Independent Complaints Review to the Land Registry Annual Report 2001-2002

A digest of cases

Acting improperly

Mr A complained about alleged improper conduct, including racial discrimination, on the part of several Land Registry officers, including a senior member of staff. These complaints arose against the backdrop of Mr A's dispute with a company that had acquired the freehold of his leasehold property.

Mr A claimed that this acquisition had been in contravention of enfranchisement legislation.

The ICR found that the Land Registry had acted properly in processing the company's application for registration of the freehold title. The ICR explained that the Registry is required to ensure that applications submitted to it are properly drawn and presented in accordance with the Land Registration Act and Rules. It is not the Registry's responsibility to ensure that the interests or entitlements of other parties under legislation have been properly observed. Further, at the time that the application was received, the Registry was unaware of any dispute. Accordingly, there was no reason to question what appeared to be a straightforward application.

The ICR did not uphold Mr A's complaints about racial discrimination and other alleged misconduct. The ICR found no objective evidence to support any of these allegations.

She concluded that the complaints arose from the Registry's refusal to act upon Mr A's request that the registration of the freehold title to the company be reversed. The ICR stated that the fact that the Registry refused this request did not mean that its officers had acted improperly.

Mr A remained dissatisfied after learning the outcome of the ICR's review. He was advised that if he wished to take matters further, his next step was to approach an MP to seek a referral of his complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman).

Making matters worse

Mr and Mrs B were involved in a boundary dispute with their neighbours over a small strip of land between their properties. The dispute was of very long standing and had led to unpleasant confrontations between the parties. The dispute was brought to the attention of the District Land Registry and, in due course, it was referred to the Agency's Case Review Team.

Eventually a hearing was held under the Agency's judicial powers, which resulted in a decision to amend their neighbours' title and the payment of a substantial amount of statutory compensation to Mr and Mrs B. The matter took a number of years to conclude.

Despite the favourable outcome of the hearing, Mr and Mrs B had a number of complaints about the way in which the Registry had handled the case.

They complained that the Registry had failed to deal with their neighbours' first registration application properly and had been biased towards their neighbours in its handling of the dispute. They also complained that the District Land Registry had initially refused to investigate their concerns and that the Registry's handling of matters had exacerbated the dispute and rendered an amicable solution impossible to achieve.

The ICR partially upheld Mr and Mrs B's complaint. In handling the neighbours' application for registration, the Registry had asked them to indicate on a plan the extent of the land for which they were applying. Later investigation by the Registry concluded that it had not been appropriate to rely upon this plan, as the neighbours had not accurately identified the extent of the land. There were clear inconsistencies between this and information contained in the title deeds. The ICR criticised the Registry for not mentioning these concerns to Mr and Mrs B. This had given a misleading impression of the Registry's own assessment of its handling of this matter.

The ICR also criticised the Registry for proceeding to amend the neighbours' registration some years after registration, without notifying or seeking a view from Mr and Mrs B, when it knew that there was a boundary dispute between the neighbours.

She partially upheld Mr and Mrs B's complaint that the District Land Registry had initially refused to investigate this matter. She did not accept that the Registry actively refused to look into the case in the way suggested by Mr and Mrs B. However, it could have undertaken the detailed review eventually carried out by the Case Review Team and explained about the Registry's own judicial powers.

The ICR did not uphold the complaint about bias. Mr and Mrs B felt that the Agency favoured their neighbours because the views expressed prior to the hearing were more in line with the neighbours' view of matters than theirs. The ICR found that the Registry had acted impartially and objectively. The Registry had tried to establish a basis for negotiation and had explained that views given during this process would not affect the outcome of any hearing. The Registry did not succeed in achieving a settlement but this did not mean that the effort should not have been made.

Nevertheless, the correspondence between the Registry and the neighbours went on for a very long time indeed. As time passed, the Registry slipped into debating the points at issue with Mr and Mrs B rather than focussing on establishing a basis for discussion. As a result, it seemed to Mr and Mrs B that they needed to argue their case with the Registry. To this extent, Mr and Mrs B felt that the Registry itself had effectively become 'the other side' in this dispute.

The ICR found that, to a limited extent, the way that the Registry handled matters had prolonged the dispute. She did not accept the complainants' allegations that the Registry had actively encouraged the neighbours to 'stand their ground', nor that it had advised them not to negotiate. The ICR commented that, in the final analysis, it was up to the parties to reach an agreement. However, as the correspondence went on, the parties had became more entrenched in their respective positions.

The ICR commented that the Registry's new procedures, which put a strict time limit on attempts to explore the possibilities for amicable settlement, would serve to prevent complaints of this kind from arising in the future.

The ICR recommended that the Chief Land Registrar apologise to Mr and Mrs B for the shortcomings identified by her review. She recommended that the Registry remind its staff of the importance of giving careful consideration to the nature and content of written and verbal communication with the parties in a dispute case, in order to ensure that everyone is dealt with fairly and consistently.

Not registering everything

Mrs C complained that the Registry had registered only part of the land to which she considered she was entitled. The Agency had decided that a part of her application could not be approved because it failed to meet the requirements for registration.

Mrs C became more upset when her neighbours applied for and were granted title to adjoining land, including some that she had tried but failed to register.

Mrs C had a number of complaints about the Registry's handling of matters. She complained that the Registry had discriminated against her by not carrying out an inspection of the land, following her neighbours' application, and for not giving her notice of their application, even though the Registry had known about a dispute.

The ICR found that since the service of notices in these circumstances is discretionary, the fact that no notice was given did not constitute maladministration. However, the Registry had been aware of a possible dispute between the neighbours, so it was particularly unfortunate that it had chosen not to serve notice. The ICR noted that the Registry had conceded that notice should have been served and that it should have carried out a survey of the land in question. Nevertheless, the Registry's view was that the end result of the neighbours' application would have remained the same.

Mrs C also complained about the Registry's internal review of her complaints. She considered this had not been fair or thorough, given that the outcome of the review was in line with the Registry's earlier decision.

The ICR did not uphold this complaint. She found no objective evidence to suggest that the review had not been thorough. The ICR found that the Registry had made every effort to explain its reasons for taking the view that it did, but Mrs C had never accepted these explanations.

The ICR criticised the Registry for continuing its correspondence with Mrs C for so long after final review. She found that the Registry had completed this review and given its findings relatively early on in the long history of its correspondence with Mrs C. However, the ICR acknowledged that the case had been re-opened in a spirit of helpfulness. This was partly because recent changes to the Registry's internal complaints procedure meant that when Mrs C first complained to the Registry, she had not had access to the range of complaints review that is available to complainants today. The ICR did not consider it appropriate to re-open this complaint long after matters had been finalised.

Resolution without review

The Land Registry incorrectly registered an accessway to business premises within a neighbouring title. Mr D, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients about this.

This error resulted in lengthy and contentious negotiations between Mr D and the neighbour, as a result of which considerable legal costs were incurred.

Mr D complained that the Land Registry had been very slow and unhelpful in dealing with the matter and that the Agency had displayed bad faith in going back on assurances that Mr D said it had given previously. Mr D also complained that the Registry had a dismissive attitude towards his clients' compensation claim and to their complaints about the Registry's overall handling of matters.

At the time that Mr D first complained to the ICR, and for some considerable time afterwards, this case was subject to ongoing consideration within the Registry's Agency Case Review Team. As a result, the ICR's review had to wait until the internal review had been concluded. In particular, the ICR wished to avoid any delay in the Registry's consideration of the compensation claim.

Nevertheless, it was agreed between the ICR, the complainant and the Registry that a summary of the complaint would be agreed straight away, so that the Registry was fully aware of the complaints that had been made. Over the following weeks and months, Mr D contacted the ICR's office on several occasions to raise further concerns.

Mr D and the Registry finally agreed the payment of compensation to his clients. The Agency was also able to respond to other complaints that he had raised during this period. As a result, his complaint about the Agency was not taken any further. Mr D commented that the ICR's office had helped matters to reach a satisfactory conclusion by acting as a conciliator between the Registry and his client.

Unfair and incorrect advice

Mr E was the owner of a ground and first floor flat. He had intended for some time to claim squatter's rights on a piece of adjoining land. He asked the District Land Registry about this and, according to Mr E, he was told that this would be possible if he waited for the statutory time period to pass. However, when he eventually applied for registration, his application was rejected. He complained that the Registry had acted unfairly by telling him that he could claim title to the land and then rejecting his application. He said that, if he was not entitled to claim ownership, he should have been told this from the start. This would have saved him considerable time and effort.

On investigation, the ICR found that Mr E had been advised that he would need to demonstrate twelve years unchallenged possession of the land in question, in order for the Registry to consider his application. He was also told how to go about making an application. According to the Registry's note of this advice, Mr E was warned that it was not possible to say beforehand whether the application would succeed.

The Registry's files showed that Mr E had, in fact, made two applications. The first was rejected because it had not contained the required statutory declaration evidence and he applied some two years before the twelve years was up. The second application was submitted after the expiration of the required period and was supported by a statutory declaration. On this occasion, the Registry decided that an inspection of the land was necessary before reaching any decision. The survey established that part of the land being claimed by Mr E was accessible to anyone and the other part, although fenced off, showed no other signs of occupation.

The case was referred to the District Land Registrar, a senior Agency lawyer, who turned down Mr E's application. This decision was taken partly because the survey did not show the exclusive acts of possession required. Also, after examination of all the available documentary information, the District Land Registrar concluded that the land remained in the ownership of the company that had developed the site.

The ICR was not able to say whether or not Mr E's adverse possession claims should have succeeded, because this matter was outside of her remit. She explained to Mr E that, if he wished to challenge or reverse the Registry's decision, he would have to seek a judicial review.

The ICR found that the Registry had not given any assurances about the likely success of Mr E's application. Mr E had seen the expiration of the twelve-year period as the only qualifying factor for the success of his claim; however, the Registry had made it clear that this was not the case. It had provided Mr E with detailed information on the requirements and considerations for this kind of application, and given details about the relevant legal authorities.

The ICR was satisfied that the Registry had followed its usual procedures in processing Mr E's applications and that it took everything into account before reaching its decisions.

Misleading and unhelpful

Mr F was in dispute with his neighbour, who he believed had improperly succeeded in registering an interest in his land. Mr F complained that his neighbour had no such interest and had been encouraged to apply for registration by an error in Mr F's registered title. He complained that the Land Registry had misled him about the existence of a certain document and had been generally unhelpful and evasive in its dealings with him. Finally, Mr F complained that the Registry had denied him access to documents that it had earlier said he could see.

The ICR did not uphold any of Mr F's complaints. She found that there had been a misunderstanding between Mr F and the Land Registry regarding the existence of the document referred to above. The Registry had used a particular legal term in referring to a transfer document. Mr F had understood this term to mean that there was some kind of 'private' or undisclosed document in existence. This was not, in fact, the case and Mr F had misunderstood what the officer had said. The ICR commented that it was regrettable that this misunderstanding was not cleared up earlier, and the Registry had to take some responsibility for this. It underlined the importance of using language that a layman can understand, when dealing with members of the public.

With regard to the alleged Registry error, the ICR found that this too was a misunderstanding on Mr F's part. Mr F had believed that the way in which the Land Registry had described his land in the property register had led his neighbour to claim part of his land. Mr F's belief had been reinforced by the Land Registry's incorrect description of his property in the headings of some of the letters that it had written to him. The ICR recommended that the property description in the register could be amended to clarify the general location of Mr F's property. The Registry accepted this and agreed to amend the property description accordingly.

The ICR did not consider that the Registry had been evasive or unhelpful towards Mr F. In her opinion, the Registry had sought to respond to his concerns in a helpful manner. Mr F had also had direct access to senior Land Registry lawyers to whom he could explain matters.

The ICR considered that this complaint arose, at least in part, because Mr F did not agree with much of what the Land Registry had had to say. She understood that this had frustrated Mr F, but there was no objective evidence to suggest that the Registry was being evasive or unhelpful. This would only be the case if it had failed to be clear about the view that it was taking and the reasons for that view. The ICR was satisfied that this was not the case.

The ICR found that, at times, it had been difficult for the Registry to be helpful to Mr F because there had been occasions when his sense of frustration had got the better of him and Registry officers had had to cope with his discourtesy and anger. The ICR said that, whilst the public are entitled to expect courtesy and respect from officials, staff are also entitled to similar treatment in return.

Mr F's complaints about evasiveness had arisen from the Land Registry's failure to return all of his telephone calls. Whilst the ICR understood why some officers may have been reluctant to return the calls, a response should have been given, if not by telephone then at least in writing. The ICR commented that there can be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Registry to decide not to return calls from a particular customer, but this should be explained to the customer concerned. This did not happen in this case and merited criticism. However, the Registry had apologised to Mr F for not returning calls, and the ICR considered this to be a reasonable response to his complaint.

Finally, the ICR found that the Registry had not denied Mr F access to documents. It was true that he had asked to see some pre-registration documents, but the Registry had explained to him that such documents are usually returned to the applicants after the completion of first registration and were, therefore, no longer available from the Registry's files.

Removal of a charge

Mr G was the proprietor of a legal charge over a registered title. Following a court order, the Land Registry received an application to remove the charge from the register. The Registry duly removed the charge, but did not give notice of this to Mr G or his solicitors. Mr G did not find out about it for several years. When he became aware of what had happened, he complained to the Registry that he was still owed money under the charge and that he should have been notified of the application to remove it from the register.

On investigation, the ICR found that the Registry's usual practice was not followed and notice should have been sent to Mr G. The Agency had acknowledged this and offered an apology. However, notice would have been for information only as he would not have had a legal right to object. To do this, Mr G would have to institute further court proceedings by way of appeal against the original order.

However, given the length of time that had elapsed without any contact from the Registry, the ICR felt that the circumstances of this case warranted a more tangible recognition from the Registry of its failure to follow proper procedure. The ICR recommended that the Registry make a consolatory payment of £100 to Mr G to add to the apologies already offered.

Disputes and decisions

Mr H was the owner of a registered title, abutted by a strip of land that was unregistered. According to Mr H, his title deeds clearly showed that his title extended to the centre line of this strip, but the Registry had failed to register his title up to this point. Mr H claimed that this was a mistake on the Registry's part.

Problems were exacerbated when Mr H's neighbours applied to have ownership of the strip registered to them. Mr H complained that they had been encouraged to do this by the way in which his title had been registered, The neighbours' application was not successful but a dispute arose, because the neighbours built a shed on this land. This led to Mr H instituting court proceedings to have the shed removed and to determine ownership of the land.

Mr H complained that the Land Registry acted unfairly in not registering the full extent of the land to which he was entitled and in not considering his argument that his title should be rectified to include the additional land. He said that the officers he dealt with were both evasive and unhelpful. Mr H complained that the response he received to his letter to the Chief Land Registrar did not address the questions that he asked. In addition, the officer who had responded failed to say in what capacity she was replying, or on whose behalf. He complained that the Registry had displayed bias in his neighbours' favour by giving full consideration to their arguments whilst dismissing his. Finally, Mr H complained that he had been forced to pursue this matter through the courts, because he was never told about the Land Registry's judicial role or powers.

The ICR did not uphold the complaint about the original registration of his title. She concluded that the Registry had followed its usual practice and procedure by taking account of a relevant legal presumption in deciding how to register the title. However, she criticised the Registry for not undertaking a review of the registration after Mr H had contacted the Agency. She noted that further enquiries had revealed that the presumption in question might not have been applicable after all.

This failure may have had particularly serious consequences because, by the time the Land Registry did consider this matter, court proceedings had already commenced and it was too late for administrative action to be taken. A later review by the Land Registry had established that, in fact, another legal presumption might be applicable. Had this been applied at the time of first registration, it may well have led to the strip of land being included in Mr H's title. The ICR also criticised the Registry for not involving a legal specialist at an earlier stage.

The ICR found that, although late in the day, full consideration had been given to Mr H's arguments. In fact, the Registry had continued to do this and to respond to his detailed arguments even after it knew that there were ongoing court proceedings. This led Mr H to conclude that further argument and correspondence with the Land Registry might eventually persuade the Agency to amend his title as he wished. This was not the case.

The ICR found that, when Mr H first raised his concerns with the District Land Registry's Customer Service Manager, the complaints procedure was not explained to him. The Registry was slow to respond and, when it did so, his complaint was handled as 'routine' casework, rather than as a review of his complaints. As a result, Mr H felt that the Registry did not intend to respond to his complaints.

The ICR upheld the complaint about the request for information. She found that his request was not handled in accordance with the Registry's usual procedures. Also, the officer responding failed to make it clear in which capacity, or on whose behalf, she was responding.

The eventual court decision confirmed Mr H's ownership of one-half of the strip. The Land Registry then rectified his title accordingly. Mr H considered this to be further evidence that the Land Registry had been acting unfairly all along. However, the ICR did not uphold the complaint about bias. She found that the Registry had dealt with Mr H and his neighbours in an impartial manner.

Finally, the ICR did not uphold the complaint that he had been forced to go to court because he had not been told about the Land Registry's judicial procedure. The ICR found that the Registry had not been aware of the dispute when he first complained about the extent of his registered title. Even when his neighbours made their application, this was still not clear. It was not long after this that the Land Registry was told that Mr H had commenced proceedings. The Registry then had no choice but to await the outcome of those proceedings.

In these circumstances, the ICR found that the Registry had acted appropriately in not informing Mr H about its judicial powers since they could not be used to settle this dispute. In addition to seeking a decision on ownership, Mr H wanted the court to restrain his neighbours from trespassing on the strip of land and to require the removal of the shed and fence. These were not remedies that the Registry could have granted.

The ICR recommended that the Registry apologise to Mr H for the shortcomings that she had identified and make a consolatory payment of £100. She also made further recommendations aimed at addressing issues concerning poor record keeping, the failure to recognise the initial complaint and the necessity for recording the reasons for discretionary decisions on the Agency's file.

Building Restrictions

Mrs J's property and others in the same small row of houses were built in a rural area in the nineteenth century. Shortly after this, a local builder started to build other homes in the vicinity and the owners of the earlier houses bought up nearby areas of land, in order to ensure that their homes were kept at a distance from any new development. A 'restrictive covenant' was placed on these areas to ensure that they would never be built on.

One of these houses together with the additional piece of land, which was intended to preserve the distance between their property and any other, had subsequently been sold on. In registering the new title, the Land Registry had failed to carry the restrictive covenant forward. As a result, there were plans to build a house on the additional piece of land. If carried out, this would mean that there would be a house built right up against Mrs J's garden and also very close to the other properties in the row.

The Land Registry had admitted that it made a mistake in not carrying the covenant forward and it had offered a modest payment of compensation. Mrs J pointed out that the Registry had only done so after she had been forced to take counsel's opinion because of the Agency's initial refusal to do anything. She also complained that the compensation being offered was insufficient. It was nowhere near the figure that her valuer had put on the potential reduction in the value of her property if the new house was built.

The ICR explained to Mrs J that she could not comment upon what level of statutory compensation she might be due. Following consultation with the Land Registry, it was agreed that the Registry would reconsider Mrs J's claim for compensation before any further steps were taken.

The District Land Registrar arranged a survey of the site by the Valuation Office. This resulted in an increased offer of compensation. Mrs J remained dissatisfied and the case was accordingly referred to the Agency Case Review Team.

Some months later, the ICR heard from Mrs J again. She complained strongly that it should not have been necessary for her to go through such a protracted process to get what she was due. She complained that the Land Registry had not been proactive in its efforts to provide her with appropriate redress following the acknowledgement of its error. She said that this attitude had compelled her to take legal advice and other measures in an effort to get the Land Registry to accept that it should pay appropriate compensation.

Mrs J pointed out that the offer of compensation had been increased five times, proving that the Registry was loath to do what was right at the earliest opportunity. Finally, she complained that the Registry had handled matters very badly from an administrative perspective, losing its files for some three months. Despite the fact that the problem had been caused by the Agency's own mistake, she felt that the Agency had dealt with her in an unsympathetic and defensive manner.

The ICR partially upheld Mrs J's complaints. She did not uphold the complaint that the Registry had not been proactive in trying to sort matters out. She found that the Registry had dealt with things reasonably promptly. Importantly, the Registry had recognised early on that it had made a mistake and had given comprehensive advice about compensation. It had explained why it considered rectification was not appropriate in this case.

With regard to Mrs J's complaints about the way in which her claim for compensation had been handled, the ICR found that the Registry had acted in accordance with its usual practice in its consideration of the claim. However, the process of negotiation and the number of times that the Registry increased its offer had given the impression that Mrs J was engaged in a 'battle of attrition' with the Registry, which was unwilling to face up to its responsibilities.

In relation to the overall way in which the Land Registry had handled matters, it was the case that the Registry had misplaced its files and this complaint was initially justified. However, the ICR pointed out that the Registry had apologised for this, which she considered to be an appropriate and reasonable response.

The ICR did not uphold Mrs J's complaints about staff attitude as no objective evidence was found to support this complaint. The Registry had acknowledged its mistake, apologised for it and had sought to put matters right (albeit with limited success). The ICR commented that it was clear that there remained significant differences in view between Mrs J and the Registry regarding compensation, but the Registry had explained how and why it had reached its view. She pointed out that, in addition to its responsibility to individual customers, the Registry also has a duty to the public purse and is prohibited from paying more than it considers to be reasonable compensation. Inevitably, the sum offered will not always meet the claimant's expectations. Any ongoing dispute about this has to be referred to the court for determination under the terms of the Land Registration Act and Rules.

The ICR recommended that the Registry offer an apology to Mrs J for the anxiety and distress that she had been caused.

Withholding information

Mr K became involved in a boundary dispute with his neighbours over the ownership of a hedge between their two properties. Mr K's title deeds were missing so he sought to rely upon the Land Registry's filed plan, which he considered supported his view that the hedge fell within his title. He sought further support for his arguments with information from the Land Registry's files. In the end, agreement could not be reached and the dispute became the subject of court proceedings.

Mr K complained that, although a Registry officer had been prepared to give him information about plot dimensions over the telephone, the Registry later refused to confirm this information in writing because it could be detrimental to 'the other side'. Mr K also complained that he was told by the Agency that he could not rely on the filed plan to support his argument. He said this was not what he had been told previously. Mr K felt that the Registry should have been more helpful in responding to his requests for information from its files, and that this had left the parties with no alternative but to go to court.

The ICR found that the Registry had explained from the start that the question of the exact position of the boundary in question was subject to the 'General Boundaries Rule', by which the Registry's filed plan does not define exactly where a legal boundary lies within a physical feature. She also found no evidence on the file to suggest that Mr K had been given specific plot dimensions. However, on the balance of probabilities, she accepted Mr K's version of events. She concluded that, whatever he may or may not have been told regarding plot dimensions, the Registry had always made its position clear and had explained the significance of the General Boundaries Rule. He had been given a copy of its guidance on filed plans, which explained about the difficulties of using those plans and the Ordnance Survey map generally for the purposes of 'scaling up' dimensions on the ground to determine boundary disputes.

Given this, the ICR did not uphold Mr K's complaint that the Registry had been unhelpful in refusing to provide written information to support his claims. She found that the Registry had followed its usual procedures in dealing with Mr K's requests for information and that it was as helpful as it could have been in the circumstances.

The ICR did not accept that the Registry's actions had compelled the parties to go to court. In fact, the files showed that court proceedings had been commenced only a short time after Mr K had first contacted the Registry. The fact that the information provided by the Registry did not cast sufficient light on the issues in dispute did not mean it was the Land Registry's fault that court proceedings were commenced.

The ICR questioned whether the published guidance on these matters clearly explained that the Registry's ability to assist in dispute resolution is limited. She also suggested that the guidance should be explicit in stating that the Registry might not be able to help at all if the courts are already involved.

The ICR recommended that the Registry review its published guidance.

Errors on the plan

Mrs L complained that the Land Registry had incorrectly mapped her registered title. The filed plan for her title had been substituted for a new edition following a revision of the Ordnance Survey map, but Mrs L claimed that this new plan did not accord with her original transfer document nor with the layout envisaged on the developers' plan. The Land Registry had acknowledged that the registered extents of both Mrs L's and her neighbour's properties did not accord with the original transfer plans, but it had declined to rectify the titles.

Mrs L complained about the Land Registry's original refusal to amend the titles, and about the Agency Case Review Team's subsequent view that there was no error. She also complained that the Registry had failed to apologise for its mistakes. Despite admitting to mistakes at first, it later went back on this and said there were none.

The ICR found that there had been inconsistency in what the Land Registry had said about whether it had made a mistake and what, if anything, should be done about it. At one stage, the Registry had concluded that it had 'got it wrong' but later said that there was either no mistake, or that it was not possible to come to a definitive view about this. The ICR found that the Registry had not been completely open with Mrs L about the shortcomings that it had identified in its handling of the initial registrations. She criticised the Registry for this.

However, the Registry's view had developed over time as information emerged. Ultimately, it reached the view that Mrs L had bought her registered title as it was and could not seek to amend the registration at this stage.

In general, the ICR found that the Registry had considered all of the issues, but had explained things to Mrs L late in the day. She had not had any explanation at all about the Registry's administrative and judicial roles and the key differences between them.

The ICR criticised the Land Registry for instances of unreasonable and excessive delay in its handling of this matter and for a lack of clarity in the way that it approached dealing with Mrs L. She criticised the Agency's poor record keeping, which included the loss of papers from its files. This information may have been of considerable assistance in reviewing matters and resolving Mrs L's complaints.

Although the Registry had acknowledged a number of these shortcomings to Mrs L, the ICR found that it had failed to apologise for many of them. The ICR criticised the Registry for this. She recommended that the Registry apologise to Mrs L and make a consolatory payment of £200. The ICR also recommended that the Registry review its internal guidance on the relevant issues raised by this complaint.

Decisions not to review complaints

There are a number of circumstances in which the ICR cannot carry out a review of a complaint. This is explained in our information leaflets but sometimes people find this difficult to accept. Whenever the ICR is unable to carry out a review, a full explanation is given.

Conspiracy to defraud

Mr M complained that the Land Registry had conspired to defraud him of land that was rightfully his by altering deeds and plans. He also complained that he had been denied compensation for the loss of this land.

Mr M had been a regular and long-standing correspondent with the Land Registry. Although he had raised a number of concerns over the years, his objective had always been to get the Agency to acknowledge its responsibilities towards him.

The ICR concluded that she was not able to accept Mr M's complaints for review. These complaints had been made and responded to a long time ago. Despite the fact that correspondence had continued subsequently, this had not re-opened the complaint and it was not appropriate for the ICR to re-visit the issues. Further Mr M's complaints related to legal decisions that the Registry had reached in accordance with its statutory authority and, therefore, any review of the way in which the Registry had handled matters could not effect the legal status quo.

Out of time and out of court

Mr N was a party to court proceedings arising from a boundary dispute with his neighbour. This resulted in an order determining the issues in dispute, but some controversy arose afterwards concerning the plan that was referred to in the court order. According to Mr N, this plan had been incorrectly and improperly amended after the court's decision had been reached in his neighbour's favour. The neighbour had contacted the Registry some time after Mr N had applied for first registration of his property and asked that his title be amended. Mr N objected to the Registry's proposal that the plan in question be included with his land certificate.

Mr N complained that the Registry was acting incorrectly in proposing to sew up a copy of the plan in his land certificate. He also complained that the Registry was unfair in refusing to consider holding a hearing under its own judicial powers, to determine the outstanding issues.

The ICR explained to Mr N that she was unable to comment upon the question of the alleged improper amendment to the plan, nor could she look into issues that had already been decided by the courts. However, she agreed to consider Mr N's other complaints. The ICR wrote to Mr N to request more detailed information, to enable a summary of complaint to be agreed.

Many months went by without any further contact from the complainant. During this time, the ICR wrote several letters reminding him about the six-month time limit for the referral of complaints but on each occasion Mr N either did not respond or indicated that he was in the process of pursuing other avenues. In due course, since Mr N had not pursued his complaint, the file was closed.

Some time later, Mr N contacted the ICR again. He requested that the review proceed and set out the particulars of his complaint in detail. After careful consideration, the ICR decided that the file could not be re-opened. This was because Mr N's complaint was, by then, significantly out of time in respect of the ICR's review procedures. The ICR noted that Mr N had already been given a lot more time than was usual in which to refer his complaint. The time limit had been explained to him several times. She explained that the provision is in place principally because it is not fair or practical for review to take place a very long time after the Registry's final response and Mr N had not shown sufficient reason why this provision should be set aside in his case.

In addition, Mr N's complaint referral did not disclose any matter that properly fell within the ICR's remit. His concerns related to the terms of the court order, the alleged alteration to the plan and the way in which the Registry had interpreted the effect of the order. In the ICR's view, all of these matters should more properly be referred back to the court for consideration.