If the "freehold" of Hartlebury Common was transferred by Lambeth Palace to Worcestershire County Council in 1968 where are the titles?

Lambeth Palace say they dont have them.

Worcestershire County Council say they dont have them.

So where are they ?

Steve McCarron,
Chairman, Worcestershire Commons Association tackles Richard Hodges, Lambeth Palace

Read on....................

Says Richard Hodges, Lambeth Palace

I’m afraid I can’t add much to what Declan has already told Mr Barnett and as this is essentially a legal matter I suggest you seek advice from a solicitor.

In response to your two questions, as to 1/ it is the usual position that commons were, and indeed are, owned by the Lord of the Manor. The Commissioners no longer own Hartlebury Common because they conveyed all their estate and interest (except for minerals) to WCC in 1968. This would have included the freehold. You assert that the 1968 conveyance was fraudulent but I am not aware of any evidence which supports that. Even if there were your disagreement would be with WCC as the Commissioners, no longer the owners, are not concerned with this dispute and will not be participating in it.

As to 2/, the Commissioners usually retained a copy of any conveyance and the original was passed to the purchaser.

- If the "freehold" was transferred to the council in 1968 where are the titles? Not only do "you" not have any record of them, neither do WCC, nor does anyone else.

- My assertion that the conveyance is fraudulent is born out by it's existence as an incomplete an erroneous incorrectly assembled document. It states for instance that the common is sold without encumbrances. What about the commoners and their rights?, where is the necessary term "as beneficial owners" referring to the church as sellers. Where is your receipt for the sale?

- The church Should be pro-active because somebody somewhere has sold land that they were not entitled to sell, and somebody has bought land which they had no right to purchase. All in the churches name.

Says Steve McCarron

Thank you for your considered response.

If the "freehold" was transferred to the council in 1968 where are the titles. Not only do "you" not have any record of them, neither do WCC, nor does anyone else.

My assertion that the conveyance is fraudulent is born out by it's existence as an incomplete an erroneous incorrectly assembled document. It states for instance that the common is sold without encumbrances. What about the commoners and their rights?, where is the necessary term "as beneficial owners" referring to the church as sellers. Where is your receipt for the sale?

It is not the usual position that commons were owned by anyone as you claim. They have been devolved of ownership which is why they are commons. Not freehold, not to be sold Fee Simple, not to have titles, or pre registration titles, (which there are none) That is what makes a common a common, they have been disposed of as manorial waste, not suddenly re-absorbed into someones land bank.

Whilst I note that as far as the commissioners are concerned, there will not be any participation in this matter, as I have pointed out there are grave matters of huge import at play here. The only document in the world that stands between injustice and truth is a conveyance unsupported by any other document. These is no other document which shows either freehold, or ownership or otherwise in descriptions of the area, the manor, the castle or anything else. The church Should be pro-active because somebody somewhere has sold land that they were not entitled to sell, and somebody has bought land which they had no right to purchase. All in the churches name.

The council have "lost" their original document and so. Between two land owning authorities we have just two photocopies. Hmm.

The commissioners are involved whether they wish to be or not and may be required to substantiate their inaction in court at a future time. I thank you for your response, could I ask you to answer my questions by return please.

I have nothing to add to my previous comments

Says Richard Hodges, Lambeth Palace

I have nothing to add to my previous comments other than to observe that your interpretation of the law is utterly at odds with any I have encountered before. Again I suggest you seek appropriate legal advice.

Steve McCarron writes to Richard Hodges, Lambeth Palace

Which part of my interpretation is at odds with what you have encountered?
Is it the statement that I made that a freehold property should have title deeds and that the common does not appear to have had, or have any?

Says Steve McCarron

Which part of my interpretation is at odds with what you have encountered?
Is it the statement that I made that a freehold property should have title deeds and that the common does not appear to have had, or have any?

Mine is not an interpenetration but a statement of truths and logic. I note you suggest that I seek legal advice. There is no point because there are very few conveyancing solicitors who have the faintest interest or knowledge of commons law, or laws. You yourself see no problem with a freehold property having no title deeds for instance. A solicitor would have to take instructions from me on these matters.

I would prefer it if you could explain item by item what I have said is wrong and how please, since I have tried to explain my position. I await your answers to the questions I have asked previously.

- There is a case of false representation at work as WCC have claimed purchase of a property which was owned by the church to which there was no title and was sold without title. Like selling a car without documentation, or evidence of current ownership

- A financial transaction has taken place which is anomalous and involves the church. The church should not have to be encouraged to write a statement that the 1968 conveyance is questionable, the church should actively want to engage with this inquiry in the name of justice.

Says Steve McCarron

I forgot to stress that though the commissioners can see no where to go with these series of communications, it is an important issue for you because;

1/ There is a case of false representation at work as WCC have claimed purchase of a property which was owned by the church to which there was no title and was sold without title. Like selling a car without documentation, or evidence of current ownership.

This ongoing case should concern the church because of this false misrepresentation is and has been carried out using the Church of England authority as a means of legitimizing an illegitimate transaction.

I believe that if I applied to the land registry for registration using a similar document (conveyance) in a land dispute, consistently quoting this document, and supplying it to yourselves as evidence then I might be called to account for my claim.

I believe that if I was profiteering from a false association, or from a false relationship with the church i would be called to account for my actions.

This certainly applies if you forge a bank note. A representative from the Bank of England will attend court to oversee and drive the prosecution as it is a fraud carried out in their guise. Fraud and misrepresentation.

This should be the churches position. A financial transaction has taken place which is anomalous and involves the church. The church should not have to be encouraged to write a statement that the 1968 conveyance is questionable, the church should actively want to engage with this inquiry in the name of justice.

Saying that the church commissioners are not the current owners and therefore have no part to play in this case is not true and would not apply in a court of law. There is no time limit on justice and fraud is a serious offence.

Richard Hodges, Lambeth Palace ended the correspondence

I’m afraid I cannot comment further or give you legal advice; you will have to obtain it elsewhere.

I will not be responding to any further emails on this subject.