Independent Complaints Reviewer for Land Registry Annual Report 2008-2009

Report Contents

Introduction

Welcome to the new 'virtual' ICR annual report!

Elizabeth A Derrington

This is my second report as ICR for Land Registry, and covers my first full year in the role. It is good to take the opportunity at the end of the year to step back from the immediate day-to-day issues and reflect on the achievements and challenges, and to highlight any important messages for the future. As part of a process of reviewing and updating our practice, and in recognition of the unprecedented financial pressure that Land Registry is currently facing, we have moved to a completely web-based format, and have also looked at ways of streamlining the content and making it as accessible as possible.

In response to a number of requests, I am also planning to replace the formal 'launch' based in London with a new approach that will enable me to discuss the issues with a wider range of people. This will start with an open email forum in July/August.

The number of reviews completed is higher than last year, but this reflects a focus on clearing some old cases, rather than any measurable increase in levels of dissatisfaction on the part of Land Registry customers. Over the year as a whole, the rate of enquiries and new referrals was at much the same level as in 2007/8. For those cases where a full review was conducted, the majority of complaint issues were not upheld. This maintains the pattern of previous years. However, there were also significant issues that were upheld where I was able to recommend either individual redress or changes to Land Registry procedures to improve customer service and reduce the likelihood of similar complaints arising in future.

The Casebook section homes in on some of the main themes in complaints that I have investigated during the year, and acknowledges the positive action taken by Land Registry in response to my recommendations. The cases I review represent only a tiny proportion of Land Registry's workload, but they still offer valuable lessons and ideas for improvement. The case studies illustrate how things can sometimes go wrong even within an organisation such as Land Registry in which the principles of customer service are firmly embedded.

They also illustrate the difficulties that Land Registry can face in explaining to its customers the complexities (and limitations) of past and present arrangements for land registration. If I were asked to identify one lesson from the year for Land Registry it would be to engage more actively, at an early stage, with customers who are dissatisfied, to find out exactly what they want and whether it is within Land Registry's power to help. Unless there is clear understanding by Land Registry at the outset of the customer's main concern, experience shows that there is a real risk of attempts to help being unfocused and actually adding to the problem rather than solving it. In this context I warmly welcome a major piece of work by Land Registry in 2008 to produce and launch guidance for staff on customer engagement and disengagement. This should help to ensure that Land Registry contact with customers is responsive to their individual needs.

I have had several opportunities during the year to gain a direct insight into Land Registry's work. I have visited the local offices at Telford, Hull and Peterborough, where I was able to observe for myself key processes such as first registration, and also talk to staff about how they respond to customer enquiries and complaints. On an unusually sunny day in February 2009 I shadowed an experienced Land Registry surveyor. I was able to see first hand the way in which a physical inspection can answer important questions, and also to appreciate some of the challenges of the role. I should like to thank all the staff who took time and trouble to make these experiences both enjoyable and useful.

The work of the ICR office, in addition to complaint reviews, has included a full overhaul of the ICR website to update information and also make it more user-friendly. In addition we are proud to have achieved renewal of our accreditation for our complaints management system under BSI 10002:2004. I should like to record my thanks to the ICR staff for their continuing hard work and real enthusiasm to help complainants achieve resolution. Looking forward, my plans for 2009/10 include a reduction in the average time taken to complete complaint reviews from 36 to 26 weeks, and refinements to the review process to simplify it and also to improve transparency.

I should like to recognise the work done within Land Registry by ICREST (the ICR Evaluation & Study Team) to follow up the recommendations and other issues raised by ICR reviews. During the year we launched a programme of quarterly meetings between ICR staff and ICREST representatives, and this has been of great value in ensuring a shared understanding of a number of complex technical issues, as well as providing a forum for informal two-way feedback. Also in 2008, Land Registry announced a review of ICREST, to evaluate its effectiveness and contribution to the objectives of the organisation. I look forward to contributing to the review process.

I have continued to meet regularly with Peter Collis, the Chief Land Registrar. I very much welcome his open recognition of the importance of complaints to the organisation as a whole, and his continuing support for the work of the ICR office.

It would not be possible for the ICR office to operate efficiently without effective communication systems to supply the documents and information that we need for our reviews, and to provide opportunities for debate and discussion on points of practice and procedure. I should like to put on record my thanks to all the Land Registry staff who have provided support and information during the year.

As I have indicated, working relationships with Land Registry are very important. It is equally vital, however, for the ICR to maintain an appropriate distance both from Land Registry as an organisation, and from the individuals within it. It is key to my credibility as ICR that I should be recognised by complainants as independent from Land Registry. Factors that help to bolster my independence are the fact that I have a separate office, a separate identity through the ICR website, and clear contract terms and a service level agreement with Land Registry designed to protect my independence. Above all, however, it is essential that I should demonstrate independence of thought and approach in my reviews of individual cases.

Elizabeth A Derrington
July 2009

Back to Contents

The ICR office and service

Our mission

To seek a fair resolution of complaints.

Back to Contents

Our purpose

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

People can expect from the ICR team:

• courtesy
• honesty
• respect
• objectivity
• plain language.

Back to Contents

The principles of good complaint handling

The ICR is an associate corporate member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) and BIOA's principles of good complaint handling underpin the process the ICR carries out when reviewing a complaint. They are:

• clarity of purpose: each review includes a clear statement of its purpose, intent and scope
• accessibility: the service is free, open and available to all who need it
• flexibility: procedures are responsive to the needs of the individuals
• openness and transparency: we provide public information that demystifies our service
• proportionality: the process and resolution are appropriate to the complaint
• efficiency: the service strives to meet challenging standards of good administration
• quality outcomes: complaint resolution leads to positive change.

Back to Contents

Our office

The ICR office was opened in February 1998 and has been reviewing complaints about Land Registry since that time. A team of staff seconded to the office, on a short-term basis, from Land Registry, supports the ICR. These staff bring to the ICR office the benefit of their knowledge of Land Registry practice and procedure and the legislation under which Land Registry operates. Their independence of approach is assured by initial training in the ICR methodology, and the fact that, during their period of secondment, they are responsible directly to the ICR rather than to Land Registry management.

Back to Contents

Our remit

Anyone who has made a complaint to Land Registry and is dissatisfied with the outcome can ask the ICR to review the matter. However the ICR cannot review or overturn Land Registry’s legal decisions, or investigate issues that are subject to proceedings before the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry or a court. In addition, the ICR will not generally be able to accept a referral made more than six months after the date of the final complaint response from Land Registry.

Back to Contents

Initial enquiries

Before a complaint is accepted for review, a preliminary investigation is carried out in order to determine whether or not the complaint is one that falls within the ICR's remit. This may involve discussion with the complainant to find out more about his or her continuing areas of dissatisfaction, and to gain an understanding of the outcome the complainant is hoping to achieve. It may also be necessary to make enquires of Land Registry in order to clarify that its internal complaints procedure has been fully completed. If the complaint is not one that the ICR can consider, we will offer advice to the complainant on options for pursuing the matter.

Back to Contents

Resolution

Where complainants have a clear idea of the outcome they are seeking, the ICR may be able to facilitate an agreement with Land Registry without the need for a full review. However, resolution of this type is only suitable in some cases. It has only been successful on one case during this year. In a second case, resolution was attempted but a full review was ultimately necessary.

Back to Contents

Full review

Where there is a full review, a summary of the issues is sent out to the complainant for agreement. This is to make sure that there is a clear, shared understanding at the outset of the areas that will be addressed. A copy of the summary is sent to Land Registry for comment, and at the same time the original files are requested. All the available information is analysed in detail and the ICR considers whether the concerns that have been raised are justified.

The outcome of the review is a letter to thecomplainant, copied to Land Registry, giving the ICR's conclusions and any recommendations. The aim of a report is to set out, in as clear and simple a way as possible, the ICR's opinion on the way in which matters have been handled by Land Registry, and to provide redress in appropriate cases.

Back to Contents

Redress

The ICR has three main forms of redress at her disposal and these are:

• that Land Registry should issue an apology
• that Land Registry should make a consolatory payment (maximum £5,000) in recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of shortcomings in the service provide by Land Registry
• that Land Registry should consider making changes to its practice and procedure.

In deciding when to consider making a consolatory payment the ICR has regard to the ICR Financial Redress Policy. The sums paid are relatively small sums to reflect distress and inconvenience an individual may have suffered. They are fixed according to the seriousness of any service failures identified, as well as the particular circumstances of the individual complainant.

Back to Contents

Confidentiality

The ICR recognises that many of the complaints that she is asked to review contain issues of a personal or sensitive nature and it is important that complainants feel comfortable in revealing details of their complaint during the course of a review. We will not discuss individual cases with the media or any other third party. If Land Registry receives a request under the Freedom of Information Act for disclosure of an ICR report it will consult the ICR before making a decision on how to respond.

Back to Contents

Further information

Full details of the service that the ICR provides can be found in the booklet, Seeking a fair resolution, which can be downloaded from the ICR's website at www.icrev.org.uk

Back to Contents

Facts and figures

Caseload

During the year 2008/9 we received 65 complaint referrals. This was slightly higher than the previous year when the office received 62 referrals. The number of reviews completed was 30, 36 per cent higher than the 22 completed in 2007/8.

Of the cases that did not proceed to full review, 50 per cent (17) were referred back to Land Registry, as its internal complaints procedure had not been exhausted. The other main reasons for not carrying out a full review were either that the areas of ongoing concern related solely to legal decisions made by Land Registry, or that for some other reason the complaint did not fall within the ICR's remit (for example because the referral was made more than six months after the date of Land Registry's final response).

Back to Contents

Complaint issues

The tables below give a breakdown of the individual complaint issues considered, by outcome and subject matter.

There was a substantial increase in the proportion of individual complaint issues that were either partially or fully upheld in 2008/9 compared with 2007/8. Detailed analysis suggests that two factors contributed to this.

• A small proportion of complaints included an unusually large number of complaint issues (up to 17), several of which were upheld.

• As outlined later in the case studies, a number of reviews concluded that, although Land Registry had made very considerable efforts to respond to customer enquiries and concerns, it attempted a 'one size fits all' response rather than ensuring that it took into account the specific context of each case.

Back to Contents

Recommendations

During the year the ICR made a total of 59 recommendations either for individual redress, or for Land Registry to consider making changes either to its procedures or to the information it publishes, to reduce the risks of similar complaints arising in future. The table below shows a breakdown of the proportions of recommendations falling into these main categories.

The ICR recommended consolatory payments in 15 cases and the total sum awarded was £7,250. The minimum that was awarded was £100 and the maximum was £2,500. As already mentioned, the levels of awards were fixed by reference to the ICR's Financial Redress Policy.

Land Registry has responded positively to all recommendations, and the implementation of recommendations has been monitored by ICREST.

Back to Contents

Feedback

We request feedback from complainants in every case, but the rate of return (23 per cent) this year has been disappointing. One of our plans for 2009/10 is to redesign our feedback form to make it shorter and simpler with the aim of boosting the response rate.

Of those complainants who did respond all except one were satisfied with the overall service provided, and positive about the quality and timeliness of correspondence and the courtesy with which they were treated by staff. The complainant who expressed general dissatisfaction was also very disappointed by the outcome of his complaint.

Back to Contents

Financial information

As already explained, the ICR office is managerially independent, but its staff and other resources are provided by Land Registry.

The following table gives details of expenditure for 2008/9, which shows a significant increase on the figure for 2007/8. This was purely due to the way in which the staff budget was allocated by Land Registry, following staffing changes, and not because the office required additional staff.

Contributions to running costs from other organisations: £26,712

Back to Contents

ICR Casebook

I have picked out some of the themes from the complaints I investigated in 2008/9, and some of the recommendations I have made. They very much reflect the picture of Land Registry painted in previous reports, as an organisation that is firmly committed to the principles of customer service and openness. They also highlight some factors that can lead customers to feel dissatisfied with the service they have received, and ideas for avoiding similar complaints cropping up again in future. The main learning point for Land Registry that I would identify from this year's complaints is the importance of ensuring that its customer service is focused on the individual customer, and responds to the individual's needs, rather than offering a 'one size fits all' approach.

Back to Contents

Being clear about Land Registry's role (and its limitations)

Land Registry's principal role is very specific: to keep a register of property ownership and to facilitate property transactions. It has power, in defined situations, to alter the register, but it does not have general responsibility for fixing or policing property boundaries, or overseeing other activities in relation to land.

Understandably, customers do not usually have a detailed knowledge of Land Registry's remit, and may hope for an outcome that Land Registry is not able to offer. Two complaints I reviewed in 2008/9 illustrated this point particularly clearly. I concluded that Land Registry staff made great efforts to respond to the concerns raised, but that they had no prospect of resolving the core issues, as these were beyond Land Registry's remit. I suggested that time and trouble would have been saved both for the customers and for Land Registry if this stumbling block had been identified much earlier; the customers could then have been redirected to other agencies that might be in a better position to help.

In the first case Ms A raised concerns with Land Registry about the fact that it had 'guaranteed' a drainage easement; she said that proper procedures had not been followed. I was satisfied that Land Registry had done its utmost to respond to Ms A's points about its own procedures, including providing its files for examination and obtaining documents from third parties. However, it was apparent, looking at the complaint in its wider context, that Ms A's real concern was that Land Registry's decision had contributed to drainage problems in her local area. I was satisfied that Land Registry's decision to register and 'guarantee' the easement could not have contributed to the difficulties Ms A described; the effect of the registration was merely to place the easement on record, for the information of owners or purchasers of the titles affected (which did not include Ms A). However in spite of lengthy correspondence Land Registry had not succeeded in communicating this point to Ms A. In my opinion, if Land Registry had considered, at the start, the background to the complaint, it would have been able to explain at that stage the limits of its responsibility with regard to drainage issues, and to have offered general advice on other possible routes for the complainant to pursue.

In the second case Ms B complained that Land Registry had made a mistake with regard to registration of a roadway. There followed considerable correspondence regarding whether the title to the roadway had been based on adverse possession. Once again, I was satisfied that Land Registry staff had given serious consideration to the specific concerns presented and had tried hard to be helpful. After reviewing the whole history of the matter, however, I was satisfied that Ms B's real concern related to the status of the roadway, and whether it was a public or private street. It would have been helpful if Land Registry had explored with Ms B at the outset what had prompted her complaint and what outcome she was hoping to achieve. This would have enabled it to be more focused in its response, and also clearer about the limitations of its remit.

Back to Contents

Identifying the issues

I have already made the point that early discussion with a customer has the potential to help Land Registry identify enquiries or problems that are not in its remit. It may also enable Land Registry to work out how best to respond to enquiries that do fall within its area of responsibility. I will give two examples of complaints where I felt that a better response could have been provided if Land Registry had actively attempted at the start to clarify the nature of the customer's concerns.

Mr C made enquiries with Land Registry about the plan attached to a transfer document. Land Registry mistakenly assured him on a number of occasions that all the copies of the plan in its files were identical. Mr C also sent Land Registry a copy of a plan produced by his neighbour's solicitors in court proceedings, and was mistakenly told that it did not match any plan in Land Registry's files. Concerned that there might have been some fraud in relation to the plan produced in court, Mr C reported the matter to the police. Some three years later, following a police investigation, Land Registry discovered that it did in fact hold two versions of the transfer plan, and that one of these matched the plan that had been produced in court. After investigating, I found no evidence of any deliberate concealment on Land Registry's part. I was also satisfied that Land Registry's mistake did not contribute to Mr C's decision to become involved in court proceedings; they were already in progress when he first contacted Land Registry. I did, however, suggest that it would have been helpful if Land Registry had contacted Mr C, at the outset, to clarify the reasons for his enquiry. This would have helped staff to explore the possible reasons for the discrepancy Mr C had identified, and also might well have enabled them to locate the second version of the plan at an earlier stage. It was my opinion that a more proactive approach by Land Registry at the start could have set Mr C's mind at rest with regard to the likelihood of fraud in relation to the plan produced in court, and significantly reduced the uncertainty and resultant distress he experienced. I recommended that Land Registry should make a consolatory payment.

In another case, Ms D contacted Land Registry to say she was in dispute with her neighbours about an access way and patio area. A number of different members of Land Registry staff went to a lot of trouble to try to respond to her concerns, but Ms D remained dissatisfied. After investigating, I concluded that at least some of the problems could have been avoided if fuller enquiries had been made at the time the property was first registered. I also felt that, in spite of a lot of correspondence and real efforts by Land Registry to respond to her concerns, Ms D had not received clear and simple explanations of the detailed points that she originally raised. I suggested that a better service could have been provided to Ms D, if Land Registry had discussed the situation with Ms D so as to be clear about what had prompted her enquiry and what would help to resolve the matter. I recommended that Land Registry should acknowledge that it would have helped it tailor its responses better to Ms D's need, especially given the complexity of the situation, if its officers had taken the opportunity to speak to her to clarify the precise nature of her concerns.

Back to Contents

The challenge of explaining plans

A point that has struck me in a number of cases is the difficulty that Land Registry staff face in providing customers with clear and accessible explanations of points relating to maps and plans. Land Registry staff work with maps and plans all the time, whereas customers in general do not. Explanations that are extremely clear to Land Registry staff may not be at all easy for customers to grasp. In my view there is a need for Land Registry to be imaginative and flexible in choosing the best method of communication to address the customer's particular needs.

In the case of Mr E, Land Registry accepted a transfer plan that did not accurately reflect the land being sold. A later survey highlighted several differences between the plan and the situation on the ground. I concluded, following investigation, that the initial acceptance of the plan had contributed to subsequent problems between Mr E and his neighbours. I was also concerned that, although Land Registry had tried hard to explain the situation revealed by the survey, using several different plans for comparison purposes, this actually had the effect of increasing confusion for the customer. The only way of achieving clarity for the consumer, as far as I could see, would be for a member of staff to go though the plans with Mr E. I therefore asked Land Registry to consider whether it would be appropriate to meet the customer to discuss the implications of the various plans in more detail.

In a second case the complainant, Ms F, had been involved in a long running dispute with her neighbour over the ownership of a piece of land on the boundary between the two properties; the area had previously been the site of a large chimney. The question of ownership of the land was finally decided by court proceedings. Unfortunately, however, the note made in the register of the result of the court proceedings was not clear. In addition Land Registry, in an attempt to be helpful, sent Ms F an enlarged copy of her title plan without appropriate explanation of its significance. Ms F interpreted the information provided as indicating that her boundary had been altered. I found that Land Registry had added to the overall inconvenience and distress experienced by Ms F, and recommended that Land Registry should make an apology and also a consolatory payment. This is another case where a genuine attempt by Land Registry to be helpful backfired partly because of a lack of effective communication regarding the details on a plan provided to the customer.

Back to Contents

The pitfalls of giving general advice

Two cases I reviewed this year illustrated the risks of giving general assurances in response to a customer enquiry, without knowing the background to the enquiry.

The cases of Mr G and Mr H raised similar issues. Both of these customers contacted Land Registry to say that they were concerned about their properties being transferred without their knowledge. They were both informed that it would not be possible for the properties to be transferred without their involvement. Unfortunately the information that Land Registry provided did not take into account the fact that a court (for example in divorce proceedings) could order a property to be transferred without the signature of one of two joint proprietors. In the cases of both Mr G and Mr H, following the assurances they had received from Land Registry, a court authorised their properties to be transferred without their signature on the transfer documents.

The complaints were clearly justified. In the case of Mr G I endorsed an apology and consolatory payment already offered by Land Registry. In Mr H's case I recommended an apology, and also that Land Registry should take steps to ensure that its officers are briefed as to the risks of giving a title holder such unqualified assurances.

I am pleased to note that, as a result of these complaints, Land Registry has amended its practice to ensure that, when a transfer is signed under a court order, an information notice is always sent to the registered proprietor.

Back to Contents

Disengaging at the appropriate time

As I have already said, the complaints I have reviewed clearly reflect the fact that Land Registry is firmly committed to the principles of customer service. One of the risks of such a commitment is that it can lead staff to continue attempting to respond to a customer in general correspondence when it would be more appropriate to close the correspondence, and inform the customer of other options for pursuing the matter (for example by making a formal complaint or by taking legal action).

Mr J had purchased a property that adjoined an area of foreshore, and the natural mean high water line had changed over the years, creating new land. Mr J had been in dispute with the council over the fact that it had claimed the new land, unlawfully in the view of Mr J, and had developed it into a car park. Mr J's complaint regarding Land Registry was that it had not followed proper procedures in handling the council's application for registration of ownership of the new land. I did not uphold the complaint. I did, however, note that Mr J had been in correspondence with Land Registry about the same issues over a period of seven years, and that this process had contributed to Mr J's frustration and distress. I expressed the opinion that the continuing correspondence had not assisted the customer, and that it should have been brought to an end much earlier.

Ms K purchased a new house on a small estate. The estate plan, lodged by solicitors acting for the developer, showed that in the case of four plots (including Ms K's) the fences enclosed more land than was in the developer's title. Land Registry did not approve the estate plan for these four plots and it made the developer's solicitors aware of the situation. The search plans, contract plan and transfer plan lodged by Ms K's solicitors all accurately reflected the developer's title, rather than the larger area enclosed by the fences. It was only after Ms K had moved into the property that she realised the size of her plot was considerably smaller than she had believed it to be. Ms K complained that Land Registry had contributed to the very unfortunate situation she found herself in. After investigating, I concluded that Land Registry had gone as far as was possible within its remit to flag up the problem, and did not uphold the complaint. I did, however, find that Land Registry had continued correspondence in spite of Ms K's clear expressions of dissatisfaction and had failed to provide timely information about its complaints procedure. I recommended an apology and a small consolatory payment.

Ms L was in correspondence with Land Registry for a period of years regarding an application to register a transfer of her parents' property. Land Registry maintained from the outset that the transfer had not been legally executed, but continued to correspond with Ms L. Even after Ms L had expressed clear dissatisfaction with the way the matter was being dealt with, it took nearly a year for Land Registry to direct her to its internal complaints procedure. After reviewing the matter, I was satisfied that Land Registry had followed its own procedures and guidance with regard to the transfer but was critical of the fact that it had neither given a definitive answer regarding the transfer, nor referred Ms L to the complaints process, at a much earlier stage.

I welcome the fact that Land Registry has now published a strategy for staff giving clear guidance on disengagement. This should help to reduce the likelihood of issues of this type arising in future complaints.

Back to Contents

Meetings

I have already suggested that meetings can be useful when it is necessary to communicate complex or technical points. I recognise that they can also be potentially risky. Where there is a dispute, the same opportunities must be offered to both sides so as to avoid any impression of bias. In addition there is a risk that there may be a difference of opinion after the event about what was discussed or agreed. In my experience the best way to avoid problems is to have a clear agenda for the meeting, and to agree a note of the main points. In some cases, I have seen good practice in these areas, but I have not found a consistent approach.

Mr M had concerns about Land Registry staff using their positions to obtain information that was not publicly available. He attended a meeting at the customer information centre at his local Land Registry office to explain his concerns. Notes were not taken at the time. The summary of the meeting prepared later by Land Registry included details of the identity of an individual member of Land Registry staff, when Mr M had made clear that his intention had been to raise a general concern rather than to make a complaint against a specific individual. Mr M complained about the accuracy of the summary, particularly the implication that he had registered a complaint about a named individual. After reviewing all the circumstances, I concluded that even though the meeting had been unscheduled, the sensitive nature of the issues that were raised should have prompted staff to consider taking notes and agreeing them with Mr M at the meeting itself or shortly afterwards. This would have allowed Mr M to ensure that his concerns were accurately recorded. I recommended that Land Registry should apologise and also make a consolatory payment. I also suggested that Land Registry should review its guidance in relation to unscheduled meetings, particularly in relation to how information is recorded and checked with thev customer.

Back to Contents

Alteration and rectification of the register

Several of the individuals whose complaints I have investigated during the year have argued that there are mistakes in the register in respect of their properties, and have applied to Land Registry for the register to be altered (or 'rectified') to correct those mistakes. It is not within my remit to review Land Registry's decisions about corrections to the register; the Land Registration Act 2002 includes specific provisions for disputed applications for rectification to be referred to the Adjudicator for HM Land Registry for determination. However it is important that information for customers about these procedures is clear and comprehensive. Two of the complaints I reviewed during the year led me to feel that the clarity of Land Registry's public guidance in this area could be improved.

Mr N was the owner of unregistered land. Land Registry received an application for registration of adjacent land, and during the registration process a mistake was made which resulted in some of Mr N's land being registered with the adjacent property. Mr N applied for registration of his land, mistakenly believing that this was necessary to enable him to apply for rectification of the register. His subsequent application was referred to the Adjudicator for HM Land Registry, who decided in Mr N's favour. On reviewing the case, I found that Land Registry's guidance did not include clear information for those seeking to apply for rectification when their own land is unregistered, and recommended that Land Registry should consider expanding its guidance to include this.

Mr O complained that Land Registry had altered his title without informing him. The background was that when Land Registry first registered Mr O's land it made a mistake by putting colour codes on different areas of land on Mr O's title plan but failed to refer to these codes in the register. When solicitors acting for Mr O's neighbours applied to have Mr O's title altered to reflect the colour codes on the title plan, Land Registry recognised its mistake, and made the alteration. It did not, however, give notice of the alteration to Mr O as it did not believe that the alteration adversely affected his title. In response to Mr O's complaint Land Registry maintained that it had been under no obligation to give notice to Mr O, but accepted that it should have done so as a matter of courtesy. After investigating, I concluded that Land Registry had provided an appropriate response. I found, however, that Land Registry's public guidance did not distinguish between situations in which Land Registry was required to serve notice on a title holder regarding an alteration of the register, and those where service of notice was voluntary. I suggested that it would be helpful if the published guidance on this point were clarified.

I welcome the fact that Land Registry is currently reconsidering both its internal and external guidance about rectification and alteration.

Back to Contents

Insider information

During the year I investigated two complaints that raised issues relating to the actions of members of Land Registry staff, and the possibility that they might have benefited from 'insider information'. While I did not find evidence in any of the cases of improper conduct by Land Registry staff, I was concerned that Land Registry's responses had not been as clear as they might have been. I suggested that there was a need for internal guidance to help staff deal more effectively with similar issues in future.

One of these was the case of Mr M that I have already mentioned.

In the second case a firm of solicitors lodged a complaint on behalf of their client Mr P. Mr P's neighbour (Mr Q), a Land Registry employee, had applied for adverse possession of an area of woodland registered to Mr P. A survey had been conducted, and following the survey, a notice had been sent to Mr P informing him of the application. The solicitors objected to the application, arguing that Land Registry had shown bias, and that the surveyor had known Mr Q and had assisted him with his application. After reviewing all the available evidence, I found no objective evidence of bias, but was concerned that Land Registry had not given notice to Mr P before the survey took place, and did not provide full details of Mr Q's links with Land Registry as soon as the issue was raised. In the circumstances, I felt that it was understandable that Mr P should have received the impression that there had been a lack of even-handedness and transparency. I recommended an apology. I further recommended that Land Registry should consider introducing systems to identify potentially contentious applications involving its own staff, and to provide guidance for officers on how to deal with them.

Back to Contents