Ministry of Justice / HMCTS — correspondence with the family (email)

Dear Ms Hollis, I write further to your letter of 27 April 2026. This correspondence constitutes formal pre-action notice of my intention to pursue legal remedies arising from the historic proceedings concerning Great House Farm, Llandough. While I note your position regarding judicial independence, I do not accept that the issues raised can be dismissed at an administrative level. My representations concern alleged procedural irregularity, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and structural unfairness which, taken together, raise serious questions as to whether the proceedings were properly and fairly determined. These matters warrant proper consideration, or at minimum clear direction to an appropriate forum capable of examining them. —————————— A. Grounds for Reparations The basis upon which reparations are sought includes: – Continuous occupation over approximately 318 years (1667–1988), open, peaceful, and without permission (*nec vi, nec clam, nec precario*), establishing de facto ownership; – No voluntary surrender of rights at any stage, with the claim maintained consistently to the present day; – Uncompensated dispossession, including eviction and demolition without settlement; – Coercive enforcement measures, including forced removal, detention, restraining measures, and demolition under duress; – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Destruction of an ancestral home of significant age and character (approximately 800 years); – Loss or disappearance of family records and evidential materials relevant to ownership; – Failure to act upon known archaeological and historical significance, resulting in loss of heritage protection; – Resulting public interest harm through the destruction of a site of historical importance. —————————— B. Grounds to Set Aside or Reopen the 1987 Ruling1. Reliance on a disputed “licence by silence” The judgment relied upon an inferred licence accepted through silence. This is unsafe where: – correspondence was addressed to a disputed identity (“Mrs Buckler”); – evidence of active rejection (including 1978) was not before the court. 2. Identity misrepresentation Mary Williams was treated as “Mrs Buckler,” which: – did not reflect her asserted identity; – weakened her position by obscuring lineage-based claims; – artificially linked her to the alleged intent of another party. 3. Misplaced reliance on Frederick Buckler’s intent Any alleged intention: – was personal to him and legally distinct; – did not bind Mary Williams; – was extinguished upon his death in 1965; – and was not supported by fulfilment of tenancy obligations. 4. Procedural irregularities (1974) There are serious concerns that: – an appeal attempt and request for a stay were disrupted; – licence correspondence was timed and/or presented so as to defeat due process; – a key hearing was effectively neutralised before determination. 5. Non-disclosure of material facts Relevant matters appear not to have been disclosed, including: – evidence of public rejection of the opposing claim; – archaeological and historical significance of the site; – the existence of an ongoing dispute in the context of land registration. 6. Inconsistent treatment of corporate identity – In 1987, my grandmother’s rebuttal to BP Pension Trust was disregarded on the basis that BP Pension Trust and BP Properties were separate entities; – In subsequent proceedings, the same entities were treated as effectively the same when dismissing an appeal. This inconsistency materially affected the outcome and raises concerns as to fairness and legal coherence. 7. Avoidance of substantive title determination The case proceeded within a possession framework rather than determining underlying ownership in an appropriate forum, resulting in the absence of a definitive adjudication on title. 8. Possible misrepresentation / constructive fraud Concerns arise that: – licence arrangements were asserted under a disputed identity; – the authority of the issuing entity was unclear; – planning and property descriptions may have mischaracterised the nature of the building. 9. New or previously unavailable evidence This includes: – missing or unavailable title documentation; – evidence relating to arrangements (including that attributed to Daniel Thomas); – testimony of family members not previously considered [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026]; – subsequent archaeological findings supporting the site’s significance. —————————— C. Core Position Taken together, the 1987 outcome is arguable as unsafe due to flawed assumptions, missing evidence, and procedural unfairness. The resulting dispossession, demolition, and long-term harm give rise to a basis for reparative consideration. —————————— D. Why the Matter Requires Proper Consideration This matter should not be dismissed solely on the basis of judicial independence because: – The issues raised concern the *integrity of the process*, not simply disagreement with a result; – Allegations of *misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and procedural irregularity* fall outside ordinary appellate disagreement; – There is a *public interest dimension*, including loss of heritage and potential systemic issues; – The passage of time does not extinguish claims where *fraud or material injustice* is alleged; – Clarification is required as to the appropriate forum capable of examining such matters. —————————— E. Request for Clarification Before commencing proceedings, I request clarification of the following: 1. Whether any formal mechanism exists within government for referring allegations of procedural irregularity or fraud in historic cases for independent review; 2. Whether my correspondence has been referred to any oversight or investigatory body; 3. Whether the Ministry maintains any position as to the appropriate route for consideration of such evidence outside of direct court proceedings. —————————— Please treat this letter as a formal pre-action notice. I would be grateful for a substantive response within 14 days. Nothing in this letter should be taken as a waiver of any rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Hollis, I write further to your letter of 27 April 2026. This correspondence constitutes formal pre-action notice of my intention to pursue legal remedies arising from the historic proceedings concerning Great House Farm, Llandough. While I note your position regarding judicial independence, I do not accept that the issues raised can be dismissed at an administrative level. My representations concern alleged fraud, procedural irregularity, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and structural unfairness which, taken together, raise serious questions as to whether the proceedings to dispossess my disabled, widowed nan, of our land and farm since 1667[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] were properly and fairly determined. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And the fraud I discovered this year is the beginning of the Limitation clock so far as I understand, despite the fraud occuring almost 40 years ago. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] These matters warrant proper consideration, or at minimum clear direction to an appropriate forum capable of examining them. —————————— A. Grounds for Reparations The basis upon which reparations are sought includes: – Continuous occupation over approximately 318 years (1667–1988), open, peaceful, and without permission (*nec vi, nec clam, nec precario*), establishing de facto ownership; – No voluntary surrender of rights at any stage, with the claim maintained consistently to the present day; – Uncompensated dispossession, including eviction and demolition without settlement; – Coercive enforcement measures, including forced removal, detention, restraining measures, and demolition under duress; – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Destruction of an ancestral home of significant age and character (approximately 800 years); – Loss or disappearance of family records and evidential materials relevant to ownership; – Failure to act upon known archaeological and historical significance, resulting in loss of heritage protection; – Resulting public interest harm through the destruction of a site of historical importance. —————————— B. Grounds to Set Aside or Reopen the 1987 Ruling 1. Reliance on a disputed “licence by silence” The judgment relied upon an inferred licence accepted through silence. This is unsafe where: – correspondence was addressed to a disputed identity (“Mrs Buckler”); – evidence of active rejection (including 1978 news paper article) was not before the court. 2. Identity misrepresentation Mary Williams was treated as “Mrs Buckler,” which: – did not reflect her asserted identity; – weakened her position by obscuring lineage-based claims; – artificially linked her to the alleged intent of another party. 3. Misplaced reliance on Frederick Buckler’s intent Any alleged intention: – was personal to him and legally distinct; – did not bind Mary Williams; – was extinguished upon his death in 1965; – and was not supported by fulfilment of tenancy obligations. 4. Procedural irregularities (1974) There are serious concerns that: – an appeal attempt and request for a stay were disrupted; – licence correspondence was timed and/or presented so as to defeat due process; – a key hearing was effectively neutralised before determination. 5. Non-disclosure of material facts Relevant matters appear not to have been disclosed, including: – evidence of public rejection of the opposing claim; – archaeological and historical significance of the site; – the existence of an ongoing dispute in the context of land registration. 6. Inconsistent treatment of corporate identity – In 1987, my grandmother’s rebuttal to BP Pension Trust was disregarded on the basis that BP Pension Trust and BP Properties were separate entities; – In subsequent proceedings, the same entities were treated as effectively the same when dismissing an appeal. This inconsistency materially affected the outcome and raises concerns as to fairness and legal coherence. 7. Avoidance of substantive title determination The case proceeded within a possession framework rather than determining underlying ownership in an appropriate forum, resulting in the absence of a definitive adjudication on title. 8. Possible misrepresentation / constructive fraud Concerns arise that: – licence arrangements were asserted under a disputed identity; – the authority of the issuing entity was unclear; – planning and property descriptions may have mischaracterised the nature of the building. 9. New or previously unavailable evidence This includes: – missing or unavailable title documentation; – evidence relating to arrangements (including that attributed to Daniel Thomas); – testimony of family members not previously considered [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026]; – subsequent archaeological findings supporting the site’s significance. —————————— C. Core Position Taken together, the 1987 outcome is arguable as unsafe due to flawed assumptions, missing evidence, and procedural unfairness. The resulting dispossession, demolition, and long-term harm give rise to a basis for reparative consideration. —————————— D. Why the Matter Requires Proper Consideration This matter should not be dismissed solely on the basis of judicial independence because: – The issues raised concern the *integrity of the process*, not simply disagreement with a result; – Allegations of *misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and procedural irregularity* fall outside ordinary appellate disagreement; – There is a *public interest dimension*, including loss of heritage and potential systemic issues; – The passage of time does not extinguish claims where *fraud or material injustice* is alleged; – Clarification is required as to the appropriate forum capable of examining such matters. —————————— E. Request for Clarification Before commencing proceedings, I request clarification of the following: 1. Whether any formal mechanism exists within government for referring allegations of procedural irregularity or fraud in historic cases for independent review; 2. Whether my correspondence has been referred to any oversight or investigatory body; 3. Whether the Ministry maintains any position as to the appropriate route for consideration of such evidence outside of direct court proceedings. —————————— Please treat this letter as a formal pre-action notice. I would be grateful for a substantive response within 14 days. Nothing in this letter should be taken as a waiver of any rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler Esq. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Manor of Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan

Please advise on the current location and access options for records of proceedings involving Great House Farm, Mary Williams/Buckler/Western Ground Rents/BP (1915 eviction attempt, 1955/1962 possession orders). Focus on title/equitable interest evidence. Thanks, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Sirs, Please will you locate/access probate records for Mary Williams (d. March 1983), Great House Farm, Llandough—any wills, affidavits, or ownership claims referenced? Thanks, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Sir/Madam, I am seeking information regarding historical court proceedings relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan. In particular, I am seeking records relating to proceedings commenced by BP Pension Trust Limited in or around 1974 concerning occupation, possession, ownership, or adverse possession of Great House Farm. I would be grateful if you could advise: 1. Whether any file survives relating to proceedings issued by BP Pension Trust Limited against members of the Williams/Buckler family concerning Great House Farm, Llandough. 2. The case number, if known. 3. Whether copies survive of: – Claim forms or writs. – Defences. – Witness statements. – Affidavits. – Exhibits. – Court orders. – Judgments. – Plans or maps lodged with the court. 4. Whether the records have been transferred to an archive and, if so, the archive reference number and location. 5. Whether copies can be inspected or obtained and the applicable procedure. The proceedings are referred to in the Court of Appeal decision in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler (1987), which notes that proceedings had previously been commenced in 1974 and had not been finally determined. Ultimately/ and do you hold any surviving pleadings, orders, cause books, index cards, diary sheets, listing records, or archived bundles relating to proceedings commenced by BP Pension Trust Limited concerning Great House Farm, Llandough, during the period 1974–1987? Any assistance in locating the surviving records would be greatly appreciated. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Heir/ Successor to Williams/ Buckler Family Estate, Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan

Good morning, We are processing your request under reference 260607013. The deadline for the response is 6 July. Kind regards [signature_1893814455] Disclosure Team Security and Information Directorate Service Transformation Group [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

OFFICIAL Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. As you are requesting information relating to Mary Williams, please can you provide a copy of their death certificate. Kind regards, [signature_1893814455] Disclosure Team Security and Information Directorate Service Transformation Group [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Disclosure Team, Thank you for your letter dated 3 August 2026 requesting clarification regarding Subject Access Request reference *260702090*. To assist with your searches, I provide the following information and identifiers. I have previously sought the historical court references through the Ministry of Justice (FOI Ref. *260607013*, submitted on 7 June 2026) and by writing directly to Cardiff County Court on 10 June 2026. I would be grateful if those records, together with any related correspondence held by the Ministry of Justice or HM Courts & Tribunals Service, could also be used, where appropriate, to assist in identifying the relevant files. The following proceedings and identifiers are provided solely to assist in locating files that may contain my personal data. *Key proceedings and identifiers* – High Court possession proceedings involving *Western Ground Rents Ltd*, resulting in a possession order enforced (except for the farmhouse and garden) on or about *4 July 1955*. – Cardiff County Court proceedings against *Frederick Buckler* and *Mary Williams (also referred to as Mrs Buckler)*, resulting in a possession order dated *11 December 1962* concerning the farmhouse and garden together with mesne profits. – Cardiff County Court proceedings in *1974*, including a part-heard action on *3 July 1974*, leave to enforce granted on *19 September 1974*, and withdrawal of the warrant on *31 October 1974*. – Unilateral lifetime licence letters issued by *BP Pension Trust Ltd* and *BP Properties Ltd* to *Mrs Buckler* in late October / early November 1974. – High Court (Queen’s Bench Division, Cardiff) judgment of *Hollis J* dated *24 July 1986.* – Court of Appeal decision *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2*, handed down on *31 July 1987* (also reported at *[1987] 2 EGLR 168* and *(1988) 55 P & CR 337*). – European Commission of Human Rights Application *No. 14464/88 (Buckler v United Kingdom)*. – HM Land Registry first registration applications *WA231076* (30 November 1982) and *WA240304* (23 February 1983). *Property and associated parties* Great House Farm (Ty Mawr / Cedfin), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan. Associated names include *Buckler*, *Williams*, *Western Ground Rents Ltd*, *Mountjoy Ltd*, *BP Pension Trust Ltd*, *BP Properties Ltd*, and the *Bute Estate*. *Scope of searches requested* Please search for my personal data (*Sion Buckler*, also known as *Hywel Buckler*) held by the Ministry of Justice, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, or predecessor bodies in connection with: 1. The possession, eviction and enforcement proceedings relating to Great House Farm, particularly the *1988 enforcement action*, during which I was present as a child. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 3. Any personal data relating to me contained within files connected with the underlying litigation or *Application No. 14464/88*, including correspondence, memoranda or other records involving the Treasury Solicitor (or Government Legal Department), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or any other public authority, where those records contain my personal data. 4. Any personal data concerning me contained within files indexed under the names *Buckler*, *Williams*, *Great House Farm*, *Ty Mawr*, *Cedfin*, *Llandough*, *BP Properties Ltd*, *BP Pension Trust Ltd*, or *Western Ground Rents Ltd*. If your searches identify that relevant records have been transferred to another authority or archive, I would be grateful if you could identify the relevant authority or archive. Likewise, if records are known to have been destroyed, I would appreciate confirmation of that fact where it is recorded. If any further clarification would materially assist your searches, please let me know precisely what additional information would be helpful. Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Sir/Madam, I wrote to you on 10 June 2026 requesting access to historical court records relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan. I have not received a response. I am seeking confirmation of whether any surviving court records exist relating to possession, title, and related proceedings involving the Williams / Buckler family and the successive parties asserting title through Western Ground Rents Ltd and subsequently BP Pension Trust Ltd / BP Properties Ltd. The proceedings and related matters I am seeking to identify include: – High Court possession proceedings and the possession order of 1955, including any related enforcement records (including the enforcement action concerning the agricultural land on or around 4 July 1955); – Cardiff County Court proceedings of 1962, resulting in the possession order dated 11 December 1962 (before Judge Temple Morris QC), including any related claim for mesne profits; – Cardiff County Court proceedings commenced in 1974, including the part-heard hearing of 3 July 1974 at which Mary Williams asserted ownership and relied upon adverse possession / limitation arguments, the application for leave to enforce in September 1974, and subsequent correspondence concerning the proposed unilateral licence arrangement in October and November 1974; – The subsequent Court of Appeal proceedings in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] 55 P & CR 337. I request confirmation of whether any surviving records remain, including (but not limited to): – pleadings; – statements of case; – orders; – warrants; – correspondence; – exhibits; – judgments; – case files; – registers or indexes referring to these proceedings or the property. If records remain, please advise the procedure for obtaining copies or arranging inspection, including any applicable fees. If no records remain, please confirm what searches have been undertaken, which repositories or record systems have been checked, and whether any destruction, retention, or transfer records exist relating to these proceedings. Yours faithfully, Sion Hywel Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. Due to the age of this case, we wouldn’t currently hold any existing records for it, in line with our procedures. I can confirm we have conducted a search on our internal case management system, which has not produced any results. We are not privy to any other systems upon which we could conduct a search on the details you provide. It might be worth contacting Land Registry to see if they hold any details on this: HM Land Registry Citizen Centre PO Box74 Gloucester [removed] Thank you. Yours faithfully, Phoebe Owen Administration Officer Adran Gorfodi / Enforcement Section [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Ms Owen, Thank you for your email of 4 August 2026 and for confirming that a search of your internal case management system has been carried out with no results identified. My request was not limited to whether records are currently held on that system. It also sought confirmation of what searches (if any) were made of historical paper records, indexes and finding aids, and what became of the court records relating to the proceedings I identified. You state that, due to the age of the case, the court would not currently hold records “in line with our procedures.” I should be grateful if you would clarify the basis for that statement by addressing the following points: 1. What is the precise name of the internal case management system that was searched, and what period of records does it cover? 2. Were any surviving paper finding aids or historical records examined, including cause books, order books, registers of judgments or orders, warrant books, index cards, or any other historical indexes maintained by Cardiff County Court, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, or their predecessors? 3. Were any archived or off-site repositories under HMCTS control considered or searched? 4. Please identify the records retention, disposal or archival policy, schedule or instruction relied upon in concluding that records of this age would no longer be held. I note that the current publicly available County Court Records Retention and Disposition Schedule specifies relatively short retention periods for possession action cases. I should therefore be grateful if you could identify the historical policy, schedule or instruction that governed the records relating to these proceedings and, if possible, indicate when they would have been scheduled for destruction or transfer. 5. Does HMCTS hold any administrative record of the destruction or transfer of the relevant files, such as destruction registers, certificates, transfer schedules or equivalent records? 6. Were any records relating to these proceedings transferred to another repository, including The National Archives, Glamorgan Archives, or any other archive? If so, I should be grateful if you would provide the destination, date and any available reference. 7. Even if the original case files no longer survive, do any registers, indexes or other administrative records remain recording the existence, progress or disposal of proceedings involving the Williams family, the Buckler family, Western Ground Rents Ltd, BP Pension Trust Ltd, BP Properties Ltd, or Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough? The proceedings in question include the High Court possession proceedings of 1955 (including enforcement on or around 4 July 1955), the Cardiff County Court proceedings culminating in the possession order of 11 December 1962 before Judge Temple Morris QC, and the Cardiff County Court proceedings of 1974, including the part-heard hearing of 3 July 1974, the application for leave to enforce in September 1974, and the subsequent correspondence concerning the proposed unilateral licence arrangement. I have already been making enquiries of HM Land Registry. However, my present request concerns the court’s own records, the searches undertaken in relation to those records, and any surviving administrative record of their retention, destruction or transfer. If the information requested is not held within the Enforcement Section, I should be grateful if this enquiry could be forwarded to the appropriate court manager, records officer or other HMCTS team responsible for historical court records, and if you could kindly confirm that this has been done. Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your substantive reply addressing each of the points above. Yours sincerely, Sion Hywel Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Sir/Madam, This is a separate Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is distinct from my earlier request under your reference 260607013 (submitted 7 June 2026), which concerned the location and access options for historical court records relating to Great House Farm, Mary Williams/Buckler, Western Ground Rents and BP (focusing on the 1915, 1955 and 1962 possession proceedings and title/equitable interest evidence). This new request is limited solely to records of the hearing (or hearings) at Barry Magistrates Court in late January 1989 at which the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the charge arising from the allegation of 29 April 1988 as being “out of time.” I write under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request recorded information relating to criminal proceedings involving *William Beverly (“Billy”) Buckler* arising from events connected with the eviction and demolition of *Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan*, during 1988–1989. I am seeking administrative and recorded information concerning the handling of these proceedings, rather than personal data contained within individual case files. Specifically, I request copies of, or access to, any recorded information held concerning: 1. The prosecution in which a charge dating from *29 April 1988* alleging threatening words or behaviour was withdrawn because the proceedings were considered *”out of time.”* 2. Any records identifying: – the court in which that decision was made; – the date of the hearing; – the prosecutor involved (reported contemporaneously as *Mr Jeff Clarke*); – the legal basis upon which the summons was determined to be out of time. 3. Records relating to Billy Buckler’s appearances before the courts during *January–March 1989*, including any surviving: – cause lists; – court registers; – hearing lists; – minute books; – court log books; – bench records; – administrative case records; – listing records; – prosecution correspondence; – disposal records; or similar recorded information. 4. Records concerning the proceedings heard in *Cardiff on or about 23 March 1989*, including recorded information showing: – the charges before the court; – which charges were proceeded with; – which charges were withdrawn or discontinued; – the sentence imposed; – any recorded fine; – any credit given for time already spent in custody. 5. Records concerning charges arising from the *November 1988 eviction of Great House Farm*, including allegations of assault and wanton and furious driving. 6. Any recorded information concerning: – remand or custody records; – warrants; – bail conditions; – injunction-related court administration; – any order restricting Billy Buckler from approaching Great House Farm. 7. Any retention, destruction or disposal records relating to the above court files, including: – destruction schedules; – retention schedules; – disposal certificates; – archive transfer records; – accession records; – file movement records; – records identifying when and under what authority any files were destroyed or transferred. 8. Any file references, case numbers, register entries or archive references relating to these proceedings, even where the substantive files no longer survive. If any of the requested information has been transferred to another body, such as the relevant archive service or another part of HM Courts & Tribunals Service or the Ministry of Justice, please identify the receiving body and any known reference numbers. If any information is withheld, please specify the exemption relied upon, explain why it applies, and disclose all reasonably segregable information. If some parts of this request are more readily available than others, I would be grateful if those could be disclosed without waiting for the remainder. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

OFFICIAL Good afternoon I have addressed each of the points raised in your correspondence based on the information available to this office. 1. The search was conducted using the court’s current internal case management system. The proceedings referenced in your enquiry pre-date the introduction of modern electronic case management systems and would originally have been maintained as paper records. No records relating to the proceedings identified were located. 2. No surviving court file relating to the proceedings specified in your request has been identified. This office has not located any surviving historical finding aids, registers, order books, cause books, warrant books, index cards or similar records relating to those proceedings. 3. The conclusion that records of this age would not ordinarily be held is based on HMCTS records retention arrangements for possession proceedings. Under the records schedule available to this office,” paper records are retained for three years from the last meaningful transaction and then destroyed. Where applicable, records may be retained for longer if subject to litigation, audit, inquiry or other legal hold requirements. We do not hold information identifying the specific historical retention schedule applicable to the proceedings 1974. 4. Destroy/Delete: The record is securely destroyed (paper records shredded; electronic records permanently deleted). Many civil court records follow this route after their retention period expires. 5. No destruction register, destruction certificate, transfer schedule or equivalent administrative record relating to the proceedings specified has been identified by this office. Warmest regards, Jyothi Polusani Administration Officer Adran Gorfodi / Enforcement Section Canolfan Llysoedd Sifil Caerdydd | 2 Stryd Y Parc | Caerdydd | [removed] Cardiff Civil Justice Centre | [removed] | Cardiff | [removed] I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means. Nid oes gennyf awdurdod i rwymo’r Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder trwy gytundeb, na chyflwyno sylwadau neu ddatganiadau eraill a all rwymo’r Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder mewn unrhyw ffordd trwy ddull electronig For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see: Am wybodaeth ynghylch sut mae GLlTEF yn defnyddio data personol amdanoch chi, ewch i: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter<http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter> OFFICIAL [quoted text trimmed]

Disclosure Team, I request an internal review of the SAR response (MoJ reference 260803049) dated 3 September 2026. There’s 133 houses about to be developed on this land and I am trying to raise the concern that their title is defective. Please cooperate. The response states: “the MOJ does not hold any personal data within the scope of your request. This is because the files have been destroyed in accordance with the record retention and disposition schedule (RRDS).” This conclusion is not adequately supported by the information provided. I ask the reviewer to address the specific points below. 1. Evidence that the records existed I hold contemporaneous records from the European Commission of Human Rights concerning Application No. 14464/88, Buckler v United Kingdom. Those records establish that a substantial documentary record existed relating to the underlying proceedings and the United Kingdom Government’s handling of the case. The existence of that independent documentary trail is directly relevant to the searches that should have been conducted and to the subsequent fate of the corresponding Government records. I therefore ask the reviewer to distinguish between: 1. records which never existed; 2. records which existed but were subsequently transferred to another department, public authority or archive; 3. records which existed but were destroyed; and 4. records which still exist but could not be located by the searches undertaken for this SAR. Your response appears to rely upon category 3, but does not identify the documentary evidence supporting that conclusion. 2. Searches actually undertaken Please establish, insofar as recorded information is available: – the file references or index references searched; – the names and variations searched, including Buckler, Williams, Frederick Buckler, Mary Williams/Mrs Buckler and Sion Buckler/Hywel Buckler; – the relevant court case numbers or archival references searched; – whether historical HM Courts & Tribunals Service and predecessor-body records were searched; – whether records relating to the 1955 possession proceedings were searched; – whether records relating to the [removed] proceedings were searched; – whether records relating to the 1974 proceedings, including the enforcement proceedings, were searched; – whether records relating to the [removed] judgment and 1987 Court of Appeal proceedings were searched; – whether records relating to the Treasury Solicitor/Government Legal Department’s involvement in the litigation were searched; – whether records relating to European Commission of Human Rights Application No. 14464/88 were searched; – whether records relating to the 1988 enforcement/eviction were searched; and [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My request was not limited to the original court files. It sought any personal data relating to me, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] contained in any records connected with the specified proceedings or the Government’s handling of Application No. 14464/88. 3. Evidence of destruction or transfer Your response specifically states that “the files have been destroyed in accordance with the record retention and disposition schedule (RRDS).” Please therefore identify: – the specific RRDS disposal class or rule relied upon; – the version and date of the RRDS applicable to those records; – the applicable retention period; – the date, or approximate date, on which the relevant records were destroyed; – whether a destruction certificate, disposal schedule, destruction log or equivalent audit record exists; – whether the records were destroyed in whole or in part; – whether any records were transferred to another department, public authority or archive; – whether any transfer record exists; and – whether any surviving index, catalogue, register, file list, metadata or other residual record identifies the files which were destroyed. Most importantly, please confirm whether the statement that the files “have been destroyed” is based on an actual surviving disposal record, or is an inference drawn from the absence of the files in current MoJ/HMCTS holdings. There is a material difference between those two propositions. If there is a recorded destruction decision or disposal record, I ask that the reviewer identify the record and the authority under which the destruction took place, subject of course to any applicable exemption or restriction on disclosure. 4. European Commission of Human Rights records I also ask the reviewer specifically to consider the records associated with Application No. 14464/88. I possess records from the European Commission of Human Rights relating to that application. They provide an independent documentary trail concerning the underlying dispute and the United Kingdom Government’s involvement. Please therefore clarify whether the MoJ/HMCTS searches included records concerning Government correspondence, legal submissions, memoranda or other material relating to that application, including material involving the Treasury Solicitor or other Government departments. If such records were historically held by the MoJ or its predecessors but subsequently transferred elsewhere, please identify the receiving institution and any known archival or file reference. 5. Conclusion I am not asking the MoJ to recreate records that no longer exist. I am asking for an accurate account of what records were held, what searches were undertaken, what became of those records (destruction or transfer), and what documentary evidence exists of their disposal. If, following review, the conclusion remains that no personal data is held, please provide the reasons for that conclusion together with the recorded information requested above concerning the historical files and their disposal. Please treat this correspondence as a formal request for internal review of the SAR response. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

*FORMAL PRESERVATION NOTICE* *Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth* *Titles: WA231076, WA240304, WA513690 and WA735527* *Planning references: 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES* *URL: **greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com <http://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com>* *To each recipient separately, in your own capacity as a current or potential holder, custodian or controller of relevant records:* This notice is addressed to each recipient *individually*. It is *not a joint request*, and it does not ask any recipient to speak for, investigate on behalf of, or answer in place of any other person or organisation. Each recipient is asked to respond only in respect of records within that recipient’s own possession, custody or control, including records inherited from a predecessor organisation or retained on its behalf. 1. Nature and purpose of this notice This is a *formal preservation notice* concerning documentary material relating to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s, and the subsequent development of the site, including the area now associated with Church View Close. It is *not a claim form, is not service of proceedings, and is not intended to constitute or replace any FOI request, internal review, complaint, subject-access request or other statutory process already made to any recipient.* The purpose of this notice is to require the preservation of potentially relevant material while the documentary history, title chain, registration history, planning history, possession proceedings, demolition and subsequent development are being reconstructed. A separate first-stage preservation notice has been issued or is being issued to Cadw / Welsh Government FOI, HM Land Registry Wales Office and DPO, Heneb / GGAT HER, RCAHMW, Vale of Glamorgan FOI Unit and DPO, Glamorgan Archives, South Wales Police FOI, The National Archives, the Wales Office FOI team, and the National Library of Wales. Persimmon Homes (Wales) Ltd has received a separate preservation letter. *You are receiving this notice separately because the published documentary record places you, or a predecessor whose records may remain in your custody or control, within the documentary, legal, professional, administrative or development chain concerning this land.* 2. Land and documentary scope Please preserve, and do not destroy, alter, overwrite, discard, transfer out of custody without a recorded handover, or otherwise dispose of, any record within your possession, custody or control relating to the land or matters identified below. The scope includes, without limitation, *originals, copies, working papers, drafts, annotations, plans, photographs, negatives, films, tapes, maps, registers, indexes, correspondence, emails and attachments, electronic files, archived mailboxes, databases, metadata, internal notes, meeting records, instructions, client or matter files, survey material and other associated records.* The material requested includes: *1. Historical ownership, occupation and conveyancing* The 1877 split; the 1916 and 1939 tenancies; the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance; the 1969 Western Ground Rents to BP Pension Trust conveyance; and any plans, schedules, abstracts, searches, correspondence or other documents relied upon in relation to those transactions. *2. Possession proceedings and subsequent litigation* The [removed] and [removed] possession orders; the 1974 proceedings; *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2*; House of Lords leave papers, including *YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536*; and *Buckler v United Kingdom (1989)*, including associated correspondence, instructions, evidence, plans and working papers. *3. Land registration* The first registration of *WA231076*, including the application dated 30 November 1982; the first registration of *WA240304*, including the application dated 23 February 1983; subsequent amalgamation, transfer or closure; and every plan, conveyance, abstract, search, application, correspondence trail or professional file relied upon in connection with those registrations or changes. *4. 1988 possession and demolition* The taking of possession on or about *29 November 1988* and the demolition commenced on or about *6 December 1988*, including any planning, listed-building, heritage, police, enforcement, media, contractor, survey, photographic or inter-agency liaison material. *5. Planning and subsequent development, 1989–1996* Planning application *89/01396/OUT*; reserved matters application *92/00671/RES*; conditions 16–18; GGAT / Cotswold Archaeology material; records concerning any *section 52, section 106, planning obligation, local land charge or equivalent instrument*; and the transfer from BP to Ideal Homes dated *3 December 1993*, together with all associated plans, correspondence, approvals, agreements, searches and completion material. *6. Family records* Records concerning *Mary Doreen Williams (died 1983)* and *William Buckler*, insofar as those records relate to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, the land described above, its occupation, ownership, possession, disposal, registration, development or demolition. 3. Predecessor and inherited files Where you hold, or may hold, a file originating with a predecessor, successor, merged practice, affiliated practice, client or other entity, that material is also within scope. This includes, without limitation, records originating from: *Loosemores of Cardiff; Robbins Olivey & Blake Lapthorn / Blake Morgan; Linklaters & Paines; Debenham Tewson / DTZ / Cushman & Wakefield; Wyn Thomas + Partners; Ideal Homes Wales; BP Properties; BP Pension Trust; Cotswold Archaeological Trust; Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; and South Glamorgan County Council.* The reference to a predecessor file does not assert that you necessarily hold such a file. It identifies material for which a reasonable custody or succession inquiry should be made where applicable. 4. Preservation steps Please take reasonable steps to prevent the routine destruction, deletion, alteration or overwriting of potentially relevant material, including material held in *archived mailboxes, legacy systems, off-site storage, document-management systems, backup repositories and other electronic or physical stores*. Where relevant material has been transferred to another repository, archive, successor organisation or third party, please preserve the information necessary to identify the transfer and its current location, including any accession, file, box, reference or custody details. Nothing in this notice requires the creation of records that do not exist. The request concerns the preservation of records already held or controlled by you. 5. Purpose and legal position This notice is *not a finding against any recipient*, and I am not asking any recipient to determine title or adjudicate the underlying dispute. The *1987 Court of Appeal judgment* is relied upon here only for matters actually determined by that judgment, including the issues concerning possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. This preservation notice does not treat that judgment as having determined the complete documentary root of title to the farmhouse parcel. The underlying documentary history, including the relationship between the farmhouse parcel and the agricultural land subsequently dealt with through Western Ground Rents and BP, remains a matter requiring reconstruction from the primary records. Accordingly, preservation is requested precisely so that the documentary record can be established from the records themselves rather than through assumptions based on later registration, later occupation, later planning treatment or secondary descriptions. 6. Acknowledgement and identification of records Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and, in your own capacity, confirm: *(a)* the officer, partner, records manager or other person responsible for implementing the preservation hold; *(b)* what records within your possession, custody or control you have identified as falling within the scope above; and *(c)* where you identify no records within scope, what relevant systems, files, repositories or predecessor records you searched in reaching that conclusion. A substantive assessment of title is not requested from you. The immediate requirement is preservation and identification of the documentary material you hold. The public documentary index and developing evidence record is available at: */ </>* Please monitor that site for subsequent identification of documents, references and specific schedules relevant to your organisation’s records. Where a reliable public email address is unavailable, a postal preservation notice will also be sent. For example, a postal notice will follow to *Loosemores, Nothing in this notice constitutes an abandonment, waiver or limitation of any claim, position or remedy concerning *title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening, rectification or alteration of the register, or any associated matter.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Disclosure Team, Thank you for your reply and time and attention in this matter. I want to clarify that I am renouncing the reference to the 133 houses and that parcel as being within the scope of the concerns I am raising with you. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In any case, those 133 houses stems from a theory that what was done to obtain our parcel involved fraud, concealment and government involvement, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I believe that it all—all parcels—constituted a manorial estate, possibly called Cedfyn, from the knight Sir Herbert of Swansea Cedfyn freehold to the (now) town of Llandough. I attach a map from the 1924 David Stewart survey which, in my assessment, supports this proposition. I therefore assert a claim to our land parcel and have unravelled what I believe to be the circumstances in which we were dispossessed of it, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. However, I hold concerns that the neighbouring parcel that BP obtained in 1969, and neighbouring parcels the Marquess of Bute Estates obtained before that, may once all have formed part of our family’s estate and may have been systematically taken parcel by parcel, using permissive occupancy or other methods, as I allege occurred in the circumstances surrounding the landmark legal case BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987]. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] We know that the War Agricultural Committee occupied the field BP obtained in 1969 long before. There were also the 33 acres carved for the limeworks for WW1. And the way the council obtained the southern half of our parcel for a green, following Western Ground Rents’ seizure of it from my nan [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] while she asserted ownership despite what I believe to have been the theft of her title, is, in my view, a rhyme of the history of playing fields local authorities took of other nearby parcels beforehand—i.e. “playing fields”. So our occupancy of the manorial house of the former estate since the reported 1667 (in the 1974 South Wales article[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]) appears to me to support the proposition that we were the minor-gentry Welsh family, and my birth in the home is part of the basis upon which I consider myself to be the heir and successor. I believe that my and my family’s dispossession and the demolition of our home and seizure of our lands were unlawful, unconstitutional, inhumane and illegal. Those are conclusions I have reached from my investigation and are matters I am continuing to investigate [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Artefacts were destroyed in warehouse fires in Neath. Complaints were made about the processing of the 1,026 medieval burials secretly excavated in 1994. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I want the Ministry of Justice to understand that these are the conclusions, allegations and working theories arising from my investigation. I am continuing to distinguish between matters established by documentary evidence, matters supported by family evidence, and matters which remain hypotheses requiring further investigation. I also want to be completely clear about the scope point arising from the reference to the 133 houses. I am not asking the Ministry of Justice to investigate or determine the title of the land on which those 133 houses are proposed, nor am I asking it to determine the ownership of the neighbouring BP parcel or the other parcels forming part of my wider investigation. Those matters provide present-day context for why I am investigating the historical events, but they are not themselves the subject of my SAR internal review. The underlying concern remains that I am attempting to establish what happened to my family’s land, home and occupation, what records were created concerning those events, what involvement Government bodies may have had, and what happened subsequently to those records. That is why the historical court proceedings, enforcement proceedings, Government legal involvement, European Commission of Human Rights Application No. 14464/88, and any records concerning me as a child in connection with the 1988 enforcement remain relevant to my request. I understand from your letter of 2 October 2026 that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking further searches to establish whether the original SAR response was correct. I therefore ask that those searches proceed, with the above clarification of scope. I am not asking the Ministry of Justice to accept my working theory as established fact. I am asking it to account accurately for the records and personal data which it holds or previously held, and for the documentary basis of any conclusion that relevant records were destroyed, transferred or otherwise ceased to be held. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] PS – I’ll keep the website update for public record and interest. What I have told you in this email includes citation to information not yet on [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

OFFICIAL Dear Sion Buckler Thank you for your email dated 28 September 2026 at 22:40 Do you have any Claim Number relating to the below? Regards Neil Jones Adran Gorfodi / Enforcement Section HMCTS/GLlTEM Canolfan Llysoedd Sifil Caerdydd / Cardiff Civil Justice Centre 2 Stryd y Parc / [removed] [address removed] Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter&gt; | Dyma sut mae GLlTEM yn defnyddio data personol amdanoch chi<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter.cy&gt; “I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means” YSTYRIWCH YR AMGYLCHEDD – OES RHAID I CHI BRINTIO’R E-BOST HWN? PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT – DO YOU REALLY NEED TO PRINT THIS E-MAIL? ‘For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see: Am wybodaeth ynghylch sut mae GLlTEF yn defnyddio data personol amdanoch chi, ewch i: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter&lt;http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter&gt; ]] OFFICIAL [quoted text trimmed]