner of property/land and asks for all your information to be conveniently sent to their address.
EXAMPLE- Hi l am Mr Jones who owns that spacious home in Wales with one hundred acres, but l am living in a shabby bedsit in London, please lodge this address as the one to send me any information regarding my Wales home.
Unbelievably for nineteen years Land Registry did not consider it to be their remit to challenge different addresses for service and this started a chain of what become the means for many cases of fraud to be enacted on a unbeknowing UK Public.
Yes folks we have been led by the nose to believe our government and Land Registry are about protecting us as home-owners.
We think of legal-aid as something the less well off are entitled to in matters of legal issues and the paying of them.
In matters where there is property / land retained ( as in a divorce and the home kept where children are involved as one example), these legal costs are at close of proceedings , put as a legal-aid -charge against the property / land at a 8% compound interest charge.
My own case as an example , the "hooky" legal-aid charge for someone else was £112.00p , being the price of lodging a "caution" to obtain my valuable fifty -acres of land, the £6,900.00p l then paid in 2002 & 2003 for my divorce costs , was then credited to the account of the fraudulent cautioner. And even when the money reached the correct source , my own solicitors / the solicitors who had received the money on behalf of the cautioner and the "three firms of solicitors "acting for other interested / involved parties , all did nothing along with Robbie Crane /staff at the LSC (43 of them l had spoken to ) and the staff at KUH Land , to correct matters.
In place at that time was "privacy statements" , that were shared by both Land Registry and LSC to enable their telling each other of any issues or complaints issues.
Sounds simple doesn't it .
Nope!!!
LSC would know the actual amount of the charge / interest etc, Land Registry would not.
Add to this that unscroupulous solicitors / parties after putting different addresses for service , could then use the "Official " Legal -Aid Paperwork within the Land Registry Filing System, filed in the "Caution Register" so hidden from view , to enable to deprive the lawful recorded owners of property and land , in what amounts to theft .
Robbie Crane who worked for nearly nineteen years at LSC and was their head of civil bills and someone who was meant to be helping me with the "error" of someone else's legal -aid charge , in fact together with KUH Land Registry covered up that charge from my flagging the charge up ( the stupid idiots sent me this other person's file) in March 2000 ( yep seventeen years ago), and even when l reported it to LSC and KUH Land Registry on many occasions they never corrected it.
in my title's file was a memorandum dated the 27 th October 2002 on Land Registry Paper and marked URGENT for correction to the WRONG ADDRESS.
The National Audit Office audited this file for my registered title in 2005 totally ignoring the record that the wrong address needed correcting and that someone should contact me and l can only thing their eyesight must have been failing and they ticked as correct TWO IDENTIAL MAPS/PLANS, that were meant be 3.42 acres and 50 acres.
Now tell me our government are not involved with allowing all this to happen and also their depriving victims of redress?

Petty, Roger, Land Registry

Dear Diana Smith

 

I am replying on behalf of Jane Allen, the lawyer who has undertaken your
request for an internal review.

 

You have asked for an internal review of the response provided by Andrea
Barr:-

 

"Please note that we have already dealt with your previous information
requests dated 21 January 2011 on 28 September 2011 enclosing all
information held by us" 

 

Jane Allen confirms that she is aware of your correspondence to Land
Registry over the years regarding your subject access requests and Freedom
of Information Act requests. There is no further correspondence to be
provided to you.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Roger Petty
Departmental Records Officer

Corporate Legal and Assurance Services

Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
Email [1][email address]

[2]GOV.UK | [3]@HMLandRegistry| [4]LinkedIn | [5]Facebook

 

Your land and property rights: guaranteed and protected. HM Land Registry has given assurance and confidence to the property market in England and Wales since 1862. Find out more at www.gov.uk/land-registry

If you have received this email 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. HM 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. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. https://twitter.com/HMLandRegistry
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/land-reg...
5. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Land-Regis...

Dear Petty, Roger,
I hate to be the bearer of bad news , but it was Jane Aallen who neglected to come back to me in March 2009 , BEFORE THE AHMLR HEARING and it was Jane Allen that sent unredacted letters to The Information Commissioners Office that the ICO also sent out unredacted to other victims of Land Registries Crimes containing my personal details and contact details as well as details that comprimised my case.
Therefore it is my lawful right to demand and assert there is issue taken with these committed wrongs and for me to request a more senior and able person responds to my genuine request made via a public website for internal review as is my right under the information acts which are acts of parliament,

Yours sincerely,

Diana Smith

Petty, Roger, Land Registry

Dear Diana Smith

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) within three months of the reply for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Roger Petty
Departmental Records Officer

Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
Email [email address]
GOV.UK | @HMLandRegistry| LinkedIn | Facebook

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

I am presently through my elected MP , trying to engage with taking matters further with The Information Commissioners Office as to date they only offer a One Strike Process and l won against Land Registry for their breaching the Data Protection Act for their non-compliance of my validly lodged DPA(SAR) that took many years to obtain copies of files from Land Registry.
This means:-
A) Assorted methods to deprive the public from obtaining information by way of Information Act's.
B) If you are clever and dedicated enough to win and have record made of Land Registry breaching either the FOIA or DPA , they do not get fined and their protection levels involving the ICO become mahusive , as from there on they can do and cover -up ANYTHING.
C) Having won in achieving record of the failure of Land Registry, there is then defamation of your good character , making it hard to believe you actually won.
D) So although record states you are in the right , computer says - vexatious and to be avoided.
So when you win , you in fact loose.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org