Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Land Registry Annual Report 2007-2008

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

Elizabeth Derrington is the Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) for HM Land Registry. The ICR is not part of Land Registry's management structure and her service is free for people and organisations who are dissatisfied with Land Registry's own responses to their complaints.

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 delighted to present my first report as Independent Complaints Reviewer for Land Registry. After a year as deputy to Jodi Berg, I had a good idea of opportunities and challenges of the role, and so was particularly pleased to be appointed to succeed Jodi from March 2008.

This report covers a year that was almost at an end when I took up my post. It feels slightly strange to be presenting it, as I have had limited direct involvement in the cases reported. I must express my gratitude to Jodi for her help in ensuring that the most important issues of the year have been identified and included. It is reassuring to find, however, that I can immediately relate to the principles involved. The case studies provide eloquent evidence of the way in which the ICR process has brought closure for individual complainants. They also highlight a wide range of constructive recommendations to Land Registry, proposing systemic changes which should help to reduce the risk of similar complaints arising in future.

I embarked on the ICR role with a sense of keen anticipation. I already knew enough about the organisation and the people who work in it, to have developed a real respect for what Land Registry does, and the way in which it seeks to do it. It seems to me to be an organisation that has been exceptionally successful in developing a culture of openness towards its customers, and in ensuring that the lessons learnt from complaints are fed directly back into working practice and procedures.

Early impressions of the complaints that reach the ICR office include the complex and protracted nature of many of the case histories, and the fact that similar issues can resurface again after a gap of many years. This is not really a surprise because of the importance of property ownership in people's lives. However, it does bring its own demands both for Land Registry and for the ICR office in terms of the volume of background information to be analysed, identifying and responding to the central issues in a complaint, and then recognising the point at which prolonging correspondence can be more frustrating than productive.

It is already clear to me that one of the ongoing challenges for the ICR office is to make sure that we do not raise false expectations for complainants (and waste our resources) by agreeing to review cases where we cannot assist, generally because the issues are outside our remit. It is important to ensure that our "gatekeeping" procedures are as good as possible, and enable us reliably to identify, at the earliest stage, cases where there are no issues that we can helpfully address.

Although I am relatively new to the role of ICR for Land Registry, I do have extensive experience of complaint resolution, as I have been Independent Complaints Adjudicator for Ofsted for six years. My aim is to maintain and develop the reputation of the ICR office as a centre of excellence, and to ensure that it remains at the forefront of good practice in complaint resolution. My approach to complaints like that of my eminent predecessor, is firmly based on the British and Irish Ombudsman Association Principles of Good Complaint Handling.

The staff are the great strength of the ICR office, and I should like to express sincere thanks to the whole team for their support and commitment, and for helping me achieve a smooth transition to my new role. We are currently undergoing a period of change, as the senior investigator responsible for Land Registry complaints is nearing the end of his period of secondment. He has developed great expertise in all aspects of complaint handling and we shall be very sorry to lose him. This gives us the opportunity, however, to welcome a new senior investigator, who has moved from being team leader in a local office. Her enthusiasm for her new role, and up to the minute knowledge of service issues at the local level will make an immediate contribution to our work.

My own familiarisation and development will continue over the next year. I am looking forward to visiting local offices to meet staff, and shall be keen to take the opportunity to meet, and work with, the Independent Complaints Reviewer Evaluation and Study Team (ICREST). ICREST is one of the best examples I have encountered of a structured approach by a large organisation to embedding the lessons of the complaints in day to day practice.

Finally I should like to record my gratitude to all the members of Land Registry staff who have provided help and support during my early days in my new job. I am particularly grateful for the personal support for the ICR role, which continues to be given by Peter Collis, Chief Land Registrar.

- Elizabeth A Derrington
Independent Complaints Reviewer

Back to Contents

The ICR Office

Who we are

I am supported in my work by a team of staff seconded to the ICR office from Land Registry, who have expertise in relevant legislation, practice and procedure. These roles are regarded as development opportunities and are held for a limited time period. During their period of secondment staff are accountable directly to the ICR.

The ICR 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:

Since inception, the office has earned a reputation for fairness and impartiality of decision-making, and for meeting challenging speed of service targets. We welcome independent scrutiny of the quality of our service and were one of the first public offices in the UK to be awarded the BSI complaints management standard.

Back to Contents

The ICR Service

The ICR role

I review complaints about Land Registry made by members of the public or organisations affected by its actions or decisions. My objective is to achieve a just and proportionate settlement of each complaint, bringing closure for the complainant and for Land Registry. In doing so, I look for opportunities to make a positive difference for Land Registry's customers now and in the future.

My remit is to consider complaints regarding the standards of service and fair treatment provided by Land Registry, and to identify any maladministration. Maladministration may include:

There are complaints that the ICR cannot investigate. These include:

The ICR's decisions are not legally enforceable, but Land Registry is committed to accepting her decisions and implementing her 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.

When someone wishing to refer a complaint or raise a concern contacts us, we consider whether we can provide immediate information or advice, which will resolve matters. We never turn people away without trying to help by pointing them in the right direction, even if we cannot assist directly either because their complaint falls outside of the ICR's remit or it has not yet been referred to Land Registry itself.

Once a complaint is accepted, we discuss the possibility of achieving an agreed settlement with the complainant. If there appears to be scope for an agreement, we approach Land Registry to consider whether it is prepared to take the required settlement action. This may involve agreeing to take certain steps, to provide further information, or to offer an apology and explanation if things have gone wrong.

In cases where resolution is not possible or appropriate, we agree a summary of complaint issues with the complainant, which sets the framework for our investigation. Once agreed, a copy of the summary is sent to Land Registry, so that it can offer a response to the issues raised, together with a request for all the relevant files.

We examine all of the information and evidence received from Land Registry and the complainant, and consider the action taken by Land Registry against its own published standards and procedures, and against recognised standards of administration competence for public bodies. Further enquiries may be 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.

A written report is produced which outlines the background to the complaint and my conclusions and recommendations. The final report is issued to both the complainant and Land Registry, and is treated as confidential by the ICR.

My recommendations may be specific and aimed at resolving a complaint for the complainant, for example by proposing an apology from Land Registry or a consolatory payment in recognition of the anxiety and distress caused by maladministration. I may also make systemic recommendations aimed at improving Land Registry procedures for the future and reduce the risk of similar complaints arising again.

Where recommendations are made, their implementation is monitored. However, once recommendations have been implemented, my role is at an end and I am unable to take an ongoing interest in a complainant's case or personal situation.

ICR service principles

The ICR has associate corporate membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA). She adheres 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 the ICR's office is fully committed. These Principles underpin our process and support the achievement of our mission and purpose. 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

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, so we take care to explain how we will deal with information to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. We respect the privacy of individual complainants and do not discuss individual cases with the media or any other third party, although we may refer to the issues brought to light, in order to encourage better understanding of the causes of complaints and how they can be avoided.

We are able to see all of the information relating to a complaint, 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.

Back to Contents

Complaint statistics and other facts

Our Performance

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. Although several reviews took longer than we would have wished, the average completion time of 23.5 weeks represents one of the best speeds of service this office has achieved to date, and a marked improvement on the 32 weeks recorded in the previous year.

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 year we received one complaint about our service. This complaint related to the delay the customer had encountered with us completing their review. This in turn resulted in a key learning point being identified that holding letters were to be issued in a timely manner where there has been, or was likely to be, a delay in completing an investigation, and that customers were regularly kept informed of prolonged delays.

Referrals to PHSO

The PHSO is the final step that people can take to have their complaints investigated if they remain dissatisfied with the outcome of my investigation. During the course of the year, four customers chose to refer their complaints about Land Registry to the PHSO. None of these four cases were accepted for investigation by the PHSO.

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. It includes members drawn from different local offices and jobs within Land Registry and is chaired by the Head of Legal Services. ICREST meets regularly to discuss ICR reports and recommendations. 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 action taken on ICR decisions are accessible to all Land Registry 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, which are also reviewed by this office.

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 2007/08. 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: 26,646

Back to Contents

Casework

Complaint referrals and reviews

In 2007-08 the ICR office received 62 referrals, the same number as in 2006-07.

In 2007-2008 we conducted 22 substantive investigations, a slight reduction in the 24 we completed in the previous year. These were often complex and required considerable time and effort to get to the root of problems. We also managed to resolve 5 separate complaints of maladministration by agreement. It is undoubtedly the case that resolution is a 'friendly' outcome for all concerned, in which there are no winners or losers. It can be achieved more quickly than full investigation and review, and can help to restore the relationship between Land Registry and its customer. The resolutions we achieved this year were not only based on the agreed award of consolatory payments, but included Land Registry's agreement to offer further explanation, as well as giving further consideration to an application (see ICR's casebook).

Outcomes

Although we do not uphold the majority of investigated complaints, the independent review that we provide 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, as usual, few of these were upheld. This year we investigated only one allegation concerning discourtesy compared to the four we investigated the pervious year. Complaints about register errors and mistakes made up 7% of the overall total a slight increase on those recorded in 2006-07, however, none of these were upheld.

During the year we also received 30 referrals where it was not possible to carry out a review. These included complaints referred us too early, because Land Registry had not yet given its final response, complaints that came too late (over six months from receipt of this response), and complaints where the issues could not productively be addressed within the ICR's remit.

We also responded to a further 31 contacts where we offered advice and guidance on how to take matters forward outside of Land Registry.

We ask all complainants to complete a quality questionnaire.

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.

We also canvass a cross section of Land Registry staff to find out what they think about our service. This year 104 questionnaires were returned by Land Registry staff. The majority of respondents knew about the ICR service and understood our role. Officers who had contact with my office all described our service as good, with 40% describing it as excellent. Almost all Land Registry respondents who had been involved with cases reviewed by the ICR considered that our reports tend to represent a fair outcome of complaints. Most thought that clear reasons were given for any recommendations made. However, there were exceptions to this. One respondent said: "Occasionally the offer of a consolatory payment has seemed unjustified in the circumstances".

Back to Contents

Casework

Complaints offer opportunities to learn lessons about service. They can reveal weaknesses in process, which need to be addressed by a change in procedure, or highlight instances of poor service that demonstrates 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. In some cases, people are hoping Land Registry will register property or interests in their favour, or not to accede to applications from others.

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.

The following case notes are annonymised summaries of a selection of the complaint referrals investigated in 2007-2008. 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. 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.

Case 1: Consistency and fairness in the provision of information and advice

Ms A is one of joint owners of a registered property. She had been in occupation of her property for almost 40 years, when in 2002, her neighbour, after receiving Land Registry's title plan, proceeded to prevent her from accessing her property from an external staircase and from using a footpath.

Ms A's solicitor contacted Land Registry explaining that Ms A's neighbour had asked her to remove a staircase at the rear of her property as it had been erected on land included within the neighbour's registered title. The solicitor asserted that the staircase had been there for many years and pre-dated Ms A's purchase. Land 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, in that it had shown the division between the two properties incorrectly. The OS plan was updated to reflect the position on the ground. In accordance with procedure, notice was served on the neighbour who objected to rectification. Lengthy and acrimonious correspondence ensued but the titles were eventually rectified.

Ms A raised numerous complaints with the ICR. These included a complaint that Land Registry had been biased in its support of her neighbour. The ICR did not find evidence of bias, but was of the opinion that there had been a number of shortcomings in the way Land Registry handled matters once it became aware of the dispute, and that in some instances, Land Registry had not acted in a fair and balanced way; for example, Mrs A was given misleading information by Land Registry regarding her neighbour's deeds, and this prolonged the dispute. Taking into account that it is important not only to be impartial but also to take every possible step to demonstrate impartiality and avoid an appearance of bias, the ICR upheld this complaint.

Ms A also complained that Land Registry had refused to supply her with a copy of the survey it conducted, although this was supplied to her neighbour. The ICR noted that Land Registry's internal guidance states 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, and upheld the complaint.

The ICR did not uphold several other complaints raised by Ms A regarding issues such as delay and financial loss.

The ICR recommended that Land Registry make a consolatory payment of £2,000 to Ms A in recognition of the anxiety and distress caused by its maladministration. In addition, the ICR made four systemic recommendations aimed at improving Land Registry's handling of dispute cases.

This case shows the importance of Land Registry providing 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 Land Registry's process.

Case 2 : General or precise boundaries

Mrs B wrote to Land Registry regarding a problem she had with a neighbour, which involved the position of her boundary in relation to a gatepost. Mrs B explained that her neighbour had approached her stating that the boundary ran to the middle of the gatepost between their two properties. He had erected an extension, which Mrs B considered encroached onto her land. At that time, Mrs B's property was unregistered. Following correspondence with Land Registry, Mrs B applied for the voluntary first registration of her property. However, no mention was made of the earlier correspondence, and the application was completed in a routine manner. Following further correspondence, Land Registry conducted a survey, in order to establish the position of the features on the ground and to check the overall accuracy of the Ordnance Survey map. The ICR was satisfied that this accorded with usual practice. The surveyor reported that both properties had been mapped correctly in accordance with normal tolerances and the general boundaries rule. The general boundaries rule means that the boundaries on Land Registry title plans show "general" rather than exact boundaries, and mapping tolerances mean that an object of the size of a gatepost will not generally be shown on a plan or OS map.

Mrs B raised thirteen separate complaints detailing her dissatisfaction with the way matters had been handled by Land Registry. All but one of these related specifically to the survey conducted by Land Registry. These ranged from allegations relating to the sketch plan drawn by the surveyor, to the surveyor's failure to bring a colleague with him to hold the other end of the tape measure. Following her review, the ICR was satisfied that the survey was carried out in a thorough and professional way, with all the requested information being provided. The ICR found that Land Registry had conducted a thorough examination of the Ordnance Survey detail and other information that had been submitted, and had gone to considerable lengths to consider Mrs B's arguments. The ICR had no authority to say whether Land Registry was correct in its views on the legal position, but she was satisfied that it had demonstrated a serious approach to the concerns Mrs B had raised, basing its views on the evidence.

The ICR found that Mrs B's correspondence with Land Registry showed that she had high expectations of what the survey would show. It was undoubtedly the case that Mrs B believed it would prove beyond doubt that she owned the gatepost. Following her consideration, the ICR could find no objective evidence to suggest either that the survey was conducted with this in view, or that Land Registry had given Mrs B reason to believe that this was the case. The ICR did not uphold this complaint.

This complaint demonstrates the importance of the general boundaries rule, and the crucial role it plays in land registration. Land Registry must remain robust in explaining this, and be careful not to unrealistically raise customer's expectations of what a survey might realistically achieve.

Case 3: Service of notices - the importance of an up to date address

Mr C was the sole registered proprietor of a registered title, registration having been made in 1994. Mr C rented out this property and lived elsewhere. However, his address for service shown in the register remained as the registered property. In February 2005, Land Registry received an application from Mr C's neighbour for the first registration of his property. This application included part of the land already registered to Mr C. Following correspondence, and a survey conducted by Land Registry, Mr C's neighbour formally applied to rectify Mr C's title by removing a small piece of his rear garden. Within the application was notification that Mr C's current postal address was not available, but his email address and telephone number were given. Notice was served on Mr C at the registered property. This notice was returned marked 'addressee gone away'. Upon the expiry of the objection period imposed by the notice, Mr C's title was altered by the removal of the piece of garden ground claimed by his neighbour.

Mr C's solicitor complained that Land Registry should not have served notice on Mr C at the property, as it knew he did not live there. Land Registry's local office disagreed with this and concluded that Land Registry had followed its usual practice and served notice to the address shown in the register as the address for service. However, in reviewing Mr C's complaint, the Case Review Team lawyer did not feel that the basis of the neighbour's application had been made sufficiently clear and he apologised for the serving of notice without first ensuring that the neighbour had shown sufficient evidence in support of his application.

Although the ICR was satisfied that Land Registry followed its usual practice in serving the notice, she noted that no attempt was made to contact Mr C to check the service address, even though Land Registry was aware that he was not resident at the property. Nevertheless, the ICR concluded that the serving of notice on the address for service could not be maladministrative.

The ICR found, however, that Land Registry had failed to provide appropriate customer service when dealing with the returned notice. The ICR noted that additional contact information was contained within the application, but found no evidence that consideration had been given to contacting Mr C by telephone or email, and in her view this merited criticism. It was recognised that Land Registry had to proceed cautiously when dealing with cases that involve the possible removal of land from an individual's title. However, the ICR emphasised that good administrative practice requires a public body to be fair in its dealing with people, and keep customer service principles in mind. This may require more than simply meeting legal obligation. The ICR upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and recommended an apology. The ICR also recommended that Land Registry review its current procedure and guidance in relation to dealing with returned notices.

The ICR did not uphold a complaint that Land Registry was failing, because of financial considerations, to invite proprietors to notify changes of address. Although this complaint was not upheld, the ICR did find that there were important questions regarding the level of public awareness about the importance of keeping the register up to date with appropriate addresses for service. As such, she recommended that Land Registry review the way it communicates to customers, and the public in general, the need to keep addresses for service up to date, and why this is important.

The ICR upheld Mr C's complaint that Land Registry's overall response to his complaint was unsatisfactory though she welcomed the fact that the Case Review Team lawyer demonstrated that he had gone 'back to basics' in considering Land Registry's actions and whether what had happened was appropriate. She also noted that some steps had been taken to recognise that things had gone wrong by offering an apology. Whilst the ICR was satisfied that the process of complaint handling was in line with established procedure, she did not consider that appropriate redress had been considered for the stress and anxiety caused by Land Registry's actions. She recommended a consolatory payment of £200 in recognition of the distress caused by inappropriately serving notice.

This case has 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. It also raises an important strategic issue in relation to how people are made aware of the need to update their registered title.

Case 4 : A complaint that was not upheld

Mrs D complained, on behalf of a Management Company, that Land Registry had failed to give due consideration to a first registration application relating to a driveway. The Management Company was the registered owner of an area of land and had been in dispute for some time with the owner of the driveway. This resulted in the Management Company making an application to rectify the registered title to the driveway. Notice was served on the owner of the driveway and an objection duly received. The matter was subsequently referred to the Adjudicator to Land Registry (an independent tribunal created to consider Land Registry disputes) for a hearing on the substantive issue of whether Land Registry had registered the correct extent.

Mrs D had previously referred a complaint against Land Registry to the ICR in 2005 and a review had been conducted. The ICR made it clear, that her review would not revisit any issue addressed in her earlier review. Mrs D had subsequently made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of Land Registry's file relating to the first registration application of the driveway. Having gone through this file, Mrs D raised concerns that Land Registry had failed to follow its practice and procedure in a number of areas, and that the FR1 application form had not been completed honestly and correctly. She complained that full evidence of title had not been presented and that Land Registry had accepted false claims made by a third party who had submitted the application. The ICR explained that she had no authority to adjudicate upon whether or not Land Registry was right to approve and give effect to the first registration application of the driveway. The ICR was satisfied from her review of the evidence that at the time of the first registration application, there was no cause for Land Registry to question the honesty of the person submitting the application or to reject the documentation provided as insufficient for registration purposes.

Further complaints were made relating to whether consideration had been given, before Land Registry completed the first registration of the driveway, to adjoining registered titles. The ICR was satisfied that Land Registry's consideration of the deeds supplied, the adjoining registered titles and other relevant factors was careful and thorough and that the conclusions regarding the various registered extents were properly reached.

Mrs D also raised a complaint that Land Registry had informed her that the Adjudicator to Land Registry would be restricted to determining ownership of the land in dispute. This, subsequently, proved not to be the case, as the Adjudicator, in addition to cancelling Mr C's application, removed a piece of land from the title of the Management Company and added it to the title of the driveway. The ICR found that Land Registry had followed its specific legislation relating to referring cases to the Adjudicator, in that it had drawn up a case summary, citing a factual account of the dispute, which had been agreed by all parties. The ICR explained that, as with any judicial determination, there is an inherent risk associated with any referral, especially when extrinsic evidence relating to the intention of parties to deeds is considered. The ICR appreciated that the Adjudicator's order had far reaching implications for the Management Company and Mrs C, however, she remained of the view that it was not possible for Land Registry to second-guess what decision the Adjudicator may reach, and she was satisfied that it did not do so.

In total, Mrs D raised nineteen separate allegations against Land Registry. These included bias, withholding sight of a transfer document, the surveyor's failure to pick up on a misunderstanding relating to the positioning of a new garage, as well as the first registration of the driveway causing parts of four previously registered titles to become unregistered. The ICR did not uphold any of the complaints raised by Mrs D.

This case highlights the fact that the ICR will support Land Registry's handling of issues if she is satisfied that they have been made fairly and in accordance with proper procedures.

Case 5 : The importance of appropriate legal advice

Mr E brought a complaint to the ICR's office alleging that Land Registry had acted maladministratively when it had given effect to a transfer to Mr E and his wife. In particular, he complained that Land Registry had entered a tenants in common restriction without his knowledge and had subsequently failed to remove the restriction following his wife's death.

The ICR found that the application to register Mr E and his wife as joint proprietors was dealt with in a routine manner. Both the transfer and the application form stated that if one of the proprietors were to die, then the survivor could not, as a matter of course, take all the money from any sale of the property. In view of this, it was appropriate and correct for Land Registry to enter a tenants in common restriction. The ICR found no maladministration in Land Registry's actions. It was for Mr E's solicitor, rather than Land Registry, to explain the legal implications of the tenants in common restriction.

Mr E also raised allegations over the validity of the transfer, stating that his signature on the transfer was either a criminal forgery or a criminal deception. In support of this, he enclosed a letter from the witness to the transfer who claimed that Mr E had never signed such a document in his presence. Again, the ICR found that this was not a matter that Land Registry could address. She noted that if true, this could have serious implications for his ownership of the property, and suggested that he seek legal advice. The ICR was satisfied that Land Registry had responded to this allegation appropriately, directing Mr E to report the matter to the Police if he considered fraud had been committed. The ICR was also satisfied that Land Registry had given detailed and accurate advice to Mr E on how he could make an application to have the restriction removed. This complaint was not upheld.

It is sometimes inevitable that a customer's expectation of what Land Registry can do administratively does not always accord with the steps it can realistically take in response to concerns relating to allegations of fraud.

Case 6: Limitations on Land Registry's power to resolve disputes, and also the risks of costs if cases are referred to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry or to Court

Ms F wrote to Land Registry, as she was dissatisfied with its handling of a unilateral notice against her registered property (a unilateral notice is used to protect someone's interest in a registered property). Ms F said that the unilateral notice had resulted in her being evicted from her property. Ms F also explained that following her application to remove the unilateral notice the matter was referred to the Adjudicator to Land Registry, an independent tribunal. In Ms F's view, this should not have happened.

Ms F complained that Land Registry had failed to follow its practice and procedure in registering the unilateral notice. The ICR noted that the interest being protected was an interim charging order in favour of The Legal Services Commission. The application was referred to a senior Land Registry officer who gave approval for the unilateral notice to be registered. The ICR was satisfied that this was in line with Land Registry's usual practice.

Following Ms F's application to remove the unilateral notice, Land Registry served notice on The Legal Service Commission requiring it to prove the validity of its interest claimed. This was duly done and Land Registry was presented with a dispute situation between Ms F and The Legal Services Commission. In the absence of any agreement between the parties, the ICR was satisfied that Land Registry had no option but to refer the matter to the Adjudicator to Land Registry. The Adjudicator ordered Ms F's application be cancelled and awarded costs against her. The ICR was satisfied that Land Registry had followed proper procedures, and explained that Land Registry was unable simply to remove the unilateral notice because Ms F disagreed with it.

The ICR did not uphold Ms F's complaint that Land Registry did not investigate her complaints properly or treat the matter seriously. The ICR found that the responses given by Land Registry were detailed and addressed the concerns Ms F had raised. She was satisfied that Land Registry had adequately explained the decisions it took in registering the unilateral notice and in dealing with the subsequent dispute. The ICR accepted that the responses may not have been in the way or terms that Ms F would have wished, however she found no objective evidence of maladministration.

The ICR also explained that she was unable to address Ms F's complaint that Land Registry had refused to indemnify her for the costs she incurred in having the matter heard by the Adjudicator any further, as questions of statutory indemnity do not fall within her remit. The ICR explained that compensation for financial loss can only be paid by Land Registry within the strict limitations of legislation relating to errors on the register and loss incurred as a consequence of the rectification of a registered title. Overall, the complaint was not upheld.

This case highlights the limited powers Land Registry has to resolve disputes. Whilst hearings that are conducted by the Adjudicator to Land Registry are generally less formal and less expensive than court action, it is important to bear in mind that such a hearing is a judicial determination and the Adjudicator does have power to award costs against either of the parties.

Case 7: Reliance on inaccurate information

In December 2002, Mr and Mrs G purchased plot 1 of a small development of five houses. The developer proposed that the estate road and amenity areas should be transferred to the purchaser of plot 3. A restriction was placed on the developer's estate title stating that any purchaser of plot 3 would not obtain registered title unless he were to enter into a covenant with the owners of plot 1 for the maintenance of the estate road and amenity areas.

On the sale of plot 3, the purchaser's solicitor undertook no pre-completion search and no deed of covenant was entered into. Furthermore, the restriction was removed by Land Registry following certification from the developer's solicitors that the developer was the only party with any interest in the restriction. The removal of the restriction allowed the purchaser of plot 3 to register title without completing the required deed of covenant. Mr and Mrs G complained that Land Registry had no proper procedure within its practice guidance or otherwise, save reliance on the criminal sanctions of the Land Registration Act 2002, to prevent a false certification taking effect, and no proper procedures to follow when advised of such a false certification.

Mr and Mrs G complained that Land Registry failed to disclose information at an early stage, which ultimately restricted the corrective action that was available to them, but this was not upheld. The ICR accepted that had Mr and Mrs G been given information regarding the correspondence with the solicitors acting for the developer, or if they had been notified of the application to withdraw the restriction, then they certainly would have had an opportunity of raising objections to any such action. However, she was satisfied that this was not explicitly required by Land Registry's practice and guidance, and there was no objective evidence of maladministration.

The ICR noted that Land Registry had relied on the accuracy of the information provided by the solicitors on the application to withdraw the restriction, in particular, the effect of the certified statements of fact contained within the relevant application form. She explained that from a Land Registry perspective, this was not dissimilar from a statutory declaration, in that if the statement was wrong, it was the declarer who was responsible for this. Land Registry was not expected to look behind such statements before acting on them, although it had to take responsibility for errors on the register caused by accepting inaccurate information.

Mr and Mrs G also complained that Land Registry did not investigate the alleged fraud under sections 123 and 124 of the Land Registration Act 2002. In their view, the incorrect certification contained within the application form, submitted to withdraw the restriction, pointed to fraudulent activity on the part of the solicitors concerned, which Land Registry should have referred to the police. In response, Land Registry stated that it did not think that the circumstances justified such referral, and it refused to set out its reasons for not taking action. In further correspondence Land Registry eventually accepted that it did not have a set policy on referrals under ss 123 and 124 LRA 2002. The ICR was critical that Land Registry's replies to Mr and Mrs G's enquiries on this matter were neither prompt nor full in the first instance.

The ICR noted that decisions to take specific action, or not to do so, each require similar consideration and to be backed by reasons. If Land Registry did not believe that the circumstances in this case met the necessary threshold, then it should have been able to explain what that threshold was and what criteria it considered in reaching such decisions. The ICR was satisfied that Land Registry had failed to respond to the allegations or the reasoned arguments put by Mr and Mrs G in a helpful manner. Whilst she had no authority to say whether Land Registry's judgement in this case was right or wrong, the lack of guidance meant that she was unable to judge whether decisions were taken appropriately or in accordance with usual criteria. For these reasons, the ICR upheld this complaint. She recommended that Land Registry give consideration to ensuring that there was a shared understanding of the circumstances in which action under ss 123 and 124 of the Land Registration Act 2004 would be taken.

The ICR also upheld a complaint that Land Registry's failure to accede to a request for copy documentation did not accord with its usual practice and added to the extensive delay that Mr and Mrs G experienced.

The ICR did not uphold Mr and Mrs G's complaints that Land Registry staff were not properly qualified to look at the possible criminal aspects of the matter, and that the matter was not fully investigated by Land Registry's local office. She explained that Land Registry lawyers are trained in all aspects of land registration and how to interpret the law relating to applications for registration. They are experts in this field of law and many also bring experience to the department from private practice or other areas of professional practice.

In addition to the systemic recommendation regarding referrals to the police, the ICR recommended that the Chief Executive of Land Registry provide an apology in recognition of the distress caused to Mr and Mrs G, together with a consolatory payment of £500.

This case shows one of the ways in which things can go wrong. It is the case that Land Registry had to rely on the accuracy of information provided by solicitors. However, it is important that Land Registry acknowledges any failures in its procedures may have contributed to the problem, and offers an apology at the earliest opportunity. Consideration should also be given to a consolatory payment.

Resolution

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 depends on the flexibility and customer service approach of the senior officers concerned. Resolution is a speedier way of settling complaints, which serve to restore the relationship between Land Registry and its customers. Even where resolution cannot be achieved at an early stage, we continue to look for opportunities to settle complaints in this way during our investigation.

Throughout this year, my office managed to resolve five separate complaints referred by people dissatisfied with the way matters had been handled by Land Registry.

Resolution 1 - Mrs H- complained that Land Registry had misrepresented a right of way that had been granted over a strip of land, which she owned. Specifically, Mrs H objected to the use of the word 'roadway' in the entry and considered the word 'footpath' would more accurately describe the land over which the right had been granted. It was apparent that Mrs H was having problems with neighbouring properties that had started using the land for access with vehicles. The strip of land had been made subject to a right of way in 1963. However, a search of Land Registry's historical records did not disclose any more precise information regarding whether the right was limited to pedestrian use only, or whether it permitted the use of vehicles, as the 1963 conveyance was not retained in its files. Land Registry explained that the use of the word 'roadway' was merely descriptive of the land and did not imply that the right permitted vehicular access.

The ICR explained that her authority did not extend to recommending that Land Registry change the wording of the easement entry on the neighbouring registers. However, following the ICR's intervention, Land Registry agreed to write to Mrs H and explain that a procedure existed within Land Registry where she could apply to have her neighbours' titles altered (whilst also pointing out that such an application had to be supported by sufficient and suitable evidence to justify the alteration, and would be subject to the serving of notice on the neighbouring properties, and that subsequent objection received may result in the matter being put before the Adjudicator to Land Registry for a hearing).

Resolution 2 - Mr I brought a complaint against Land Registry on behalf of his mother. Mr I's mother was one of the owners of a large unregistered estate. In July 2003, Mr I's mother sold a large area of land to a company. This sale triggered the first registration with Land Registry of the land sold. Following Mr I's mother's attempt to sell a further part of her unregistered estate, Mr I discovered that Land Registry had inadvertently included more land in the company's registered title than was originally conveyed. In November 2006, Mr I's mother made an application to rectify the company's title. Land Registry accepted that it had made an error, and following the serving of notice on the company, rectified the company's title. Mr I complained that Land Registry had failed to remove all of the land it had incorrectly included within the company's title. Following the ICR's intervention, Land Registry agreed to reconsider the extent of land granted to the company, and the extent of land removed from the company's title following rectification.

Resolution 3 - Mr J raised a complaint that Land Registry had provided him within an incomplete official copy of an Assignment. The issue revolved around green belt land and the sale of a golf course and garden centre. Mr J had applied for an official copy of an Assignment. However, upon receipt of the official copy, he considered that it was incomplete as two pages, relating to covenants restricting the use of the land assigned, were missing. The matter was referred to a senior Land Registry officer who explained that the official copy provided was a copy of the certified true copy held within Land Registry's electronic records. Further correspondence ensued, and whilst Land Registry responded to the points Mr J raised, these responses did not cast any doubt on the registration of the Assignment. Following the ICR's intervention, Land Registry agreed to investigate its files and to re-consider its response. As a result of this, Land Registry accepted that it had not responded to the points raised earlier as clearly as it could have; it responded again to the points Mr J raised and apologised for any confusion that had resulted from its earlier responses.

Resolution 4 - Mr K complained that Land Registry had failed to respond to his correspondence. Mr K had been involved in correspondence with Land Registry for a number of years regarding a right of way. He was close to reaching a resolution with Land Registry when relations broke down due to Land Registry's failure to respond to his letters. Mr K then referred the matter to his MP who received a response from a Land Registrar (a senior Land Registry lawyer). Following this response, Mr K took matters over again and continued corresponding with the Land Registrar directly. In December 2006, he sent a letter to the Land Registrar, to which he did not receive a response. He wrote again in February 2007, and although he received an acknowledgement, no substantive response was received. Following the ICR's intervention, the Land Registrar agreed to review Mr K's correspondence and to provide a substantive response to the issues he had raised. The Land Registrar also issued an apology for the delays Mr K had encountered in getting a response, and also for the inconvenience of having to approach the ICR's office in order to facilitate a response.

Resolution 5 - Mr L brought a complaint to the ICR's office, via his MP, regarding Land Registry's handling of his mother's leasehold title. Land Registry had accepted that it had made an error in the initial registration of the freehold estate in 1957. At that time, Land Registry failed to include the full extent of the land conveyed on first registration. As a consequence of that error, the subsequent leasehold estates granted out of the freehold estate were also registered with incorrect extents. This included Mr L's mother's title, which she purchased in 1980.

The error in the extent of the freehold estate was brought to Land Registry's attention in 1961. However, the instruction given to correct the error was overlooked. This meant that the error lay dormant on the registered titles until an application was submitted on behalf of Mr L's mother for the adverse possession of the freehold estate to the bank of land at the rear of her garden. Following its investigation, Land Registry corrected the error and amended Mr L's mother's leasehold title to include the bank of land, the subject of her adverse possession application.

Mr L complained that Land Registry's actions invalidated his mother's potential freehold claim to the bank of land. Land Registry explained that it was not possible to claim a freehold interest in land that has been occupied as a result of an adjoining leasehold interest. Although the ICR made no comment on whether this was correct or not, she did explain that she was aware of case law precedent that supported Land Registry's opinion. Mr L also attributed the problems his mother had encountered in trying to sell her property, as well as the problems and issues that arose in extending her leasehold term, to the mistake made by Land Registry in its initial demarcation of the property boundaries in 1957.

The ICR accepted that Land Registry's actions had resulted in Mr L's mother being inconvenienced and distressed. Following her intervention, Land Registry agreed to offer an apology from a senior officer, underpinned with a consolatory payment of £1000 for the anxiety, distress and other difficulties Mr L's mother had faced as a consequence of its actions. Land Registry also agreed to consider a claim for statutory indemnity arising as a result of its initial error. The ICR explained to Mr L that she had no authority to direct Land Registry on the issue of whether it should pay indemnity, or how much. As such, any possible payment of indemnity did not form part of the ICR's settlement negotiations. She explained that any challenge to the amount of any indemnity offered by Land Registry could only be made through the courts.

Other complaints

Other complaints referred to this office in the reporting year covered much of Land Registry's more complex casework, such as disagreements over the extent of land registered, and the way Land Registry had handled applications based on adverse possession. Other referrals were about more straightforward issues, such as delay.

In one complaint concerning discourtesy, the ICR found that a complainant had been laughed at during a telephone conversation with a Land Registry staff member. The ICR noted that despite an apology having been given by Land Registry, there had been no evidence that further action had been taken to address this matter. Looking at the matter from the customer's point of view, there had been a significant failure of courtesy and respect. Although the ICR accepted that complaint review was not disciplinary in approach, she explained that concerns of this kind should be passed to relevant managers so that they can act to prevent such instances recurring, perhaps by the explanation of Land Registry's expected standards of customer service. A recommendation was made for an apology at a senior level to be given, together with a consolatory payment of £100. A further recommendation was made that Land Registry staff are reminded of the need to deal with customers in a professional and empathetic manner, especially when they work in a front-line operational environment.

Other systemic recommendations made during the reporting year concerned Land Registry's inconsistent approach in dealing with information provided by lenders depending upon whether it is provided in electronic or documentary form; consideration being given to included guidance for dealing with amendments to plans on applications that transfer a part of a registered title; and consideration to be given to the need to redraft Land Registry's standard letter of rejection, to ensure that the expectations of solicitors and applicants are met about what will happen once any defect has been rectified. The ICR considered that such a letter should include an explanation that the application will be fully considered once resubmitted for registration purposes, and that further requisitions or enquiries may be raised.

Back to Contents

ICR overview of the year

Land Registry Customer Survey.

Following a review of the survey process, Land Registry commissioned an independent research company to conduct a half yearly customer survey. The new survey approach uses telephone interviews, rather than an annual paper survey supplemented by quarterly mini satisfaction surveys as in previous years. The first wave of the research pilot took place between 26 June and 17 July. Five hundred telephone interviews were carried out with a random sample of credit account customers who had used their account within six months of the survey. This approach represents a new methodology for canvassing Land Registry's customers.

Land Registry's complaints procedure.

In the past year, Land Registry has reviewed its complaint procedure, resulting in a number of recommendations being made. Some of these recommendations have already been implemented. These include new systems for logging complaints, the issues arising from them and the outcomes of investigations. These changes will provide Land Registry with a great deal more information on the issues that its customers are complaining about and also provide information about what has been found as a result of its investigation of these complaints. Land Registry has also introduced a new customer feedback form that facilitates these changes and also makes it easier to record the learning points and systemic issues arising from complaints.

Land Registry Rules.

Land Registry has conducted an extensive review on proposals for the new Land Registration Rules. These have now been referred to the Rules Committee, and are being prepared to be put before Parliament. There are a significant number of changes proposed, some of which may have a significant impact on Land Registry's customer service.

Identity Verification Procedure.

In response to increasing incidences of fraud, Land Registry has introduced new identity verification protocols for registration applications lodged by non-conveyances. Land Registry has produced two Public Guides on this subject, together with appropriate staff guidance.

Learning Points

A number of changes have been introduced to Land Registry practice and systems, as a result of complaints that have been received and considered by its Customer Service Group. These changes have been

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 21.6 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.

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