Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Land Registry Annual Report 2003-2004

Seeking a fair resolution

The ICR Service

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 Agency and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. Mrs Berg is a solicitor and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The ICR is not a civil servant, an employee of Land Registry or any other public body.

What is the ICR service?

The ICR service was established in 1998 to review complaints made by people dissatisfied with Land Registry's response to their concerns. The service is managerially independent of Land Registry and it has separate 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.

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

We have our own website (www.icrev.org.uk/), which 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 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.

The current ICR team is:

Contents

---

FOREWORD

I am pleased to present my annual report as ICR for Land Registry following a year that saw momentous change for the Agency and for users of the Registry's services.

The Land Registration Act 2002 came into force in October 2003, replacing long-established legislation and practice. It introduced a raft of fundamental changes to the way in which land registration and land information services are delivered in England and Wales. Managing this degree of change was a huge undertaking of the kind that has led other public bodies to experience serious problems and attract criticism.

I reported last year that I considered Land Registry was well placed to meet the challenges ahead and I am pleased to say that this expectation has been borne out by events. Although the change process is still very much under way, early indications are that sta. have taken the new systems and procedures in their stride. Importantly, feedback that Land Registry has received from practitioners has been almost wholly positive and this is also my experience. It is a tribute to the care and detail of Land Registry's preparation that things have gone as well as they have.

I am particularly pleased to report that there is no indication that the overhaul of Registry systems has thrown the Agency o. course in its commitment to placing customer service at the heart of its activities. This is no mean achievement and has been underlined by the continuing development of the role of Customer Service Managers in local offices and the incorporation of dedicated customer service representatives in front-line teams.

As one would expect, some teething problems are emerging and both sta. and practitioners have raised points of concern. It is important that early action is taken to address such issues if they are not to become the cause of future complaints. However, I have yet to receive any complaints concerning the operation of the new systems and procedures and, although it takes some time for complaints to go through internal procedures, this is a clear cause for optimism.

I am pleased to report again that referrals to my office remain low. In general, complaints are resolved internally so that people do not need to go the extra step to have matters resolved. Where they did so, I found that only a small number of complaints were justified and, even when this was the case, in many instances the Registry had done everything possible to sort things out. As a consequence, few complaints were upheld. My office has also continued to provide advice and assistance to those Agency customers who have contacted us with queries about what they have been told by Land Registry, or who need to be directed elsewhere for help.

I hold regular meetings with senior Registry officers, including the Chief Land Registrar and the Board. We engage in constructive dialogue about concerns raised by referrals to me and more general customer service and complaint handling issues. I have also continued my programme of visiting local Land Registry Offices, and I am grateful to the sta. I have met for their candour and interest in the ICR process.

My office too saw changes last year, as we welcomed new team members. I am pleased to report that we have seen a reduction in the time taken to issue reports and we will make every effort to deal with cases even more quickly this year. We have also acquired a new complaints management system, which will help us to further improve our performance. Once again, our accreditation to the British Standard Institute's Complaints Management Standard was re-confirmed. I am grateful to everyone in my team for their help and hard work during the year.

This report describes the ICR service and the work that we did last year. It also contains examples of complaints that I reviewed. I hope that you find it interesting and informative.

Jodi Berg
Independent Complaints Reviewer

Back to Contents

---

Seeking a Fair Resolution

Our Mission Statement

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

The ICR aims to seek a fair resolution to complaints made by Land Registry customers. We also try to make a difference to the service provided to future customers by recommending change and improvement.

The ICR review process is thorough and administered in accordance with the principles of public life and good administrative guidelines.

We strive to ensure that complainants are aware of our role and how we go about our work from their initial contact with us. We communicate with people in a clear and courteous manner 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:

Terms of reference

The ICR reviews complaints about maladministration on the part of Land Registry. Maladministration is a failure to deal with matters properly or fairly and may involve:

The ICR cannot review complaints about the content of Land Registry decisions, although she can consider the way in which they are made. The ICR will not usually look into complaints made more than six months after the Agency has offered its final response.

Making a complaint to Land Registry

The internal complaints procedure is well established. There are clear guidelines for recording complaints, whether received by telephone or in writing, and Customer Service Managers in local Registry offices are charged with collating this information. In addition, in some cases, they may offier an initial response to complainants. In cases where complex legal issues are involved, complaints are dealt with by lawyers. The final response from the local office is usually provided by the most senior appropriate officer, either the Area Manager or the senior lawyer in the office, a Land Registrar.

If complaints cannot be resolved, people may ask for it to be reviewed by the Agency Case Review Team at Land Registry Head Office in London. In appropriate cases, complaints can be 'fast-tracked' to the ICR direct from the local office at the request of the complainant or at the suggestion of the Area Manager or Land Registrar.

Making a complaint to the ICR

Complainants can refer their complaints by telephone, post, fax, e-mail, or in person. Normally, people are expected to complete the complaint referral form in our leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution. If it is not possible to put the complaint in writing, we will discuss the main points of complaint with the complainant and explore what action they are seeking on the part of Land Registry to put things right.

We agree a summary of complaint with the complainant, which then forms the framework for our review. If necessary (or if it is requested), we will meet the complainant to discuss their complaint. Once the summary has been agreed, a copy is provided to Land Registry and the Agency has an opportunity to comment on it.

Our next step is to see whether the complaint can be resolved without recourse to review. This is a process of conciliation between the complainant and Land Registry, in which areas of agreement are explored. Consideration is given to whether there is immediate action that can be taken by the Agency that will satisfy the complainant that our involvement is no longer necessary. If this does not prove possible, we will proceed to review.

Review

At this stage, we examine the Registry's files in detail, together with the information provided by the complainant. A detailed chronology of events is drawn up and the ICR then considers whether further investigation is required or whether a report can be issued without further ado. If the latter course of action is taken, a report letter is prepared and issued to the complainant. A copy is also sent to the Chief Land Registrar. This letter will explain the ICR's conclusions and the reasons for them. In some cases, recommendations may be made to Land Registry.

Where further investigation is required, the ICR can ask for further information or interview Registry officers or the complainant. After the investigation is completed, a formal report of the background to the complaint is prepared and generally offered to both the Agency and the complainant for comment. Having considered what is said, the ICR will then complete her report by adding her conclusions. The final report will include a summary of background events, detailed conclusions and reasons for them under each point of complaint, and any resulting recommendations.

Recommendations

The ICR can make a number of types of recommendations. For example, she can recommend an apology, an explanation, specific action, a consolatory payment, or make recommendations aimed at improving Land Registry systems and procedures.

In cases where the ICR has made recommendations, Land Registry has undertaken to implement them immediately wherever possible. If, however, the Agency decides not to implement a recommendation, it must provide written confirmation of this and the reasons why. Such cases will be reported in the ICR's annual report.

Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team

Systemic recommendations are referred to the Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team. The Team is drawn from across the Agency and is headed by the Agency's Corporate Services Lawyer. Its role is to:

Closure

The ICR's review brings Land Registry's consideration of a complaint to a close. Complainants are advised at the conclusion of our review that, if they wish to take matters further, they must ask an MP to refer their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Feedback

The ICR welcomes comments about our service, whether complimentary or critical. We try to provide a high quality service to all those who seek our help and advice and welcome feedback about whether we have achieved this. We actively consider how the information given to us by customers can be used to improve the service we offer in the future.

Comebacks: In cases where we do not uphold part or all of a complaint, some people wish to challenge our decision. This is entirely understandable and we respond to every contact of this kind to try and set minds at rest about the way in which we carried out our investigation and the reasons for our decisions.

Complaints about our service: We record any expression of dissatisfaction about our service, whether written or verbal, as a complaint. Complaints offer valuable insight into people's expectations of us and our success in meeting them.

We have an internal complaints procedure which is designed to give a quick and effective response to complaints. All complaints about our service are personally answered by the ICR.

The results of a review into an internal complaint are discussed with the team, highlighting the lessons to be learned. This gives reassurance to our customers that we actively seek ways to improve our own service.

If people are dissatisfied with the ICR's response to their complaints about our service, they have the right to ask their MP to refer their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The ICR office is pleased to report re-accreditation for the British Standards Institute Complaints Management Standard for the quality of internal complaints handling by this office.

Hearing what customers have to say

The ICR engages in an active programme of seeking comments from our customers. To this end, customer feedback surveys are now issued to every complainant at the completion of our review, rather than some months later as was our previous practice.

Although nearly half (45%) of these surveys were returned, as people now have an immediate opportunity to provide feedback, we hope that more people will choose to do so this year.

The results of our survey show that a clear majority of respondents are satisfied that we kept them properly informed, were happy with the speed of our communication, and that we handled matters efficiently.

Survey responses do show some concern about the lack of impartiality in the way the ICR decided the case. In general, this appears to arise from disappointment that complaints have not been upheld and, despite our efforts, an expectation that she would deal with the substantive legal concerns initially raised with Land Registry.

Sometimes people are dissatisfied with the level of redress recommended.

Consolatory payments are recommended where the ICR feels that Land Registry should offer a tangible expression of regret for problems that have occurred and the anxiety and distress this has caused. They are generally small payments, which must adhere to Treasury guidelines.

Learning from Land Registry staff

We also value our working relationship with Land Registry staff. Throughout the year, the ICR meets with Agency staff during visits to local offices and Head Office in London.

Annually, the ICR conducts a survey to ask for comments and views of a cross-section of Agency staff. The results of this survey show that there is a clear understanding within Land Registry of the role of the ICR. Importantly, people feel that the role we play is valuable and has a strategic impact upon the service they provide.

The ICR will continue to develop our relationship with the Agency and seek feedback.

Back to Contents

---

Reviews, Recommendations and Overview

Reviews and Recommendations

Complaints represent key opportunities to learn lessons about service. This can be the case even when a complaint is found to be unjustified. The fact that Land Registry provides a very good service to its customers is evidenced by the very low number of complaints that were fully or partially upheld in the reporting year. Nevertheless, the Agency can benefit from the independent consideration of issues highlighted by the complaints that are referred to us.

All of these cases have defied internal resolution. Even where complaints are not found not be justified, they are a crucial sample of the kind of Registry cases that challenge internal processes and staff.

The following anonymised summaries of cases that the ICR reviewed in 2003-2004 are followed by a commentary on the issues they highlighted.

a) Caution dispute

A company director, Mr A, complained about Land Registry's handling of a caution dispute in relation to a property owned by the company. The cautioners claimed that they had contributed towards the purchase monies by virtue of their position as shareholders who had invested money in the company. Mr A complained that the Registry should not have registered the caution, as no documentary evidence had been presented beyond the statutory declaration attesting to the claimed interest. Mr A also complained that the Registry had taken the cautioners' side by allowing extensions to the periods allotted for their response to the warning o. notice and to subsequent correspondence. The caution had finally been cancelled after the Registry concluded that the cautioners had failed to show cause why the caution should remain.

The ICR noted that the original application had been rather vague as to the claimed interest, however it had been made in the correct form and provided the minimum information needed to allow consideration of whether an arguable case had been shown. She explained that the registration of the caution did not confer validity on the claim, but rather gave notice of it. Any resulting dispute was to be dealt with through the warning o. procedure or was a matter for judicial determination if agreement could not be reached.

Although the Registry had given the cautioners more time in which to respond, the ICR considered this to have been reasonable in the circumstances. She found that the Registry had acted fairly in allowing more time to respond to Mr A's developing comments on the claimed interest, and noted that the extensions permitted had all been relatively brief. The ICR pointed out that, in total, the length of time between warning o. and the cancellation of the caution was a little over four weeks, and found that the Registry could not be justifiably accused of dragging its feet.

The complaint was not upheld.

b) Plans and Surveys

Mr B became involved in a heated dispute with his neighbour over the use of part of the lane that ran up to both properties. A portion of the disputed area appeared to fall within his registered title. Mr B complained that Land Registry failed to ensure that its plans were accurate and up to date and that the Registry had refused to re-survey the area in order to correct these inconsistencies. He considered that the inaccuracies had caused his neighbour to make the claims that he did.

The ICR noted that Land Registry had acknowledged that it had included the land in question in Mr B's title in error, and that it had taken reasonable steps to try and sort the matter out. However, she was critical of Agency case handling. She noted that, some years before the dispute arose, the Registry had undertaken a survey of the area. The results of this should have raised questions when Mr B's title was first registered, however this information had been missed. The ICR was also critical of the Registry for failing to press Mr B for a response to its early notice suggesting a substitution of the title plan. Instead, the Registry let the matter drop and, as a result, an opportunity for resolving the plans aspect of the dispute was lost. She found that the error on the title plan had aggravated the dispute to some extent, in that Mr B found himself arguing with his neighbour on two fronts (the inclusion of the land within his title and the neighbour's use of part of the lane). This was particularly unfortunate, as the court proceedings commenced against Mr B by his neighbour to assert his right to use the land would not have been necessary if Mr B's title had not included part of that land.

The ICR did not uphold Mr B's complaint that Land Registry had refused to re-survey the area. She noted that the re-survey request had been made after court proceedings had commenced, and she accepted that the Registry was justified in declining to take any further administrative action pending the determination of the case.

The ICR was critical of Land Registry for failing to consider whether a consolatory payment to Mr B was appropriate, in view of the anxiety and distress that he had suffered as a result of the Agency's admitted error. She was also critical of the Registry for apparently failing to consider whether he might be entitled to statutory compensation. The ICR recommended that Land Registry offer an apology to Mr B and make a consolatory payment of £250. She also recommended consideration of statutory compensation.

The complaint was partially upheld.

c) Considering the evidence

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their clients about Land Registry's handling of their first registration application. This application had been made on grounds of adverse possession, and had been rejected by the Agency. The solicitors complained that the Registry had acted improperly by refusing the application on the basis of evidence that had been supplied as part of a previous unsuccessful application and without allowing any opportunity to comment before cancellation. They also complained that the Registry had failed to take proper account of completely new evidence that was lodged at the same time as the cancellation.

The ICR found that the Registry had considered the evidence provided and concluded that it offered nothing more than that lodged the first time around.

She found that the Registry had offered ample opportunity for more evidence to be given, and had explained why it took the view that the case being argued was insufficient.

The new evidence lodged was delayed in the post, and cancellation had taken place by the time it was received. The ICR accepted that it would not be reasonable for the Registry to hold cases open on the chance that further representations would be received after a deadline had passed. However, she was critical of Land Registry for returning this evidence without comment or advice, which did not represent good customer service on the Agency's part.

The complaint was not upheld.

d) Clarity in case handling

Mr and Mrs D were involved in a long-running dispute with their neighbour over the use of a piece of land lying between the frontages of their properties.

They complained that Land Registry had mishandled the case and had made the situation between them and their neighbour much worse. They said that Land Registry had initially stated that it would include the land in dispute within the neighbour's title without any proof of their title. On investigation, the ICR found that the Registry had taken this view on the basis of historical Ordnance Survey information - there was no objective evidence of any consideration of the title deeds. The ICR was critical of this, because the contemplated amendment constituted far more than a trivial correction of mapping detail or the inclusion of an insignificant piece of land. However, in the event, the amendment did not proceed because Mr and Mrs D successfully registered a caution against first registration. Thereafter, proper consideration was given to title deeds and relevant legal issues.

Although Land Registry later expressed the view that Mr and Mrs D did not have documentary title to the land and their neighbour did, the ICR did not consider this to be improper because it is the Agency's usual practice to comment in general terms on the merits of a case, to help the parties reach informed decisions on how to proceed. The ICR accepted that the Registry had not sought to impose its view on the parties and had adopted the consistent position that it could not proceed with any amendments in the face of a dispute.

The ICR was critical of the Registry for mishandling Mr and Mrs D's caution against first registration. The Registry had proceeded with this application without taking account of the fact that a first registration application had already been made by their neighbour and, in these circumstances, the Agency should have treated Mr and Mrs D's application as an objection to the neighbour's claim. However, the Registry acknowledged its mistake and apologised for it. The ICR did not consider any further recommendation was required on this element of complaint.

The complaint was partially upheld

e) Discourtesy and costs

Ms E's ex-husband registered a caution against her property and a dispute ensued. This was resolved when the ex-husband failed to commence High Court proceedings as directed and, as a result, the caution was cancelled. However, Ms E found the whole experience very distressing and considered that Land Registry bore some of the responsibility for this.

She complained that a Registry officer had been extremely rude to her and that the manner in which the Agency had dealt with her complaints had caused her unnecessary stress. The ICR found that there had been a telephone conversation between Ms E and the officer during which Ms E had clearly become upset and angry. The ICR considered that misunderstandings arose on both sides as result of this incident. However, Land Registry assured Ms E that no disrespect had been intended and offered an unreserved apology for any failing on its part. Nevertheless, the ICR was critical of Land Registry for its handling of this specific complaint. She noted that there was no objective evidence on file of any investigation into the allegation of discourtesy and recommended that the Agency issue clear guidance to senior sta. about action to be taken in cases of this kind and the necessity of recording the outcome of any internal investigation.

Ms E also complained that Land Registry failed to take account of the dificult circumstances of her split from her ex-husband in its consideration of these matters. The ICR considered that these were not matters which could appropriately influence substantive Registry decisions.

Finally, Ms E complained that Land Registry failed to consider her position when it agreed to grant her ex-husband extensions of time for response. The ICR noted that Land Registry had already acknowledged that it should have been more mindful of possible prejudice caused to her and offered an unreserved apology and a consolatory payment. The ICR welcomed the Agency's acknowledgement and redress, which she considered to be a reasonable and proportionate response to the complaint.

The complaint was not upheld.

f) Discrimination and the role of senior officers

Mr F had a dispute with a neighbour over land access and ownership. He came into contact with Land Registry when he applied to register a land charge and later made a number of complaints about Land Registry's handling of the case.

He complained that a senior Registry lawyer had become involved with his land charges application, even though he maintained that he had submitted the correct paperwork. He had had previous dealings with this officer and doubted his impartiality. The ICR found that the senior lawyer had become involved as a result of the fact that the application required a legal opinion. The ICR was satisfied that there had been no discrimination against Mr F as alleged, and that views had been reached on the basis of the evidence. The ICR was also satisfied that the lawyer had acted correctly by giving instructions to a junior colleague on what to say in the letter rejecting the land charges application. She accepted that it was usual practice for a 'technical referee' to give instructions on an appropriate response, rather than communicating directly with the applicant.

Mr F also complained that his letters to the Chief Land Registrar were dealt with by others. The ICR considered that the Registry had acted in accordance with its usual practice in this respect, and found that it was not maladministrative for Agency officers to respond to correspondence on the Chief Land Registrar's behalf.

Mr F further complained that Land Registry had misled him by saying that the ICR could review registration decisions. The ICR found that the Registry had properly explained that his complaints could be referred to her, but had failed to explain that she could not overturn the decision to refuse his application. However, Land Registry acknowledged this failure in its response to the ICR. The ICR recommended that the Agency remind sta. to explain the limits of her remit with regard to registration decisions.

The ICR noted with concern that the tone and content of some of Mr F's communications with Land Registry. She pointed out that public servants are entitled to courtesy from members of the public.

The complaint was not upheld.

g) A sense of priorities

Mr G complained that Land Registry had mishandled applications to register two charges and a deed of priority and postponement, the terms of which he considered to conflict both with each other and with the terms of a court order arising out of divorce proceedings.

The ICR found that the Agency had acted correctly in respect of the charges and the deed, which were apparently in order and capable of registration. She explained that it was not Land Registry's responsibility to consider the financial propriety of the transactions and agreements leading to the charges and the deed - that was a matter for the parties concerned. She accepted that, in general terms, Land Registry is entitled to rely upon the accuracy of the documents presented to it and on the honesty and integrity of those who apply for registration.

The complaint was not upheld.

h) Status of advice

Mr H applied for voluntary first registration of his property. On completion of the registration, he found that Land Registry had excluded an area of land that he considered belonged to him, as there was an overlap with the neighbouring registered title (which he had sold to the current owner a few years previously). This caused problems with his neighbour that he said had not existed before.

Mr H complained that Land Registry failed to provide sufficiently detailed guidelines about its procedures, and referred in particular to the Agency's published guidance. It was true that the guidance in question did not explain what happens when there is an overlap or other discrepancy, but the ICR considered that Agency literature provided a sufficiently detailed but general description of the relevant law and practice. This was not intended to take the place of detailed legal advice. The ICR considered that Land Registry is entitled to assume that applicants have carried out necessary checks before making their applications. Once the overlap came to light, the Registry acted correctly by advising that Mr H needed to apply for rectification of the other title.

Mr H also complained that his instruction to withdraw his voluntary registration was ignored. The Registry had proceeded with the registration of the reduced area without telling him beforehand that it had excluded some land, and Mr H argued that had he known this he would not gone ahead with registration, given that he was using the land without dispute or argument from his neighbours. The ICR accepted that once registration was completed, it was not possible to 'de-register' the land. By the time Mr H made this request, the registration had been effected. The ICR found, however, that the wording of the Registry's standard letter giving notice of completion of registration and exclusion of land was slightly misleading and could give the impression that registration had not been completed. She recommended that the wording of the standard letter be revised.

The ICR acknowledged the difficulty of Mr H's position, in that he had voluntarily applied for registration of an area of land over which there was hitherto no doubt or argument, and was given no opportunity to withdraw from the process or amend his application before it was too late to do so. The ICR recommended that the Agency consider raising a query before completion of registration in the case of voluntary applications where discrepancies arise.

The complaint was not upheld.

i) Right to be notified

Mr and Mrs I attempted to register a caution against first registration in respect of land that they believed was going to be the subject of an adverse possession application by their neighbour. Land Registry rejected this application on the grounds that no cautionable interest had been shown. A few months later, the neighbour successfully registered a possessory title. Mr and Mrs I were not notified of this.

Mr and Mrs I complained that their caution against first registration had been rejected in error. The ICR found that subsequent reviews by Land Registry lawyers concluded that their application should have been approved, although the Agency also said that this failure had not necessarily prejudiced Mr and Mrs I, as any rights that they might have had over the land were not extinguished by their failure to get a caution registered. The ICR considered that the Registry's response failed to address the fact that a caution would have provided an acknowledgement of Mr and Mrs I's claim to an interest, before any consideration of the registration of ownership. People in this situation will often feel that they have been placed at a disadvantage in negotiation with an established registered proprietor as opposed to someone who is in the process of seeking the Registry's approval of their claimed title. The ICR accepted that the Registry's decision had the practical effect of placing Mr and Mrs I in a less favourable position. The ICR upheld this aspect of Mr and Mrs I's complaint and recommended a consolatory payment of £150.

The ICR also found that Mr and Mrs I should have been notified of the neighbour's application. She noted that they were adjoining owners who had been in previous contact with the Registry regarding the land in question. Although their caution against first registration had been refused, the contact between Mr and Mrs I and the Registry was specifically aimed at alerting the Registry to their interest in any future application. The ICR also took account of the fact that, in breach of its usual practice, the Registry had not recorded the attempt to register the caution on its index map. Had it done so, it would have drawn the Agency's attention to Mr and Mrs I's interest. In addition, by the Registry's own admission the caution should have been approved for registration. It was unreasonable to then argue that notice was unnecessary.

The ICR was also critical of Land Registry for referring Mr and Mrs I's complaints back to the officer who had provided responses that they had complained about. This happened on more than one occasion.

The complaint was upheld.

j) Dispute handling

Mr J made a complaint about Land Registry's handling of a boundary dispute, which he considered was caused or exacerbated by the Agency's mistakes in mapping and registration and failures in its case handling.

He complained about the delay between the completion of the purchase of his property and the issue of the land certificate, which he claimed allowed his neighbour to claim part of his land while he was ignorant of the extent of the title that Land Registry had granted to him. The ICR did not uphold this complaint. She found that there was no delay in the issue of the certificate. There had been a gap of a few weeks between completion and the submission of the application for registration to Land Registry, for which the Agency could not be held responsible. She also commented that it is for buyers to satisfy themselves as to the extent of the land that they are buying before they proceed.

The ICR was however critical of some early delay in Land Registry's handling of correspondence with Mr J, but noted that this did not persist. She was critical of the fact that only a brief response was given, before the case was referred to Head Office in London, which had not represented an adequate reply to the detailed concerns that were raised.

Mr J complained that Land Registry asserted that the registration of his title was carried out in accordance with the title deeds and that any inaccuracy in the deeds lodged on first registration would be carried forward to the registration. The ICR acknowledged Mr J's concern about this, as much is made of the extent to which registered titles can be relied upon, however when problems arise, it is often necessary to look beyond the registered title to resolve matters. It is the case that registration of land might not automatically resolve discrepancies or doubts that are inherent in title deeds. In this case, the ICR found that Land Registry missed a clear opportunity to detect a problem with the title deeds which had been carried over to the registered title, when Mr J first contacted the Agency. This was picked up later on, but by that time the dispute had developed and court proceedings had been commenced. The ICR was critical of the Registry for this, but noted that this had been acknowledged and the Agency had offered redress.

Mr J also complained about comments that Land Registry made about amending his title plan. The Agency said that rectification was not required, but rather a new edition of the plan to reffect the latest survey data. Mr J argued that, in the context of this case, rectification and amendment amounted to the same thing. The ICR commented that there is a legal and procedural difference between rectification and amendment, but accepted that mapping amendments to registered titles can cause confusion. In dispute cases this action may be regarded by one side or the other as a determination of the argument and the practical effect of such amendments can be much more profound than what the Registry may regard as an 'administrative adjustment'. The ICR commented that the Registry needs to be cautious about the action it takes in this situation.

The ICR made a number of recommendations and, in particular, recommended that Land Registry's published guidance be reviewed to clarify its limitations in dispute cases. She also recommended that the Agency review its standard for responding to complaints within five working days in cases dealt with by the Agency Case Review Team at Head Office - the ICR commented that this target is unrealistic.

The complaint was partially upheld.

k) Lost title

Mr K claimed to have lost the title deeds relating to a piece of land that he said he owned. Over the course of many years, he made several attempts to register the title without success.

He complained that, despite his following the Agency's advice, he was refused title and alleged that the Agency had set out to reject his applications regardless of the evidence that he produced. The ICR found that the Registry had not offered specific advice to Mr K or given any undertaking or assurance that his applications would be successful. On the contrary, Land Registry took the consistent view that his claims could not be accepted as they stood. The ICR was satisfied that Mr K's applications had been considered by a succession of senior officers and that the Registry had taken steps to investigate the situation through a number of inspections of the land.

Mr K complained that excessive delays in Land Registry's consideration of this matter caused him difficulties in maintaining his claim to the land. The ICR was satisfied that there were no excessive delays in the Registry's handling of this matter and found that the Registry could not reasonably be criticised.

The ICR commented that this case had been subjected to comprehensive review over many years. Given this, it could be said that Land Registry went further than was required for the reasonable consideration of the case, in an effort to ensure that no stone was left unturned. However, the ICR expressed concern that this lengthy engagement might in itself have led Mr K to retain unrealistic hopes that he might eventually succeed in his applications.

The complaint was not upheld.

l) Bias and bullying

Mr L was dissatisfied with various aspects of Land Registry's handling of a dispute between him and his neighbour, which arose as a result of a mapping error on the Registry's part.

He alleged that the Agency had been biased towards his neighbour. The ICR found that the Registry had expressed views on the merits of the case and had considered rectification to be appropriate. She accepted that this was unwelcome to Mr L, but did not consider this constituted bias on the Registry's part. It was Land Registry's usual practice to comment on the arguments raised to ensure that all parties are fully informed when deciding how to proceed.

Mr L also complained that the tone of the Registry's letters to him made him feel bullied and harassed. It was clear that the Agency was advocating a course of action which he did not want to see come about. The ICR acknowledged that this might cause him distress, however, she did not find that Land Registry's communications with him were aggressive or bullying. She accepted that Mr L was given ample time to seek his own advice on this matter and to submit his objections to the proposed rectification.

The ICR noted that Land Registry had acknowledged its error, apologised for it and offered limited compensation to Mr L to pay for legal advice. However, the Agency failed to consider whether a consolatory payment was appropriate in recognition of the anxiety and distress that this matter had clearly caused. The ICR was critical of this omission and recommended a consolatory payment of £150.

The complaint was partially upheld.

m) Escalating the dispute

Mr and Mrs M were involved in a boundary dispute with their neighbours concerning the fence between their properties. They incurred considerable expense and suffered stress, and they considered that Land Registry bore some responsibility for this.

They complained that Land Registry failed to inspect their property on first registration, even though the Ordnance Survey information showed a kink in the disputed boundary. The ICR noted that there was a discrepancy between the Ordnance Survey information and the title deeds, which was apparently not noticed when the title was registered. This raised doubts as to how carefully the deeds were examined by the Agency prior to registration. However, even if the discrepancy had been noticed, it was uncertain whether this would have prompted further investigation or a survey at that time.

In its response to this complaint, Land Registry argued that the land in dispute had been excluded from Mr and Mrs M's registration because it did not fall within their occupied extent. It also pointed out that neither Mr and Mrs M nor their solicitor queried this when the registration was completed.

The ICR found no objective evidence that any thought was given to this issue at the time of registration or that the discrepancy was noticed at all. However, if the Registry had proceeded as represented, the ICR was critical that it did not tell Mr and Mrs M that land had been excluded. The ICR considered that if Mr and Mrs M had been told at that time, they would have been alerted to the problem much sooner and thereby avoided much unpleasantness with their neighbours. The ICR upheld this aspect of their complaint.

Mr and Mrs M also complained that the Registry had made comments to their neighbours that had encouraged them to take certain action in relation to the dispute. The ICR found that the Registry had offered definitive comments about the extents of the registered titles in question in response to the neighbours' queries. The ICR considered that these comments had fuelled the fire of the dispute. She commented that it had been unwise to do this when it had notice of the dispute. In the event, the Registry's statements were unhelpful and potentially pivotal in the escalation of the dispute. The ICR upheld this complaint, and recommended that Land Registry make a consolatory payment of £250. She also recommended that a reminder be issued to staff concerning the importance of maintaining neutrality in such situations.

The complaint was partially upheld.

n) Serving notice

Mr and Mrs N were in correspondence with Land Registry over several years concerning its registration to their neighbours of a possessory title to land adjoining their property. This had led to a dispute and two High Court actions, in which Mr and Mrs N tried to assert their right to access the land, as they claimed they were able to do for nearly twenty years. Mr and Mrs N complained that possessory title should not have been granted without notifying them as adjoining owners with a possible interest in the land.

The ICR noted that service of notice is discretionary, and that it is not unusual for the Registry to deem that this is not necessary. In this particular case, the files showed that the Agency's survey had concluded that it was impossible to determine whether any adjoining owners might lay claim to any part of the land or that it was specifically occupied. In these circumstances, the ICR considered that notice should have been considered, but there was no objective evidence of this on the files. The ICR criticised Land Registry for this. She was also critical of the Registry's response which was that, even if notice had been served, it was difficult to see how this could have made any difference as Mr and Mrs N did not claim ownership themselves or formal rights over the land. However, the ICR noted Land Registry was unaware of this at the time and, in any event, Mr and Mrs N had information about the land which was relevant to the Agency's decision about registration and the extent to be registered.

Land Registry's response was further undermined by internal memoranda concluding that notices should in fact have been served. However, this was not communicated to Mr and Mrs N. The ICR considered it highly regrettable that this admission was not made and an apology offered.

Mr and Mrs N also complained that the granting of title was inappropriate because the land in question was unfenced and open to use by others. The ICR could not comment on the decision, but had concerns about the way in which it was taken. She noted that the survey had been inconclusive as to ownership and occupation and that no additional advice had been sought from technical experts on the merits of the application before it was approved. In short, it was treated as a routine application, and this did not reffect the reality of the situation.

The ICR also criticised Land Registry for registering more land to the neighbours than that applied for. It appeared from the files that the Agency looked at the wrong plan when mapping the new title. It was this additional land that Mr and Mrs N said that they had accessed for many years. The ICR found that there was a significant discrepancy between the plans lodged by the neighbours with their application, and this should have prompted the Registry to make further enquiries. It was reasonable to assume that the neighbours' subsequent actions in fencing o. this land took place as direct result of Land Registry including the additional land in their application.

Finally, Mr and Mrs N complained that Land Registry showed no understanding of the difficulties that they had been caused and nor had it expressed any regret. The ICR upheld the complaint and commented that the Registry should have been open about its own internal misgivings concerning its handling of this matter, and that the defence that it offered against Mr and Mrs N's complaint took no account of the lack of objective evidence on the files of the kind of decision making process that the Registry represented had taken place. The ICR commented that the argument that a decision is discretionary could only be supported if there is objective evidence of the exercise of that discretion.

The ICR recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £500. She also recommended that the Registry review its internal guidance to ensure that sta. are aware of the importance of recording the reasons for discretionary decisions on its files.

The complaint was upheld

o) The whole of the title

Mr O complained that Land Registry acted improperly by not registering title to all of the land that was transferred to him and that the Agency had not informed him of this at the time. He also complained that the Registry's survey of the site had not been carried out properly, that the Agency had deployed delaying tactics to thwart his claims and had exhibited bias in his neighbours' favour.

The ICR found clear evidence on the files that Land Registry had decided to limit Mr O's registration to the fenced extent of the land, and that Mr O had not been informed of this at the time. The ICR commented that it was in accordance with usual practice for land to be excluded in such circumstances, but one would also expect that the applicant be informed of this. However, the registration in question took place in 1978 when the procedure was not so clear-cut, and the Registry did offer an apology for this failure. The ICR also took account of the fact that Mr O had never sought to occupy or claim the land in question.

The ICR found no maladministration in the conduct of Land Registry's survey of the site. She accepted that it was carried out in a professional and thorough way. The ICR also found that the Registry had told Mr O that it could not determine this case in the way that he considered it should, but had explained the reasons for this. The ICR found no evidence of bias on the Registry's part and was satisfied that it had acted even-handedly throughout.

The complaint was not upheld.

p) Error and deceit

Mr P complained that Land Registry failed to follow correct procedure in its allocation of part of his land to another title and that, when it tried to correct this error, it made a further mistake by removing more land from his title. The ICR found that the Registry had acknowledged that it made a mistake and that this had not been noticed straight away. However, once the error had been noted, steps were taken to correct it and redress was offered and accepted. Mr P remained dissatisfied, but the ICR considered that the Registry had done all that could reasonably be expected.

Mr P also complained that Land Registry had failed to co-operate with his requests for information. The ICR found no evidence that the Registry had failed to supply Mr P with specific information that he requested. It was true that the Agency had declined to send him all of its files for his perusal, but noted that it had offered to make the files available for inspection at its offices, but Mr P had declined this offer.

The ICR did not uphold his complaints. However, she did express some criticism of the handling of the case. She was concerned that there had been a considerable number of changes of personnel, which she considered to have been unhelpful. She noted that the case persisted for a considerable time without any substantive progress, and might have benefited from more rapid referral to a senior level, rather than having a string of officers of similar seniority going over the same issues.

The complaint was not upheld.

q) Developer dispute

A developer company tried to claim title to a small piece of land at the rear of Mr Q's registered title. This led to a dispute which was set down for a hearing under Land Registry's judicial process. This did not take place as the company withdrew its application and Mr Q was granted title to the land in question. Regardless, Mr Q was dissatisfied with a number of aspects of the Registry's handling of this matter.

He complained that there were extensive delays on Land Registry's part in informing him of the developer's application and there was also delay in sending him details of the company's claim. The ICR found that it did take a long time for the Registry to inform him (and some other interested parties) of the company's application, but it had taken a while for the Agency to conduct its preliminary consideration of the case and to arrange an inspection of the area. The ICR found that this had not been dealt with quickly, but this did not amount to maladministration. The delay had not constituted any material disadvantage to Mr Q, because he was provided with a full opportunity to refute the company's claims once he was notified of the application. However, the ICR found that there had been a maladministrative delay in providing Mr Q with details of the company's claim. This was partly due to Registry files being mislaid, but the ICR commented that this should not have prevented the Agency from approaching the company to ask for copies of the relevant information. The ICR found that this delay had disadvantaged Mr Q and caused him unnecessary anxiety. She was also critical of the Registry for being dismissive of this aspect of Mr Q's concerns in its internal response to his complaint. She partially upheld this aspect of Mr Q's complaint and recommended that he receive a consolatory payment of £150.

Finally, Mr Q complained that Land Registry had acted in a biased way in its handling of this matter. The ICR found no evidence of this, commenting that the Registry had followed proper procedure and that it went to some lengths to accommodate Mr Q as a lay person representing himself in the case. However, the ICR was critical of the Registry for giving the developer's solicitors an inordinately long time to put their case together.

The complaint was partially upheld.

r) Family dispute

Mr R became involved in a protracted and bitter dispute with a family member over land that had belonged to his father. Land Registry became involved because the registered title became subject to a rectification application made by Mr R.

Mr R complained that Land Registry acted improperly by proceeding with the registration of the title when insufficient evidence was lodged in support. The ICR concluded that the application had been made in the correct form and was supported by the usual evidence. Land Registry had subjected it to the usual examination. She made the point that the Agency is not responsible for the detailed investigation of land titles, which is the job of applicants and their legal advisors, but is rather tasked with ensuring that the required standard and type of evidence is lodged. Mr R argued that the Registry should have raised queries because the documents lodged did not include the earliest root of title, but the ICR found that the root of title that was lodged more than met the minimum time requirements, and therefore the Registry was not obliged to look further back. Mr R argued that the earlier documents changed the situation, but this was something that he would have to argue through the process of rectification or judicial determination.

Mr R also complained about the fact that an almost wholly obscured dimension on a plan lodged with the deeds had apparently been disregarded or ignored by Land Registry in its examination of the title. The Agency argued that it was entitled to rely upon the scaled representation of the conveyed extent in the deed plans and disregard the dimension. The ICR considered this to be reasonable, but noted that there was no objective evidence on the files of any consideration being given to this question. Given this, it left open the possibility that the Registry had failed to notice the dimension.

The ICR noted that the application for first registration was voluntary. She commented that sometimes people taking this step do so because they are in dispute with another party and wish to secure their title. This might well have been the case in this particular instance. For this reason, the ICR commented that the Registry needs to take particular care with such applications and that these cases may sometimes require more senior or expert input than would normally be required.

Mr R also complained that Land Registry had not rectified the title, despite its assurances that it would do so. The ICR found no evidence that the Agency had ever given any such undertaking. On the contrary, the Registry made it clear throughout that notice of an application for rectification was necessary and as long as an objection was made the only options for resolution were negotiation or a judicial determination.

Finally, Mr R complained that Land Registry had put undue pressure on him to prepare and submit his arguments. The ICR found that the Registry had pressed Mr R for this, but she did not consider this to be inappropriate given that he was the party applying for rectification.

The complaint was not upheld.

s) Failure to rectify

Mr S was the registered owner of a property that adjoined another title, both of which had a common root of title. A dispute arose over the common boundary between the two properties, which Mr S put down to mapping errors and inconsistencies.

Mr S complained that Land Registry had set aside the correction of his title plan in its handling of this matter, even though this should have been its priority. The ICR found that Land Registry had given active and detailed consideration to this issue. It had explained comprehensively what would be involved in rectifying the titles concerned, but Mr S had not really understood or accepted that the Registry could not simply proceed with making the changes without formal process. The ICR commented that the Registry had initially become very engrossed in its consideration of and response to the mapping issues raised, and this might have led Mr S to believe that his title plan could be corrected without involving his neighbour.

The ICR also commented on the fact that the review of the case at the local Land Registry Office had concluded that the plans were correct, but over a year later when the case was considered by Head Office a different view was reached. The ICR commented that this change of view was not maladministrative in and of itself, as it is in the nature of different stages of review that opinions may change. However, she understood how this caused worry to Mr S. She was also critical of the fact that the Agency had not offered an apology to Mr S once it had concluded that there was an error.

Mr S also complained that there had been no continuity of approach in the Registry's handling of this matter as a result of the fact that at least five different officers had been involved in the case. He alleged that the Registry had sought to cloud the issues in this way.

The ICR did not consider that the changes of personnel were maladministrative in and of themselves, as the length of this case and its process of review through different stages meant that a number of officers would be involved. However, she also commented that the numbers of changes must be limited wherever possible. In this case, Mr S was in correspondence with five officers at Head Office alone, as well as numerous officers at the local Land Registry Office, and the ICR considered that this must have been problematic and frustrating for him. The ICR upheld this aspect of Mr S's complaint, and recommended that the Agency try to avoid the unnecessary reallocation of long-running cases.

The ICR also recommended a consolatory payment of £100.

The complaint was partially upheld.

Back to Contents

---

General comments and emerging issues

Once again this year I have had cause to commend Land Registry for the quality of its complaints procedures and for its positive response to my recommendations. I am aware of few public bodies which can claim the sophistication of the Registry's systems in this regard and this is to be applauded.

During the year I have sought to identify areas or issues that may give rise to customer service issues or result in future complaints. I have identified a number of these below.

Referral to the Adjudicator

As in previous years, many of the complaints that I received arose out of disputes between landowners. Last year, I reported that the appointment of the Adjudicator to determine issues of this kind could have an impact upon these types of complaints.

As I visit local Registry offices, I find that staff are actively engaged in identifying those cases that should be referred to the Adjudicator. There are a considerable number that have already been referred and many more in the pipeline. It remains to be seen whether this new Registry practice and procedure will generate complaints. These may be from people who are dissatisfied that the Registry cannot deal with their complaints administratively and feel that they have been referred to the Adjudicator too quickly, or from those who feel that the wait for referral is too long. I have met the Adjudicator to discuss areas of mutual interest and the establishment of appropriate communication between our respective offices.

New rules and procedures

As I mentioned earlier in my report, on the whole the new legislation, systems and processes have bedded down well. I am aware from my discussions with the Registry and from personal attendance at several practitioner training events that the Agency took a great deal of trouble to prepare the way for the new Act and procedures. There was also a very significant investment in sta. training which meant that people were ready to deal with new types of forms and applications when the time came. They were supported across the country by people who had received specialist training.

Despite this effort, it was to be expected that not every practitioner would welcome changes to forms and procedures. I have noted that some concerns about these matters have been aired in the legal press. In addition, Registry staff report some confusion on the part of practitioners, particularly over the rules relating to notices and restrictions and those relating to applications for adverse possession.

A number of practitioners that I have met have also voiced concerns over the Registry's rejection policy. This usually comes into effect when an inappropriate or incorrect application is made, perhaps because of a misunderstanding of new rules or the use of an incorrect form. In such cases, the Registry cannot process the application and may return it for resubmission in the correct form. There are also times when applications are submitted without all of the necessary accompanying documentation. Again, these applications may be returned.

Registry staff are held to account for the speed of turnaround of their work and, clearly, this will not be improved by hanging on to applications that cannot be processed, because of reasons outside of their control. Whilst most practitioners accept the situation with good grace, some would prefer a more relaxed approach to these matters, which allows time for them to sort things out. From conversations I have had, it appears that the use of the term 'rejection' can in itself be considered as somewhat perjorative and it can be embarrassing for practitioners to explain delays of this kind to clients.

The move towards e-conveyancing

Over the past couple of years, the Agency has been preparing for e-conveyancing in a number of different ways. Amongst these was a project to scan the Registry's filed documents and a 'vectorisation' project to create an on-line mapping record of registered land.

Registry staff report that these projects have delivered significant improvement in access to information required in the course of their daily work. However, some problems have arisen, particularly for the Registry's preliminary services staff, who process requests for documentary information. In some cases, documents are not available on the system or cannot be read. Whatever the reason, where this problem arises it can take considerable time and effort to try to find this information through other means. This can mean a request to the Registry's 'deep storage' facility where a search is undertaken of retained records, or enquiries to practitioners to see if they can assist.

Where documents cannot be found, the Registry will need to consider how to note this on the system, so that people do not engage in a fruitless search on future occasions. It may also be that consideration should be given to whether the Agency's knowledge that certain documents are not available should be reflected on the register and, if so, how.

It is also emerging that a number of queries have been raised about gaps or inaccuracies in the vectorised mapping information. This could lead to future problems and complaints, and I have raised my concern about this with Land Registry.

Changes in work patterns

As the property and finance markets have remained buoyant, Land Registry's work has increased. An unprecedented proportion of new applications relate to re-mortgaging or borrowing arrangements, a phenomenon which appears to be a feature of life today. Added to this, the Registry is encouraging voluntary registration as it moves towards a complete register by 2012. This means that it is undertaking bulk registrations for major landowners, such as local councils, landed estates, public bodies and major commercial organisations. It appears that this too is a pattern for the future. As things stand, the Registry copes well with such applications, and assistance is offered to help with the application process.

Customer Information Centres and personal callers

Over the last couple of years I have seen considerable improvement in the facilities offered to customers in Customer Information Centres across the country. Public areas have been refurbished and present a more comfortable environment for customers and staff. I have also observed a significant increase in the number of staff available for customers so that enquiries are dealt with more quickly.

Some offices report a dramatic increase in the number of personal callers. In one office I recently visited, this number has doubled in the last two years. However, it appears that this is not replicated across the country but is rather the experience of those offices that serve their local areas. Since Land Registry information can be accessed from any office, more might be done to encourage people to visit their nearest office, even if applications for their area are dealt with by offices which are geographically far removed from them. It is clear that those who use these services value them highly, so it is important that Land Registry makes access to them as widely available as possible.

Back to Contents

---

Facts and Figures

Referrals and recorded complaints

We received 36 complaints in 2003-2004, a significant reduction on the level of referrals in recent years. We received 54 complaints in 2002-2003. This drop in our referrals contrasts with the fact that 141 complaints were dealt with by the Agency Case Review Team at Head Office in the reporting year, a significant increase on the 94 complaints received in the previous year. This may be a welcome indication of improvement in satisfaction with internal complaint handling and I will be monitoring this to see whether this trend continues.

Overall, Land Registry recorded 2,849 complaints in 2003-2004, compared to 3,015 in the previous year. The Agency also recorded 2,405 compliments compared to 3,123 last year. It is worthy of note that whilst the numbers of complaints received remain fairly steady, the numbers of compliments recorded have decreased considerably. This is not consistent with the views of customers revealed by customer surveys, and I therefore conclude that the Registry is not accurately recording this information. The Agency needs to review how it records compliments and the instructions that it gives to sta. about this.

Reviews and outcomes

Although we received fewer referrals in 2003-2004, we conducted almost exactly the same number of reviews as last year (20 this year as opposed to 22 in 2002-2003). In addition, the complaints that we reviewed contained almost exactly the same number of separate allegations. The ICR upheld fewer complaints in 2003-2004.

The trend of falling numbers of fully or partially upheld complaints has continued from last year, which is encouraging.

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 Agency commitment to customer service.

There was also a marked reduction in the numbers of complaints that we received regarding errors and mistakes in 2003-2004.

It is particularly pleasing that the changes in Agency practice and procedure have not led to any increase in complaints about accuracy. However, it is relatively early days and this is an area that we will continue to monitor in the coming year.

Our performance

The average time taken to complete our reviews in 2003-2004 was 24 weeks from the date of agreement of the summary, which is an improvement on last year when the average was 26 weeks. It is also well within our overall target of 36 weeks. However, several reviews took much longer than this, and we will continue to try to reduce the time taken to deal with more complex or difficult cases. Having said this, many complaints that we receive are several years old by the time they are referred to us, and often involve some very complex issues. A thorough review of these cases inevitably takes a considerable time.

Customer comment

We conducted quality questionnaires for complainants and for Land Registry staff in 2003-2004.

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 that ICR review had improved or resolved matters, and this divergence of views appeared to directly correlate to whether or not the ICR upheld the complaint. This was also the case in complainants' overall assessment of the quality of our service (half of the respondents rated our service as excellent or good and the other half as satisfactory or unsatisfactory).

The majority of Land Registry respondents knew about the ICR service and the work that it does (over 80%). Similar numbers were happy with the clarity of the ICR's leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution. However, some people were unsure about how the ICR conducts reviews (just under a third of the respondents), and we will work with Land Registry this year to ensure that its sta. are properly informed. Well 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.

Just under one-third of respondents said that they were not aware of the Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team pages on the Registry's intranet, or that they could obtain copies of the ICR's annual reports. Again, we will be taking more steps over the coming year to raise awareness.

Almost all Land Registry respondents who had experience of cases reviewed by the ICR considered that her investigation was helpful to both the Agency and the complainant. We were concerned to note, however, that of these particular respondents, 60% said that they had received no information or feedback on the ICR's report. This should not be the case, and we will be taking this matter up with Land Registry so that the sta. involved in cases that are referred to the ICR are properly informed of the outcome.

Complaints about our service

During the year we received only one complaint. 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

About Land Registry

Her Majesty's 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 19.5 million titles, has been open to public inspection since 1990. The 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 agency and trading fund. The Chief Land Registrar, Peter Collis, is the Head of Department, Agency 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 the 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.

The Registry comprises 24 district offices located throughout England and Wales and a London-based Head Office. Each district office is led by a Land Registrar (a lawyer and expert in land registration matters) 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 the Registry's IT systems. In all, the Registry employs over 8,000 people.

Land Registry offers an online service to its business customers ("Land Registry Direct") and is trialling "Land Register Online" which enables the public to gain access to the Land Register electronically by credit card payment. The 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 2003-04, its turnover was approximately £400 million and its sta. processed some 30.6 million applications (an increase of 14% over the previous financial year).

Land Registry has Investors in People accreditation and has achieved Charter Mark status on four consecutive occasions. It carries out formal annual customer satisfaction surveys and other regular customer feedback exercises. Currently, 98% of business customers are either satisfied or very satisfied with the Registry's overall service.

You can visit Land Registry's website at www.landregistry.gov.uk.

Back to Contents

---