- I still maintain that a mistake has been made with regard to the registration of 180 acres of Broxhead Common

- You do have the authority to investigate my objection to the registration of Broxhead Common to Mr Whitfield. Indeed you are being asked to do this in the interest of the Public

- I have 300 + documents of evidence which confirm what I have said. I would not dream of making the allegations without documentary evidence of the facts. Whether or not you choose to remain in denial is up to you but it seems to me that as we cannot agree I must ask you to refer me to The Tribunal please.

Says Maureen Comber

I still maintain that a mistake has been made with regard to the registration of 180 acres of Broxhead Common, to Anthony Gary Peter Whitfield of the above address.

I am dismayed to see that you regard the facts I have written about, as no more than criticism or observation. I have given a very full account of matters in order that the FACTS may be fitted into the provenance, to help the understanding by someone who has neither local knowledge or experience of these matters.

I do understand that the Land Registry’s duties and responsibilities do not include those of the Registration of Common Land. I do believe however that they do have a duty to the public to make sure that if ownership of common land is claimed, then it is refused if Title Deeds are not produced at first registration. These are clearly absent.

Indeed the LR guidance is specific in this respect. Simply, Broxhead Common has been registered to Mr Whitfield without any evidence of original Title Deeds. The conveyances or an epitome of Title are no more than that. They cannot replace the original Title Deeds.

How can a conveyance of common land be made without an original or manorial Deed of Title?

Please explain your statement Page 2 para 3, “Land Registry knows of and does not have a copy of any other Order.” Does this mean LR knows of another Order but does not have a copy of it, or did you mean to say that LR does not know of or have a copy of any other Order?

Para 4. If the Land Registry was just concerned about some small areas as you say, it would not have been necessary for Mr Porter to include paras. 5.3 to 6.1 in his Statutory Declaration. He is obviously supporting Mr Whitfield’s ownership of the whole of the common land and not just some small areas as you suggest. As I have previously pointed out, Mr Porter states that “Neither I nor Mr Whitfield hold any deed or documents relating to the Common, including the Blue Land, ….”

I therefore do not agree with you that “it was not lodged to support the application for registration of the majority of the land in SH6984”. It obviously was.

I would suggest that it is more likely that the Land Registry were reluctant to register the whole common after it received the application in 2000, which is the reason for the Statutory Declaration. After all why would a landowner wait for thirty years before trying to register land if there was not a potential problem? I suspect this was a safeguard required by your colleagues in the event of an objection.

I am not asking for the Land Registry to act as my legal advisors. If they do not wish to acknowledge an Act of Parliament such as the Headley Tithe Apportionment Act and Award 1847, then I suggest that it is they who should seek legal advice. Anyway I have my own advisors.

Para 7. I am not suggesting that the High Court had no authority to make the Consent Order. You are mixing up the High Court with the Court of Appeal. If it is of help to you, please know that one of my advisors is my nephew who is a barrister. The Order from the Court of Appeal is for the dismissal of the case from that Court and nothing else. Please explain to me how this document helps to prove ownership of Broxhead Common for Mr Whitfield?

Page 3: The decision report of the Chief Commons Commissioner is indeed revealing as to the intention of Mr Whitfield to acquire ownership of that land by some means or another, hence his application to the High Court who would not accept the appeal re the common land. Please remember that the matters I am raising are all to be found as stated in Mr Porters Statutory Declaration. If as you say there is nothing that I have raised in my letter that indicates that there is a mistake in the register of SH6984, then there can be no justification for the registration either.

Para 3: You do have the authority to investigate my objection to the registration of Broxhead Common to Mr Whitfield. Indeed you are being asked to do this in the interest of the Public. As a government body responsible for land registration I would say it is your duty. A response from the Attorney General to my question of who should take responsibility for these mistakes confirms to me that it is the Land Registry. In addition I have also asked the CID to investigate. Their response has been that they consider this matter to be civil rather than criminal. I am still waiting for a further reply from them.

Para 4: Dr Tavener is not a single issue but one of many which indicate that Broxhead Common has been mistakenly registered to Mr Whitfield.

Para 5. Why do you think The Tribunal service does not have the function or authority to set up an investigation? Surely that is a matter for them to decide?

Para 6: On the contrary I have provided much evidence that the 1962 conveyance and the Statutory Declaration by Michael Roydon Porter, on which the Land Registry have relied, are not to be depended upon.

Para 7: It seems to me that you believe that if you keep saying that I have produced no evidence, over and over, it will be believed. I have 300 + documents of evidence which confirm what I have said. I would not dream of making the allegations without documentary evidence of the facts. Whether or not you choose to remain in denial is up to you but it seems to me that as we cannot agree I must ask you to refer me to The Tribunal please.

Land Registry document SH6984.

Tony Barnett writes to the Land Registry

- There is the possibility of applying to Winchester County Court, under section 41 2006 commons act for the complete removal of the enclosure,

- May be, you would consider writing/emailing your suggestion that the courts are the best placed to adjudicate on this matter to which your full support will be given so as to extinguish the document SH6984

Says Tony Barnett