Fraud & Concealment — the Family’s Case

This material now lives at https://fcg.bucklerfamily.estate/case/suspected-fraud-concealment.

This section sets out the family’s case that fraud and concealment cost it its home and land, and the evidence behind each allegation. Each allegation is directed at the person or body that held the records at the time, and each is being put to them for an answer.

The family’s full case: The Family’s Case: Fraud, Concealment and Limitation →. The specialist analysis, with the law then in force and the routes to reopening, is in the Legal Review — Fraud, Land and Human Rights.

What is asserted

• The family’s title papers, including the 1877 agreement, were taken from the farmhouse in 1950–52 and have never been returned.
• The documents that decide the title to the house parcel (the 1877 agreement, the 1938 conveyance and plan, and the 1939 tenancy) were never put before the courts in 1955, 1962, 1974 or 1986–87.
• The separate documentary root of Parcel A was never reconciled with the registered titles. BP registered the house parcel in 1983 without disclosing Mary (Nancy) Williams’s ownership claim, and the titles were merged in 1987 while the appeal was pending.
• Records that could have helped the family went missing at the moments they were needed: c.1950–52, 1984, 1986/87 and after 1988.
• Public records adopted a single-site description of the farm that buried its two-parcel history.
• These acts and omissions decided the outcome of the registration, the litigation, the demolition and the redevelopment.

How each allegation is logged

Each allegation is recorded with: date of the act · date discovered · source document · person or body responsible · what is asserted · the other side’s likely answer · evidence still needed · legal significance.

This builds the record a court will need. It also fixes the date of each discovery, which is what section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 turns on. Every allegation is also entered in the Master Scrutiny Issue Register.