Land Registry File processes to change file boundaries

The request was successful.

Dear Land Registry,

Scope: Land Registry file boundaries - The LR processing of any boundary file changes

I am puzzled in that a boundary on a Land a Registry file has been changed, yet there is no record of why the change was made on the LR file.

It cannot have been accomplished by Act of God. There must be some official reasoning for it.

NB This request is not about an individual case, it is solely concerned with process.

Therefore:

Could you please provide me with files on the process that the Land Registry ( via its employees) has to undertake to make changes to the boundaries on any property it holds on file?

I would hope that this wouid INCLUDE information on the following in its scope but not confine itself to it.

1. Does the LR have to inform the property owner that it is changing a boundary to the owned property?
If so please provide the standard letter, or any form that a notification wouid take.

2. Or can the LR make changes to boundaries, without informing the property owner, so that the property owner only becomes aware that a boundary has been changed when s/he is in the process of the property sale?

Clearly this wouid be problematical for any property owner ( it happened to me in the past, with a consequent loss payment from the LR) therefore I wish to know if boundaries can still be changed - in secret and without any official reasoning for the change.

3. Do LR employees have to make explanatory notes that on the file concerned, if boundary is to be changed - as to why the boundary is to be changed?

4. Exactly which LR files, including meta files, would log a boundary change?

5. And is there a special computer process / form which has to be filled in to commence a boundary change?

6. And does the start, or the completion of a boundary change process, have to be ratified by a manager?

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

This message has been hidden. The Land Registry's response of 25th January was removed from public view as it does not relate to or answer the Freedom of Information request and contains personal informationinformation. Please contact us if you have any questions. If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message.

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Your reply infringes the Data Protection Act.

Please remove it immediately and respond to a FOIA

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Dear Land Registry,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Land Registry's handling of my FOI request 'Land Registry File processes to change file boundaries

Providing personal information does not answer an FOIA request.

Please apply your response to doing so.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The Land Registry spent weeks telling me it was not subject to Foia.

It is.

It then put my personal information - and that of others - as an answer to this request as a response.( instead of replying to it under FOIA).

I asked them to remove it. The LR told me to do it,

WDTK removed it.

I have reported the DPA breach to the ICO

I wouid suggest that anyone making WDTK requests to the LR remind it f the need to comply with the law.

Dear Land Registry,

Please provide a response to this request via WDTK - as this is a Freedom of information request, which is intended to be read by the public.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

LR cannot seem to understand that under FOIA it cannot put personal data on the Internet and cannot respond to an FOIA request about processes- by referring to one particular case and using personal data to do it.

This is a legitimate FOIA request as to what the LR process is when it redraws, or changes, boundaries.

Since the LR had to settle out of court with me for redrawing my land boundary - after erroneously giving my land away to someone else - it's justified to ask what it's process is for changing boundaries , since when it gets it wrong, the public has to pay ££££££'s to the property owner who has seemingly lost land - at a wrongful stroke on a computer map.

There should now be a safeguarding process to be followed by LR employees - so that the public purse is not disadvantaged, and neither are the property owners, who suddenly discover their land boundary been changed ...and their land sold to someone else.

I am just trying to find out what safeguarding processes are now in place to stop such a wasteful reoccurrence of public money.

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear [title redacted] Oakley,

Thank you for your email dated 10 February 2016.

The department requires further information in order to identify and locate the information that you have asked for. I will not be able to take this matter further without extra information from you. In particular, it would be useful for you to set out your request so that we can consider it. However, if you are asking for our response dated 3 February to be emailed to you via WDTK, we are unable to do that but it can be sent to you by first class post on production of your postal address.

Once you have clarified your request, I will be able to begin to process your request. If I do not receive clarification within three months your request will be considered to have lapsed. (Under section 1(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a public authority need not comply with a request unless any further information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied).

If you wish to discuss any of the above, please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

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

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

show quoted sections

Dear Land Registry,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Land Registry's handling of my FOI request 'Land Registry File processes to change file boundaries'.

On the grounds that I have read the above response to my request - and it does not respond to it.

As a clarification to this request, the request is asking the LR to provide It's internal procedures for Boundary changes on LR maps.

Presumably LR employees are given guidance or instructions on changing boundaries on LR maps in order to safeguard the correct file information - so to accomplish their jobs in a professional manner.

::::

I would like the above information to be provided to me as electronic copies, via WDTK

If this request is too wide or unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the Act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.(S16r9).

If any of this information is already in the public domain, please can you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if necessary.

If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the grounds of breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with copies of the confidentiality agreement and remind you that information should not be treated as confidential if such an agreement has not been signed.

::::

Please refer to the ICO about exactiy what constitutes a proper FOIA response if you are in any doubt about putting personal data on the Internet.

NB The ICO accepts WDTK as a proper FOIA address for reponses.

Clearly, I will not be providing any extra personal data either, as I have already had to ask you that my personal data be removed from this site. You will know that the Act encompasses responses as being 'requester blind', in that the same response should be given to a member of the public - without reference to any personal circumstances.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Petty, Roger, Land Registry

This message has been hidden. Despite the request being depersonalised the response has assumed it relates to a specific case and includes lots of third party personal information. Please contact us if you have any questions. If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message.

Dear Petty, Roger,

This is an FOIA request. Please remove your reply.

Please stop putting personal data from an Internet site.

You cannot use this request to identify me or any other people involved in my personal situation.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The Land Registry states:

Under rule 5 of the Land Registration Rules 2003, the property register of a registered estate in land will contain a description of the registered estate which must refer to a plan based on the Ordnance Survey map and known as the title plan. When Land Registry registers a property, we prepare a register and a title plan. The title plan is one of three elements of a registered title along with the register and any documents referred to in the register and filed at Land Registry. The title plan is a plan of the information contained in the register and must always be viewed in conjunction with the register.

Basing our title plans on Ordnance Survey mapping enables us to create plans to a satisfactory standard and to relate individual title plans to one another.

Because we always base the title plan on the version of Ordnance Survey mapping that was current at the time the land was registered, adjoining title plans can be based on different versions that may show different site detail. We retain copies of historical editions of title plans, the majority of which are held in electronic form.

:::::

NB This request has been made to find out why a property boundary has been changed - yet the Ordnance Survey mapping of a boundary hasn't. It is an attempt to understand which LR process/ing process overrides OS mapping.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi JT Oakley,
after Land Registry had ( ruling by ICO) to comply with my DPA (SAR) , first filed in March 2009; the files l received in October 2011 contained evidence of Land Registry's non- disclosure of request for copy of a crucial document that was at the time of this request correctly lodged with my acting solicitors. This appears to coincide with the further events arranged by telephone on 23r d October 2007, whereby the " sole basis" of the claim to my already confirmed to be my "registered land"( on 13 th February 2007 & 15 th February 2007), was orcastrated between said solicitors and the Customer Services Manager of Kingston upon Hull Land Registry for non- disclosure to the FIVE RECORDED CONTESTERS of the fraudulent claim to land. Also revealed by the finally provided files was that NO FEE had been paid for the lodging of he fraudulent claim of my immediate neighbours on 26 th July 2007, in direct opposite of the information that was provided previously to the FIVE RECORDED CONTESTERS of the fraudulent claim being told to them and me that a fee had been paid. Record was also in these files that the DEPUTY ADJUDICATOR at the AHMLR had failed to comply with filing correct forms or a fee being paid for his DECISION of 30 th June 2009 ( my THEN acting solicitor not being provided with this decision until 12 July 2009) and new legislation demanding the new " form and fee for it" coming in on 6 th July 2009. As in your previous matter with Land Registry , the potential here is much compensation to myself for the compounding and allowance to continue far too long , wrongs that opportunities to rectify were overlooked.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

As far as I can see, the Land Registry used to send documents out basically stating unless you disagree with this - we will change our files on your property.

A delivery signature was not required.

And there is no file evidence to state that landowners were ever aware that their boundaries could be changed, seemingly not from Ordnance survey maps - which the LR states is the criteria.

Therefore The LR was changing boundaries - without any updated evidence from the OS and therefore seemingly at the sole whim of LR employees, probably ducking a letter to that effect and stating it had been agreed with the landowner.

That is why I am requesting site of the LR's internal boundary changing processes because if OS criteria is ruled out - how can a boundary be changed on file?

What processes must the LR employees follow to make sure of the integrity and veracity of its system?

As yet, seemingly there aren't any.

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Before I refer this to the ICO, could you tell me whether or not you intend to produce the internal procedures requested or not - as the request and review is now long overdue.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi JT Oakley, some of your points resonate with me.
Firstly LR confirmed the "lands" ( access / orchard/ 50 acres) to form part of my registered titled according to records they held there at KUH LR. The TID dated 13/02/2007 included the 50 acres and was in my name with my correct address and Title Absolute.
Then on 15/02/2007 they confirmed on the phone the access/ orchard, which of course l have an original certified Land Registry Document of forms for registered land.
I had been sent Land Registry Literature in 2006 as a flyer in my CLA magazine on the benefits of the process of registration being ultimate protection against adverse land possession and over- riding interests. The ASA ruling was on 25/07/2007 , saying Land Registry had misled the UK Public and in fact LR did not have to disclose matters of over-riding interests.
Then with no telling of this ruling, and only the day after it , LR allowed the lodging of my neighbours claim to the access/ orchard by the filing of an FR1 with a rediciouly easily dis provable declaration and this declaration referring to an unprobated will that no one got to see.
LR surveyed my access and orchard on 3/08/2007 without asking my permission ( they would have to cross the part of the access that is recorded on the definitive map as part of my field) and I did not get to find out about this surveying until a lot later into the matter. I only got to hear about the FR1 on 9 / 08/2007.
I requested investigation into why LR would confirm the land to be registered and was refused it. I requested internal view and likewise. I involved ICR and they referred it back to LR. I heard nothing so chased LR up. LR thn referred it to the adjudicator.
Bearing in mind the other four parties were not informed of what was happening ( one owned some of the land and three others owned properties / land that adjoined the access.
None of us then five parties were provided with copy of the further two declarations this totally paperless claim was solely based on and we also did not get to see copy of the will.
I was the only party left standing for the LR hearing before the adjudicator and did not get to see the unprobated will until five and a half months after the hearing. I was then written to by the Information Officer for the AHMLR saying the adjudicator did not involve itself in matters of wills or probate when the deputy adjudicator in my case allowed the unprobated will into evidence.
This unprobated will did not mention land, it only said " whatever and wherever" , which was viewed as " if" the writer owned the land he would have left it
As the head of the economic crime unit here pointed out to me, the writer of the unprobated probated will would have had to own it before he could have left it, and clearly according to my paperwork he didn't t own it.
Before the hearing a solicitor at LR in writing refused to allow the part of the access ( back part), I owned and on the definitive map , to be included and put forward to the hearing.
At the hearing the deputy adjudicators decision was that l was correct to the ownership of the front part of the access .
And no one had contacted this person.
So none of the access was given to these neighbours.
They still fenced it , gated it and locked me off of it!!
These neighbours were given possessory title to a part of my orchard ( a triangular piece) , with no access to it.
This is my recorded registered land that previously could be freely accessed by the road frontage , being 26 1/2 feet wide and just off of a blind bend where a means to be able to pull over vehicles is crucial to avoid accidents. There has been numerous collisions , luckily not yet involving fatalities.
I always say LR " think"they have made possible the means to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and believe they are masterminds at it. Elizabeth Derrington of ICR put forward at the HOC ,the module of the way LR conduct business as one that other government agencies and bodies need to adopt.
How can the ICR dare to call themselves " Independent" , when she performs in this fashion?
My advice to any victim of LR " blunders / involvement" is check the timelines.
In my own case it shows there has been a " reliance " ( outside of LR remits) on a statute in law , only brought in five and a half months after the date it was written into my own supposed " conveyance document" .
How can a document be signed for something in the future?
I have written to LR pointing out it is an " altered document " , as in it is not the document l signed and there is another signature and details of that person, copied / traced, from an electricity Wayleave agreement document. I have diary entries prior to the purchase of my acting solicitor stating there were no " encrumbrances with the title" , and that he had done extensive / exhaustive searches. He told me l was very lucky in this respect , buying such a property. Oh and it was his ( yes my own solicitor) signature on the declarations for my neighbour that LR did not want to show me.
If this does not amount to serious orcastrated frauds, I will eat my hat

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear [title redacted] Oakley,

Thank you for your email dated 2 March 2016. We have completed all our internal reviews and there is no provision for any additional reviews within Land Registry to take place. I remind you that you are entitled to refer the matter to the ICR as suggested by Sally Cater to you.

Yours sincerely,

Senior Corporate Information Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook
=====================================================================================================================

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

Thank you but what is the ICR?

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Complaint to ICO

1. Details of the organisation your concern is about
Organisation:   Land Registry   
Contact name:     Sondh, Gurmale

Address:  Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
 Land Registry Head Office, 4th Floor, Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AQ

Response Seems to be from two places.

Postcode:  CR0 2AQ  
Telephone:   0300 006 0009
  
Email:  wales.office @landregistry.gsi.gov.uk www.gov.uk/land-registry

    
2. Your relationship with the organisation
     
Member of the public
3. What is your concern?

The request asks for the internal files on the processing of boundary changes in an attempt to understand the processes and rules or instructions that LR employees have to follow in order to change any boundaries on mapping that the LR provides to the public.
Logically, if there are none, then LR employees could change boundary mapping without reference to anything official - and, by extension, on a personal whim.
The request does not specify any particular property...as stated.
'NB This request is not about an individual case, it is solely
concerned with process'.

Yet the Land Registry insists on responding with information on my particular property and has had its responses removed twice by WDTK as the responses not only:

1. Break the Data Protection Act ( not only on my behalf but others who previously owned the property etc).
2. Have provided no sensible response to the request. In that it recycles letters previously sent to me about my own property.
3. Refuse a proper response by stating applicable Foia sections to this request.
4. Have given no Section 16 Help and Assistance.
5. Seemingly have not reviewed the request and have little understanding of what a review is.

:::

Something else. Please give details.
     
Please send us copies of relevant documents that support your concern.

NB LR responses which break DPA are included below:

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

4. What have you done to raise your concern with the organisation?

Asked the LR to request removal of my personal information twice.
Tried to explain what an FOIA request is...for the public to read.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...
     
Please send copies of any documents you have showing how you raised your concern with the organisation.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...
5. What did the organisation say?

Eventually, suggested I send my request to the ICR (?)
:::
I cannot forward a complaint to any other body - unless I know the 'rules' that employees must follow to change a boundary - and if they have been broken.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

*Details of information removed by WDTK, as it breaks the Data Protection Act and doesn't respond to the request

Reasoning:

1. This is not a LR internal file instructional process for LR employees ?

2. This is also a response to my particular property using my private correspondence on a public internet site - also breaking the DPA and that of others.

The response is about a previous PERSONAL request, which the LR initially refused to answer at all ....(as it stated it was not subject to FOIA).

This response should not have been used in response to this FOIA request, which is is asking to read the 'rules' - ie rule files given to LR employees.

I am clearly not requesting general external information.

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

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,

I would imagine something else l have discovered , could be useful to you.
I did searches at my local library through archive newspapers and as l knew these " neighbours ( and fellow conspirators) " , had been at it as far back as the 1960's, that's how far back l investigated.
In my case there has been low cunning used to involve both adverse land possession ( though how when no one sought to involve the actual owner of the bit of land for the adverse land possession part) and over - ringing interests, which would have took a high level of orcastration involving Land Registry.
In the newspapers l viewed at my local library was information of council ear-marking for a MAINS SEWERAGE WORKS , planned from the 1960's and for this side of the village ( junction where l live) and because my home is the BENCHMARK for the village , you just know the " bit of land " for the adverse land possession claim , leads to the TWO FIELDS for the proposed sewerage works.
Also in the archive newspapers were small reproduced EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL MAPS, with the ELDC insignia COVERING THE " BIT OF LAND FOR THE ADVERSE LAND POSSESSION CLAIM"( access / " ransom strip").
Back in August 1995 and my newly living in my home l had a visit from a gentleman asking why l had not paid my Drainage Rates for TWO YEARS. At the time l presumed he was from The Drainage Board ( being part of ELDC) , but it turns out he was BAILIFF!!
More evidence of the involvement of ELDC in the fraud taking place , and ELDC' s knowledge of it.
My information requests under the FOIA and DPA have been orcastrated over many years with The Information Commissioners Office as far as l can tell, being the head conspirator.
Here we have an organisation supposed to assist with information requests who have undoubtedly been the kingpin in preventing my finding out that my own conveyance document ( told to me to have been destroyed in an archive fire at solicitors ) , was in fact held by LAND REGISTRY, and the gross deceptions over the many years my information requests have been taking place , of the with holding of even a lawful copy of my said conveyance document.
Further redactions in files was also seriously aided by my so called investigator at the ICO , even when the information found in files GURMALE SONDH eventually released to on 28 th September 2011, held evidence of the further conspirital actions of LAND REGISTRY on 7 th September 2011 giving away my fifty acres, and the fact a senior High Court Judge through his clerk directed me to obtain the further information ( through request for internal review) , to put before this judge .
Even though the date of my requesting Internal Review to GURMALE SONDH ( who after all had offered this process to me in writing on 28 th September 2011) , was 9 th October 2011 , and l constantly chased the matter up.
I ended up at Court in London on 3 rd February 2012 , without the evidence the Judge needed, and l all l could say was l had been let down once again by not receiving the information l was entitled to.
Of course this was a repetition of what happening for THE LAND REGISTRY HEARING on 28 th & 29 th May 2009 , when LAND REGISTRY did not provide the information requested by way of a FORMAL SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST under THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, that l also involved my MP ( Sir Peter Tapsell) / The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and ROBBIE CRANE ( Head of Civil Bills at Legal Services Commission) , ALL IN EARLY MARCH 2009!
Even to this day l cannot get the information requested since early October 2007 from ELDC.
An ARCHITECT came forward in late summer 2009 and provided file of the previous deceptions of my immediate neighbours , for a planning application in 1991 , and the evidence in this file is indesputable proof of their deceiving the courts and committing perjury at the hearing before The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry on 28 th & 29 th May 2009.
I sent full copy of the Architect' s File to the AHMLR in 2009 and they ignored it.
MASSIVE CORRUPTION AND FRAUD that involves and depends of the ICO sitting at its head.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thanks in. Most informative.

I must admit that I don't have a high opinion of the Land Registry. As. By chance, I found out that some land of mine had been conveyed to another person via LR information..the boundary of my land had been altered.

But I could prove it - as I'd only just moved house ariund a year previously.

Everytime I wrote asking why the boundary had been changed and my land gone, I received my own letter back by post..nothing else.

This strange blanking went in for about another 2/3 years. I think my letters must have gone to the person who made the mistake.

It wasn't until my MP got involved that the LR would answer at all..( and. of course, had to pay up - I think, by memory, around eight times which it initially offered me.)

To add to the situation, I was pregnant at the time and asked that the LR did NOT ring up first thing in the morning...which, from then on, then was the only time the LR employee rang up. Which I found to be particularly upsetting in the circumstances - and something you don't forget.

So by this fraught experience, where I might have qualms about what you are saying - I believe it.

Its certainly a strange organisation,which doesn't seem to be that precise, that is inclined to be deceitful- to cover up its mistakes.

In addition, it doesn't seem to be able to understand that a FOIA straight request for internal processing instructions isn't an invitation to put lots of personal information on the Internet, breaking the DPA, on two occasions.

That's demonstratable from the above where WDTK has had to remove the personal information.

If the LR is so casual about breaking the DPA, having been warned that it is doing so, then I'm inclined to believe it's casual about breaking other Acts.

Whether that's another step in its deliberate bullying of people who ask questions - even simple ones- its hard to know.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

I had the backing of a Solicitor at the Financial Ombudsman Office and a Solicitor at my Legal Insurance , that Land Registry had no right to refer my case to the AHMLR ( Adjudicator to HM Land Registry) in 2008. It was 26 th September 2008 when in person at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry Office, their Mark Lawson ADMITTED it was all Land Registry errors / mistakes , and promised me the register would be rectified in my favour at no cost to me. Of course it never happened. On many occasions this procrastination of events going back to 1994 , should have and could have been put right.
Even after the Land Registry Hearing of 28 th May 2009 , which my MP / The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Robbie Crane ( head of Civil Bills at Legal Services Commission) was able to prevent a hearing happening, just based on the findings by TWO JUDGES AT LINCOLN COUNTY COURT in June 2002 & July 2003.
The Information Officer Julius Juispais at the AHMLR admitted to me in writing in 2010 that the AHMLR did not involve itself in matters like "wills" and "probate", this was after non-disclosure of the unprobated will of my immediate neighbour was allowed into evidence at the hearing . The wording "whatever and wherever" was presumed to mean "if" the will writer ( not her father by blood or law), had owned the "land " ( access /orchard, being a jig- saw manufacturing of FOUR BITS OF LAND), he would have bequeathed it to her. And yet the land was recorded as registered to my own title on Land Registry Official and Certified Forms that Land Registry had confirmed they held record of when l had spoke to them on 15 th February 2007. Mr Juispais in his capacity at the AHMLR insisted l keep sending certified to be true copies of the "three consecutive conveyance document for the relevant time frame of the registration of my property /land" to KUH Land Registry with a cheque and the correct form for correction. This he put in writing to me.
In total l sent this paperwork , with the added back up of named people in the "Techical Office" at Land Registry's Customer Support , instructing me correctly to do so , three times. Always the form / cheque / paperwork was sent back to me. On one occasion l sent the documents by Fax and they switched the Fax off half way through my sending it. I rang the reception at KUH Land Registry to get another Fax number to resume sending the documents and witnessed hearing the receptionist tearing a strip off some poor man who had walked into the reception. She screamed at him that she recognised him as someone who had had an appointment already that week and he couldn't just walk in off the street whenever he felt like it. He must have been quiet spoken as l never heard a peep from him. The receptionist did this while not muting or holding the phone away , from her speaking to me. My second attempt to post the documents / cheque / form, was replied to by woman at KUH Land Registry with wording that was not feasible or understandable. On ringing her she offered that she had not written it and that JOHN EDON ( Assistant Land Registrar) had stood over her and told her what to type and that she had no part in what was written to me.
This is JOHN EDON who LAND REGISTRY HEAD OFFICE , directed to ring me over the owner of the bit of land for the ADVERSE LAND POSSESSION CLAIM , who had come forward and spoken to me and made a statement to his ownership of the land (that was sent to JOHN EDON), on 23 rd July 2009 , JOHN EDON came on the phone to me and shouted at me that l "MUST" put in for a stay on the AHMLR decision. My Solicitor in writing had stated it was for Land Registry to ask for a stay. Then JOHN EDON frightened for his reputation ( he previously was a practising solicitor) , wrote a letter to his LINE MANAGER ( STEVE COVENEY) and l quote from that letter " I hold Land Registry Head Office to be in dereliction of it's duty towards Diana Smith ", in reference for their ordering him to ring me and demand l put in a stay. The result obviously co-ordinated with the Deputy Adjudicator was that my lodged request to be allowed to appeal ( which the Chief Adjudicator EDWARD COUSINS, allowed and even said yes to my acting Solicitor for a further month in which to lodge the appeal), was over-looked completely, and my e-mail directed by JOHN EDON for a stay ( because of the existence of the owner of the bit of land for the ADVERSE LAND POSSESSION CLAIM, his coming forward and making a statement that JOHN EDON was provided with), was taken to be the sum total of my lodged appeal, which said Deputy Adjudicator refused and had the audacity to e-mail direct to my e-mail address ( in a reply to my LODGED APPEAL , that was still attached to said e-mail ). He said " l have already dealt with this, and will deal with the costs when next in the tribunal". I was not deemed by the Solicitors of my immediate neighbours as liable for the costs, the Solicitor who had timed me out on costs was and the AHMLR was asked by these opposing Solicitors to issue a CERTIFICATE TO ENABLE BILLING MY ERRANT SOLICITORS DIRECT. When l wrote to EDWARD COUSINS about the perceived bias of this Deputy Adjudicator , he passed it to said Deputy Adjudicator and his saying there was no bias or conflict of interest. When l did get a reply from EDWARD COUSINS, he said because the role of Commissioner for The Legal Services Commission was an unpaid role, it could not be perceived to be a conflict of interest. I replied sending him copy of a Law Report printed up by The Times, for a SUPREME COURT RULING, saying even unpaid roles were posts where it can be ruled that bias and conflict or interest occur.
Even back on 30 th March 2008 the total madness of all these orcastrations to steal valuable registered / protected land , could have been stopped. On that day my immediate neighbours telephoned the Police , on their arrival my neighbour admitted to me / The Police Officer and my helper / carer , that he knew the "land" ( access /orchard) was my registered "land" ( access / orchard). and l asked the Police Officer to record this admission. I then wrote to this neighbours employers, being East Lindsey District Council Planning Office, asking politely if a there was a conflict of interest and stating he had admitted his knowledge of the "land" ( access / orchard) being registered to me. In my neighbours role in "Graphical Interfacing" , he would have to be in contact on a daily basis with KUH Land Registry because of the portfolio's of properties that ELDC own. At KUH Land Registry in the file for my REGISTERED TITLE was record of the WRONG ADDRESS WITH MY TITLE AND TWO IDENTICAL ALTERED PLANS OF THE SAME ONE PIECE OF LAND AND NOT THE 3.42 ACRES AND 50 ACRES IT WAS MEANT TO REPRESENT.
There was also record of my complaining going back to the year 2000 , and my copying Land Registry into communications with LSC and THE OFFICE FOR SUPERVISION OF SOLICITORS.
THE ERROR IN THE CAUTION REGISTER LODGED IN 1999 AND PROCESSED IN MARCH 2000, that could have been rectified upon me flagging the matter up and sending back documents for someone else to LAND CHARGES at LSC, was not corrected. Nor was it corrected when both KUH Land Registry and LSC wrote to me in December 2003 , saying it had been corrected. In fact KUH Land Registry wrote to my MORTGAGE PROVIDERS on 21 st October 2002 for a LEGAL AID CHARGE FOR SOMEONE ELSE , INSISTING IT WAS MY LEGAL AID CHARGE , EVEN THOUGH IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN EARLY JUNE 2002 AT LINCOLN COURT AND PAID. Everything spells out that powers held by Land Registry and LSC and the AHMLR were being seriously abused with quite a few involved Solicitors and Barristers conducting their business dishonesty and all to enable the depriving me of properties and land .
The short answer is Land Registry did not have to involve themselves in ALL the deceptions taking place, l can only think because they have nothing better to do than ring up my "acting / conveyance solicitor" to say this claim to Mrs Diana Smith's properties and land , lets withhold the declarations that this totally paperless claim is all solely based on, that will nip it in the bud and benefit her neighbours and the other parties seeking to have the other fifty acres. And that is what l believe happened.

Sondh, Gurmale, Land Registry

Dear [title redacted] Oakley,

Thank you for your email dated 7 March 2026. ICR - stands for "Independent Complaints Reviewer". The link below from our website provides more information about the role of ICR.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

I remind you that Land Registry letter dated 28 October 2015 referred you to the ICR.

Yours sincerely,

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

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

show quoted sections

Dear Sondh, Gurmale,

And I would remind you that this is a Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

It's with the ICO - as a formal concern.

On the grounds above.

I cannot understand why the Land Registry deems an FOIA request on its internal processing of data to be one about one particular UK property .....and put personal data on the Internet as its response.

I will post the ICO response for public information as to whether or not the LR can break the DPA -in response to a request on its internal processing procedures.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

The difficulties I experienced both in being finally allowed sight of my registered titles file on 3 rd June 2011 and the files provided by Gurmale Sondh on 28 th September 2011, is the desisive differences between information holding of my personal information and that of my property.
It should not make a difference as it is all relevant to our individual cases.
Nonetheless all record of my complaining , whether to Land Registry / Legal Services Commission ( Land Charges) was redacted from files shown or provided to me.
OK this was information I already held, but was unable to release , as it all pertained to errors of someone else wrongly attached to my title.
If the caution register holds " secrets " , then it is hardly a secret any more after many years of my flagging matters up of an error being in the caution register.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I only find it strange that the LR does not inform its employees of the steps they must take in an LR process - before changing a boundary.

Apparently an employee can decide to change one, and then the LR process is to send out a letter to the property owner - stating it is to change a boundary.

Seemingly no explanation of the 'why' need be given. And the new boundary need not agree with the deeds.

No checks are made to see if the owner, who might be away for months, has received the letter - as no signature of agreement is required.

In my own case, after around four years of non--replies to my letters, it took the intervention of an MP and I Lord Someone - - from the government to get the LR to provide a reply when it transferred some of my property by mistake,

Only then did the LR admit it's mistake - and provide compensation for my lost land.

:::

It seems like a recipe for aggravation to all property owners to me.

I'd certainly advise all property owners to check that their boundaries are still where they were when they bought a property. Because it is a long, hard road to undo something that the LR has done, without permission,

I just wanted to know if the LR now has new processes to avoid this situation from happening again,,since it is to be privatised. So that I could put my evidence into the current consultation.

All got in reponse was that the LR put my personal information put on WDTK..

Which has had to be removed by its volunteers.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,

at the heart of my case was the theft of my conveyance document for my purchase , that l was told in 2004 had been destroyed in a fire at my conveyance solicitors archives.
DS Ian Jarman ( head of Lincolnshire's Economic Crime Unit) , stated no one should have had my conveyance document as it is my property and his staff directed once l had tracked down which Land Registry Office was holding it , l could summon the Police in that area to have it removed, and they in writing proffered the telephone number for contacting Cambridgeshire Police.
Upon my catching Land Registry's Corporate Lawyer red handed with my stolen conveyance document on 3rd June 2011 , I told him straight he had no right to have the document and l was going to leave with it.
He proceeded to then state he was a solicitor recognised by The Law Society and The Solicitors Regulation Authority and he could provide me with a certified to be true copy that would be excepted if entered into evidence at court as if it was the original.
I was allowed to make a phone call , then excepted this certified copy which he signed , with his assurances he would keep the document safe until it was requested by the courts.
On the advice of Solicitors / The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Information Officer at The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry , I put the certified copy into court on 22 nd July 2011. My neighbours' ( being the ones seeking to deprive me of registered land with my title) barrister was pannicking before the hearing that l had passed her the actual copy the corporate lawyer had signed.
I had to assure her this was not the case.
Then for the actual hearing the Judge refused to consider the evidence of this copy document.
At no point has this Corporate Lawyer come forward and l was made to wait until the ICR ( Elizabeth Derrington) directed my document return in 2013.
I had already on 13 th April 2011 supplied copies of the three consecutive conveyance documents for the time frame of the registration of my title to both Kingston upon Hull Land Registry ( twice) and the courts .
This is ultimate proof the properties and lands being sought to be deprived from my registered title under Megarrys Land Law, cannot happen.
On the advice once again in writing from the Information Officer at the AHMLR , l once again sent the documents again to Kingston upon Hull Land Registry, and it was returned unlodged again.
I was told John Edon had sat over the person who wrote sending then back and told her what to write ( although her signature was on the letter).
A will has been used by my neighbours in what amounts to a fraud, as the land they originally intended with their declarations made in 1990 & 1993 , and lodged in 1994 , was owned by someone else and not me.
Land Registry had mistakenly included this same area of land for their original claim and related to their declarations, into my title on November 3 rd 1987, on certificated forms for registered land.
My neighbour for his claim, made in 2007, worked in local council planning offices , where he was in contact with KUH land Registry in relation to their vast profolio's of properties.
Hence sourcing this wrong information that l was the owner of this bit of land he lodged the declarations relying on the will for.
As DS Ian Jarman said " you would have had to own the land , to then leave it in a will", which clearly is the case and the aforementioned " will" did not mention the land and the " will writer" had never trid to say he owned the bit of land during his lifetime.
The actual owner of this bit of land was still alive both when the declarations regarding the land were made and when they were lodged in 1994, living only yards from the bit of land he owned.
My neighbours' solicitors were also the same Solicitor's used by the owner of this bit of land and acted both in buying this bit of land in 1962 and in the will upon the death of the owner and it passing to his son.
On record my neighbour had lied on a planning application saying he owned this land in 1991, but was refused the application as the site was deemed too small.
In a letter challenging this refusal to his instructed architect , this neighbour ( having chopped down a thick grown of twenty foot high trees and hedges to three foot stumps) , stated the bit of land to be 26 1/2 foot wide to the road .
Funny then that the ariel photographs he submitted into court in 2009 and dated later in 1991 from his letter, still show tall trees and hedges five and a half months after they were cut down.
The Architect and others insisted on giving me evidence of this , both with photographs and supporting documents , both original and true copies, as they were appalled by the dishonesty involved.
Land Registry and the solicitors for this neighbour made no attempt to find the son who inherited this bit of land, and yet they were happy to proceed with an adverse land possession claim for land that was open to the road and the means for five properties emptying septic tanks.
Land Registry even complied and acted with this neighbours solicitors in arranging an " easement right agreement" over this same bit of land , to enable the sale of a house by another challenger of the claim of this neighbour.
A further neighbour who had been refused planning on his land , and refused at appeal , got into bed with the neighbour who worked in planning and miraculously was allowed planning.
There was non-disclosure of the declarations for this claim to the bit of land , by KUH Land Registry, until after the involvement of the AHMLR.
When the son who I herited the bit of land was located , KUH land Registry failed to request a stay on the AHMLR decision and instead telephoned me shouting they could not raise a response from the office of the AHMLR and that l " must " contact the AHMLR and ask for a stay.
All the way through it has been a horror of disasters that myself and the owner of the bit of land want to have rectified, but we are both ignored .
You have to wonder at the injustice of it all when the land had even been confirmed to be my registered land , months before this claim being laid and Land Registry's total refusal to investigate paperwork their assured me they held supporting it being my registered title.
Obvious perjury on the part of the neighbour seeking to manipulate issues and picking on something that was in fact an error of the recorded ownership at Land Registry , but nonetheless registered land and not for the taking.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Via a complaint to the ICO I have obtained a response....

In your request dated 13 January you asked for files on the process that the Land Registry (via its employees) has to undertake to make changes to the boundaries on any property it holds on file.

The Registry responded to your request on 13 January 2016 and advised you that this was not a request to which Section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applied and an internal Land Registry review dated 15 February confirmed that decision.

The ICO has considered your complaint and found that your request was clearly a request for any information concerning the internal staff practice and procedure followed in boundary change cases generally.

I have reviewed our correspondence and I agree that Land Registry misinterpreted your request for information regarding boundary changes and accordingly the responses that we gave dated 13 January 2016 and 15 February 2016 were incorrect when we informed you that your requests were not ones to which the FOIA applied. I sincerely apologise for these errors and for any inconvenience caused as a result.

To answer your original FOIA request we do hold information intended for staff use with regard to the processes and procedures which should be followed when making boundary change to properties. We have an extensive internal intranet based guidance for our staff to help them process all types of applications for registration of title and interests in land. Boundaries and title plans feature in very many of the topics in our library and are cross referenced throughout the library. When you ask for information that we hold on changes to the boundaries on any property, we would have to search the entire data base and cross match all references to “boundary” and “ boundary changes”. The result would be a huge amount of information and probably far more that you have in mind to answer your request. For example boundary changes feature in building schemes and developer titles (new housing estates), adverse possession, first registration of title, transfers of part of registered title, registration of leases with their own title, to name but a few. You will appreciate from this that your request for information as currently worded is too wide for us to process and will also exceed the cost limit under FOIA.

Section 12 FOIA makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

We estimate that it will take us in excess of 3.5 working days to determine appropriate material and locate, retrieve and extract the information in reference to your original request and therefore your request will not be processed further.

You may wish to refine your request, narrowing its scope by being more specific about what information you particularly wish to obtain. If you can narrow your request to a specific type of boundary change situation that you are interested in seeing our internal information provided to our staff, we can see if it is possible to process your revised request within the costs limit of FOIA.

I have also considered whether the relevant information access regime here is the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and whether this makes a difference to my response. Regulation 9(2) of the EIR does allow the authority to request further information from the applicant if the original request is formulated in too general a manner and under the EIR therefore we can ask you to re define your request for information.

Please note that I am writing to you direct following intervention from the ICO in respect of you complaint to the ICO.

( I insisted on a response via the ICO)

If I can assist you further in this connection please email me and please also copy in my colleagues at Land Registry, GS and RP to ensure a prompt response to your correspondence.

Yours sincerely

AB

Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Land Registry Fylde Office, Wrea Brook Court,Lytham Road, Warton, Lancs, PR4 1TE.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

My response:

More confusion.

I'm not asking for ALL information on everything to do with boundaries.

Why would I? That is clearly out of the scope of my request.

I am asking for the process directions the LR - given to STAFF - when their job is to make boundary changes on file.

What does HR inform a new employee, when appointing them - whose job encompasses boundary changes?....

'Just look for the words 'boundary' or 'boundary changes' in the system ..you'll soon pick it up. It will take over 3.5 days.
But as we are giving you absolutely no information on the work on which you will be paid - and assessed, just do your best?'

I cannot see that an instruction to an employee on their job would be kept in the library or any other obscure place on the Internet system that would take over 3.5 days to find.

For instance - a guess-An instruction might be that every boundary change has to be signed off by lawyers. For for an employee to just change boundaries willy nilly as they wish - without any legal reference, could cause problems.

Therefore there must be some direction to employees because unless the LR is wildly incompetent ...and willing to allow staff to be tied up for 3.5 days plus looking for basic instructions , which must be part of their job, in order for them to be assessed by the LR as to how well they are doing it.

The alternative is that LR employees can never be sacked - as there is no instruction given to them on how they might proceed to do their boundary change mapping jobs.

'We have an extensive internal intranet based guidance for our staff to help them process all types of applications for registration of title and interests in land'

Therefore must be advice on LR boundary mapping changes and what to consult - given to staff. They can't just make it up as they go along. For example - They must be told where to look for LR mapping boundary changes on the intranet system. Especially new employees.

Or does the LR leave them scratching their heads ....plodding through the huge amount of 3.5day plus paperwork that the LR says exists on staff instruction, to try and find something about how to start the procedure which is appropriate to their job?

'Boundaries and title plans feature in very many of the topics in our library and are cross referenced throughout the library. When you ask for information that we hold on changes to the boundaries on any property, we would have to search the entire data base and cross match all references to “boundary” and “ boundary changes”. The result would be a huge amount of information and probably far more that you have in mind to answer your request. For example boundary changes feature in building schemes and developer titles (new housing estates), adverse possession, first registration of title, transfers of part of registered title, registration of leases with their own title, to name but a few. You will appreciate from this that your request for information as currently worded is too wide for us to process and will also exceed the cost limit under FOIA'.

Irrelevant and out of scope. Feature?
The 'entire system' is not personnel direction to individual employees engaged in LR boundary changes for its mapping.

I have requested boundary change process instructions given to staff on working on changes in boundaries in LR Mapping. The person who changes the boundary on file.

For example ...Surely they must have a process for consulting other departments in order to make a boundary change?

So inflating this request out of scope - to look for the reasoning of boundary changes on every case on file - is immaterial.

'Section 12 FOIA makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information'.

The LR is stating that it would take every employee would take over 3.5 days to find out how to processes every boundary change ..or even make a start. Simply because LR gives them absolutely no instructions on a fundamental process and their resources to effect a boundary change.

'ALL library information' cannot be just handed out to every employee as a process instruction , so why is the LR including every possible source in its response?

I am asking for data given to employees on how to work, as would be given to employees in any other line of work.

I can't believe that the LR is the only organisation in the country that expects its employees to work completely blind on such a central part of its work.

'We estimate that it will take us in excess of 3.5 working days to determine appropriate material and locate, retrieve and extract the information in reference to your original request and therefore your request will not be processed further.

You may wish to refine your request, narrowing its scope by being more specific about what information you particularly wish to obtain. If you can narrow your request to a specific type of boundary change situation that you are interested in seeing our internal information provided to our staff, we can see if it is possible to process your revised request within the costs limit of FOIA'.

The LR has provided no Section 16 help and advice on to what instructions are given to staff to effect work on boundary changes.

As the ICO is aware, courts are particularly sympathetic to members of the public who have received no S16 help and assistance.

And clearly am not asking to delve into every conceivable case on file, which seems to be the LR's interpretation of a working instruction to its staff.

So how logically can I narrow it, as it stands -and not how the LR response has wildly inflated it out of scope?

Once I have the general instruction to employees tasked with changing LR boundary mapping, then it will enable me to narrow my request further.

Because, at the moment, seemingly the LR is stating employee whose duty it is to perform a boundary change on LR mapping would have to search over 3.5 days to find their own working process instructions.

'I have also considered whether the relevant information access regime here is the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and whether this makes a difference to my response. Regulation 9(2) of the EIR does allow the authority to request further information from the applicant if the original request is formulated in too general a manner and under the EIR therefore we can ask you to re define your request for information'.

It is the LR which has interpreted basic instructive documents given to LR employees on boundary changes.... to its entire library and every document it seems to hold mentioning the words 'boundary' or 'boundary change'. That is plainly not what I have requested.

Some help and advice...

....Perhaps the LR might have a start within HR, which must hold description a step description of the roles of its employees who undertake boundary changes on LR mapping and work outwards from that point.

Or how could any employee be assessed as to satisfactorily performing the LR mapping boundary part of their jobs? Or not?

Best Wishes
Janet Treharne Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I just don't know how to deal with an organisation that keeps

1. putting personal information on the Internet
2 acting as if I am seeking an answer to one particular property issue
3. and enlarging a procedural procedure request to the entire casework of the LR.

I thought I'd made it quite clear that this is It's a FOIA request.

It doesn!t requires my name, or any personal information, to be used in a letter of response.
:::

The LR keeps assuming this this is a personal request and therefore can be refined to specifics of one type of boundary processing which might interest me.

It falls down in that Boundary changes may contain more than one of the determinants outlined by the LR in its response. So it's impossible to narrow the request,....as I tried to explain to the ICO.

For instance an adverse possession may conflict with a building scheme. Both builder and the adverse possession claimant would be involved and should receive the same information from the LR via processing of the changing boundary concerning both parties, once the research is over the boundary decided and therefore has to be processed, by step- by- step instruction. This is the procedure that the LR employees must follow.

The procedures must therefore be already available to employees, no matter which case, as they cannot be changed ....and have to comply with the law. They can't use their own 'personal interpretation' on a boundary mapping change by drawing a new line in secrecy.

:::

My understanding is now that the LR has to formally get the agreement of all parties concerned....rather than just changing a boundary on file without informing the property owner (happened to me) and sending out letters - which require NO SIGNATURE from any of the property owner/s concerned.

If owners don't receive a notice, ( and therefore do not sign) apparently the LR has the right to go ahead and change a boundary anyway.

Which could be catastrophic for property owners if a private company can adopt this procedure.

Because it can take £££££££'s and time to put right- if the property owner finds out the boundary has been changed ...just at the point of a property sale.

The property owner would have to take the privatised company to court.

Rather than through a relatively cheap tribunal.

:::

So I am interested as to the changes made in boundary change procedures - since my understanding is that they have been updated -possibly because the Land Registry was to be privatised.

( It is still currently under discussion).

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/j...

:::

Therefore its a justifiable request, as it's important to understand that the same processes will remain in place, even if the LR is privatised...which now seems more likely.

My request is aimed at I writing to the government on the safeguarding the rights of the public of boundary processing ( which is a highly contentious issue with the number of cases going to court) before the the government makes up its mind to sell off the LR.

But as I have no information on the processing of LR boundary changes from this request, I am precluded from stating what they are ...and why they should be retained or even improved.
:::

The other prime reason why the LR should be defended against privatisation is that it will not be subject to FOIA if it is privatised.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,
I know exactly where you are coming from. Yvonne Owen at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry confirmed the property / land ( involved in the over-riding interest part) to form part of my " Title Absolute" in writing on the 13 th February 2007 and the access / orchard verbally to form part of my registered title on the 15 th February 2007. Then Land Registry went behind my back based on a statute that was not in place at the time of the document they relied ( in other words an altered document), and filed my neighbours adverse land possession claim ( with no fee paid) on the 26 th July 2007 and went on to survey my land on the 3 rd August 2007 for this claim. I was to told anything until a letter from Land Registry on the 7 th September 2007 and Land Registry refused point blank to investigate their already confirming the land to be my registered protected land " according to records they held there at KUH Lans Registry " as told to me by Ms Owen. Then started the useless complaints system of involving The Independent Complaints Review ( Elizabeth Derringston) , who only ever referred everything back to Land Registry. Even involving The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to alert them there was already a conflict of interest situation with Legal Services Commission and KUH Land Registry, failed to prevent a barrister who was a commissioner for LSC and live in partner of the person at LSC who dealt with staff there's conflict of interests, from sitting as a deputy adjudicator for The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. Both LSC and KUH Land Registry " disengaged " immediately with me on this being pointed out , which pre - empted the fact Edward Cousins as Chief Adjudicator ( Judge) , had allowed my acting solicitor an extension of time ( because an owner of part of the land turned out to not be dead, as had been thought), in which to put a request to appeal and the fact my solicitors advice was Land Registry ha put themselves in a position where they needed to ask the AHMLR for a stay on proceedings to allow the owner to come forward. Instead Land Registry lied to both me and the ICR ( l have written record of this) , that they could not get a reply from the AHMLR, and telephoned me in a threatening manner demanding l put in for a stay ( apparently Land Registry Head Office ordained this). Both Land Registry and what was the " Land Charges" at LSC have orcastrated matters including the complicit pergury by my neighbours , that amounted to fraudulent declarations that had been made , and were not disclosed by Land Registry to any of the FIVE ON RECORD CONTESTERS to the claim. The deputy adjudicator / commissioner / barrister , then failed to lodge the required forms or pay the fee for it , further adding to the fact my neighbours still had not paid the fee for their claim. This was because my neighbours were working with the cautioners and to it being part of the whole claim that could not be completed until September 2011. All this was done while LSC and Land Registry had stolen my conveyance document and l had been told the document had been destroyed in an archive fire at my solicitors. Land Registry breached the Data Protection Act to stop me obtaining an office copy from them of my conveyance document and the AHMLR ignored the copy file provided by an Architect that came forward showing written proof by the neighbours themselves to their own pergury at the Land Registry Hearing befor ethe AHMLR. Now the last time l checked pergury is a serious matter and one frowned on by the courts . This has all been deliberate misleading of the courts and by a deputy adjudicator / commissioner / barrister who previously held the front page involving a councillor he targeted for a conflict of interest case being the first case of its kind , that had the councillor struck off from his post.Judges and Barristers take the same oath over conflict of interest , in that they are duty bound to speak out. In my case Angus Andrew live in partner of Ruth Wyatt ( Director of Legal and Finance at LSC , that is now The Legal Aid Agency), had been written to in plenty of time before the hearing , to copy him into the letter my MP sent to the PHSO that stated the previous involvement of the LSC and KUH Land Regisy being related to this matter due to come before the AHMLR. These agencies would argue black was white to cover for their getting into bed with the theft of property / land from the legal owners . You have to ask what their percentage is? Whatever it is , it still cheats the general public too, because of the over scale costs of the useless complaints system. I believe in just my own case it has cost the UK Public nearly FOUR MILLION POUNDS. For instance l have involved my MP for SIXTEEN YEARS.
There has been the involvement of :-
1) The CAB
2) The Office for Supervision of Solicitors
3) The Law Society
4) The Solicitors Disaplinary Tribunal
5) The Legal Ombudsman
6) Forty - Three named staff at the LSC
7) The Legal Ombudsman
8) The National Crime Agency ( Keith Bristow)
9) The Head of The Economic Crime Unit
10) The Independent Police Complaints Commission
11) The Serious Fraud Office ( Barry Collins)
12) Just Lincs ( Chief Executive Paul Elliott
13) The Home Office
14) The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
15) The Ministry of Justice
16) The Disabled Council
17) The Equality and Human Rights Commission
18) The AHMLR

The amount of paperwork involved covers over 20,000 pages.
The two other parties contesting this as far as the AHMLR with me both lost vast amounts of value from their homes as they felt they had to move . One had recieved threats and the other felt they could not live here any more.

It is totally unbelievable to come to terms with the fact all this never had to happen.

What has cost the UK Public MILLIONS , just to allow the taking of property / land of a far less value involving fraud based around persons protected under THE WITNESS PROTECTION PLAN BY THE HOME OFFICE?

The Right Honourable Michael Fallon MP in his previous position as a Minister at Business Innovations and Skills, took it upon himself to write to Land Registry on my behalf. Land Registry lied to him , telling him that the ICR had investigated my case on two occassions. Now on this very site l have had an admittance from Land Registry that during the spell when for some months the AHMLR was sending out wrong information to the UK Public in 2009, there was twenty -two cases Land Registry had referred to the AHMLR , that the ICR ended up investigating Land Registrys referral of these cases. My case was clearly one that should never have been referred because of " the known caution" and it being a matter of record since early March 2000, the involvement of TWO JUDGES in 2002 & 2003. How long would it have taken the ICR to check the six year time frame of the privacy statements of LSC and Land Registry to find my lodged complaint letters to both these agencies in 2003? So yes Michael Fallon was lied to. If Land Registry can lie to a Minister and orcastrated misleading our legal system , what hope if there for home owners?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thank you for your annotation Diana Smith -Agreed.

I simply can't understand why the LR is allowed to change property boundaries-without informing the property owners concerned. It seems bizarre that this situation exists is in the UK.

I'm asking the LR what the boundary change procedures now are - as I gather they've been updated.

They must be common to all cases.

Does the LR have to inform all parties or not?

And what Is the procedure if the LR now has to do so?

Do they write to property owners it challengers?

Have to obtain signatures of letter delivery ( they didn't before).

Have to give interested parties a time to reply?

I've tried to explain that a single boundary change may incorporate more than one category and been told by the ICO that I must comply with the way the LR has re-framed my request. This would be dependent of the LR having a different pricess for each of their stated conditions. But in that case, the processes must be on record already.

In addition, the ICO doesnt seem to understand that it's the procedure ...ie having to inform interested parties etc after a decision has been made- in which I'm interested, not the preambles of the case research or the decision making...which logically are not set procedures.

If it has remained as a right for the LR NOT to inform all interested parties, that such a strange set up..

As you have outlined in your annotation as supportive evidence,....Where else can a govenment organisation take part of your written ownership of anything away without some sort of consultation process?

It maybe that a private company could be forced to run its boundary changes processing it more openly and consult with the public before changing their property boundaries.

:::

This is what the ICO states:

As the Land Registry revised response makes clear, there is no ‘general instruction to employees tasked with changing LR boundary mapping’ because boundary changes feature in a multiplicity of matters and circumstances which fall within the Registry’s work. The Registry has explained that, ‘for example, boundary changes feature in building schemes and developer titles (new housing estates), adverse possession, first registration of title, transfers of part of registered title, registration of leases with their own title, to name but a few’. There will of course be information available to Registry staff about how to approach the issue of a boundary change, but this will depend on the particular circumstances of the case, and the staff member would need to consult the relevant information/guidance in the internal intranet applicable to that situation/circumstance. That is to say, there is no self-contained booklet or set of instructions which the Registry makes available to its employees which deals solely with boundary changes in isolation from the case context and circumstances.

It is appreciated that you are asking for data given to employees on how to work (in the context of boundary changes) but given the nature of the information held by the Registry and the numerous ways in which boundary changes occur in land registration matters, such data is not held in a one size fits all instruction manual or set of guidance for employees. Whilst you did not intend the Registry to ‘delve into every conceivable case on file’, the wording of your request, ‘files on the process that the Land Registry (via its employees) has to undertake to make changes to the boundaries on any property it holds on file’ is wide, given that the ‘process’ will depend on the situation in which the boundary change arises (e.g. adverse possession), and so the request as currently worded is not specific enough to narrow down the information held by the Registry, given the way in which it is held.

With regard to your query as to how you can narrow your request, whilst it is obviously a matter for you as to how you word your refined request, the Commissioner would advise that you follow the help and advice provided by the Registry in the revised response, that is to say, that you ‘narrow your request to a specific type of boundary change situation that you are interested in seeing our internal information provided to our staff’. The Registry cannot provide you with any further help and advice than they have in their revised response and you will need to specify the type of boundary change situation with which you are particularly interested before they can be of further assistance in this matter.

The Commissioner cannot add anything further to what the Registry has already explained in the revised response and what has been clarified above. In order for the Registry to assist you further in this matter, you will need to submit the appropriate refined request as advised and explained and if you are dissatisfied with the Registry’s response to that refined request then you should please contact me in the first instance.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,

thank you for your comments .
It might help you to know there was supposed to be a check list to refer to for Land Registry to pass cases to The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry over land matters .
I know in my case not one single issue on this check list was applied.
No one else was contacted to do with it , only me , when in fact there was five parties with land abutting / adjoining the bit of land sought.
The actual owner of the bit of land there was absolutely no attempt to contact.
The fact the land was already registered on certified land registry forms and had been confirmed to me to be so , Land Registry refused to investigate.
Privacy statements of the Land Charges Division of The Legal Services Commission and Kingston upon Hull Land Registry were not referred to , even after l followed the correct complaint route ( The Independent Complaints Review & The Parliamentary Health and Service Ombudsman ).
Midway through KUH Land Registry altered the claim of my neighbours to include further land sough by the same adverse land possession claim, saying " the plan was the same".
This was when the declarations that solely was the basis , had been filed in 1994 and relied on an unprobated will ( not a legal document).
The unprobated will never materialised in evidence, the deputy adjudicator allowed it into evidence when it was not disclosed to anyone and ignoring that the AHMLR did not involve itself in " wills" or "probate" .
And the state of play today as was on the day of the deputy adjudicators decision ( 30 th June 2009) , is that my neighbours do not own the bit of land sought for the original claim or the bit of land that was refused to them by KUH Land Registry ( and not included into their claim at the AHMLR hearing) , being the sum total of the whole access from the road onto my fields.
Land Registry do not want to communicate with me as the recorded registered owner or the owner they never bothered to track down who came forward on the 15 th July 2009.
The triangular piece of orchard ( that does not join the bit of land for the original claim ) was given by possessory title to my neighbours , but the legal paperwork was not filed or the fee paid as it should have been by the deputy adjudicator. Yet under Property / Land Law , the only way my neighbours could " own" possessory or otherwise, the bit of orchard , is if they had purchased the whole ordnance survey number plot.
This ordnance survey plot contains TWO HOUSES ( only one being the house of this neighbour) , the two parts of the access ( mine and the owner who has come forward) , the bit of the orchard supposedly given to the neighbour and the part of the orchard fenced and with a seven foot wall on it , in my yard.
There are easements rights going back hundreds of years that cross on the land and it is the only means to access two registered agricultural holdings and the means to empty septic tanks on three properties.
And Land Registry choose to disengage with me and the owner that has come forward?
Seven years have passed , with the head of The Economic Crime Unit's investigation sourcing that Land Registry had no right to have my conveyance document ( that is my property) and The Information Commissioners Office recording KUH Land Registry being in breach of The Data Protection Act for their not providing copy of my conveyance document , for the hearings it was requested for.
The only useful comment l can make is that Land Registry Staff fly against all legal standpoints and create total fantasy situations, and embarrass themselves severely with trying to paper the cracks, ignoring all common sense .

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I've explained to the ICO that I cannot narrow the request because cases can involve more than one person involved in the same process.

..ie a builder who has obtained outline planning permission ( *land doesn't have to be owned by the builder ) can be involved with the same plot as the person owning the land and another claiming adverse possession of part of it,

The LR seens to be arguiung that, once a boundary change decision has been made, then these three persons are therefore involved in entirely different LR processing of the boundary change.

What I continue to request us the procedures the LR has to use - after a boundary change has been decided. If it's been decided, why the need to adopt different processes to each customer? Surely all must be treated the same way?

For instance , the processes informing the change of a boundary to a builder must be the same as informing the change to a property owning householder. Unless completely different categories use different forms of procedural communication?

Clearly the LR must operate within the law and therefore is subject to following these boundary changing procedures closely.

The alternative is that there are no procedures in place for staff to use when changing a boundary ( logically because it can't change it until AFTER an internal decision has been made)

So if there are no procedures in place, it would seem that the LR treats each property boundary change in an informal manner...entirely at the whim of its employees.

::::

I can only say ..Scary.

And I can see why the LR had to pay me so much money as compensation for my boundary changed land.

I did not receive a letter to inform me of a boundary change to my property.

I found out - by accident, as I was considering selling another piece of land.

And if I hadn't, then it may have gone to my new neighbour - by default.

Because the land had mysteriously been conveyed to them, after the boundary change on LR mapping.

:::

I can't believe that the LR is STILL operating without informing interested party of any changes.

Some procedures ensuring any property owner is informed if an LR change to his /her boundary - which involve a signature - must be put in place, especially if the LR is to be privatised.

If it is then property owners will have to go to take an expensive (and stressful ) court route to regain their property.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

In my case Kingston upon Hull Land Registry had confirmed the land to be my registered land according to records they held.
No one except me was written to for a claim that no fee was ever paid for.
No attempt was made to contact the actual owner of the bit of land .
My DPA request was not complied with , as it would have kicked up an office copy of my own conveyance document , which the original document was meant to have been destroyed in a fire at solicitors archives , and Legal Services Commission together with Land Registry had stolen.
I was even sent the " Blue Charge Document " that recorded The National Audit Office auditing my registered title in 2005 as being correct when the file held my complaint of 27 th October 2002, stating the wrong address / postcodes / for three different named villages.
Through the mountain of paperwork and the involvement of judges / complaint bodies / CAB / MP and lodged letters of complaint to LSC and Land Registry , between 2000- 2005 and onto 2007 , no correction to all the details of my information being shared with five parties seeking to deprive me of legally owned / registered / protected properties and land, was ever made.
I showed DS Ian Jarman the " Search of the Index Map" , Land Registry provided for my requesting it in 2010, the shock,on his face when he realised that not only had the AHMLR agreed with me to the ownership of the " green strip" being with someone else ( thereby refused to the claimants) , but the fact the extension of the " green strip" onto my field and forming the entirety of the access from the road onto my fields is mine and had also not been given to the claimants.
However if I try to use my access , the claimants attack me and the police refuse to act.
I have ended up in A & E at Louth Hospital several times from the attacks on my person.
On one occassion l had to wear a neck brace for five days.
Since the AHMLR hearing these claimants have fenced / gated / locked me off of my means to access my fields and The Royal Institute of Surveyors have told me break the lock and just use the land.
Easy for them l am sixty-one years old , registered disabled with limited mobility and rather fragile .
Prior to the AHMLR hearing I was threatened verbally and in writing by two brother police officers , that l would be arrested if l used my own land , that has very much been proved through over £135,000.00p spent on courts etc was refused to the claimants.
The sticking point is the bit of orchard which the AHMLR awarded possessory title of my already registered land to the claimants , that does not afford them the means to get onto the access without their crossing my back part of the access.
It's a mess of Land Registrys own creating, to enable them to cover up over the matter of the caution which was an error in their caution register that l provided official records as proof in March 2000.
While in Official Breach of the Data Protection Act and still not having provided the information the Information Commissioners Office directed they provide me with , they continued to breach the DPA on the 7 th Septemeber 2011 , giving 50 acres of my already registered land and a property set in one acre to the cautioners for the error caution.
I was only sent the redacted information for my DPA(SAR) by Gurmale Sondh on the 28 th September 2011, with the customery wording that l could request " Internal Review".
I officially requested " Internal Review" on the 9 th October 2011 and the missing attachments for the one sheet of communication in the file provided that recorded the giving away of my registered land.
Gurmale Sondh ignored me for months before stating he was never gonna provide me with an Internal Review.
James Weston of the ICO requested copy of the page l referred to for wanting the missing attachments and he ignored me for months also.
I had two communications from a high court judge through his clerk , instructing me to put in for an application hearing in which to show the courts this very missing and unprovided paperwork.
I ended up in this judges court on the 3 rd February 2012 still without this crucial evidence that neither Land Registry or the ICO were playing ball over.
As a disabled person and caused to have a stroke in 2011 with the stress of the NINETEEN COURT HEARINGS l was forced to travel every end of the country to attend.
All for what is my registered land and supposedly protected by the indemnity of Land Registry.
I quote from Professor Robert Abbey and all the LRA's :-

" an error in the caution register that effects the proprietary owner , is grounds for immediate rectification of the register ( indemnity)".

Not only was the land / properties included into the registered title l bought according to Megarrys Land Law - " three consecutive conveyance documents for the relevant time frame of the registration", I was also recorded on the " proprietary register " as the proprietary owner.

So even when you have the Land Registry banged to rights on their own recorded paperwork and under their own practise & procedure rules and everything mentioned under various LRA's, they lie and continue to lie.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

After a great deal of argument, the LR has provided this information:

Page 1

From our internal guidance on Searches of the Index Map;

5.2.2 Overlaps revealed on a SIM

There will be occasions where a SIM plan legend box will show an ***OVERLAP***. All overlap warnings must be investigated and accounted for before completion of the SIM result.
5.2.2.1 Overlaps due to incorrect indexing

If after viewing the affected title plan(s) the overlap can be attributed to incorrect indexing, the index polygons must be amended to reflect the correct extent(s). Minor index polygon amendments should be made as part of the SIM process to improve the accuracy of the index map and speed up subsequent casework and SIMs. If the index polygon amendments required are more complex, they should be referred to your local Data Integrity team for resolution if available, otherwise the corrective action must be undertaken in team. Even if you have to refer the indexing for amendment you should not allow this to delay the completion of the SIM result.
5.2.2.2 Overlaps which cannot be attributed to incorrect indexing
If after viewing the affected title plan(s) the overlap cannot be attributed to incorrect indexing complete the SIM to reveal the overlap and inform the applicant by issuing stock letter with the result. You must have this approved by a TT1 holder.
You must prepare a SIM plan to illustrate the area of overlap. Which should be issued locally with the result and stock letter 026. Whilst it is not ideal that the SIM result reveals the overlap this will be a ‘true’ reflection of the position of the index map until such time as it is resolved.
You must then log the details on the overlap management system and verbally refer the overlap to a RCU2 holder in your team using the procedures described in Topic –

Page 2

List of acronyms used:

LRA 1925 and 2002= Land Registration Acts
LRR 2003 = Land Registration Rules
DFL= dispositionary first lease
FRs= First registration
TPs Transfer of part
DLG = dealing
RCU2= Civil Service equivalent Higher Executive Officer
TT1= Civil Service Equivalent Senior Executive Officer
TT3 = lawyer (Civil Service Grade 7 or above)
OT= Old title
NT= New title
RU authority=
OC’s= official copies
DEV titles
OS= official search
EPA= estate plan approval
SCT = Senior Casework Team
PAS= points arising screen
CRX= correction
DCX= departmental correction
SIM= search of the index map
CMS= case management system
ANO= application number
TID= title information document
LSTBR=land sought to be registered

Page 3

FR04 – EXTENT (Extract relating to boundaries)
8 Overlaps in first registration
8.1 Background
When an application lodged for first registration includes land that is already registered we must consider the conflict and, where necessary, resolve it. This section aims to ensure that we all approach this situation in the same way.
This section does not apply:
 If title to the overlap land lodged for FR is based on adverse possession. In this instance, see Topic – Adverse Possession of registered land.
 If title to the overlap is based on estate right or interest (ERI).
 Where the overlap is between surface land and a mines and minerals title. In this instance, see Topic – Mines and minerals. If there is an overlap between two mines and minerals titles, refer to TT1 holder.
 When no documentary evidence of title has been provided to the land that is already registered. In this event, limit to exclude the already registered land and issue stock letter PL017 .
The approach is intended to avoid delays by:
 completing first registration applications to exclude the estate in land that is already registered, leaving that land to be added later if and when the existing title is altered;
 ensuring that we know whether or not the applicant for first registration wants to pursue the matter before we commence alteration procedures; and
 serving notice at an early stage, where the applicant does apply to alter rather than attempting to resolve the issue by correspondence.
.
8.2 Is there an overlap?
8.2.1 Refer any conflict
Where the documentary title with a FR application seems to conflict with an existing registered title refer, verbally where possible, as soon as you can, to a RCU2 holder. By applying the following paragraphs and following the Overlap process map part 1 the RCU2 holder will decide whether the conflict amounts to an overlap that requires further investigation. The RCU2 holder should refer any case of doubt to a TT1 holder or to a TT3 holder. If the conclusion is that there is no overlap, the RCU2 holder should briefly record this decision, and the reasons for it, on the PAS of the FR application. In that event complete the FR as normal, taking no action on the existing registered title. If the RCU2 holder decides that there is an overlap that requires further investigation then the procedures in Resolving an overlap will apply.
8.2.2 The conflict may be real or apparent
Our title plans are based on the OS map and drawn with general boundaries only. Where a registered title and an unregistered title seem to include the same land an investigation will show whether, taking into account the scale and surveying tolerances to which the OS map and our title plans are drawn, there is a real conflict (an overlap where there may have been double conveyancing or an LR error) or only an apparent conflict (no overlap because the conflict may be explained by scale and mapping tolerances).
8.2.3 If the current OS map and the title plan of the registered title show the relevant boundary feature differently
 Investigation of the current OS map and the version on which the existing title plan is based may show that the difference in position may be accounted for by more accurate mapping on the current OS map and not a physical movement of the boundary on the ground.
 If, on a fair interpretation of the existing title plan, its replacement with one based on the current OS map would not change the registered extent, then the conflict is apparent, not real, and there is no overlap. This is the case in which the B104  procedure is available. The B104 effectively tells the registered proprietor “we have updated your title plan but not changed the extent.” In those cases where you decide that you could properly use the B104 procedure you do not need to actually use it, unless substantial confusion is likely to result if we leave the current title plan in existence.
 If replacing the existing title plan would materially change the registered extent then  the conflict must be real and there is an overlap that must be investigated further.
.
8.2.4 If the current OS map and the title plan do not show a feature on the relevant boundary
In this case we will have plotted the boundary on the title plan of the existing title and, if there is still no feature shown on the current OS map we would be plotting the boundary on the title plan of the new title. In such a case you should carefully check the base map detail, the title deeds of the First Registration and the extent of the existing title.
The position of the plotted boundary on the existing title plan will be drawn in relation to surrounding detail on the Ordnance Survey map. If the conflict in the position of the two plotted boundaries can be attributed to more accurate mapping on the later OS map detail then the B104 procedure should be considered for the existing title.
If the relative position of the surrounding detail does not account for the apparent conflict then the conflict is real. Proceed as set out in Topic – Mapping Errors Uncovered by Land Registry – General guidance on typical examples and Resolving an overlap.
Even title plans mapped with plotted boundaries due to the absence of physical features on the ground only show the general position of the registered land but must be an accurate representation of the title deeds.
8.2.5 If the boundary is plotted on the title plan but now fenced in a different position on the latest OS map
Each case will need to be considered on its individual circumstances. The surrounding map detail and the information available in the files of the registered title should be considered. The B104 procedure may be applicable if the variation between the plotted extent and the position of the new feature can be attributed to more accurate mapping on the current map.
8.3 Resolving an overlap
8.3.1 General approach
Where there is a real conflict (as identified above) the overlap land cannot be included in a new title while registered in an existing title. It can only be removed from the existing registered title by an application for Alteration of that registered title. In the past this application has been referred to within Land Registry as an “Application for Rectification” or “Rectification” but these terms must not be used without the approval of a TT3 holder.
Do not request an inspection survey of the property just because you have identified an overlap. An inspection will normally only become necessary at a later stage if an application for alteration is made.
Do not take out an application against the existing registration until we receive an application for alteration.
Except as mentioned in 8.3.2 or 8.3.3 we will, after reference to a TT3 holder, complete the FR to exclude the overlap land, retain the pre-registration deeds and the deeds and documents for scanning on an ANO and write an explanatory letter to the applicant. If the applicant does not want to proceed with an alteration application (or does not reply within the period specified in the letter) we should issue the retained documents, TID and OC2 of the register and title plan, taking no further action to resolve the overlap.
8.3.2 If the applicant already owns the land
Always check to see who is registered as proprietor(s) of the existing registered title. If it is the applicant for FR, complete the FR to exclude the overlap land and issue an explanatory letter to the applicant with the TID, OCs and the pre-registration deeds.
8.3.3 Overlaps caused by our mistake
Occasionally you may find that the conflict results from an obvious mistake on our part. In any such case we should not try to cover up our mistake but should be entirely open and offer appropriate apologies to all concerned.
Nevertheless the procedures in this instruction apply unless there is no doubt that the correction of the mistake is in the interest of the proprietor(s) of the existing title (for example, the proprietor(s)bought and applied to register 45 Smith Street but we have registered 47 Smith Street instead). In such a case the RCU2 holder, after reference to a TT3 holder, should take out a DCX application and send a B224 notice to all of the registered proprietors of the existing title immediately. The notice should explain the error and the proposed action to correct the error. Keep the FR application pending and send a letter to the applicant to explain what is happening.
8.3.4 Reference to TT3 holder when the overlap is real
As soon as the RCU2 holder has confirmed that a real overlap exists the FR should be referred to a TT3 holder.
The TT3 holder will need certain information from you when you refer. Appendix A contains a form that acts as a useful checklist, ensuring that all necessary information is supplied.
8.3.5 TT3 holder action
The TT3 holder will consider the situation in light of the information you have supplied. Appendix B contains some points for the TT3 holder to bear in mind. Usually the TT3 holder will give instructions to send a stock letter PL013or PL014 to the applicant’s conveyancers:
 informing them of the overlap;
 explaining so far as possible how the overlap arose; and
 asking them if they wish to apply for alteration of the existing registration.
Use stock letter:
 PL013 where there are no requisitions; or
 PL014 where requisitions arise.
These letters can be tailored to fit the facts of your particular case as necessary.
Do not refer to "real" or "apparent" overlaps in these letters as they are internal Land Registry terms that may be confusing to the customer.
Where the TT3 holder will require an inspection survey if the applicant applies for alteration they should usually also give instructions at this stage as to the inspection survey to be undertaken if the applicant applies for alteration. This will avoid the need to refer back when the applicants reply to the letter.
8.3.6 RCU2 Action
On receipt of the instructions from the TT3 holder complete the examination of the FR and the preparation of the register before issuing the stock letter. Unless, unusually, the TT3 holder directs otherwise, examination should be on the basis that the overlap land will be excluded. However, you should make a PAS note as to whether any changes to the register entries and plans references would be required if the overlap land were to be included in the future. You should also make a note of what those changes would be, unless to do so would involve significant extra work.
See Overlap process map 2. If any requisitions arise, prepare them as normal and send them out with the PL014 stock letter. In such a case the time allowed for reply to the letter should be the same as the time allowed for reply to the requisitions. If the requisitions are satisfactorily dealt with before a reply to the PL014 letter is received complete the FR as detailed below where no requisitions have arisen.
If no requisitions arise send out the PL013 and complete the FR to exclude the overlap land.
The guidance for preparing external illustrative plans for issue with PL013 and PL014 is the same as that for preparing notice plans. See Topic – Notices – Preparing the notice plan.
Before marking off the application:
 Suppress the printing of the TID.
 Delete the documents for scanning header sheet – see Filing - Electronic Filing – What if I cannot send the documents for scanning immediately?.
 Mark off the application and retain the pre-registration deeds and the deeds and documents to be sent for scanning on an ANO unless the overlap arose as a result of our mistake as mentioned in Overlaps caused by our mistake.
 You must delete the documents for scanning list before marking off the application. The standalone system should then be used to create a header sheet when the documents are released for scanning.
Since the overlap land is already registered, it cannot be the subject of an application for first registration. Do not:
 keep the FR application pending on the day list; or
 take out a further application for the overlap land.
 
8.4 Action on reply to or expiry of stock letters PL013 and PL014
8.4.1 Where the applicants do not seek alteration
If the applicants do not want to proceed with an alteration application or do not reply within the period mentioned in the letter there is no need to refer the case back to the TT3 holder. Mark off the ANO and issue TID, OCs and any other documents (or complete the FR to exclude the overlap land when the requisitions are satisfactorily dealt with). Take no further action regarding the existing registration. Ensure that any letter agreeing to the exclusion is added to the documents retained for scanning.
However, you must refer the case back to the TT3 holder if the applicants:
 in any way qualify their agreement to exclusion of the overlap land; and/or
 request any payment of costs or indemnity.
8.4.2 Where the applicants seek alteration
If the applicants apply in form AP1 to alter the existing title you must immediately:
 take out a DLG application, using the applicant’s details, against the existing registered title; and
 arrange for an inspection survey to be carried out if instructions have been given earlier by the TT3 holder. If there are no such instructions refer the application immediately to the TT3 holder.
 refer the result of the completed inspection survey immediately to the TT3 holder.
8.4.3 Action by TT3 holder
Where the TT3 holder is satisfied that there is evidence to justify the alteration it will be necessary to serve notice:
 B95  on all of the registered proprietors of the existing title; and
 B143  on any registered chargees.
The notice will:
 advise the registered proprietor and any chargees of the alteration application and the reasons why it has been made; and
 ask for either consent to the alteration or grounds for objecting.
The TT3 holder will either prepare and send these notices or will give instructions to do so. Only enclose a copy of Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and indemnity with the notices if instructed to do so by the TT3 holder. Send stock letter S148/A  to the applicant’s conveyancer, which explains that we have served notice and how long the notice allows for reply.
8.5 Action on reply to notice or expiry of the notice period
8.5.1 Consent or expiry without objection
Where either unconditional consents are received from all parties to whom the notices were sent or the time limit under the notices expires without any objections:
 prepare a new title plan for the existing title to exclude the overlap land;
 make entry AL143 in the A Register of the existing title and use the second *O<>O* infill to add “and showing an amended extent”;
 make any other necessary amendment to the register of the existing title as a result of removing the land, consulting the TT3 holder if necessary;
 take out a departmental DLG application, using the office key number, against the N/T (unless the FR has not yet been completed) and amend the mapping to include the formerly overlapping land; and
 using any notes you made earlier, consider whether any additional register entries or plans references are needed for the FR (title having originally been examined on the basis that the land would be excluded).
.
8.5.2 Objection, qualified consent or indemnity claim
If you receive an objection, a consent that is in any way qualified or conditional, and/or a claim for payment of costs or indemnity you must immediately take the case to a TT3 holder who will normally retain it to implement dispute procedures or negotiate a settlement of the claim.
If the TT3 holder is unable to secure an agreed settlement between the parties and Land Registry, they may refer the application to the Land Registration division of the Property Chamber, First-tier Tribunal. .
9 Appendix A - Overlap on FR - draft checklist
9.1 Information for TT3 holders
Click here for a printable version.
9.2 Initial Instructions from TT3 holder
Click here for a printable version.
10 Appendix B - Guidance on dealing with overlaps on FR
1. Except as mentioned in 8.3.2 and 8.3.3, take no action until you have informed the applicant for FR that there is an overlap.
2. It is for the applicant for FR to decide whether or not to apply for alteration. To give the applicant the opportunity to apply, issue stock letter PL013 where no requisitions arise; or
PL014 where requisitions arise.
3. Until an application for alteration has been made, the registered title should not usually be investigated beyond what is possible from Land Registry files and plans records. In particular do not request the pre-registration deeds from the registered proprietor and do not undertake an inspection survey before an application for alteration has been made.
4. If you are aware of facts that make it unlikely that an alteration application will succeed, draw attention to them in your letter. For example, it may be pretty clear that the error is in the documentary title produced with the FR application rather than in the existing registration. This would be the case, for example, where there have been two conveyances of the overlap land, the first to the registered proprietor’s predecessor and the second to the applicant’s predecessor. However, you should be careful not to appear to pre-judge the issue.
5. Decide whether or not to include the paragraph about indemnity in the light of the particular facts of your case. It will only be appropriate to include it and to issue a copy of Practice Guide 39 Rectification and indemnity where the alteration is one that will amount to a rectification. But in the example given in the preceding paragraph it would clearly be sensible to omit the indemnity information.
6. Once an application for alteration has been made an inspection survey may be undertaken:
- to ensure that any notice plan will correctly show the position on the ground; and
- to establish, if possible, who is in possession of the overlap land (although remember that possession is not an issue where the alteration will not amount to a rectification).
7. To avoid any unnecessary referral back, give instructions on the scope of the inspection as part of your initial consideration of the case.
8. If the inspection survey establishes that the registered proprietor is in possession of the overlap land, and the proposed alteration appears to amount to a rectification, inform the applicant of the effect of paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 4 LRA 2002 and that this is only relevant to an alteration that will amount to a rectification before any notices are served. If, after being so informed, the applicant decides to continue with the application for alteration, notice(s) should then be served.
9. Subject to the result of any inspection survey referred to above, on receipt of the application for alteration, serve notice on the registered proprietors of the land and of any registered charge. Issue a B95 to all of the registered proprietors and a B143 to any chargee.
10. Unless the applicant indicates otherwise, treat the application for alteration as being under paragraph 5(a), Schedule 4 LRA 2002.
Any objections to the proposed alteration must be dealt with in accordance with normal dispute procedures.

Algorithm referred to in section 8.3.6

Algorithm referred to in section 9.1
Overlap on FR – draft checklist
Overlap on first registration of title number:
 
Information for TT3 holders
1.
An overlap exists with registered title(s)
 
2.
Applicant has title to LSTBR vide:
 
3.
Please confirm that the overlap cannot be accounted for by:
• OS map generalisation
• OS map tolerances
 
4.
See copy deed plan/print attached showing:
• land in title(s) coloured and
• land in this application coloured
• overlapping land coloured
 
5.
SIMs
• SIM lodged/not lodged with first registration.
• SIM includes/excludes the overlap land.
• Result of SIM correct/incorrect.
 
6.
See file of existing title(s) enclosed
• Title shown based on a deed dated
• Mapping appears to have been completed correctly/incorrectly.
• Mapping was completed in accordance with plan to
• Mapping was completed in accordance with instructions given by on
• Mapping was completed in accordance with fencing shown on the OS map edition dated
• Mapping was completed on the basis of a survey dated
• Other editions of OS/County Series maps available on Computer Mapping System dated
• Common vendor name
• Sold land in this application on
• Sold land in overlap title on
 
7.
Other comments, eg: information from the office page or office page graphic
 
 
 
 
 
Name Signed Date
 
 

Algorithm referred to in section 9.2
Initial instructions from TT3 holder
Name
 
Instruction
Initials
Date
1.
Map and examine first registration on basis that overlapping land will be excluded. Make a brief note of any entries that would need to be added/changed if it were included.
 
 
2.
Unless requisitions arise, mark off first registration, take out ANO and retain documents. Do not issue TID.
 
 
3.
Send stock letter PL013/PL014 to conveyancers/applicants enclosing:
• explanatory plan

[TT3 holder to complete/delete as appropriate]
An initial investigation of our files suggests this has arisen because
 
It is not clear from our files how this situation has arisen.
Include/delete the paragraph about indemnity.
 
 
4.
Stand over ANO for any reply.
 
 
5
If no reply, or if the applicant consents unconditionally to the exclusion of the land, despatch the case and mark off the ANO.
Refer to TT3 holder any qualified consent or query about indemnity.
 
 
6
If, but only if, the applicant applies for alteration, take out DLG against title(s)…..
 
 
7.
If, but only if, the applicant applies for alteration, arrange standard Land Registry inspection [plus photos] of the overlap land, and refer result to TT3 holder.
Additional instructions to surveyor:
 
 
 
Refer back to TT3 holder with result of inspection.
 
 
 
Final instructions following receipt of result of inspection
 
 
8.
Send notice B95 [B141 in respect of an application lodged for alteration before 13 October 2003] to each proprietor of title ……, enclosing:
• plan based on survey detail, showing (a) overlap (b) residue of title ….. (c) residue of first registration. Refer if this is impractical.
• Practice Guide 39 – only if the alteration would amount to rectification.

See draft notice attached/complete the notice as follows:
• Our investigations suggest that the overlap arose because
 
 
• We have also carried out an inspection survey of the land and this has revealed that it is
 
 
 
 
9.
Send notice B143 to each registered chargee of title with same enclosures as the B95.
See draft notice attached/complete the notice the same way as the B95 [B141].
 
 
10.
Send stock letter S148/A to applicant for FR.
 
 
11.
If the notices expire without objection:
• amend mapping of title       to exclude the overlap area as in the notices, and enter AL143 in the A Register.
• send a TID, O/C register and O/C plan of that title to any party who consented as a result of the notice.
taking out a dealing if necessary, remap the FR title to include the overlap area as in the notices. Make any necessary adjustment to the entries, using any notes you made earlier. Issue TID, OC register and title plan together with any pre-registration documents.
 
 
12.
Refer any objection, qualified consent or enquiry about indemnity immediately to TT3 holder.
 
 
 
 
Guarantee & Litigation Group Guidance Notes
(Extract relating to boundaries)

Page 4

7​PRACTICE BOOK: MAPPING ERRORS UNCOVERED BY LAND REGISTRY STAFF
1​Introduction
We have always considered mapping errors when customers point them out or when a current application conflicts with an incorrectly mapped existing title.
It is important though that we target our resources effectively to deal with various customer demands, including getting the greatest return on data integrity investment work. The focus of our activity therefore needs to be more customer led and defined by an emphasis of being more “just-in-time” rather than always “just-in-case”.
We do not, therefore, pro-actively initiate action for some mapping errors found and will take action only when requested by the customer.
There may be circumstances when the teams RCU2 holder considers the benefits of proceeding with an Alteration under Schedule 4, LRA 2002 as advantageous even though no current substantive application is affected, see Types of error requiring action. This topic describes the process to be followed where no current substantive application is affected and the error is not one that has been brought to our attention by our customers. Caseworkers will refer possible mapping errors for investigation and action to a RCU2 holder in the team. The arrangements may differ in detail between offices, but the team’s RCU2 holder will work closely with members of the SCT.
2​Recognition
2.1​Action by caseworkers
If, in the course of your duties, you find what may be an error in the mapping of a registered title (including an error in an associated register entry such as a floor-level note), do not ignore it.
If the possible error prevents you completing a substantive application, it is your responsibility to resolve it as part of your casework consideration. Consult the relevant casework instructions and, if necessary, make use of the normal channels of technical referral.
If the error does not prevent you completing your application, refer it to your team’s RCU2 holder as outlined in this topic who will then consider the benefits of further investigation and what (if any) action is required. You should not spend time investigating how the error may have arisen.
Be careful to distinguish between possible mapping errors and conflicts that arise because of changes in the OS mapping information. If you are in doubt, refer verbally before you proceed.
2.1.1​ Which caseworkers are affected?
These instructions are for any caseworker who deals with mapping information, whether in the context of substantive applications or otherwise, for example:
•​mapping an application,
•​consulting an adjoining title,
•​mapping a SIM,
•​mapping an official search of part,
•​approving an estate boundary or estate plan, or
•​completing data integrity processes.
.
2.2​2.2 Making the initial referral
Do not capture an application to make the referral. All mapping errors should be referred verbally to the team’s RCU2 holder for consideration in the first instance.
2.2.1 Mapping errors that involve overlapping title plans
Where the overlap has been identified as a result of processing a SIM application you must issue stock letter 026 and log the details on the overlap management system. See Topic – SIMS Overlaps which cannot be attributed to incorrect indexing.

2.3​2.3 Types of error requiring action
This is not an exhaustive list, but you should consider the benefits of taking action on the following errors whenever you find them:
2.3.1 Title plan and extent errors
•​The wrong plot or property has been registered;
•​Double registration (overlap) – the same land is included in the red edging on the title plan of two or more registered titles;
•​Omission – a registered title wrongly excludes land;
•​Extra land – a registered title wrongly includes land;
•​Green out errors, for example:
•​Land in a transfer of part has not been greened out of the O/T (effectively leaving the potential for a double registration);
•​There is a discrepancy between a N/T and the green out on the O/T.
•​Errors in leasehold title plan references, for example:
•​when there is a discrepancy between the extent of a tenant’s title and the corresponding lease reference on the landlord’s title plan;
•​A floor level note to entry A1 is missing or incorrect.
If the error identified is an overlap affecting roads or non tidal rivers and streams then these should be left alone and not be “put right” as part of the putting mapping errors right process. This is because there is no error and is as a result of our previous practice in respect of such land, the title to which may depend on rebuttable ad medium presumptions.
2.3.2 Errors in relation to other rights or interests (e.g. easements or covenants)
•​A plan reference has been omitted;
•​A plan reference is not referred to in the register;
•​There is an error in the extent or position of a plan reference for land affected by an interest noted in the register.
.
3​Processing
3.1​3.1​Classification
See A-Z Classification Guide – Plans errors.
3.2​3.2 Initial action by the team's RCU2 holders
Using the guidance given below:
•​ investigate the original mapping decision as far as you can; and
•​ decide whether there is a mapping error to put right.
3.2.1 Investigating the original mapping decision
.
Investigate the decision by:
•​obtaining D/Es for applications affecting the title plan;
•​viewing relevant scanned documents and correspondence; and
•​checking PAS screens on applications shown in history enquiries;
•​checking for ad-hoc notes and office page graphics;
•​checking for earlier versions of the title plan/s being investigated.
3.2.1.1 Gathering evidence
Use the Map History and Historical Map Detail functions of the CMS to display the OS mapping information available at the time of registration so that you can compare it with any scanned or filed deed plan or technical description referred to in the files and decide whether the right mapping decision was made.

3.2.2 Deciding whether there is a mapping error to put right
.
This must be a pragmatic decision, with the emphasis on errors that, if left unchanged, are likely to:
•​result in CRX applications,
•​cause mistakes on future applications for registration, or
•​lead us to give incorrect SIM or O/S results.
When deciding whether there is a mapping error to put right, you should bear in mind that the purpose of the title plan is to help identify the registered land. In addition, unless the register states otherwise, the title plan only shows the general boundaries and not the exact boundaries.
If you cannot decide whether further action is justified, refer verbally to a TT1 holder with the appropriate experience.
It is not the purpose of this process to tidy up or modernise title plans generally. The fact that an extent registered in the past does not coincide with the features now shown on the current OS map will not necessarily reflect a mapping error. There are other reasons for discrepancies that may not require further action, for example:
•​Title plans may have been prepared on OS mapping information that is now obsolete. Do not be tempted to revisit mapping decisions in the light of mapping information that was not available at the time of the application. If a title plan was mapped accurately in 1956 on the most up to date Ordnance Survey map detail then available, the extent may well differ from the current available map edition: this does not constitute an error if the title was mapped accurately in the first place.
•​Physical boundaries may be moved for convenience, or to contain stock under grazing agreements or tenancies that do not trigger registration but the OS map may show these movements.
•​There may have been a registrable transfer or lease of part of the title that is yet to be lodged.
3.2.2.1 If there is an error to put right
If you are satisfied that there is an error that needs to be put right by altering the title plan and/or the register, capture a DCX application against the title(s) to be altered, and proceed to the next stage. See Will alteration amount to rectification?
3.2.2.2 If there is no error to put right
If you are satisfied that there is no mapping error, for example, because mapping tolerances and surveying scales account for the apparent error, take no further action.
You will however need to reconsider the indexing if the referral resulted from an indexing overlap being identified. Indexing overlaps should not remain on the mapping system after being accounted for and you must alter the indexing to remove the overlap.

3.3​3.3 Will alteration amount to rectification?
Schedule 4(1), LRA 2002 refers to rectification as
“alteration which –
(a) involves the correction of a mistake, and
(b) prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.”
Thus, whilst every action we take to put right a mapping error will be an alteration, not every alteration amounts to a rectification.
.
You will need to consider whether we registered the wrong property, for example, did we wrongly include or omit to include a garage within the registered title? If so, the alteration is rectification. Or did we simply fail to indicate the boundaries with sufficient accuracy? If so, the alteration is not rectification. Unless the boundaries of land shown in the register have been determined and are shown as determined under s.60, LRA 2002, they are general boundaries. In other words, the boundaries on the title plan are only intended to be indicative and not definitive. However they should accurately reflect the land in the deeds and there is a mistake to the extent that they do not.
The clearest practical test is that proposed in the case of Lee v Barrey: has the proprietor got substantially what he contracted to buy i.e. the right property? If he has, then any dispute is a boundary dispute. Alteration in these circumstances is not rectification.
Another test is: has Land Registry so misdescribed the property that it has, in effect, registered the wrong property? If it has, then any dispute is a property dispute. Alteration in these circumstances is rectification.
It is vital to establish whether the proposed alteration will amount to a rectification as this determines, among other things, whether the registered proprietor(s) consent is needed and whether indemnity may be payable.

3.3.1 General guidance on typical examples
Example​Rectification?​Other considerations
Adding unregistered land we mistakenly omitted on first registration.​No, even if there is some liability attached to the ‘missing’ land, such as the performance of a covenant.​It may not be safe to add land that appears to be fenced against the registered proprietor(s), in case title has been extinguished by adverse possession.
Removing land mistakenly included in the mapped extent.​Maybe.
It will not be rectification if you are making the register more accurate by altering the position of the general boundary.
Subject to occupation, as to which see below, it will be rectification where land is actually being removed from the title.
It will not be rectification if the “true owner” rather than the registered proprietor(s) is in actual occupation. ​
Removing land mistakenly left in a parent title on a transfer of part.​No, unless the parent title has been subject to a further charge or transferred for value since the mistake was made.​
Removing a superfluous title plan reference with no corresponding register entry​No​
Adding or altering a title plan reference​Maybe, if the area is now subject to an easement or a restrictive covenant, the extent is larger than originally shown or now affects an area of a different nature (e.g. building or driveway instead of garden). ​
Removing land to put right a double registration​Maybe.
It will not be rectification if you are making the register more accurate by altering the position of the general boundary.
Subject to occupation, as to which see below, it will be rectification where land is actually being removed from the title.
It will not be rectification if the “true owner” rather than the registered proprietor is in actual occupation. ​

3.3.2 If alteration is, or may be, a rectification

Any alteration that is, or may be, a rectification must be referred verbally to a TT1 holder who may need to refer to a TT3 holder to consider what course of action to adopt and consider serving notice on all of the registered proprietors and other persons with an interest in the registered estate. Unless you are certain that the alteration does not prejudicially affect the proprietor’s title, and there are no other considerations of the kind mentioned above, refer.
It will be clear that the occupation of the land is an important factor in some decisions. Do not requisition a survey or inspection of the land at any stage without the authorisation of the TT3 holder.

3.3.3 If alteration is not rectification
.
If you are satisfied that the proposed alteration does not amount to rectification, proceed as in Making the alteration.

3.4​3.4 Referral to TT3 holder
This section summarises the issues that the TT3 holder will consider and the options open to them. For full details of the aspects they will consider see Appendix – TT3 considerations.
3.4.1 Considering the proposed alteration
After initial consideration the TT3 holder may decide:
•​that the evidence is not conclusive and that the RCU2 holder should take no further action, a PAS note made as to the reasons and the DCX cancelled. The mapping will remain unchanged.
•​to send an OS surveyor to report on occupation etc. See Requisitioning an OS survey.
•​to serve notice. See Serving notice.
•​to proceed with alteration without a survey or notice: See Making the alteration.
3.4.2 Requisitioning an OS survey
Do not requisition a survey or inspection of the land at any stage without the authorisation of a TT3 holder.
A standard inspection (age and nature of boundaries, use and occupation of land, all means of access to it) will normally be appropriate. The TT3 holder may specify extra questions.
When preparing the survey ensure that the surveyor is informed of the background of the survey in the ad hoc notes. Given that the survey has not been triggered by a substantive application the proprietor is likely to be more inquisitive as to the reason a survey is required.
Send URN Survey 004 to inform the registered proprietor(s).
3.4.3 Serving notice
The TT3 holder will authorise you to send notice B224 or B235 summarising the proposed alteration.
The B224 should be used when there has been a mistake in the registration that requires alteration, which may be prejudicial.
The B235 should be used when the alteration is not rectification or we do not know whether we have made a mistake.
The TT3 holder will approve the wording for the B224 notice or the wording for the <<MISCELLANEOUS>> field for the B235 notice as appropriate. Prepare the replacement title plan but do not settle it. Do not amend the indexing. Stand over the DCX for 15 business days.
If you receive the proprietor’s consent, or if the notice period expires with no reply, settle the replacement title plan and amend the indexing and proceed as in Making the alteration.
If the recipient replies opposing the alteration, refer back to the TT3 holder.
3.4.4 Considering opposition to a notice
The TT3 holder may decide to take no further action. Write to the recipient of the notice informing them of our decision, incorporating any wording the TT3 holder specifies. Make a PAS note to record the decision and cancel the DCX. Send the customer correspondence and any other relevant papers for scanning. The mapping will remain unchanged.
The TT3 holder may decide that there is power to make the alteration despite the opposition to the notice, and instruct you to proceed. See Making the alteration.
The TT3 holder may invite an application for alteration. See Application for alteration.
3.4.5 Application for alteration
If a registered proprietor or other recipient of notice B224 or B235 opposes an alteration, the TT3 holder may decide that we need to write to the adjoining registered proprietor(s) and other interested parties inviting them to lodge an application for alteration. We will also write to the recipient of the notice informing them of the invitation. However see Inviting an application for alteration.
An application to the registrar provides the framework for dealing with conflicting interests through the mechanism of objection, dispute and adjudication: a DCX does not, as it does not fall within s.73(1), LRA 2002. See Topic – Alterations – Under Schedule 4, LRA 2002 – Application for rectification.
3.4.5.1 If an application for alteration is lodged
.
Take out a substantive DLG or TP. Make a PAS note referring to the substantive application and cancel the DCX. Send the customer correspondence and any relevant papers for scanning.
The TT3 holder will instruct you how to proceed, based on the principles set out in Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and Indemnity .
3.4.5.2 If no application is lodged
.
If no application is lodged, the TT3 holder will normally decide to take no further action. Write to the recipient of the notice informing them of our decision, incorporating any wording the TT3 holder specifies. Make a PAS note to record the decision and cancel the DCX. Send the customer correspondence and any other relevant papers for scanning. The mapping will remain unchanged.
.
3.5​3.5 Making the alteration
Where the alteration affects the extent of the title or a plan reference:
•​Replace or update the title plan. See Topic – Title Plan – Replacement title plan and register entries. Update the indexing as appropriate.
•​Add an appropriate entry to the A Register See Topic – Title Plan – A register entries for replacement plans.
•​If the alteration affects a register entry that refers to the title plan, replace, delete or amend the entry as necessary.
•​Issue stock letter S148/B , enclosing official copies of the register, the replacement title plan and the superseded title plan. If the recipient has already been sent a B224 or B235 notice, the information in the <<Miscellaneous>> field of the stock letter should refer back to it and to any subsequent correspondence, using wording specified by the TT3 holder if the notice was opposed.
•​Where an error has been corrected by use of a DCX, a brief summary of why the DCX was taken out and of the action taken must be added to the DCX PAS; this will provide a useful record on subsequent enquiries.
•​Mark off the DCX.
4​Background
Land Registry records are now readily accessible to customers and used commercially as geographical data.
This Topic standardises a proactive process for ensuring the quality and integrity of mapping data on our own initiative, complementing the work done in Data Integrity to improve the quality and reliability of the register and index polygons.
There are several reasons why we would not - or could not - have contemplated this in the past:
•​ Land Registry was wary of initiating action to put right mapping errors without an application by an owner to avoid the potential for creating disputes.
•​ Before the open register in December 1990, no one outside Land Registry was routinely in a position to compare one registration with another. We were the gatekeepers to, and the interpreters of, all such information.
•​ Before computer mapping, “paper overlaps” were common where title plans were based on different OS editions, and there was no simple way to compare the two layers of information: title plans and indexing.
•​ Even with the advent of computer mapping, the OS Positional Accuracy Improvement programme (completed in March 2006) led to some unavoidable differences between the extent of index polygons and the extent of the red edging on title plans.
•​ The incentive created by the sale of vector and indexing polygons to customers with their own Geographic Information systems did not exist to drive proactive improvements in the quality of the product.
The new practice was envisaged in the LRA 2002, which clarified the distinction between rectification and other alterations to the register and gave the registrar the specific power to make alterations on his own initiative, subject to the consent of the proprietor(s) in certain circumstances.
5​Relevant Law
Schedule 4, para 5 and para 6, LRA 2002.
R.128, LRR 2003.
S.73, LRA 2002.
Lee v Barrey [1957] Ch 251
Alan Wibberley Building v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894
Derbyshire County Council v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch)
Strachey v Ramage [2008] EWCA Civ 384
6​Appendix – TT3 considerations
The material in this section provides background information to assist RCU2 and TT1 holders in making informed decisions regarding the need to refer to a TT3 holder. It is also designed to assist TT3 holders in applying the provisions of r.128, LRR 2003.
6.1​6.1​Is there an error?
The RCU2 holder investigating possible errors will refer verbally to a TT1 holder any cases where it is not clear whether we have made a mapping error or it is not clear what action to take.
In many cases, such as where a plans reference is referred to in the register but not shown on the title plan, or where the wrong plot altogether has been mapped, or we have forgotten to include the garage to a property, it will seem obvious that a mapping error was made.
However, caution is required, as it may not always be so straightforward.
For example, what if land was inadvertently omitted on first registration, but the applicant’s title to that missing land had in fact been extinguished by adverse possession before his application was ever lodged? By omitting the land, we would inadvertently have created a register that correctly reflected the applicant’s title. In those circumstances, if we were to take action to ‘correct’ our omission by adding the missing land to the applicant’s title, we would be creating an error, not correcting one.
In some cases we may have carried forward on to the register mistakes we could not possibly have known about. ‘Double conveyancing’ is an obvious example. The fact that the mistake is not originally ours does not alter the fact that there is a mistake in the title plan, or the fact that, by virtue of their registration alone, a later buyer will have acquired a legal title, subject to general boundaries (see
Would the correction of a mistake prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor?). See also Topic - Alterations under Schedule 4 to the LRA 2002. On the question of distinguishing between real and apparent overlaps, see FR04 –Overlaps in first registration.
6.2​6.2 Would the correction of a mistake prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor?
The RCU2 holder investigating possible errors will refer any proposed alteration that may amount to rectification, for confirmation and for instructions on the service of notice.
When someone is registered as proprietor of land (or even of a charge), the registration itself operates to give that person a legal title, even if they would not otherwise have been entitled to it.
This is clear from section 58(1), LRA 2002, which provides:
‘If, on the entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate, the legal estate would not otherwise be vested in him, it shall be deemed to be vested in him as a result of the registration.’
However, whilst any removal of land from a registered title would seem to prejudicially affect the proprietor’s title, you should remember that section 58 (1) has no application where the boundaries of the land in question are general boundaries. The title plan only indicates the general position of the registered extent, unless the boundaries have been determined as exact (see Will alteration amount to rectification?).
What if the proprietor had in fact sold and transferred the land in question, but the new title created for the buyer did not include all the land transferred? In that case, the seller may well simply be holding the legal estate on a (bare) trust for his buyer, and his title would not, therefore, be prejudicially affected by the removal of the land and its inclusion in the new title.
Or what if too much land was registered and the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation of the land that was wrongly registered? If the ‘true’ owner’s interest in the land is one that overrides first registration (Schedule 1(2), LRA 2002) or a registered disposition (Schedule 3(2), LRA 2002) then, again, the registered proprietor’s title would not be prejudicially affected by the removal of the ‘true’ owner’s land.
6.3​​Ordnance Survey inspections
The RCU2 holder investigating possible errors will refer those where occupation may be a factor in deciding whether there is an error on which action needs to be taken.
The question of occupation may also arise in deciding whether a proposed alteration prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor and would therefore be rectification.
In view of the risk that an OS inspection may raise expectations of an alteration or, in sensitive circumstances, trigger a dispute, the TT3 holder must authorise all inspections, and must also specify any extra questions for the surveyor beyond the standard inspection.
6.4​Do we have to notify anyone?
R128 LRR 2003 requires Land Registry to inform registered proprietor(s) of any registered estate or charge regarding alteration to the register by the registrar.
6.4.1 Non-rectification cases
.
If we are absolutely certain that (a) there is a mistake and (b) the correction of that mistake would not amount to rectification, we can make the alteration. See if the alteration is not rectification and Making the alteration. If, in response to a B235 notice, our proposal is opposed, refer to a TT3 holder. The TT3 holder’s options include:
•​requesting the registered proprietor(s) or third party to make a formal application for alteration, not least to ensure that there is a clear framework for resolving any dispute (see Inviting an application for alteration),
•​proceeding with the alteration on the basis that the reasons for the opposition are entirely without merit. See Making the alteration,
•​proceeding with the alteration without further enquiry, see Making the alteration or
•​deciding not to proceed (see Decision not to proceed).
.
6.4.2 Rectification cases
If we are satisfied that there is a mistake and the correction of that mistake would amount to rectification, notice (add link to B224 must be served on all of the registered proprietors of any estate in land or charge whose title would be affected. The TT3 holder must approve the wording of the summary of the proposed alteration in the <<MISCELLANEOUS>> field of the notice.
Notice B224 is neither an information notice nor an objection notice in the traditional sense. It gives the registered proprietor(s) the opportunity to oppose the action we propose to take. Any opposition and/or representations made by the recipient must be taken into account before deciding how to proceed. Options include:
•​requesting the registered proprietor(s) or a third party to make a formal application for alteration, not least to ensure that there is a clear framework for resolving any dispute (see Inviting an application for alteration.)
•​proceeding with the alteration on the basis that the reasons for the opposition are entirely without merit. See Making the alteration.
•​proceeding with the alteration if it amounts to rectification and one of the exceptions in Schedule 4(6)(2), LRA 2002 applies. See Making the alteration, or
•​deciding not proceed (see Decision not to proceed).
.
6.4.3 Doubtful cases

If we are not sure whether the alteration would amount to rectification, for example because we do not know whether the registered proprietor’s title would be prejudicially affected (which may depend on who is in actual occupation), we should serve notice B235.
.
6.5​6.5​ In what circumstances might prior notice be unnecessary?
If the alteration being proposed is the correction of a mistake which would not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor prior notice is not necessary. However, as a matter of customer service, notice B235, which is neither an objection nor an information notice in the traditional sense, should be sent.
.
6.6​6.6​On whom do we serve notice?
In the case of residential properties in private ownership, there are good reasons to serve notice both on the proprietor(s) of a title from which we propose to remove land and on the proprietor(s) of an adjoining title that is affected, either a title that already correctly includes the land or a title to which we propose to add it.
Despite the fact that only the proprietor(s) prejudicially affected by rectification needs to give consent, informing all the parties will avoid the suspicion that we are not acting impartially or that the proposal arises from a complaint by one of them. It will make it more likely that any consent is informed and correctly reflects the accepted position on the ground.

6.7​Can anyone object to or oppose the alteration?
Anyone can object to an application to the registrar. However, if we are correcting an error on our own initiative, anyone who wanted to oppose our action would find themselves without any right to invoke dispute procedures. This is because, although we are obliged by r.12(3), LRR 2003 to enter our proposal for altering the register on the day list, such a proposal is not deemed to be an application for the purpose of s.73, LRA 2002. So the machinery for resolving any opposition to our proposal is not available. The only remedy, therefore, for someone who opposed a proposal to alter the register where no application had been made would be to apply to the court for judicial review of the decision to make the alteration (although they could lodge a complaint and have the manner in which the decision had been reached reviewed within Land Registry or, ultimately, by the ICR or the Parliamentary Ombudsman).
In a judicial review, the court would consider, inter alia,
•​the legality of the decision (whether we had been acting within our powers and for the purpose for which the powers were given);
•​the procedural fairness of the decision (whether, for example, the person concerned had been given the right to be heard);
•​the reasonableness of the decision (whether there was a proper reasoning process and the conclusion reached was reasonable);
•​whether the decision was compatible with the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Convention (and given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998).
Any decision to alter the register, particularly in the absence of an application, where representations opposing the action proposed have been received, must therefore be capable of standing up to such scrutiny or risk being quashed by the court.

6.8​6.8​Do we need to consider who is in possession of the land, and whether that person consents?
Where the alteration would prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor (and thus amount to rectification), it cannot be made without the consent of any proprietor(s) who is in possession of the land concerned and whose title would be affected by the rectification. The only exceptions are if:
•​he was fraudulent or negligent and thereby caused or substantially contributed to the mistake in the register; or
•​for any other reason it would be unjust to leave the register as it is.
Therefore, if the relevant registered proprietor is not in possession of the land concerned, we do not strictly need his consent. Whether or not he is in possession is something we might not be able to establish without physically inspecting the land in question and forming a view. The registered proprietor himself may disagree with our assessment. In some cases, it may be difficult or impossible to determine who is in possession of the land concerned.
If the registered proprietor was fraudulent or negligent, and thus responsible in some way for the mistake that was made, we do not need his consent, irrespective of who is in possession.
If, ‘for any other reason’, it would be unjust to leave the register as it is, we can proceed without the consent of the registered proprietor(s), even if he is in possession of the land concerned. To determine what is unjust effectively involves making a judgement as to the relative position of two or more parties, which, as an administrative body, Land Registry is not best placed to do. As a last resort, we might justify invoking that exception in the (probably extremely rare) case of a double registration / overlap which we are proposing to correct by removing land from the title of the registered proprietor in possession and in which our proposal is opposed. Ideally, in that situation, one or both of the proprietors involved would agree to make a formal application for alteration, thereby enabling any dispute to be resolved through a judicial process. However, if no such application was forthcoming, and we could justify proceeding with our proposed alteration because it would be unjust not to, Schedule 4(6)(2)(b), LRA 2002 gives us the power to make the alteration without the requisite consent.
.
6.9​6.9​Inviting an application for alteration
The RCU2 holder dealing with a mapping error on which notice B224 or B235 has been served will refer any response that opposes the proposed alteration. The TT3 holder will need to consider whether to invite an application for alteration.
The application should be invited from the proprietor who appears, based on responses to notice B224 or B235 and the result of any inspection, to have the better claim. There will be cases where this is not clear, but we should avoid the situation where someone with a poor claim is invited to make an application on which we ultimately decide not to take action.
If there appear to be competing claims it may be that more than one application is needed to resolve them, but it is important that the applicants understand the range of possible outcomes.
Where the alteration is one that will amount to a rectification, the fee should not be insisted on. See Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and indemnity – 3.1 The Application
6.10​​ Decision not to proceed
In some cases, a decision may ultimately have to be taken not to proceed, for example, where the opposition to notice cannot be said to be without merit, we cannot agree on an alternative course of action and the person concerned cannot be persuaded to make an application of his own.
In all cases where we have served notice of a proposed alteration and ultimately decided not to proceed, we will write to inform the recipient of the notice of our decision. The TT3 holder should approve the wording of the explanation we give.
6.11​​Practice applied to typical examples
In the following section, some of the main principles and constraints discussed in this Appendix are applied to typical errors. Whether anyone might object to or oppose the correction of these errors is not specifically addressed in each example, but see Can anyone object to or oppose the alteration? for general information.
6.11.1 Transfer of part: land has mistakenly been omitted from the new title and remains in the parent title

Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes. We have the power to remove land from the parent title and to add it to the new title in order to correct a mistake.
Rectification?​No (assuming the parent title has not been subject to a charge or transferred for value since the mistake occurred.)
The transferor will lose land to which he has a legal title by virtue of his continued registration as proprietor, but as he had transferred it, he is simply holding the legal estate on trust for his transferee, the new title owner. Accordingly the removal does not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor.
Arguably also, by correcting the register we are completing the TP application and giving effect to the transfer of the land we omitted by mistake.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​Yes.
But if there has been a charge or a transfer for value of the parent title since the mistake occurred, notice B235 must be served on all of the registered proprietors of any legal estate affected, allowing them to object.
Who is in possession?​Since this is not a case of rectification, we do not need to consider who is in possession and whether that person consents.
Duty to alter?​No, but to do so is consistent with a policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​No, but if anyone has incurred costs or expenses in connection with the alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provisions for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes, if we are satisfied that there has not been a charge or a transfer for value since the mistake occurred.
Failure to green out on the old title in accordance with LRR 2003 r.72 means that the registration requirements under LRA 2002 Schedule 2 will not have been met and therefore the legal estate is not deemed to be vested in the proprietor of the new title (s.58(2), LRA 2002).
Other examples of errors which could be addressed similarly are:
•​Superfluous plans reference with no corresponding register entry. Provided that the register entry was correctly removed or omitted, the removal from the title plan would amount either to bringing the register up to date, or removal of a superfluous entry and/or the correction of a mistake. But it is highly unlikely that it could be said prejudicially to affect the title of a registered proprietor.
•​Failure to green-out from the parent title the whole of the land transferred on a TP (provided that there has been no charge or a transfer on sale of the parent title since the error occurred).
.
6.11.2 First registration: mistaken omission of unregistered land from A’s registered title

Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes, provided we are satisfied that it was indeed a mistake to omit it. See Is there an error?
Rectification?​No.
To add the unregistered land to a registered title does not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor. Therefore this is not a case of rectification.
Even if there is some liability or burden attached to the ‘missing’ land (such as contamination or performance of a covenant), the fact is that A still owns the land in its unregistered state. Presumably A had originally applied for it to be registered. In that sense, by correcting the register we are effectively completing A’s application and giving effect to the transfer to A of the land we omitted by mistake.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​Yes.
(But it may be prudent to make further enquiries to ensure there are no extent or title issues that might now be relevant, particularly if the original application was completed some time ago.)
Who is in possession?​ See above
Duty to alter?​No, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive register and policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​No, but if A has incurred costs or expenses in connection with the alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provisions for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes, provided we are satisfied that by adding the land we would not be creating a mistake instead of correcting one (see Is there an error?)
6.11.3 Too much land included in a registered title
.
Question​Answer
Power to alter?​We have the power to remove land from the registered title in order to correct a mistake. We do not have the power to remove land without the consent of a registered proprietor in certain circumstances (see Who is in possession? below).
Rectification?​Maybe.
Removing land from a registered title is to deprive the registered proprietor of the property that was vested in him by virtue of the registration, and therefore prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.
It would not be prejudicial and therefore rectification, however, if the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation of the land. See Who is in possession? below.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​B224 Notice must be sent to any registered proprietor(s) affected by the proposed alteration if it is considered prejudicial.
Notice would be arguably unnecessary only in the very rare case that it is absolutely clear and undisputed that the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation and that his interest overrides the registration, in which case the registered proprietor’s title would not be prejudicially affected by the alteration, and presumably he could not therefore validly object to it. See In what circumstances might prior notice be unnecessary? In most cases the best course will be to serve notice.
It may be difficult to establish who is in actual occupation, and even if we thought we knew, the registered proprietor might want to disagree.
Who is in possession?​If it is a case of rectification and the registered proprietor is in possession of the land that is to be removed from the title, we cannot proceed without his consent, unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 4(6)(2) applies.
If the ‘true’ owner is in possession, his interest may override the registration, and removal of the land from the title would not prejudicially affect the registered proprietor’s title. The question of possession would be relevant in so far as it means that the registered proprietor’s consent can – technically – be dispensed with.
If a third party is in possession (neither the ‘true’ owner nor the registered proprietor), the registered proprietor’s consent, again, may not be required.
This is not relevant if it is not rectification.
Duty to alter?​It depends on whether the alteration would amount to rectification. If it does, we do have a duty, but only if an application has been made. If not then we do not have a duty, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive register and our policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​If rectification. Yes – probably substantive indemnity (though this may only be nominal) and/or costs for the registered proprietor and applicant and any 3rd party that suffered loss.
If alteration, no, but if anyone has incurred costs or expenses in connection with alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provision for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes, if we are reasonably certain of the facts, i.e. that there is a mistake and that we know or have established who is in actual occupation of the land.
6.11.4 Wrong plot or property mapped

Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes. We have the power to correct the mistake and map the correct property instead.
Rectification?​Probably not. Although the registered proprietor may ostensibly be losing a legal estate to the ‘wrong’ property, any prejudicial effect would be offset by his registration as proprietor of the ‘right’ property. Even if it is not, (for example because of a substantial difference in value between the two properties), if the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation of the property that was wrongly mapped to be in the registered proprietor’s title, the registered proprietor is holding the legal estate subject to the ‘true’ owner’s overriding interest and is not therefore prejudicially affected by the alteration.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​Notice may be unnecessary if we are satisfied that it is not a case of rectification, and that no one could conceivably raise a valid objection to or oppose the alteration of the register. However, prior notice B224 may be prudent, not least as a means of ensuring that the proposed alteration itself is correct.
Who is in possession?​Not relevant if not rectification. Responses to notices could help us to confirm the facts and proceed according to the circumstances.
Duty to alter?​No, assuming it is not a case of rectification having been applied for, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive register and out policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​No, assuming it is not a case of rectification, but if anyone has incurred costs or expenses in connection with the alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provisions for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes.

6.11.5 Overlap/double registration
If this occurs as a result of a failure to green-out from a parent title the land transferred on a TP, see the note after Transfer of part: land has mistakenly been omitted from the new title and remains in the parent title.
In all other circumstances, see below.
Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes. We have the power to remove land from one of the registered titles in order to correct the mistake of registering the same estate in land twice. But we do not have the power to proceed without the consent of the registered proprietor(s) in certain circumstances.
Rectification?​This will depend on who is in actual occupation of the land. At least one of the registered proprietors affected may arguably be deprived of a legal estate in land that was vested in him by virtue of the registration. However, if the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation, his rights and interest may override the registered title of the ‘wrong’ registered proprietor, and removing the land from the ‘wrong’ proprietor’s title would not amount to rectification.
If the ‘wrong’ proprietor is in actual occupation, removing the land from either title could amount to rectification.
(There is an argument that the second title in time to have been created is a nullity. This seems unlikely, however. The LRA 1925 expressly allowed for the possibility that two or more persons might, by mistake, be registered as proprietors of the same legal estate (s.82(1)(e), LRA 1925) and although that provision was not carried forward verbatim to the LRA 2002, it was not the intention of the LRA 2002 so fundamentally to change the effect of registration. The argument could also fall foul of the provisions of the Human Rights Act.)
Is prior notice unnecessary?​B224 notice of the action we propose to take must be served on all proprietors of the land and of any charges. If the correction amounts to an alteration that is not rectification, proceed as in Making the alteration.
Who is in possession?​That would obviously determine whether and whose consent to the proposed alteration would be required, unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 4(6)(2), LRA 2002 applies. Possession is not relevant if not rectification.
Duty to alter?​It depends on whether the alteration would amount to rectification. If it does, we do have a duty, but only if an application has been made. If not, then we do not have a duty, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive registration and our policy of correcting known mistakes.
Indemnity?​See Too much land included in a registered title above.
Should we proceed without an application?​Yes, but consider Rectification cases.
6.11.1​6.11.6 Other common errors – would correction amount to rectification?

6.11.6.1 Plans reference in the wrong position

This will depend on the facts. For example, a covenant restricting building on land could have an entirely different effect on the title if it was shown (wrongly) to affect a shared driveway subject to rights of way (and thus unlikely to be built on) instead of (correctly) the garden. Similar issues apply as outlined above.
6.11.6.2 Plans reference – wrong extent shown

This will depend on the facts. For example, a title might be prejudicially affected if, for example, a restrictive covenant had been shown (wrongly) to affect a much smaller part of the title than it did in fact affect.
6.11.6.3 Plans reference and corresponding entry entered in error
This will depend on the facts. It would not be rectification, for example, if the entry that was made in error related to the burden of an equitable right of way or a restrictive covenant, because it would not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor to remove it.
6.11.6.4 Plans reference missing from title plan, but register entry exists

This will depend on the facts. If an entry refers, for example, to ‘the land tinted pink’ as being subject to a restrictive covenant, and there is no land tinted pink on the title plan, then the entry is meaningless but there is an error. To add the pink tinting in such circumstances could prejudicially affect the registered proprietor’s title.

Page5

B224 Notice of the proposed alteration of the register
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property Registered proprietor
of above title number
Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
<<MISCELLANEOUS~>>
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not oppose the proposed alteration
If you do not oppose the proposed alteration, you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice with the consent duly completed will assist in completing the alteration promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you oppose the proposed alteration
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please tell us why. It would be helpful if your reasons are put in writing (which includes e-mail) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Please
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you oppose the proposed alteration
– state your reasons for opposing it
– give your full name and an address to which communications may be sent
If you wish to oppose the proprosed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive a response from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the application referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number
Date

Notice of an application for alteration of the register – B141
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property Registered proprietor
of above title number
Dear <<NAME(S)~>>

When you own or have an interest in a property that is registered at Land Registry, we will write to let you know if we receive certain types of applications. This gives you an opportunity to consider the matter and to seek more information if you feel you need any.
We have received an application to <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>.
The application was lodged by:
on behalf of <<PARTIES~>>.
You should contact the applicant (or their legal representative) if you require more information about why this application has been made.

This notice requires you to do one of the following:
(a) Object to the application, or
(b) Consent to it
before 12 noon on 18 November 2014 («NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If you consent, or if we do not receive your response to this notice, before the deadline then we may complete the application.
Please see notes below which tell you how and where to reply to this notice.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»
NB1. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).
NB2. Notices sent to you at a UK postal or DX address will include a prepaid envelope for your reply, together with any plans or documents referred to in the notice. Notices sent by email do not contain any enclosures.
NB3. If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you need to reply only once.
Notes
1 Consent
If you wish to consent, you can complete the enclosed consent form. If you wish to consent by email, please include your full name and the title number of the property in your reply, or attach the completed consent form. We may complete the application as soon as we receive your consent, even if this is before the deadline.
2 Objection
If you wish to object to the application your objection must be in writing and:
– state the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the application
– state the grounds for your objection (this means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why the applicant’s claim is either wrong or would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property)
– give your full name and a postal address (which does not have to be in the United Kingdom) for further correspondence (you may give us other postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in total) and
– be signed by you as the objector (or by your “conveyancer” – for example, a solicitor - on your behalf).
3 How and where to reply
Any objection or consent must be in writing. Please send it (so that we receive it before the deadline) to the Land Registry Office at the postal, DX, fax or email address shown on the first page of this notice.
4 Please note
– We cannot accept communications stated to be confidental.
– We normally send a copy of an objection to the applicant or the applicant’s conveyancer.
– We may also disclose to the applicant (or to other parties) any communications or supporting documents that you send to us.

CONSENT B141
IMPORTANT: Signing this consent could affect your legal rights. If you do not understand the effect of this consent or the notice sent with it, you should seek legal advice without delay.
If you wish to consent to the application please:
1. Complete and sign this consent form.
2. Return it to Land Registry (see page 1 of the notice for office address) by the reply deadline
below. You can use the reply envelope sent with the notice, if provided.

B141 Notice of an application for alteration of the register
Date of notice:
Title number:
Reply deadline: «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15»
I consent to the application referred to in the above notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Date

Office use only:
Case reference (internal)

B104 Notice of a new official plan
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number
When land in England and Wales is registered, Land Registry prepare a plan, known as a title plan showing the general extent of the land registered with the property. It does not show the exact position of the boundaries of the registered title. This plan is usually based on an extract from the latest available large scale Ordnance Survey map at the time the property was registered and is held at Land Registry.
From time to time Ordnance Survey update their survey information and we sometimes need to prepare a replacement plan that conforms to the latest survey detail.
<<MISCELLANEOUS~>>.
I am therefore writing to inform you that we propose to prepare a replacement plan for your property based on the latest Ordnance Survey information. I am enclosing copies of the current title plan and the proposed new title plan for your information.
Although the proposed replacement title plan will be mapped on the latest Ordnance Survey detail, it will continue to identify the general boundaries of the registered title, and not their exact position.
If you object to the replacement of the title plan you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once.
If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not object
If you do not object to the replacement of the title plan you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice with the consent duly completed overleaf will enable the replacement to proceed immediately. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you object
If you object to the replacement of the title plan your objection must be in writing (which includes email) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Your objection must:
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the replacement of the plan
– state the grounds for your objection. This means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why what the applicant is claiming is wrong or why what is being claimed would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property
– give your full name and a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom, for further correspondence (you may supply further postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in all) and
– be signed by you as the objector or by your solicitor or conveyancer on your behalf.
Please note that, if this notice has been sent as a result of an application to Land Registry, a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
If you wish to object to the replacement of the title plan you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive an objection before then the title plan may be replaced.
Please note that, if this notice has been sent as a result of an application to Land Registry, a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the replacement of the title plan referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number

Date

B95 Notice to registered proprietors of an application for alteration of a registered title
Important: This notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number

Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
<<PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE – ISSUE PRACTICE GUIDE 39 WITH THIS NOTICE~>>
I am writing to inform you as proprietor of the above registered title that we have received an application for first registration of the property shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the enclosed plan and known as <<ADDRESS~>>. The application was lodged by:
on behalf of <<NAME(S)~>> (the applicant). The land in the first registration will be registered under title number <<TITLE_NUMBER~>>.
Our investigation of the deeds submitted with the application has established that they include part of the land already included in your registration. The extent of the land in your registered title is shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the enclosed plan. The overlapping area is shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the enclosed plan. Our investigations suggest that the overlap arose because <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>.
We have also carried out an inspection survey of the land and this has revealed that it is <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>
As a result of this, <<NAME(S)~>> applied to Land Registry for your registered title to be altered by removing the land shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the plan. If this is done that land will then be included in their registered title number <<TITLE_NUMBER~>>.
The grounds for the alteration are that the applicant believes there is a mistake in the register that should be corrected under paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 4, of the Land Registration Act 2002.
If you object to the alteration you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then the alteration may be completed.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not object
If you do not object to the application you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice with the consent duly completed overleaf will assist in completing the application promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you object
If you object to the application your objection must be in writing (which includes email) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Your objection must:
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the application
– state the grounds for your objection. This means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why what the applicant is claiming is wrong or why what is being claimed would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property
– give your full name and a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom, for further correspondence (you may supply further postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in all) and
– be signed by you as the objector or by your solicitor or conveyancer on your behalf.
Please note that a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
Please also note that any communications or supporting documents you supply may also be disclosed to the other parties even if marked ‘confidential’ or to similar effect.
If you wish to object to the alteration you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive an objection before then the alteration may be completed.
<<DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND THE FOLLOWING NOTE AND RENUMBER 4 TO 3 IF THE ALTERATION WILL NOT AMOUNT TO RECTIFICATION~>>
3 Indemnity for costs
Where an alteration will amount to a rectification, a claim for costs or expenses may arise. You will need to consider
whether to obtain consent from the Registrar before incurring such costs or expenses. The enclosed Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and Indemnity explains this procedure.
4 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the alteration referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number
Date

B235 Notice of the proposed alteration of the register
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number
Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
When land in England and Wales is registered, Land Registry prepare a plan, known as a title plan. The purpose of the title plan is to assist in identifying the general extent of the land registered with the property. It does not show the exact position of the boundaries of the registered title. This plan is usually based on an extract from the latest available large scale Ordnance Survey map at the time the property was registered and is held at Land Registry.
As a result of improving our records, we consider that we can show the general boundary of your title more accurately on your title plan. We therefore propose to alter your title plan and I enclose a copy of the current title plan and the proposed new title plan for your information. This will not change your registered title.
Although the proposed replacement title plan will be mapped on the latest Ordnance Survey detail, it will continue to identify the general boundaries of the registered title, and not their exact position.
<<MISCELLANEOUS~>>
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not oppose the proposed alteration
If you do not oppose the proposed alteration, you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice with the consent duly completed will assist in completing the alteration promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you oppose the proposed alteration
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please tell us why. It would be helpful if your reasons are put in writing (which includes e-mail) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Please
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you oppose the proposed alteration
– state your reasons for opposing it
– give your full name and an address to which communications may be sent
If you wish to oppose the proposed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive a response from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the application referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number Date
Notice B142
B142 Notice of an application for alteration of the register
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.

Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number

Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
I am writing to inform you that we have received an application to <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>. The application was lodged by:
Bank & Jones of Bank & Jones, 14 Mayflower Avenue, Plymouth, (Reference B&J) on behalf of <<PARTIES~>>.
This notice is sent to you as proprietor of a charge dated <<DATE~>> registered on <<DATE~>>.
If you object to the application you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then the application may be completed.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not object
If you do not object to the application you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice with the consent duly completed overleaf will assist in completing the application promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you object
If you object to the application your objection must be in writing (which includes email) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Your objection must:
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the application
– state the grounds for your objection. This means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why what the applicant is claiming is wrong or why what is being claimed would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property
– give your full name and a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom, for further correspondence (you may supply further postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in all) and
– be signed by you as the objector or by your solicitor or conveyancer on your behalf.
Please note that a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
Please also note that any communications or supporting documents you supply may also be disclosed to the other parties even if marked ‘confidential’ or to similar effect.
If you wish to object to the application you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive an objection before then the application may be completed.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).
I consent to the application referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number
Date

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

This is the ICO's rejection of my request before the LR responded to me.

Catch 22 on Section 16

How the LR last response above differs from the response that should of been given to my request-I'm still baffled.

As the LR refused to give any Section 16 Help and advice ......as to how I might narrow my request.

The ICO consequently refused to give me a Decision - on the grounds that I didn't know how to technically narrow it to the LR's internally used terms. (If I had known them, I would have been able to use one of them in the request).

The ICO states :

That is to say, there is no self-contained booklet or set of instructions which the Registry makes available to its employees which deals solely with boundary changes in isolation from the case context and circumstances

1. I didn't ask for a 'self contained booklet'....There are such things as computers, on which processes are usually held.

2. The above information IS exactly what I requested .

3. The LR knew it existed - and was given to employees, other than in the 'self contained booklet' - a term added by the ICO.

4. Logic would presume that the LR must hold file information on this part of its work. My opinion is that the ICO just agreed with the LR.

5. The last time the ICO couldn't understand a request and wasn't willing to investigate it properly, I went to court and the court decided in my favour.

6. My opinion is that if I had taken it to court that the court would have assessed that the LR must logically give its some direction on boundary changes - as it has to be standard procedure/s. It can't need an employee to research through thousands of files. On each change, changing the process every time.
This part of their work must have been clearly set out to avoid legal problems - as can now be seen.

7. I would have gone to court - if the ICO had not DENIED me a Decision. This appears to be on the grounds I had no information on how to narrow my request, due to lack of S16 clarification from the LR .
Seemingly I was being wilful in NOT being able to refine it - due to my ignorance and my request for S16 help and advice from the LR not being fulfilled.

8. By doing so, the ICO stopped finding out information on a topic of public interest - as the LR might be privatised
(Privatisation discussions are already underway).

9. I wanted to find out if proper boundary change safeguards were in place- for the benefit of ALL property owners - before the LR was no longer subject to FOIA.

10. It is reasonable for the LR to have helped me (S16) on this sort of request, rather than asking me to chose between mystery categories - which it didn't list. How could I clarify a choice of the terms, if the choice terms was not presented, to me - having no access to LR INTERNAL designations of different types of boundary changes?

::::

I am very disappointed at the Response to this request both from the LR and the ICO.

I am not a property lawyer- but a member of the public , with little understanding of the LR process.

And I had assumed that the FOIAct had been designed to HELP members of the public towards obtaining reasonably requested file data held.

Clearly not in this case.
::::

Some of the correspondence from the ICO - which eventually told me that I couldn't have a Decision.

Dear JTOakley

As the Land Registry revised response makes clear, there is no ‘general instruction to employees tasked with changing LR boundary mapping’ because boundary changes feature in a multiplicity of matters and circumstances which fall within the Registry’s work.

The Registry has explained that, ‘for example, boundary changes feature in building schemes and developer titles (new housing estates), adverse possession, first registration of title, transfers of part of registered title, registration of leases with their own title, to name but a few’.

There will of course be information available to Registry staff about how to approach the issue of a boundary change, but this will depend on the particular circumstances of the case, and the staff member would need to consult the relevant information/guidance in the internal intranet applicable to that situation/circumstance.

That is to say, there is no self-contained booklet or set of instructions which the Registry makes available to its employees which deals solely with boundary changes in isolation from the case context and circumstances.

It is appreciated that you are asking for data given to employees on how to work (in the context of boundary changes) but given the nature of the information held by the Registry and the numerous ways in which boundary changes occur in land registration matters, such data is not held in a one size fits all instruction manual or set of guidance for employees.

Whilst you did not intend the Registry to ‘delve into every conceivable case on file’, the wording of your request, ‘files on the process that the Land Registry (via its employees) has to undertake to make changes to the boundaries on any property it holds on file’ is wide, given that the ‘process’ will depend on the situation in which the boundary change arises (e.g. adverse possession), and so the request as currently worded is not specific enough to narrow down the information held by the Registry, given the way in which it is held.

With regard to your query as to how you can narrow your request, whilst it is obviously a matter for you as to how you word your refined request, the Commissioner would advise that you follow the help and advice provided by the Registry in the revised response, that is to say, that you ‘narrow your request to a specific type of boundary change situation that you are interested in seeing our internal information provided to our staff’.

The Registry cannot provide you with any further help and advice than they have in their revised response and you will need to specify the type of boundary change situation with which you are particularly interested before they can be of further assistance in this matter.

The Commissioner cannot add anything further to what the Registry has already explained in the revised response and what has been clarified above. In order for the Registry to assist you further in this matter, you will need to submit the appropriate refined request as advised and explained and if you are dissatisfied with the Registry’s response to that refined request then you should please contact me in the first instance.

Many thanks.

Kind regards

ICO

Warning: The LR has now put my personal information on WDTK FOUR times.

It was kindly removed by WDTK volunteers by my request.

Seemingly the LR cannot distinguish between an FOIA request and a Perivale letter to the LR. So looked up my private address to apply this request to one of my properties. Even more unfortunately - it used the wrong address.
Which made the response even more bizarre.

* I would warn other requesters to advise the LR in advance that it is illegal (DPAct) to put personal information on the internet when making a request via WDTK.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

If anyone could point out to me where I have disclosed my private details in this general FOIA request - made in the public interest- I'd be grateful to know.

That, of course, is excluding the personal information put on this request in response - by the Land Registry - breaking the Data Protection act.

Which had to be removed by WDTK ....and for which the Land Registry had to apologise 'personally' to me.

So if anyone has been abusing the FOIA, it is demonstrably the Land Registry.

Dear Mrs ( wrong name)

Thank you for your email of 19 October.

As you have refused the advice and assistance offered by the Registry to refine your own request we are now applying regulation 12 (4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and we will not be providing the information to you.

Regulation 12 (4)(b) states:

12(4) for the purpose of paragraph (1) (a) a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that-
(b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable.

The Registry must consider the application of the public interest test at the same time as considering regulation 12 (4)(b).

Whilst it is accepted that there is a benefit generally to the public in the disclosure of information for reasons of accountability and transparency, it is considered in this particular case, that there is little of public interest in disclosing information that would inform any public debate. It is the Registry’s position that your requests concern the private matter of your own property and its title. Furthermore the continuous nature of these requests as evidenced by the number of requests over a short period of time imposes a disproportionate burden and an unjustified level of disruption to the Registry.

Further information on the regulation is available from the ICO website at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

Yours sincerely

Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Land Registry Fylde Office, Wrea Brook Court,Lytham Road, Warton, Lancs, PR4 1TE.

Response:

Thank you for your response.

It is the Registry’s position that your requests concern the private matter of your own property and its title.

As consistently explained, a request on WDTK is not a private matter. Particularly about my own property and it's title.

Please reread the request ....and point out wherethese private details are.

1. FOIA is for data held on file - and is general information available to the public.

2. There is absolutely no mention of my personal interest in my request ...and I have not requested any legal (or otherwise) adjudication from the Land Registry within the request. Indeed I have never sought one.

3. And I would remind you that it was the Land Registry who put my private information on the Internet to response to this general unspecific request.

..And you have apologised to me for doing so - for breaking the Data Protection Act.

4. However, from your response, you still seem not to have recognised the fact - and still seem to be to be linking a general FOIA request to my personal data, (which should not have been placed on WDTK and removed by WDTK a a clear a breach of the DPA ).

5. So exactly what is 'private concern' are you referring to in your email below?

::::

Public interest

The fact that you have incorrectly linked my personal data to this request means that you have not considered it under the public interest.

The fact that two boundary mistakes had been made on two different properties is why I was concerned at the extent of the Land Registry's capability.

(The Land Registry once had to pay me a considerable sum for its process mistake, so it is justifiable to ask if the process has now been righted -before any privatisation if a public organisation).

What are the safeguards in place to make sure this isn't happening to many other people throughout the country? Indeed it has been reported that this is the case.

Therein lies the public interest.

Therefore, please explain exactly what is 'manifestly unreasonable' about asking about boundary changes?

Particularly since the requested data information was held ..... and eventually disclosed - as yet another person had made a similar request. It is therefore a matter of public interest.

Regards

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear JT Oakley,

I would suggest you look at the Gloucester Serious Fraud Office Website and seek to obtain the available to the public paperwork for " Operation Alison". This is for the biggest fraud of its type involving Legal Aid Green Papers. Twenty -One and a Half Tons of paperwork was removed from Tim Morgan Robinson Solicitors. Multiples of forms for same names were used , getting clerks to fill them in. A Judge put a ban on details of the case being discussed until it got to the High Courts. By the close of proceedings that resulted in nine people serving time at HM pleasure, the SFO & CPS had shut down over 100 solicitors who were also doing wrong things. It beggars belief how all our details and informations are used for what amounts to monetary gain. When l first bought my registered titled property in Lincolnshire , my medical files were sent to someone else , to then be sent back to a doctor doing a medical check on me. This was in 1995 and happened because of the " different address for service " attached to my title at Land Registry . I also found out l was " Black Listed" for credit purposes. Mysterious as it sounds , neither Land Registry or Legal Services Commission ( now The Legal Aid Agency ) , wanted any correction to happen for the wrong details they held about me and my property. I have a letter written by Helen Grant ( Under Secretary of State for Justice at the time it is written), bearing in mind her predessessor ( Brigit Prentice) put issues of no Public Confidence in conveyancing by solicitors , through The House of Commons for change to happen to restore confidence ; where Ms Grant states categorically that the judiciary is fair and will always allow the means to appeal if a document has not been available for a hearing. My " Conveyance Document " , stolen by LSC in coercion with Land Registry and the further breaching of the Data Protection Act by Land Registry in 2009 , rather than my being providing with office copy of my own conveyance document , amounts to a " Miscarriage of Justice" which l have a ruling by a High Court Judge in 2012, that Land Registry continues to ignore. My Conveyance Document or office copy for my DPA valid request , would have prevented all claims to property / lands with my registered title. These were issues already addressed by two judges in 2002 & 2003, over the wrong information for a legal aid charge for someone else , that Land Registry held LSC official paperwork for this charge in the caution register against my title. The " Privacy Statements " of LR and LSC are meant to prevent such things occurring and errors / mistakes are referred back to if other issues arise. In my case even the three tiers of the complaints process , failed to refer back to all the issues l was repeatedly raising, including the blackmail techniques used to force me to except Legal Aid, before solicitors meant to acting for me , said they would act in the matter of my being attacked and raped. I was told my mother could always pay off the legal costs at the close of proceedings . My mother sold her home to pay off my legal costs and still the involved Solicitors / Parties / Land Registry / LSC, continued with the " error" in the " caution register" , to the point of the money paid by my mother being actually paid to one of the cautioners the whole set up was designed to benefit. This was told to me in 2003 , to have been corrected, only it wasn't. Land Registry Head Offices Ian Flowers on the 23 rd October 2007 , told me that my neighbours adverse land possession claim was all related to the previous problems l had been having . Still Land Registry did not correct the details they held about me and they passed for judicial involvement , a case where a known caution was in play . So factually l can state and affirm for the years 1994 to 2011 , errors / mistakes / wrong addresses / wrong identities, were all held by Land Registry, and no correction was made until after valuable properties and land were fraudulently and maliciously given away. Ask the question why would LR & LSC being Public Bodies , using known wrong details of myself and the registered title l legally had " title absolute" of , act with stealing of the one document that would have prevented the whole stupid mess? My case was referred to a commissioner for LSC sitting as a deputy adjudicator for The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry whose live in partner as director of Legal & Governance for LSC , failed in her prescribed role over issues of " Conflict of Interest " , to investigate. So to recap ... there is no redress when these agencies run out of control with their refusal to comply with the DPA and their holding correct details for us. Even the National Audit Office went along with auditing the file with my title as being correct in 2005, totally ignoring the " Urgent Land Registry Memorandum" dated the 27 th October 2002, recording my complaining about the multiple wrong addresses on Land Registry Offical Paperwork to do with my title. District Judge Toombs at Lincoln County Courts sorted out the matter of my own legal costs (paid to prevent any legal charge being put against my home) on the 6 th June 2002. So why would Kingston upon Hull Land Registry write to my mortgage providers on the 21 st October 2002 about placing a charge against my property , that they say does not relate to the covented land? The only charge against my property was a wrong charge for someone else , hidden in the caution register, to ultimately obtain the covented land, that amounted to fraud.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thank you D Smith

I'm just appalled how unnecessarily aggressive the Land Registry is towards this request. It's not only out my personal information twice - it can't separate a general FOIA request from the personal.

It seems to have constructed an entirely false premise in that this request pertains to my own property -it doesn't.

It's entirely reasonable to ask about processing - if the Land Registry is to be privatised - and the problem of boundary changes isn't sorted out, the general public will suffer. Especially since I've worked as an industrial editor in both public and private organisations..as an industrial editor ( a journalist). So I know the difference..

Btw Before I made this request, I had noted the many criticisms on the internet of the Land Registry and it's responses to the public over mystery boundary changes.

In my own case - many years ago- the Land Registry just returned my letters of enquiry ...presumably disengaging me.
If it wasn't for my MP wading in and getting a response, I wouldn't have had the four figure compensation for the wrongly changed boundary.

I wanted to know if this disengagement strategy was still in place.

A, Were the Land Registry internet critics over-dramatic?

B what process was the or now following?

C Had it cleaned up its act in the interim years?

I think this response shows that the Land Registry is still operating with its old process:

1. First refuse to give information.

2. Then personally attack anyone who continues to ask for information
( Otherwise why use my personal information as a response to this request? )

3. If that doesn't work - Disengage them.

I therefore find myself agreeing with other critics of the Land Registry.

I now don't believe that they are exaggerating, or are over-dramatic about their dealings with this organisation.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi JT Oakley,

I first sought the information l required via many communications with my local Land Registry Office and their head office from October 2007 onwards. I then embarked on the complaints processes procedures in the literature instructing the UK Public how to do this. It was July 2009 when l first approached The Information Commissioners Office and obtained their literature. Gill Miles as Land Registrys Information Officer confirmed in writing in early March 2009 that l had lodged a valid " SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST" information request under the DPA and that it would be complied with within the required timelines. It was not complied with and Ms Miles vacated her post. I was told by the ICO there was a twelve month wait for them to come on board to investigate as they had a backlog of work. I put in three separate times to fast track the issues of my case and was refused every time. Bearing in mind this was on top of TWO LOTS of MISLEADING LITERATURE sent out to the UK Public by LAND REGISTRY and THE ADJUDICATOR to HM LAND REGISTRY. A recipe for disaster for anyone caught in expensive litigation and denied information needed for the court processes they were forced into by Land Registry themselves ( over 6,500 cases ). Then Julius Juispais ( INFORMATION OFFICER at the AHMLR) who put in writing that l just needed to keep sending Land Registry certified to be true copies of the damning proof and evidence l had that Land Registry had cocked up, validated my FOIA request to him for numbers of the public sent misleading literature was appropriate and that it would be answered , for him to them leave his post and no information being provided. Three OFFICE MANAGERS at the AHMLR ( two vacated their posts) failed to answer this validly lodged FOIA request which the ICO was not answering communications over the difficulties l was experiencing from me over. The OFFICIAL LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION LEGAL PAPERWORK FOR SOMEONE PURPORTING TO ME ( changed their name by deedpoll in 1999/2000) sent to me and returned to LSC in early March 2000, which was still not corrected by either LSC or Land Registry , was directed by the head of THE ECONOMIC CRIME UNIT, that the appropriate action was to send to the ICO. The ICO said they did not understand the DOCUMENTS. It was documents for a charge against my home for someone else , and it amounting to an ERROR IN THE CAUTION REGISTER AT LAND REGISTRY THAT AFFECTED ME AS THE PERSON RECORDED ON THEIR PROPRIATARY REGISTER WHICH WAS MEANT TO AFFORD ME IMMEDIATE RECTIFICATION OF THE REGISTER. The UK PUBLIC need to be made aware that Land Registry and it's staff are never held accountable for the human misery they cause and and it should come with an OFFICAL HEALTH WARNING as to how events caused by this out of control agency affects the victims being targeted of valuable assets such as their homes / farms / land / businesses. Land Registry only recently started making record of their telephone calls regarding cases. Yet on the 23 rd October 2007 Claire Graham ( now Claire Holland) CSM at KUH Land Registry , telephoned my acting solicitors and them came on the telephone to me screaming like a banshee , telling me l could not be looking to complain about another property , as l did not own one. The day lists for KUH Land Registry dated for the morning of the 16 th February 2007 show that their Yvonne Owen removed a property and fifty acres of land from the TID ( TITLE ABSOLUTE DOCUMENT OF MY OWNERSHIP OF A REGISTERED TITLE PROTECTED BY AND THROUGH LAND REGISTRYS INDEMNITY) dated for the 13 th February 2007 already sent to me. Ms Owen did this after speaking to me on the 15 th February 2007 and confirming that the error in the caution register would be finally corrected . This was for an error I had already at that time been reporting to both Land Registry and LSC for over eight years. HELL HAS NO FURY LIKE THE STAFF AT LAND REGISTRY AND LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION ( NOW THE LEGAL AID AGENCY) and l personally would like answers to how much these same staff get paid for the extra caricular activities that amounts to many millions of pounds and unbelievable hardship to targeted victims

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

WDTK requesters -be warned -the Commissioner states that Annotations on WDTK are part of the the Scope of the Request...even though they are not received by the requested organisation concerned.

And requests can be declared 'vexatious' & 'frivolous' - even if you give other interested parties an explanation of the why of a process request via annotations.

Therefore, despite the Land Registry putting my personal details on WDTK three times (which prolonged matters) this has been declared a 'frivolous' request.

::::::

Interestingly, the same FOIA request ( offline) was handled by Ordnance Survey which replied with a different tone -applying Section 16 help and advice, to my satisfaction.

::

This is how the ICO decided that annotations to other WDTK readers made me 'frivolous' and therefore vexatious.......

:::

Under Section 50(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) the Commissioner has the right to dismiss a complaint if she believes the complaint to be frivolous or vexatious. The ICO considers that a complaint may be thought of as frivolous if it has no serious intent, or is considered unworthy of serious treatment.

The application of Section 50(2)(c) has similarities to that of Section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) whereby a public authority is under no obligation to deal with a request which is found to be vexatious/ manifestly unreasonable.

----

Nb The Land Registry eventually gave me the requested information ( see above)...so I am puzzled as to why the request, should have been 'vexatious or unreasonable'.

----

The ICO will take into account both the complainant’s apparent purpose and the effect of handling the complaint, whether or not intended. It is not necessary to demonstrate both intent and effect in order for Section 50(2)(c) to be applicable; if the effect alone is unwarranted that may be sufficient reason to justify treating a complaint as frivolous or vexatious.

The ICO must consider the effect that dealing with such complaints will have, both in relation to our duty to make effective use of our limited resources, and in ensuring that this office and the Act are not brought into disrepute by progressing complaints which do not justify serious consideration.

The Commissioner notes that in annotations made on ‘What do they know’ (WDTK) relating to this specific request, you point out that Land Registry was involved in a previous pay out to you. You suggest that this has had an impact on how Land Registry handles your request; your suggestion that requests are refused because Land Registry fears “some kind of imaginary law suit” effectively alleges that because of your previous dealings, Land Registry does not now comply with the FOIA in respect of your particular requests.

-----

Nb Reference to annotations..I don't 'campaign' against the Land Registry and I am not part of any campaign group. All I do is respond to other people interested in how the Land Registry works.

---

The Commissioner considers that the annotations made by you on WDTK and the view you have set out could be considered inflammatory and could be considered campaign-like in nature.

In your requests and further correspondence on WDTK, you set out to Land Registry that “it is your choice whether or not to comply with the ACT”; the Commissioner considers this to support the view that there is no serious intent behind your ‘request’ but rather that WDTK serves as a vehicle to publicly air your grievances about Land Registry and to question its integrity and ability to Act within the confines of the FOIA in respect of your requests, suggesting that Land Registry may perceive compliance with the Act to be optional.

Although you have set out in this request that you are asking for recorded information, I note that you then ask:

-------

Nb This was an enquiry about the processing ( see title above) on WHY there are provable failures within the system.

And therefore, as a matter of public interest, it was important to understand the processing which led to it.

And for which I eventually got an answer (see above). So the information requested WAS on record but not immediately disclosed.

Logically, if the Land Registry had supplied the information in the first instance, instead of putting my internal Land Registry record online ( removed by WDTK) then it need not have dragged on as far as it did.

-------

“How can land existing – but ‘vanished’ from LR mapping – be described when enquiring of the LR why it doesn’t exist in LR mapping…. As – despite enquiring I have been unable to gain a reply from the LR?

It is the Commissioner’s view that a question such as this does not constitute a request for recorded information but serves only as a public criticism of Land Registry’s handling of your previous correspondence.

Nb The previous correspondence ? .....presumably before the Land Registry finally decided to supply a response to the actual request ? ( see above). Determination was essential so that the Land Registry would eventually provide the response.

IMO - Determination entirely produced through frustration does not equal 'venting' or 'vexation' by a requester.

Your second question then sets out that your previous correspondence is reasonable but that you have had no reply so you have had to ask if Land Registry has discontinued its policy of returning letters with a compliments slip “without answering them (which was the policy strategy used to cover up a LR mistake…. And for which the LR eventually had to pay out a four figure sum.” This again demonstrates that your correspondence has little serious intent other than to publicly vent your frustration with Land Registry.

----

Nb LR paid me around £8k... I didn't even have to threaten court. So I have no reason to 'vent frustration' in that I'm not 'frustrated'. The Land Registry admitted it had acted wrongly ....and I have £8k of public money to spend accordingly.

IMO - The public might like to know if the Land Registry is still handing out ££££££'s of public money on the same systemic basis.

----

It is the Commissioner’s view that this represents a further example of a ‘question’ which sets out your position that you are reasonable and that Land Registry does not handle your correspondence effectively (or in a way which you find acceptable). It is not a request for recorded information as even the question which relates to ‘policy’ requires a yes or no answer rather than the provision of recorded information.

---

Nb The Land Registry admitted that it did not 'handle the correspondence affectively' - £3k of the £8k was paid to me on just this very point.

All I wanted to know was was did the Land Registry now have proper procedures which meant it didn't have to pay £3k of public money to those members of the public to which it had refused to communicate.

Your additional questions, which I will not detail here, also set out what is essentially your position regarding your experience with Land Registry. These do not constitute requests for recorded information.

-----

Nb What additional questions?

Annotations are not within the scope of the request.

Although, apparently, if you ask a question in an annotation - they are taken into account in deciding a request is frivolous.

----

The Freedom of Information Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent and accountable. It is not intended to be used as a vehicle for individuals to pursue their own personal agenda or vendetta against a particular public authority.

Nb The £8k I received is proof that I don't have a 'personal vendetta'. Why would I? I won.

The lack of willingness by the Land Registry to explain its procedures, which can be construed as an unwillingness to be 'transparent and open' to the public on why it makes the £££££ mistakes that it does, is why I made the request.

The public have a right to know how the system of handling their money works and if there are enough safeguards in place to avoid paying out unnecessarily.

The Commissioner will not now consider any further complaints from you which stem from this same topic as it will not be an effective use of limited resources and could impact on the reputation of the ICO. As such I can confirm that this complaint case is now closed.

Ends

:::::

Nb No need. The LR eventually responded to the request ( see above).

So why it's considered 'frivolous' if it eventually elicited a response, I'm not sure. Surely frivolity is when there can be no logical FOIA response and the requester is aware of it.

::

Ps I wrote to the ICO and explained that the Ordnance Survey had responded to almost the same request in a sensible way, applying Section 16; didn't put my personal data on the internet as a 'legal defence' and, as far as I was concerned, had done a good job and acted within the spirit of the FOIA.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Apparently the accusation now is that I made a vexatious complaint to the ICO.

Not made a vexatious request.

However, it was only by complaining to the ICO - that I received the requested information on 'Land Registry File processes to change file boundaries' from the Land Registry ( as above) .

So it seems a complaint to the ICO can still be viewed by the ICO as 'frivolous' and therefore vexatious - EVEN if the complaint produces the formerly witheld data from the requested public organisation.

So I'm now totally baffled.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi J T Oakley,
thank you for providing the much needed proof of the further inadequancies of Land Registry and a system that fails the UK Public . I would like to post that an episode of " Pie in the Sky" , ( a series l really liked ) , named " Breaking Bread" , that was recorded in 1994 , but aired on the 13 th October 1996 ; about a possessory claim that was later completely unravelled and returned to the actual owner , following the finding of the " claim" being actually a week short of the " twelve year period" required for such a claim. My case involving my neighbours claim was similarly filed early despite written admittance from Kingston upon Hull Land Registry's Assistant Registrar , to the actual date the twelve years should have run from, was still referred by same Assistant Registrar for judicial involvement of The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry , and while forming part of an over- riding interest claim that also should not have happened because of the known caution in play ( flagged up with my providing official documents as proof of it being an " error in the caution register) . This was an error of someone else supposedly living at my property, with their having a legal aid charge , that the paperwork for this charge was recorded in Land Registrys filing system , but hidden from me, until their fatal mistake of my receiving the other persons file. Even though Land Registry Forms all state to tell them if details are incorrect , in my case where l am on record repeatedly reporting such errors , no correction was made. If the episode of Pie in the Sky , being about a senior police officer and his accountant wife , was factually correct ( and l believe it was) , then Land Registry were fully complicit in many acted out incidences of acting unlawfully in not rectifying the register and also their acting outside of their remits , with their telephoning my acting solicitors to arrange non- disclosure of sole basis of this claim , that Land Registry admitted in writing was a point in law against them , but actually further hid ( until the ICO 's ruling that released Land Registry Iles to me), other undisclosed issues . The Land Registry Solicitor who admitted the point in law in my favour against Land Registry , is remaining silent on these further non- disclosures. It all goes to show there is a unlevel playing field , with Land Registry choosing to run with property / land theft , and no equality of arms for the owners of even registered titles. Also worth noting is the first ruling of The Advertising Standards Authority , for the complaint against Land Registry , and this being dated for the 30 th May 2007, where Land Registry on record stated that no - one could claim registered land by adverse land possession. The " land" involved in my case had been confirmed to be my registered land and original official Land Registry Forms for registered land ( filed to meet the first sweep of compulsory registrations) , was filed , within the relevant timeframe of what is a registered title , for someone working in a planning office at East Lindsey District Council to then falsify a claim . This person also previously had lied on a planning application, that a rather disgusted Architect kicked up the whole file of that claim, because as he said he " could have ended up in a lot of trouble, because of the lies being told". And this file proved the party making the claim had perjured themselves , with their entering false evidence at court in May 2009 , with evidence that had clearly been altered from what had been put forward for the planning application in 1991. Although l provided by registered post , full copy of this Architect's file in 2009 , to the AHMLR , it was not acknowledged or answered.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thank you D Smith

But I don't know anything that would help your case as I don't understand the legalities of the situation.

What I do understand is that if you simply ask to read how the Land Registry processes ownership documents -including changes-and records this on file it is extraordinarily aggressive in making an FOIA a legal case and treating you as someone who has a legal case against it,.

If you've read the above, you've seen the lengths this authority has gone to to avoid giving me the information..putting my personal data on the internet and doing everything it can to avoid responding to the request

It's the worst organisation that I have ever had to deal with for data handling - simply because it personalises an FOIA request in this way and divulges personal addresses etc - to make a legal point, not respond to a FOIA request.

;;;

You will see from the above that -as I already knew the information was on its files-( I just didn't know the details ) , I eventually got the Land Registry to admit it existed.

And provide it for the public to read.

:::

I cannot see how that can be be vexatious my part, which is what the ICO alleges.

The information existed, it should of been provided.

And, as a retired journalist, my interest is why it wasn't - leaving me to continue the request.

What is it that the Land Registry has to hide?

Is it embarrassed as it is not confirming to its own processes?

What is it that would drive its defence so much ....that it withheld its processes ?

:::

As for the ICO, it did warn the Land Registry not to continue to divulge my personal infurnatiin but the Land Registry cintinued to do so (x2).

I complained again - but the ICO did nothing.

And apparently I am now vexatious for:

1. Obtaining information the Land Registry had on file - but would not divulge - but eventually did.
It was vexatious to continue to ask for information that I knew was on file (infurmatiin from a reliable legal source) but was not being divulged.

- This point is not mentioned in the vexatious accusations . It's as if the information eventually produced was completely was irrelevant to the request, as it's STILL assumed that the request was 'personal' ..and only related to me.

The logical explanation of this 'personalisation' is that the processing data obtained (above)can ONLY applied to one case and not to every mapping change the Land Registry handles. Which is clearly untrue.

2. And the Land Registry is squeaky clean - despite divulging personal data on the internet four times - and replying to an FOIA request as if it was a personal law case -which never existed.

Nb I've had to write to the ICO asking :

'Didn't you realise that the Land Registry HAD ( at long last) provided the requested information before accusing me of making a vexatious request?

::::

For anyone puzzled by the whole thing, Ordnance Survey records the reality... fences, buildings, ponds geographical things

It does NOT consider property deeds, which show ownership of land.

So a neighbour can say ...relocate a fence on the adjoining land... and its that geographical physical reality is what the OS records.

This does not affect the legal boundary marked in the DEEDS - Which is the paperwork on which the land that is sold.

The OS then sends its the mapping to the Land Registry - and the Land Registry provides the geographical physical reality map to potential purchasers etc.

::::

Buyers should therefore be aware that Land Registry mapping only follows the geographical physical reality of the land it's so it's mapping may not reflect ownership accurately.

So potential property purchasers should be aware that they should-

1. never rely on Land Registry mapping
2. employ a lawyer to check the deeds before purchase and sort out any erroneously marked boundaries before buying.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Thanks J T Oakley,
all very informative and definately something that needs addressing by government and the courts, to why an organisation whose head of fraud stated she saw her role at Land Registry as one to protect the Public's assets.
She as head of fraud is based at Gloucester Land Registry , where incidentally the newly formed " Citizen Centre" ( previously sited at Swansea Land Registry) is now transferred to.
A solicitor with a national firm of solicitors who also worked for Gloucester Council and in his other role working for Gloucester Council, used his own money to take a case where Land Registry were covering up things , to The High Courts . He won eventually with the help of The Private Eye publishing his case and facts regarding the way Land Registry conducts itself.
My case should never have occurred as it is all over registered land that KUH Land Registry confirmed to be registered land and then knowingly and while colluding with East Lindsey District Council, allowed a council worker in planning to put in a claim.
This person admitted to an attending on duty police officer that he knew his claim was for land already registered to me and this was witnessed by me and another. We swore statements to this affect and l informed ELDC of their employee's conduct . I put in an information request to get the police officers notes and it took me years and what l got was so heavily redacted you could not read it. This neighbour.not only worked for ELDC , he also had a son in the Police Force.
The land involved has not been given to this neighbour by either Land Registry or The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry.
What has happened is a small triangular bit of land was awarded by possessory title , that cannot stand as neither the timeframe under The Limitation Act was complied with for the supposed twelve years and the land was already registered so the form for the giving of possessory title could not be filed or the fee for it' s filing , be paid for.
The whole thing is just left up in the air , with Land Regiatry ignoring any attempt at communication with them and seemingly hoping they get privatised and can then totally shut members of the public off from redress.
A registered title showing as " Title Absolute " and correctly recording the acreage is meant to be protected by and through Land Registry.
This clearly is not happening .
If Land Registry were in any way conducting themselves within the law , they would pass cases to the police to investigate fraud and perjury .
A retired senior police officer of thirty years standing , wrote on my behalf to my neighbours employees ( East Lindsey District Council) , stating that if no one continued to look at the evidence l have , then it could be perceived that maladministration in public office was occurring.
No action has been taken by ELDC against this now former employee , lying on a planning application for land in 1991 , that he still does not own even now.
This would amount to a large fine at county court level.
Every avenue is scuppered as we the UK Public can be steered and conjoled out of valuable property / land , even when it is supposedly protected and registered under Land Registry's indemnity .

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I have been declared vexatious for complaining that the Land Registry witheld data - which I knew existed (advised by a professional).

As can be seen from above, the Land Registry finally PROVIDED the requested information.

And that the Land Registry treated this as a personal request by putting my personal data, (address and case file) on WDTK as a personal response from a lawyer, and therefore not a FOIA response.

::::

My complaint:

1. A public authority failed to supply the requested data. (FOIA)

2. Broke the DPA by posting my personal information on this WDTK afour times. (DPA)

:::

Nevertheless, it is me who is declared 'frivolous' and 'vexatious'.

So no matter if the public authority has eventually provided the witheld data, it is the requester who Is wrong for continuing to ask for the data which s/he knows exists.

--

The purpose was to find out why there are consistent anomalies in LR mapping at a time when the Land Registry was to be privatised,which it is why it was of public interest.

- Frustration does not equal vexation.

:::..

Case Reference: FS50647121

Dear Jto

I am writing in reference to the above complaint which relates to correspondence sent to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Land Registry).

I have now had the opportunity to consider your correspondence fully and the Commissioner’s position is set out below.

Under Section 50(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) the Commissioner has the right to dismiss a complaint if she believes the complaint to be frivolous or vexatious. The ICO considers that a complaint may be thought of as frivolous if it has no serious intent, or is considered unworthy of serious treatment.

The application of Section 50(2)(c) has similarities to that of Section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) whereby a public authority is under no obligation to deal with a request which is found to be vexatious/ manifestly unreasonable.

The ICO will take into account both the complainant’s apparent purpose and the effect of handling the complaint, whether or not intended. It is not necessary to demonstrate both intent and effect in order for Section 50(2)(c) to be applicable; if the effect alone is unwarranted that may be sufficient reason to justify treating a complaint as frivolous or vexatious.

The ICO must consider the effect that dealing with such complaints will have, both in relation to our duty to make effective use of our limited resources, and in ensuring that this office and the Act are not brought into disrepute by progressing complaints which do not justify serious consideration.

Turning specifically to your current complaint, I am writing to advise you that we are dismissing your complaint as frivolous, under section 50(2)(c) for the following reasons.

It appears that your information request to Land Registry and subsequent complaint to this office directly relates to previous requests you have made to Land Registry and complaints you have made to the Information Commissioner’s Office. These relate to the boundary at your address.

:::::

Nb Incorrect The request does not relate to any of my 'own property boundaries' - which I persistently stated to the ICO.

For a start, I have more than one property:

1. The Land Registry had to pay me a considerable sum over a mistakenly 'moved' boundary on one property.

2. The Land Registry also asserted that it was NOT subject to FOIA .....and that is why the request ended up on WDTK.

::::

You have pursued information requests with the Land Registry and complaints with the Commissioner where, even if the request appears to be related to a general issue, there is invariably some connection to the boundary issue at your address. The Commissioner is satisfied that although you state that your current request is not about a specific piece of land,

::::

Nb I consistently stated that this was NOT a personal request.

And gave my reasoning for the request as the mooted privatisation of the LA.

If the Land Registry processing is not sound, then the privatisation should not go ahead.

Which thanks to public objections - it didn't.

::::.

many of your previous dealings with Land Registry, which the Commissioner has taken into account, stem from concerns you have about your belief that your boundary has been moved (?) and it is her position that this request does indeed stem from that same issue and is inextricably linked to it.

:::

As the Land Registry stated it was NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA, it complicated matters unnecessarily.

(?) I think this means the boundary to one of my properties.

It is not stated whether this is the property for which the Land Registry had to compensate me - for wrongly redrawing the boundary - without informing me. Which is why I know there is a problem with processing,

However that is an past issue.

I have no current legal problem with the Land Registry. I am not seeking any compensation and my FOIA requests were only to obtain processing information. For instance, the Land Registry had no idea what metadata is - and this had to be explained,which again, provoked more correspondence.

:::

It is the Commissioner’s position that Land Registry should have considered the impact and burden of your correspondence at an earlier stage and should have considered the application of section 14 or Regulation 12(4)(b). However, she understands and accepts that in responding to your requests, Land Registry has been trying to be helpful.

::::::

By withholding the requested data?

If the Land Registry had stuck to the FOIA - instead of treating it as an imaginary legal issue which required my personal information to be divulged on the internet, the 'process' response request would have taken weeks, rather than months.

::::

The Commissioner notes that in annotations made on ‘What do they know’ (WDTK) relating to this specific request, you point out that Land Registry was involved in a previous pay out to you. You suggest that this has had an impact on how Land Registry handles your request; your suggestion that requests are refused because Land Registry fears “some kind of imaginary law suit” effectively alleges that because of your previous dealings, Land Registry does not now comply with the FOIA in respect of your particular requests.

::::

Since the responses persistently included my personal details (breaking the DPA) , then it was the LA's choice to treat it as a personal matter, not mine. Having brought my personal information into the request, it was only equal to bring an example if the Land Registry needed clarification.

::::::

The Commissioner considers that the annotations made by you on WDTK and the view you have set out could be considered inflammatory and could be considered campaign-like in nature.

:::::

As an ex - newspaper editor ...and now sometime journalist, I don't join campaigns - I interview campaigners.

And what is a campaign-like annotation?

Nb WDTK Annotations are NOT sent to the Public Authority.

And if I'm not mistaken, UK citizens are entitled to have opinions, which may be expressed publically - if they are truthful.
If they are malicious,( frivolous) or untruthful ( vexatious) , that is a different matter.

:::::

In your requests and further correspondence on WDTK, you set out to Land Registry that “it is your choice whether or not to comply with the ACT”; the Commissioner considers this to support the view that there is no serious intent behind your ‘request’ but rather that WDTK serves as a vehicle to publicly air your grievances about Land Registry and to question its integrity and ability to Act within the confines of the FOIA in respect of your requests, suggesting that Land Registry may perceive compliance with the Act to be optional.

::::

My intent was serious - as I knew information was being witheld. ( annotated as above).

::::

Although you have set out in this request that you are asking for recorded information, I note that you then ask:

“How can land existing – but ‘vanished’ from LR mapping – be described when enquiring of the LR why it doesn’t exist in LR mapping…. As – despite enquiring I have been unable to gain a reply from the LR?

:::.

This was added as a clarification, as I knew the files existed. And the Land Registry was not responding.

::

It is the Commissioner’s view that a question such as this does not constitute a request for recorded information but serves only as a public criticism of Land Registry’s handling of your previous correspondence.

:::::

If I'd wanted to publically criticise the LR, I would have taken to Twitter, or Facebook ....and invited others to join in.

The response was intended to flesh out an article I was writing. And my support of a non-privatised Land Registry

::::::

Your second question then sets out that your previous correspondence is reasonable but that you have had no reply so you have had to ask if Land Registry has discontinued its policy of returning letters with a compliments slip “without answering them (which was the policy strategy used to cover up a LR mistake…. And for which the LR eventually had to pay out a four figure sum.” This again demonstrates that your correspondence has little serious intent other than to publicly vent your frustration with Land Registry.

:::

Frustration? As they paid me a four figure sum, I'm hardly likely to complain about it.

The request was to find out if the process had improved in the meantime.

Frustration does not equal vexation. Especially if the requested data exists.

::::

It is the Commissioner’s view that this represents a further example of a ‘question’ which sets out your position that you are reasonable and that Land Registry does not handle your correspondence effectively (or in a way which you find acceptable). It is not a request for recorded information as even the question which relates to ‘policy’ requires a yes or no answer rather than the provision of recorded information.

1. Does the requested processing exist? The Land Registry was stating that it didn't.
2. If that was true, what exactly was the processing policy?

If the Land Registry:

1. Provides no reply - until an MP gets involved
2. States it is not subject to FOIA
3. Breaks the DPA
4. Withholds known requested information
5 And forces clarifications from the requester by stating the data doesn't exist ....
6. .... And then provides the previously 'non -existent' information

The complaint was 'frivolous'?

Your additional questions, which I will not detail here, also set out what is essentially your position regarding your experience with Land Registry. These do not constitute requests for recorded information.

::::

The questions involved knowing how the Land Registry could process property boundary changes a without having any information on file for employees to do so.

Logically, that's a reasonable question.

::::

The Freedom of Information Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent and accountable. It is not intended to be used as a vehicle for individuals to pursue their own personal agenda or vendetta against a particular public authority.

The Commissioner will not now consider any further complaints from you which stem from this same topic as it will not be an effective use of limited resources and could impact on the reputation of the ICO. As such I can confirm that this complaint case is now closed.

Yours sincerely

:::::::::::::::

I asked if the Commissioner is doing anything about:

1. The four DPA breaches ( 2+2)
2. And the fact that the Land Registry had the requested data on file - when the request was made.

But apparently it is still only me who is 'frivolous' and 'vexatious'.

The Land Registry is entirely blameless.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

FRIVOLOUS :
ˈfrɪv(ə)ləs/
adjective
not having any serious purpose or value.
"frivolous ribbons and lacy frills"
synonyms: flippant, glib, waggish, joking, jokey, light-hearted, facetious, fatuous, inane, shallow, superficial, senseless, thoughtless, ill-considered, non-serious; More
(of a person) carefree and superficial.
"the frivolous, fun-loving flappers of the twenties"
synonyms: giddy, silly, foolish, facetious, zany, light-hearted, merry, superficial, shallow, lacking seriousness, non-serious, light-minded, whimsical, skittish, flighty, irresponsible, thoughtless, lacking in sense, feather-brained, empty-headed, pea-brained, birdbrained, vacuous, vapid;

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Dear J T Oakley,
errors that should have been corrected in August 1995 , when it was first realised over the amount of land with my already registered title, by East Linsley District Council and their sending out a Bailiff to my home only weeks after l had moved in ; then were allowed to continue even including my medical files in 1996 going astray to people involved in the engineered property / land frauds. I involved my MP ( Sir Peter Tapsell) in 2000 after having been sent someone else's Legal Aid File. My MP involved the CAB. That was the sole contribution of my MP. When issues arose again in 2007 he was reluctant to become involved again, telling me that the Head of Civil Bills ( Robbie Crane) at the LSC was the exact person to sort matters out. Mr Crane neglected to correct the issues of corruption back in 2002 and even earlier when he had headed up the Land Charges Division of the LSC. Mr Crane was shocked to learn his immediate boss's ( Ruth Wyatt) live in partner ( Angus Andrews) was as a Deputy Adjudicator involved in his role as Commissioner to the LSC and as a barrister ( having taken the same oath as judges take over conflict matters and always speaking out), was all issues that Mr Crane stated to me "should never have been allowed to happen " , he also told me it was now " a conflict matter". However either he did not report matters to his boss Ms Wyatt or she decided to sweep it under the carpet. LSC like LAND REGISTRY perceive they are above the law or their being answerable to service / conduct and maladministration , or even to the courts or our MP's.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The response was eventually sent to my private address:

List of acronyms used:

LRA 1925 and 2002= Land Registration Acts
LRR 2003 = Land Registration Rules
DFL= dispositionary first lease
FRs= First registration
TPs Transfer of part
DLG = dealing
RCU2= Civil Service equivalent Higher Executive Officer
TT1= Civil Service Equivalent Senior Executive Officer
TT3 = lawyer (Civil Service Grade 7 or above)
OT= Old title
NT= New title
RU authority=
OC’s= official copies
DEV titles
OS= official search
EPA= estate plan approval
SCT = Senior Casework Team
PAS= points arising screen
CRX= correction
DCX= departmental correction
SIM= search of the index map
CMS= case management system
ANO= application number
TID= title information document
LSTBR=land sought to be registered

From our internal guidance on Searches of the Index Map;

5.2.2 Overlaps revealed on a SIM

There will be occasions where a SIM plan legend box will show an ***OVERLAP***. All overlap warnings must be investigated and accounted for before completion of the SIM result.
5.2.2.1 Overlaps due to incorrect indexing

If after viewing the affected title plan(s) the overlap can be attributed to incorrect indexing, the index polygons must be amended to reflect the correct extent(s). Minor index polygon amendments should be made as part of the SIM process to improve the accuracy of the index map and speed up subsequent casework and SIMs. If the index polygon amendments required are more complex, they should be referred to your local Data Integrity team for resolution if available, otherwise the corrective action must be undertaken in team. Even if you have to refer the indexing for amendment you should not allow this to delay the completion of the SIM result.
5.2.2.2 Overlaps which cannot be attributed to incorrect indexing
If after viewing the affected title plan(s) the overlap cannot be attributed to incorrect indexing complete the SIM to reveal the overlap and inform the applicant by issuing stock letter with the result. You must have this approved by a TT1 holder.
You must prepare a SIM plan to illustrate the area of overlap. Which should be issued locally with the result and stock letter 026. Whilst it is not ideal that the SIM result reveals the overlap this will be a ‘true’ reflection of the position of the index map until such time as it is resolved.
You must then log the details on the overlap management system and verbally refer the overlap to a RCU2 holder in your team using the procedures described in Topic –

FR04 – EXTENT (Extract relating to boundaries)
8​Overlaps in first registration
8.1​Background
When an application lodged for first registration includes land that is already registered we must consider the conflict and, where necessary, resolve it. This section aims to ensure that we all approach this situation in the same way.
This section does not apply:
​If title to the overlap land lodged for FR is based on adverse possession. In this instance, see Topic – Adverse Possession of registered land.
​If title to the overlap is based on estate right or interest (ERI).
​Where the overlap is between surface land and a mines and minerals title. In this instance, see Topic – Mines and minerals. If there is an overlap between two mines and minerals titles, refer to TT1 holder.
​When no documentary evidence of title has been provided to the land that is already registered. In this event, limit to exclude the already registered land and issue stock letter PL017 .
The approach is intended to avoid delays by:
​completing first registration applications to exclude the estate in land that is already registered, leaving that land to be added later if and when the existing title is altered;
​ensuring that we know whether or not the applicant for first registration wants to pursue the matter before we commence alteration procedures; and
​serving notice at an early stage, where the applicant does apply to alter rather than attempting to resolve the issue by correspondence.
.
8.2​Is there an overlap?
8.2.1​ Refer any conflict
Where the documentary title with a FR application seems to conflict with an existing registered title refer, verbally where possible, as soon as you can, to a RCU2 holder. By applying the following paragraphs and following the Overlap process map part 1 the RCU2 holder will decide whether the conflict amounts to an overlap that requires further investigation. The RCU2 holder should refer any case of doubt to a TT1 holder or to a TT3 holder. If the conclusion is that there is no overlap, the RCU2 holder should briefly record this decision, and the reasons for it, on the PAS of the FR application. In that event complete the FR as normal, taking no action on the existing registered title. If the RCU2 holder decides that there is an overlap that requires further investigation then the procedures in Resolving an overlap will apply.
8.2.2​The conflict may be real or apparent
Our title plans are based on the OS map and drawn with general boundaries only. Where a registered title and an unregistered title seem to include the same land an investigation will show whether, taking into account the scale and surveying tolerances to which the OS map and our title plans are drawn, there is a real conflict (an overlap where there may have been double conveyancing or an LR error) or only an apparent conflict (no overlap because the conflict may be explained by scale and mapping tolerances).
8.2.3​If the current OS map and the title plan of the registered title show the relevant boundary feature differently
​Investigation of the current OS map and the version on which the existing title plan is based may show that the difference in position may be accounted for by more accurate mapping on the current OS map and not a physical movement of the boundary on the ground.
​If, on a fair interpretation of the existing title plan, its replacement with one based on the current OS map would not change the registered extent, then the conflict is apparent, not real, and there is no overlap. This is the case in which the B104 procedure is available. The B104 effectively tells the registered proprietor “we have updated your title plan but not changed the extent.” In those cases where you decide that you could properly use the B104 procedure you do not need to actually use it, unless substantial confusion is likely to result if we leave the current title plan in existence.
​If replacing the existing title plan would materially change the registered extent then the conflict must be real and there is an overlap that must be investigated further.
.
8.2.4​If the current OS map and the title plan do not show a feature on the relevant boundary
In this case we will have plotted the boundary on the title plan of the existing title and, if there is still no feature shown on the current OS map we would be plotting the boundary on the title plan of the new title. In such a case you should carefully check the base map detail, the title deeds of the First Registration and the extent of the existing title.
The position of the plotted boundary on the existing title plan will be drawn in relation to surrounding detail on the Ordnance Survey map. If the conflict in the position of the two plotted boundaries can be attributed to more accurate mapping on the later OS map detail then the B104 procedure should be considered for the existing title.
If the relative position of the surrounding detail does not account for the apparent conflict then the conflict is real. Proceed as set out in Topic – Mapping Errors Uncovered by Land Registry – General guidance on typical examples and Resolving an overlap.
Even title plans mapped with plotted boundaries due to the absence of physical features on the ground only show the general position of the registered land but must be an accurate representation of the title deeds.
8.2.5​If the boundary is plotted on the title plan but now fenced in a different position on the latest OS map
Each case will need to be considered on its individual circumstances. The surrounding map detail and the information available in the files of the registered title should be considered. The B104 procedure may be applicable if the variation between the plotted extent and the position of the new feature can be attributed to more accurate mapping on the current map.
8.3​Resolving an overlap
8.3.1​ General approach
Where there is a real conflict (as identified above) the overlap land cannot be included in a new title while registered in an existing title. It can only be removed from the existing registered title by an application for Alteration of that registered title. In the past this application has been referred to within Land Registry as an “Application for Rectification” or “Rectification” but these terms must not be used without the approval of a TT3 holder.
Do not request an inspection survey of the property just because you have identified an overlap. An inspection will normally only become necessary at a later stage if an application for alteration is made.
Do not take out an application against the existing registration until we receive an application for alteration.
Except as mentioned in 8.3.2 or 8.3.3 we will, after reference to a TT3 holder, complete the FR to exclude the overlap land, retain the pre-registration deeds and the deeds and documents for scanning on an ANO and write an explanatory letter to the applicant. If the applicant does not want to proceed with an alteration application (or does not reply within the period specified in the letter) we should issue the retained documents, TID and OC2 of the register and title plan, taking no further action to resolve the overlap.
8.3.2​If the applicant already owns the land
Always check to see who is registered as proprietor(s) of the existing registered title. If it is the applicant for FR, complete the FR to exclude the overlap land and issue an explanatory letter to the applicant with the TID, OCs and the pre-registration deeds.
8.3.3​Overlaps caused by our mistake
Occasionally you may find that the conflict results from an obvious mistake on our part. In any such case we should not try to cover up our mistake but should be entirely open and offer appropriate apologies to all concerned.
Nevertheless the procedures in this instruction apply unless there is no doubt that the correction of the mistake is in the interest of the proprietor(s) of the existing title (for example, the proprietor(s)bought and applied to register 45 Smith Street but we have registered 47 Smith Street instead). In such a case the RCU2 holder, after reference to a TT3 holder, should take out a DCX application and send a B224 notice to all of the registered proprietors of the existing title immediately. The notice should explain the error and the proposed action to correct the error. Keep the FR application pending and send a letter to the applicant to explain what is happening.
8.3.4​Reference to TT3 holder when the overlap is real
As soon as the RCU2 holder has confirmed that a real overlap exists the FR should be referred to a TT3 holder.
The TT3 holder will need certain information from you when you refer. Appendix A contains a form that acts as a useful checklist, ensuring that all necessary information is supplied.
8.3.5​TT3 holder action
The TT3 holder will consider the situation in light of the information you have supplied. Appendix B contains some points for the TT3 holder to bear in mind. Usually the TT3 holder will give instructions to send a stock letter PL013or PL014 to the applicant’s conveyancers:
​informing them of the overlap;
​explaining so far as possible how the overlap arose; and
​asking them if they wish to apply for alteration of the existing registration.
Use stock letter:
​PL013 where there are no requisitions; or
​PL014 where requisitions arise.
These letters can be tailored to fit the facts of your particular case as necessary.
Do not refer to "real" or "apparent" overlaps in these letters as they are internal Land Registry terms that may be confusing to the customer.
Where the TT3 holder will require an inspection survey if the applicant applies for alteration they should usually also give instructions at this stage as to the inspection survey to be undertaken if the applicant applies for alteration. This will avoid the need to refer back when the applicants reply to the letter.
8.3.6​RCU2 Action
On receipt of the instructions from the TT3 holder complete the examination of the FR and the preparation of the register before issuing the stock letter. Unless, unusually, the TT3 holder directs otherwise, examination should be on the basis that the overlap land will be excluded. However, you should make a PAS note as to whether any changes to the register entries and plans references would be required if the overlap land were to be included in the future. You should also make a note of what those changes would be, unless to do so would involve significant extra work.
See Overlap process map 2. If any requisitions arise, prepare them as normal and send them out with the PL014 stock letter. In such a case the time allowed for reply to the letter should be the same as the time allowed for reply to the requisitions. If the requisitions are satisfactorily dealt with before a reply to the PL014 letter is received complete the FR as detailed below where no requisitions have arisen.
If no requisitions arise send out the PL013 and complete the FR to exclude the overlap land.
The guidance for preparing external illustrative plans for issue with PL013 and PL014 is the same as that for preparing notice plans. See Topic – Notices – Preparing the notice plan.
Before marking off the application:
​Suppress the printing of the TID.
​Delete the documents for scanning header sheet – see Filing - Electronic Filing – What if I cannot send the documents for scanning immediately?.
​Mark off the application and retain the pre-registration deeds and the deeds and documents to be sent for scanning on an ANO unless the overlap arose as a result of our mistake as mentioned in Overlaps caused by our mistake.
​You must delete the documents for scanning list before marking off the application. The standalone system should then be used to create a header sheet when the documents are released for scanning.
Since the overlap land is already registered, it cannot be the subject of an application for first registration. Do not:
​keep the FR application pending on the day list; or
​take out a further application for the overlap land.

8.4​Action on reply to or expiry of stock letters PL013 and PL014
8.4.1​ Where the applicants do not seek alteration
If the applicants do not want to proceed with an alteration application or do not reply within the period mentioned in the letter there is no need to refer the case back to the TT3 holder. Mark off the ANO and issue TID, OCs and any other documents (or complete the FR to exclude the overlap land when the requisitions are satisfactorily dealt with). Take no further action regarding the existing registration. Ensure that any letter agreeing to the exclusion is added to the documents retained for scanning.
However, you must refer the case back to the TT3 holder if the applicants:
​in any way qualify their agreement to exclusion of the overlap land; and/or
​request any payment of costs or indemnity.
8.4.2​Where the applicants seek alteration
If the applicants apply in form AP1 to alter the existing title you must immediately:
​take out a DLG application, using the applicant’s details, against the existing registered title; and
​arrange for an inspection survey to be carried out if instructions have been given earlier by the TT3 holder. If there are no such instructions refer the application immediately to the TT3 holder.
​refer the result of the completed inspection survey immediately to the TT3 holder.
8.4.3​Action by TT3 holder
Where the TT3 holder is satisfied that there is evidence to justify the alteration it will be necessary to serve notice:
​B95 on all of the registered proprietors of the existing title; and
​B143 on any registered chargees.
The notice will:
​advise the registered proprietor and any chargees of the alteration application and the reasons why it has been made; and
​ask for either consent to the alteration or grounds for objecting.
The TT3 holder will either prepare and send these notices or will give instructions to do so. Only enclose a copy of Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and indemnity with the notices if instructed to do so by the TT3 holder. Send stock letter S148/A to the applicant’s conveyancer, which explains that we have served notice and how long the notice allows for reply.
8.5​ Action on reply to notice or expiry of the notice period
8.5.1​Consent or expiry without objection
Where either unconditional consents are received from all parties to whom the notices were sent or the time limit under the notices expires without any objections:
​prepare a new title plan for the existing title to exclude the overlap land;
​make entry AL143 in the A Register of the existing title and use the second *O<>O* infill to add “and showing an amended extent”;
​make any other necessary amendment to the register of the existing title as a result of removing the land, consulting the TT3 holder if necessary;
​take out a departmental DLG application, using the office key number, against the N/T (unless the FR has not yet been completed) and amend the mapping to include the formerly overlapping land; and
​using any notes you made earlier, consider whether any additional register entries or plans references are needed for the FR (title having originally been examined on the basis that the land would be excluded).
.
8.5.2​Objection, qualified consent or indemnity claim
If you receive an objection, a consent that is in any way qualified or conditional, and/or a claim for payment of costs or indemnity you must immediately take the case to a TT3 holder who will normally retain it to implement dispute procedures or negotiate a settlement of the claim.
If the TT3 holder is unable to secure an agreed settlement between the parties and Land Registry, they may refer the application to the Land Registration division of the Property Chamber, First-tier Tribunal. .
9​Appendix A - Overlap on FR - draft checklist
9.1​Information for TT3 holders
Click here for a printable version.
9.2​Initial Instructions from TT3 holder
Click here for a printable version.
10​Appendix B - Guidance on dealing with overlaps on FR
1.​Except as mentioned in 8.3.2 and 8.3.3, take no action until you have informed the applicant for FR that there is an overlap.
2.​It is for the applicant for FR to decide whether or not to apply for alteration. To give the applicant the opportunity to apply, issue stock letter PL013 where no requisitions arise; or
PL014 where requisitions arise.
3.​Until an application for alteration has been made, the registered title should not usually be investigated beyond what is possible from Land Registry files and plans records. In particular do not request the pre-registration deeds from the registered proprietor and do not undertake an inspection survey before an application for alteration has been made.
4.​If you are aware of facts that make it unlikely that an alteration application will succeed, draw attention to them in your letter. For example, it may be pretty clear that the error is in the documentary title produced with the FR application rather than in the existing registration. This would be the case, for example, where there have been two conveyances of the overlap land, the first to the registered proprietor’s predecessor and the second to the applicant’s predecessor. However, you should be careful not to appear to pre-judge the issue.
5.​Decide whether or not to include the paragraph about indemnity in the light of the particular facts of your case. It will only be appropriate to include it and to issue a copy of Practice Guide 39 Rectification and indemnity where the alteration is one that will amount to a rectification. But in the example given in the preceding paragraph it would clearly be sensible to omit the indemnity information.
6.​Once an application for alteration has been made an inspection survey may be undertaken:
-​to ensure that any notice plan will correctly show the position on the ground; and
-​to establish, if possible, who is in possession of the overlap land (although remember that possession is not an issue where the alteration will not amount to a rectification).
7.​To avoid any unnecessary referral back, give instructions on the scope of the inspection as part of your initial consideration of the case.
8.​If the inspection survey establishes that the registered proprietor is in possession of the overlap land, and the proposed alteration appears to amount to a rectification, inform the applicant of the effect of paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 4 LRA 2002 and that this is only relevant to an alteration that will amount to a rectification before any notices are served. If, after being so informed, the applicant decides to continue with the application for alteration, notice(s) should then be served.
9.​Subject to the result of any inspection survey referred to above, on receipt of the application for alteration, serve notice on the registered proprietors of the land and of any registered charge. Issue a B95 to all of the registered proprietors and a B143 to any chargee.
10.​Unless the applicant indicates otherwise, treat the application for alteration as being under paragraph 5(a), Schedule 4 LRA 2002.
Any objections to the proposed alteration must be dealt with in accordance with normal dispute procedures.

Algorithm referred to in section 8.3.6Algorithm referred to in section 9.1
Overlap on FR – draft checklist
Overlap on first registration of title number:

Information for TT3 holders
1.
An overlap exists with registered title(s)

2.
Applicant has title to LSTBR vide:

3.
Please confirm that the overlap cannot be accounted for by:
• OS map generalisation
• OS map tolerances

4.
See copy deed plan/print attached showing:
• land in title(s)​coloured​and
• land in this application coloured
• overlapping land coloured

5.
SIMs
• SIM lodged/not lodged with first registration.
• SIM includes/excludes the overlap land.
• Result of SIM correct/incorrect.

6.
See file of existing title(s)​enclosed
• Title shown based on a deed dated
• Mapping appears to have been completed correctly/incorrectly.
• Mapping was completed in accordance with plan to
• Mapping was completed in accordance with instructions given by ​on
• Mapping was completed in accordance with fencing shown on the OS map edition dated
• Mapping was completed on the basis of a survey dated
• Other editions of OS/County Series maps available on Computer Mapping System dated
• Common vendor name
• Sold land in this application on
• Sold land in overlap title on

7.
Other comments, eg: information from the office page or office page graphic

Name​Signed​Date

Algorithm referred to in section 9.2
Initial instructions from TT3 holder
Name

Instruction
Initials
Date
1.
Map and examine first registration on basis that overlapping land will be excluded. Make a brief note of any entries that would need to be added/changed if it were included.

2.
Unless requisitions arise, mark off first registration, take out ANO and retain documents. Do not issue TID.

3.
Send stock letter PL013/PL014 to conveyancers/applicants enclosing:
• explanatory plan

[TT3 holder to complete/delete as appropriate]
An initial investigation of our files suggests this has arisen because

It is not clear from our files how this situation has arisen.
Include/delete the paragraph about indemnity.

4.
Stand over ANO for any reply.

5
If no reply, or if the applicant consents unconditionally to the exclusion of the land, despatch the case and mark off the ANO.
Refer to TT3 holder any qualified consent or query about indemnity.

6
If, but only if, the applicant applies for alteration, take out DLG against title(s)…..

7.
If, but only if, the applicant applies for alteration, arrange standard Land Registry inspection [plus photos] of the overlap land, and refer result to TT3 holder.
Additional instructions to surveyor:

Refer back to TT3 holder with result of inspection.

Final instructions following receipt of result of inspection

8.
Send notice B95 [B141 in respect of an application lodged for alteration before 13 October 2003] to each proprietor of title ……, enclosing:
• plan based on survey detail, showing (a) overlap (b) residue of title ….. (c) residue of first registration. Refer if this is impractical.
• Practice Guide 39 – only if the alteration would amount to rectification.

See draft notice attached/complete the notice as follows:
• Our investigations suggest that the overlap arose because

• We have also carried out an inspection survey of the land and this has revealed that it is

9.
Send notice B143 to each registered chargee of title ​with same enclosures as the B95.
See draft notice attached/complete the notice the same way as the B95 [B141].

10.
Send stock letter S148/A to applicant for FR.

11.
If the notices expire without objection:
• amend mapping of title to exclude the overlap area as in the notices, and enter AL143 in the A Register.
• send a TID, O/C register and O/C plan of that title to any party who consented as a result of the notice.
taking out a dealing if necessary, remap the FR title to include the overlap area as in the notices. Make any necessary adjustment to the entries, using any notes you made earlier. Issue TID, OC register and title plan together with any pre-registration documents.

12.
Refer any objection, qualified consent or enquiry about indemnity immediately to TT3 holder.

Guarantee & Litigation Group Guidance Notes
(Extract relating to boundaries)

7​PRACTICE BOOK: MAPPING ERRORS UNCOVERED BY LAND REGISTRY STAFF
1​Introduction
We have always considered mapping errors when customers point them out or when a current application conflicts with an incorrectly mapped existing title.
It is important though that we target our resources effectively to deal with various customer demands, including getting the greatest return on data integrity investment work. The focus of our activity therefore needs to be more customer led and defined by an emphasis of being more “just-in-time” rather than always “just-in-case”.
We do not, therefore, pro-actively initiate action for some mapping errors found and will take action only when requested by the customer.
There may be circumstances when the teams RCU2 holder considers the benefits of proceeding with an Alteration under Schedule 4, LRA 2002 as advantageous even though no current substantive application is affected, see Types of error requiring action. This topic describes the process to be followed where no current substantive application is affected and the error is not one that has been brought to our attention by our customers. Caseworkers will refer possible mapping errors for investigation and action to a RCU2 holder in the team. The arrangements may differ in detail between offices, but the team’s RCU2 holder will work closely with members of the SCT.
2​Recognition
2.1​Action by caseworkers
If, in the course of your duties, you find what may be an error in the mapping of a registered title (including an error in an associated register entry such as a floor-level note), do not ignore it.
If the possible error prevents you completing a substantive application, it is your responsibility to resolve it as part of your casework consideration. Consult the relevant casework instructions and, if necessary, make use of the normal channels of technical referral.
If the error does not prevent you completing your application, refer it to your team’s RCU2 holder as outlined in this topic who will then consider the benefits of further investigation and what (if any) action is required. You should not spend time investigating how the error may have arisen.
Be careful to distinguish between possible mapping errors and conflicts that arise because of changes in the OS mapping information. If you are in doubt, refer verbally before you proceed.
2.1.1​ Which caseworkers are affected?
These instructions are for any caseworker who deals with mapping information, whether in the context of substantive applications or otherwise, for example:
•​mapping an application,
•​consulting an adjoining title,
•​mapping a SIM,
•​mapping an official search of part,
•​approving an estate boundary or estate plan, or
•​completing data integrity processes.
.
2.2​2.2 Making the initial referral
Do not capture an application to make the referral. All mapping errors should be referred verbally to the team’s RCU2 holder for consideration in the first instance.
2.2.1 Mapping errors that involve overlapping title plans
Where the overlap has been identified as a result of processing a SIM application you must issue stock letter 026 and log the details on the overlap management system. See Topic – SIMS Overlaps which cannot be attributed to incorrect indexing.

2.3​2.3 Types of error requiring action
This is not an exhaustive list, but you should consider the benefits of taking action on the following errors whenever you find them:
2.3.1 Title plan and extent errors
•​The wrong plot or property has been registered;
•​Double registration (overlap) – the same land is included in the red edging on the title plan of two or more registered titles;
•​Omission – a registered title wrongly excludes land;
•​Extra land – a registered title wrongly includes land;
•​Green out errors, for example:
•​Land in a transfer of part has not been greened out of the O/T (effectively leaving the potential for a double registration);
•​There is a discrepancy between a N/T and the green out on the O/T.
•​Errors in leasehold title plan references, for example:
•​when there is a discrepancy between the extent of a tenant’s title and the corresponding lease reference on the landlord’s title plan;
•​A floor level note to entry A1 is missing or incorrect.
If the error identified is an overlap affecting roads or non tidal rivers and streams then these should be left alone and not be “put right” as part of the putting mapping errors right process. This is because there is no error and is as a result of our previous practice in respect of such land, the title to which may depend on rebuttable ad medium presumptions.
2.3.2 Errors in relation to other rights or interests (e.g. easements or covenants)
•​A plan reference has been omitted;
•​A plan reference is not referred to in the register;
•​There is an error in the extent or position of a plan reference for land affected by an interest noted in the register.
.
3​Processing
3.1​3.1​Classification
See A-Z Classification Guide – Plans errors.
3.2​3.2 Initial action by the team's RCU2 holders
Using the guidance given below:
•​ investigate the original mapping decision as far as you can; and
•​ decide whether there is a mapping error to put right.
3.2.1 Investigating the original mapping decision
.
Investigate the decision by:
•​obtaining D/Es for applications affecting the title plan;
•​viewing relevant scanned documents and correspondence; and
•​checking PAS screens on applications shown in history enquiries;
•​checking for ad-hoc notes and office page graphics;
•​checking for earlier versions of the title plan/s being investigated.
3.2.1.1 Gathering evidence
Use the Map History and Historical Map Detail functions of the CMS to display the OS mapping information available at the time of registration so that you can compare it with any scanned or filed deed plan or technical description referred to in the files and decide whether the right mapping decision was made.

3.2.2 Deciding whether there is a mapping error to put right
.
This must be a pragmatic decision, with the emphasis on errors that, if left unchanged, are likely to:
•​result in CRX applications,
•​cause mistakes on future applications for registration, or
•​lead us to give incorrect SIM or O/S results.
When deciding whether there is a mapping error to put right, you should bear in mind that the purpose of the title plan is to help identify the registered land. In addition, unless the register states otherwise, the title plan only shows the general boundaries and not the exact boundaries.
If you cannot decide whether further action is justified, refer verbally to a TT1 holder with the appropriate experience.
It is not the purpose of this process to tidy up or modernise title plans generally. The fact that an extent registered in the past does not coincide with the features now shown on the current OS map will not necessarily reflect a mapping error. There are other reasons for discrepancies that may not require further action, for example:
•​Title plans may have been prepared on OS mapping information that is now obsolete. Do not be tempted to revisit mapping decisions in the light of mapping information that was not available at the time of the application. If a title plan was mapped accurately in 1956 on the most up to date Ordnance Survey map detail then available, the extent may well differ from the current available map edition: this does not constitute an error if the title was mapped accurately in the first place.
•​Physical boundaries may be moved for convenience, or to contain stock under grazing agreements or tenancies that do not trigger registration but the OS map may show these movements.
•​There may have been a registrable transfer or lease of part of the title that is yet to be lodged.
3.2.2.1 If there is an error to put right
If you are satisfied that there is an error that needs to be put right by altering the title plan and/or the register, capture a DCX application against the title(s) to be altered, and proceed to the next stage. See Will alteration amount to rectification?
3.2.2.2 If there is no error to put right
If you are satisfied that there is no mapping error, for example, because mapping tolerances and surveying scales account for the apparent error, take no further action.
You will however need to reconsider the indexing if the referral resulted from an indexing overlap being identified. Indexing overlaps should not remain on the mapping system after being accounted for and you must alter the indexing to remove the overlap.

3.3​3.3 Will alteration amount to rectification?
Schedule 4(1), LRA 2002 refers to rectification as
“alteration which –
(a) involves the correction of a mistake, and
(b) prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.”
Thus, whilst every action we take to put right a mapping error will be an alteration, not every alteration amounts to a rectification.
.
You will need to consider whether we registered the wrong property, for example, did we wrongly include or omit to include a garage within the registered title? If so, the alteration is rectification. Or did we simply fail to indicate the boundaries with sufficient accuracy? If so, the alteration is not rectification. Unless the boundaries of land shown in the register have been determined and are shown as determined under s.60, LRA 2002, they are general boundaries. In other words, the boundaries on the title plan are only intended to be indicative and not definitive. However they should accurately reflect the land in the deeds and there is a mistake to the extent that they do not.
The clearest practical test is that proposed in the case of Lee v Barrey: has the proprietor got substantially what he contracted to buy i.e. the right property? If he has, then any dispute is a boundary dispute. Alteration in these circumstances is not rectification.
Another test is: has Land Registry so misdescribed the property that it has, in effect, registered the wrong property? If it has, then any dispute is a property dispute. Alteration in these circumstances is rectification.
It is vital to establish whether the proposed alteration will amount to a rectification as this determines, among other things, whether the registered proprietor(s) consent is needed and whether indemnity may be payable.

3.3.1 General guidance on typical examples
Example​Rectification?​Other considerations
Adding unregistered land we mistakenly omitted on first registration.​No, even if there is some liability attached to the ‘missing’ land, such as the performance of a covenant.​It may not be safe to add land that appears to be fenced against the registered proprietor(s), in case title has been extinguished by adverse possession.
Removing land mistakenly included in the mapped extent.​Maybe.
It will not be rectification if you are making the register more accurate by altering the position of the general boundary.
Subject to occupation, as to which see below, it will be rectification where land is actually being removed from the title.
It will not be rectification if the “true owner” rather than the registered proprietor(s) is in actual occupation. ​
Removing land mistakenly left in a parent title on a transfer of part.​No, unless the parent title has been subject to a further charge or transferred for value since the mistake was made.​
Removing a superfluous title plan reference with no corresponding register entry​No​
Adding or altering a title plan reference​Maybe, if the area is now subject to an easement or a restrictive covenant, the extent is larger than originally shown or now affects an area of a different nature (e.g. building or driveway instead of garden). ​
Removing land to put right a double registration​Maybe.
It will not be rectification if you are making the register more accurate by altering the position of the general boundary.
Subject to occupation, as to which see below, it will be rectification where land is actually being removed from the title.
It will not be rectification if the “true owner” rather than the registered proprietor is in actual occupation. ​

3.3.2 If alteration is, or may be, a rectification

Any alteration that is, or may be, a rectification must be referred verbally to a TT1 holder who may need to refer to a TT3 holder to consider what course of action to adopt and consider serving notice on all of the registered proprietors and other persons with an interest in the registered estate. Unless you are certain that the alteration does not prejudicially affect the proprietor’s title, and there are no other considerations of the kind mentioned above, refer.
It will be clear that the occupation of the land is an important factor in some decisions. Do not requisition a survey or inspection of the land at any stage without the authorisation of the TT3 holder.

3.3.3 If alteration is not rectification
.
If you are satisfied that the proposed alteration does not amount to rectification, proceed as in Making the alteration.

3.4​3.4 Referral to TT3 holder
This section summarises the issues that the TT3 holder will consider and the options open to them. For full details of the aspects they will consider see Appendix – TT3 considerations.
3.4.1 Considering the proposed alteration
After initial consideration the TT3 holder may decide:
•​that the evidence is not conclusive and that the RCU2 holder should take no further action, a PAS note made as to the reasons and the DCX cancelled. The mapping will remain unchanged.
•​to send an OS surveyor to report on occupation etc. See Requisitioning an OS survey.
•​to serve notice. See Serving notice.
•​to proceed with alteration without a survey or notice: See Making the alteration.
3.4.2 Requisitioning an OS survey
Do not requisition a survey or inspection of the land at any stage without the authorisation of a TT3 holder.
A standard inspection (age and nature of boundaries, use and occupation of land, all means of access to it) will normally be appropriate. The TT3 holder may specify extra questions.
When preparing the survey ensure that the surveyor is informed of the background of the survey in the ad hoc notes. Given that the survey has not been triggered by a substantive application the proprietor is likely to be more inquisitive as to the reason a survey is required.
Send URN Survey 004 to inform the registered proprietor(s).
3.4.3 Serving notice
The TT3 holder will authorise you to send notice B224 or B235 summarising the proposed alteration.
The B224 should be used when there has been a mistake in the registration that requires alteration, which may be prejudicial.
The B235 should be used when the alteration is not rectification or we do not know whether we have made a mistake.
The TT3 holder will approve the wording for the B224 notice or the wording for the <<MISCELLANEOUS>> field for the B235 notice as appropriate. Prepare the replacement title plan but do not settle it. Do not amend the indexing. Stand over the DCX for 15 business days.
If you receive the proprietor’s consent, or if the notice period expires with no reply, settle the replacement title plan and amend the indexing and proceed as in Making the alteration.
If the recipient replies opposing the alteration, refer back to the TT3 holder.
3.4.4 Considering opposition to a notice
The TT3 holder may decide to take no further action. Write to the recipient of the notice informing them of our decision, incorporating any wording the TT3 holder specifies. Make a PAS note to record the decision and cancel the DCX. Send the customer correspondence and any other relevant papers for scanning. The mapping will remain unchanged.
The TT3 holder may decide that there is power to make the alteration despite the opposition to the notice, and instruct you to proceed. See Making the alteration.
The TT3 holder may invite an application for alteration. See Application for alteration.
3.4.5 Application for alteration
If a registered proprietor or other recipient of notice B224 or B235 opposes an alteration, the TT3 holder may decide that we need to write to the adjoining registered proprietor(s) and other interested parties inviting them to lodge an application for alteration. We will also write to the recipient of the notice informing them of the invitation. However see Inviting an application for alteration.
An application to the registrar provides the framework for dealing with conflicting interests through the mechanism of objection, dispute and adjudication: a DCX does not, as it does not fall within s.73(1), LRA 2002. See Topic – Alterations – Under Schedule 4, LRA 2002 – Application for rectification.
3.4.5.1 If an application for alteration is lodged
.
Take out a substantive DLG or TP. Make a PAS note referring to the substantive application and cancel the DCX. Send the customer correspondence and any relevant papers for scanning.
The TT3 holder will instruct you how to proceed, based on the principles set out in Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and Indemnity .
3.4.5.2 If no application is lodged
.
If no application is lodged, the TT3 holder will normally decide to take no further action. Write to the recipient of the notice informing them of our decision, incorporating any wording the TT3 holder specifies. Make a PAS note to record the decision and cancel the DCX. Send the customer correspondence and any other relevant papers for scanning. The mapping will remain unchanged.
.
3.5​3.5 Making the alteration
Where the alteration affects the extent of the title or a plan reference:
•​Replace or update the title plan. See Topic – Title Plan – Replacement title plan and register entries. Update the indexing as appropriate.
•​Add an appropriate entry to the A Register See Topic – Title Plan – A register entries for replacement plans.
•​If the alteration affects a register entry that refers to the title plan, replace, delete or amend the entry as necessary.
•​Issue stock letter S148/B , enclosing official copies of the register, the replacement title plan and the superseded title plan. If the recipient has already been sent a B224 or B235 notice, the information in the <<Miscellaneous>> field of the stock letter should refer back to it and to any subsequent correspondence, using wording specified by the TT3 holder if the notice was opposed.
•​Where an error has been corrected by use of a DCX, a brief summary of why the DCX was taken out and of the action taken must be added to the DCX PAS; this will provide a useful record on subsequent enquiries.
•​Mark off the DCX.
4​Background
Land Registry records are now readily accessible to customers and used commercially as geographical data.
This Topic standardises a proactive process for ensuring the quality and integrity of mapping data on our own initiative, complementing the work done in Data Integrity to improve the quality and reliability of the register and index polygons.
There are several reasons why we would not - or could not - have contemplated this in the past:
•​ Land Registry was wary of initiating action to put right mapping errors without an application by an owner to avoid the potential for creating disputes.
•​ Before the open register in December 1990, no one outside Land Registry was routinely in a position to compare one registration with another. We were the gatekeepers to, and the interpreters of, all such information.
•​ Before computer mapping, “paper overlaps” were common where title plans were based on different OS editions, and there was no simple way to compare the two layers of information: title plans and indexing.
•​ Even with the advent of computer mapping, the OS Positional Accuracy Improvement programme (completed in March 2006) led to some unavoidable differences between the extent of index polygons and the extent of the red edging on title plans.
•​ The incentive created by the sale of vector and indexing polygons to customers with their own Geographic Information systems did not exist to drive proactive improvements in the quality of the product.
The new practice was envisaged in the LRA 2002, which clarified the distinction between rectification and other alterations to the register and gave the registrar the specific power to make alterations on his own initiative, subject to the consent of the proprietor(s) in certain circumstances.
5​Relevant Law
Schedule 4, para 5 and para 6, LRA 2002.
R.128, LRR 2003.
S.73, LRA 2002.
Lee v Barrey [1957] Ch 251
Alan Wibberley Building v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894
Derbyshire County Council v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch)
Strachey v Ramage [2008] EWCA Civ 384
6​Appendix – TT3 considerations
The material in this section provides background information to assist RCU2 and TT1 holders in making informed decisions regarding the need to refer to a TT3 holder. It is also designed to assist TT3 holders in applying the provisions of r.128, LRR 2003.
6.1​6.1​Is there an error?
The RCU2 holder investigating possible errors will refer verbally to a TT1 holder any cases where it is not clear whether we have made a mapping error or it is not clear what action to take.
In many cases, such as where a plans reference is referred to in the register but not shown on the title plan, or where the wrong plot altogether has been mapped, or we have forgotten to include the garage to a property, it will seem obvious that a mapping error was made.
However, caution is required, as it may not always be so straightforward.
For example, what if land was inadvertently omitted on first registration, but the applicant’s title to that missing land had in fact been extinguished by adverse possession before his application was ever lodged? By omitting the land, we would inadvertently have created a register that correctly reflected the applicant’s title. In those circumstances, if we were to take action to ‘correct’ our omission by adding the missing land to the applicant’s title, we would be creating an error, not correcting one.
In some cases we may have carried forward on to the register mistakes we could not possibly have known about. ‘Double conveyancing’ is an obvious example. The fact that the mistake is not originally ours does not alter the fact that there is a mistake in the title plan, or the fact that, by virtue of their registration alone, a later buyer will have acquired a legal title, subject to general boundaries (see
Would the correction of a mistake prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor?). See also Topic - Alterations under Schedule 4 to the LRA 2002. On the question of distinguishing between real and apparent overlaps, see FR04 –Overlaps in first registration.
6.2​6.2 Would the correction of a mistake prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor?
The RCU2 holder investigating possible errors will refer any proposed alteration that may amount to rectification, for confirmation and for instructions on the service of notice.
When someone is registered as proprietor of land (or even of a charge), the registration itself operates to give that person a legal title, even if they would not otherwise have been entitled to it.
This is clear from section 58(1), LRA 2002, which provides:
‘If, on the entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate, the legal estate would not otherwise be vested in him, it shall be deemed to be vested in him as a result of the registration.’
However, whilst any removal of land from a registered title would seem to prejudicially affect the proprietor’s title, you should remember that section 58 (1) has no application where the boundaries of the land in question are general boundaries. The title plan only indicates the general position of the registered extent, unless the boundaries have been determined as exact (see Will alteration amount to rectification?).
What if the proprietor had in fact sold and transferred the land in question, but the new title created for the buyer did not include all the land transferred? In that case, the seller may well simply be holding the legal estate on a (bare) trust for his buyer, and his title would not, therefore, be prejudicially affected by the removal of the land and its inclusion in the new title.
Or what if too much land was registered and the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation of the land that was wrongly registered? If the ‘true’ owner’s interest in the land is one that overrides first registration (Schedule 1(2), LRA 2002) or a registered disposition (Schedule 3(2), LRA 2002) then, again, the registered proprietor’s title would not be prejudicially affected by the removal of the ‘true’ owner’s land.
6.3​​Ordnance Survey inspections
The RCU2 holder investigating possible errors will refer those where occupation may be a factor in deciding whether there is an error on which action needs to be taken.
The question of occupation may also arise in deciding whether a proposed alteration prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor and would therefore be rectification.
In view of the risk that an OS inspection may raise expectations of an alteration or, in sensitive circumstances, trigger a dispute, the TT3 holder must authorise all inspections, and must also specify any extra questions for the surveyor beyond the standard inspection.
6.4​Do we have to notify anyone?
R128 LRR 2003 requires Land Registry to inform registered proprietor(s) of any registered estate or charge regarding alteration to the register by the registrar.
6.4.1 Non-rectification cases
.
If we are absolutely certain that (a) there is a mistake and (b) the correction of that mistake would not amount to rectification, we can make the alteration. See if the alteration is not rectification and Making the alteration. If, in response to a B235 notice, our proposal is opposed, refer to a TT3 holder. The TT3 holder’s options include:
•​requesting the registered proprietor(s) or third party to make a formal application for alteration, not least to ensure that there is a clear framework for resolving any dispute (see Inviting an application for alteration),
•​proceeding with the alteration on the basis that the reasons for the opposition are entirely without merit. See Making the alteration,
•​proceeding with the alteration without further enquiry, see Making the alteration or
•​deciding not to proceed (see Decision not to proceed).
.
6.4.2 Rectification cases
If we are satisfied that there is a mistake and the correction of that mistake would amount to rectification, notice (add link to B224 must be served on all of the registered proprietors of any estate in land or charge whose title would be affected. The TT3 holder must approve the wording of the summary of the proposed alteration in the <<MISCELLANEOUS>> field of the notice.
Notice B224 is neither an information notice nor an objection notice in the traditional sense. It gives the registered proprietor(s) the opportunity to oppose the action we propose to take. Any opposition and/or representations made by the recipient must be taken into account before deciding how to proceed. Options include:
•​requesting the registered proprietor(s) or a third party to make a formal application for alteration, not least to ensure that there is a clear framework for resolving any dispute (see Inviting an application for alteration.)
•​proceeding with the alteration on the basis that the reasons for the opposition are entirely without merit. See Making the alteration.
•​proceeding with the alteration if it amounts to rectification and one of the exceptions in Schedule 4(6)(2), LRA 2002 applies. See Making the alteration, or
•​deciding not proceed (see Decision not to proceed).
.
6.4.3 Doubtful cases

If we are not sure whether the alteration would amount to rectification, for example because we do not know whether the registered proprietor’s title would be prejudicially affected (which may depend on who is in actual occupation), we should serve notice B235.
.
6.5​6.5​ In what circumstances might prior notice be unnecessary?
If the alteration being proposed is the correction of a mistake which would not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor prior notice is not necessary. However, as a matter of customer service, notice B235, which is neither an objection nor an information notice in the traditional sense, should be sent.
.
6.6​6.6​On whom do we serve notice?
In the case of residential properties in private ownership, there are good reasons to serve notice both on the proprietor(s) of a title from which we propose to remove land and on the proprietor(s) of an adjoining title that is affected, either a title that already correctly includes the land or a title to which we propose to add it.
Despite the fact that only the proprietor(s) prejudicially affected by rectification needs to give consent, informing all the parties will avoid the suspicion that we are not acting impartially or that the proposal arises from a complaint by one of them. It will make it more likely that any consent is informed and correctly reflects the accepted position on the ground.

6.7​Can anyone object to or oppose the alteration?
Anyone can object to an application to the registrar. However, if we are correcting an error on our own initiative, anyone who wanted to oppose our action would find themselves without any right to invoke dispute procedures. This is because, although we are obliged by r.12(3), LRR 2003 to enter our proposal for altering the register on the day list, such a proposal is not deemed to be an application for the purpose of s.73, LRA 2002. So the machinery for resolving any opposition to our proposal is not available. The only remedy, therefore, for someone who opposed a proposal to alter the register where no application had been made would be to apply to the court for judicial review of the decision to make the alteration (although they could lodge a complaint and have the manner in which the decision had been reached reviewed within Land Registry or, ultimately, by the ICR or the Parliamentary Ombudsman).
In a judicial review, the court would consider, inter alia,
•​the legality of the decision (whether we had been acting within our powers and for the purpose for which the powers were given);
•​the procedural fairness of the decision (whether, for example, the person concerned had been given the right to be heard);
•​the reasonableness of the decision (whether there was a proper reasoning process and the conclusion reached was reasonable);
•​whether the decision was compatible with the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Convention (and given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998).
Any decision to alter the register, particularly in the absence of an application, where representations opposing the action proposed have been received, must therefore be capable of standing up to such scrutiny or risk being quashed by the court.

6.8​6.8​Do we need to consider who is in possession of the land, and whether that person consents?
Where the alteration would prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor (and thus amount to rectification), it cannot be made without the consent of any proprietor(s) who is in possession of the land concerned and whose title would be affected by the rectification. The only exceptions are if:
•​he was fraudulent or negligent and thereby caused or substantially contributed to the mistake in the register; or
•​for any other reason it would be unjust to leave the register as it is.
Therefore, if the relevant registered proprietor is not in possession of the land concerned, we do not strictly need his consent. Whether or not he is in possession is something we might not be able to establish without physically inspecting the land in question and forming a view. The registered proprietor himself may disagree with our assessment. In some cases, it may be difficult or impossible to determine who is in possession of the land concerned.
If the registered proprietor was fraudulent or negligent, and thus responsible in some way for the mistake that was made, we do not need his consent, irrespective of who is in possession.
If, ‘for any other reason’, it would be unjust to leave the register as it is, we can proceed without the consent of the registered proprietor(s), even if he is in possession of the land concerned. To determine what is unjust effectively involves making a judgement as to the relative position of two or more parties, which, as an administrative body, Land Registry is not best placed to do. As a last resort, we might justify invoking that exception in the (probably extremely rare) case of a double registration / overlap which we are proposing to correct by removing land from the title of the registered proprietor in possession and in which our proposal is opposed. Ideally, in that situation, one or both of the proprietors involved would agree to make a formal application for alteration, thereby enabling any dispute to be resolved through a judicial process. However, if no such application was forthcoming, and we could justify proceeding with our proposed alteration because it would be unjust not to, Schedule 4(6)(2)(b), LRA 2002 gives us the power to make the alteration without the requisite consent.
.
6.9​6.9​Inviting an application for alteration
The RCU2 holder dealing with a mapping error on which notice B224 or B235 has been served will refer any response that opposes the proposed alteration. The TT3 holder will need to consider whether to invite an application for alteration.
The application should be invited from the proprietor who appears, based on responses to notice B224 or B235 and the result of any inspection, to have the better claim. There will be cases where this is not clear, but we should avoid the situation where someone with a poor claim is invited to make an application on which we ultimately decide not to take action.
If there appear to be competing claims it may be that more than one application is needed to resolve them, but it is important that the applicants understand the range of possible outcomes.
Where the alteration is one that will amount to a rectification, the fee should not be insisted on. See Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and indemnity – 3.1 The Application
6.10​​ Decision not to proceed
In some cases, a decision may ultimately have to be taken not to proceed, for example, where the opposition to notice cannot be said to be without merit, we cannot agree on an alternative course of action and the person concerned cannot be persuaded to make an application of his own.
In all cases where we have served notice of a proposed alteration and ultimately decided not to proceed, we will write to inform the recipient of the notice of our decision. The TT3 holder should approve the wording of the explanation we give.
6.11​​Practice applied to typical examples
In the following section, some of the main principles and constraints discussed in this Appendix are applied to typical errors. Whether anyone might object to or oppose the correction of these errors is not specifically addressed in each example, but see Can anyone object to or oppose the alteration? for general information.
6.11.1 Transfer of part: land has mistakenly been omitted from the new title and remains in the parent title

Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes. We have the power to remove land from the parent title and to add it to the new title in order to correct a mistake.
Rectification?​No (assuming the parent title has not been subject to a charge or transferred for value since the mistake occurred.)
The transferor will lose land to which he has a legal title by virtue of his continued registration as proprietor, but as he had transferred it, he is simply holding the legal estate on trust for his transferee, the new title owner. Accordingly the removal does not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor.
Arguably also, by correcting the register we are completing the TP application and giving effect to the transfer of the land we omitted by mistake.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​Yes.
But if there has been a charge or a transfer for value of the parent title since the mistake occurred, notice B235 must be served on all of the registered proprietors of any legal estate affected, allowing them to object.
Who is in possession?​Since this is not a case of rectification, we do not need to consider who is in possession and whether that person consents.
Duty to alter?​No, but to do so is consistent with a policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​No, but if anyone has incurred costs or expenses in connection with the alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provisions for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes, if we are satisfied that there has not been a charge or a transfer for value since the mistake occurred.
Failure to green out on the old title in accordance with LRR 2003 r.72 means that the registration requirements under LRA 2002 Schedule 2 will not have been met and therefore the legal estate is not deemed to be vested in the proprietor of the new title (s.58(2), LRA 2002).
Other examples of errors which could be addressed similarly are:
•​Superfluous plans reference with no corresponding register entry. Provided that the register entry was correctly removed or omitted, the removal from the title plan would amount either to bringing the register up to date, or removal of a superfluous entry and/or the correction of a mistake. But it is highly unlikely that it could be said prejudicially to affect the title of a registered proprietor.
•​Failure to green-out from the parent title the whole of the land transferred on a TP (provided that there has been no charge or a transfer on sale of the parent title since the error occurred).
.
6.11.2 First registration: mistaken omission of unregistered land from A’s registered title

Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes, provided we are satisfied that it was indeed a mistake to omit it. See Is there an error?
Rectification?​No.
To add the unregistered land to a registered title does not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor. Therefore this is not a case of rectification.
Even if there is some liability or burden attached to the ‘missing’ land (such as contamination or performance of a covenant), the fact is that A still owns the land in its unregistered state. Presumably A had originally applied for it to be registered. In that sense, by correcting the register we are effectively completing A’s application and giving effect to the transfer to A of the land we omitted by mistake.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​Yes.
(But it may be prudent to make further enquiries to ensure there are no extent or title issues that might now be relevant, particularly if the original application was completed some time ago.)
Who is in possession?​ See above
Duty to alter?​No, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive register and policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​No, but if A has incurred costs or expenses in connection with the alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provisions for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes, provided we are satisfied that by adding the land we would not be creating a mistake instead of correcting one (see Is there an error?)
6.11.3 Too much land included in a registered title
.
Question​Answer
Power to alter?​We have the power to remove land from the registered title in order to correct a mistake. We do not have the power to remove land without the consent of a registered proprietor in certain circumstances (see Who is in possession? below).
Rectification?​Maybe.
Removing land from a registered title is to deprive the registered proprietor of the property that was vested in him by virtue of the registration, and therefore prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.
It would not be prejudicial and therefore rectification, however, if the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation of the land. See Who is in possession? below.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​B224 Notice must be sent to any registered proprietor(s) affected by the proposed alteration if it is considered prejudicial.
Notice would be arguably unnecessary only in the very rare case that it is absolutely clear and undisputed that the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation and that his interest overrides the registration, in which case the registered proprietor’s title would not be prejudicially affected by the alteration, and presumably he could not therefore validly object to it. See In what circumstances might prior notice be unnecessary? In most cases the best course will be to serve notice.
It may be difficult to establish who is in actual occupation, and even if we thought we knew, the registered proprietor might want to disagree.
Who is in possession?​If it is a case of rectification and the registered proprietor is in possession of the land that is to be removed from the title, we cannot proceed without his consent, unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 4(6)(2) applies.
If the ‘true’ owner is in possession, his interest may override the registration, and removal of the land from the title would not prejudicially affect the registered proprietor’s title. The question of possession would be relevant in so far as it means that the registered proprietor’s consent can – technically – be dispensed with.
If a third party is in possession (neither the ‘true’ owner nor the registered proprietor), the registered proprietor’s consent, again, may not be required.
This is not relevant if it is not rectification.
Duty to alter?​It depends on whether the alteration would amount to rectification. If it does, we do have a duty, but only if an application has been made. If not then we do not have a duty, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive register and our policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​If rectification. Yes – probably substantive indemnity (though this may only be nominal) and/or costs for the registered proprietor and applicant and any 3rd party that suffered loss.
If alteration, no, but if anyone has incurred costs or expenses in connection with alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provision for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes, if we are reasonably certain of the facts, i.e. that there is a mistake and that we know or have established who is in actual occupation of the land.
6.11.4 Wrong plot or property mapped

Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes. We have the power to correct the mistake and map the correct property instead.
Rectification?​Probably not. Although the registered proprietor may ostensibly be losing a legal estate to the ‘wrong’ property, any prejudicial effect would be offset by his registration as proprietor of the ‘right’ property. Even if it is not, (for example because of a substantial difference in value between the two properties), if the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation of the property that was wrongly mapped to be in the registered proprietor’s title, the registered proprietor is holding the legal estate subject to the ‘true’ owner’s overriding interest and is not therefore prejudicially affected by the alteration.
Is prior notice unnecessary?​Notice may be unnecessary if we are satisfied that it is not a case of rectification, and that no one could conceivably raise a valid objection to or oppose the alteration of the register. However, prior notice B224 may be prudent, not least as a means of ensuring that the proposed alteration itself is correct.
Who is in possession?​Not relevant if not rectification. Responses to notices could help us to confirm the facts and proceed according to the circumstances.
Duty to alter?​No, assuming it is not a case of rectification having been applied for, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive register and out policy of correcting any known mistakes.
Indemnity?​No, assuming it is not a case of rectification, but if anyone has incurred costs or expenses in connection with the alteration, we have a discretion to pay all or some of them (subject to the provisions for prior consent).
Should we be prepared to proceed without an application?​Yes.

6.11.5 Overlap/double registration
If this occurs as a result of a failure to green-out from a parent title the land transferred on a TP, see the note after Transfer of part: land has mistakenly been omitted from the new title and remains in the parent title.
In all other circumstances, see below.
Question​Answer
Power to alter?​Yes. We have the power to remove land from one of the registered titles in order to correct the mistake of registering the same estate in land twice. But we do not have the power to proceed without the consent of the registered proprietor(s) in certain circumstances.
Rectification?​This will depend on who is in actual occupation of the land. At least one of the registered proprietors affected may arguably be deprived of a legal estate in land that was vested in him by virtue of the registration. However, if the ‘true’ owner is in actual occupation, his rights and interest may override the registered title of the ‘wrong’ registered proprietor, and removing the land from the ‘wrong’ proprietor’s title would not amount to rectification.
If the ‘wrong’ proprietor is in actual occupation, removing the land from either title could amount to rectification.
(There is an argument that the second title in time to have been created is a nullity. This seems unlikely, however. The LRA 1925 expressly allowed for the possibility that two or more persons might, by mistake, be registered as proprietors of the same legal estate (s.82(1)(e), LRA 1925) and although that provision was not carried forward verbatim to the LRA 2002, it was not the intention of the LRA 2002 so fundamentally to change the effect of registration. The argument could also fall foul of the provisions of the Human Rights Act.)
Is prior notice unnecessary?​B224 notice of the action we propose to take must be served on all proprietors of the land and of any charges. If the correction amounts to an alteration that is not rectification, proceed as in Making the alteration.
Who is in possession?​That would obviously determine whether and whose consent to the proposed alteration would be required, unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 4(6)(2), LRA 2002 applies. Possession is not relevant if not rectification.
Duty to alter?​It depends on whether the alteration would amount to rectification. If it does, we do have a duty, but only if an application has been made. If not, then we do not have a duty, but to alter is consistent with our aim of completing the comprehensive registration and our policy of correcting known mistakes.
Indemnity?​See Too much land included in a registered title above.
Should we proceed without an application?​Yes, but consider Rectification cases.
6.11.1​6.11.6 Other common errors – would correction amount to rectification?

6.11.6.1 Plans reference in the wrong position

This will depend on the facts. For example, a covenant restricting building on land could have an entirely different effect on the title if it was shown (wrongly) to affect a shared driveway subject to rights of way (and thus unlikely to be built on) instead of (correctly) the garden. Similar issues apply as outlined above.
6.11.6.2 Plans reference – wrong extent shown

This will depend on the facts. For example, a title might be prejudicially affected if, for example, a restrictive covenant had been shown (wrongly) to affect a much smaller part of the title than it did in fact affect.
6.11.6.3 Plans reference and corresponding entry entered in error
This will depend on the facts. It would not be rectification, for example, if the entry that was made in error related to the burden of an equitable right of way or a restrictive covenant, because it would not prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor to remove it.
6.11.6.4 Plans reference missing from title plan, but register entry exists

This will depend on the facts. If an entry refers, for example, to ‘the land tinted pink’ as being subject to a restrictive covenant, and there is no land tinted pink on the title plan, then the entry is meaningless but there is an error. To add the pink tinting in such circumstances could prejudicially affect the registered proprietor’s title.

B224 Notice of the proposed alteration of the register
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property Registered proprietor
of above title number
Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
<<MISCELLANEOUS~>>
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not oppose the proposed alteration
If you do not oppose the proposed alteration, you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice with the consent duly completed will assist in completing the alteration promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you oppose the proposed alteration
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please tell us why. It would be helpful if your reasons are put in writing (which includes e-mail) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Please
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you oppose the proposed alteration
– state your reasons for opposing it
– give your full name and an address to which communications may be sent
If you wish to oppose the proprosed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive a response from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the application referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number
Date

Notice of an application for alteration of the register – B141
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property Registered proprietor
of above title number
Dear <<NAME(S)~>>

When you own or have an interest in a property that is registered at Land Registry, we will write to let you know if we receive certain types of applications. This gives you an opportunity to consider the matter and to seek more information if you feel you need any.
We have received an application to <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>.
The application was lodged by:
on behalf of <<PARTIES~>>.
You should contact the applicant (or their legal representative) if you require more information about why this application has been made.

This notice requires you to do one of the following:
(a) Object to the application, or
(b) Consent to it
before 12 noon on 18 November 2014 («NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If you consent, or if we do not receive your response to this notice, before the deadline then we may complete the application.
Please see notes below which tell you how and where to reply to this notice.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»
NB1. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).
NB2. Notices sent to you at a UK postal or DX address will include a prepaid envelope for your reply, together with any plans or documents referred to in the notice. Notices sent by email do not contain any enclosures.
NB3. If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you need to reply only once.
Notes
1 Consent
If you wish to consent, you can complete the enclosed consent form. If you wish to consent by email, please include your full name and the title number of the property in your reply, or attach the completed consent form. We may complete the application as soon as we receive your consent, even if this is before the deadline.
2 Objection
If you wish to object to the application your objection must be in writing and:
– state the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the application
– state the grounds for your objection (this means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why the applicant’s claim is either wrong or would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property)
– give your full name and a postal address (which does not have to be in the United Kingdom) for further correspondence (you may give us other postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in total) and
– be signed by you as the objector (or by your “conveyancer” – for example, a solicitor - on your behalf).
3 How and where to reply
Any objection or consent must be in writing. Please send it (so that we receive it before the deadline) to the Land Registry Office at the postal, DX, fax or email address shown on the first page of this notice.
4 Please note
– We cannot accept communications stated to be confidental.
– We normally send a copy of an objection to the applicant or the applicant’s conveyancer.
– We may also disclose to the applicant (or to other parties) any communications or supporting documents that you send to us.

CONSENT B141
IMPORTANT: Signing this consent could affect your legal rights. If you do not understand the effect of this consent or the notice sent with it, you should seek legal advice without delay.
If you wish to consent to the application please:
1. Complete and sign this consent form.
2. Return it to Land Registry (see page 1 of the notice for office address) by the reply deadline
below. You can use the reply envelope sent with the notice, if provided.

B141 Notice of an application for alteration of the register
Date of notice:
Title number:
Reply deadline: «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15»
I consent to the application referred to in the above notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Date

Office use only:
Case reference (internal)

B104 Notice of a new official plan
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number
When land in England and Wales is registered, Land Registry prepare a plan, known as a title plan showing the general extent of the land registered with the property. It does not show the exact position of the boundaries of the registered title. This plan is usually based on an extract from the latest available large scale Ordnance Survey map at the time the property was registered and is held at Land Registry.
From time to time Ordnance Survey update their survey information and we sometimes need to prepare a replacement plan that conforms to the latest survey detail.
<<MISCELLANEOUS~>>.
I am therefore writing to inform you that we propose to prepare a replacement plan for your property based on the latest Ordnance Survey information. I am enclosing copies of the current title plan and the proposed new title plan for your information.
Although the proposed replacement title plan will be mapped on the latest Ordnance Survey detail, it will continue to identify the general boundaries of the registered title, and not their exact position.
If you object to the replacement of the title plan you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once.
If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not object
If you do not object to the replacement of the title plan you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice with the consent duly completed overleaf will enable the replacement to proceed immediately. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you object
If you object to the replacement of the title plan your objection must be in writing (which includes email) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Your objection must:
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the replacement of the plan
– state the grounds for your objection. This means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why what the applicant is claiming is wrong or why what is being claimed would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property
– give your full name and a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom, for further correspondence (you may supply further postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in all) and
– be signed by you as the objector or by your solicitor or conveyancer on your behalf.
Please note that, if this notice has been sent as a result of an application to Land Registry, a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
If you wish to object to the replacement of the title plan you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive an objection before then the title plan may be replaced.
Please note that, if this notice has been sent as a result of an application to Land Registry, a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the replacement of the title plan referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number

Date

B95 Notice to registered proprietors of an application for alteration of a registered title
Important: This notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number

Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
<<PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE – ISSUE PRACTICE GUIDE 39 WITH THIS NOTICE~>>
I am writing to inform you as proprietor of the above registered title that we have received an application for first registration of the property shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the enclosed plan and known as <<ADDRESS~>>. The application was lodged by:
on behalf of <<NAME(S)~>> (the applicant). The land in the first registration will be registered under title number <<TITLE_NUMBER~>>.
Our investigation of the deeds submitted with the application has established that they include part of the land already included in your registration. The extent of the land in your registered title is shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the enclosed plan. The overlapping area is shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the enclosed plan. Our investigations suggest that the overlap arose because <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>.
We have also carried out an inspection survey of the land and this has revealed that it is <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>
As a result of this, <<NAME(S)~>> applied to Land Registry for your registered title to be altered by removing the land shown <<MISCELLANEOUS~>> on the plan. If this is done that land will then be included in their registered title number <<TITLE_NUMBER~>>.
The grounds for the alteration are that the applicant believes there is a mistake in the register that should be corrected under paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 4, of the Land Registration Act 2002.
If you object to the alteration you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then the alteration may be completed.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not object
If you do not object to the application you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice with the consent duly completed overleaf will assist in completing the application promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you object
If you object to the application your objection must be in writing (which includes email) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Your objection must:
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the application
– state the grounds for your objection. This means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why what the applicant is claiming is wrong or why what is being claimed would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property
– give your full name and a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom, for further correspondence (you may supply further postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in all) and
– be signed by you as the objector or by your solicitor or conveyancer on your behalf.
Please note that a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
Please also note that any communications or supporting documents you supply may also be disclosed to the other parties even if marked ‘confidential’ or to similar effect.
If you wish to object to the alteration you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive an objection before then the alteration may be completed.
<<DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND THE FOLLOWING NOTE AND RENUMBER 4 TO 3 IF THE ALTERATION WILL NOT AMOUNT TO RECTIFICATION~>>
3 Indemnity for costs
Where an alteration will amount to a rectification, a claim for costs or expenses may arise. You will need to consider
whether to obtain consent from the Registrar before incurring such costs or expenses. The enclosed Practice Guide 39 – Rectification and Indemnity explains this procedure.
4 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the alteration referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number
Date

B235 Notice of the proposed alteration of the register
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.
Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number
Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
When land in England and Wales is registered, Land Registry prepare a plan, known as a title plan. The purpose of the title plan is to assist in identifying the general extent of the land registered with the property. It does not show the exact position of the boundaries of the registered title. This plan is usually based on an extract from the latest available large scale Ordnance Survey map at the time the property was registered and is held at Land Registry.
As a result of improving our records, we consider that we can show the general boundary of your title more accurately on your title plan. We therefore propose to alter your title plan and I enclose a copy of the current title plan and the proposed new title plan for your information. This will not change your registered title.
Although the proposed replacement title plan will be mapped on the latest Ordnance Survey detail, it will continue to identify the general boundaries of the registered title, and not their exact position.
<<MISCELLANEOUS~>>
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not oppose the proposed alteration
If you do not oppose the proposed alteration, you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice with the consent duly completed will assist in completing the alteration promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you oppose the proposed alteration
If you oppose the proposed alteration, please tell us why. It would be helpful if your reasons are put in writing (which includes e-mail) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Please
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you oppose the proposed alteration
– state your reasons for opposing it
– give your full name and an address to which communications may be sent
If you wish to oppose the proposed alteration, please contact us before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive a response from you before then, the register may be altered as outlined above without further reference to you.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).

I consent to the application referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number Date
Notice B142
B142 Notice of an application for alteration of the register
Important: this notice is not a circular. Please read it carefully. If you do not know what to do, you should consider taking legal advice.

Title number «TITLE_NO»
Property
Registered proprietor
of above title number

Dear <<NAME(S)~>>
I am writing to inform you that we have received an application to <<MISCELLANEOUS~>>. The application was lodged by:
Bank & Jones of Bank & Jones, 14 Mayflower Avenue, Plymouth, (Reference B&J) on behalf of <<PARTIES~>>.
This notice is sent to you as proprietor of a charge dated <<DATE~>> registered on <<DATE~>>.
If you object to the application you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15».
If we do not hear from you before then the application may be completed.
Please read the explanatory notes which form part of this notice and explain the courses of action open to you.
If you would like to discuss this notice or require it in an alternative format please contact me.
Yours sincerely
«PREF_FORENAME» «SURNAME»
Direct Line «DIR_TEL_NO»

Explanatory notes
If you have received a copy of this notice at any other address you only need to reply once. If this notice was delivered to you at a UK postal or DX address an envelope is provided for your reply. If the notice refers to enclosed plans or documents, these will only be enclosed with the notices sent to a postal or DX address.
1 If you do not object
If you do not object to the application you need not take any further action. Returning the copy of this notice to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice with the consent duly completed overleaf will assist in completing the application promptly. If you wish to consent by email, please ensure you supply all the information from the consent paragraph at the end of this letter in your reply.
2 If you object
If you object to the application your objection must be in writing (which includes email) and sent to the Land Registry office at the address shown in this notice. Your objection must:
– quote the title number and the property affected
– state that you object to the application
– state the grounds for your objection. This means that you should tell us the facts and/or the legal reason why what the applicant is claiming is wrong or why what is being claimed would not give the applicant the interest claimed in the property
– give your full name and a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom, for further correspondence (you may supply further postal, email or DX addresses as well, but no more than three in all) and
– be signed by you as the objector or by your solicitor or conveyancer on your behalf.
Please note that a copy of an objection will normally be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s legal representative.
Please also note that any communications or supporting documents you supply may also be disclosed to the other parties even if marked ‘confidential’ or to similar effect.
If you wish to object to the application you must do so before 12 noon on «NOTC_EXPY_DATE_15». If we do not receive an objection before then the application may be completed.
3 Further information
If you have any queries regarding this notice please contact me quoting the title number. Please note that Land Registry staff are not authorised to give legal advice. For help of this nature please contact your solicitor or other person qualified to give legal advice.
NB. Is your address correct? An incorrect address could mean that you do not receive important notices and you may suffer loss as a result. For information on how to change your contact details or add an address please see www.gov.uk/government/publications/updat... on GOV.UK (or search for “COG1”) or contact Land Registry Customer Support (0300 006 0411) (0300 006 0422 for Welsh speakers).
I consent to the application referred to in this notice.
Signed
Name in full
(print)
Title number
Date

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

My complaint was that the Land Registry had not provided information that I knew to be on file.

As it was, the Land Registry finally provided it ( see above) -via my private address to dodge a WDTK response.

The ICO states that my request was 'frivolous' -also ignoring the DPA
Complaint if putting my private files on the WDTK request, and that I was right to continue to chase data that existed - but was being withheld.

Apparently I am wrong and 'frivolous' :

1. about complainng that my personal information was disclosed on the internet in response to a procedural request ( DPAct).
So presumably the ICO does not enforce this law any longer:

The Data Protection Act 1998

What does the law say?
Under section 42 of the DPA, any person who is, or believes that he is, directly affected by the processing of personal data, can ask the Information Commissioner to consider whether the processing is likely to comply with the law.
On receiving such a request, the Commissioner is obliged to consider the concern and make an assessment. The Commissioner can do this in whichever way he or she believes is most appropriate. The Commissioner will usually share the view formed and any action taken as a result.

2. And that the Land Registry withheld the requested information.
The ICO also seemingly no longer upholds the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

The Act creates a general right of access, on request, to information held by public authorities. On receipt of a freedom of information claim a public authority has two corresponding duties.

First, a duty to inform a member of the public whether or not it holds the information requested (s1(1)(a)), and second if it does hold that information, to communicate it to the person making that request (s1(1)(b)).

As the corollary to this, the Act thus grants the equivalent rights to a confirmation or denial and communication of relevant information to an individual making a request under the act.

The basic duty is supplemented by an additional duty to aid individuals in making requests and ensuring that they frame their FOI requests appropriately. (s.16(1))

With the consequence of my complaint about the breaking of the two Acts being being declared frivolous ...

ICO :

Turning specifically to your current complaint, I am writing to advise you that we are dismissing your complaint as frivolous, under section 50(2)(c) for the following reasons.

It appears that your information request to Land Registry and subsequent complaint to this office directly relates to previous requests you have made to Land Registry and complaints you have made to the Information Commissioner’s Office. These relate to the boundary at your address.

You have pursued information requests with the Land Registry and complaints with the Commissioner where, even if the request *appears* to be related to a general issue, there is invariably some connection to the boundary issue at your address.

The Commissioner is satisfied that *although you state that your current request is not about a specific piece of land* , many of your previous dealings with Land Registry, which the Commissioner has taken into account, stem from concerns you have about your belief that your boundary has been moved and it is her position that this request does indeed stem from that same issue and is inextricably linked to it.

It is the Commissioner’s position that Land Registry should have considered the impact and burden of your correspondence at an earlier stage and should have considered the application of section 14 or Regulation 12(4)(b). However, she understands and accepts that in responding to your requests, Land Registry has been trying to be helpful.

The Commissioner notes that in annotations made on ‘What do they know’ (WDTK) relating to this specific request, you point out that Land Registry was involved in a previous pay out to you. You suggest that this has had an impact on how Land Registry handles your request; your suggestion that requests are refused because Land Registry fears “some kind of imaginary law suit” effectively alleges that because of your previous dealings, Land Registry does not now comply with the FOIA in respect of your particular requests.

The Commissioner considers that the annotations made by you on WDTK and the view you have set out could be considered inflammatory and could be considered campaign-like in nature.

In your requests and further correspondence on WDTK, you set out to Land Registry that “it is your choice whether or not to comply with the ACT”; the Commissioner considers this to support the view that there is no serious intent behind your ‘request’ but rather that WDTK serves as a vehicle to publicly air your grievances about Land Registry and to question its integrity and ability to Act within the confines of the FOIA in respect of your requests, suggesting that Land Registry may perceive compliance with the Act to be optional.

Although you have set out in this request that you are asking for recorded information, I note that you then ask:

“How can land existing – but ‘vanished’ from LR mapping – be described when enquiring of the LR why it doesn’t exist in LR mapping…. As – despite enquiring I have been unable to gain a reply from the LR?

It is the Commissioner’s view that a question such as this does not constitute a request for recorded information but serves only as a public criticism of Land Registry’s handling of your previous correspondence.

Your second question then sets out that your previous correspondence is reasonable but that you have had no reply so you have had to ask if Land Registry has discontinued its policy of returning letters with a compliments slip “without answering them (which was the policy strategy used to cover up a LR mistake…. And for which the LR eventually had to pay out a four figure sum.” This again demonstrates that your correspondence has little serious intent other than to publicly vent your frustration with Land Registry.

It is the Commissioner’s view that this represents a further example of a ‘question’ which sets out your position that you are reasonable and that Land Registry does not handle your correspondence effectively (or in a way which you find acceptable). It is not a request for recorded information as even the question which relates to ‘policy’ requires a yes or no answer rather than the provision of recorded information.

Your additional questions, which I will not detail here, also set out what is essentially your position regarding your experience with Land Registry. These do not constitute requests for recorded information.

The Freedom of Information Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent and accountable. It is not intended to be used as a vehicle for individuals to pursue their own personal agenda or vendetta against a particular public authority.

The Commissioner will not now consider any further complaints from you which stem from this same topic as it will not be an effective use of limited resources and could impact on the reputation of the ICO. As such I can confirm that this complaint case is now closed.

::::::

So, according to the ICO, I am the guilty party....

1. As the the Land Registry mishandled my complaint so badly that it had to pay be compensation.

2. For complaining to the ICO that the Land Registry's legal department put my personal files ( and those of others ) on the internet - as an FOIA a response to this request.

3. Complaining to the ICO that I knew the data existed ...and that the Land Registry should provide it.

4. Pointing out to the ICO caseworker that the Land Registry had sent the data to my personal address - to avoid putting it on WDTK -where I had now put it for everyone to see.
So it did in fact exist.

5 There were two breaches of The Acts (FOIA and DPA) in my complaint yet apparently it is to carry out a 'personal vendetta' to report them.

:::

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Apparently DPA breaches 3/4 were not to be taken into consideration.

The Land Registry was warned after breaches 1/2. ..which were apparently 'inadvertent'....So the Land Registry just carried on - with DPA breaches 3/4.

So I questioned why, after the Land Registry had been warned AND it made two more DPA breaches, that this didn't constitute continual flouting of the law.

The ICO decided that I was vexatious and frivolous to question this series of four DPA breaches.

Some justice.

::

April 1. 2016

Case Reference Number RFA0613695

Dear Ms TO

Thank you for the further information you have provided.

As this appears to be the second time the Land Registry has inadvertently disclosed your personal data on the website “Whatdotheyknow” (WDTK) we have written to point out that this type of disclosure is likely to breach the DPA.

I understand that the Land Registry removed the personal data as soon as it was aware of the disclosures. However, we have asked it to exercise care when responding to requests on WDTK not to include any personal data in its responses.

Although at this stage we are not taking any further action we will keep the concerns raised on file. This will help us over time to build up a picture of Land Registry’s information rights practices.

Yours sincerely

JC
Lead Case Officer

So that really is a warning.

Requesters:

1. Don't report DPA breaches .
2. Any 'excuse' that the Public Authority gives will be fully accepted by the ICO.
3. Because you will end up vexed.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi JT Oakley,
today l received a communication from CT at the ICO.
This is in relation to my attempts of contact with the ICO that have been ongoing since July 2009.
I post this as interest at a National Level to inform the UK Public at large to the similar / same problems to yourself l have been having .
SO NOT AN ISOLATED CASE .
Firstly l publish below for the uninitiated what was meant to be achieved through the setting up of Land Registry and the registration process, as written in - B , Conveyance of Registered Land by Robert Abbey :-
" 1.11, The preamble to the Land Registry Act 1862 states that....' it is expedient to give certainty to the title to real estates and to facilitate the proof thereof and also to render the dealing with land more simple more simple and economical'. It remains true 144 years later, that the aims of the system for the conveyance of registered land should be reliability and simplicity , and that the process be economic. These are the objectives that underpin the drive for the complete registration of land throughout England & Wales. However , above all else the major difference between the traditional system and registered land is that registered land is accompanied by a State Guarantee of Title that is guaranteed by and through Land Registry ."
What Land Registry has been hiding for a number of years is the fact they lost access to their own Electronic Data back in 1994.
Along with an open register ( non- challenging of any applications for different addresses for service) from 1990- 2009, and the first sweep of the complete registration , for the cut off date of the 1st December 1990, that after this date no property or land in England & Wales changed hands without being registered.
Basically along with other gaps in a very flawed system it allowed the use of copy documents to run with spurious wrong addresses attached to titles at Land Registry Offices.
Opening up over 350 different ways of there being an existence of an over-riding interest , that according to the adjudication of the ASA , Land Registry is not duty bound to tell owners or purchasers of property / land.
It is pointless to come forward with original or certified documents once there is a commencement of illicit claims , where Land Registry is running with depriving the lawful owner of property / land, as it is written into their Land Registry Rules , that they are right to still rely on the " altered copy documents " provided for such claims.
My letter from the ICO is to tell me that following my elected MP writing to them with my concerns , they are considering changes in their disengagement of me.
I have been disengaged with following the ICO recording that in my case Land Registry had breached the DPA by not complying with my valid DPA(SAR), only to stay in harmony with Land Registry , they fiddled the date for that breach .
What should have been the date of early March 2009 , was allowed to be altered to the 21 st January 2011.
Mine like the problems JT Oakley and others have been having was termed to be a boundary dispute , even through the Land involved was registered , and like JT Oakley l was given the complete runaround even through the circumstances prove my information was constantly being given not only by Land Registry , but also the ICO acting with Land Registry, to others .
My conveyance document was stolen by Land Charges at Legal Services Commission , then when the time was right , it was handed to KUH Land Registry.
This was to cover up the fact the document had not been destroyed in an archive fire at my solicitors as l had been told.
A covenant document to my entitlement to further properties / lands, was stolen , by solicitors who were meant to be holding it under a legal cause l sanctioned on them .
This covenant document l witnessed in the hands of the solicitor acting for this claim to my registered land , disguised as a boundary issue , with the judge whose nose it was being waved under, going on court record refusing a restriction that was being asked for with the use of this document , that is my own property and that should never have been with anyone but me.
Kingston upon Hull Land Registry ignored both this judge and my also lodging complaint of conflict of interest with them, and put a restriction against my title.
So in the language of Land Registry, even when you own a registered title, their working with such agencies as the Independent Complaints Review / The Information Commissioners Office and The Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman , can cheat you out of your home and land.
I bought a registered title that Inland Revenue have confirmed in writing includes the properties / lands, that all these discretions of Land Registry and their ringing solicitors who are meant to be acting for me , amount to complicated orcastrated frauds, that from my personal experiences is happening the length and breadth of the UK.
Marco Pierleoni as the Chief Executive of Land Registry in April 2010, wrote to me stating that l own a registered title and " assuring" me, that l cannot be deprived of land from that title by a wrong address / postcode, being lodged at a Land Registry Office.
Well folks there are lots of cases were it all stems from different names and addresses being lodged without the knowledge of the true owners ( registered titles or otherwise)
The common denominator is the involvement at all levels of Land Registry and the so called complaints bodies , and the use of our personal and sensitive information.
This all makes our rights for correct information to be held about us and our rights to request information under Information ACTS, being ACTS OF PARLIAMENT , seriously flawed.
I was targeted by someone elses legal aid charge being lodged in the caution register at KUH Land Registry, and her solicitors lodging a different address for my title to enable my information and that of my title to be sent to them.
I am extremely lucky there was a cockup and the documents were wrongly sent to me.
That said on the express advice of the head of Lincolnshire Police's Economic Crime Unit, l sent copies of these aforesaid documents to the ICO, as the correct agency to deal with such issues.
The response of the investigating officer at the ICO after her four months of sitting on said documents, was she did not understand them.
Let me see now, my registered title, and here we have someone else's name, and it being allowed to continue from my first complaining in August 1995?
Many, many complaints since ....

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Mine isn't a personal case.

The Land Registry insists that it is, simply because I've chased infurmatiin on the grounds that I knew it existed.

The Registry's response was to name my own home - where there is no boundary dispute.

This request is plainly spelt out as a 'process request'. There's a clue in the title, which is within scope,

And the Land Registry finally produces the information..

Yet apparently I am 'frivolous and vexatious' for complaining that:

1. The Land Registry broke the DPA x4
2. The information existed ...and was deliberately withheld
3. I received the requested the information ......it's posted above. ....before the ICO judged that it didn't exist.
4. And the ICO also declared my complaint frivolous and vexatious AFTER the Land Registry finally produced it.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi J T Oakley,
I was one of five parties seeking to challenge a fraudulent claim to land already registered.
All five of us were denied disclosure that we were entitled to from Land Registry under the FOIA.
Whilst it has affected me personally , the whole set up was based on theft of my lawful documents and my supposedly protected information (DPA).
Even though l have been proved to be right at every stage and the ICO recorded Land Registry breaching the DPA , l was disengaged with by the ICO.
The overall picture is that Land Registry and Land Charges at Legal Services Commission have been allowing addresses different to accepted postal addresses , to be lodged at Land Registry Offices , using LSC Official Forms , for persons that are not the lawful owners of the properties, but that are seeking to benefit property / land.
Providing the documental evidence to the ICO , l am told they do not understand them.
Clearly if Mrs S.... owns and resides at a certain address , why would there be a second set of books showing someone else and a different address , for someone receiving my information and anything to do with my home?
This is a national problem , that l have been able to disclose in my own case as there has been the errors of sending me the other persons information and details.
And yet still on many, many, occasions no correction was made and Land Registry continued to hide everything in the caution register.
Whilst the spurious / fraudulent claim for adverse land possession was for land already confirmed to me to be my registered land, with Land Registry then refusing to investigate , preferring to refer a case for judicial involvement that was a no no because of a known caution being in play that had already been flagged back in 2000 as an error.
The simplicity of the situation is that all that was required was an investigation into why Land Registry confirmed the land to be registered land according to their own records, and the records in my deeds that were lodged with solicitors told the same thing, that the land was already registered with the title l purchased and for which both myself and the vendors before me had paid stamp duty land tax on.
Failing Land Registry investigating , it then fell for The Independent Complaints Review to investigate.
The ICR only ever referred everything back to Land Registry.
I approached the third tier of the complaints process being The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and they did nothing.
I then took it up with Land Registry's Commercial Services and they referred it back to my local Land Registry Office.
I think it can be assumed that far from being a Public Body protecting the UK Public's homes and land , it is a listening post , giving our information and that of our assets to allow frauds to occur. This in my case has been proved as the Customer Services Manager at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry rang my acting solicitors on the 23 rd October 2007 to plan with them for stealing property and land from me.
Whilst l got an admittance to Land Registry being in the wrong for failing to disclose the information the total claim relied on, they hid further non-discloses that turned up when l finally received the information for my DPA request two years late. Now if Land Registry have admitted l have a point in law against them, why will they not correspond with me on their further indiscretion's resulting from the same phone call?
If as l suspect this is a very widespread problem and certainly numbers far more that the 6,500 plus figure already admitted by Gurmale Sondh ( Land Registry's Information Officer), for the cases referred since the 25 th July 2007 for judicial involvement without disclosure of the much needed evidence of the adjudication against Land Registry by The Advertising Standards Authority for Land Registry publishing misleading literature, targeted at 50 % of property / land owners in England & Wales.
I am on record requesting my MP to address the problems Land Registry was causing at a National Level as advised by a manager at the European Courts , that was totally ignored by him ( Sir Peter Tapsell, Father of the House of Commons at that time).

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

This is the second time an ICO caseworker didn't bother to check the evidence on a WDTK request before vexing.

http://informationrights.decisions.tribu...

I'm getting rather fed up with the ICO and its caseworkers who cave in and believe the Public Authority, no mater how illiogical and ridiculous.

The Land Registry was relying on craftily sending me the information - via personal email - and thinking I wouldn't put the process on WDTK

I must state that I thought there was a personal element in this because all the caseworker had to do was read the WDTK request .....and see that the Land Registry had answered my request.

Clearly checking and reading the request wasn't an option in the haste to describe me as ' frivolous'.

I complained -stating that I couldn't logically be frivolous if the information existed.

But the ICO complaints system is to have the caseworker's manager investigate their own team -i.e. If s/he is a good manager of own team caseworkers...

Surprise!.......

....Of course I was still 'frivolous' -no apology.

Disgusted with the ICO's 'mark your own homework' system.

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi J T Oakley,
I know what you mean , previously l wrote to the ICO quoting exactly from a posted reply.by them to someone on the WDTK , over it would fall to some one different handling a further request from a same person.
They has foisted on me a same person for a further request.
It got me no where.
I have a police report over the theft of my conveyance document that they should not have had it ( but because the police say it is a civil matter they will take it no further at the moment).
The Independent Complaints Review directed Land Registry return my conveyance document that they should not have had, and l never recieved the £250.00 p compensation that on record the ICR directed l should get.
I have two rulings in my favour from the Independent Police Complaints Commission against the now retired Lincolnshire Chief Constable ( over his published defamation of my character).
The ICO took over two years before recording Land Registry as having breached the DPA for not complying with my accepted to be valid DPA(SAR).
The copy of this record had a pre written defamation of my character and l had to hand over copy of this to my MP.
You do not expect after finally getting a ruling that it is disappated by personal comments about yourself.
My MP looked at it and said " The Information Commissioners Office, l see they are in Cheshire, l have never heard of them".
This MP l had been lobbying for twelve years when l got this ruling and he said that.
Not long after l got a letter from this same MP , stating my file with him was the largest file he had had in over 57 years as an MP.
A total of four judges have been ignored by Land Registry.
My point being even when like you , you are proved right, they never miss a chance to back- bite.
Mine is a much recorded registered title and had been confirmed including the land l have been forced into nineteen court hearings for, with official TID from Land Registry on the 13 th February 2007 . It read Title Absolute including the then targeted 50 acres.
On the 15 th February 2007 the access and orchard was confirmed by Land Registry to be my registered land " according to records held there at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry".
If this is how owners of confirmed to be registered titles are targeted of assets , it makes a total mockery as Land Registry must be full of corrupt staff doing the exact opposite of what their jobs should be about.
I would like to invoke my right to ask my elected MP for " a right of grievance petition" to enable it being brought up about the conduct of Land Registry Staff in The House of Commons, but l wrote on three occassions requesting this from my previous MP , who was Father of the House of Commons at that time.
Either he wanted himself to ignore the Judge who recommended this option as a way to expose matters, or he did not realise it formed his role as a MP to respond.
I did some years ago when Ann Abrahams was the PHSO Ombudsman , get a lengthy apology for a memer of their review team referring to me as beig stupid , but sadly the PHSO carried on just ignoring me.
The UK Public need to know that our present systems including The Information Commissioners Office, bow to the very agencies they are meant to be in place to investigate.
A High Court Judge in two communications via his clerk to me , instructed me to bring the new evidence my investigating officer promised would be forthcoming from Land Registry under the internal review l was already promised.
Records show I was told l would get the information, yet requesting it from the 9 th October 2011 and the judge writing in November 2011 , still left me without the promised documents for the hearing some four and half months after Land Registry should have complied and provided it.
Disengagement by the ICO has been the order of the day ever since, to run with the disengagement policy of Land Registry / The Legal Services Commission / The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry / ICR / PHSO . And yet disengagement by all these bodies is just a thought up process that is not even lawful, just their means to create revolving doors and not being able to move forward.
Add to the recipe our manically busy overworked courts system , with most unable to afford to pay a solicitor or barrister and you start to realise why Land Registry adopt this ignoring of members of the public, as clearly for them it works and keeps the wolves from their door.

Jean James left an annotation ()

The whole system is corrupt. Thousands of people are having their properties stolen and the establishment closes ranks to conceal the fact that organised crime is embedded in the Land Registry.

The government knows. One can only assume they are deeply involved because they do NOTHING about it and police refuse to get involved. They want to force victims of fraud into civil action in order to line the pockets of the courts and lawyers.

The legal system in the UK is worse than in Bulgaria.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org