Mr. Petty, Roger,
Departmental Records Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

I wrote to you 11th April 2017 with regard to your process of handling scenario and policy in relation to HM adjudication in matters of Land Registry. This information at this date has not been provided. I am therefore left to find this information from historical cases.

Can you, therefore provide me documents under Freedom of Information 2000 and subsequent revisions of this Act with regard to the procedural handling by Land Registry of the following titles involving the Secretary of State at the time:
ESX219073, ESX242205, ESX265275, ESX266177, ESX269999, ESX271940, ESX271940, ESX271942, ESX271945, ESX271945, ESX279145, ESX279146, ESX284121, ESX285064, ESX 79088, ESX11521, ESX264453, ESX265275, ESX265562, ESX265562, ESX265625, ESX266177, ESX266177, ESX266955, ESX271932, ESX271933, ESX271935, ESX271935, ESX271937, ESX271938, ESX271939, ESX271940, ESX271942, ESX271942, ESX271945, ESX273794, ESX273794, ESX273794, ESX274405, ESX275050 ESX275955, ESX278135, ESX279028,ESX279088, ESX279145, ESX279146, ESX279147, ESX279836, ESX279836, ESX281349, ESX284121, ESX285064, ESX289136, ESX315217, ESX78530, EX265275.

1) Can you explain whether either Mr. Pugh or yourself Mr. Rogers had and dealing or experience with these titles or any titles there under above in relation to point 4?
2) Can you advise me of the date of adjudication and the name of the HM adjudicator in relation to these titles above?
3) Can you provide me the Secretary of State name who dealt with these titles in relation to point 4?
4) Can you provide me all documents in relation to the titles the covenants on these titles which either hold names of Mr. Pugh or yourself Mr. Rogers as acting on behalf of Land Registry and any documents bearing representatives from Applicants in relation to the 1000 year covenant and any references to Mr. Herbert Triton (Historically deceased) in this paperwork?

I look forward to your urgent response in this matter. Should this requested material be large in volume I understand that you may require a fee. Can you please advise me of this cost at your earliest convenience and an address where this remittance can be sent.

Yours faithfully,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Roger Petty
Departmental Records Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
Email [1][email address]
[2]GOV.UK | [3]@LandRegGov | [4]LinkedIn | [5]Facebook

Dear Sir

Please send me recorded information, which includes information held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.

If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a clarification, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the Act, you are required to advise and
assist requesters.(Section 16 / Regulation 9).

If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees.

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.

Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section (Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the Act.

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.

I would like the above information in relation to this request for information to be provided to me as electronic copies, via WDTK. The information should be immediately readable - and, as a freedom of Information request, not put in a PDF or any closed form, which some readers may not be able to access.

I understand that you are required to respond to my request within the 20 working days after you receive this initial request. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Roger Petty
Departmental Records Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

Dear Sir

I write regard you communication 28 April 2017. I note that you stated that a number of titles involve the Secretary of State.

I can inform you that I have already contacted Hansard, The Parliamentary Archives unit, Parliament and The Department of Health they are not able to supply me with this deed from their archives which involves some of these titles I have contacted the Secretary of State in 1979 and have received no reply either.

It is a reasonable assertion to make and noteworthy that a covenant and lease are made synonymously and can sometimes be represented without an error and lead to searching for additional 100 years in some cases. I hope this helps though I could not comment why this error would be there.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Roger Petty
Departmental Records Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
Dear Petty, Roger,

For clarrity, I note in your reply dated 28 April 2017 that you stated: "Thank you for your email of 28 April 2017 requesting documents with regard to the procedural handling by Land Registry of a number of titles involving the Secretary of State."

Can you additionally for clarity inform me how you can be aware of which titles are affected by involvement of the Secretary of State when you have failed to provide me with deed from the Secretary of Estate or the deeds from Herbert Triton Sankey or the deed involving this covenant that this decision was allegedly made in respect to by the Secretary of State alleged deed and involvement. Please provide this information which you have had sight of which allows you this determination?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Mr Roger Petty
Departmental Records Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

Dear Mr. Roger,

I do not seem to have to have had a reply from you to-date Mr. Pugh sent me the following files which were in relation to the concern that the first Registration of HT19042 wa\s not correct in its first registration. The matter was requested to have a decision made by an adjudicator this has been ignored by Mr. Pugh The following files have been sent to me in hard copy for your clarification:

1834-01-01 - Conveyance indenture HT2507 Registered 31 Jul 1930 - Hayward.pdf
1845-02-16 - Abstract Title HT2767 - Shadwell.pdf
1845-02-15 - Abstract title HT1767 includes 1877 deed - Harvey.pdf
1863-06-24 - HT7853 Abstract of title.pdf
1863-06-24 - HT7853 Abstract of title-compressed.pdf
1864-03-09 - Copy Restrictive Covenants in relation Nos 78 and 80 Church Street.pdf
1865-06-17 - Plots of land for sale.pdf
1869-11-19 - Abstract of Title HT2507 no 76 formally No 21 Church Street - Jordon & Coussens.pdf
1887-05-14 - Abstract of Title 6 Church Street - Plan.pdf
1897-11-26 - Sublimental Abstract 22 & 23 Church Street - knight.pdf
1904-10-01 - Abstract of Title 76 & 78 Church Street HT2770 - Eldridge.pdf
1904-11-05 - Title Abstract 76 & 78 Church Street HT276 - Jordon & coussens.pdf
1930 11-10 - conveyance N0 78 HT2770.pdf
1930-09-17 - Conveyance HT7853.pdf
1936 -05-15 - HT7853 Title 6 Church Street.pdf
1936-05-16 - Title Plan HT7853.pdf
1946-08-15 - Title Number HT13332 88 Church Street.pdf
1953-08-06 - HT14836 82 Church Street.pdf
1957-10-13 - County Borough of Hastings Housing Act - Clearance Order.pdf
1958-05-27 - Freehold conveyance Land at Church Street HT16634 transfer Meeson.pdf
1962-05-25 - HT19042 from Title HT6159 transfer of Title.pdf
1962-08-13 - AP1 - HT19042 -28 Church street.pdf
1962-10-19 - HT6159 Plan A3.pdf
1985-01-28 - General Vesting Decleration.pdf
1987-05-14 - Abstract of title 6 church street HT7853 - Gurr.pdf
1997-02-17 - ESX275050 21 Speckled Wood.pdf
1998-12-11 - ESX139074 Hollybery Holdings Title.pdf
2004-01-15 - ESX15022 6 Greville Road.pdf
2011-10-10 - HCA ESX268862 Land At Clifton Road.pdf
2014-05-16 - Title Plan ESX259687.pdf
2014-05-24 - ESX279836 158 Frederick Road.pdf
2015-01-09 - HT19042 Title and Plan.pdf
2015-01-30 - Title and Plan HCA ESX27409.pdf
2015-01-30 - Title Plan ESX268862 Church Street.pdf
2016-01-27 - TR1 Gemselect ESX268862, ESX259687 and ESX27409.pdf
2016-02-10 - Historical copy of Title Absolute Gemselect ESX268862.pdf
2016-03-14 - ESX268862 Land at Church Street.pdf
2016-06-23 - TR1 Fort Bailey ESX268862, ESX259687, ESX274409.pdf
2016-06-23 - TR1 Fort Bailey ESX268862, ESX259687, ESX274409.pdf
2016-07-13 - Historical copy of Register title ESX268862.pdf
Hastings Clearance Order 1960.pdf

As you can see no deeds for the titles above or the covenants have been provided in relation to the 1000 year lease or a Title plan for the 38 acres that the lease or covenant of three houses applies too. This is of great concern and it is felt that you are not upkeeping the register correctly. I do not believe your incorrigibility is correct Can you inform me if there is an impossibility or falsity of content, please?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Ms. Jane Allen,
Legal Department
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal )
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

Dear Madam , Sir

Am I to consider Mr. Petty's incorrigibility is correct Can you inform me if there is an impossibility or falsity of content, please?

I wrote to Mr. Pugh on the 11 /4/2017 by signed for delivery letter as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------ATTACHMENT------------------------------------------
Mr. Mark Pugh
Senior Casework Executive, Customer Support Centre
Land Registry Office. Ty Cwm Tawe, Phoenix Way, Llansamlet, Swansea SA7 9FQ
and
CC: Land Registry Wales Office. PO Box 75, Gloucester GL14 9BD.

LR Reference 170114-000049, and 161208-004988, 170112-002835, 170110-001600 and 170012-0002815.
Your Reference: HT19042/ANO/207Corres/MP.
Our Reference: HT19042-MN/B/R/D.
Police Reference 060628012017.

CC: Police 101 and Local Government Committee.
Parliamentary Investigations Unit Ref: PA- 266397, "Hollux Affair".
BY EMAIL AND BY REGISTERED LETTER. 11th April 2017.
Dear Sir,
We write in reference to your communication dated 1st April 2017 again. I note that you provide no information and that you do not note that I have sent you correspondence dated 27th March 2017 sent using Royal Mail Delivery - signed for next day ref SF428364151GB for which I expected a due reply to. I remind you that your action is due under statutory Land Registry Practice Guidance Guide 39 under rectification and indemnity. In addition, the Land Registry Act 2002 lays down the circumstances in which a mistake in the register can be put right, and when it can’t.
Information requested

HT19042 First Registration of Land at Church Street in Ore Valley now known in total as Speckled Wood, Estate. This first registration of documents occurred 4th July 2003, bringing together titles of land. Our initial investigation concerned missing restrictive covenant of 8 houses, which has led us to a further restrictive covenant. The request also requested information in relation to land parcels nod. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 15 which were on your Ordnance Survey Map V25TXLB as sent to me by letter 10th Feb 2017 which were agreed was in question. I informed you by Royal Mail Delivery - signed for next day ref AF763808994GB that your General Vesting Map Declaration 31st July 1959 does not contain these parcels of land on your O/S map V25TCLB nod. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 15. It should be noted from 1981 Legislation in regard to Compulsory Purchase Act deals with compulsory purchase of common land for the purpose of maintaining it. It is not a statement in anyway synonymous with development or subsequent profit through sale. There is a clear detailed account of Acquisition of land by way of a General Vesting Order under Practice Guide 54. This process describes account as involving SIMM search, Search of Index Map and Inspection of the Register. It explains under section 3.2 to prove, by including the details prescribed in the statute with Chief Executive Officers or Conveyancers Certificate that the declaration has come into effect against a Title Register Number. Under Section 4 first registration it is stated that first registration that the same Certificate of Declaration is required. Section 4 also is clear on Restrictive covenants, where full encumbrances, easements and covenant evidence is required to be produced at first registration.
Search for missing Deeds.

Up until the 1st April 2017 you seem to have only misquoted your regulations to me, provided me a large bundle of papers which point to a wrong parcel of land, which was already disclosed to you on the 14th February 2017 and your initiating request for its location 10th February 2017 enclosing map which was numbered 1 to 23. I explained in my correspondence rather than providing the documents under your legislation that you had chosen to send me something entirely different and returned my cheque for payment for your services rather than provide me with said information in my correspondence 14th February 2017. Your correspondence to me 7th March 2017 outlined that you were returning my payments for OC2 land registry service. These funds were returned by Fee Remittance Advice cheque 16th March 2017. A further bundle of documents was sent to us 6th February 2017. This was principally in deference to an investigation in regard to locating the veracity of missing covenants in the register pertaining to Title HT19042.

Serious criminal matter
Firstly, the matters you deal with under point 1 deal with alleged criminal activity. I would point out to you the difference between civil law regarding the law relating to civil wrongs and quasi-contracts is part of the civil law. The law of property is embraced by civil law. and criminal law regarding a system of law concerned with the punishment of offenders. I am sure I do not need to inform you of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
From your point 1. Serious Criminal matter. You informed me that these matters would fall within the police remit and do not fall within the remit of Land Registry. However, I have asked you in my communications dated:
• 27th March 2017 Recorded signed for letter, SF42836415GB – Request for referral to Adjudicator.
• 3rd of March 2017, Recorded Signed for letter, SF428364151GB.
• 18th of March 2017, Recorded signed for delivery SF42836442GB.
• 6th March 2017 2:35pm, by email communication.
• 2nd March 2017, recorded Signed for Letter AF763808994GB.
• 27th February 2017 Recorded Signed for Delivery BH217034352GB with OC2.
• 24th February 2017 at 2:11pm by email.
• 21 February 2017 by signed for delivery BH217034220GB with OC2 Request.
• 14 February 2017 by recorded delivery outlining plots involved with this individual matter on this site.

To provide the details of covenants on said land and the documents provided have brought forward different information in deeds than what is recorded on land registry.
You will be aware that to-date we have only received now two packages of documents from you dated 6th February 2017 and 1st of April 2017 by signed for delivery AU14434231 5GB. I will not deal with the information in this first package as this has been dealt with in my previous correspondence above and does not deal with ownership of the land which was agreed with you that you would look at in several matters pertaining to land ownership in the Speckled Wood Estate. Principally the area of land on a map you supplied which was numbered, which were identified as from your O/S map V25TCLB nod. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 15.

It should be noted and apparent from the deeds for 78 & 80 and 82 Church Street under papers lodged namely ‘Copy of Restrictive Covenants’ dated 9th March 1864 and respectively ‘Property Register HT14836’ dated 6 August 1953 that such covenants existed prior to the registration that inferred an obligation in law that no more than three houses could be built on land that encompassed 38 acres in size and situated in the Ore Valley, part of what we now call the Speckled Wood Estate. The binding documents you have provided do not cover completely these 38 acres of land in total.
It should be noted from these covenants:

“AND the said Thomas Jordon doth hereby for himself his heir’s executors administrators and assigns the covenants with Spencer Hayward his heirs and assigns (owner or owners for the time being of every piece of land containing 38 acres or thereabouts) that he said that Thomas Jordon his heirs or assigns shall not nor will erect or cause or permit to be erected on the said land hereby granted or intended so to be any building of less value than one hundred and fifty pounds and that the frontage of any building must be in accordance with the building line as shown on said plan and that no greater number of houses than three shall be erected on said land AND that no noxious noisome or offensive trade or business whatsoever shall be carried on upon the same land nor shall any house or building that may now or hereafter be erected thereon be used as a Public House or Beer Shop…”

There would seem from this to be some no correct covenants on these 38 acres and these would be used up in their entitlement.

It seems clear that this covenant above is missing from the first registration documents of HT19042. Yet they are evidenced to exist. I would understand this is a breach is a breach under first registration. I would have expected to see this restrictive covenant above on this Transfer. But it is not declared.
It can further be seen from the Sussex Agriculture Express dated 13th July 1889[1 ] that:
“In the Bankruptcy, Ore, Near Hastings, Sale of Valuable Freehold BUILDING LAND. MESSRS, WORSFOLD & HAYWARD. Have received instructions from the Trustee of the estate of Mr. H. T. Sankey, TO SELL BY AUCTION, at the Castle Hotel, Hastings on THURSDAY, 25th July 1898 at three o’clock in the Afternoon in five lots, the under mentioned plots of FREEHOLD BUILDING LAND:
Lot 1. A – Highly valuable PLOT OF FREEHOLD…” and “…having frontage of 260 feet to the London Road and a return frontage of 152 feet to Coghurst Road.
Lot 2. A – Valuable PLOT OF FREEHOLD …” and “…having frontage of 285 feet to Queens Road, with a return frontage of 152 feet to Clifton Road and an average depth of 172 feet.
Lot 3. A - PLOT OF FREEHOLD…” and “…having a frontage of 270 feet, to Clifton Road, a return frontage of 100 feet to Percy Road and 90 feet to Coghurst Road.
Lot 4. A - PLOT OF FREEHOLD…” and “…having a frontage of 160ft to Church Street, with an average depth of 100 feet.
lot 5. A -PLOT OF LAND NEAR to the waterworks having a frontage to Church Street the whole land slopes to the south and has a valuable bed of sandstone rock underlying it …” and “ …opportunity for investment”.
It should be noted Queens Road is now known as Victoria Avenue. Please note that from our correspondence that more than three houses have been built on these 38 acres of Vine Farm Estate now known as Speckled Wood, Hastings which was subject in its entirety to a General Development Plan 1930 to provide the area to the public for their use.

Figure 1: The Gazette dated 26th May 1863.
NOT SHOWN
It is detailed in the table below Figure 6 shows the bankruptcy proceedings in regard to the land at Speckled Wood. Which led to this Observer advertisement. The maps we sent you in our communication by signed for delivery were taken from the land sale of this land by Spencer Hayward and Thomas Jordan as appearing in the gazette dated Tuesday 26th May 1863 advertising this land for sale at auction by his agent Mr John Curtis (left):
Yet it can be seen below that Mr. H. T. Sankey was selling the land: Hastings Observer 25th July 1889 - Bankruptcy sale by the order of the H T Sankey estate in 5 lots(below)

Figure 2: 25th July 1889 Observer.
NOT SHOWN

Figure 3: The Hastings General Development Plan 1930.
NOT SHOWN

It seems to me that the persistence of this covenant on multiple title would infer that the Vine Farm Estate has this covenant subsisting on its land. It is also known that Herbert Triton Sankey had ownership of said control of water works on his the 38 acres site originally set up to supply water for the work house and would have appeared to have set up a covenant in regard to access to water and this would have not been of benefit or interest to either Thomas Jordon or Spencer Hayward even though this covenant supplied with registration by Spencer Hayward would infer by assignment that they were his covenant
It is evident in relation to the 38 acres’ covenant from page 2, on Vine Farm Estate the remaining land now being known as Speckled Wood Hastings, that the last pages of this covenant deal with ‘water rights’ from said waterworks on site including making regular payment for water “furnished in a good quality and in sufficient quantity for use but during such time only as the same messuage shall be occupied pay the said Spencer Hayward” and heirs etc.
It can be evidenced that Mr. Herbert Triton Sankey would seem to have had ownership of water works 1887 and from the Hastings Observer 5th November 1887 it can be seen clearly that the ownership of the land by way of the transfer of land part of Vine Estate that Mr. Sankey offered part of this Vine Farm Estate by way of a letter dated 10th October 1887 to the Board of Guardians of the Hastings Union:

Figure 4: Hastings Observer - 5th November 1887.
NOT SHOWN

In addition, as the owner of the land Mr. Herbert Triton Sankey has tried to apply for the footpath to be moved on the Vine Farm Estate in Hastings Observer 5th March 1887[2 ]:

Figure 5: Hastings Observer - 5th March 1887.
NOT SHOWN

Points requiring attention.
For the sake of clarity, the emphasis of this investigation should conclude where the likely reasonable introduction of covenants has appeared in the register. The location and addition via the first registration process is quite clear on what wording should be used in relation to covenants and infers that the investigation burden be on the party registering the land on first registration. However it would appear that this information has not been given correctly, which would in turn cease the Hastings Corporation registration. It is also clear that any General Vesting Order should under its own legislation do adequate research to locate owners. It would appear on first look that this was not the case. You should note that you have still not provided to me any evidence on deed or General Vesting Order how Hastings Corporation came by the land 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 15 from your O/S map V25TCLB. For sake of transparency it is known by us:
16th Feb 1845 Hayward made purchase of Vine Farm Estate.
14th Dec 1863 The Observer Paper shows development in area going ahead.
9th March 1864 covenants placed on 38acres seemingly by Haywood.
11th May 1878 The Observer Paper shows vestry meeting stating Haywood owned the brick field in the farm.
5th November 1887 Observer paper shows Vestry meeting in regard to the Work House plans which were not felt viable by H. T. Sankey.
16th March 1989 H. T. Sankey Public Examination of Bankruptcy.
13th July 1889 Sussex Agriculture Express list auction of H. T. Sankey’s Plots from his bankruptcy sale.
25th July 1889 Auction of Land Plots in Ore at 3:00pm held in the Carlisle Hotel Hastings.
30th July 1889 Plots for sale under Sankey liquidation.
24th April 1890 HT Sankey Hearing in Canterbury brought by the Official Receiver in relation to Bankruptcy.
31st January 1891 HT Sankey Struck Off.
1930 General Development Plan sets out the Speckled Wood area as a public open space
Figure 6: Table of published events.
The two bundles of paper have not shown any ownership in relation to Mr. Herbert Triton Sankey despite referring to covenant presumably imposed by some land ownership held by him which you have not disclosed.

As already indicated in my correspondence 27th March 2017 it is quite clear that there has been no correct first registration of this land under HT19042 by Hastings Corporation and for which your correspondence to date has not provided details of this correct registration for the land on your O/S map V25TCLB nod. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 15 and that could be seen that this is committing an alleged offence under Section 5 of the Perjury Act which forbids any person from making a false statutory declaration. I informed you Rule 27 paragraph (a) and (b) of the Land Registry Act 2003 would apply I expected to hear from you to pass this matter to an Adjudicator to rescind this title HT19042 and revoke all ownership above this position and reinstate parts of the register which seem to be have been removed for an unusual unknown reason. There is a duty Section 77 (Duty to Act reasonably) and 123 of the Land Registration Act 2002(intended suppression of information offence) which ought to be born in mind. Can you please inform me if there has been an objection to cancel the Title register HT19042?

It is evidenced from the British New Paper articles that Mr. Herbert Triton Sankey sold parcels of land in the Speckled Wood, Estate as part of his bankruptcy. It is plausible that Spencer Haywood purchased this land again from Mr. Herbert Triton Sankey at this estate sale having proprietorship prior in 16th Feb 1845, however the register does not reflect this in the Land Registry Records with which we have been provided.
I note that your letter 1st April 2017 on page 2 point 6. Application for office copies is rejected. It was clear from a recorded telephone conversation with Land Registry that this was in relation to a Land Registry register recording on your system that showed deed change for HT7853 had occurred 30th December 1889, I should wonder if this Title change was in favour of the title of this registered proprietor being named Herbert Triton Sankey. Can you please provide me with any further details of the deed change that is lodged on your system at 30th December 1889 and the purpose of its recording on your computer system? I am sure you can see that I cannot draw a line under these covenant issues currently.

The Sussex Agriculture Express dated 13th July 1889 article also is of interest and Lot 5 should be noted from its frontage on Church Street and its land sloping south to the water works. From two plots in the Work house in the Board of Guardians Room -ESX275050 and diagonally ESX279836 in section A: Property Register at paragraph 2: It states: “The land within this estate formally comprising part of St. Helens Hospital is Freehold but part of the land was formerly leasehold such part not being capable of identification at the time of first registration. That part of the land which was leasehold was held for the residue of a term of 1000 years granted by lease dated 17th December 1747 at unknown rent…” in consideration of this Sussex Agriculture article in Lot 5. it is more plausible that this date should have been 17th December 1847 and be in the name Herbert Triton Sankey. It would infer that land registered on this HT19042 would potentially also contain this restrictive covenant. However, there is no evidence of it in this title. I would understand this is a breach under first registration.

It should also be noted regarding the stopping order needed to be sought from East Sussex Highways that no such order has been sought or ‘held’ and that the roadway has no closure or stopping order in place or has been in place historically [3 ] .

I will not complicate this issue by bringing in the other outstanding issues addressed in references at the top of this page which there are four areas in Speckled Wood with issues of land Registration and land being attached to plans without the benefit of evidence. I will deal with these with you in turn after we have reached resolution here. This does not mean these other issues have been resolved to any level of reasonable satisfaction. I remind you that your action is due under statutory Land Registry Practice Guidance Guide 39 under rectification and indemnity. It appeared to us by the 27th March 2017 that you were not answering the many points in my organization’s letters. You provided letters (1st April 2017, 3rd March 2017, 10th February 2017 and 6th February 2016) which did not seem to deal with the documents / information required. A description was therefore made to ask you for a referral in this letter to the 27th March 2017.

I look forward to your response in writing by letter to this letter and my letter dated 27th March 2017.
Yours Sincerely.

Mr. Martin Newbold.
Figure 1: The Gazette dated 26th May 1863.
Figure 2: 25th July 1889 Observer.
Figure 3: The Hastings General Development Plan 1930.
Figure 4: Hastings Observer - 5th November 1887.
Figure 5: Hastings Observer - 5th March 1887.
Figure 6: Table of published events 5

[1 ] See: http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk...
[2 ] See http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk...
[ 3] See: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------ATTACHMENT------------------------------------------

Now I understand from Mr. Petty that he has some withheld material pertinent to these matter in regard to the missing covenants as he has enclosed that he can identify that not all the 58 titles given to him at part of this request were involving Secretary of State. Can you explain why he is therefore not being honest in his role providing material on request? I point out to you that I have made payment for this information but these payments have been returned with an incorrect excuse for the return of funds. Can you please indicate when you will provide this information and in what format it will be provided?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Ms. Jane Allen,
Legal Department
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal )
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

I note there still has been no reasonable reply in this matter. I telephoned Susmaay Ayria one of the Solicitors of your Legal Department today to ask her what is happening with this request and when I can expect you to provide this information which you have indicated that you held. She was not available to discuss this matter. I have left contact details.

Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr Newbold

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

Dear Petty, Roger,

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal ), Ms. Jane Allen.

Thank you for your response. It has been more than a month since I wrote my letter 11.4.2017 to Mr. Pugh by Royal Mail Signed For Delivery. I have had no contact with a Mr. Day and as such have had no formal introduction I have to wonder why I have never heard from him. As this matter clearly is not being dealt with and I am starting to wonder why this information is being withheld when I am entitled to see it and have made payment and had my cheques returned I expect a response. Your incorrigibility with this steer to allow this gentleman to continue allowing further financial harm injury and loss for these 58 parties.

I asked you, can you inform me if there is an 'impossibility or falsity of content', please? You have provided me no reply on this matter. I am beginning to wonder why this is occurring could this actually be happening?

Referring to a previous FOIA Request you stated "We have no record on our Log for the registered proprietor of the title you have quoted." indicating that you have no final response log or final procedures log. I would imagine that you would have been interested in resolving a matter that could reach around £11,000,000 in costs just for the property this matter affects.

To promote the openness that Land Registry wins so many service awards for. I can assist and publically publish my telephone calls in regard to my contact with Land Registry in regard this title should you deem this helpful?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Ms. Jane Allen,
Legal Department
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal )
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

Dear Madam, Sir

I have at last managed to have a telephone conversation with Susmaay Ayria (Legal), this morning and was initially told the matter had been referred to a lawyer in wales. When I pressed her for a name. She told me that she would be making this referral today and it would be placed before a lawyer in the Rolls Building. I explained this was of great concern which affects property of value £11,000,000.

When Susmaay Ayria suggested that this matter was being dealt with outside FOIA as it was reasonably accessible. I explained that this information had been outstanding over a month and asked why it had not been forthcoming. I expect to receive two deeds and a plan involving this 1000 year lease.

I look forward to receiving this information which it seems from this conversation is held and with be dealt with under usual business.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Ms. Jane Allen,
Legal Department
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal )
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
17 May 2017
Dear Madam, Sir

I am not sure of the status of my last two messages as there has been no delivery notification. I am therefore resending them attached to this email for your attention. Can you please advise me when and in what format I will receive these two title deeds and appropriate title plans in regard to this 1000 year lease. I have not had a response from you in regard this matter. Should you need further assistance in locating these deeds please contact me. This should be done under usual business.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
Email [email address]
GOV.UK | @LandRegGov | LinkedIn | Facebook
17 May 2017
Dear Petty, Roger,

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal ), Ms. Jane Allen.

Thank you for your response. It has been more than a month since I wrote my letter 11.4.2017 to Mr. Pugh by Royal Mail Signed For Delivery. I have had no contact with a Mr. Day and as such have had no formal introduction I have to wonder why I have never heard from him. As this matter clearly is not being dealt with and I am starting to wonder why this information is being withheld when I am entitled to see it and have made payment and had my cheques returned I expect a response. Your incorrigibility with this steer to allow this gentleman to continue allowing further financial harm injury and loss for these 58 parties.

I asked you, can you inform me if there is an 'impossibility or falsity of content', please? You have provided me no reply on this matter. I am beginning to wonder why this is occurring could this actually be happening?

Referring to a previous FOIA Request you stated "We have no record on our Log for the registered proprietor of the title you have quoted." indicating that you have no final response log or final procedures log. I would imagine that you would have been interested in resolving a matter that could reach around £11,000,000 in costs just for the property this matter affects.

To promote the openness that Land Registry wins so many service awards for. I can assist and publically publish my telephone calls in regard to my contact with Land Registry in regard this title should you deem this helpful?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Jane Allen,
Legal Department
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd(Certificate holding Legal )
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
17 May 2017
Dear Madam, Sir

I have at last managed to have a telephone conversation with Susmaay Ayria (Legal), this morning and was initially told the matter had been referred to a lawyer in wales. When I pressed her for a name. She told me that she would be making this referral today and it would be placed before a lawyer in the Rolls Building. I explained this was of great concern which affects property of value £11,000,000.

When Susmaay Ayria suggested that this matter was being dealt with outside FOIA as it was reasonably accessible. I explained that this information had been outstanding over a month and asked why it had not been forthcoming. I expect to receive two deeds and a plan involving this 1000 year lease.

I look forward to receiving this information which it seems from this conversation is held and with be dealt with under usual business.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
PO BOX 75. Glouster, GL14 9BD.

Dear Sir,

Following my telephone conversation with you today I refer you to my correspondence up to 11th April 2017 and specifically this recorded letter 11.04.2017 and your blue deeds sent to me by Mr. Pugh, the deed and title ESX275050 Property Register (2) in conjunction with charges register (1) herein and the title and register ESX139074 dated 11.12.1998 charge register (5). Please note Mr. Pugh has provided no ownership title or deed in respected to the person in charge register(5) of this deed ESX139074 dated 11.12.1998. Please note that Mr. Petty has given a public statement in his determination 28 April 2017:

"Thank you for your email of 28 April 2017 requesting documents with regard to the procedural handling by Land Registry of the a number of titles involving the Secretary of State."

I would imagine from Mr. Petty's statement that he has had sight of these deeds title and plans in his role as Departmental Records Officer to allow him the latitude of this decision.

You will be aware that from our telephone call that there is an issue with information being withheld from this initial title registration.

Please accept this correspondence contained in this matter inclusive as a formal application to close the title HT19042 and remove the land covered by the title HT19042 from this title and subsequent later deeds which rely on this deed. Can you please advise me of a date when this will transpire? This correction / change / rectification to the register is required to ensure the register is maintained and correct in line with the current Land Registry legislation: Practice guide 39: rectification and indemnity as detailed in schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
PO BOX 75. Glouster, GL14 9BD.

Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall.

I take this opportunity to write to you in regard to your attached letter emailed to me 18th May 2017. I remind you of the seriousness and strict guidelines of the Freedom of Information Act and refer to paragraph 3 of this letter dated 18th May 2017:

"As you will appreciate, there is a large volume of detailed correspondence to be considered. I will begin my review shortly, however it is unlikely that I will be in a position to fully respond to you until next week. Barring any unforeseen circumstance, I hope to have my response to you by the end of next week. " and the wording 'however it is unlikely '. Can you please elaborate why there are further circumstances which will drag matters out further.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, there is an obligation under protocol 4 where the principles are to ensure that all information is suitably held. I also remind you that schedule 66 to the Land Registration Act 2002. The right to inspect or copy and such document is now established.

I also require you to accept this Application for change of the register under (rule 13 of the Land Registration Rules 2003).

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
PO BOX 75. Gloucester, GL14 9BD.

Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall.

Following your letter 18th May 2017 and subsequent telephone call and your assurances last week that you would endeavour to consider this and provide a response by the end of the week, No such response has been forthcoming. I expected this response to contain a deliberation on why Mr. Roger Petty, Departmental Records Officer had come to a determination on the 58 titles which I referred him to which did not encompass the total of the 58 titles.

I expected to receive a hard copy letter and copy of two deeds;

1) I expected you to provide a title deed from the Secretary of State and Heath containing an associated title plan dispensing of the covenant and lease on these 58 houses with a plan showing the land extent that this alleged decision affected.
2) I additionally expected you to provide title and plan of the first registration of the 38 acres with its 1000-year lease and covenants and plan which had been used in this determination by the Secretary of State for Health to remove the obstructions and incumbencies of restriction of three houses to be built on this land and contained in a 1000 year lease.

WHY HAS THIS INFORMATION POINTS 1) and 2) NOT BEEN PROVIDED IN A TIMELY FASHION AND PROVIDED BY THE END OF THE WEEK AS DETERMINED BY YOUR OWN TELEPHONE CONVERSATION AND SCHEDULE?. I AM OF THE OPINION I AM BEING GIVEN A STAGED MISDIRECTION HERE. I WAS TOLD THAT THIS WOULD BE DEALT WITH UNDER USUAL BUSINESS WHY HAS THIS NOT OCCURRED?

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, there is an obligation under protocol 4 where the principles are to ensure that all information is suitably held. I also remind you that Schedule 66 of the Land Registration Act 2002.,the right to inspect or copy and such document is now established.

I also wrote to you requiring you to accept this Application for change of the register under (Rule 13 of the Land Registration Rules 2003). I have received no hard copy paper response from you in this respect of this.

I remind you there would appear to be alleged offences in regard to this land under point (1 and 2) and alleged offences under s.123 and s.124, LRA 2002 .

It is implicit in the registrar’s statutory duty to maintain the register under [2]s.1(1), LRA 2002 a duty to take reasonable steps to protect its integrity, by taking such steps as he can to ensure a fraudulent transfer or other disposition is not registered. These issues already affect this land in this matter and £11,000,000 of housing with parties concerned that the Secretary of State for Health has not provided on request for the deed to protect their homes some 58 in total.

Your lack of decision making is bringing hardship to many of the 58 parties involved in this matter.

Yours sincerely,
CEO Mr. Newbold

HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd (Legal Certificate Holder)
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

17 May 2017

Dear Mr. Chis Day (Assistant Land registrar).

I am in receipt of this letter 26.04.197 which was posted on this Freedom of Information Request on WDTK website as follows:

---START REQUEST------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Mr. Petty, Roger,
Departmental Records Officer
Corporate Legal and Assurance Services
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054

I wrote to you 11th April 2017 with regard to your process of handling scenario and policy in relation to HM adjudication in matters of Land Registry. This information at this date has not been provided. I am therefore left to find this information from historical cases.
Can you, therefore provide me documents under Freedom of Information 2000 and subsequent revisions of this Act with regard to the procedural handling by Land Registry of the following titles involving the Secretary of State at the time:
ESX219073, ESX242205, ESX265275, ESX266177, ESX269999, ESX271940, ESX271940, ESX271942, ESX271945, ESX271945, ESX279145, ESX279146, ESX284121, ESX285064, ESX 79088, ESX11521, ESX264453, ESX265275, ESX265562, ESX265562, ESX265625, ESX266177, ESX266177, ESX266955, ESX271932, ESX271933, ESX271935, ESX271935, ESX271937, ESX271938, ESX271939, ESX271940, ESX271942, ESX271942, ESX271945, ESX273794, ESX273794, ESX273794, ESX274405, ESX275050 ESX275955, ESX278135, ESX279028,ESX279088, ESX279145, ESX279146, ESX279147, ESX279836, ESX279836, ESX281349, ESX284121, ESX285064, ESX289136, ESX315217, ESX78530, EX265275.

1) Can you explain whether either Mr. Pugh or yourself Mr. Roger Petty had any dealing or experience with these titles or any titles there under above in relation to point 4?

2) Can you advise me of the date of adjudication and the name of the HM adjudicator in relation to these titles above?

3) Can you provide me the Secretary of State name who dealt with these titles in relation to point 4?

4) Can you provide me all documents in relation to the titles the covenants on these titles which either hold names of Mr. Pugh or yourself Mr. Rogers as acting on behalf of Land Registry and any documents bearing representatives from Applicants in relation to the 1000 year covenant and any references to Mr. Herbert Triton (Historically deceased) in this paperwork?

I look forward to your urgent response in this matter. Should this requested material be large in volume I understand that you may require a fee. Can you please advise me of this cost at your earliest convenience and an address where this remittance can be sent.

Yours faithfully,
CEO Mr. Newbold”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------END OF REQUEST----

I note from this correspondence you have sent me dated 2017-05-26 at 14:55:46 that you have not referenced any of the serious points of law that I have addressed in my correspondence dated. Neither have you recognized the company making the complaint Hastings Badger Protection Society Ltd. You have also not responded within the framework of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to execute an internal review and your paperwork is deficient here as it does not even defer to the information request which was made and the wording there in which you were responding to. This places you in breach of Freedom of Information Act. You will note that on the 2017-05-16 at 10:02:58 and history of this Freedom of Information request (www.whatdotheyknow.com/details/request/perjury_and_fraud_3_2) you were served with a request for an Internal Review some 10 days or more before your response on this Public site WDTK. I therefore do not consider that this response is an Internal Review which I am entitled to in law and I am understanding that you are therefore providing it under the remit of the reasons only for clarification and not at all for Internal Review which you had been directed and then ignored 2017-05-16 at 10:02:58.
Firstly, you are aware that this information request is clear and was again spelled out in plain English to you 2017-05-19 10:24:44, 2017-05-19 at 10:24:37. I note therefore you have given me further alleged staged misdirection to LGO instead of understanding the basic principles of the matter at hand. I point you to the initial alleged staged misdirection which was identified to you 2017-05-19 at 18:37:20. You seem to completely ignore the Data Protection breaches spelled out to you in plain English at 2017-05-19 at 18:37:20. You have additionally ignored Land Registry regulations under alleged offences under section.123 and section.124, LRA 2002 and section.1(1), LRA 2002 a duty to take reasonable steps to protect its integrity. In regard to Rule 16(3), you state that where: “an application appears to the registrar to be substantially defective, he may reject it on delivery or he may cancel it at any time thereafter”

You go on to state “Therefore, where an application for alteration is considered’ substantially defective’, the Registrar is not obliged to rectify the register. Can you please explain how you derived this from rule 16(3) as this seems nonsense?

Under the search for missing deed, you state that you have reviewed Mr. Pugh’s correspondence. It is a shame that you have not reviewed my correspondence alongside Mr. Pugh's correspondence as it would have enabled you to understand that the information which Mr. Pugh has sent was not the information being sought and appeared to have come from another request for information even containing post-it note for the attention of Mr. Pugh. I am appreciative that Mr. Pugh took the position to provide this information Free of Charge but as it was not the information requested I expected him to provide the information therein. You state that you are unclear from my letter what specific documents which are claimed are missing from the bundles I have received. I fail to understand this when you are answering an FOIA request in regard to these documents which you have failed to provide elsewhere through free of charge response or by payment contract to supply information where the payments have been returned and the information not provided. You note the conveyance dated 4th July 1878 between (1) Herbert Triton Sankey and (2) Charles Crouch, which is referred to at entry number 5 in the charges register of Title ESX139074.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO IDENTIFY ANY OWNERSHIP ATTRIBUTED TO H.T. SANKEY IN YOUR TWO BUNDLES OF DOCUMENTS WHICH COVER THIS 38 ACRES AND TO WHOM THE DOCUMENTS SENT TO MR PUGH ATTRIBUTE THIS LAND TO. IN ADDITION, THE COVENANTS OWNED BY HT SANKEY ARE NOT SUPPLIED WITH DATES AND TITLE OF FIRST REGISTRATION. YOU GO ON TO STATE THAT UNDER 203 of the LLR 2003 UNDER RULE 203(6) WHERE FURTHER RETENTION OF THE DOCUMENT IS UNNECESSARY. YOU WILL DESTROY THE ORIGINAL DEED.

Secondly, therefore, you are following Mr. Pugh’s error and flawed work. Why would you destroy a deed that encompassed a decision by the Secretary of State when it would be required lawfully in a solicitor’s search and sale in any of the 58 titles on this request. Likewise, the Secretary of State’s Decision would be unhelpful without the first registration deed for the 100-year lease and restrictive covenant of building only 3 houses on this 38 acres’ site encompassing these 58 houses. I repeat to you Section .1(1) of the LRA 2002 that you have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the registers integrity I repeat that you have an additional obligation under Data Protection Act 1998, under protocol 4. I further state to you that Schedule 66 of the Land Registration Act 2002 has not been met and the right to inspect or copy such document has not been offered or provided. I ask you to consider the case for providing this information has merit?
Thirdly I deal with your response regarding the Serious criminal matter in summary

1) The matter has been referred to the police you are aware of this
2) You state the covenant is not ‘missing’ as it is noted on the register HT19042.

Your point 2 regarding the covenant is uninformed and not what I would expect from an Assistant Land Registrar as this would infer you are unfamiliar with the procedures of first registration as detailed in your own legislation which has been repeatedly addressed in my communication to Mr. Pugh and has never received the courteousness of a response. Your investigation is therefore flawed from paragraph ten Search for missing deeds. You should be aware from the two bundles which Mr. Pugh kindly provided wording of the three-house restrictive covenant attached to the conveyancing you have provided no such information for inspection with regard to HT19042 and as such renders the first registration of HT19042 substantially defective. Neither does HT19042 carry the charges information in respect to the Freehold and the 1000-year lease which encompasses these 38 acres and is omitted and as such further renders the first registration of HT19042 as substantially defective. Furthermore, the area of original search was defined with Mr. Pugh with a numbering scheme as outlined in my letter to him 11th April 2017. It is clear from the historic newspaper article provided to Mr. Pugh and detail in my later 2nd March 2017 that this area of land numbered 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15 and 19 are not defined in this General Vesting Order, in fact, the only active part of registration was a red line drawn around this area. No documents showing the title of ownership ever being supplied. In addition, your statements in relation to the historic newspaper excerpts “…do not appear to relate to anything HMLR can deal with”. This is quite unbelievable that your investigation is flawed in such a way that it cannot determine from these excerpts that land at the end of Church Street where Historic Publications selling land under leasehold south of Church Street regarding 58 titles and numbered areas from the original numbered plan by Mr. Pugh i.e. 15 16, 13, 21. It should be noted that this area does not represent the 38 acres of land around them which according to your own register documents is leasehold for 1000-years and contains restrictive a covenant of 3 houses.

Allegations made Mr. Pugh and Mr. Petty and failure to provide documents for inspection.
As you have stated that you do not have a copy of any plan that may have accompanied this deed 9.03.1864 how can you explain why Mr. Roger Petty has made his statement 28.04.2017 indicating he knew which of the titles were affected by a secretary of state decision which is additionally missing from your register having not been provided. Surely your admission of this lack of copy is an admission that the register is not being maintained correctly with regard to important decisions by the secretary of state which affect of property £11,000,000 built in 2001 Can you please explain how a secretary of state was able to make a decision without a plan area of the site showing the extent of this 38 acres 1000-Year lease with covenant for only three houses? You made the subsequent statement in your letter 2017-05-26 14:55:46 that the reason this was clear as you dismissed his determination and said “Mr.Petty became involved in this matter because you made a request under the FOIA and he works in the department that receives these requests. Mr. Petty is not involved in day -to-day casework and has no knowledge of your application or correspondence outside of your FOIA request.” I am quite aware of Mr. Roger Petty’s roles and the role you now describe an officer responding to an FOIA request There is set procedures here for an officer to make inquiries of other people in his role as an officer. It is therefore unreasonable for you to state:”…Mr. Petty is not involved in day-day casework and has no knowledge of your application or correspondence outside of your FOIA Request...” You went on to stated that his statement made on a public site on the WDTK website on 2017-04-28 at 10:57:54: “His reference to the Secretary of State is not a ‘determination’ or a ‘decision’ of any sort. His e-mail was a response to yours sent at 9017 on 28 April 2017, in which you claim the Secretary of State dealt with numerous titles you listed. He simply acknowledged receipt of your e-mail and nothing more.” I am alarmed to hear you make this statement as if as you stated this as correct I must wonder why Mr. Petty did not use quotation marks which are used in the English language extensively do indicate he was referring to my statement and not making his own ‘determination’ or ‘decision’ if as you state Mr.Petty cannot provide a response which is a ‘determination’ or a ‘decision’ then why is he answering this Freedom Information Request as an officer.

I also point you to the s.106 Agreement between Hastings Borough Council and Gem Select. It is apparent from this document HSFA_01_00514-S106_AGREEMENT-187084.PDF sent to Mr. Roger Petty 2017-04-23 at 10:14:24 from WDTK with a link to it here below:

"publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D45F7E693CAF64F7106FDA198B729AD8/pdf/HS_FA_01_00514-S106_AGREEMENT-187084.pdf"

In addition, this was attached to a communication to Mr. Pugh ref 170114-000049 dated Sat, Apr 29, 2017, at 2:19 PM. It can be seen from this letter and the Planning Application that this agreement persisted for Hastings Borough Council and Gem Select in the application for 58 houses HS/FA/01/00514 | CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS 3 AND 5 TO FORM SINGLE DWELLINGS, BUILDING 4 TO FORM 6 SINGLE DWELLINGS; BUILDING 6 TO FORM 2 SELF-CONTAINED FLATS; FORMATION OF ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING AREAS, ERECTION OF 18 No TERRACE HOUSES. (APPLICATION HS/LB/01/515 ALSO APPLIES) | St Helens Hospital (east), Frederick Road, Hastings, East Sussex, TN35 5AH. at Fri 10 Aug 2001. I would have expected you to have looked at this and realized that this agreement involved these 58 houses for which the covenant and 1000-year lease was documented and Secretary of State Decision sought. It was apparent from this conveyance 17th day of September 1930 of houses 2,6,8,10, Church Street and other deeds captured because of the General Vesting and as supplied to me in two packages from R. Pugh in regard to the First Registration of HT19042.
I thank you and Mr. Pugh again for providing a third bundle of documents which you said you would attach to this hard copy letter.
Application to change the register in relation to HT19042. Your response to this formal request to make change to the register seems irregular as I understand that once a request has been made to change the register as it was made at 19.05.2017 requires a certain amount of investigation to occur. Are you now stating in your letter dated 26th May 2017 is the whole of this investigation HMLR are providing in this Application? I note that you stated “The Application has been canceled ”I note from your reasoning 16(3) (3) Where the applicant, as authorised by these Rules, relies on legal opinion in support of his/her title, the statement of title required by this Rule need not be lodged. I wonder how you can imagine that this determination is reasonable when you have provided me no information which is the nature of this request?

Next Steps
---------------
I asked you, can you inform me if there is an 'impossibility or falsity of content', please? You have provided me no reply on this matter. I am beginning to wonder why this is occurring could this actually be happening as you have not responded to this?

You have not seemed to have acted in accordance with the FOIA request stating you have provided some thirteen or more documents which Mr. Pugh has identified as interesting. Yet this has not been provided on this WDTK website and has not been provided as an attachment to the email of his letter you sent me on 26.05.2017 at 1:55 PM just before the May Bank Holiday. You should be aware that under Freedom of Information Act you have not currently provided me with the documents I requested. I should have considered if Mr. Pugh believed these were pertinent that these would either have been provided directly to this request or attached to this email. Neither has currently occurred. If these are attached to the register can you, please explain why these were not available to you at the time of writing this letter 26.05. 2017 at 1:55 PM and from which organization they have been provided from to you?

1) How did they HMLR know about the 1000- year lease dated 17.12.1747 on the Title ESX275050 a specific date if they as have as you stated and I have understood from HMLR that the Title Deed and Title Plan dated 17.12.1747 in relation to Secretary of State Decision 26.03.197does not exist? If this Deed 17.12.1747 does exist, please provide it?
2) I am of the opinion that it would be reasonable if the Secretary of state had made a decision through a deed 26.03.1997 as evidenced on ESX275050 under Property Register at 17.02.1997 without the benefit of this evidence being available to him then It is therefore not withstanding or reasonable that HMLR claim Rule 203 of the LLR2003 here as it is more reasonable that this Deed 17.12.1747 was made available to him around 26.03.1997 otherwise he would not have made an alleged deed dated 26.03.1997. I note that you have not provided this deed 26.03.1997 by which titles were changed under AP1. Can you provide both AP1 for this rectification of the register involving these titles above in my request and this deed dated 26.03.1997 from the Secretary of State?

3) I will additionally expect you to provide the thirteen documents in hard copy which you indicated in your letter 26.05.2017 would in Mr. Pugh’s opinion shed light on this matter.

Please note the information should be provided within the time frame left in this Freedom of Information Request and Internal Review Request.

Should I have received additional information then I would invoke the right to change previous parameters of my request.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

CC: Mr. Mike Westcott-Rudd (Legal Certificate Holder)
Head Office, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon CR0 2AQ
DD: 0300 006 7054 | GTN: 67054
30th May 2017

Dear Mr. Chis Day (Assistant Land registrar).

Please note the typo in my response to you dated 28th May 2017 this lease should read '1000-year lease' and not '100-year lease' as it was incorrectly missing a zero on one paragraph of my response. I hope this clarifies this point and enables you to provide me the information I Have requested and the Internal Review which is also due.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD
Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall.

Despite promises in your electronic communication 26 May 2017. I note you have provided no further document as promised. I do not believe you ever had these documents as you would make these available at the time of this communication as an attachment to this WDTK website; Neither was there an attachment to this email which was sent to me. I have received no hard copy letter from you or HMLR. I do not believe that you are maintaining the register correctly and seem to be obtaining information elsewhere which you have not disclosed any participant. Can you provide me with someone who has access to this information?

You have failed to follow my advice and next steps as directed:

Next Steps
---------------
I asked you, can you inform me if there is an 'impossibility or falsity of content', please? You have provided me no reply on this matter. I am beginning to wonder why this is occurring could this actually be happening as you have not responded to this?

You have not seemed to have acted in accordance with the FOIA request stating you have provided some thirteen or more documents which Mr. Pugh has identified as interesting. Yet this has not been provided on this WDTK website and has not been provided as an attachment to the email of his letter you sent me on 26.05.2017 at 1:55 PM just before the May Bank Holiday. You should be aware that under Freedom of Information Act you have not currently provided me with the documents I requested. I should have considered if Mr. Pugh believed these were pertinent that these would either have been provided directly to this request or attached to this email. Neither has currently occurred. If these are attached to the register can you, please explain why these were not available to you at the time of writing this letter 26.05. 2017 at 1:55 PM and from which organization they have been provided from to you?

1) How did they HMLR know about the 1000- year lease dated 17.12.1747 on the Title ESX275050 a specific date if they as have as you stated and I have understood from HMLR that the Title Deed and Title Plan dated 17.12.1747 in relation to Secretary of State Decision 26.03.197does not exist? If this Deed 17.12.1747 does exist, please provide it?
2) I am of the opinion that it would be reasonable if the Secretary of state had made a decision through a deed 26.03.1997 as evidenced on ESX275050 under Property Register at 17.02.1997 without the benefit of this evidence being available to him then It is therefore notwithstanding or reasonable that HMLR claim Rule 203 of the LLR2003 here as it is more reasonable that this Deed 17.12.1747 was made available to him around 26.03.1997 otherwise he would not have made an alleged deed dated 26.03.1997. I note that you have not provided this deed 26.03.1997 by which titles were changed under AP1. Can you provide both AP1 for this rectification of the register involving these titles above in my request and this deed dated 26.03.1997 from the Secretary of State?
3) I will additionally expect you to provide the thirteen documents in hard copy which you indicated in your letter 26.05.2017 would in Mr. Pugh’s opinion shed light on this matter.
4) it has been a further ten days from your communication 26th May 2017 stating you would provide information. Can you explain why this information is being withheld?
5) There has been no recognition of this FOIA matter and Internal review which you have not provided upon request. Can you explain why you are seeming to act above the law?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Paul Arnold
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

I demand and assert my lawful rights to be provided with the information being requested through Freedom of Information Act and Acts of Parliament.

I am providing you with three cases with the ICO, Land Registry and MOJ. The most recent case is not even being provided with a lawful Internal Review and subsequently, breaches government legislation

I reserve my rights to obtain advice elsewhere through Legal or any avenue I feel fit and to advice my legal advisors.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD
Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

Dear Sir,

Do I now believe that you have been derelict in your duties providing me with attachments of correspondence in your communication to me dated 26 May 2017? I note you have provided no further document as promised. I do not believe you ever had these documents as you would make these available at the time of this communication as an attachment to this WDTK website; Neither was there an attachment to this email which was sent to me. I have received no hard copy letter from you or HMLR. I do not believe that you are maintaining the register correctly and seem to be obtaining information elsewhere which you have not disclosed any participant. Can you provide me with someone who has access to this information?

Can you please provide information on how to proceed?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD
Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold
I am in receipt of a gray package which contained 53 pages and has now scanned them into a document which I will be emailing you today. The most significant concern is the initial letter from Brachers 14th February 1997 in which they outlined a difficulty to you in regard this title is so much that the residue of the term of the 1,000 years assigned to the Guardians of the Poor of the Hastings Union by deed dated 5th September 1845. It was quite clear in his determination that the 38 acres were not attributed to this lease at this time incorrectly and the area as such would be an enlargement much larger than the area of the St Helens Hospital East Site . The letter goes on to denote assignments in 4th June 1898 and a deed of 17th September 1749. Is it not irregular that these documents are omitted in your bundle of documents when they are listed on the enclosures of this application as being supplied as:
1. 1853 Abstract of Title
2. 1868 Abstract of Title
3. 11/9/1749 Assignment
22. 4/6/1839 Assignment, The Guardians of the Hastings Union and Others (1) William Lucas-Shadwell (2)
23. 11/7/1868 Deed of Covenant, C Beck (1) Guardians of the Poor of The Hastings Union (2)
24. 19/4/1836 Conveyance, The Churchwardens, and overseers of the poor of the parish of Ore (1) The Guardians of the Hastings Union (2)
25. 5/9/1845 Assignment, William Drew Lucas Shadwell, and Others (1) the Guardians of the Poor of Hastings Union (2)
26. 29/9/1863 Conveyance, Spencer Hayward (1) the Guardians of the poor of the Hastings Union (2).
27. 4/7/1868 Conveyance, Frederick Neve, and his Mortgagee (1) the Guardians of the Poor of the Hastings Union (2).

It should be noted that of these ten items four are expressed a root of the title registration yet are absent from the information you have provided me with. I must ask again why you are withholding this information which has been sent to you regarding maintenance of the register. Is this a dereliction in your duties or staged misdirection?
It should also be noted that the Deed by the Secretary of State is declared by affidavit to be a true likeness of the original yet this document contains no logo or artwork showing copyright material appropriating the document to the Secretary of State office or the Crown. Furthermore, you should note that the Parliamentary Archive unit wrote to me stating that this that this document was not held Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:57 AM. An investigation is being conducted by [email address] on the grounds that this document does not contain the desired elements to prove its authenticity or author.
Because I am holding files of the information, which is incomplete until you provide full and accurate final hard-copy direct to my postal address then I cannot close the door on what I am asking. I require this to be provided so that this information which you are providing on a website can be easily tracked back to its source and shared with the UK public at large.

It should be noted in addition to this that the information appearing in the search by N.P Lester under HT16631 deals with a portion of the requested information at 12 under 27th May 1958 conveyancing. There is no information explaining how this title has been added to HT19042. Furthermore, it is expressed in the conveyance on the 27th May 1958 under consideration of release and waiver in relation to a Probate and will of the Testator yet no will or probate documents are included in this application contents which would show the possibility of covenants expressed or otherwise. There is also no explanation for the six-year gap between Mr. Eaton’s death and this transfer?

I hope you can see this information is clear that there has been no remedy supplied to this request for information through your usual services of the business. Can you please explain why your ‘usual business’ is not handling this matter correctly, please?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

I refer you to the files you have not provided me numbered 1,2,3,22,23,24,25,26,27 and 35 which I have raised the points of the complete file list in the 53 pages you sent me by post in hard copy to my address. I was told by Brachers in a telephone call that file list would have been complete at the time it was sent to the Land Registrar. These documents would be provided to be inserted into your Register can you please explain why you are withholding these documents and on what grounds you are withholding them?

I understand Brachers as of Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:34 PM are referring this matter to their risk and compliance officer.

The files required are as follows:

1. 1853 Abstract of Title
2. 1868 Abstract of Title
3. 11/9/1749 Assignment
22. 4/6/1839 Assignment, The Guardians of the Hastings Union and Others (1) William Lucas-Shadwell (2)
23. 11/7/1868 Deed of Covenant, C Beck (1) Guardians of the Poor of The Hastings Union (2)
24. 19/4/1836 Conveyance, The Churchwardens, and overseers of the poor of the parish of Ore (1) The Guardians of the Hastings Union (2)
25. 5/9/1845 Assignment, William Drew Lucas Shadwell, and Others (1) the Guardians of the Poor of Hastings Union (2)
26. 29/9/1863 Conveyance, Spencer Hayward (1) the Guardians of the poor of the Hastings Union (2).
27. 4/7/1868 Conveyance, Frederick Neve, and his Mortgagee (1) the Guardians of the Poor of the Hastings Union (2).
35.14/2/87, Letter.

I look forward to you providing this information and a reason why it was initially witheld.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

17th June 2017.

Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

As we are dealing with this matter as usual business.

Thank you for your emailed letter dated 14th June 2017 which I note you stated that acting under Land Registry “I can neither confirm nor deny whether we have ever received specific documents if we do not currently have them. “ I note the mix metaphors here and would be grateful for clarification on who did receive these documents. Why is it that you can neither confirm nor deny the existence of these documents which was part of An Application to Register Land refer you to the Law of Property Act 1925.

I note in this paragraph you have stated that these documents may never have been received, or we may lawfully have destroyed them under our statutory power, currently contained in Rule 203(6)9b of the Land Registration Rules 2003. If you are stating that these documents of Application to register land have not been received, can you explain how the title HT19042 and subsequent Titles derived therein is in existence? Are you inferring this title has never been registered? Can you provide documents which can be examined which show these documents have been destroyed?

I note you stated, “Should you wish to inspect copies of the documents we hold in archive under specific titles, then you can make an appointment to attend your local HMLR office and inspect them in person”.

I understand from this you are offering a meeting to provide full disclosure. I am expecting, therefore, you provide an Agenda for the public record of this meeting which holds the location date and full listings of the individual’s attending for which this meeting and Agenda will be open noting that individuals not on this agreed Agenda will not be able to attend. This meeting is in the disclosure of items which you have already full knowledge of. I would imagine that this Agenda scope should encompass this information being scrutinized. As this meeting Agenda is being discussed before it is finalized all parties should receive all documents in advance of meeting to enable them to be versed in the issues contained in them.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

NOTE: To readers of this site I would advise and recommend printing of this document-chain for your own usage in case this is removed from this site.

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

23rd June 2017.

Dear Sir,
CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

As we are dealing with this matter as usual business.

Is it the intention of the staff of HMLR to commit fraud?

You have provided me with altered documents with a solicitor who is not recognized with the SRA. This person has acted in many historically recorded cases and the UK public is entitled to rectification/redress.

The Department Health has compounded these issues by intentionally providing altered documents which I am of the opinion have been sourced from these know to be fraudulent documents you have provided me.

I await your response informing me that this title HT19042 all associated titles and HT16634 and all associated titles have been rescinded and that these matters pertaining to this 38 the year 1000 year covenant of three houses have been adressed fully in respect to the titles which I have adressed to you.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

17th June 2017.

Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

As we are dealing with this matter as usual business.

I am still waiting and explanation why is this not forth coming.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

23rd June 2017.

Dear Sir,
CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

As we are dealing with this matter as usual business.

Is it the intention of the staff of HMLR to commit fraud?

I attach letter as sent to DOH today

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ATTACHMENT LETTER ---------------------------------

Jackie Kirkman, Property Surveyor

Company Management Branch, Commercial Directorate

Finance & Group Operations

Department of Health, Room 2W38, Quarry House, Quarry Hill, Leeds LS2 7UE Tel: 0113 254 5308

Dear Madam,

I cannot understand why you are referring me to a third party for the documents originating from your office of the Department of Heath.

Am I to understand that you cannot provide me this copy directly from your department and only allow inspect an altered version which you have provided me from Brachers?

I would also point out Brachers used this altered version in their registration of land which we believe is fraudulent.

The registration documents we received from Land Registry and have inspected are incomplete / altered and showing instructions from a solicitor who is not known to the SRA or registered under their umbrella. This alone is an offence and conviction of two years. Can you explain how this deed of Enlargement was drawn up outside of the normal business on a Saturday? Why are you giving me a steer to this entity which is clearly involved in this matter and this alleged fraud?

You have indicated that your department instructed Brachers but have not told me what date this instruction occurred and who is instructing Brachers in this matter now. You have not told me who asked your department to get involved or what process or procedure originated this request for your department's involvement at the time in 1970.

Yours Sincerely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

23rd June 2017.
Attachment Email dated Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 6:07 PM
Dear Sir,
CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

As we are dealing with this matter as usual business.

I no longer seem to be receiving a reply in this matter in a timely fashion and you have not provided documents in your usual channel and now not as a result of these concerns.

The party involved in the matter is now determined to dispose of this land to remove their immediate involvement.

I would expect you place a freeze on these titles ESX2596876, ESX27409, ESX268862, ESX219073, ESX242205, ESX265275, ESX266177, ESX269999, ESX271940, ESX271940, ESX271942, ESX271945, ESX271945, ESX279145, ESX279146, ESX284121, ESX285064, ESX 79088, ESX11521, ESX264453, ESX265275, ESX265562, ESX265562, ESX265625, ESX266177, ESX266177, ESX266955, ESX271932, ESX271933, ESX271935, ESX271935, ESX271937, ESX271938, ESX271939, ESX271940, ESX271942, ESX271942, ESX271945, ESX273794, ESX273794, ESX273794, ESX274405, ESX275050 ESX275955, ESX278135, ESX279028,ESX279088, ESX279145, ESX279146, ESX279147, ESX279836, ESX279836, ESX281349, ESX284121, ESX285064, ESX289136, ESX315217, ESX78530, EX265275 , and HT19402, HT16634, and their derivative associated titles from HT19402 and HT16634. These should all be should be frozen for transfer until this matter is dealt with. I inform you I contacted Ms. Cressida Dick of the Commissioner (Cheif Constable) office of the MET Yesterday.

I will be forwarding all of this request to the tribunal courts to deal with this supply of material and no referral to an adjudicator when there is fraud in my opinion in these documents of first registration which in my opinion you seem to be refusing to deal with.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ATTACHED CORRESPONDENCE ----------
Ms. Cressida Dick
Commissioner (Chief Constable)
Metropolitan Police

Dear Madam,

Can you please tell me why I am getting no assistance from the Police or the Police Commissioner in my area.

I would like to know why a case reported to the police in my area is not being investigated or prosecuted. The case involves between £11 million and £1 billion pounds of property on 38 acres of land which has a lease of over 1000 years and a covenant of only 3 houses the lease outstanding and fraudulent documents coming from a solicitor in Maidstone who I cannot determine who the instructing party is information is again being withheld.

I am aware from an FOI that information is being withheld intentionally from me https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p.... We hold evidence that the solicitor involved in the documents which were part of this matter according to the SRA was never a solicitor. I have tried to ask the Land Registry to investigate this matter and they have not for some unknown reason passed this matter to an adjudicator.

I have been told that the Police Commissioner in my area may not be able to help. Why cannot I get the police to act in this public matter? And hold the perpetrators responsible for their actions?

I would be grateful for an explanation As it appears the party which I believe is involved is now trying to get rid of its land holdings in this area which this fraud has occurred on.

Kind Regards

Mr. Newbold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------END ATTACHMENT ------------------

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

To: "Wales.OfficeMail" <[email address]>
Cc: [email address], The Office of the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner <[email address]>, Fraud <[email address]>, Amber Rudd MP <[email address]>, "Sparne, Signe" <[email address]>, "Kirkman, Jackie" <[email address]>, [email address]

23rd June 2017.
Attachment communication dated Tuesday, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:37 PM

Dear Sir,
CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

During this lead up to this current position. where you have provided me information in a partial format including altered documents. There appears to be a shortfall. Where I am being referred by the Department Of Health to the Brachers Solicitors LLP in Maidstone. I, therefore, feel the need to ask the question have HMLR had at any point of time been party to the deeds of this covenant.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

Please note attachment sent to you on WDTN only in reference to this will
------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT COMMUNICATION TO PROBATE OFFICE

I am writing to comment on the contents of this will I have received copy off. It is my belief that wording that would be normally be contained in a will of this age is missing. There I would like to record the wording “Whatever and Wherever” is not included in the copy you have provided. Is this an oversite or has it been redacted?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD
CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold
Dear Sir
With regard to this matter and a chat transcript of a conversation with ICO dated 30th June 2017. The ICO stated, "a complaint can be raised with our office.". The first documents including these communications on WDTK have been sent to ICO. A Letter of Complaint was also sent you Michael Mire.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD
Dear Sir,

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

Dear Sirs,

Can you please provide your fabricated excuse for your absence in non providing a proper reply or this information as requested. Can you please indicate if you are this incorrect person to deal with this matter?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Chris Day
Assistant Land Registrar (Wales)
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO. Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD
CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Mire, Graham Farrant, John Pownall, Mr. Paul Arnold

Dear Sir

With regard to this matter and a chat transcript of a conversation with ICO dated 30th June 2017. The ICO stated, "a complaint can be raised with our office.". The first documents including these communications on WDTK have been sent to ICO. A Letter of Complaint was also sent you Michael Mire. I have no response from two communications sent to this person do I have to understand that this person's communications are not monitored or if this person is fictitious as he will not respond in person. I have subsequently written FOIA to all members of HMLR board to ask if they have had sight of these two unanswered communications delivered to Mr. Mire.

I have still not been provided with this information which was part of my original request or an explanation why it is being withheld and fraudulent acts are being allowed to occur.?

Is it the case that the register is not being maintained correctly and this fraud is occurring because of this dereliction of duty to uphold the registers integrity?

I am aware that the Probate of the documents you have sent me have reached the solicitors of the Probate archive office but have had no reply. Why have you provided me with seemingly fraudulent documents which you have presumably not inspected thoroughly and then placed into your register?

Why have you broken off communication when you stated you wanted to deal with this under usual business?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr. Newbold

As Recieved Recieved

HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

Proprietor/Applicant Hastings Borough Council
Title number HT19042
Property Land At Church Street, Hastings

Dear Mr. Newbold
I am writing further to Chris Day’s letter dated 14th June which explained
that this matter has been passed to me for review.
My understanding is that you asked for a review of the matters set out in
Mr. Day’s letter dated 26 May 2017. This letter dealt with a number of
issues that you have raised around the first registration of land at Church
Street, Hastings and your concerns about HM Land Registry’s (HMLR)
subsequent handling of your requests for documents and other
information. A separate response is being sent to you in respect of your
recent emails sent to us as Freedom of Information requests.
I have now completed my review based on this understanding and would
comment as follows:-
It is probably helpful, by way of background, to give a brief outline of
HMLR's role and responsibilities. Our remit is set out in the Land
Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003 (as
amended). HMLR's basic role is to keep a register of interests in property,
so that the public have easy access to reliable information about land
ownership and related interests, and to make it easier for interests to be
transferred. Individuals who wish to record their ownership or some other
interest in land apply to HMLR for the interest to be registered. HMLR’s
task, when it receives an application, is to assess it in the light of the
provisions in the Land Registration Act and Rules, and either to grant it
straightaway (if all the legal requirements are clearly met), to make further
enquiries to see whether it is appropriate to grant it, or to reject it on the
basis that it does not satisfy the relevant legal requirements. Customers
are entitled to expect HMLR to provide information about how to make
applications and to provide such information and documentation as is
available acting within its own policies and guidance. It is not, however,
HMLR’s role to give individual legal advice about land registration and
land ownership issues. This can only be obtained from independent legal
advisers.
Martin Newbold
Friends Of Speckled Wood Management
Trust
15 Valley Road,
Ore,
Hastings
East Sussex TN35 5AD
__ __
__
__
Email sent to:
[email address]
2 of 4
Your first contact with HMLR on this matter was via email on 8th
December, and after some initial correspondence, the matter was quickly
passed to Mark Pugh, Senior Caseworker Executive in our Wales office
who informed you on 16th January that he would requisition the relevant
files relating to title number. HT10942 and also initiate the complaints
process. He informed you via email on 24th January that he was in a
position to review all recent correspondence and provide a substantive
response by the end of the week. A letter was then sent on 30th January
via email. I note that between 24th and 30th January, you sent 4 emails
relating to additional or associated matters that you wished to be
considered. Mr. Pugh then sent a further response to you on 7th February
requesting points of clarification from you and another letter on 10th
February after he sought to identify the specific parcels of land which
were relevant to your correspondence. Mr. Pugh subsequently informed
you on 16th February that, as a result of the information obtained to date,
he would be making further enquiries and had requisitioned other files to
seek further information to assist you. There were further exchanges of
correspondence culminating in another detailed response from Mr. Pugh
on 27th February.
Following further exchanges in early March, you continued to express
concerns that HMLR was failing to provide all the information you had
requested. On 17th March, Mr. Pugh wrote to you confirming that he would
act as a single point of contact for you within Land Registry and provided
you with another very detailed letter dated 23rd March seeking to respond
to your questions and provide further information and clarification.
Another five page letter was received from you on 27th March which
resulted in a very detailed response from Mr. Pugh on 1st April. Upon
receipt of further correspondence from you, the matter was passed to one
of HMLR’s Assistant Land Registrars, Chris Day. In his letter to you dated
5th May, Mr. Day responded to your requests made under the Freedom of
Information Act. In his next letter dated 26 May, Mr. Day confirmed that he
had fully considered all of the correspondence between you and HMLR
and responded specifically to the points raised in your letter dated 11th
April. He also provided you with further documentation.
I am in full agreement with the conclusions of Mr. Day’s letter of 26th May
and there is little further I can usefully add. For completeness and clarity, I
will go through the main points I have identified as follows:-
Your application for deregistration of title no. HT19042
I have concluded that HMLR was correct in determining that your
application should be cancelled as substantially defective under rule 16(3)
of the Land Registration Rules 2003 for the reasons already given. You
will receive formal notification of cancellation separately.
Request for copy documents
There has been a great deal of correspondence between you and HMLR
around the availability or otherwise of documentation. The position is as
has already been set out to you by Mark Pugh and Chris Day. Mr. Pugh’s
letter dated 1st April 2017 went through all of the references contained in
the Charges Register to HT19042 under the heading “Schedule of
Restrictive Covenants”. I don’t consider there is anything I can usefully
add to what has already been said. I am sorry if you feel that you have not
3 of 4
been provided with copies of all the documentation you have requested. I
consider that Mr. Pugh and Mr. Day have carried out a very thorough
examination of the relevant titles and associated files and I have
discovered no evidence to suggest that anything has been withheld from
you, deliberately or otherwise.
With regard to your requests for information made under Freedom of
Information legislation, as set out in Chris Day’s letter dated 5 May, under
s.21 of the FOIA 2000, HMLR are exempt from providing copy documents
which are publicly available. Clearly, a large number of documents have
already been provided to you free of charge. Please note, however, that
any further requests for documents will be dealt with in accordance with
Practice Guide 11 – Inspection and Application for Office Copies, and
fees will be required to be paid where appropriate.
Alleged fraudulent activity
As you have already been informed, any allegations of fraud or other
criminal activity should be reported to the police. In so far as any
allegations or suggestions of such activity you have made against HMLR
or any of its employees, I have not found any evidence whatsoever to
substantiate this.
Complaints against Mark Pugh and Roger Petty
I have considered the complaints you have made against both individuals
in line with HMLR’s disciplinary policy and have found no evidence of any
misconduct by either Mark Pugh or Roger Petty. Mr. Pugh has spent a
great deal of time dealing with the broad range of your frequent enquiries
and has done so professionally and without undue delay. I consider that
the allegations of impropriety you have made against both individuals are
entirely without foundation.
HMLR operates a two stage internal complaints procedure and this
constitutes our second and final response. It is not possible to ask anyone
else in HMLR to review the matter again.
4 of 4
The Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR)
If you remain dissatisfied and wish to take this further, then you can ask
our Independent Complaints Reviewer (the ICR) to carry out a review.
Please note the following important points about the ICR.
· The ICR will not consider a complaint more than six months after
HM Land Registry has completed investigations and given a final
response.
· The ICR cannot consider complaints about registration decisions
or legal points or overturn a decision made (for example, a
decision that an objection to an application should be dismissed as
groundless, or a refusal by the registrar to alter the register),
although the ICR may consider a complaint about the manner in
which such a decision was reached.
· The ICR cannot recommend that HM Land Registry pay
compensation for losses caused by error or fraud, but may
recommend that a consolatory payment be made in appropriate
circumstances.
However, you might still be able go to Court to ask for judicial review of
the way the decision was made.
If you are considering this possibility, I suggest you get legal advice as
soon as you can because an application usually needs to be made within
strict time limits.
The following GOV.UK websites are helpful, which you can get to by
using the links below.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
about/complaints-procedure
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the...
Please note that all proceedings should be served on the Chief Land
Registrar at Land Registry PO Box 2079 Trafalgar House 1 Bedford Park
Croydon CR90 9NU.

Yours sincerely

Geraint Davies
0300 0069553

Mr. Geraint Davies
Member of Parliament for Swansea West.
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 7166
Email: [email address]
Constituency
18 Cradock Street, Swansea, SA1 3HE
Tel: 01792 475943
Email: [email address]

12th June 2017

Dear Sir,

Can you provide me with a copy of this letter to my register office under Hastings Badger Protection Society Ltd

The ASA adjudication against Land Registry for the 25th July 2017, Where the ASA state that Land Registry Literature targeted at 50% of owners of property in England And Wales were misleading as Land Registry did not have to inform the public regarding overriding interest.

I can confirm you have not sent me the information I requested from HMLR. Neither has HMLR sent me the requested information either.

I note that this is the first time I have corresponded with you in reply to your emailed correspondence 12th July 2017 at 8:55 AM so do not understand how your complaints process is being triggered. furthermore, your office told me that you would provide this information under Usual Business which has not occurred to date was this a dis-genuine offer by the HMLR? Can HMLR explain why its register is not providing the information I requested? You have not stated as part of this request by FOIA which you have attempted to answer whether this information is held and provide it or not held and have therefore not currently satisfied the legislation and Act of Parliament which you refer to in your letter.

Can you please provide me with your job title at HMLR.

I would be grateful you explain why you are writing on HMLR letterhead.

Can you inform me whether you have a personal interest in this land or in any context to do with the land?

Yours Sincerely

C.E.O Mr. Newbold

Please note if you are following this FOIA Request that you should download your own copy as it may be removed by an unknown party at any time.

Dear Wales.OfficeMail,

I now understand from the ICR that the Geraint Davies who wrote to me is not the Member of Parliament. This confusion could have been cleared up by The Local Land Registrar from Wales indicating his full title on his correspondence. There has been no reply.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

12/7/2017

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall. Chris Day

Now I have established exactly who you are after ringing Land Registry twice this morning only to be hung up on I was lucky that the kind gentleman at the ICR new of you and could inform me who you are. This may have been an oversite on your part but is nevertheless unprofessional in a letter.

I have read your letter dated 12th June 2017 sent to me at the wrong organization where my office is situated twice and am now aware it is full of errors. If you had read my correspondence alongside that of your officers it would have to lead you to different assertions. It is quite clear you have not grasped the facts of this situation at all. I am unsure why this is and if your motive is to not provide information in relation to fraud. I would think the courts would have a dim view of any activity of this nature.

Firstly I take issue with your statements in relation paragraph four which your felt were probably helpful. If you can define the objectives of HMLR so succinctly why can you not apply this in practice?

Under your paragraph under deregistration of title no.HT19042 you insist that your reasoning behind canceling my request was "Where the applicant, as authorised by these Rules, relies on legal opinion in support of his/her title, the statement of title required by this rule need not be lodged." cited under Rule 16(3). Yet HMLR has provided no external legal adjudication in this matter and any form of weighing evidence has not been legally obtained.

under Your paragraph, Request for copy documents, you seem to have missed correspondence with your wales office in regard to the first registration core documents being missing from what you have sent. There is a list of these documents under HT16634 Land at Church Street as scanned and sent back to Mr. Day, which has been wholly ignored by HMLR from this document missing files from the register was sent to HMLR 12 June 2017 at 22:21pm:

Missing files / deeds not provided to me in regard to HT16634.
1. 1853 Abstract of Title
2. 1868 Abstract of Title
3. 11/9/1749 Assignment
22. 4/6/1839 Assignment, The Guardians of the Hastings Union and Others (1) William Lucas-Shadwell (2)
23. 11/7/1868 Deed of Covenant, C Beck (1) Guardians of the Poor of The Hastings Union (2)
24. 19/4/1836 Conveyance, The Churchwardens, and Overseers of the poor of the parish of Ore (1) The Guardians of the Hastings Union (2)
25. 5/9/1845 Assignment, William Drew Lucas Shadwell, and Others (1) the Guardians of the Poor of Hastings Union (2)
26. 29/9/1863 Conveyance, Spencer Hayward (1) the Guardians of the poor of the Hastings Union (2).
27. 4/7/1868 Conveyance, Frederick Neve, and his Mortgagee (1) the Guardians of the Poor of the Hastings Union (2).

I note that you have ignored this correspondence and anything after May in your letter not giving you the remotest chance to understand the issues at hand.

If fees were required to provide these documents, you could have provided me with the cost of obtaining this documents at an earlier point at no time was this suggested as the reason why they were not provided.

You are aware from my correspondence that the police have been notified of this fraud which is due to happen on the 20th June 2017, which I am unreasonably able to prevent through HMLR not providing documents to me on the or near the 12th June 2017. I, therefore, feel HMLR could be complicit in this fraud in not providing this information which you seem unable to identify from my communications when you have the means in your possession for stopping this from happening.

In regard to the fraud If your investigation of the first registration of the title had been thorough, you would have noted the irregularities in the Application with signatures and the fact that the solicitor who called himself a solicitor is and have never been known to the Law Society or the SRA. You should note this is a misrepresentation and an offense according to the SRA. furthermore, you document should have checked the probate will in regard to the transactions listed under HT16634. It is quite clear from the Probate office and the Repository that these deeds do not contain this information denoted in this document of Registration. this is currently with the solicitors of the data repository. The fact that you have not identified any of this with this application is alarming. As is also the Secretary of State for Health document which the original is not held by this Department of Health and does not appear to have valid copyrights on its paperwork. The Department of Health has also informed me that they instructed the solicitor in this matter but could find no documents or instructions that they held instructing a solicitor to provide this Secretary of State for Health's document on a Saturday. This issue with the nonoriginal document could affect the value of 58 properties which you have currently done nothing to resolve.

Your records seem incomplete in regard to the area of the 38 acres with 1000 year lease no plan has been provided by HMLR.

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

Dear Sir

I am very disappointed to your response you wrote after my initial complaint to ICR I provide it as follows

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18th July 2017 ----------
Proprietor Hastings Borough Council
Title number HT19042
Property Land At Church Street, Hastings
Dear Mr. Newbold
I refer to your emails dated 12 July (11:18 and 21:05).

I apologise for any confusion as a result of my letter dated 12 July in respect to my identity. I am a Local Land Registrar (senior lawyer) based at HM Land Registry Wales Office. Apart from sharing the
same name, there is no connection between me and Geraint Davies MP. I have no personal interest in this land. Dealing with the specific points raised in your second email, I would comment as follows:-
1 In relation to any allegation of fraud, I can only refer you to the paragraph in my letter of 12 July headed “Alleged fraudulent activity”;
2 Rule 16(3) of the Land Registration Rules 2003 states “If an application appears to the registrar to be substantially defective, he may reject it on delivery or he may cancel it at any time thereafter.” You have not provided any evidence which leads us to conclude that there is a mistake in the register. For that reason, your application to close Title no. HT19042 has been rejected under Rule 16(3) as substantially defective. HM Land Registry does not require any “external legal adjudication” as you suggest, before
coming to this decision; 3 I have gone through all of the paper files obtained by Mark
Pugh during his investigations and I have not been able to locate copies of any of the Abstracts of Title or other documents you have listed. I apologise if this had not been made clear in previous correspondence;
4 For clarity, I am not suggesting that documents have been withheld because we require payment from you. No documents have been withheld. Some documents you have requested have not been provided because, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to locate copies.
5 I note that you have reported alleged fraud to the police. HM Land Registry will, of course, cooperate with any investigation. I trust this clarifies the position.

Yours sincerely
Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

20th July 2017

I am sure you will note from my correspondence to you dated 19th July 2017 that I was very concern4ed with you not providing documents this matter is now under investigation with the ICR . You have not explained your phrase 'Sufficient Evidence'. I would also point out that 'Sufficient evidence' refers to "evidence of such probative value as to support the verdict of the jury or a finding of fact by the court. The word sufficient does not mean conclusive. Conclusive evidence is evidence that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something. "

I believe this 'sufficient Evidence ' has already been provided to you. Can you explain why what you have been provided is not sufficient evidence?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19th July 2017
Mr. Geraint Davies Local Land Registrar from Wales HM Land Registry Wales Office PO Box 75 Gloucester GL14 9BD
Ref: NCR170701933630
CC: Secretary of State, Commissioners Office Met PNN
Dear Sir/ Madam
I attach response from HM Land Registry and Probate wills in relation to Eaton’s Will described in this matter.
Clearly, Mr. Geraint Davies's Letter dated is missing the point and his position is hopeless. His point 1 is defiant that he has no knowledge of fraud yet his professional conduct with his body bounds him to investigate this matter thoroughly which he has clearly not executed. His point 2 is wholly untrue I suggest he reads my correspondence as by his own admission if he does comprehend in note 4 he states "For clarity, I am not suggesting that the documents have been withheld because we require payment from you..." At no point has there been a demand for payment for this service or a bill raised. In fact documents, have been provided freely as it was determined early that HMLR returned all of my payments wrongly from me with the excuse that I was using the wrong form. It is clearly shown in the Legislation which forms to use. I should point out these cheques repaying my fees have not been cashed and therefore HMLR are holding monies from me in their account for services that they have not provided in breach of Sale of Goods Act 1979.

It should be noted that if Mr. Geraint Davies is clear in regard to at point 4 "Some documents have been requested but have not been provided, because, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to locate copies." I understand from this that the Register is not being maintained correctly in respect to titles HT16634 and derivative titles from HT19042 as it is clear if these documents cannot be found that either the register is incomplete and therefore fraudulent in its content or these documents which are core documents in a Land registry has not been ever provided to HMLR and as such this registration on these titles is void. There is no explanation why Mr. Geraint Davies will not conduct his affairs with regard to his professional conduct.

I note from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom... that There is a “culture of defeated acceptance” where authorities and lawyers would seek to “work around the failings” rather than fixing them, it said.

I note that there may be some "amnesia conveniosa" (translation Convenient memory loss) in the responses, perhaps the parties need to see a doctor? Yours Sincerely.

Is Mr. Geraint Davies the Local Land Registrar for wales “grasping at straws”?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Dear Wales.OfficeMail,

Can you please inform me if Councillor Street made a telephone call to HMLR in which he was told there were no evident problems with the Land at Church Street?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

12/7/2017

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall. Chris Day

-------As Sent----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug 1st 2017 -----------

Chris Jackson

Senior Investigation Officer

Office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer

1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

Telephone: 0207 930 0749
www.icrev.org.uk

1st August 2017

Dear Sir,

Can you inform me what documents are in the bundle which HMLR sent you listing each document by name, please? Are the 14 documents of my complain request which are the HMLR inclusive of the 'root file's which HMLR has withheld from us unlawfully as described and double ticked on HT16634 A13 as attached dated 17th June 1958? If these files have been sent to you can your forward them to me, please? Or can you ask HMLR to forward same copies?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

2/8/2017

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall. Chris Day

-------As Sent--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:05 AM

Chris Jackson

Senior Investigation Officer

Office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer

1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

Telephone: 0207 930 0749
www.icrev.org.uk

8/2/207

Dear Mr Jackson

You have written telling me that you have received everything that you requested. I asked you to provide me details of what you have received which you have ignored. Consider there are authenticity issues with some of the documents I have already provided I would have to expect you to have provided details of what you have received as it would be incumbent when accessing this information not to rely on non.- authenticated documents. I, therefore, feel it is a necessary part of the process that these documents in this bundle are made available to me, otherwise, I will be forced to serve you with a Subject Access request and take the further dim view on this alleged material?

Yours sincerely,

CEO Mr Newbold

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

2/8/2017

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall. Chris Day

-------As Sent--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:05 AM
To : Chris Jackson
Senior Investigation Officer
Office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer
1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET
Telephone: 0207 930 0749
www.icrev.org.uk
Ref: NCR170701933630
2/8/2017
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for your response I look forward to her response. However considering the documents I have received to-date have been redacted with no reason given, then I can only presume therefore that the documents you have been sent are also possibly redacted copies. I tried to clarify this by asking to view the documents that you were holding, as I felt it should be done to ensure that no errors occur and the decision notice by the ICR is not compromised. Perhaps considering the redactions and issues in the form of context and far reaching results perhaps you should err on caution. I remind you that the solicitor who handled these titles that you hold is not recognised as a solicitor by the LA Society or the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and would not have had legal cover/ Insurance.

Yours Sinserely
CEO Mr. Newbold.

Mr. Geraint Davies
Local Land Registrar from Wales
HM Land Registry
Wales Office
PO Box 75
Gloucester
GL14 9BD

2/8/2017

CC: Julie Jenkins, Mike Wescott-Rudd, Michael Myer, Graham Farrant, John Pownall. Chris Day

-------As Sent--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Chris Jackson
Senior Investigation Officer
Office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer
1 Victoria Street,
London SW1H 0ET

Telephone: 0207 930 0749 9th August 2017
CC: Mr. Geraint Davies, Local Land Registrar from Wales, HM Land Registry, Wales Office, PO Box 75, Gloucester GL14 9BD
CC: Secretary of State, Commissioners Office Met PNN
Ref: NCR170701933630 and ICR/004/17.
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for providing this draft report from the Office of The Complaints Reviewer written by Elizabeth Derrington. I have some concern having observed Elizabeth Derrington’s signature in regard to her work at the Solicitors Regulation Authority to deal with solicitor’s complaints. Can you please for the record confirm her position at the Solicitors Regulation Authority and provide written confirmation that this is not going to complicate the issues where my serious concerns lie? Why is she writing a draft Decision when she appears to be conflicted? I have already requested this file of documents which the ICR is investigating as it would be very helpful. Do I need to instruct a solicitor to write to ask for it or is there a way I can have sight?
I am choosing to enact your overlooked clause at footnote 8 on page 10 as you are providing a decision in the public domain and therefore I must state that this expansive document of 15 pages in length does not deal with the matters in hand under HT16634 as provided under HT19042 during its first registration 14th February 1997.
Neither does it deal with the absence of title in Ore, Hastings for 38 acres with 1000-year in term lease of which the remaining unbuilt part is Speckled Wood (a rare and beautiful valley with a meandering stream), which was given to the public in General Plan Development Plan 1930 because of these serious in term land lease and covenant issues in this community.
I understand that you have viewed this document HT16634 for its merits on its own with documentation with HMLR complaints process. Unfortunately, your wish to simplify this matter has done nothing other than favour HMLR as you have derived incorrectly that the titles would not be kept in this time-span when they were all included in a first registration HT19042 in 1997. Your office advised me August 1st2017 that you had received everything that you required in regard to these 14 files under HT16634. Yet on page 10 you state that only two documents were retained. There seems to be a flawed process at HMLR which you are further compounding instead of addressing.
Further to this end the documents provided by HMLR which have been provided to you under the letter from Chris Day: 8th June 2017 under reference HT19042. I had expected you to have noted the redacted documents therein and note you have noticed two A13 documents in this bundle in your footnote 7. on page 9. From this I expected you to derive from the List of documents A13 HT16634 dated June 1958 to have recognised the errors/mistakes in the conveyance made 27th May 1958 where Edmund Beck John had died 6 years before by probated will which had no information in regard to this disposal of land.
The act of disposal of land in conveyance dated 27th May 1958 occurring six years after Eaton’s death 12th January 1952 and two years after his wife’s death 14th January 1956. Is somebody trying to make out that land can be inherited after death? It is normal for probate to take six to nine months unless there is undisclosed adequate reason for delay.
Both probated wills made available to us are devoid of this title of Land HT16634 by deed of considerable value referred to by wills as denoted by the conveyance. It should also be pointed out that this Claude Meeson of Midland Bank Chambers Ringwood is not and has never been registered as a solicitor under the Law Society nor the Solicitor Regulation Authority and is not as such indemnified by insurances. In fact, there is no record at all how Hastings Borough Council came to have ownership under this title which is at best signed by the Town Clerk who has been identified in the national press of the time, as avoiding land tax on other Land Registry matters.
It should also be noted that this land HT16634 at this time in 1958 had no houses or buildings located on it which is evidenced and would attract works upon made up property then upon compound debt, forcing seizure to be made upon it. The Court records require sourcing in regard to this seizure which was available in this first registration document to ensure the rule of law has been followed.
I would expect HMLR to have made note of this discrepancy at first Registration. It should also be noted from our correspondence with Secretary of State for Health that in regard to the Deed of Enlargement that they hold no document in regard to Deed of Enlargement and have passed a redacted and limited copy from the Solicitors who made this registration under HT19042.
In regard to my address of overlooked concerns. I move to the summary of events at point 7 of your Draft Decision in your forward section which is not quite correct. You miss out pertinent information in relation to HMLR dealing with this matter. It was not until the Local Land Registry Chris Day failed to get involved until the matter was brought to FOIA Request that a second bundle of more pertinent documents was provided free of charge. Without this complaint regarding this matter it is clear this more pertinent bundle of documents would never of have been provided. It is uncertain why this was not picked up by complaint process and again was flawed by a secondary draft statement by ICR and ALR investigation. If HMLR process was open, accountable and honest, would or should, this information not have been provided in the first place?
Can you explain in your draft report why this information contained in second bundle by Chris Day was not available in first bundle of documents supplied by Mark Pugh. Surely if HMLR was functioning correctly regarding its upkeep of the register these documents HT16334 would have been provided by Mr. Pugh in his original response 6th February 2017 of six-page letter and bundle of documents, which were scanned and sent back to Mr. Pugh the following day.
Can you point me to where in your draft report you sent me that you have sight of these two bundles sent to me from HMLR in your sections of your draft decision? Can you point me to where I can find information explaining the dates these were received and sent back to HMLR Wales office?
Further to this summary at point 7 and in regard to the covenant and extent of the 32-acres of in term lease. The HMLR consideration of covenant or easement is key to understanding the extent of this in term,38 year-lease. It is clear that this measure of a covenant use across titles is not a tool which HMLR is using to access first registration, which opens its self-up to fraud.
I will defer my comments further to your flawed summary at point 7 to a later date and your subsequent second investigation as this summary appears to be written only from HMLR dominant perspective and not from an independent view or standpoint. I ask you to note that my FOIA’s created 28th April 2017, 30th April 2017 and 20th July 2017 Requests stand as a permanent record on the WhatdoTheyKnow.com website which was written at the time these events transpired and information was not being provided through usual business. You should note this and your summary should not be an opposing view in the ICR Public Decision ICR/004/17. You should note that I was directed by legal advice to make this permanent record here on this site as this record cannot be altered and is legally binding. Your summary to set the record straight should defer and make a remark to this summary located in the public domain on the WhatDTheyKnow.com website in your own summary so as to ensure readers of your public decisions are made aware of all the facts available at hand.
I have to state that on the face of your draft decision to-date that had been provided to me it appears that you have just gone back to HMLR to ask them what they want you to write in your report. Can you point me to your impartiality herein this draft report?
To sum up for the purposes of the record that there are lessons to be learned here in which your decision could benefit other parties i.e. The authorities and HMLR of the UK, England, and Wales.
Is Mr. Geraint Davies the Local Land Registrar for Wales “grasping at straws”? I point out that there may be a code of conduct issues stemming from Nolans[1} Report.
Yours sincerely

Martin Newbold.
-------------------------------------------
[1} Every local authority, including parish councils, is required to adopt a code of conduct for local authority members. It is for each local authority to determine the contents of their code, although any code must conform to the seven ‘Nolan’ principles of standards in public life; selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. We have not sought to define these principles, such definitions already exist and are freely available, for instance on the web site of the Committee for Standards in Public Life.