Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Land Registry Annual Report 2006-2007

The ICR Mission

Seeking a fair resolution

The ICR Purpose

To provide a free, effective and impartial complaints review and resolution service for complainants that settles complaints in a proportionate manner and makes a positive difference for future Land Registry customers.

People can expect from the ICR team:

Report Contents

About the Independent Complaints Reviewer

Jodi Berg was appointed as the first Independent Complaints Reviewer (the ICR) for HM Land Registry in 1998. The ICR is not part of the management of the Land Registry and her service is free to its customers.

Mrs Berg also acts as the ICR for the Audit Commission, the Charity Commission, the Housing Corporation, Land Registers Northern Ireland, The National Archives and the Youth Justice Agency. She is a solicitor with extensive management experience in both the private and public sectors and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Back to Contents

---

Foreword

I am pleased to present my annual report as Independent Complaints Reviewer for HM Land Registry.

In early 2008, the ICR office will celebrate its 10th anniversary. This important milestone is a time to take stock, to look back to the achievements of the past decade and to set new objectives for the future.

The ICR office has much to celebrate, as this report will demonstrate. When I opened the door to Land Registry complainants in 1998, I had little more than a vision of the first rate service I wanted to provide, backed by Land Registry's assurance that it would support the work and development of the office. In subsequent years, this undertaking has been met, both by Land Registry's response to my reports and recommendations, and by the provision of suitable accommodation and support staff.

Since 1998, I have expanded my remit to handle complaints about six other public bodies. Naturally, this has resulted in a rising caseload for the ICR office and required an increase in our resources. Land Registry has co-operated with each of these organisations in turn, reaching facilitative agreements to share administrative arrangements. This has demonstrated an appreciation of the value of working with other public bodies, of sharing good practice with them and learning from their experience.

Since inception, the ICR office has earned a reputation for fairness and impartiality of decision-making, and for meeting challenging speed of service targets. In recent years, we have welcomed independent scrutiny of our service and were one of the first public bodies in the UK to be awarded the BSI complaints management standard. As the reporting year closed, we were awarded the new BSI standard ISO 10002. Customer surveys show high levels of satisfaction with our process, even if people are sometimes disappointed with my decisions. The office has a culture dedicated to customer service, where people derive satisfaction from a worthwhile job, well done. I am grateful to the ICR team for the diligence and professionalism with which they approach their work.

As Independent Complaints Reviewer I have been keen to support Land Registry's efforts to improve its customer service and complaint handling. In this respect Land Registry today is a very different organisation from the one I encountered ten years ago. In the Registry then, staff were wary of complaints and the way in which their managers would respond to them; complaints procedures were unclear; and responses to complainants were often adversarial and legalistic. Today this is far from the case. In most cases referred to me, Land Registry officers have made every effort to see things from a customer's viewpoint, even if they cannot always take the action that a customer would prefer. Correspondence is courteous and, where mistakes are made or poor service given, Land Registry usually admits this and offers redress before people refer the problem to me. As a result, this year only a small number of investigated cases were upheld. Nevertheless, things are not always handled well, and some people have rightly felt aggrieved by what has occurred during their dealings with Land Registry.

Complaints referred to me open a window to the way in which Land Registry's service can be better, sometimes through improving the clarity of communication with its customers, sometimes through improving procedures for staff or their understanding of them. Land Registry has been keen to take value from ICR reviews and systemic recommendations and, in this respect, is a model for others to follow. It is also willing to share its expertise in internal and independent complaint processes with other public bodies, which continue to benefit from Land Registry's experience.

As always, this year I took the opportunity to visit several Land Registry offices to meet with staff and managers and learn more about the Agency from an insider perspective. I have enjoyed a constructive relationship with Peter Collis, the Chief Land Registrar and Chief Executive, and with members of his senior management team. I thank them for their personal courtesy and for their continuing commitment to the ICR Office. In particular, I wish to thank all those Land Registry officers who have helped to facilitate the resolution and investigation of complaints referred to me, as well as the members of ICREST (Independent Complaints Reviewer's Evaluation and Study Team), who ensure that my reports and recommendations are acted upon.

It has been a privilege to be the first Independent Complaints Reviewer for Land Registry. As the reporting year closed, I was pleased to learn that following its review of the ICR's office, the Board renewed its commitment to the provision of the service for the future. Land Registry is an impressive organisation making rapid progress towards e-conveyancing. I have little doubt that this will change the shape and focus of Land Registry activities in the future and that this will be reflected in the work of the ICR office. I am pleased to report that the office is in good shape to meet this challenge.

My report this year provides information about the ICR office and the work we have done this year. It also looks back at some of the ways in which over the years I have been able to add value for Land Registry and its customers. I hope that readers find the report interesting and, as always, the ICR Office will welcome any and all comments.

- Jodi Berg
Independent Complaints Reviewer

---

Back to Contents

---

The ICR Office

The Independent Complaints Reviewer's Office opened for business in February 1998. Since then, it has developed into a modern independent complaint-handling organisation, which meets the highest standards. Today we respond to more complaints than ever before, meeting the needs of our clients through our understanding of:

Why the ICR office was set up

The above quote, featured in my first annual report as ICR for Land Registry, set the scene for explaining why Land Registry chose to introduce an independent tier of complaint review. It remains as true today as it was ten years ago.

The establishment of an independent complaint process was not a compulsory step for Land Registry, but rather one that demonstrated a forward-looking approach to customer service that was unusual at the time. Many other public bodies have followed this lead.

From the start, the intention was to establish a service that would facilitate the settlement of some of the intractable complaints dealt with by Land Registry. The ICR office was created to meet the varying needs of users of the service, including members of the public, organisations or their advisors.

Land Registry agreed to implement recommendations aimed at putting things right for individual customers and was also open to receiving systemic recommendations arising from lessons learned about its service and complaint handling, which could be used to improve the way things were done. Since 1998, Land Registry has accepted all of the recommendations I have made.

Office developments

The ICR Office has always been supported by staff seconded from Land Registry, who have expertise in relevant legislation, practice and procedure. As referrals grew in number and I took on the role of ICR for other public bodies, the team expanded, and today we have 6 members of staff. My Service Manager and Senior Investigations Officer are both seconded from Land Registry, reflecting the extent of Land Registry caseload we handle and its complexity. Other members of the team are seconded from the Charity Commission and the Audit Commission. All adhere to ICR office policies governing process and confidentiality. They are highly trained and motivated to provide the best service they can and to meet new challenges. The recruitment of additional team members offered a welcome opportunity to place greater emphasis on addressing complaints through conciliation.

The move to our current location in central London, provided facilities for meetings with complainants and others, and we also introduced video conferencing to accommodate face to face conversations, even if not always across the same table. The introduction of our new computer database during the reporting year means that we can track case progress more effectively, allowing greater managerial control of our casework. We audit the way in which we deal with individual complaints and are keen to learn from any failures to meet required standards.

A further development was the appointment of Elizabeth Derrington as Deputy ICR for Land Registry. She is an experienced complaints reviewer and holds other public appointments, including that of Independent Complaints Adjudicator for Ofsted.

This year we have reviewed all of our public communication and have instituted changes to make it more accessible and informative. Our revised leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution has been distributed to all Land Registry offices and our website has been updated so that, as far as possible, people can find on-line answers to any question they may have about the ICR service, what we do and how we do it. Our publication scheme is available on the ICR website. It includes details of how to access the policies that govern our work. We have signed up to responsibilities under Freedom of Information legislation in line with other public bodies, although not specifically required to do so.

We are not complacent about our service, and continue to regularly review and improve our administrative arrangements. However, the key principles which have guided the approach to our work from the outset, remain unchanged.

ICR service principles

As ICR, I have associate corporate membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA). I adhere to BIOA values of independence of judgment, fairness and impartiality, effectiveness and accountability. These are reflected in the recently published British and Irish Ombudsman's Guide to the Principles of Good Complaint Handling to which this office is fully committed. These Principles underpin our service. They are:

Clarity of purpose. A clear statement of the scheme's role, intent and scope.

Accessibility. A service that is free, open and available to all who need it.

Flexibility. Procedures, which are responsive to the needs of individuals.

Openness and transparency. Public information, which demystifies our service.

Proportionality. Process and resolution that is appropriate to the complaint.

Efficiency. A service that strives to meet challenging standards of good administration.

Quality outcomes. Complaint resolution leading to positive change.

BIOA members share information about improvements to our own service and look for opportunities to learn from the experience and expertise of our colleagues in other ombudsman and independent complaint handling bodies. In this way, we aim to provide a first rate service for complainants, as well as worthwhile outcomes for them and for the organisations complained about. You can find out more about BIOA and its members by visiting: www.bioa.org.uk

Additionally, we apply The Principles of Good Administration articulated in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's recent publication, both to our own process and to our consideration of complaints about Land Registry. They are:

These challenging standards mean that complainants and Land Registry can expect the ICR office to deal with all referrals in a professional manner. Our procedures and performance are subject to strict quality control.

Back to Contents

---

The ICR Service

Clarity of purpose

My aim is to achieve a just and proportionate settlement of complaints, bringing closure for the complainant and for Land Registry. In doing so, I hope to make a positive difference for Land Registry's customers now and in the future.

I have authority to consider and adjudicate upon complaints about a failure in Land Registry's standards of service or unfair treatment, for example:

I am unable to consider:

My decisions are not legally enforceable, but Land Registry is committed to accepting my decisions and implementing my recommendations.

Dealing with complaints

Our leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution explains more about the service, and includes a complaint referral form. It is available from Land Registry offices or from our website www.icrev.org.uk. An application form is provided within the leaflet to help people refer their complaint and this form can also be completed and submitted online. The leaflet is available in Welsh and in a number of other languages and formats on request. Complaints can also be referred by telephone, fax and e-mail.

We try to assist Land Registry customers who have not yet asked the Agency to consider their complaint, by explaining how to do this or by referring their case to the appropriate office. We can also give helpful explanations about what has happened to upset them, about their rights, or about routes to possible redress. Sometimes we can provide immediate information or advice which will help to resolve matters.

If someone is dissatisfied with Land Registry's final response, they can refer their complaint to me. Complaints initially referred by an MP to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, may also be referred to me, as the Ombudsman will usually expect my office to be given a chance to settle complaints. This new approach on the part of the Ombudsman's Office has resulted in the referral of several complaints in the last year.

Once we have ascertained that a review can go ahead, initially we try to resolve complaints by agreement, by exploring whether the outcome sought by complainants is one that Land Registry is willing or able to provide. It is important to identify at this early stage whether we can achieve a helpful settlement for them, in light of their aspirations, in order to ensure that people do not expect more from an ICR review than can be delivered.

In cases where resolution is not possible or appropriate, the summary of complaint issues we agree with the complainant sets the framework for our investigation. A copy of the summary is sent to Land Registry, so that it can offer a response to the issues raised. Receipt of the summary also triggers the dispatch of all relevant case files.

We examine all of the evidence received from Land Registry and the complainant and can make further enquiries where necessary, such as interviewing complainants or Land Registry staff. We keep complainants informed about progress and issue a written report once all the evidence has been fully considered.

My report sets out the background to the complaint and gives reasons for my findings. If a complaint is upheld, my report may recommend:

Because we monitor the implementation of each recommendation, complainants can be assured that they will not be allowed to slip into the background. However, once recommendations have been implemented, my role comes to an end and I am unable to take an ongoing interest in a complainant's case or personal situation.

If complainants are dissatisfied with the outcome of my investigation, they may ask their MP to refer the matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

ICR Service Standards

Speed of service

We set challenging speed of service targets. We audit our performance and try to learn from any failures to meet deadlines. The time taken to settle complaints varies considerably depending upon the extent of our action, the complexity of the issues and the amount of evidence to be considered. Although delay can add further inconvenience and stress for a complainant, our experience is that a thorough approach is of paramount concern to most people.

Our systems and procedures are designed to achieve the efficient and effective handling of all enquiries and complaints. Administrative arrangements are practical, flexible and open to scrutiny. Induction and continuous training enable ICR team members to carry out a thorough investigation and maintain positive relations whilst our review is in progress and people are waiting anxiously for its outcome.

Confidentiality

The subject matter of many complaints touches upon personal and sensitive issues. We want people to feel confident about being frank and open with us whether making or responding to a complaint referral. We always explain how we will deal with information to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. As far as possible, we respect a complainant's wishes and protect personal information that is sensitive in nature relating to their financial situation, their health or other personal facts that are not directly related to their complaint.

Our leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution explains that we will share the name of the complainant with Land Registry when we receive their referral. In order to deal with a complaint effectively, we also need to exchange information about the complaint with Land Registry in order to find out important facts about it.

We are able to see all of the relevant information, including Land Registry files and other data. Although we have the right of access to this information for the purposes of our investigation, we have no authority to release it to the complainant or any other third party. Any requests for data or information must be made direct to Land Registry. If such a request is made and we are examining relevant material, we return it immediately to allow Land Registry to deal with the request. The evidence is returned to us as soon as possible so that our review can proceed.

We always respect the privacy of the complainant and do not publish information about them or their case. We do not discuss individual cases with the media or any other third party, although we may refer to the kind of issues it brings to light, in order to encourage better understanding of the causes of complaints and how they can be avoided.

Quality control

We welcome suggestions and comments, whether positive or negative, and encourage this feedback by sending every complainant a quality questionnaire once the report has been issued. As one would expect, opinions are generally divided on whether my review has improved matters for complainants. Where I uphold a complaint, people are often very generous in their response:

However, where I do not uphold part or all of a complaint, it is not uncommon for people to challenge my decision. This is entirely understandable and I respond to every contact of this kind, to try and set people's minds at rest about the reasons for my decisions.

We also canvass a cross section of Land Registry staff to find out what they think about our service. This year 131 questionnaires were returned by Land Registry staff. From this, we learned that over 80% of respondents knew about the ICR office and understood my role. Officers who had contact with my office all described our service as satisfactory, with 43% describing it as excellent. On the other hand, some Land Registry officers believe that my reviews tend to favour complainants and assume that Land Registry is in the wrong. This is rather surprising given the small percentage of complaints that I uphold. However, I do not shirk from criticising poor customer service where I think it appropriate to do so, or from recommending redress.

Internal complaints

Complaints can make a valuable contribution to our understanding of what people want from our service and how we can improve it. Sometimes this can be by taking greater care to manage their expectations about what we can achieve on their behalf.

Service complaints are rare, and usually reflect people's dissatisfaction with the outcome of my review. Although we are generally able to satisfy people's questions or concerns, we ensure that everyone is aware of their right to ask an MP to refer their complaint on to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman should they wish to do so. Each complainant receives a written acknowledgement and explanation of our internal procedure within 24 hours, and a full response within 5 days.

During the reporting year, across our work for all 7 public bodies, we received only four complaints about our service. Only one of these was from a Land Registry customer. This was about our procedure of issuing a draft complaint report to Land Registry for comment, but not affording the customer a similar opportunity. This accorded with our procedure at that time, and ensured that Land Registry was aware of any recommendations to be made. However, I have now agreed greater flexibility of procedure with the Agency, and will send draft reports to complainants for comment where appropriate. This is in line with the approach taken by most ombudsman schemes.

Referrals to PHSO

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) is the final step that people can take to have their complaints investigated. Before accepting a complaint for investigation, the PHSO expects a complainant to have exhausted internal and dedicated independent complaints procedures. If a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman before this step has been taken, with the agreement of the complainant the case is forwarded to this office for consideration. This resulted in 5 referrals in the reporting year.

Complainants can also ask an MP to refer their complaint to the PHSO if they are unhappy with my report. This year, the PHSO responded to one complaint referral from a Land Registry complainant. The PHSO did not uphold the complaint and found no cause to criticise the ICR investigation. Further details on this case can be found in the ICR's casebook section (see Case 6 - Title plan accuracy).

Making a difference

In addition to raising systemic issues arising from individual cases, I also look to encourage general good administrative practice. I have regular contact with Land Registry at management and Board levels, including meetings with the Chief Land Registrar and Chief Executive, Peter Collis. These are opportunities to discuss matters of mutual interest; to smooth out problem areas in the provision of our mutual service to complainants; and to raise systemic concerns.

From time to time, I am asked to comment on new procedures, staff guidance or public information, from an independent perspective and based on my experience of complaints about Land Registry.

Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team

All ICR reports are referred to the Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team (or ICREST) for consideration. ICREST was set up in early 2001 and is chaired by Land Registry's Head of Legal Services. It includes members from different local offices who represent customer service interests. The purpose of the Team is to ensure that Land Registry reviews its practices, processes and service delivery in the light of feedback received from the ICR's Office. ICREST has authority to take forward systemic recommendations. Information about meetings and outcomes is posted for staff on the internal intranet.

ICR financial information

The ICR office is managerially independent of Land Registry in terms of process. However Land Registry provides funding for the office, obtaining contributions to administrative costs from other organisations for which I am the ICR.

Land Registry is committed to providing sufficient resources to support the provision of a timely and efficient service. I am accountable for providing value for money.

The following table shows our expenditure for 2006/7. Despite taking on the role of ICR for other public bodies, in recent years expenditure has risen at a slow rate, other than accommodation cost increases. This demonstrates sound financial planning and control.

Contribution to running costs from other organisations: 26,229

Back to Contents

---

Casework

Land Registry handles millions of customer contacts every year. Against this background the number of recorded complaints is low. During the reporting year Land Registry recorded 2,589 complaints, a small increase on 2,483 recorded in the previous year. 126 complaints were later referred to the final stage of the internal procedure, the Agency Case Review Team, compared with 132 in the previous year. This is an indication of the continuing success of the Registry's local complaint handling.

Land Registry also recorded 2,285 compliments compared to 2,746 last year, a fall of 16%. Recording compliments allows Land Registry staff to recognise that the work they do is appreciated.

Land Registry's customer service division is currently undertaking a review into how the Registry records compliments and complaints, to provide confidence that management information is accurate.

Complaint referrals and reviews

In 2006-07 the ICR office received 62 referrals, compared with 37 in 2005-06. For the first time in a number of years, this represents a significant increase in our caseload.

In 2006-2007 we conducted 24 substantive investigations, a substantial increase on the 16 reviews completed in the previous year. We have also seen a rise in the number of separate allegations raised. These were often complex and required considerable time and effort to get to the root of problems. Nevertheless, we managed to resolve 12 separate allegations of maladministration by agreement.

Resolution is a 'friendly' outcome for all concerned, in which there are no winners or losers. It can be achieved more quickly than full adjudication, and can help to restore the relationship between Land Registry and its customer. The resolutions we achieved were based on the agreed award of consolatory payments, but this is not always the basis of the agreement. We continue to have increasing success settling complaints in this way.

Outcomes

Although I do not uphold the majority of investigated complaints, we are still able to offer a service that is valued by most complainants.

What we found

Complaints by category

As in previous years, the largest number of complaints concerned allegations of failures in practice and procedure, however few of these were upheld. We investigated four separate allegation concerning discourtesy, none of which were upheld. The reduction in complaints about communication is welcome evidence of the improvements in this crucial area. Complaints about errors and mistakes made up less that 5% of the overall total, a decrease on the 8% recorded in 2005-06.

During the year we also handled 32 complaints where a review was not carried out. These ranged from customers that came to us too early, because they had not yet received the Registry's final response, to customers that came too late, well over six months from receipt of this response.

This year as last, some people contacted us to complain about the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry - as opposed to Land Registry itself - and we advised them how to take matters forward. The office of the Adjudicator is a Ministry of Justice Tribunal which determines issues related to boundary and other disputes concerning land. Initially the potential referral rate to the Adjudicator was underestimated and it has taken time to settle the establishment required to deal with cases. Resulting delays have undoubtedly added to the dissatisfaction some people feel about Land Registry's own actions. This can result in an escalation of complaints about Land Registry that could be diverted by speedy Adjudicator decision.

We also responded to a further 67 contacts where we offered advice and guidance on how to take matters forward outside of Land Registry.

Back to Contents

---

The ICR's casebook

The ICR's casebook

Since the inception of the ICR service, complaints referred to me have represented the range of problems dealt with by Land Registry's experienced technical and legal staff. Often people approach Land Registry for help to sort out problems that they have become aware of with their own registered title, or that of their neighbours. In some cases, people are hoping Land Registry will register property or interests in their favour, or not to accede to applications from others.

In my experience, people rarely understand the complex legal parameters within which Land Registry works, and their expectation of the response they will receive is unrealistic. When people are disappointed with the outcome of contact with Land Registry, this is a situation ripe for complaints. Whether justified or not, such complaints represent opportunities for Land Registry to learn more about how its service is perceived by customers and what more can be done to meet their needs.

Complaints referred to me have already been considered within Land Registry's robust internal complaints procedure and, inevitably, they are difficult to resolve and raise complicated legal and procedural issues.

Disputes over property ownership and rights are widely recognised as being particularly difficult to resolve. Land Registry can often find that it is embroiled in arguments about its registration action or decisions, many of which are reflected on the ground in bitter conflict between neighbours. In these situations, it is particularly important to ensure public confidence in the accountability of the Agency, and its willingness to open its process to independent scrutiny. Land Registry recognised that this is achieved by giving people who are dissatisfied with its response to their complaints, the chance to turn to someone independent of Land Registry management, who can impartially investigate and adjudicate upon them.

The following case notes are anonymised summaries of a selection of complaints that were reviewed in 2006-2007.

Registering a right of way

Registration of property in this country is not only a simple matter of noting on the register the names of owners, tenants and lenders. Commonly it involves recording the detail of neighbour (or other party) rights and responsibilities over property, which have been created over time by the deeds that passed legal title from one owner to another. These legal documents are often complex to understand, particularly for the layman. To start with they may contain concepts steeped in legal history like easements or restrictive covenants and, whether registered or not, many of these rights and responsibilities affect the use and enjoyment of the land.

Complaints about the interpretation of deeds in relation to these issues are not uncommon. In the following case, a right of way over a passageway granted to several households was not recorded on the registered title of the owner of that land. This caused arguments between the neighbours and resulted in a complaint to Land Registry.

Case 1:

Mr A is the registered owner of a property first registered in 1933. The property included a passageway, which led to the rear of several adjoining properties. Each of these properties had a right of way over the passageway, however, no entry appeared in Mr A's registered title relating to this.

Mr A complained that Land Registry had been inconsistent in the way it dealt with the right of way, because it had noted the benefit of it on the adjoining titles, but neglected to enter the burden of the right on his. He said that this meant he was not aware of the right of way at the time of his purchase, and this resulted in a costly dispute with his neighbours.

Land Registry responded to his representations by explaining that the right of way was an overriding interest and, accordingly, Mr A's property was subject to it regardless of whether it was noted on the register. Land Registry argued that it had acted properly, even though the right was not noted on his register, because this action was discretionary at that time.

The ICR recognised the difficulties that had arisen because Mr A was not aware of the right of way. She commented on the importance of placing such entries on the register to avoid confusion or misunderstanding. However, the ICR did not agree that Land Registry had not provided an adequate explanation for the omission of the right of way. Although the reply from the Land Registry lawyer was technical in nature and difficult to understand, she was satisfied that it addressed Mr A's points of complaint. The complaint was not upheld.

This complaint demonstrates that the register is not always a complete record of all interests that affect a property. In the past this did not materially affect such interests, however, this is no longer the case. In order to facilitate the completion of the register of land and relevant interests, the Land Registration Act 2002 limited the scope of some interests and entirely removed the status of others, setting a ten-year registration deadline. This means that rights that may have been enjoyed for many years, or through generations of unregistered family ownership, may be lost if not brought onto the register.

It will require a concerted effort on the part of Government, Land Registry, conveyancing practitioners and their representative bodies to inform people about this, so that they are alerted to protect their rights through registration. The clock is ticking and people will have justifiable cause for complaint if the deadline is reached without sufficient public notice.

Demonstrating impartiality

Land Registry often becomes involved in situations where boundary or ownership disputes have arisen between neighbours. Land Registry has limited legal authority to settle such matters administratively, without agreement between the neighbours on a proposed course of action. However, it does have a significant role in trying to help people reach an agreement, noting the arguments raised on either side and perhaps providing an informal view on their merits. This facilitative role requires Land Registry not only to be impartial as between the disputing parties, but to be seen to be impartial.

The following case shows how complaints can arise when people feel that those on the 'other side' have been given preferential treatment.

Case 2:

Mr and Mrs B are the owners of property registered in 1993. In 2002, they bought a part of the garden of an adjoining property. Adjoining land was acquired and registered by a property developer in early 2005 and Land Registry approved the estate boundary for the title a few months later.

Mr and Mrs B contacted Land Registry and asserted that their property was not correctly shown on their title plan. Following a meeting with Land Registry, the Registry ordered a survey. Land Registry surveys are conducted in order to establish the position or nature of features on the ground, with a view to updating mapping detail and establishing occupation. This survey identified that the Ordnance Survey (OS) plan was incorrect. The OS plan was duly amended and Mr and Mrs B applied to alter their title to accord with the corrected plan. In accordance with procedure, notice was served on the developer who objected to rectification. Lengthy and acrimonious correspondence ensued and the titles were eventually rectified.

Mr and Mrs B complained that Land Registry had not followed its correct procedures when approving the boundaries of the developer's property, and that this resulted in a loss of land from their title. The ICR was satisfied that Land Registry had followed usual practice, and that Mr and Mrs B's title was not affected by the approval of the estate boundary. Land Registry had explained the effect of the General Boundaries Rule, which meant that the precise legal boundary could not be determined. The ICR found that the Registry properly explained the options available to Mr and Mrs B to pursue the dispute over the boundary position. The ICR did not uphold this complaint.

Mr and Mrs B also complained that Land Registry issued its survey result to the developer, but did not send it to them, and asserted that this gave an unfair advantage to the developer and denied them the opportunity to challenge it. The ICR noted that the Registry's internal guidance points out that where a survey or inspection is carried out in a dispute situation, the case officer should send a free copy of the result to all the parties involved. The ICR was particularly critical that this did not happen in this case, given that the survey was commissioned as a direct result of Mr and Mrs B's meeting with Land Registry. The ICR found that this fell below the standard of service required. Noting that an apology had already been given, the ICR recommended that Land Registry make a consolatory payment of £100 to Mr and Mrs B, in recognition of the anxiety and distress caused by its maladministration. This complaint was upheld.

This case shows how important it is to ensure that Land Registry gives similar advice, information and access to documentation to those on both sides of a dispute. Ultimately, it cannot assist resolution if people feel disadvantaged by the Registry's process. It is important for Land Registry to recognise that people may be at a disadvantage when in dispute with commercial or public bodies, and the tone and content of its communication must bear this in mind.

Friendly settlement

When people first approach this office, they are looking for help to resolve a problem that has to date proven to be intractable from their perspective. The best and most satisfactory way of helping them is to find a way of settling their complaint by agreement between them and Land Registry. This is not an easy task and to a large extent, it does depend on the flexibility and customer service approach of the senior officers concerned.

Case 3:

Mr C complained that Land Registry provided an official search result to purchasers of an adjoining property that contained an error, in that it included land currently in Mr C's title. The purchasers proceeded to completion, relying on the search result. Mr C asserted that Land Registry's mistake encouraged the purchasers to make an adverse possession application. He complained about Land Registry's delay in dealing with matters and that it failed to offer adequate redress for its poor service.

Land Registry accepted that there was an error in the official search result. As a consequence, the neighbours' purchase included a piece of land within Mr C's registered title. Following a meeting with Land Registry, the purchasers submitted an application for adverse possession of the land in question. In recognition of its error, Land Registry offered to indemnify the neighbours for the costs of acquiring the land in question from Mr C, on the basis of the advice of the District Valuer. However, Mr C did not agree the offer, as it did not reflect the opinion of an expert jointly instructed by him and his neighbour. The Registry reconsidered the matter and revised its indemnity offer.

Following the intervention of the ICR, Land Registry accepted that it had not approached the District Valuer on the right footing. This had the result of delaying matters and causing further unnecessary distress and anxiety. Resolution of Mr C's complaint was achieved by securing Land Registry's agreement to issue an apology for its poor service and the anxiety Mr C had faced, underpinned with a consolatory payment of £2,000. The complaint was resolved.

This complaint shows how far a positive response by Land Registry can go to resolve matters to everyone's satisfaction. Importantly, it rebuilds the confidence in Land Registry on the part of its customer, which was lost within the earlier complaint process and enables a relationship to move forward on a secure footing.

Complaint recognition

Not all complaint communication with Land Registry is received by telephone. Written correspondence has always been, and remains, a significant means of contact with the Registry and, increasingly, people use more modern methods of contact such as e-mail or web access. The following case shows that it is necessary to employ similar sensitivity to information or enquiries being made by e-mail, as when communicating by telephone or letter.

Case 4:

Mr D is the sole registered owner of a registered property and adjoining land. His adjoining land was subject to an Agreement relating to its development, in favour of the local Council. Mr D applied to have reference to the Agreement removed from the title, as the period allowed for its implementation had long expired. Mr D was unhappy with the way the Registry dealt with his concerns and for its delay in correcting the titles.

Mr D complained that he had initially brought his complaint to Land Registry's attention via an e-mail to its internet enquiries line. The ICR explained that the Registry's internet enquiry line was for general enquiries only, and could only deal with enquiries of a general nature that were not related to specific problems or concerns about particular registration applications or titles. However, the ICR considered that all Land Registry staff have a role in recording the receipt of complaints and in taking appropriate action to ensure that they are dealt with. The ICR found it regrettable that Mr D's complaint was not recognised as such when general enquiries staff dealt with it.

The ICR recommended that Land Registry issue a reminder to enquiries staff to clarify the action to take when a complaint is received, so that similar problems do not recur. She also recommended that Land Registry consider noting on the enquiries form that it is to be used for general enquiries only, signposting customers with specific enquiries or complaints to contact the appropriate local office. Although the ICR found that this complaint was justified, she was satisfied that the apology Mr D had received was a reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances.

In relation to the way it handled the Agreement, the ICR found that Land Registry had acted in accordance with its Rules. Following Mr D's representations that the Agreement had never come into force, the Registry exercised its discretion to serve notice on the Council without further ado. The ICR did not consider that the Registry had been unhelpful or obstructive, and was satisfied that it had taken a reasonable approach to try to resolve matters to Mr D's eventual satisfaction. However, the ICR found that there had been instances of unreasonable delay and recommended that an apology be given. The complaint was partially upheld.

It is annoying and frustrating to make a complaint about an organisation and feel that it has been ignored. The systemic recommendation in this case recognised that all Land Registry staff have a role to play in customer service and particularly in recording the receipt of complaints and moving them forward. Even if they cannot deal with a concern themselves, they must understand their own role in passing a complaint on to someone who can provide a response, and there should be clarity about the process for doing so.

When is an overlap not an overlap?

Many areas of Land Registry's work are legally complex. Some practice guidance is conceptually so esoteric that it is extremely difficult for most of us to get to grips with, and the average person cannot be expected to comprehend such matters without a great deal of explanation. This is particularly true in the case of the rules and practice relating to the depiction of property boundaries on the register.

It is a common misconception that the register holds specific and precise details of the extent of a title, and most properties in this country are registered without defined boundaries. Rather registration is carried out on the basis of what is known as the General Boundaries Rule, which indicates the position of the boundaries within relevant tolerances. Land Registry plans are drawn from Ordnance Survey (OS) maps which are, of course, subject to change over time. Land Registry does not change registered titles each time this occurs, and it could not reasonably be expected to do so. However, this can potentially result in a seemingly anomalous situation where boundaries depicted on the plans of neighbouring titles overlap.

The following case shows the difficulties that can arise as a result of such a situation, even though neighbours are fully aware of the position of their mutual boundary on the ground.

Case 5:

Mr E purchased an unregistered property in 1977. His neighbour's property was registered in 1988. Following the loss of his neighbour's Charge Certificate, an application was made to replace the lost Certificate. A new title plan was prepared for the neighbour's property using the latest OS map. In November 2004, Mr E advised Land Registry that there was a dispute between him and his neighbours over their mutual boundary. At the same time, Mr E applied for the voluntary first registration of his property to try to bring certainty to the situation.

Land Registry arranged for the Ordnance Survey to conduct an on-site survey. The surveyor concluded that the correct position of the boundary accorded with that contained in Mr E's deed plans. The OS map was corrected to reflect this. Mr E's first registration application was then completed based on the 'corrected' OS detail. However, Mr E's neighbour's title plan was not changed. Land Registry explained to Mr E that, although this caused an apparent overlap if the two title plans were compared, since there was no real overlap between the titles in legal terms, there was no need to change his neighbour's title to accord with the new OS detail.

Mr E complained that Land Registry had failed to properly use the latest OS map in registering his property. The ICR noted that Land Registry was instrumental in having the OS map updated by arranging for the survey, and accepted that Land Registry had based registration on the latest OS map. She did not uphold the complaint. However, the ICR addressed the question of whether Land Registry might have considered whether steps might be taken to secure the alteration of Mr E's neighbour's title plan to dovetail with his, given this was the underlying purpose of his application.

The ICR noted that Land Registry was aware that there appeared to be an area included within the extent of both titles and had to consider the legal effect of this in registration terms. This is significant, as Land Registry distinguishes between what is described as a real overlap and an apparent overlap. Where it will bring about a 'real' overlap, Land Registry cannot proceed to register the same overlapping area of land twice. However, in this case, Land Registry decided that it could register his title with an 'apparent' overlap. The ICR could not comment upon the legal position, however, she noted that this approach could not settle the dispute as Mr E had hoped.

The ICR commented that Land Registry should consider the potential to settle a dispute between neighbours before carrying out first registration in a way that will be unwelcome to the applicant, and cause inevitable complaint. In this case, Mr E had not required a determined boundary but was forced down this route following registration. The ICR considered it unfortunate that Land Registry did not seek to assist Mr E and his neighbour to address the dispute prior to registration. She recommended a consolatory payment of £200.

The findings in this case explored what action Land Registry might take to provide boundary clarity in the registration of neighbouring properties. In its deliberation on issues raised by this case, noting that the dispute related to the overlap of title plans based on conflicting versions of the OS maps, ICREST considered what action could be taken to resolve such a problem. It was noted that a change can be made to the adjoining title to reflect up to date Ordnance Survey detail, with the consent of that title owner. This would have been a helpful solution in this case had it been considered at the time.

Title plan accuracy

As shown previously, disagreements between property owners and Land Registry relating to the depiction of boundaries on their registered title, can be difficult to resolve. Many result in copious correspondence over many months, and sometimes years. When people are convinced that they are right about how the extent of their land should be depicted on title plans, it is not surprising if they complain about what they see as Land Registry's obstructive or misconceived approach. When they are unhappy about this, it can spill over into complaints about many other aspects of their contact with Land Registry.

Case 6:

Mr F is the registered proprietor of a property registered with Land Registry in 1992. Mr F asserted that an inaccurate 1974 OS map, reflected in his 1992 conveyance and the Registry's title plan, was used as a pretext by his neighbours to seize some of his land. Land Registry conducted a survey, which confirmed that Mr F's neighbours were in occupation of the disputed land. The Registry explained that the position of the boundary fencing accorded with the title plan. Even if the intention of the seller was to convey more land than that, they had not done so and rectification of the conveyance was required to include additional land.

After lengthy correspondence, the matter was directed into court and resolved by way of a Consent Order. However, this raised further problems, as the court attached a plan to the Order based on the 1931 edition of the OS map. Land Registry then had to interpret the intention of the Order to give effect to it.

Mr F complained that Land Registry failed to take account of the evidence in the Deeds provided on first registration, or the OS map used to prepare the title plan. The ICR found that Land Registry had thoroughly examined all of the evidence and had gone to considerable lengths to consider Mr F's arguments. The ICR had no authority to say whether the Registry was correct in its views on the legal position, but she was satisfied that it had demonstrated a serious approach to the concerns Mr F had raised, basing its views on the evidence.

Mr F also complained that Land Registry had failed to apply the General Boundaries Rule appropriately to increase the extent of land that had been conveyed by the 1992 conveyance. The ICR noted that this Rule could not be used to correct problems in the original conveyed extent and found that Land Registry had acted appropriately.

Mr F also complained that Land Registry had failed to carry out a proper survey and had contrived to ensure he was not present when it took place. The ICR did not uphold this complaint, however, she commented that it was unfortunate that Mr F was not present to explain his position on the various features, as this may have helped to shortcut later correspondence.

In total, Mr F raised 23 allegations against Land Registry, including its failure to consider statutory indemnity, bias in favour of his neighbours, and ignoring the Consent Order. The ICR did not uphold any of his complaints.

All complainants are advised of their right to ask an MP to refer their complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, or if they are unhappy about the way we dealt with them. Mr F's complaints against Land Registry and the ICR service were referred to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman conducted a review but did not uphold any of his complaints.

Proportionality

All public bodies have a duty of accountability to the citizens they serve. In general terms, this means that they have to provide an administratively sound service, make accurate decisions, and do both within the context of customer focus. When concerns or complaints are raised there is a responsibility on the part of the public body to respond in an open and helpful manner, trying to address problems in appropriate ways.

However, all public bodies have finite resources and it is necessary to act in a way that is sensible and reasonable in relation to the nature of the problem. In responding to complaints, this means that Land Registry must have a proportionate response that does not perpetuate engagement with a customer beyond the point where it is of value to that individual. Complaints procedures must incorporate mechanisms for recognising when that point is reached and for bringing matters to a courteous close.

The next two cases are examples of when engagement with a customer has been unnecessarily prolonged and, ultimately, caused greater dissatisfaction and discontent than would have been the case if considerations of proportionality had been employed.

Case 7:

Mr G claimed to be the owner of an unregistered property. He corresponded with Land Registry for a number of years raising allegations of criminal activities, fraud and corruption relating to his property. Mr G asserted that a nearby property had been given land included within his title deeds. Land Registry explained that an application for rectification was required, supported by his evidence of ownership. Mr G was reluctant to make a rectification application.

Mr G then wrote to Land Registry's Case Review Team. Further correspondence continued for over two years, and Mr G had a meeting with a Registry lawyer. Over time, Land Registry provided Mr G with several plans showing the extents of the surrounding properties as depicted on the 2004 OS map. Mr G was dissatisfied and asserted that he wanted the information relating to an earlier edition of the OS map. Land Registry refused to provide more plans and explained that it could not provide plans to support an application.

Mr G complained to the ICR that Land Registry broke its agreement to provide him with an appropriate map of his area. The ICR did not uphold the complaint. The ICR accepted that Mr G was unhappy with the registration of his own and surrounding properties, and wanted Land Registry to take administrative action to correct what he saw as errors. Whilst the ICR found that the Registry had endeavoured to be helpful, she commented that continued correspondence could not alter the course of events, but had given Mr G false hope. The ICR found that much of what could be said by Land Registry had been said by the time the Case Review Team became involved. In her view, the Registry should have discontinued its correspondence with Mr G earlier.

Case 8:

Mr H was the sole registered proprietor of a large farm. The conveyance that accompanied the first registration application in 1989 was between him and his mother. A prior legal mortgage, entered into by Mr H and his mother in 1983, was also registered.

In 1998, Mrs H entered into extensive correspondence with Land Registry claiming that there were irregularities in the documentation supplied on first registration. Amongst other issues, she questioned her mother-in-law's capacity to agree to the 1983 mortgage, given she only had a life interest. A Land Registry lawyer duly considered the matter and explained that her mother-in-law was able to be involved in a mortgage, as she held the land as a joint trustee. In 2002, the chargee of the mortgage repossessed the farm and subsequently sold it under its power of sale in 2004. Correspondence ensued between Mrs H and Land Registry's local office and subsequently its London office, which continued until late 2005.

Mrs H complained to the ICR that Land Registry acted improperly on the first registration of the farm by not thoroughly examining the title deeds. The ICR found that during the course of the registration process, Land Registry raised enquiries regarding certain aspects of the application, although these did not relate to the 1989 conveyance. However, the ICR was satisfied that this demonstrated that Land Registry had considered all of the information and documentation supplied. There was no obvious cause for Land Registry to question the honesty of the solicitors involved, or to reject the documentation provided as insufficient for registration purposes. In particular, there was no reason to suspect that the 1989 conveyance was inaccurate or fraudulent.

The ICR considered that the detailed responses given by Land Registry demonstrated a thorough examination of the issues. Although she accepted that Land Registry sought to be helpful in responding to the extensive correspondence and arguments Mrs H raised, she noted that this could not alter the course of events.

The complaint was not upheld.

Land Registry must be robust in explaining how matters can be resolved or taken forward. Prolonged correspondence can result in unreasonably raising a customer's expectations of what can be achieved.

This case led to ICREST noting the ICR's views about the critical importance of proportionality in dealing with customer concerns. This requires new thinking about the way in which Land Registry opens and closes dialogue, and its engagement with its customers in complex and contentious situations.

Boundary in the bathroom?

From time to time complaints referred to the ICR bring attention to neighbour behaviour, which defies commonsense. Land Registry can be caught up in disputes which have astonishing and extremely sad results for some of those involved.

The following case shows that matters can be exacerbated if Land Registry process and communication is not up to speed.

Case 9:

Mr I complained on behalf of his father-in-law Mr J, the freehold owner of a cottage by the coast. His title was registered in 1971. In 1998, a local company made a voluntary application to register a large area of land along the foreshore. The extent line on their application (over 2km along the beach) went through the cottage.

In 2001, Mr J made an adverse possession application to register land to the rear of his property. The land in question was already included in the title of the company. Notice was served on the company, which lodged an objection. The company then issued proceedings against Mr J. The court found in favour of the company and granted an order for possession of the land. This included part of the cottage. Mr J did not appeal against the Order but contacted Land Registry to see if the title could be altered.

Encouraged to do so by Land Registry, Mr I submitted a rectification and indemnity claim following Mr J's eviction from half his cottage. The company's offer to purchase the cottage was refused. Land Registry then advised that Mr J's title was correctly mapped and whilst the evidence produced would generally be enough to justify serving notice on the company, in this case the Registry could not do so because it could not go behind the Court Order.

Mr I complained to the ICR that, despite a written promise to do so, Land Registry delayed informing Mr J's solicitor of a renewed application by the company. (An initial application was cancelled). The ICR found that when the company renewed its application, Land Registry did not contact Mr J or his solicitors, and did not inform him about it until two and a half years later. Whilst the ICR did not consider that earlier correspondence amounted to a 'promise' of notification, she was satisfied that any reasonable recipient of the letter would assume that they would hear from the Registry unprompted if a further application was received. The ICR found that the long delay in informing Mr J of the renewed application was unreasonable and prejudiced his position. The complaint was upheld.

The ICR also upheld Mr I's complaint that Land Registry had acted inappropriately in completing registration to the company to a line that included part of the cottage. The ICR found that Land Registry had at least twice been put on notice about the dispute over the land and this information should have persuaded the Registry to proceed with extreme caution, and was good reason not to complete the company's application prior to settlement of the dispute. The ICR found no evidence that Land Registry had considered other options when it wrote to Mr I advising him that the company's application would be completed. The ICR found that this did not accord with the Registry's guidance and she was critical of this failure.

Mr I also complained that after Mr J was evicted, Land Registry expressed surprise and regret and actively encouraged him to seek rectification and indemnity. A great deal of effort then went into gathering and providing comprehensive evidence to prove title, only for Land Registry to decide that it could not proceed because of the court ruling. This decision took six months. The ICR found that Land Registry failed to recognise that it had given the wrong advice, and that the application should not have been entertained. Mr I and Mr J had been put to unnecessary trouble and faced anxiety and distress waiting for the decision on their application. The complaint was upheld.

Although the ICR welcomed the Registry's apology and offer of a consolatory payment of £300 in recognition of its maladministration, she found that this had not fully taken into account the distress and anxiety caused to Mr J during the months spent gathering evidence and waiting for the application to be dealt with. Moreover, she noted that the fact that Mr I was led to believe that there was another way of sorting matters out, may well have influenced his response to the offer made by the company at that time. The complaint was partially upheld. The ICR recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £2000.

During her investigation, the ICR noted that there had been several instances where Land Registry had not been able to provide sufficient evidence to enable a full examination of the exact sequence of events. She recommended that Land Registry review its filing procedure where files are requested for complaints and issue instructions to ensure that files are rebooked whenever they are moved to a new location.

The purpose of serving notice

Land Registry serves notice of applications on interested parties, in a variety of situations. Some are enshrined in legislation, and others are considered to be part and parcel of delivering good customer service. Essentially, notice is about letting people know about potential changes to titles that may affect them or in which they may have a particular interest. Often, notices give people an opportunity to object to the application or to put their views to Land Registry. Clearly, serving notice is far more than a bureaucratic process, it is an essential part of fulfilling openness and accountability obligations on the part of the Registry and, potentially, raises human rights considerations.

It is always a matter of concern when cases come to our attention, in which a bureaucratic approach has been adopted, without any apparent thought being given to the purpose of serving notice and how this can best be achieved.

Case 10:

Mr K is the registered proprietor of a registered title. However, Mr K had not lived at the property since 2001. In June 2003, Land Registry received an application to note a charging order, arising from civil litigation against Mr K's property. Notice was served on Mr K by recorded delivery to the property, giving him an opportunity to object to the application. This notice was returned, as the attempted delivery had been unsuccessful. A further notice was then sent by ordinary post. In the meantime, the lodging solicitors had withdrawn their application for a charging order, as they could not produce the Land Certificate, and decided to protect the interest by way of a caution instead. Land Registry then served another notice on Mr K relating to the caution application, again at the same property address.

Mr K complained that Land Registry failed in its duty of care to serve notice of a caution to his current address, noting that Land Registry was aware of his new address from the documentation submitted with the charging order application. Land Registry's local office had apologised for not serving notice on the address revealed on the charging order. However, in reviewing Mr J's complaint, the Case Review Team lawyer disagreed with the local office and stated that correct practice had been followed.

Although the ICR was satisfied that Land Registry followed its usual procedure in serving the notices, she did not think that it had acted in a manner consistent with the interests of customer service by ignoring the fact that a different address was provided on the court documentation. However, she noted that Land Registry had apologised and offered a consolatory payment of £200, which she considered to be reasonable redress in the circumstances. She noted that failure to act in a way that meets the highest standards of customer service does not necessarily prove maladministration, particularly where no statutory duty exists to act in a certain way and guidance is itself unclear.

The ICR found that Land Registry had confused matters by serving notice on Mr K of the charging order application, prior to receiving the Land Certificate necessary to complete the application. In the event, this application was withdrawn.

The ICR recommended that Land Registry review its current guidance relating to serving notice. This should include consideration of what information should be considered when serving notice, or when a recorded delivery notice is returned. Although the complaint was not upheld the ICR recommended a consolatory payment of £300

This case had far reaching implications for Land Registry in terms of ensuring that the principles of customer service extend to all of its practice and procedures. Often this requires a greater degree of care and attention to customer interests and a more determined effort to meet people's needs.

The serving of notice is a precaution against wrongful registration. It is intended to give the recipient an opportunity to respond to an application put before the Registry. However, as things stand, the notice does not detail the grounds of the application and people have no clue what arguments they need to counter, or of the strength of the case. To some extent, this encourages objections simply to meet the deadline, regardless of whether people will wish to object once they understand the position more fully. In my view, it would be helpful if notices not only included a time limit for response, but were accompanied by limited information about the grounds for the application.

Other complaints referred to me in the reporting year covered much of the Registry's more complex casework, such as its handling of applications based on adverse possession and disagreements over the extent of land registered, with complainants providing mathematical calculations to support their allegations about the inaccuracy of registered plans. Other referrals are about more straightforward issues, such as delay.

In one complaint about excessive delay, I noted numerous occasions when Land Registry had not responded in accordance with its published standards or in a reasonably timely manner. However, this had been acknowledged several times prior to referral to me. I accepted that to deal with the concerns raised, opinions had to be sought from senior plans officers and others and all of this takes time. One can expect some delay in these circumstances, and I do not criticise this unless delays experienced become excessive. In my view, whenever a delay can be expected, Land Registry should take steps to keep its customer informed of its progress. Where there is excessive delay, Land Registry should consider backing its apology with a consolatory payment.

Back to Contents

---

Looking back to the future

Looking back - 10 years of ICR recommendations

This principle remains at the heart of the way I approach my role as ICR. Complaint review can shine a light on areas of practice and procedure where little thought is given to whether change is required or would be helpful to Land Registry customers. Often it needs somebody to ask the awkward question "why?" to generate a new approach to meeting people's needs. Once these issues are drawn to the attention of Land Registry, it can take action to tackle problems that it may not have been aware of previously. My role is not to prescribe the solution to such problems, rather Land Registry is expected to indicate what steps will be taken to improve its service.

Land Registry has welcomed this challenge by accepting all systemic recommendations I have made in reports on individual complaints and past annual reports. Since the establishment of ICREST, Land Registry has taken a more strategic approach to its consideration of my recommendations, recognising in some instances how a change in one area can inform best practice in others.

Since ICREST commenced monitoring the response to my reports, I have made 79 systemic recommendations. These covered a wide area of the Registry's customer contact, from the way it communicates with people to the way it carries out its registration activities. In addition to my formal recommendations, I am able to comment on whether or not the service given to a complainant met the highest customer service standards, even where it conformed with usual procedure. Pleasingly, ICREST also identified 72 additional learning points from comments made in my reports.

There follows a snapshot of some of the systemic recommendations that have made a positive difference to Land Registry's service to its customers

Recommendation 1 - Early on I identified that customer service had to be at the heart of the Registry's stated intention to deliver a service that met the highest standards. I noted that the role of Customer Service Manager was often an add-on to people's main casework activities, and took a poor second place. I recommended that Customer Service Managers should receive appropriate recognition in terms of grade and activities and that this should be consistent across Land Registry.

Outcome - Land Registry upgraded the role of Customer Service Manager and incorporated the role into the management structure of each local office, so that customer service issues were taken into account in decision-making. The emphasis on customer service has engendered a marked difference in organisational culture, as these key ambassadors for Land Registry have facilitated relationship building between the Agency and its customers.

Recommendation 2 - In 2001, I identified that many Land Registry customers were unaware of the significance of the General Boundaries Rule, which governs the usual approach to registration. As a consequence, people wrongly believed that Land Registry's assertion that it offered certainty of ownership, meant a guarantee of the position of their boundary, rather than identification of this within mapping tolerances. I recommended that Land Registry take steps to ensure that customers understood that boundaries shown on plans were subject to the Rule.

Outcome - Initially, an article was circulated to the legal press on the subject and in 2002 it was posted on the Registered Institute of Chartered Surveyor's website. Land Registry then prepared the following note to add to all office copy title plans - "This title plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries. It may be subject to distortion in scale. Measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground". This note appeared on all paper, raster and vector office copy plans from early 2003. In June 2003, Land Registry also issued Practice Guide 40, which incorporated information on the General Boundaries Rule.

Another learning point taken from my recommendation was the need to produce a desk aid for all Land Registry staff giving advice on how to deal with complaints and difficult customers.

Recommendation 3 - In 2001, I dealt with a complaint about the Registry's approach and practice in relation to serving notice on neighbouring properties when presented with an application for adverse possession (the possession of land, without legal title, for a period of time sufficient to become recognised as legal owner). I pointed out that people may feel that they have a stake in what happens to the ownership, even if they cannot claim title themselves.

Outcome - Land Registry amended its practice material in order to consider the need to give notice of an application for adverse possession to neighbours, even though they may have no claim themselves. In response to later recommendations on this issue, Land Registry considered the scope for further practice amendments.

Recommendation 4 - In January 2005, I made a further recommendation that Land Registry should remind its staff of the importance of dealing with neighbouring property owners in an equitable manner in relation to the service of notice. Based on the facts of an investigated complaint, I noted that the fact a property is unoccupied does not render the service of notice unnecessary or irrelevant.

Outcome - Land Registry agreed to review its guidance to ensure that it covered such situations and the importance of serving notices was also added to the Registry's lawyer's CPD training sessions.

Recommendation 5 - Based on a complaint review relating to the status of an individual entitled to apply for a change in the Register, or raising an objection to an application made to the registrar, I recommended a review of the practice direction and staff guidance to cover the legal position and the approach to advising an enquirer. I have also raised the point that customers may not comprehend the meaning of 'standing' and object to Land Registry's use of this term in explaining why their views will not be taken into account.

Outcome - Land Registry amended practice material and ensured that all staff dealing with correspondence are aware of the need to establish the 'standing' of an enquirer before giving advice regarding the process of changing the Register.

Recently, Land Registry has confirmed a change in understanding of the legal position. Previously, this was that an applicant for alteration of the register, or an objector to such an application, had to assert a better claim or interest in the land or charge in question. Without this, Land Registry viewed an application as defective and an objection as groundless. Land Registry has reviewed this position, and issued new guidance. Now, although such an applicant or objector will have to satisfy the statutory requirements, they do not have to claim an interest in the land concerned. Rather an application will need to be supported by evidence to justify the alteration, and an objection will not be groundless because the objector cannot claim an interest in the land to which the application relates.

Recommendation 6 - Arising from a review involving a dispute between neighbours, I recommended that Land Registry should be aware of the importance of equality of treatment of disputing parties, by providing similar information and explanations. I also noted the importance of clarifying the legal status of opinions given by Land Registry staff (usually lawyers) dealing with the administrative pre-hearing procedure.

Outcome - Training was given to all Registry lawyers to enable them to provide a more informed response to customers in dispute cases. Land Registry also issued a reminder to all staff that any suggestion of a boundary dispute should trigger referral to a senior office for consideration.

Recommendation 7 - In another case concerning Land Registry's handling of a boundary dispute, problems had arisen because the complainant relied on the opinion expressed by the surveyor about the boundary position. I recommended that Land Registry remind its surveyors that they have no authority to offer an opinion on the likely outcome of an application.

Outcome - The Head of Land Registry's Survey Control confirmed that all the surveying teams were advised about the circumstances that gave rise to this complaint. Land Registry affirmed the importance of maintaining the non-advisory position of surveyors, thus ensuring visible impartiality. A subsequent recommendation I made on the same issue prompted Land Registry to expand its guidance to surveyors regarding the nature of their communication with a party on site.

Recommendation 8 - A complicated issue arose in a case I reviewed relating to an application for voluntary first registration, where land claimed which overlapped with an existing registered title was excluded from the first registration. A standard form letter was then issued advising that the registration had been completed and the overlap land excluded. This was the opposite result to that sought by the applicant. Subsequent requests to deregister the title were refused, and the customer was advised to apply for rectification. I recommended that Land Registry review its standard letter, as the wording of it was misleading. I also recommended that Land Registry should consider raising a requisition should this situation arise on future voluntary applications.

Outcome - ICREST instigated a review of the wording of the standard letter, which was later amended to remove ambiguity. ICREST agreed with the proposition that a requisition should be considered if an application was lodged by a lay person and this was drawn to the attention of Land Registrars (senior lawyers).

Recommendation 9 - A complaint referred to me related to the use of a District Valuer report and disclosure of its content. I recommended a review of guidance on the use of such reports, including instructions to the District Valuer, and the status of their report.

Outcome - The Agency Case Review Team reviewed the existing practice and developed CPD training sessions to be included within the training for Registry lawyers. The guidance on seeking the opinion of District Valuers was collated and placed on the intranet. The Registry clarified its position on disclosing the contents of the District Valuer's report.

Recommendation 10 - A point arising from many reviews, has been the recommendation that decisions, and the reasons for them, are properly recorded. Alongside this, I have recommended that staff be reminded of the importance of recording decisions.

Outcome - ICREST confirmed that a topic had been added to the Registry's internal practice material, known as GOLD, regarding the appropriate use of the Points Arising Screen (used to record notes on cases electronically) for recording decisions.

Recommendation 11 - One complaint I reviewed resulted in several recommendations relating to the Registry's face-to-face contact with customers. One aspect of this related to the management of the customer's expectations of personal visits to Land Registry, and what can be achieved at the time of a conversation with the Registry's information desk. I also recommended that Land Registry consider providing staff guidance on the practice to be employed when holding pre-arranged meetings with customers.

Outcome - 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 took this further to consider general meeting practice, and there has been specific staff training on minute taking. This has resulted in a shorter turnaround time for supplying minutes of a meeting to those involved, as well as ensuring that people with the appropriate background or specialist knowledge are involved.

Recommendation 12 - A case I reviewed involving an entrenched dispute between neighbours, led to several recommendations relating to the review of guidance on communicating the nature and limit of the Registry's responsibility. I also recommended a review of guidance to secure a consistent approach to reviewing evidence and fairness in the approach to disclosing evidence to the parties. I identified a difference of legal opinion on what constituted an arguable case put by a party to a dispute.

Outcome - The Agency Case Review Team's guidance notes relating to what constituted an arguable case was updated. Land Registry's Lawyers Management Advisory Group also commissioned two senior Land Registry lawyers to carry out a review of the variation between the Registry's local offices in the number of referrals to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. A subsequent review was conducted by the Registry's Technical Assurance Group which led to recommendations endorsed by the Technical Issues Board. Finally, ICREST highlighted the need to reconsider the wording of the Registry's published and internal guidance regarding the disclosure of evidence. This has resulted in a number of amendments to internal guidance, as well as a revision of seventeen formal notices.

AND FINALLY... no reprise of my recommendations would be complete without noting the times I have asked Land Registry to ensure that a positive approach is taken to complaints; that responses are given in jargon-free language; and that apologies are given when called for, as well as other redress when appropriate.

In response, Land Registry has entirely transformed its approach to these customer service issues. It has revised complaint procedures and recording practice. Training for Land Registry lawyers has included use of plain English and other customer service issues. The Registry's 'Contentious Business' division was renamed as the Agency Case Review Team, providing customers with a very different impression of its role and Land Registry's attitude to their complaint. And ICREST itself was established to ensure that recommendations were properly considered and taken forward.

I applaud Land Registry's positive response to these and the many other recommendations I have made during my time as ICR. In this way Land Registry has sought to take advantage of the opportunities that independent review offers to improve customer experience.

Looking forward

Getting communication right

There is no more important task for a public body than making sure that people fully understand what the organisation does, how it does it and the limitations of its role. In common with most public bodies, over the years Land Registry has struggled to achieve this objective, against a background in which people's expectations of its authority are often unreasonably high. I am pleased to note that Land Registry is conducting a review into the way it engages with its customers, and equally important, brings contact to a close. If this is not handled well at first contact, Land Registry can find complaints arise regardless of how well it handles matters.

There is another aspect of engagement with customers which relates to public profile. Land Registry is well known to its professional clients and lenders and, looking forward, it will be taking further steps to secure these relationships by setting up Customer Contact Centres to deal with queries arising from the e-conveyancing process, and by establishing the role of Account Managers to work with these important stakeholders. However, Land Registry's relationship with the public will continue to require significant attention. Evidence to date is that the customer service team's role is of particular value in making this connection and building public confidence.

Preparing for electronic conveyancing

In recent years, Land Registry has been making steady progress towards e-conveyancing. As the reporting year closed, it launched its prototype Chain Matrix service to customers which will allow users, such as solicitors and estate agents, to follow progress on conveyancing along the chain of transactions.

The six-month trial now underway will be evaluated for future use. In due course, the service will offer users internet access to a range of capabilities for conveyancing transactions, from posting documentation, to exchange of contracts, money transfer and completion with registration. However, future success will depend on having all of those involved in transactions along the chain up to speed in terms of their own technology. For some conveyancing practitioners, this will present a challenge.

The advance to e-conveyancing goes hand in glove with Land Registry's efforts to correct and bring the existing register up to date, and to complete registration of all land in England and Wales. As I suggested in a past annual report, this will require an element of compulsion in the future. In the meantime, the Registry is continuing to market the benefits of registration to targeted groups of customers and assist large landowners to achieve this objective.

Advance of this magnitude is rarely achieved without glitches along the way. Land Registry has recognised that future quality of service will mean far more than speed of turnaround, and will demand service that is customised to meet the need of particular customer groups. It will also require changes to the way that customer concerns and complaints are handled.

Keeping an open mind

As I noted earlier, Land Registry has always been keen to take advantage of the knowledge provided by my office. It has now developed internal processes to look into areas of practice to ensure that they comply with legislation. The Technical Assurance Group (TAG) was established in 2005 to carry out this function and ensure that appropriate practice is implemented at the Registry's local business units. TAG's remit extends to all technical practices and procedures, including the mapping of title plans and legal practice. Clearly, there is a potential for co-operation on matters of mutual interest between TAG and ICREST. This should be explored further.

Good practice in document retention - managing the files

I could not conclude my Annual Report without mentioning the issue of Land Registry's file management. This is one area of practice about which I am unable to be positive. Whatever the future holds, Land Registry's current practice is to retain documentary information on files. On my visits around Land Registry, there is universal recognition that clerical filing is poor. Although this can lead to document loss, more often I find that it simply takes an unnecessary amount of time and effort to collate papers into a chronological order, because they are seldom tagged together in this way. Clearly, it would be an impossible task to correct what has happened in the past, but perhaps something more could be done for new files.

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, comprising over 20 million titles, has been open to public inspection since 1990. Land Registry also has responsibility for the registration of certain third party rights under the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Agricultural Credits Act 1928.

Besides having the status of a government department, Land Registry is also an executive 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 Justice 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. The objectives of its 10 year Strategic Plan 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.

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's House Price Index provides a 'like for like' method of calculating price changes utilising its unique database of every property transaction in England and Wales. The index can be accessed through Land Registry's 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 2006-07, its fee income was approximately £474 million and its staff processed some 34 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.