ICR Office

Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Land Registry Annual Report 2004-2005

Seeking a fair resolution

About the Independent Complaints Reviewer

Who is the ICR?

Jodi Berg is the ICR for Land Registry, The National Archives, the Charity Commission and the Housing Corporation. She is also Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Registry and the Northern Ireland Social Security Registry. Mrs Berg is a solicitor and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The ICR is not a civil servant, an employee of the Registry or any other public body.

What is the ICR service?

The ICR service was established for Land Registry complainants in 1998. The ICR reviews complaints made by people dissatisfied with Land Registry's response to their concerns. The service is managerially independent of the Registry and it operates from offices in Southampton Row in central London. The service is free to complainants.

Finding out about us

The ICR's leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution explains the role of the office and contains a complaint referral form. The leaflet is available from all Land Registry Offices or direct from the ICR's office. It is also available on-line.

Complainants can contact us by telephone, fax, e-mail, or in writing. Land Registry is required to signpost our service in its final response to a complaint. It also provides information about us on its website (www.landregistry.gov.uk)

Our own website (www.icrev.demon.co.uk) contains information about our work and copies of past and current annual reports. The website also provides an on-line version of Seeking a Fair Resolution and a printable version of the complaint referral form. It has links to websites of other complaints handling and ombudsman services.

You can find out about us and other complaint handling organisations by visiting the British and Irish Ombudsman Association website (www.bioa.org.uk). We promote the work of the office through external bodies such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Consumers Association.

The ICR Team

Team members are civil servants. They are either permanent staff at the ICR office or seconded for a limited time from other public bodies, including those for which Jodi Berg is the ICR.

Senior Investigations Officer and Office Manager:Andrew Robertson
Investigations Officers:David Davies
Joe Scott
Fiona Stevenson

Contents


FOREWORD

I am pleased to present my annual report as Independent Complaints Reviewer for Land Registry for the year 2004-2005.

Since its establishment in 1998, the ICR office has been highly regarded by the customers of Land Registry and by its staff for the way in which we respond to complaints about the Registry's service. Land Registry's approach to independent review is mature. It provides an excellent service to the vast majority of its customers whilst recognising that, even in the best run organisations, things can go wrong.

The primary focus of this report is on the referrals to my office during the year and the wider issues identified by them. Complaints are an invaluable source of management information that provide unsolicited feedback from customers. As in previous years, this year Land Registry accepted all of the recommendations that I made following my investigation of complaints and, moreover, has acted upon the lessons learned from the review process to improve the service it provides to customers.

The complaints that I see represent a very small percentage of the large number of transactions and customer contacts that the Registry handles every year and I am pleased to report that referrals to my office in 2004-2005 remained at similarly low levels to those of recent years. This points to an overall satisfaction with the Registry's service and to the effectiveness of its internal complaint handling procedure.

Nevertheless, the complaints referred to me reflect the most difficult and controversial areas of the Registry's work and are cases that the Registry has been unable to resolve itself. They are often rooted in boundary disputes or in applications for registration of ownership of land for which there is no documentary title or where it is incomplete.

There are few more distressing situations than finding oneself plunged into an argument with neighbours. Almost invariably, this has a significant effect on the enjoyment of one's home and family life and can create disharmony in the local community. It is often when people are in this vulnerable position that they turn to Land Registry for assistance. Complaints can then arise if there is a mismatch between people's perception of what the Registry can do to help and its actual legal authority.

Following the implementation of the Land Registration Act 2002 (which came into force in October 2003), the office of the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry has taken on the judicial decision-making role that previously rested with the Registry. This has helped to clarify the limits of the Registry's powers, but has not yet resulted in the speedier settlement of cases that was hoped for. Inevitably, this too can have a knock-on effect on people's satisfaction with the process as a whole.

The new legislation was also accompanied by wide-ranging changes to Land Registry practice and procedure. Whilst some practitioners have found the changes more confusing than others, there have been no formal complaint referrals to me about their implementation and this reflects credit on Land Registry's preparation and training.

During the reporting year I had regular meetings with senior Land Registry officers to discuss issues arising from complaints and visited several Registry offices around the country to speak to staff. I am grateful to everyone who spent time with me and for their contribution to my understanding of the issues faced by Land Registry and its customers. I refer to a number of these issues in my Year Overview later in this report. It has been pleasing to note that facing new challenges has not diminished the Registry's commitment to customer service and this is a tribute to the professionalism of Land Registry staff. I look forward to continuing my programme of visits and meetings in the coming year.

This year my office faced the challenge of a complete turnaround of Investigations Officers, as colleagues moved on to more senior posts elsewhere in the public sector. Nevertheless, I am pleased to report that the service provided to Registry customers did not diminish. In great measure, this was due to the efforts of my Office Manager, Andrew Robertson. I thank him and all of the team, past and present, for their enthusiasm and commitment.

I hope that you find my report interesting and informative.

Picture of Jodi Berg

Jodi Berg
Independent Complaints Reviewer

Back to Contents

Seeking a Fair Resolution

Our Mission Statement

The ICR will be fair and impartial in the review of complaints made by individual members of the public or organisations.

The ICR aims to achieve a reasonable settlement of complaints made by Land Registry customers. We also try to make a difference to the service provided to future customers by recommending system changes that will prevent problems identified by complaints from recurring.

From the initial contact with us, we ensure that complainants understand our role and how we go about our work. We communicate with people in a clear and polite manner and in ways that meets their needs and preferences. To this end, upon request, we can provide information leaflets in a number of languages and formats.

Complainants can expect from us:

  • Courtesy
  • Honesty
  • Respect
  • Accessibility
  • Objectivity
  • Flexibility
  • Plain language

In addition, we are always open to suggestions and comments and seek views about our service from complainants and Land Registry staff.

Terms of reference

The ICR reviews complaints about the way Land Registry dealt with things. This may involve:

  • Failure to follow proper procedures
  • Discourtesy, discrimination or injustice
  • Excessive delay
  • Not answering complaints fully and promptly
  • Failure to apologise properly for mistakes or provide appropriate redress.

The ICR cannot adjudicate on Land Registry decisions, although she can consider complaints about the way in which they have been made. We expect the Registry to be given a chance to sort things out before complaints are referred to the ICR. However, because memories fade and information is only kept for a certain time period, referrals should be made within six months after Land Registry has offered its final response to a complaint.

Making a complaint to the ICR

People can refer their complaints to the ICR by telephone, post, fax, e-mail or in person. When we receive a referral, initially we consider whether it is possible to negotiate an agreement between Land Registry and its customer. In cases where this appears feasible, we will explore the potential for agreement to any immediate action on the part of Land Registry that will resolve matters. For example, this may include action to provide information, to apologise for problems that occurred, or to make a consolatory payment.

In cases where resolution is not possible or appropriate, we agree a summary of complaint with the complainant, which sets the framework for our investigation. Once agreed, a copy of the summary is sent to Land Registry, which then sends its case files to us. A detailed chronology is drawn up from the files and from the information provided by the complainant. The ICR then decides whether she has sufficient information to be able to consider whether the complaints raised are justified, or whether further enquiries (such as interviews with members of staff) are required prior to issuing her report.

The ICR may make recommendations within her reports. These may be specific and aimed at providing reasonable redress for the complainant, such as an apology from the Chief Land Registrar or a consolatory payment in recognition of the anxiety and distress caused by the maladministration that has been identified. The ICR can also make 'systemic' recommendations aimed at improving procedures for the future.

In cases where the ICR has made recommendations, Land Registry has undertaken to implement them immediately. However, if the Registry were to decide not to do so, it must provide a written explanation for this. Land Registry has never refused to implement an ICR recommendation.

ICR team

The ICR team (from left to right): Fiona Stevenson, Joe Scott, Andrew Robertson, David Davies and Jodi Berg.

Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team

The ICR's systemic recommendations are referred to the Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team (or ICREST) for consideration. ICREST includes members drawn from a number of offices and jobs within the Registry and is chaired by the Corporate Legal Services Lawyer. ICREST meets regularly to discuss ICR reports and recommendations, and its deliberations and the actions taken following decisions are accessible to Registry staff on the internal intranet.

Next steps

In cases where the ICR's report has not resolved a complaint, there is a further avenue of complaint available by asking an MP to refer matters to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In cases where a complainant is dissatisfied with the way in which we have dealt with their complaint, we have an internal complaints procedure under which their concerns are investigated and the ICR will issue a personal response.

This year, the ICR and Ombudsman's offices reviewed liaison processes for cases where complainants have approached or might approach both offices.

Back to Contents

Year Overview

As with previous years, my reviews of individual complaints and my discussions with Land Registry staff have highlighted current issues of concern and interest for the Registry and its customers. I have also had the benefit of receiving useful feedback from complainants and Registry staff in the questionnaires that my office has issued in the course of the year. The following reflect some of the issues that have been brought to my attention.

Completing the register

Over the next few years, Land Registry will be working towards the total registration of all land and prescribed interests in land across England and Wales. Surprisingly, over 140 years since the establishment of Land Registry, there is a great deal left to do. Indeed, only half of the land within the areas covered by some Registry offices has ever been registered.

The recent cooling of the property market has led to a downturn in work for Land Registry. The move from a period of continuous growth to quieter times has meant that more effort can be put into encouraging new applications for voluntary first registration from landowners with unregistered titles. Amongst these are owners of estates, local authorities, public bodies and national charities, which own large tracts of land across the country. In order to help market the benefits of land registration to those landowners with unregistered titles, local offices have appointed managers dedicated to the task of seeking out new business of this kind and help is being offered to landowners to facilitate registration.

Although the Registry is achieving increasing levels of success in encouraging voluntary registration, at current rates and given the natural reluctance of some landowners to change the status quo, it may well require more than persuasion to secure the level of registration required to support electronic conveyancing and on-line registration in the future. In my view, statutory compulsion should not be ruled out as an option, which would allow the Registry to move more quickly, to offer incentives for early registration and to provide help to those landowners who will find it challenging to prepare the documentation required.

Inevitably, the progress towards registering large estates and property ownership will affect some people who live adjacent to unregistered land. This year, my office received feedback from members of the public concerned about the Registry's actions to encourage registration. In some cases, there was a history of disputes between local homeowners and estate owners over boundary ownership or access issues. People expressed concern that the Registry was helping landowners get their way by registering title to the land in the way that they preferred, rather than taking into account the possible interests of adjoining property owners. I have raised these concerns with Land Registry. The Agency needs to be wary of exacerbating pre-existing disputes or problems when reaching agreements with landowners about the evidence required to support registration or when reaching overall agreements on how to proceed with a raft of registrations.

Putting things right on the register

As part and parcel of the Registry's preparation for electronic conveyancing, the Agency is undertaking a review of all of the information held on the register to ensure its accuracy. In the past, problems often only came to light if applications or complaints were received that identified an error or mistake. Today, across the Registry, 'data integrity teams' are engaged in the important task of correcting errors in plans or in other information. This means that the register is being brought up to date with changes generated by new Ordnance Survey maps, property and street name changes, as well as the minor errors such as spelling mistakes that occur. Many errors have been brought to light following the Registry's own 'vectorisation project' which in itself was a significant step towards electronic conveyancing.

Land Registry's record for accuracy is good. Although it is impossible to entirely cut out human error, steps can be taken to lessen its incidence. I am pleased to see that the Registry is taking a more learning-based approach to reducing errors by employing dedicated staff to identify the kinds of problems that typically occur and, where patterns emerge, to encourage consideration of how they can be overcome.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

The introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax to replace stamp duty on purchases of property and on certain leases from 1 December 2003 has created unforeseen problems. It is well known that Inland Revenue has had difficulties in coping with the increased demand on its service, particularly for advice. Land Registry staff have had to deal with a surge in enquiries from members of the public and practitioners who have been unable to get through to the Revenue helplines. In many cases, Registry officers have spent a great deal of time and effort giving advice and assistance on the completion of the land transaction return and the steps to be taken in making payment.

It is perhaps unfortunate that this integral part of the conveyancing process is divided between two Agencies and that apparently little initial thought was given to the scope for a more joined-up approach. In line with the Government's promotion of partnership arrangements between service providers, it is to be hoped that consideration will be given to ways of reducing the current difficulties faced by practitioners and lay customers, as well as the administrative burden on staff. Looking to the future, I understand that Land Registry is working closely with HMRC Stamp Taxes on the e-conveyancing programme. The proposed Land Registry central e-conveyancing service has the potential to reduce many of the difficulties currently faced in complying with the SDLT regime. For most transactions it is envisaged that customers will be able to deal with both departments through the central service, submitting both the land transaction return and the SDLT payment electronically.

Customer service

In the last few years Land Registry has adopted a far more co-ordinated approach to customer service and the management of direct front line services. Every local office has a well equipped and furnished Customer Information Centre and the Registry has national arrangements for dealing with telephone enquiries to provide far more effective coverage than ever before.

Following my appointment as Independent Complaints Reviewer, I supported the development of the full-time Customer Service Manager role at each Office. I argued that these officers should be of a sufficiently high grade to carry the respect of their colleagues. Today, Customer Service Managers are part of each local office senior management team. They lead teams of staff and, working with their Deputies and team facilitators, assist the Registry in the delivery of services. In addition, they are an essential link in local efforts to reach out to customers and to placing the customer at the centre of the Registry's thinking. In short, it is an important and highly thought-of role. As the Registry moves forward to lift the expertise and grades of technical and general team leaders, it is also important to recognise the increasing responsibility and skills of the Customer Service Managers.

A professional and commercial approach

Land Registry is responsible for generating its own running costs from the fees received. This means that it has to take a particularly robust approach to efficiency and cost effectiveness. In the Registry, this permeates down to front-line team leaders who take responsibility for the cost effectiveness of their own area of work, meeting changing priorities and ensuring that staff are fully employed but not overstretched.

Land Registry staff are given challenging operational targets which require the same day turnaround of the majority of applications. This can be difficult to achieve and creates an atmosphere of urgency and considerable pressure for the teams. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that staff complain about the failure of some practitioners to present properly completed applications along with the necessary supporting documentation. Difficulties also arise with some lenders who are slow to deal with the discharge of mortgages. However, both practitioners and lenders are partners in helping to create a service in which same day dealings are the expected standard. The Registry will need to disseminate greater understanding of the reasons why this is advantageous if it is to encourage greater commitment to accuracy and speed from all parties.

Review Issues

I received some useful feedback this year from Land Registry staff on how my reviews are conducted, and the following are points that were raised by a number of people.

  • Consolatory payments - A consolatory payment is a financial award that acknowledges the stress and anxiety that people have been caused as a consequence of maladministration. In this way it supports an apology given to a customer who has cause to complain about the poor or inappropriate service they have received. Financial redress is not the only solution when things go wrong. Indeed, prompt recognition and correction of a service failure on the part of the Registry, coupled with an apology, can often be sufficient to resolve matters. That said, consideration of a consolatory payment should be part and parcel of a public body's consideration of redress.

    In 2004-2005 I dealt with several cases in which I was critical of Land Registry for not considering whether a consolatory payment was called for, in circumstances where the Registry had accepted that an apology was warranted. In some cases, I recommended payments in acknowledgement of service failures, even when the specific complaint was not actually upheld. This can occur where other maladministration is identified or where I do not think that the Registry has considered the question of redress for the worry that the customer had been caused.

    This approach has caused concern amongst some within Land Registry. One officer commented: ".in some cases I think that a token payment is made to appease the complainant rather than because of any inherent defect in the way in which Land Registry has handled the case." However, I do not see consolatory payments in this light. I consider that they are appropriate where Land Registry has made things worse or more difficult for someone by not following procedure, by making a mistake or by acting unreasonably or unfairly. They should always be considered by the Registry in cases where mistakes have been made and I will usually recommend them where I have identified problems during review, even if these have not been the initial subject of the complaint.

  • Consulting Registry staff - Feedback from some Registry officers suggests that they would have preferred more direct opportunity to comment on cases in which they were involved. In the main, my review involves a detailed examination of Land Registry's files and of the information supplied by complainants. I do not always speak directly to the Registry officers who were involved in a case, rather I rely on those who liaise with my office to have done so at an earlier stage and to be able to provide me with relevant case history. However, I will often seek the views of Registry officers in cases where a direct allegation of poor behaviour has been made (such as discourtesy) or where there is conflict between different accounts of what happened that cannot be resolved by examination of the paper evidence.

Back to Contents

Facts and Figures

Referrals and recorded complaints

During the reporting year 2004-2005, we received 40 referrals, a small increase on the 36 we received in 2003-2004.

Land Registry recorded 2,579 complaints in 2004-2005, compared to 2,849 in the previous year and 145 complaints were later referred to the Agency Case Review Team, compared to 141 in the previous year. This is an indication of the continuing success of internal complaint handling.

The Registry also recorded 2,510 compliments compared to 2,405 last year, demonstrating these customers' appreciation of the service they had received.

Reviews and outcomes

Although we received slightly more referrals in 2004-2005, we conducted 20 reviews. The complaints that we reviewed contained a significant increase in the number of separate allegations compared to last year. However, the ICR fully or partially upheld fewer complaints in 2004-2005 than in the previous year.

Comparison of complaints in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005
2003-2004 2004-2005
Allegations 85 106
Fully/partially upheld 15 (18%) 16 (15%)
Not upheld 70 (82%) 90 (85%)

Complaints by category

As in previous years, the largest number of complaints concerned allegations of failures in practice and procedure. Complaints about the personal attitude and behaviour of Land Registry officers are few and far between and this provides further evidence of Registry commitment to customer service. As in the previous reporting year, the complaints we received regarding errors and mistakes made up 9% of the overall total. This consolidates the marked reduction from 2002-2003. We have continued to monitor the number of complaints received about accuracy following the changes in Registry practice and procedure. We are pleased to report that there has been no increase in this category of complaint.

Bar Chart Showing Complaints by Category

Our performance

The average time taken to complete our reviews in 2004-2005 was 23 weeks from the date of agreement of the summary. This is a slight improvement on the previous year when the average was 24 weeks. It is also well within our published target of 36 weeks. However, several reviews took longer than this. Whilst we will continue our efforts to reduce the time taken, we have noted a marked increase in the complexity of the cases we receive, perhaps because of the Registry's success in resolving those that are more straightforward. Many of our complaint referrals concern cases that are several years old by the time they are referred to us, and often involve several difficult legal and procedural issues. A thorough review of these cases takes a considerable time and, inevitably, this affects our speed of service.

Customer comment

We asked complainants and Land Registry staff to complete quality questionnaires for us in 2004-2005. Most complainants were satisfied with our published guidance and nearly all understood and accepted that the ICR is independent of Land Registry. Opinions were divided on whether complainants considered that their complaint had been reviewed impartially and on whether the ICR review had improved matters. The divergence of views appeared to correspond directly with whether or not the ICR had upheld the complaint. Nevertheless, no customers then chose to refer their complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The following are extracts of positive comments made by our customers:

"I would like to thank yourself and the ICR for the support and advice you have given me over the years. I am certain that your very existence makes all the difference to how the Land Registry addresses and resolves its own mistakes".

"I am impressed with the detail of the issue you have grasped".

On the other hand, some people were far from complimentary:

"The Independent Complaints Reviewer was a complete waste of time and is on the Registry's side.absolutely disgraceful".

A total of 163 quality questionnaires were completed and returned by Land Registry staff. The majority of respondents knew about the ICR service and understood our role (over 90%, a marked improvement on last year). Of the respondents who had read the ICR's leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution, over 95% were happy with its clarity, again an improvement on last year. Similar numbers understood that the ICR is independent of Land Registry. Almost all Land Registry respondents who had experience of cases reviewed by the ICR considered that her reports tend to represent a fair outcome of complaints. About the same number considered that the ICR and her team deal with complaints in an impartial way, and that her reports fairly reflect the facts.

Over two-thirds of respondents considered that the ICR's visits to Land Registry Offices are useful in raising awareness about the ICR's role and her work. A recent visit by the ICR resulted in the following comment:

"I can safely say that team members found Jodi Berg's visit both informative and heartening. We were all struck by her grasp of the practicalities of what we do.. Her session with the whole team certainly clarified her role for those who were not clear, but above all her recognition of the progress we have made . and the fact that her involvement with other organisations allowed her to 'benchmark' our progress and to give an independent perspective of that progress was, as I say, very heartening for all the team."

We hope to continue these visits in the coming year and to assist local offices in training their staff on issues associated with complaint handling and customer service.

Complaints about our service

During the year we received three complaints. On the whole, dissatisfaction was related to the ICR's findings rather than to the way the reviews had been conducted. Given the controversial nature of some of the referrals we investigate and the fact most complaints are not upheld, we believe that this is a positive reflection on the thoroughness of our reviews.

Financial report

ICR Running Costs
2003/04 2004/05
Staff Costs 109,299 127,628
Sub Total 109,299 127,628
Administrative Expenditure
Other Staff Costs 128 2,045
Stationery & Printing 2,601 1,350
Services 2,248 4,715
Travel & Subsistence 4,749 6,355
Postages/Telecoms 8,166 2,513
Accommodation/Rent 42,622 38,670
Equipment,Maintenance & Consumables 1,654 2,143
Sub Total 62,167 57,791
Fixed Asset Expenditure
Office Equipment 0 0
Telecom Equipment 0 0
Computer Equipment 0 0
Furniture, Fixtures & Fittings 0 0
Sub Total 0 0
Total 171,466 185,419

Back to Contents

Casework Review

Complaints represent opportunities to learn about Land Registry's service from a customer perspective. This can be true even of complaints that are not justified, if they are a reflection of the impression that has been given to a customer or demonstrate the potential for a misunderstanding of the Registry's role and authority. The low number of complaint referrals to this office demonstrates that most people are satisfied with the service they receive from Land Registry. Nevertheless, each referral to the ICR represents a failure by the Registry to resolve a customer's concerns during its internal complaints handling process. Inevitably, they number amongst the most difficult and contentious cases for Land Registry.

The following are anonymised summaries of complaints that the ICR reviewed in 2004-2005, followed by an assessment of the issues that they highlighted.

Boundary dispute

Mr and Mrs A had a dispute with their neighbour over the position of the boundary between their properties. They asserted that a row of trees fell wholly within their title. They consulted Land Registry and were initially told that their view was correct. However, Land Registry had subsequently changed its position on the matter. Mr and Mrs A complained that Land Registry had acted unfairly and that its actions had exacerbated the problems with their neighbours and had caused considerable distress.

The ICR found that by agreeing with Mr and Mrs A's view of the position of the trees in relation to their title, Land Registry had given the impression that the matter was settled. However, the officer dealing with the matter had not explained the effect of the 'General Boundaries Rule' in his response and the ICR was critical of this. She accepted that the intention had been to be helpful, however, since no objective information was available on boundary features such as the row of trees and the fence, it was particularly important to reserve judgement on the matter until all the facts were known. The Registry's later rather abrupt 'about-turn' had been particularly unhelpful. However, the ICR acknowledged that Land Registry had then spent considerable time and effort considering the matter and had tried to explain to Mr and Mrs A how relevant legislation applied. The ICR partially upheld this complaint and recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £200.

Finally, Mr and Mrs A complained that the Chief Land Registrar had responded too quickly to their complaint and therefore could not have adequately considered the matter. The ICR accepted that the case had been subjected to a comprehensive and speedy review. However, she noted that the impression had been given that the Chief Land Registrar would be carrying out a personal review, when this was not Land Registry practice. Although the ICR did not uphold this complaint, she recommended that Land Registry carry out a review of procedure and standard correspondence to ensure that similar complaints could not arise in the future.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • This case highlights that Land Registry officers should be wary of making definitive assertions on title extent in the face of a possible dispute between neighbours, particularly when only one side of the argument has been given.
  • An 'about-turn' in Land Registry's opinion or advice may often be greeted with suspicion and as possible evidence of bias, even if the Registry is careful to explain why it has changed its mind.
  • Complainants sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the degree of personal involvement of senior officers and correspondence should make this clear.

Informing the neighbours

Mr B was in correspondence with Land Registry about the registration to his neighbour of a possessory title of a trackway that ran alongside a property that he had inherited from his late father. This property was not registered. Mr B maintained that the trackway had been used to gain access to the rear of his property for over sixty years and should not have been registered without his right of way being recorded on it. He considered that Land Registry should accept responsibility for this error and resolve the matter without the need for court action. He also complained that possessory title should not have been granted without notifying him as an adjoining owner with a possible interest in the land.

The ICR noted that service of notice is discretionary. In this particular case, the files showed that the Registry's survey had concluded that neighbours might have an interest in the trackway application, but Mr B's property had been excluded from consideration. This was because a neighbour had informed the Registry's surveyor that the property was unoccupied, as the owner had died.

The ICR found that service of notice should have been considered but there was no objective evidence of this, save for the brief comment on the surveyor's report. The ICR criticised Land Registry for this and found that the reason for this given to Mr B (that the Registry knew the property was unoccupied) was insufficient. The ICR commented that the fact that a property is unoccupied does not mean that the owner would not have an interest in the registration of neighbouring properties. The ICR pointed out that the fact that owners are not on site makes it all the more important for Land Registry to be vigilant in serving notice at the property. The ICR upheld Mr B's complaint and recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £100. She also recommended that the Registry remind staff of the importance of dealing with neighbouring property owners in an equitable manner in relation to the service of notice.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • It is important to deal with neighbouring property owners equally and fairly when deciding whether to serve notice and to whom. It is also necessary to retain evidence on file of how this decision was reached. Failure to do this may mean that the Registry will have difficulty seeking to argue later on that it exercised proper discretion in a reasoned way.
  • Land Registry should be cautious about acting upon information received from people on site as to the potential interest of owners of other properties. This is the case even if properties are currently unoccupied.

Discourtesy

Mr and Mrs C made a serious complaint about the conduct of a senior officer during a meeting at a Registry Office to discuss a narrow strip of land they considered should be included in their title. Mr and Mrs C complained that the officer had refused to explain Land Registry's position on the matter and subsequently insisted on speaking only to a solicitor instructed on their behalf. However, they alleged that the officer had later also failed to offer an explanation to their solicitor.

The ICR noted that there was no specific Land Registry policy and procedure relating to offering or agreeing to meetings or the conduct of them. However, she commented that Land Registry encouraged a positive response to requests for meetings in the interests of good customer service. The ICR was satisfied that earlier correspondence from the officer had fully explained the reasons for the views expressed, providing background information on the relevant law and practice. It was unfortunate that the purpose and limitations of the meeting had not been understood, as the parties had different expectations of it. The officer concerned felt that it was a chance to explain the Registry's position face to face, whereas Mr and Mrs C clearly saw the meeting as an opportunity to make further representations aimed at changing this position.

The ICR acknowledged that it is standard practice to suggest that laypersons seek legal advice on complex issues of land registration. Solicitors had been instructed on this advice and the ICR found no objective evidence that the solicitor was dissatisfied with the communication with Land Registry that ensued. This complaint was not upheld.

The ICR noted that Land Registry had looked into Mr and Mrs C's complaint about the behaviour of the officer and was satisfied that it had done so in a thorough and objective manner. Turning to the conduct of the meeting itself, it was clear from the notes that were taken that matters had become heated. The ICR was critical that the meeting was not terminated once constructive or useful discussion was no longer possible. The atmosphere had rendered progress impossible and had also led to further complaints.

Mr and Mrs C had obtained copies of the minutes taken at the meeting, which did not refer to any heated exchanges. They complained that there were significant omissions in the minutes, which they alleged were drafted so as not to reflect badly on Land Registry. The ICR acknowledged that minutes of meeting cannot provide a word for word account of what was said, however, they should record significant events or statements and the omission of comment on the difficulties that had arisen during the meeting warranted criticism. The ICR upheld this complaint. She recommended the Registry issue an apology and a reminder to staff of the importance of keeping an appropriate record on its files of meetings.

The complaint was partially upheld.

    This case highlighted the importance of being clear with customers about the purpose and format of meetings as a matter of good practice.

    It is important that adequate records are kept on file of meetings, noting any incidents, events or conversations that are inherently controversial and might give rise to a later disagreement, confusion or complaint.

Mapping error

Mr D and Mr E were in correspondence with Land Registry concerning the boundary line between their unregistered properties and their neighbour's property to ensure that the registered extent was correct. They raised several complaints about the way Land Registry had dealt with matters. These included that Land Registry failed to employ a competent draughtsman in the preparation of the original title plan and, also, that it failed to notice inconsistencies in plans lodged with the first registration application.

The ICR noted that Land Registry was initially unaware of any disputes. It had argued that there had been no reason to undertake further checks on registration. However, there were obvious inconsistencies in the evidence supporting registration that should have caused Land Registry to raise enquiries or take other investigative action. The ICR was critical that the Registry overlooked or ignored available information that cast doubt on the application. However, the ICR was satisfied that the Registry had subsequently acknowledged its error, and offered an apology and a consolatory payment, all of which provided reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The complainants also asserted that Land Registry had instructed non-technical staff to deal with matters, who did not have the required expertise to understand the plan. The officers concerned were Land Registry lawyers, and the ICR did not uphold this complaint. She also did not uphold the complaint that the Registry was unhelpful and unprofessional, and pointed out the lengthy and detailed correspondence that had taken place.

Mr D also complained that the Registry failed to investigate his specific complaint about particular officers. The ICR did not uphold this complaint. However, given that the Registry acknowledged that there had been flaws in the mapping process, it was disappointing to find no evidence to show that steps had been taken to look into why this occurred. The ICR was critical of this and recommended that complaints of this nature should be considered with a view to avoiding similar problems arising in the future.

The complaint was not upheld.

  • When dealing with complaints about individual officers Land Registry must take care to consider what action, if any, is required, such as further training for those concerned. In cases where further action is taken, a note of this should be kept on the case file, without naming officers concerned.
  • Where there are uncertainties between plans and other information, the Registry has a duty to ensure that it can proceed to registration with the confidence that enables it to guarantee title.

Making things worse

Mr F was involved in a boundary dispute with his neighbour. He complained about the way Land Registry had dealt with matters. He alleged that the Registry had made numerous mistakes, including failing to inform him of the effect of the 'General Boundaries Rule', making inappropriate statements confirming the position of his boundary and incorrectly asserting that the Registry could review matters or adjudicate in the dispute as required.

The ICR found that Mr F was not told about the General Boundaries Rule for some ten months. This failure warranted particular criticism. The ICR noted that the Registry had accepted that its initial letters concerning Mr F's boundary were misleading and should not have been written in such definitive terms. Whilst she was critical of this, she recognised that the Registry had sought to put matters right and had offered help towards Mr F's costs. The ICR was disappointed that Land Registry had not considered a consolatory payment in acknowledgement of the added stress he had suffered as a result of the mishandling of his case.

Mr F also complained that Land Registry had exacerbated the dispute. The ICR upheld this complaint. She acknowledged that there had been an ongoing dispute between Mr F and his neighbour before he contacted the Registry. However, the Registry's actions had caused Mr F further stress and anxiety. The Registry had accepted that its actions complicated and delayed matters, had apologised for this and offered to reimburse Mr F's costs. The ICR was critical that the Registry failed to recognise the stress and anxiety caused by consideration of a consolatory payment. The ICR recommended a consolatory payment of £500.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • Land Registry should always consider whether a consolatory payment is appropriate in cases where it has admitted error and where anxiety and distress has been caused as a direct consequence.
  • This case highlighted the problems that can arise if Land Registry gives definitive statements as to the location of boundaries without considering the effect of the General Boundaries Rule.

Amending the plans

Mr and Mrs G were dissatisfied with various aspects of Land Registry's handling of a boundary dispute they had with a developer who had purchased adjoining land. They complained that Land Registry gave false and misleading information about how an amendment to their title plan might affect them when they were told that they would not lose any part of their land. They further complained that this misleading advice led to their dispute with the developer.

The ICR noted that the notice served by the Registry described the proposed amendment as an adjustment of the mapping detail. However, the Registry's view of the status and nature of the amendment had subsequently changed. The ICR was satisfied that the Registry acknowledged this mistake, apologised and was willing to consider a compensation claim. She found that this response was reasonable in the circumstances. The ICR did not accept that the Registry had caused the dispute, but found that the Registry's involvement added a new dimension to the problem, in that the title plan amendments appeared to set an official seal on the developer's actions with regard to the boundary.

Mr and Mrs G also complained that over time the Registry offered conflicting advice and views on the question of whether it had made an error and whether compensation should be paid. The ICR found that the Registry had initially indicated that compensation was payable, but then some time later, after considerable work had already been done to establish how much should be paid, Land Registry asserted that the question of compensation had not been decided. The ICR found no objective evidence on the files to account for this significant change of direction. The ICR considered that once the principle of compensation had been decided, the issue of how much should be awarded should follow. If the Registry disagreed with the amount claimed, this could properly lead to further deliberation on this matter but should not cause the Registry to withdraw a decision that compensation is due. The Registry's 'about-turn' in this case, at a very late stage, merited criticism. The ICR upheld this complaint.

Finally Mr and Mrs G complained that Land Registry failed to follow proper procedure in insisting that their claim for compensation should be based on 'existing user value' as opposed to 'open market value'. The ICR found that the way in which the issue of compensation was handled was misleading and confusing. The Registry had sought the expert advice of the District Valuer on the value of the land, and then had decided to make an offer based upon the existing use value that had been given, rather than the 'market' value preferred by the Valuer.

Mr and Mrs G rejected this offer and requested a copy of the District Valuer's report. An extract was supplied showing the existing use valuation only. (Land Registry later claimed that the report was confidential.) The ICR found that by providing details only of those elements of the report that the Registry agreed with, the misleading impression was given that the expert's advice wholly supported the Registry's view. The ICR found that the Registry could not properly argue both that the report was confidential and choose to disclose those parts of it that gave a favourable view of the Registry's position. She recommended that the Registry review its guidance on the use to be made of District Valuer reports, the notice to be taken of valuations given and the position on disclosure. The ICR upheld this complaint.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • It is inappropriate to tell people that compensation is payable, without establishing the merits of the claim. The consideration of how much is payable is separate to and follows the substantive decision on whether compensation is warranted.
  • This case highlighted the need for clear internal guidance on the significance of a District Valuer's report and the use to be made of it, as well as the position on disclosure. Freedom of Information legislation must always be taken into account in reaching decisions on such matters.

Redress

Mr H was the registered owner of a property that adjoined another title, both of which had been sold by a common developer. A dispute arose over the common boundary between the two properties, which Mr H put down to maladministration in the preparation of his original title plan. Mr H complained that Land Registry had failed to consider the overriding evidence of the location of the lease plan of his property and the location of the registered adjoining title when preparing the title plans.

The ICR found that the Registry had considered the plan to the lease to be defective, as no scale was shown and it did not adhere to the estate layout plan previously submitted. She would usually expect the Registry to undertake further investigations in these circumstances. It had not. The ICR noted that the adjoining property had been registered a couple of years earlier and the plan submitted for that application was also defective. However, in that case the Registry conducted a survey that resulted in a substitute plan being supplied, with boundaries agreed by the developer which accorded with the boundaries on the ground. The ICR found that due to the developer's agreement on the boundaries of the adjoining property, no further investigations into the extent of Mr H's property were conducted.

The ICR concluded that the Registry had failed to follow its own procedure when considering the extent of land to be registered. However, the Registry had acknowledged this and apologised, for which the ICR gave credit. However, the ICR was disappointed that this response was not given prior to the referral to the Agency Case Review Team. The complaint was partially upheld and the ICR recommended a consolatory payment of £200.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • It is important that Land Registry acknowledges any failure in its procedure and offers an apology at the earliest opportunity. Failure to do so may lead to further customer dissatisfaction and criticism of the Registry by the ICR or the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Correcting the register

Mr I made a complaint about Land Registry's handling of a boundary dispute with his neighbours. He complained that Land Registry had acted inappropriately and shown bias. Mr I complained that Land Registry had discussed boundary alterations with his neighbours without notifying him of this. Land Registry acknowledged that it should not have raised this issue with the neighbours. It accepted that this exacerbated the disputes. It was also accepted that Land Registry did make Mr I aware of what his neighbours had been told. The Registry had offered a number of fulsome apologies for what occurred.

The ICR accepted that apologies are an important and necessary step in cases where it is concluded that the Registry has acted inappropriately. However, apologies by themselves do not always constitute sufficient redress. The ICR was critical that Land Registry did not offer a consolatory payment. The ICR acknowledged that the question of whether Land Registry could reasonably be held responsible for all the problems that Mr I encountered was not cut and dried, as there were a number of areas of dispute between Mr I and his neighbours which were unconnected with the question of the rectification of his title. The ICR upheld the complaint and recommended a consolatory payment of £250 in recognition of the distress caused by the Registry's maladministration.

Mr I also complained that Land Registry's responses to his solicitors were subject to a considerable delay. The ICR found that there had been delays in earlier correspondence. The Registry had informed Mr I that his solicitor's initial letter could not be traced, however it was misfiled in the Registry's files. The ICR upheld this complaint and recommended an apology.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • In some situations, maladministration on the Registry's part has the potential to exacerbate or even cause disputes, and this should be recognised in the Registry's response to any complaints that it receives in such matters. Even in these cases, it is fair to say that resolution of disputes between neighbours is often reliant on a fair degree of goodwill on both sides.

Referral to the Adjudicator

Mr J complained about Land Registry's handling of several caution disputes. He had registered several cautions, all of which were subject to 'warning off' applications to which Mr J had objected. The dispute had eventually been referred to the Adjudicator. Also, Mr J had a pending first registration application that was the subject of objection and had been referred to the Adjudicator. Mr J complained that Land Registry took an excessively long time to deal with the cautions by moving things on to the point of adjudication. A similar delay had also been encountered in the processing of his first registration application.

The ICR noted that the cautions were registered in 2001 and 2002 and referral to the Adjudicator took place in March 2004. However, this did not prove delay as there was not one ongoing set of applications during this time, rather there were separate applications made at different times, only the last of which was referred to the Adjudicator. The ICR accepted that in the final stage, the cautions case took some four months to deal with but found that in the circumstances the time taken was not unreasonable.

Regarding Mr J's first registration application, the Registry quickly reached a preliminary view that it was not supported by sufficient evidence. After explaining the position, the Registry received a revised statutory declaration and quickly decided that the application could proceed. However, the case was then held up for several months when an objection to the application was received, and the parties proceeded to provide further information to support their views. The ICR acknowledged that it took a long time to get to the point at which Mr J's case was referred to the Adjudicator. However, she found that the length of time that elapsed was a consequence of the contested adverse possession application.

Mr J also complained that Land Registry omitted his representations from the referral to the Adjudicator. The ICR found that the Registry had accepted this, and offered an apology as well as an ex gratia payment of £250. The ICR considered that this constituted a reasonable response on Land Registry's part.

Mr J complained that the procedure for referral to the Adjudicator had not been followed. The ICR noted that the Registry's standard procedure is to first send a form to the parties to ascertain if they are wiling to try and settle the dispute by negotiation. If negotiation is not possible, a draft case summary is sent to the parties giving them fifteen working days to comment. The ICR found that this procedure had not been followed. A summary was sent immediately and comments asked for within fourteen days. The ICR found that Mr J was initially disadvantaged by the Registry's actions, however, he was later given time to respond and had received an apology from the Registry.

The ICR did not find any evidence of bias. The Registry had clearly explained the procedure for determining disputes. She concluded that the Registry had decided that arguable cases had been presented on all sides and its responsibility had ended once the case was referred to the Adjudicator.

The complaint was not upheld.

  • When dealing with dispute cases, the usual procedure should be followed unless there are clear reasons for departing from it. These should be noted on the file.

Compulsory Purchase Order

Ms K complained that Land Registry had mishandled an application it had received to give effect to a Compulsory Purchase Order. She complained that the name on the court order was not the same as that recorded by Land Registry and that there was nothing to indicate a relationship between the two. The court order referred to her married name, whereas the register of title was in her maiden name.

The ICR found that Land Registry had acted correctly in respect of the registration of the Compulsory Purchase Order. She noted that the Registry had held the matter in abeyance to allow Ms K's objections to be heard and for negotiations between her and the Council to continue. The subsequent court order dismissing Ms K's claim used her married name. However, during the course of investigating the Registry's files, the ICR found that the Registry had previously amended the register to refer to Ms K's married name after receiving evidence from Ms K's mortgage lender. The register was later changed back into Ms K's maiden name at her request. The ICR accepted that the Registry had clear evidence that Ms K had used both her maiden name and married name and that each referred to her. Consequently, when Land Registry received the courts' direction using her married name, it required only a brief examination of its files to determine the relationship between the two names.

The complaint was not upheld.

  • The use of different names by some individuals has the potential to cause confusion. However, as in this case, application of common sense will usually sort things out

Squatter's rights

Mrs L complained that Land Registry failed to take account of the findings of its surveyor in reaching its decision not to grant her a title based on adverse possession.

The ICR found clear evidence that, during the course of its dealings with the parties involved, the officers concerned considered the content of the surveyor's report. She found that the letters issued to Mrs L by the lawyer at the local Office and the Agency Case Review Team lawyer giving their decisions on the application, both referred to the surveyor's report in their explanations and conclusions. The ICR noted that whilst a surveyor's report is an important part of Land Registry's decision-making process, it is not the only evidence that the Registry takes into account. It will also consider the views, claims and concerns of other landowners. She found that the Registry had acted appropriately in serving notice on the adjoining owners, who lodged objections.

Whilst the ICR was satisfied that the local Office followed the correct procedures, she noted that it took a very considerable time to move the case to a point at which it was clear that no further progress could be made. By the time the case was referred to the Agency Case Review Team, the issues had been thoroughly explored and it was clear that there was no chance of agreement between the neighbours. Following a review by the Agency Case Review Team lawyer, Mrs L's application was cancelled due to insufficient evidence of possession. The ICR noted that at no time during the previous lengthy consideration of the matter had there been any indication that the Registry might take an administrative decision to cancel the application. She noted that the local Office had clearly envisaged a referral of the case into the judicial procedure. In communicating the decision to cancel the application, the lawyer made no mention of the previous lengthy correspondence between the local office and the parties and offered no apology for the unexpected about turn of events. The ICR recommended a consolatory payment of £250 in recognition that the service given to Mrs L fell below that which she was entitled to expect. She also recommended Land Registry review its procedure for referral of cases to the Agency Case Review Team, to include a clear explanation of the purpose of referral and the expectation given to the parties.

The complaint was not upheld.

  • This case highlights the need to give clear explanations to the customers concerned of the purpose, and possible outcomes, of the referral of a case to the Agency Case Review Team. (A review is already under way into how expectations should be managed when cases are referred to the ACRT)
  • A decision to reject an application for title by adverse possession on the basis of insufficient evidence of possession should be made as soon as possible after receipt of the application.

Parallel Cases

Mr M was the personal representative of his late son. His son had been the owner of two properties served by different local Offices, A and B. Mr M was subsequently declared bankrupt and applications to register cautions over the properties were made to the Registry by his trustee in bankruptcy. Applications were later made to register a judicial trustee as proprietor of the properties. Mr M complained that the local Offices had prior knowledge of his involvement and interest in the property, and that Office A had therefore acted improperly in failing to serve notice on him regarding the application to register the judicial trustee.

The ICR noted that although Office A knew of Mr M's interest in the property, matters had changed by the time the application was made to register the judicial trustee. Office A knew that Mr M had been restrained from making further applications to the court and had been removed as his son's personal representative and replaced by the judicial trustee. Also, the judicial trustee's appointment was by court order and Mr M had been refused leave to appeal against this. The ICR found that Mr M had been told by Office A that instructions had been given to serve an information notice on him, but this had never happened. However, Office B had served an objection notice on Mr M in identical circumstances. Although Office A later stated that the serving of notice was discretionary, it also accepted that it was 'embarrassing' that Office B had served notice.

The ICR acknowledged that the service of notice was discretionary, and that there was a cogent argument why notice should not be served, given the courts had apparently issued definitive rulings on the position. However, she found that there was no clear evidence in the file that instructions had been given by Office A to serve notice on Mr M as had been suggested. This lack of recorded evidence was of concern.

Mr M complained about the inconsistencies in Land Registry's approach to the case. The ICR found that the inconsistency between the approaches adopted by the two offices gave cause for concern. Although she accepted that individual officers dealing with similar issues might reach different views on what action is appropriate, it was unfortunate that different approaches were adopted in dealing with parallel cases. There were periods of time when Offices A and B were either unaware of each other's involvement or no steps were taken to co-ordinate the approach to be adopted. This eroded confidence in the Registry and called into question the different approaches adopted. The ICR upheld this complaint.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • Land Registry should take steps to consider how parallel applications dealt with across different Offices should be approached if an impression of inconsistency is to be avoided. This can make it difficult for the Registry to justify both actions.
  • Again, this case highlighted the importance for Land Registry to retain objective evidence in its files of the decision regarding the service of notice. Failure to do this may render the Registry unable to demonstrate that thought has been given to this matter.

Evidence

Mr N was in correspondence with the Registry for several years concerning the frontage of his property. He had been in a dispute with a company who claimed that his front boundary lay some distance short of a public highway. Mr N claimed that both he and his predecessors had used this area for many years. Mr N complained that without seeking instructions from the parties to a 1950 transfer and without seeking any form of written confirmation, Land Registry decided to register less land than that referred to in the transfer. Mr N further complained that the Registry acted improperly by deciding to base the registration on 'unsubstantiated dimensions' and disregarding the wording of the transfer. He also complained that the Registry acted improperly by relying on hearsay from a solicitor.

The ICR noted that an inconsistency between the pictorial extent of Mr N's property indicated on the 1950 transfer plan and the stated dimensions was noticed by the Registry on first registration. Concerns were raised with the solicitors acting for the sellers at the time by way of a telephone query. On the basis of the information received from the solicitors, the registration was completed without the land at the front being included. The ICR noted that the extent was not queried by the original owners at that time, and as far as she could tell, at any time in the thirty three years before Mr N brought the property.

The ICR found that the 'unsubstantiated dimensions' referred to by Mr N had always been present on the transfer plan, which was signed and therefore agreed by the parties. She was satisfied that Land Registry had acted correctly in taking this into account in its consideration of the correct extent. She noted that the wording in the transfer cast no additional light on the question of the inconsistency. The ICR noted that where there were inconsistencies that cannot be resolved by looking at the deeds themselves, it is standard practice to seek extrinsic evidence that might help. The Registry consulted with the sellers' solicitors who confirmed the intentions of their client. She found that the Registry was entitled to rely upon the information given by solicitors who were acting in the transaction. She did not consider the evidence to be 'hearsay' as it could be considered as reflecting the instructions of the seller. The complaint was not upheld. However, the ICR was critical of the paucity of information about this on the Registry's files.

Mr N also complained that his requests to remedy the situation had been met with flippant, discourteous and unprofessional remarks by the Registry. The ICR considered the two principal responses given to Mr N. By chance, the same officer had responded on both occasions, although on the latter occasion in a more senior capacity. She considered that the first letter had correctly explained the actions taken by the Registry and its views. It had suggested that Mr N seek legal advice on what to do next. The ICR found this letter to be businesslike and informative. A letter from the Solicitor to Land Registry followed, explaining the situation in more comprehensive terms. The ICR noted that this letter was intended to be the Registry's final response to Mr N's enquiries. When a further letter was issued some eight years later, it did not refer to either previous letter. This letter adopted a quite different tone and took a significantly different approach from that expressed earlier. The ICR concluded that it was unhelpful to reopen the debate at this later stage. This complaint was partially upheld.

The complaint was partially upheld.

  • Decisions made regarding inconsistency in documents and doubts about the extent of title should be formally recorded.
  • It is questionable whether it is prudent or appropriate to respond in detail to substantive issues that have been dealt with several years earlier.

Mapping Detail

Mr O was in dispute with his neighbour concerning the boundary between their properties. Mr O's property was unregistered, whereas his neighbour's property had been registered. His neighbour had erected fences based on the extent shown on the Registry's title plan. Mr O complained that Land Registry had acted improperly by using an old and erroneous Ordnance Survey map in the registration of his neighbours' property. The Registry accepted that the Ordnance Survey detail used for the registration was inaccurate in certain respects. It also acknowledged that if a survey had been conducted on first registration, these inaccuracies would have been detected. The Registry also acknowledged at an early stage that Mr O might be entitled to claim statutory compensation for any losses he incurred.

The ICR noted that the Registry had not used the most recent edition of the Ordnance Survey map when first registration took place, however the differences between this and the later editions were minimal. She did not find evidence of maladministration. Land Registry had no reason to question the plans information until the neighbour contacted it in September 1998, following which it conducted a survey.

The ICR did not agree that the inaccurate plan was the sole cause of the problem that arose. In her opinion, the lack of any boundary feature was also a major contributory factor in the dispute, and the Registry could not be held responsible for this or for the fact that the parties could not reach agreement. However, she was critical of Registry's part in giving opinions on measurements presented by the neighbour before he erected the fence. The Registry should have made it clear that the information was not definitive. The ICR did not uphold the complaint.

Mr O also complained that Land Registry was unfair in its review of the evidence he supplied and in its rejection of that information. The ICR was satisfied that this evidence was considered by plans officers and Registry lawyers. The ICR noted that the Registry did not agree with Mr O's views on the significance of some of the evidence provided but this did not mean that it acted unfairly. The ICR did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr O complained that Land Registry had failed to take action to resolve the problems caused when his neighbour erected his fence. The ICR found that the Registry acted in accordance with the usual procedure by referring the matter into the disputed applications procedure. The ICR noted that Mr O had unrealistic expectations of the Registry's administrative authority. Land Registry had accepted that it bore some responsibility for what happened and was prepared to consider a claim for compensation. The ICR recommended that any claim be dealt with expeditiously.

The complaint was not upheld.

  • This case demonstrates how Land Registry can become identified with a dispute. Even if the Registry follows proper procedure and acts fairly, it can still be seen as a cause of the problem.
  • Although the Registry was prepared to consider a claim for statutory compensation, it failed to apologise for its mistake which had caused stress and anxiety.

Back to Contents

About Land Registry

Land Registry is the government department responsible for keeping and developing a register of title to freehold and leasehold land in England and Wales. It does this by registering title to land and recording dealings in land and property once these have been registered. The Land Register, currently comprising 20 million titles, has been open to public inspection since 1990. Land Registry also has responsibility for the registration of certain third party rights under the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Agricultural Credits Act 1928.

Besides having the status of a government department, Land Registry is also an executive Registry and trading fund. The Chief Land Registrar, Peter Collis, is the Head of Department, Registry Chief Executive and Accounting Officer. He is responsible to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor for conducting the whole business of land registration in England and Wales.

Land Registry operates under the Land Registration Act 2002, which came into force in October 2003. This Act and its associated rules provide Land Registry with the powers and flexibilities to carry out the strategic objectives in its rolling 10 year Strategic Plan. Those objectives include the completion of the Land Register and the introduction of a system of electronic conveyancing in England and Wales. Land Registry plans to implement electronic conveyancing, on a trial basis, in 2007.

Land Registry comprises 24 local Offices located throughout England and Wales, and a London-based Head Office. Each local office is led by a Land Registrar (a lawyer and expert in land registration) and an Area Manager (responsible for the general management of the office).

The Land Charges Department (which processes transactions and provides information about unregistered land) and the Agricultural Credits Department (which maintains a register of short-term loans by banks, secured on farming stock and other agricultural assets of the farmer) are located at Plymouth. This is also the base for the Information Services Group which is responsible for Land Registry's IT systems. Land Registry employs over 8,000 people.

Land Registry offers online services to its customers; "Land Registry Direct" which is available to business customers and "Land Register Online" which enables the public to gain access to the Land Register electronically by credit card payment. Land Registry also issues quarterly residential property price reports providing data on residential property sales in England and Wales. These reports can be downloaded free from the Land Registry website (see below).

As a trading fund, Land Registry relies on fees paid by its customers (rather than on tax payers' money provided by the Government) to cover the cost of its services. In 2004-05, its turnover was approximately £390 million and its staff processed some 31.2 million applications. Land Registry has Investors in People accreditation and has achieved Charter Mark status on five consecutive occasions.

Visit Land Registry's website at www.landregistry.gov.uk.

Back to Contents