Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Land Registry Annual Report 2005-2006

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 Agency and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. Mrs Berg is a solicitor, a magistrate 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 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.

You can find out about us and other complaint handling organisations by visiting the British and Irish Ombudsman Association website (www.bioa.org.uk).

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.

Contents

---

FOREWORD

I am pleased to present my annual report as Independent Complaints Reviewer for Land Registry for the year 2005-2006.

Since its establishment in 1998, the ICR office has been able to assist people who have been dissatisfied with Land Registry's response to their complaints and want an independent view of the service they received. The ICR service has consistently proved to be successful in bringing most complaints to a settled conclusion.

The focus of my annual report is on the referrals to my office during the year and the wider issues identified by them. Complaints are an important source of management information about the reasons why some people are dissatisfied with Land Registry's service. As in previous years, this year Land Registry has demonstrated that it is keen to take advantage of this feedback and has accepted all of the recommendations that I made following my investigation of complaints. I am given regular updates on the implementation of all recommendations, and I take a particular interest in seeing how those that are systemic in nature have been used to bring about improvements in practice and procedure.

The complaints that I see represent a very small percentage of transactions and customer contacts that the Registry handles every year. I am pleased to report that referrals to my office in 2005-2006 remained at similarly low levels to those of recent years. Again this year, most complaints investigated were not upheld, and often stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Registry's role and actions, rather than its failure to follow procedure or poor customer service. In a number of cases, even where complaints were initially justified, Land Registry had done all that was possible to put things right or provide redress before they were referred to me. This proactive response to complaints is to be expected in an organisation that prides itself on the excellence of its customer service.

Complaints referred to me reflect the most challenging areas of the Registry's work and are rooted in issues such as boundary disputes or disagreements over applications for registration of ownership of land by way of squatters' rights. These can be distressing situations for the people involved in them, which often have a dramatic impact on the enjoyment of their home and family life. They are also notoriously difficult problems to resolve.

Nowadays, when people disagree with decisions taken by Land Registry, they are able to turn to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, an independent Tribunal which is part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Nevertheless, Tribunal processes are rarely a 'quick fix' and delays at this stage can also cause complaints about the Registry's service.

Some people find it difficult to distinguish between various roles and organisations. During the year, this has been reflected in several requests to my office for advice and assistance from people who are concerned with the time they have to wait for a hearing. I have no authority to look into complaints about the Adjudicator's service. However, our respective offices recognise our mutual interest in resolving problems and disputes faced by Land Registry customers in the most efficient and appropriate manner.

During the reporting year, I had regular meetings with senior Land Registry officers to discuss practical and systemic issues arising from complaints and I visited several Registry offices around the country to learn more about today's rapidly changing Land Registry. I am grateful to everyone who spent time with me, and helped to raise my awareness of the issues faced by Land Registry and its customers. As always, this has in turn helped me to respond to customer complaints in a meaningful way.

Turning to my office, I am assisted by a dedicated team, who adhere to office service principles of impartiality and confidentiality. General feedback and responses to our customer service surveys continue to show that the ICR office is highly regarded by the customers of Land Registry and by its staff for the way in which we go about our work. I am pleased to report that this year, once again, we were awarded the British Standards Institute complaints management standard, one of the few public bodies to achieve this accreditation.

In response to user feedback, we have also set about reshaping our responses to referrals, to facilitate earlier settlement of complaints. I am confident that this will result in a faster turnaround of cases, and provide fair and proportionate outcomes, without affecting the quality of investigations.

This year saw the departure of several members of ICR staff, amongst them Andrew Robertson, who was office manager at the ICR office since its inception. Andrew was instrumental in the establishment of our office procedures and in creating the ethos of excellence and camaraderie that has served us so well. We wish him well on his return to Land Registry in his new post of Customer Service Manager at the Registry's Head Office. He is succeeded by Robin Lockyer, who is already making a positive difference to our work. This year we also said farewell to some other staff members and welcomed new colleagues. Past or present, I thank them all for their enthusiasm, commitment and contribution.

I hope that you find my report interesting and informative.

- Jodi Berg

Back to Contents

---

THE INDEPENDANT COMPLAINTS REVIEW SERVICE - SEEKING A FAIR RESOLUTION

Our Mission

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

Our Aim

To seek a fair resolution to complaints made by Land Registry customers making a positive difference to the service provided to future customers.

Our Vision

A first rate service provided by professional staff.

What is the ICR service?

In 1998, the Independent Complaints Review Service for Land Registry was established to look into complaints about the Registry made by its customers. The service is managerially independent of the Registry and is free to complainants.

Complainants can expect from us:

What do we review?

The ICR reviews complaints that Land Registry has acted maladministratively. Maladministration is a failure to deal with matters properly or fairly and may involve:

The ICR cannot review complaints about the content of the Registry's 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 resolve matters before complaints are referred to the ICR. However, because memories fade and information is only kept for a certain time period, complaints should be referred within six months after the Registry has offered its final response to a complaint.

The ICR cannot look into complaints from Land Registry employees about their conditions of service, and is unable to consider issues that are the subject of court proceedings, or that have been investigated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

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, post, fax or e-mail. The Registry includes information about the ICR office in its own complaints handling literature and 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.org.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.

Making a complaint to the ICR

We try to make access to our service as easy as possible. People can refer their complaints to the ICR by telephone, in writing or in person. We ensure that complainants understand 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.

When somebody first approaches us, it is important to quickly understand and accurately record what their complaint is about. The complaint referral form in our leaflet guides people to do this in a helpful way.

Advice and assistance

On first contact with us, people may not know what to expect and it is important to create the right impression if we are to promote confidence in our service. We try to identify early on any issues that we will be unable to investigate, and advise on the alternative remedies that might be sought, such as the reversal of a decision on appeal to the Adjudicator.

We can also be contacted because people are upset or bemused by what has happened in their case with Land Registry. An explanation from an independent source can help to demystify the situation and resolve complaints without further ado. Occasionally people contact our office in the hope that we can deal with their concerns about public bodies or organisations outside of the ICR's remit. When this happens we always try to help them find the right organisation to contact.

Resolution

Once we have accepted a referral, the first thing that we do is ascertain what the complaint is about and what the complainant would like Land Registry to do to put matters right. We then consider whether it will be possible to negotiate an agreement between the Registry and its customer. In cases where this appears likely, we will liaise with the complainant and the Registry to see whether there is any immediate action that can be taken which will resolve the complaint. For example, this may include an agreement by the Registry to take certain steps, to provide information, or an apology if things have gone wrong. If this can be done, a report outlining the terms of the agreement is sent to both Land Registry and its customer.

Resolution is a speedier way of settling complaints, which can serve to restore the relationship between Land Registry and its customer. Even where resolution cannot be achieved at this early stage, we continue to look for opportunities to settle complaints in this way during our investigation.

Investigation

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. Complaints are rarely about single issues and we include each element of the complaint separately to ensure that we cover all of the issues of concern to the complainant within our review. Once agreed, a copy of the summary is sent to the 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 to issue her report straightaway, or whether further enquiries (such as interviews with members of Registry staff or the complainant) are required prior to issuing her report. Depending upon the circumstances and the issues, the ICR may seek comments on her draft reports from both Land Registry and the complainant in order to inform her decisions.

ICR reports

The ICR's report sets out a synopsis of the background circumstances that led to the complaint and the action that was taken by Land Registry once it was made. It details the ICR's conclusions in respect of each element of the complaint and explains the reasons for them.

The ICR may make recommendations within her reports. These may be specific and aimed at resolving a complaint for the complainant, such as asking for an apology from the Registry or a consolatory payment in recognition of the anxiety and distress caused by its maladministration. The ICR can also make systemic recommendations aimed at improving Registry procedures for the future.

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

Depending on the complexity of the issues involved and the extent of the evidence, the length of time investigations can take can vary considerably. However, we aim to complete investigations within 36 weeks.

Customer concerns

In those cases where the ICR finds that complaints are not justified, it is not uncommon for people to challenge her findings and ask her to reconsider her decision. We respond to the issues that are raised in as helpful a way as possible to ensure full understanding of the reasons for conclusions. We also remind people of their right to ask an MP to refer their concerns about Land Registry to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if the ICR's report has not resolved their complaint.

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. In accordance with best practice articulated by the British Standards Institute, we record as a complaint any expression of dissatisfaction about our service, whether written or verbal. Complaints provide valuable insight into the expectations and experiences of clients who use our service. People can also refer their complaints about the ICR service to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Back to Contents

---

FACTS AND FIGURES

Referrals and recorded complaints

During the reporting year 2005-2006, we received 37 referrals compared with 40 in 2004-2005.

Land Registry itself recorded 2,483 complaints compared to 2,579 in the previous year. Of these, 132 complaints were later referred to the Agency Case Review Team, compared with 145 in the previous year. This is an indication of the continuing success of the Registry's local complaint handling. The Agency Case Review Team also dealt with 11 enquiries, most of which were referred by Members of Parliament on behalf of constituents.

The Registry also recorded 2,746 compliments compared to 2,510 last year, a rise of 9%, demonstrating customers' appreciation of the service they receive.

Reviews and outcomes

In 2005-2006 we conducted 16 substantive investigations. Although the complaints that we reviewed included within them less separate allegations of maladministration compared with last year, we found that the issues raised by them were similarly contentious and complex. They were not amenable to resolution and required indepth investigation in order to get to the root of the problems.

The ICR fully or partially upheld marginally fewer complaints in 2005-2006 than in the previous year.

Complaints by category

As in previous years, the largest number of complaints concerned allegations of failures in practice and procedure. There were no complaints about the personal attitude and behaviour of Land Registry officers, providing further evidence of the Registry's commitment to customer service. The complaints we received regarding errors and mistakes made up 8% of the overall total, a slight increase on the 6% recorded in 2004-05, however, only one of these complaints was partially upheld.

Allegations reviewed by the ICR detailed by category.

Our performance

The average time taken to complete reviews in 2005-2006 was 26 weeks from the date we agree a summary of the complaint with the customer. This is slightly longer than the average time taken last year, but it remains well within our published target of 36 weeks. Several reviews took longer than we would have wished and we will continue our efforts to reduce the time taken.

Yet again, we have noted an 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 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

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's review had improved matters. The divergence of views appeared to correspond directly with whether or not the ICR had upheld the complaint. One complainant said: "I am disgusted at the lack of help offered by the ICR to resolve my complaint with Land Registry".

During the course of the year, two customers chose to refer their complaints about Land Registry to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. One of these cases is still under investigation, and the other was reviewed and not upheld. Neither case raised concerns about the ICR's office or our review.

A total of 250 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%, which was 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. A similar percentage of people understood that the ICR is independent of Land Registry.

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. 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.

Almost all Land Registry respondents who had been involved with cases reviewed by the ICR considered that her reports tend to represent a fair outcome of complaints. Most thought that the ICR and her team dealt with complaints in an impartial way and that her reports fairly represented the facts and explained conclusions. However, there were exceptions to this. One respondant said: "Having read the reports, I find that sometimes the ICR is overly critical of Land Registry. In my view, the standard of service expected of Land Registry by the ICR is sometimes far too high and exceeds reasonable expectations".

Complaints about our service

During the year we received three complaints about our service. 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 cases referred to the ICR and the few complaints that she upholds, we believe that this emphasises the value of our service and demonstrates that most people are satisfied with the thoroughness of our reviews.

Financial report

ICR Running Costs

Back to Contents

---

THE ICR'S CASEBOOK

Complaints offer opportunities to learn lessons about service. They can reveal weaknesses in process, which need to be addressed by a change in procedures, or highlight instances of poor service that demonstrate a need for staff guidance and training. They can also show how misunderstandings can arise or how people can have unrealistic expectations about the service that can be given. On many occasions they can serve to demonstrate that process has been followed properly and appropriate standards have been met.

The following case notes are anonymised summaries of a selection of the complaint referrals investigated during the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. They demonstrate the complexity of some cases referred to the ICR and why it is so important to have a good understanding of relevant legislation and of Land Registry practice and procedure, in order to give a reasoned and reasonable response to complaints.

Registering the lane

Mrs A was representing her elderly parents who were involved in a dispute with a neighbour over the position of the boundary between their property and a privately owned lane. Mrs A asserted that the dispute had arisen as a result of Land Registry's rectification of the neighbour's title, which inadvertently included part of her parents' unregistered land. Land Registry concluded that the lane had been widened, which caused a significant reduction in the extent of the land that could be included in her parents' property ownership. On the other hand, Mrs A asserted that the lane was wholly owned by them.

Mrs A complained that Land Registry had failed to take proper account of the title deeds supplied and disregarded the findings of an Ordnance Survey inspection. She felt that the Registry's actions had exacerbated the problems with her parents' neighbours and had caused considerable distress.

The ICR noted that the Registry had conducted a survey of the lane and had held various meetings with both Mrs A and her parents. It had also commissioned an Ordnance Survey inspection of the site. The ICR concluded that the evidence showed that Land Registry had carried out a number of examinations of the various Ordnance Survey maps and other information that had been submitted. These had involved senior plans officers, a surveyor and senior Land Registry lawyers. The ICR was satisfied that the Registry had demonstrated a serious approach to the concerns raised, although it ultimately did not agree with Mrs A's arguments.

Mrs A also complained that Land Registry had failed to notify her parents of the application to rectify their neighbour's title and that this had caused them harm and distress, which Land Registry failed to recognise. In this particular case, notice was not served when the application for rectification was considered, as the Registry understood that it was correcting a previous registration error resulting from a misunderstanding about the adoption of the lane. As the surrounding land was unregistered, the Registry had no knowledge of its ownership. The ICR noted however that Land Registry made mistakes when it rectified the neighbours' title, which the Registry had subsequently accepted. An apology had been given for this and the Registry had devoted time and resource to dealing with the resulting complaints.

Mrs A asserted that Land Registry had fabricated reasons why it could not proceed with the registration of her parents' property. The ICR found that the reasons for decisions reached by the Registry on this issue were comprehensively explained. The ICR did not uphold this complaint, neither did she accept that the Registry was biased in its handling of this matter, nor that it failed to respond promptly and fully to the complaints raised. She pointed out that lengthy and detailed correspondence had taken place and that apologies had been given for delay.

Finally, Mrs A complained that the Registry had improperly claimed that reliance on the General Boundaries Rule allowed it to disregard the legal title to the lane. The ICR found that the General Boundaries Rule had been referred to in early correspondence, however later correspondence had given the impression that other factors were more relevant and, indeed, that the lane could not be registered at all. The Registry's practice of including any part of a roadway which appeared from the title deeds to belong to the applicant, was subsequently confirmed in later correspondence. An apology was offered for any confusion.

The ICR pointed out that after three and a half years of correspondence with the Registry, arguing the detail of plans and maps, it was not surprising that Mrs A was angered and upset by the fact that the Registry ultimately based its decision on the General Boundaries Rule. The ICR criticised the Registry for its handling of the matter, and for failing to stress the significance of the Rule. The Registry engaged with Mrs A in lengthy and ultimately non-productive correspondence, which left its actions open to misunderstanding and complaints.

The ICR found that the Registry had become engrossed in its consideration of the mapping issues that Mrs A raised, and had lost sight of the practical purpose of this. Three and a half years of correspondence had done little other than add to the frustration and disappointment of Mrs A and her parents. The ICR recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £250.

The complaint was not upheld.

Understanding the request

Mrs B inherited from her late father a freehold estate and two head leasehold estates in land and buildings. The estates were subject to long underleases, the majority of which had been registered. Mrs B was in correspondence with Land Registry concerning one of the tenants who held an underlease of an area of land registered with a good leasehold title. Mrs B maintained that there was no evidence to suggest that the land had ever changed hands, since it was originally granted to a family member. Mrs B subsequently made an 'application' to have the tenant's title amended to show details of her freehold interest, in order to alert third parties to this. She made a number of complaints about the way Land Registry had dealt with her, including its failure to act in accordance with her wishes.

The ICR found that Mrs B's request had been misinterpreted. Land Registry had incorrectly assumed that her application was a request to upgrade her tenant's title, to title absolute. This was extremely unfortunate given the circumstances, and represented a failure on Land Registry's part to review previous correspondence or to carefully read Mrs B's letter. Land Registry twice entirely misinterpreted the thrust of Mrs B's comments and took action which was entirely the opposite in effect to her intentions. The ICR acknowledged that Land Registry had apologised for its actions, but was disappointed that the Agency failed to consider appropriate redress and offer a consolatory payment, in light of the clear distress and anxiety caused to the complainant. The complaint was upheld. The ICR recommended a consolatory payment of £300.

Amongst other matters, Mrs B also asserted that her tenant had no right to the underlease, and that the Registry had not provided any proof of his legal entitlement. The ICR did not uphold this complaint and found that the Land Registrar had fully investigated the Agency's files and provided documentation that proved that the tenant had the benefit of the land for the remainder of the term of the lease.

The complaint was partially upheld.

Identifying the boundaries

Mrs C is a joint owner of a large parcel of unregistered land. Part of the land was sold and compulsorily registered in 1995. When the application was presented to Land Registry, the transfer contained a plan noted as being 'for identification purposes only'. A further plan was also included in the application that showed a different configuration for the southern boundary to that attached to the transfer. This second plan was based on the 1992 edition of the Ordnance Survey map, whereas the transfer plan used the 1965 edition. The Registry did not conduct a survey. Instead, it raised a query with the lodging solicitors who confirmed that the plan attached to the transfer was the one that the Registry should take into account. The registration was duly completed based on this confirmation.

A few years later, an application was made for the first registration of Mrs C's property. Again Land Registry raised a query, as the plan submitted with that application was unclear and appeared to include land that had already been removed and registered. It was eventually agreed to map the extent of Mrs C's property to adjoin that of the prior registration. Mr C subsequently complained on his wife's behalf that Land Registry had failed to follow its own practice and procedure when dealing with the initial first registration application.

The evidence showed that the transfer plan was based on the 1965 edition of the Ordnance Survey map, which was also the edition used to create the title plan. Consideration of the second plan should have put the Registry on notice that there could be a discrepancy between the extent of title shown on the transfer plan and the extent of the land actually occupied. In such cases, it is the Registry's usual practice not to include such land within the registration. The second plan also indicated that the Registry held a later edition of the Ordnance Survey map in its records. Since the Registry will usually base registration mapping on the most up to date Ordnance Survey map available, this too should have raised uncertainty about the extent to be registered. In view of this, it was surprising that there was no evidence on file of consideration of a survey.

The ICR found that the quality of the Registry's decision-making in this particular respect was compromised and, on this basis, she partially upheld the complaint that the title plan was prepared using an obsolete edition of the Ordnance Survey map. The ICR also upheld Mr C's complaint that the Registry mistakenly referred to a boundary as 'not shown' on the Ordnance Survey map without taking account of the 1992 edition of the Ordnance Survey map.

Mr C also complained that, as the plan attached to the transfer was 'for identification purposes only' it was not an appropriate document for the Registry's purposes. The ICR noted that the Registry's published and internal guidance was misleading, as it stated that such a plan was not acceptable, whereas it is the Registry's established practice to consider such a plan if the verbal description is insufficient to identify the land concerned. She did not uphold this specific complaint but made a systemic recommendation that the Registry consider updating its current guidance to explain more fully the position about interpreting deed plans in cases of difficulty.

Whilst the ICR acknowledged that the great majority of first registration applications do not involve a site survey, and the Registry's practice material stated that surveys were only undertaken in very particular circumstances when it was deemed to be essential, where there are clear discrepancies in the information available this is an option that should at least be considered. Although it was sensible for Land Registry to seek clarification from the applicants and to place some reliance upon the information received, this should not exclude consideration of all other evidence available, where clear discrepancies have come to light.

The ICR recommend an apology and a consolatory payment of £500. She also recommended that the Registry should consider reimbursement of the costs incurred should Mr C choose to seek preliminary legal advice on the options that might be open to him for taking the matter forward.

The complaint was partially upheld.

Releasing the information

Mr D was a joint owner of a registered property, which was subject to a legal charge. A few years after registration, the chargee changed its name. Subsequently, the chargee exercised its power of sale and the property was transferred. Another lender, under a power of attorney entered into with the original lender, executed the transfer. Mr D alleged that the property had been fraudulently transferred and requested information from the Registry concerning the property.

Mr D complained that the Registry had refused to supply him with information about the charge. The ICR explained that under the Land Registry Open Register Rules, some information was only available at the Registry's discretion and, as such, a refusal to provide information may not necessarily be maladministrative. Having said this, the ICR found that it was clear from the evidence that the Registry had provided Mr D with copies of all the documents relating to the power of sale transfer. It had also correctly explained that an allegation of fraud did not enable the Registry to decide to ignore the transfer and that an application would need to be made to the court to have the transfer set aside.

The complaint was not upheld.

Changing the register

Miss E was a sole registered owner of a property that was first registered as a result of her purchase in 1994. A few years later a caution was registered against her property and subsequently removed in 2001. Miss E complained that the edition date currently shown on her register was different from that shown on the register when she first became the registered owner. She also complained that the wording used in the heading in the property register section of the current edition of her register, was different. She alleged that these differences were preventing her from selling her property.

The ICR noted that Land Registry had explained the reason for the change in the edition date of the register, and she had no cause to disagree with the substance of the explanation. However, she felt it would have been helpful to give a more explicit explanation of precisely why it was that the edition date had changed. She also noted that an explanation had been given to Miss E of why the wording in the property register had been changed. The explanation given was accurate and complete.

The complaint was not upheld.

Trustee in Bankruptcy

Mr F complained to the ICR that the Registry had acted maladministratively with regard to the appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy. In particular, he complained that the Registry had failed to ensure that there was a court order appointing the trustee, or retain a copy in its files, when it registered the trustee's caution. The ICR found that the Registry had explained to Mr F that it was not required to see the court order in order to approve the caution for registration. It was satisfied that an arguable cause had been shown for the entry to be made. Such an entry did not verify the validity of the claimed interest. The ICR did not consider that the Registry should have acted differently. She agreed that it was not the Registry's responsibility to investigate Mr F's concerns about the validity of the trustee's appointment and this could only be done through further judicial action. The complaint was not upheld.

The trustee in bankruptcy was later registered as one of the joint proprietors in place of Mr F. The ICR did not uphold Mr F's complaint that the Registry failed to mention the capacity in which the trustee in bankruptcy was acting. She found that as the trustee in bankruptcy was holding the land as a trustee under the Trustee Act 1925, the Registry was not obligated to mention her capacity as trustee in bankruptcy. The ICR also did not uphold his complaints relating to the subsequent transfer by the trustee in bankruptcy being improperly drawn.

Finally, the ICR did not uphold Mr F's complaint that the Registry failed to take action to suspend the registration of the trustee as required by a court judgement. The ICR concluded that any doubt or controversy about the effect of the court order was not a matter for Land Registry, but one that should be referred back to court.

The complaint was not upheld.

Ordnance Survey error

Mr G was the owner of an unregistered property, which he purchased in 1970. In 2003 he made an application to Land Registry for the first registration of his property. Included within his application was a statement regarding a strip of land beyond the rear of the boundary that according to Mr G had been 'filched' by a neighbouring leaseholder, together with a plan showing the extent of land allegedly taken by his neighbour and a request for the Registry to note an error made by the Ordnance Survey cartographer. The Registry completed the application, only including the land that appeared to be in Mr G's occupation, and enclosed some Explanatory Leaflets.

Mr G complained that the Registry had made a mistake. It had relied upon an inaccurate Ordnance Survey map and in doing so failed to register the entire depth of his property. The ICR explained the purpose of the Ordnance Survey map and how it 'fitted in' with land registration. She acknowledged that the Registry had arranged for three separate surveyors to survey the site and that the matter had been dealt with by several senior Registry officers with the appropriate level of expertise. All of these experienced officers had come to the same conclusion, that the registration was correct within the provisions of the General Boundaries Rule. She concluded that the evidence on file showed that Land Registry had taken the/e matter extremely seriously. The complaint was not upheld. The ICR did find, however, that the Registry should have gone further in its explanation of why the plan's red edging could not be placed on the outside of Mr G's rear boundary.

Mr G went on to complain that the Registry failed to make the appropriate enquiries in order to rectify the title concerned. The ICR found that the Registry had examined Mr G's neighbour's title and also compared the Ordnance Survey map with the title deeds plans. Additionally it had arranged to have the site surveyed on three separate occasions. Only after considering all this evidence, did the Registry decide that Mr G's application for rectification was groundless.

As a result of this, there was no requirement for the Registry to take matters further by serving notice on Mr G's neighbour. The ICR was satisfied that the Registry had carefully considered Mr G's comments and taken appropriate steps to establish whether he had grounds to apply for rectification. The complaint was not upheld.

Finally, Mr G complained that the Registry failed to refer the matter to the Adjudicator for a legal ruling. Again the ICR did not uphold this complaint. She noted that the Registry did not feel that Mr G had shown arguable grounds for the rectification of a title and consequently it was not appropriate for the matter to be referred for a determination by the Adjudicator. She also acknowledged that the Registry had gone to trouble and expense in trying to help Mr G.

The complaint was not upheld.

N.B. Although Mr G was dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint to the ICR and referred his complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, he did not raise any concerns about the ICR's office or its review. The Ombudsman did not accept Mr G's complaint as it related to issues that were outside of her remit.

Court Orders

Mr H was the sole registered proprietor of a property in London. Mr H had leased the property to a Housing Association, which was to carry out sufficient repairs to the property in order to make it habitable and suitable for occupation. It would then sub-let to residential sub-tenants. Court action then ensued resulting in an Order vesting in the Housing Association a legal term of three thousand years under section 90 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Registry gave effect to the Order and registered a legal charge in favour of the Housing Association. Due to non-payment of the legal charge, a power of sale was obtained and the property sold.

Mr H complained that the Registry failed to thoroughly consider the court order or to investigate whether permission to appeal the Order had been granted, resulting in the Order being suspended. The ICR explained how the Registry is compelled to act upon court orders. In doing so it is undertaking a purely administrative function of recording the decision of the court. She acknowledged that the order did not fall within what the Registry would consider to be a 'standard' order and, due to the potentially complex legal issues involved, it should have been initially referred to one of the Registry lawyers for consideration. This did not happen. The ICR was critical of this, as it resulted in the Agency becoming involved in prolonged correspondence over a matter that ultimately had to be decided in court. However, the Registry did finally obtain the further information that allowed it to decide that any suspension of the order had ended when subsequent orders and judgements had been made. The ICR noted that the Registry would have come to the same conclusion regardless of when the enquiries were made. Nevertheless, she found that this did not excuse the Registry from the extra diligence required when receiving such a court order. This complaint was upheld.

The ICR did not uphold Mr H's complaint that the Registry had acted improperly by making charge entries in the Register based upon an inoperative/suspended court order. The ICR referred to her earlier criticism of the Registry's failure to follow procedure when initially dealing with the application, but acknowledged that those failures related to the initial process only. The ICR was satisfied that the Registry had taken account of all the information supplied. She acknowledged that the subsequent orders and judgement were granted after the application to register the charge had been made, but noted that applications made to the Registry are not always in order at the time they are received. In view of this, the most that could be said was that the Agency acted prematurely in approving the application, although this premature action ultimately made no realistic difference to the outcome of the application.

Mr H also complained that the Registry failed to serve notice on him regarding the registration of the charge. The Registry accepted that notice should have been served on Mr H, but stated that in light of the information provided, his objection would have been rejected as groundless. The ICR was critical of this response. In her view the failure to serve notice was unfair and inequitable. Mr H was entitled to know that the Registry had received an application to register a charge based on a court order. The fact that Mr H's objection may have proved groundless was immaterial, as Land Registry could not have known this at the time. This was only made clear by later events. This complaint was upheld.

Finally, the ICR did not uphold Mr H's complaint that the Registry had cut short his time to lodge additional evidence relating to his objection of the charge and had acted in a biased way. The ICR acknowledged that the Registry considered that a later judgement had dealt with any ambiguity in the original court order and, based on this evidence, it cancelled Mr H's objection application. The ICR found that the Registry had given Mr H the opportunity of providing evidence that the judgement was untrue and did not accept that there was bias on the Agency's part. Finally the ICR was satisfied that the Registry had given Mr H ample opportunity to lodge further evidence in support of his application and that it would have been inequitable for the Agency to keep his application open indefinitely while he tried to pursue matters through the court.

The ICR recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £200 for the Registry's failure to serve notice on him and for the distress he had suffered as a result.

The complaint was partially upheld.

Back to Contents

---

THE ICR'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Independent complaints review is not only about enabling people who feel that they have been treated poorly by an organisation to have their complaints looked at by someone who is impartial. It is also an important addition to an organisation's own quality assurance processes, supporting good practice where possible and helping it to learn from the complaints received, so that past mistakes can be avoided in future. Even where a complaint is not upheld, it may still highlight areas for improvement.

This is a key aspect of my work as Independent Complaints Reviewer for Land Registry. All referrals and reports are monitored to identify trends and particular areas of concern. This information is reported back to the Agency to prompt improvements in its service to the public.

Areas of concern are brought to the Agency's attention through:

The reputation of an independent reviewer is an important factor in securing customer confidence, and credibility is enhanced by providing an efficient and effective service, with visible and effective mechanisms for passing back lessons from complaints. In the case of Land Registry, this process is now deeply embedded in its own management and customer service structures.

Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team (ICREST)

Reports on individual cases and annual reports are referred to Land Registry's 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 Head of Corporate Services.

ICREST meets regularly to discuss ICR reports. Its role is to consider comments and recommendations made in my reports and, if applicable, ensure that they are translated into action, reviewing and evaluating those changes in the light of subsequent experience.

Information about its meetings and the actions taken on ICR decisions are accessible to all Registry staff on the internal intranet.

During the year, I made a number of systemic recommendations aimed at enhancing the Registry's service for future customers:

In addition to the above systemic recommendations, the ICR made a number of recommendations for apologies and for consolatory payments totalling £1350. The ICR also made and two recommendations that Land Registry consider meeting the legal costs incurred by the customer as a result of the Registry's actions.

Land Registry accepted all of these recommendations and updates my office on progress towards their implementation.

Implementation of recommendations

Both this year and in reports last year, I raised a number of points for the Registry to consider. I am pleased to report that the Registry has done so and has taken action to implement change. In the notes below I have summarised the action taken. Whilst some of the recommendations I made in this financial year have already been considered and implemented, others are still in the process of being discussed and will be the reported on in my next annual report.

In some cases, comments or recommendations that I made led ICREST and other Registry colleagues to think about the wider implications of the changes that were thought to be helpful. In this way, my recommendations can have a ripple effect within the Agency, improving practice in areas where I would not have thought to raise an issue.

Some examples of the changes implemented are given below:

ICREST endorsed the ICR's comments. A reminder was issued to staff.

ICREST endorsed this practice and reminded staff of the need for early recognition of mistakes and apologies. In response to our questionnaires, some Agency staff still express reservations about making consolatory payments. In response, I have discussed the case for consolatory payments later in my report.

ICREST reported that the Agency Case Review Team guidance notes had been updated to include more detailed information about this.

The Lawyers Management Advisory Group has commissioned two senior Land Registry lawyers to carry out a review. This has yet to be completed and published. Once the results are known, a further review of the guidance will be carried out.

ICREST highlighted the need to reconsider the wording of its published and internal guidance regarding the disclosure of evidence. This work is ongoing.

ICREST agreed that delay in taking action to look into the matter of lost documents is unacceptable and contrary to the current Registry guidance. However, the guidance does not advise contacting Royal Mail or the DX when documents are lost in the outgoing post. ICREST has referred the guidance for consideration of amendment. ICREST also issued a reminder to staff of the current instructions and, in particular, the need to retain on file a copy of any original document that is being issued with a requisition.

ICREST agreed to remind staff that decisions not to take customers telephone calls because of inappropriate and abusive communication must be explained to the customer, and a record of the decision made on the file.

Objections are recorded as internal applications, which are not disclosed on Official Search applications. ICREST accepted that in some cases letters of objection should be noted and acknowledged on the daylist. ICREST reminded staff of the appropriate action to take in these situations.

ICREST agreed that in the interests of good customer service the Registry should inform the customer where it had decided that it is going to exclude part of the land included in their application. This should be done prior to serving notice on a third party in order to allow the customer an opportunity to withdraw their application or provide further evidence.

ICREST agreed that this should happen to effectively manage customer expectations when applications are referred for consideration by this specialist team.

ICREST established a review to consider good practice in relation to holding meetings with customers, so that they were properly minuted and all parties understood their purpose and the expected outcome.

Subsequently the Registry has taken this further to consider its practice in relation to all meetings, and has given staff training on minute taking.

This has resulted in a shorter turnaround time for supplying minutes of the meeting to the parties involved, as well as ensuring that the right people with the appropriate background/specialist knowledge are involved.

Is sorry always good enough? The case for consolatory payments

Last year I commented on the issue of 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. I explained how it supports an apology given to a customer who has cause to complain about the poor or inappropriate service they have received.

I expressed in my report why I think it right to offer a consolatory payment in situations where people have been justifiably disappointed with the way in which matters were handled. I noted that Land Registry pays out considerable sums in statutory compensation because of error. However, people can lose out in many ways, not only financially, by having to pursue a problem caused by poor service over a prolonged period. There is an emotional cost as well as a time and attention cost to this engagement. In these circumstances, is sorry enough?

In my view, consolatory payments should always be considered where action taken by Land Registry has been inappropriate, and this has made a situation more difficult for someone. These payments are not expected to be large, in accordance with Treasury guidance. However, such payments enable the Agency to settle difficult complaints, thus avoiding the need for people to turn to my office or to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This in turn can save the Registry a great deal, both in financial and resource terms, as well as gaining the Agency considerable respect and adding to its reputation for customer service.

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 20.5 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 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 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 is the lead department for this major programme of work and plans to implement electronic conveyancing, on a pilot 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 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 Land Registry's IT systems. In all, 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 2005-06, its turnover was approximately £394 million and its staff processed some 32 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

---