Consultation on moving

Land Registry operations

to the private sector

PCS Response
11 April 2016

Introduction
1.

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) is one of the two
recognised Trades Unions in HM Land Registry with well over 3,000
members and represents the vast majority of staff.

2.

HM Land Registry provides a quality, fully accountable and impartial system

of land registration that is entirely independent from the conflicting pressures
of the market. Service delivery is focussed on the quality and security of the
Land Register and its associated data. The integrity of land data that a public
sector Land Registry provides directly underpins the confidence and stability
of the property market and the wider economy.

3.

HM Land Registry is no drain on the public purse, is entirely self-funding and

has returned a significant dividend to HM Treasury in all but one of the last
20 years. In the year 2014-15 this amounted to 126m. HM Land Registry is
a high performing organisation that has embraced significant technological
and digital development. As a result, it has consistently delivered year on
year efficiency gains.

4.

Annex 1 below provides a selection of testimonies to the current success of

HM Land Registry, provided by Graham Farrant, HM Land Registry Chief
Executive and Chief Land Registrar.

5.

This consultation comes only two years after a previous public consultation
on the introduction of a new service delivery company brought an
unequivocal response to the government at that time against moving any
part of HM Land Registry into private ownership. The 2014 consultation
response showed that 91% of respondents disagreed with the notion that
land registration services could be better delivered outside of government.
Only 5% supported the notion of privatisation.

6.

In our response we are setting out why any notion of privatisation (not solely
the governments current preferred option) is entirely inappropriate for HM
Land Registry.

7.

To do this we have articulated a series of arguments and risks that

demonstrate that the rationale behind these proposals is extremely
dangerous and not in the public interest. It should be noted that the
38degrees petition (opposing a privatisation) has now attracted over 200,000
signatures and continues to grow by the minute. It should also be noted that
the vast majority of signatures were applied after publication of the
consultation document, in the full knowledge of the governments rationale.

Contact/more information
Michael Kavanagh
PCS Land Registry Group President
Trafalgar House, 1 Bedford Park, Croydon, CR0 2AQ
michael.kavanagh@landregistry.gov.uk
0300 006 3207 / 0797 180 9683

Page 2 of 28

Executive Summary
8.

The current consultation sees a different motive to 2014. Whilst there is still
an ambiguous case for development of services, the (specified, at least)
overwhelming goal is to sell HM Land Registry to contribute to national debt
reduction and/or to help finance the Chancellors announced infrastructure
spending. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is right for the future of
HM Land Registry but is a purely political exercise. The risks involved in the
proposals are real and significant.

9.

The key point to note here is that there is no demand from anyone or any
sector whatsoever, except the authors of the consultation, to consider
moving HM Land Registry operations to the private sector.

10.

In 2014 the government largely based their case around the notion that
private expertise could better deliver the digital transformation of HM Land
Registry services. The responses at that time raised many important issues,
mainly that:

11.

The proposed GovCo was just a stepping stone to outright privatisation.

12.

HM Land Registry has been at the forefront of digitising and providing

modern and online services over many years financing development from
its own resources as a trading fund.

13.

We could continue to deliver a quality, trusted and impartial public service inhouse, while fairly bringing in new revenue, without raising costs to
conveyancers and the public; public service over private profit.

14.

The 2014 consultation despite all of its obvious faults did, however,
recognise that a relatively large number of staff (around 200) would need to
remain in government as the Office of the Chief Land Registrar, to properly
carry out the statutory duties, ensure the state guarantee of title and
indemnity worked properly and set fees etc. It is concerning that two years
later the government (as explained to us by the Shareholder Executive)
envisage a mere 5 to 10 staff, performing an unspecified contract
management role.

15.

The consultation exercise asks for comments on moving HM Land Registry

operations to the private sector. We are concerned that the wording of the
consultation is very much focussed on how and not if HM Land Registry
operations should be moved to the private sector. Section 6.7.3 (paragraph
89) states that the status quo is NOT an option being put forward as part of
this consultation exercise. The reason for this is that this would not meet the
government objective of transferring HM Land Registry into the private
sector, and realising a receipt for doing so.

16.

The Foreword by the Secretary of State asserts that through placing a

number of protections in place, the service will be maintained, fees will
remain low and the receipts will assist the economic recovery. However, no

Page 3 of 28

risk assessment whatsoever has been undertaken. We believe this is

because it would completely expose how meaningless the Ministers
assurances actually are.
17.

The potential receipts pale into insignificance when viewed against either
structural deficit or planned infrastructure spending (or indeed both). The
Office of Budget Responsibility has said; Financial asset sales typically
bring forward cash that would otherwise have been received in future
revenues, in the shape of mortgage repayments and dividends, so they only
temporarily reduce the debt to GDP ratio. When one considers the regular
dividends provided to HM Treasury, the consultation rationale becomes even
more absurd. The contribution of the sale to reducing the deficit and/or
investment in infrastructure is minor in any context; it is not certain that the
sale funds would actually be used for either purpose, and would be spread
over several years.

18.

Now we need to examine the spurious short-term cash benefits against the
very real mid to long-term risks; something that government has absolutely
failed (or worse, refused) to do. One can only speculate as to the real
motives. A basic bow-tie risk analysis would illustrate a number of issues:
a) The risk in the proposals is to all users of the system, to any future
government planned infrastructure build (such as HS2), to the
housing market, to the wider economy, and to the national interest as
increasing amounts of land are sold to (often unknown) overseas
individuals and companies. Just because the government denies the
level of risk does not mean it goes away, only that that it is shifted
from government to users and citizens.
b) Furthermore, there is no assessment of 'downside' risk (the event
where it all goes wrong). This again would be devastating to all
involved. It was the failure to build such downside risk into decision
making that created the 2008 crash as bank lending became careless
and cavalier ... the same is true for this proposal.
c) The assurances on state guarantee and fees are not backed up by
anything whatsoever. A private company, seeking to maximise profits,
would inevitably put up fees to achieve this. Various examples of
previous privatisations demonstrate this risk, such as the energy and
train operating companies.
d) The accountability and impartial role/scrutiny of the state would be
lost forever.
e) Purchase of HM Land Registry by a large financial institution would
inevitably lead to a conflict of interest.
f) Once privatisation has taken place, there is nothing to prevent a
further sale (potentially to a hedge-fund or foreign company

Page 4 of 28

ownership) moving this vital public service further away from

government control.
g) Private control could also lead to the leakage of personal data.
h) HM Land Registry data could be used in the public interest to help
tackle the housing crisis by assisting with the planning and regulation
of future land use. This would not appeal to a private provider.
i) As reported in the BBC Panorama Panama - 'Tax Havens of the Rich
and Powerful Exposed', 4th April 2016, 100,000 properties have been
registered by overseas entities in the UK to conceal their true
ownership. As an impartial public organisation HM Land Registry is in
the perfect position to expand the use of its data to identify such
registrations and to allow for government to regulate them. There is a
significant risk that a private organisation would have no incentive
and/or will to do so.
j) HM Land Registry further ensures the correct payment of Stamp Duty
Land Tax on behalf of HMRC prior to applications being completed by
registration. There is a risk that a private company would not retain
sufficient impartiality to exercise this function without potential
conflicts of interest, therefore threatening HMRC income.
k) HM Land Registry could take on further registers, for example, a
register of landlords, and assist in regulation. Again, this would not be
a priority for a private provider with a profit motive.
l) The creation of a complete Land Register (a Domesday Book for 21st
century) would not materialise under a profit motive. The exposure of
inequality of land ownership and its rectification must be a priority.
m) There is a debate to be had on land value taxation. Again, a private
provider would have no interest in assisting, whereas HM Land
Registry could simply be directed to provide the necessary data.
n) If privatised, HM Land Registry would not be subject to the Freedom
of Information Act and it would be easier to conceal who owns land
and prevent the publication of datasets, such as the one that identifies
the properties in London owned by non-domiciles.
19.

These are just a small example of the folly of privatisation. Trust,

performance, impartiality and fees are the immediate concern. The risks are
huge. The recognition that a safe and secure system of land registration
underpins the economy (and could do so much more) is irrefutable.

20.

Privatisation could destabilise all that is held dear and lead to chaos and
mayhem for the housing market for the sake of a short-term return for HM
Treasury. No valuation figure has even been quoted in the consultation
document. Press reports and estimates from senior HM Land Registry

Page 5 of 28

management seem to range from 0.5 billion to 1.2 billion. The most basic
risk assessment would illustrate that the certain increase in costs to users
and particularly the progressive weakening in the integrity of the guaranteed
Land register would outweigh the one-off cash receipt from a sale.
21.

PCS rejects the proposal that HM Land Registry should cease to be a

trading fund and move to the private sector, as part of any of the proposed
models outlined in the consultation. We contest the notion that there is not a
compelling case for keeping HM Land Registry in public ownership. The
Land Register forms part of the critical infrastructure of England and Wales.
Its completion, integrity and the economy`s confidence in it, is reliant on the
independence of the organisation that delivers the day to day running of HM
Land Registry and its services.

22.

The consultation states that Land Registry could have more freedom in the
private sector to continue to evolve into a high performing, innovative
business delivering for customer and the wider market on a 21st century,
digital economy. Why would the delivery of land registration by a newly
formed company allow "more freedom to evolve" than the current land
registration service provided under trading fund status? No answer is given
in the consultation document. There is nothing in the present trading fund
status that impedes the current service of land registration; nothing that a
company could provide that is not already provided with maximum efficiency.

23.

It is clear from the proposals that the new company would have to work
within the current Land Registration Acts and rules and would be bound by
government checks and regulation, although there is no real detail as to how
this would work in real terms.

24.

Given the complete and unrivalled success of HM Land Registry as a trading

fund with absolutely no suggestion of any deficiencies (it currently has a
95% public satisfaction rating), it is inconceivable that a commercial
company could better the current service delivery of land registration under
the present trading fund structure. To this end, we have in this submission
scrutinised the Canadian model (mooted in the consultation) and provided
evidence as to how it would represent a retrograde step if applied to land
registration in England and Wales. It would be wholly inappropriate.

25.

We provide many sound and good reasons for HM Land Registry remaining
as part of government within this response, including the lack of any financial
burden on government as a trading fund and substantial dividends returned
to HM Treasury in the year 2014-15 HM Land Registry paid an ordinary
dividend (4.6% of the average capital employed) of over 26 million and a
special dividend of 100 million. We have also raised concerns about the
real effect on the property market and wider economy if operations delivery
were not to remain in government.

26.

This consultation is being run for political not economic reasons and it can,
therefore, only logically conclude that HM Land Registry (in its entirety) must
remain within government.

Page 6 of 28

Opening Comments
27.

Her Majestys Land Registry is a government executive agency, trading fund

and part of the civil service. Its functions are not only to keep the Land
Register, as repeated in the consultation paper, but to complete applications,
thereby creating titles and increasing the data held and the accuracy of the
Register, and to consider the transactions in land which lead to the
continuous updating of the Register. It is the quality and consistency of the
decisions made at the application stage of this process that provide the
accuracy and integrity of the current Land Register.

28.

As a trading fund it takes no money from the public purse whatsoever; i.e. it
incurs no cost to the tax payer at all. As well as paying its own way, it has
turned in a surplus for all of the past twenty years, bar one. It regularly
returns this to the public by money it gives to HM Treasury and by
frequently reducing the fees charged for the service of registering land and
land transactions. In the last 2 years it has paid 246 million to HM Treasury.
These payments have been against the backdrop of a huge transition
leading to increased digitisation, increased efficiency and a substantial
reduction in fees for electronically lodged applications.

29.

Under the current trading fund comes HM Treasury accountability. There are
controls of surpluses (both statutory and Treasury controls) that serve as
checks and balances on trading funds controlling both what surpluses can
be retained and what can be done with these surpluses.

30.

It is clear from the consultation document that there has been no impact
assessment carried out despite clear widespread implications for many
stakeholders. It has been acknowledged within this document that HM Land
Registry is part of the critical national infrastructure. It is also clear that
changes could have an effect on the housing market and the wider
economy. These proposals will have huge effects on the lending and
conveyancing sectors, and also the search providers and local authorities
(given the concurrent Local Land Charge Searches considerations).

31.

Over the past few years, our members have continued to make a
fundamental contribution to the service of land registration, despite the
unprecedented upheavals, and have constantly delivered change to benefit
customers, exceeding the ever increasing targets that have been set. This is
against a background of ever increasing volume of transactions, partially due
to an improving property market and partly due to previous ill-advised exit
schemes, which have left HM Land Registry under-resourced. HM Land
Registry currently has an exceptional 96% customer satisfaction rate.

32.

PCS continues to engage in extensive formal consultations with HM Land

Registry management over the future transformation of the organisation,
including the current Business Strategy and operational changes. PCS and
HM Land Registry management have recently reached a formal agreement

Page 7 of 28

on the Business Strategy and staffing issues, which has now been
overwhelmingly ratified by a vote of the PCS membership.

Disadvantages of delivering land registration via a commercial (profit) model

33.

Land registration involves the granting of title to land and the guaranteeing of
legal interests and estates. This is not just of fundamental importance to
every home owner in England and Wales but is also an essential
requirement for the functioning of the UK economy.

34.

Since land registration began in 1862, all have recognised this as a service
which must be provided by a body that is both free from influence and
impartial in the face of commercial interests. This requirement, best summed
up as the need for independence, is precisely why the public service of land
registration has always been a function of government, not commerce.

35.

The current consultation exercise pays lip service to this fact - as it tries (but
fails) to preserve the necessary independence by attempting to cleave an
artificial distinction between Land Register ownership and a new company
which delivers Land Registry services (either under contract or monitored
by a formal economic regulator).

36.

Ownership of the register of title, and other registers connected or ancillary

to the main register of title, would be the ultimate responsibility of the Crown,
but delivery of operations on a daily basis would be the responsibility of the
new, privately run, company.

37.

The level of confusion here is alarming. The Land Register is ever evolving
and changing, maintaining the Register is not simply an administrative or
automatic IT function. HM Land Registry grants new registers of title and
creates and takes decisions on the transfer of ownership and legal interests
such as charges (mortgages), easements (such as rights of way) and
leases, to name but a few examples, in order to update and maintain the
current Register.

38.

HM Land Registry staff therefore exercise a quasi-judicial function on behalf

of the Chief Land Registrar where they make their decisions governing the
aforementioned rights to land; as part of the civil service, this takes place
with full independence from commercial influence, which is the very
backbone of the system.

39.

Moreover, confidence and trust in HM Land Registry, from public and

customers, is high, and this depends entirely on the independence,
impartiality and freedom from even the possibility of a conflict of interest
when granting title and guaranteeing legal interests and estates. This would
inevitably cease were the activities of land registration to become a function
of a service delivery company.

Page 8 of 28

40.

No amount of assurances, regulation, or otherwise, will put peoples minds at

rest that a privately run company of such economic importance can ever be
subject to the proper controls required from simple audit measures or Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs), all of which take a retrospective approach to
managing service delivery rather than focussing on getting things right on an
ongoing daily basis as is the case under the current trading fund model.

41.

It is also true that by delivering HM Land Registry functions as a trading

fund, its activities are rightly subject to democratic parliamentary and public
scrutiny and accountability.

42.

At present, controls over HM Land Registry are statutory. Under the new
proposals, the controls over delivering the service of land registration would
become contractual, not statutory, and will be subject to all the bargaining
that comes hand in hand with commercial contracts and risks any number of
detrimental changes at a later date.

43.

This can be illustrated by the attempt to reassure the public that personal
information will not be mishandled. See Data Issues and Access to
information below.

We will deal with the protections offered in the consultation paper for the
customer and the wider economy
44.

Before we go into the detail of each assurance given, we must point out that
any assurance given is only as sound as the details in the contract that
delivers them. The Land Register comprises real time details of ownership
and rights that need to be up to date and correct at the point of any search or
application. There has to be a single point of truth and this is an essential
condition of the Land Registration Act in terms of legal priority, the integrity
of the Land Register and the data used by the wider conveyancing
community.

45.

Contractual KPIs and retrospective regulation will simply not deliver the
required levels of assurance needed to underpin part of the critical
infrastructure of England and Wales. This is crucial, not only in protecting
extremely sensitive private data but also in the provision of data and user
costs. If we look at other regulated areas, regulation is not timely enough to
be used in an area such as land registration. It is the regulation route that
would determine any KPI fails, being purely reactive months after the event.

46.

It is also clear from examples of regulation in the energy and transport

sectors that regulation fails to protect users from price increases and
deterioration in service quality.

Page 9 of 28

Register ownership (6.4.1 Paragraph 44)

47.

It is imperative that the Land Register remain in public ownership. It is

important to recognise that the Register as defined is the end point of the
considerations made by HM Land Registry. Quasi-judicial considerations
have to be made on most applications and keeping the register is not
simply an administrative function. Under a private sector model, what would
be lost from government is the role of gatekeeper.

48.

The accuracy of each registered title, and the initial registration of the title
itself, has always been entrusted to the Land Registrar and his/her staff
through their work as independent scrutineers. This scrutiny is exercised at
every level and at every stage of subsequent applications and, vitally, before
they proceed with completing any application which would see an
amendment made to the Land Register.

49.

Whilst the end state Land Register may still be held in public ownership the
vital components that determine the content and accuracy of the Register
(the processes and operations) will not. We, therefore, must question the
future quality of the Register; we cover the service quality and contractual
issues below.

Service quality (6.4.2 Paragraphs 45 - 47)

50.

HM Land Registry currently works to a set of agreed KPIs and has been
extremely successful in meeting these. Whilst some of the KPIs are met or
failed as part of usual business practices, such as the number of applications
processed and the average time taken to complete applications, others, such
as counter fraud initiatives, require a great deal of time and expertise in
order to successfully reach and maintain standards.

51.

We have huge concerns about how fraud protection would work under a
private sector model, which we cover below.

52.

The current auditing and monitoring procedures are undertaken at great

expense to HM Land Registry and this is deemed appropriate in order to
maintain the level of integrity and accuracy of the Land Register. PCS has
grave concerns that when a profit motive is introduced under a private sector
model, this will create a conflict of interest, and these considerations and
processes will inevitably be watered down in the drive for efficiencies.

53.

As stated above the Land Register needs to be available and accurate in

real time. This underpins the Land Registration Act, not only in terms of the
quality of data, but more importantly in terms of legal priority. This is
particularly important in relation to borrowing and the securing of debt.
Retrospective KPI checks and regulation will simply not be adequate enough
in terms of the day to day application of the Land Registration Act.

Page 10 of 28

54.

The housing market itself is thoroughly reliant on the Land Register in terms
of data and the protection of priority. It is inconceivable that the market will
be unaffected by the additional burden of contractual bureaucracy between
the Land Register and any new company. It is also nave to assume that a
new company will not have its own set of demands in terms of service
delivery and financial considerations.

55.

The consultation document indicates that the role of an independent

regulator will be considered under certain models. However, we have seen
how the ineffective regulation of privatised public services has time and
again led to worsening services and soaring costs for customers, whilst the
profits of service delivery companies continue to rise. In particular, this has
been true of the energy and rail companies.1 2 It is clear that regulation has
not worked in this industry and there is no evidence to suggest that it would
work for a privatised monopoly Land Registry.

56.

If a future Land Registry raised prices significantly, the integrity of the Land
Register was compromised, or service levels deteriorated, then this may
influence the decisions made by land owners and others in respect of
property transactions. A progressively unreliable land register would
increase the problems met by purchasers, lenders and their conveyancers in
going safely through to contract and completion. Additional complications
and delays would almost certainly mean higher overall conveyancing costs.

57.

As already mentioned the other key concern with regulation is that it can be
a reactive and retrospective process that only identifies failings after the
event and then attempts to put measures in place to resolve them. The
problem with this approach is that it accepts that failures can be made rather
than preventing them from happening in the first place. Once again, this has
the potential to undermine confidence in the Land Register with a serious
resulting impact on the property market and economy.

58.

Currently, integrity and quality are built into the ethos, training and
operational procedures of HM Land Registry as an organisation, with
assurance an inbuilt process that is audited on an ongoing basis.

59.

It is only HM Land Registry, with its statutory adjudicatory powers that can
grant title and provide the guarantees on which the property and mortgage
market depend.

60.

For a private company to be able to make changes to land registers of other

private companies, of citizens, financial institutions, local and central
government and the Crown does not stand up to scrutiny. The impartiality
and freedom from conflicts of interests, which is the foundation of the
maintenance of a public land rights system, could not be sustained if a
private owner was free to authorise changes to land registers.

The Telegraph - 16 March 2015 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11475989/Big-Six-energycompanies-profits-increased-tenfold-since-2007.html

2
Department of Energy & Climate Change Quarterly Report September 2013 Chart 2.2
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244580/qep_sep_13.pdf

Page 11 of 28

The state-backed guarantee of ownership (6.4.3 Paragraphs 48 - 51)

61.

We agree that the state guarantee and payment of indemnity is a major

plank of land registration, underpinning the conveyancing and lending sector
and, therefore, the economy. Whilst the suggested proposal states that the
principle of no fault indemnity will continue, the paper fails to provide any
detail around how this principle would be delivered.

62.

The current Land Registry Act clearly regulates the indemnity process. The
application and operation of Schedule 8 lies under the control of the Land
Registrar, subject to any legal proceedings that may result.

63.

So once again we are brought to the key issue what will be the status of
the Land Registrar?

64.

Clearly if that function is devolved to a company it clearly gives rise to a

conflict of interest: on the one hand impartiality and integrity and on the other
commercial expedience and a desire for profit. Such a conflict of interest
cannot be covered by contract assurances.

65.

Paragraph 51 of the consultation indicates that the government would seek

to agree a mechanism to transfer an appropriate share of financial risk
associated with indemnity to the privatised organisation, and crucially that
this would not affect the assurance to customers that, should their proof of
land ownership or interests ever be subject to challenge, they will have the
benefit of a state guarantee should they suffer loss as a result.

66.

Beyond this vague statement no such mechanism has been defined and we
believe there would be no power to compel a private organisation to abide by
such principles.

67.

Without proper legislation backed safeguards in place first, the reality would
be that tax payers would be exposed to the very real risk of having to be
liable financially for any improprieties by a private organisation that gave rise
to indemnity claims.

68.

Given the lack of control any new company will have on fee income and data
use, this commitment to use private financial reserves for a public state
guarantee will further restrict the capital available to the company. This will
only force efficiencies by any new company to be found elsewhere.

69.

Public state indemnity that is subject to contractual agreement with the new
private company will add financial, reputational and, in our view, a very real
risk to the integrity of the Land Register and the wider economy.

Customer fees (6.4.4 Paragraph 52)

70.

The consultation document states that customer fees would continue to be

set by the Secretary of State. What this statement does not give is a

Page 12 of 28

commitment to fee stability or against any fee increases. What the

consultation fails to mention is that these future considerations will be set
against the backdrop of contractual considerations and financial
commitments to the new company.
71.

Under current guidelines, HM Land Registry as a trading fund must set fees
in relation to income and expenditure to deliver the best possible deal for
service users. HM Land Registry has, as a result, seen a reduction in its fees
in recent years.

72.

As set out below, the experience of the Canadian model is contrary to this
and we believe that any private sector model would inevitably lead to an
increase in fees.

73.

Any short term contractual agreement on fees would not secure the medium
to long term stability in the property and borrowing markets nor, therefore,
contribute to the governments long term economic plan.

74.

The commitment on fees only covers the core statutory functions. It fails to
address other services that HM Land Registry is involved in and currently
provides for free. It also fails to commit to new areas of work or data that the
new company may provide in the future.

75.

HM Land Registry provides a variety of services that are free to its

customers.

76.

Estate Plan Approval and Draft for Approval are two services that benefit
customers dealing with large developments, both residential and industrial,
and provide a streamlined method of dealing with associated applications.

77.

These services require much time and effort by HM Land Registry staff,
including surveying work contracted to Ordnance Survey, which HM Land
Registry funds with no financial gain.

78.

HM Land Registry rejects very few applications from its customers; instead a
trained caseworker will consider an application and raise requisitions to
cover any omissions. This can involve consideration by senior technicians,
up to and including qualified lawyers. All of this is included in the fee paid for
the application.

79.

HM Land Registry is one of the few institutions where reference to a lawyer

does not include any additional costs to the customer. It would be unlikely
that a private company would be prepared to continue to bear these
additional costs.

80.

Any changes to these arrangements would have an impact on conveyancers

who submit these applications and would lead to increased administrative
costs for the applicant.

Page 13 of 28

Disputes and complaints handling (6.4.5 Paragraphs 53 - 54)

81.

This is an area where government thinking has radically changed. In the

2014 consultation exercise the government introduced comprehensive
proposals to introduce the Office of the Chief Land Registrar (OCLR).

82.

Government placed utmost importance on certain critical functions that

should be retained either in whole or as shared functions with any new
company. The OCLR proposals were costly but deemed essential in terms of
assurances in areas of regulation and enforcement. It was clear in those
proposals that the OCLR would need to have day to day involvement in the
enforcement of the Land Registry Acts and Rules, including dealing with
disputes, unresolved objections and the responsibility for indemnity.

83.

The issues identified by government in the previous exercise are now silent
and nothing in the consultation document has convinced us how these huge
issues have been overcome between 2014 and now. We can, therefore, only
assume that government have taken the decision that these are now
acceptable risks; we disagree.

84.

The current consultation document makes great play on customers having

access to the First Tier Tribunal (the Tribunal). This service is the ultimate
referral point for a disagreement between two parties after a considerable
amount of work and advice has already been sought. Current figures
suggest that HM Land Registry staff deal with and refer a large number of
very complex disputes to the Tribunal, with many more groundless
objections being disposed of by HM Land Registry staff.

85.

In their day-to-day casework role, HM Land Registry staff are frequently

alerted to disputes over interests in land, either through applications or
correspondence directly relating to the dispute, or through their experience in
assessing and interpreting other information presented to them as part of
casework processing. The information and guidance they provide, while
complying with HM Land Registry's published advisory policy, often helps to
facilitate the early resolution of a dispute, without the need for referral to the
Tribunal.

86.

The Ministry of Justice announced in its January 2015 Scoping Study its
intention to look for improvements to the existing adjudicatory procedures for
boundary disputes, promote the use of mediation and enhance the
availability of information. Work by HM Land Registry in achieving the early
resolution of disputes is clearly in the public interest and saves escalation
costs, but is nevertheless a costly and time consuming operational burden in
the short term that is unlikely to be continued under a privatised model.

87.

Offering continued access to the Tribunal by way of an assurance on dispute

handling shows a complete misunderstanding of the current dispute process
and the requirements of citizens involved in a dispute.

Page 14 of 28

88.

Any dispute with HM Land Registry itself has to go to judicial review; it is

unclear how this process would work with a move to a privatised operation.

89.

It is also unclear whether the removal of land registration operations from the
civil service would have an effect on the scope of protection provided by The
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, or whether government will
still provide an Independent Complaints Reviewer?

ITC security (6.4.6 Paragraphs 55 - 56)

90.

Paragraph 55 details the current ITC security environment that has served
HM Land Registry and, indeed, all government secure sites well. There have
been no major instances of significant data loss as have been experienced
by many major private sector organisations.

91.

Paragraph 56 gives a bold assurance that these standards will continue with
any change of ownership, but no details are given as to how this will be
achieved or ensured.

92.

Any private organisation will be required to maintain a private cloud behind a

very strong firewall in order to maintain the required standards, and this will
constitute a major investment.

93.

The consultation document does not make clear how the ongoing security
regime will be assured or tested, and what level of influence government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Communications Electronics
Security Group (CSEG) and the Office of the government Senior Information
Risk Owner (SIRO) will have; nor does it specify that any potential private
buyer will need ISO 27001 accreditation.

94.

It is vital that all of the above remain in place to ensure that this significant
element of the Critical National Infrastructure remains adequately protected.

Data issues and access to information (6.4.7 Paragraphs 57 - 61)

95.

This exempts information that has to be made available to the public under
legislation.

96.

What protects the public against unlawful misuse of personal data (such as
the selling of names, addresses, mortgage lender details, etc.) is, therefore,
not the Data Protection Act 1998 but the fact that land registration is
regulated by statute and delivered by the statutory governed independent
and autonomous civil service.

97.

If this is changed, so that a non-statutory governed company handles

personal data, there is nothing in law to prevent the company selling on
personal data to those who would purchase this information.

Page 15 of 28

98.

The Data Protection Act 1998 itself considers such principles to be so

important as to merit specific mention in the primary legislation in section 11:
11 Right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing.
i.

An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data

controller to require the data controller at the end of such
period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to
begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal
data in respect of which he is the data subject.

ii.

If the court is satisfied, on the application of any person who

has given a notice under subsection (1), that the data controller
has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to
take such steps for complying with the notice as the court
thinks fit.
[F1(2A) This section shall not apply in relation to the
processing of such data as are mentioned in paragraph (1) of
regulation 8 of the Telecommunications (Data Protection and
Privacy) Regulations 1999 (processing of telecommunications
billing data for certain marketing purposes) for the purposes
mentioned in paragraph (2) of that regulation.]
(3)

In this section direct marketing means the communication (by

whatever means) of any advertising or marketing material
which is directed to particular individuals.

Access and provision of data (Paragraph 60)

99.

The consultation document states that the government is committed to

maintaining current open data products, releasing more open data and
exploring further free public access to HM Land Registry data.

100.

Although a commitment is given that current open data products will be

maintained on the same (or better) basis as at present, no detail is given
about how a private company will be obligated to provide additional free data
or how any such additional data will be funded; clearly there is an ongoing
cost associated with producing such datasets.

101.

It is unclear whether this will incur additional charges for government and the
consultation document does not indicate who will ultimately own these new
data products. We are, therefore, concerned that any further costs that arise
from providing this additional data will either be absorbed by government
(eating into the expected capital receipt achieved through the sale of HM
Land Registry) or will be passed on to customers and/or through cost saving
measures that could impact on the jobs or terms and conditions of our
members. The current model where HM Land Registry is part of the civil

Page 16 of 28

service ensures that these datasets are made available at no cost to the
public purse.
102.

There is a likely to be a strong conflict of interest within a private sector

organisation between the government drive for free and open access to an
increasing number of datasets, and the right for the private company to sell
that data for profit. The consultation document is silent as to how this conflict
will be resolved, and what, if any, mechanism will be introduced to compel
the private operator to publish such free datasets.

New commercial protections (6.4.8 Paragraph 62)

103.

In order for data to be used for the benefit of the whole economy and society
the Land Register has to be complete. It is, therefore, incumbent on HM
Land Registry to register the remaining unregistered parts of England and
Wales. This is likely to involve relatively complex registrations such as large
or unusual estates and landholdings, including land which has remained in
the same long-term ownership and has yet to be subject to any trigger for
compulsory registration, or for which the title deeds are lost.

104.

The remaining registrations will by their very nature be complex, time

consuming and, therefore, relatively expensive to process.

105.

A publically own Land Registry will be able to invest time and resource, at a
standard advertised cost to the customer, in order that all applications
regardless of size or complexity are completed in order to create a fully
comprehensive Land Register.

106.

A privately owned company in search of profit margin will have no such

commitment to this work.

107.

HM Land Registry should also be looking to take on other areas of work and
registers. We are currently amidst the grip of a housing crisis and HM Land
Registry is in a prime position to use the information it collects to create
additional datasets to assist wider government and local authority policy.
Additional HM Land Registry involvement could be in areas such as planning
and land use, landlord regulation, a register of landlords and short term
tenancies, and in relation to flood prevention.

The Canadian model

108.

Paragraph 73 of the consultation document refers to the Canadian model as

a successful implementation. When looking at the Canadian model we need
to consider the example of Teranet, which in 1991 was established as a
Public-Private Partnership with the Province of Ontario to convert and
automate Ontario's land registration system. The government of Ontario then
sold its 50 percent stake in Teranet to a consortium of private sector
investors in 2003, it then becoming a wholly private company.

Page 17 of 28

109.

The context and circumstances of the Ontario Title Office at the point of its
transfer to the private sector in 1991 differ considerably to that of HM Land
Registry in 2016.

110.

HM Land Registrys current digital capability has been developed in-house

over many years allowing continuous transformation of the organisation as
technology has evolved.

111.

Importantly, this technology has been developed to ensure that HM Land

Registrys statutory requirements are fulfilled alongside delivering improved
efficiencies, with performance currently at record levels. Looking at internal
performance indicators, HM Land Registry has reduced the cost per unit of
work from 29.13 in March 20103 to 19.29 in March 20164.

112.

HM Land Registry customer satisfaction is currently running at an

exceptional 96%, significantly higher than in the Canadian model.

113.

Experience of the Canadian model also demonstrates that although fees

have been capped they have risen significantly and continue to rise in line
with inflation. From 2 Nov 2015, new fee structure changes were introduced
for Land Registration services in Ontario. The fees were increased by 50%
of inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for each year and
subject also, where applicable, to a 13% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)5.

114.

In Ontario the passage of the Electronic Land Registration Services Act 2010
(ELRSA) subsequently allowed the government a free hand to allow third
parties to charge fees in addition to the prescribed government fees and
gives a chilling premonition as to what could happen in England and Wales if
the government follow the Canadian model.

115.

In Ontario, the property market has evolved into a golden goose which has
been tapped at whim for more and more money. From 1 April 2016, when
lawyers register land transfers for property purchases, four separate charges
will be electronically collected by Teraview (the software developed by
Teranet).

116.

Therefore, it follows that having a government capped fee does not offer
land owners in England and Wales any guarantee that fees will not increase
significantly in the future6.

Land Registry Annual Report 2009/10 (P14)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/248013/0251.pdf
4
Land Registry Annual Report 2014/15 (P30)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443249/Land_Registry_Ann
ual_Report_2015_7_7_15_small.pdf
5
Bulletin 2015-03-fees, Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, Regulatory Services Branch
https://www.ontario.ca/land-registration/2015-03-fee-harmonization
6
thestar.com - Saturday 26/03/2016 http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2016/03/26/fee-for-land-transferregistration-amounts-to-tax-on-a-tax.html

Page 18 of 28

117.

Under a regulator-based approach, the consultation document states that

fees would be controlled by the regulator. The implication of accepting a
private sector model, and in particular one along the lines of the Canadian
example, is that the cost to customers will increase. Regardless of whether
fees are set by a regulator, rather than passing on efficiency savings to the
customer by the way of fee reductions, it is likely that fees will be based on
the financial and organisational requirements (and the profit motive) of the
private sector company.

Fraud
118.

It is alarming that assurances on property and identity fraud do not feature at

all in this consultation.

119.

Both government and the HM Land Registry Management Board

acknowledge that property and identity fraud is increasing and becoming
ever more elaborate. The open register, advances in digitisation and the
changes in requirements for sight of original documents mean HM Land
Registry and its staff need to be increasingly vigilant.

120.

Conveyancing and land law is too complex for HM Land Registry to rely
solely on IT solutions. It will always be an integral part of the role of a
caseworker at HM Land Registry to use their experience and technical
knowledge to identify fraudulent applications.

121.

There is, therefore, a clear need for effective risk management and
investigations by HM Land Registry staff in the course of their day-to-day
casework. This is currently factored into all technical considerations made by
HM Land Registry staff.

122.

In addition, where there is a suspicion of fraudulent activity, the application of

more refined analytical tools and data sharing between government
agencies is essential, particularly in respect of the increasing risk presented
by identity theft.

123.

Will such information sharing arrangements remain possible outside of

government under a private sector Land Registry?

124.

In relation to identity checks, it is also essential that HM Land Registry is

subject to all appropriate public safeguards; for example, through ensuring
that information is stored securely, is not made publicly accessible and is not
used for purposes other than the prevention of fraud. The necessary
absolute assurance in this regard can surely only be given within a public
sector Land Registry.

125.

We referred above (see the state-backed guarantee of ownership) to the

consultation's complete lack of clarity as to the future arrangements and
liabilities for the indemnity fund. This is all the more concerning in relation to
fraud, given that the HM Land Registrys liability for indemnity payments is
uncapped. This creates a real risk of catastrophic loss, ultimately

Page 19 of 28

representing a general risk for all tax payers not dissimilar to the recent
banking crisis.
126.

In that respect, the rise in property values over past decades means that the
financial consequences of fraud have also very significantly increased.

127.

The current Law Commission consultation paper on updating the Land

Registration Act 2002 [Law Commission Consultation Paper No.227,
paragraph 14.31, 31 March 2016] reports that "... fraud also accounts for a
significant proportion of sums paid through indemnity. Since 2008 - 2009,
fraud has accounted for at least 50% of indemnity payments made each year
with the exception of 2012 - 2013. In 2012 - 2013, however, the figures are
distorted by a single large payment of 5.1 million in relation to the mistaken
removal of the burden of an easement from the register. If that payment is
put to one side, then fraud accounted for approximately 75% of all other
indemnity claims.
The provision of an indemnity is a response to fraud, but it is not a solution to
it. It is important that the fact an indemnity is payable is not seen as a reason
to reduce efforts to prevent and combat fraud. It would be wrong as a matter
of principle to do so. It would also overlook the fact that for many claimants a
financial payment will not fully compensate the distress and inconvenience
caused by being a victim of fraud. However, as we have noted above those
who may be in the best position to detect fraud may not be incentivised to
develop best practice as the cost of fraud does not fall to be met by them."

128.

The same paper goes on to reveal that for the year 2014 - 2015, out of a
total indemnity pay-out of 8.4m, some 5.9m (or 70%) resulted from fraud.

129.

The effective combating of property fraud is vital if the indemnity fund and
tax payer's interests are to be protected. Just as important, both public and
professionals alike must have trust in both the Land Register and HM Land
Registry if the property market and wider economy are to function properly.

130.

We do not believe that a privatised Land Registry, keen to reduce costs and
maximise returns, will continue the significant investment of staff resource
needed to combat fraud.

131.

The failure of the consultation to even begin to address this issue and
provide the necessary assurance is a most serious and fundamental
omission.

Short term and interim transformation

132.

The consultation relates to the transformation that HM Land Registry is set to

undergo. It says that there will be a cost to conveyancers regardless of the
chosen option (including do nothing) as HM Land Registry moves to a
more digitised service.

133.

It is true that the HM Land Registry Business Strategy looks to transform the
service to include digital delivery. We envisage that the digital agenda will

Page 20 of 28

include self-service and wider use of the online application service. Within
government and providing a public service, HM Land Registry would be
obliged to consider all users. It would be forced to consider assisted digital
channels for lodging casework and for alternatives to online services.
134.

As a public service HM Land Registry is forced to consider the costs on

customers when introducing any new electronic registration systems. These
costs could include initial set up costs of any new system and the ongoing
running costs, including licence fees. It would also have to consider the fact
that the citizen has the ability to lodge applications and represent themselves
in property matters and transactions.

135.

In our view a private company would not necessarily consider the needs of
the full range of service users. IT solutions and expensive licencing could
drive small and medium sized companies out of the conveyancing sector
altogether. Under a private model, mandation of electronic channels is also
more likely with paper based channels becoming increasingly expensive to
use. This could also have a detrimental effect on the ability of the citizen to
have full access to all land registration services and to deal with their own
property matters.

Digital transformation
136.

Paragraph 26 refers to the next stage of HM Land Registrys transformation

to become a truly digital organisation, reducing the need for clerical and
administrative staff.

137.

PCS believe that there is a fundamental mistake in this paragraph, which

leads to the set of erroneous assumptions made in the subsequent section.

138.

Firstly, HM Land Registry is predominantly already a digital organisation. All

Land Register information has been held digitally for decades, as has the
vast majority of the map data. Furthermore, the last two to three years have
seen a massive shift away from applications to HM Land Registry being
delivered on paper, to the vast majority (72.6%) now coming in via digital
channels. Additionally, HM Land Registry has introduced a virtual post room
system that means that, other than First Registrations, paper based
applications and their supporting documentations are scanned into a digital
format and then processed electronically.

139.

Secondly the vast majority of HM Land Registry staff are neither clerical nor
administrative although HM Land Registry management are actively
considering re-introducing casework staff at clerical grades, which they
removed in 2010 to process some of the less complex cases. It should be
noted that even this work requires the individual caseworker to exercise
judgement, and to refer any questionable matters to a higher authority.

140.

So, at the current time, 95% of applications to HM Land Registry are already
processed digitally.

Page 21 of 28

141.

The First Registration work that is not processed digitally at the moment is
amongst the most complex that HM Land Registry deals with. It is dependent
on large amounts of source documentation and does not (and is unlikely
ever to) lend itself to submission via a digital channel.

142.

Paragraph 28 implies that in order to deal with the additional one million
houses that the government is committed to build by 2020, HM Land
Registry needs to modernise and digitise, yet no evidence is provided for
this assertion. This government commitment represents about 250,000
registrations per year, roughly a 5% additional transactions, and equivalent
to HM Land Registrys current work backlog. It should also be noted that HM
Land Registry consistently exceeds its customer satisfaction KPI, although
this has dipped slightly since 2015, with the extra day delay introduced into
processing paper applications by the introduction of the virtual post room.

143.

Paragraph 29 notes some of the successes of HM Land Registrys own IT

development staff; however, it ignores the fact that HM Land Registry has
been involved in a continuous and ongoing digital transformation for
decades. The staffing reduction statistics quoted in Paragraph 26 have only
been possible due to the introduction of new and improved IT systems and
digital workflows, all of which have been developed in-house, self-funded by
HM Land Registry, without being a drain or burden on the public finances.

144.

Paragraphs 29 -30 refer to a digital transformation, which is defined as

digital by default. However, as demonstrated above, HM Land Registry is
already digital by default, although consistent with the government policy of
assisted digital it continues to offer a non-digital alternative.

145.

We assume that what this section is aspiring to is a modernisation of HM

Land Registrys existing digital channels into a newer format, possibly with
the introduction of more validation and intelligence behind web-based forms,
thus eliminating some of the checking and validation that is currently
performed by HM Land Registrys skilled casework professionals. This is
often referred to as self-service, and would shift the balance of validation and
checking away from independent HM Land Registry staff to conveyancers.

146.

Although some conveyancers favour this approach, the 2014 consultation

came out heavily against it. It is also likely to increase the cost of land
registration to the citizen, as on average conveyancer charges are higher
than HM Land Registrys fees, and this work is currently carried out as part
of the land registration process.

147.

HM Land Registrys computer systems are necessarily complex they have

grown and evolved to reflect numerous Land Registration Acts and over 150
years of land registration custom and practice. PCS accepts that any IT
system can be improved, and that it would be possible, and maybe
desirable, to process the simplest of applications with less caseworker
involvement. More radical changes would require primary legislation and
could well undermine the integrity of the Land Register.

Page 22 of 28

148.

HM Land Registry has a proven record of transforming its systems, and does
so from within the income it generates from fees, whilst still maintaining a
return on investment which is paid annually to HM Treasury, and contributes
positively to the public finances.

149.

Would a private owner be prepared to make the massive financial

investment required to rewrite HM Land Registrys proven computer systems
during future transformation? PCS believes that they would not be prepared
to do so at their own expense; therefore the cost would need to be
underwritten by either increasing the fees charged by the provider or by
increasing the amount that the government will pay to the private company.
Either way, how would this be of benefit to the public finances?

150.

HM Land Registry has already demonstrated that it can develop and

maintain high quality digital services as part of the public service and from
within a combination of fee income and reserves, at no additional cost to the
public finances. This will not be the case for a private organisation, who will
want additional payments from government to undertake the task of the
transformation of HM Land Registry systems, which will further undermine
the long term economic justification for HM Land Registry privatisation.

Local Land Charges Register

151.

In 2014 HM Land Registry launched its successful "Land Registry, Wider

Powers and Local Land Charges" consultation. This essentially gave HM
Land Registry scope to provide additional services. One such service is in
relation to Local Land Charges (LLC). This was highly controversial at the
time of consultation with local authorities and search companies opposing
the plans.

152.

This consultation is silent on the concurrent considerations being made on

the future LLC service. The LLC consultation has guaranteed a dramatically
reduced and standardised search fee and has promised to deliver complete
digitisation and reduce the time taken to complete LLC searches. This
service will be run on a cost recovery model underpinned by very substantial
HM Land Registry investment in the early years.

153.

It is extremely unclear as to whether this model for LLC will continue and
who will bear the cost of this investment work and associated risk.

154.

We have every sympathy for the LLC search providers, who have seen their
business removed, nationalised, and now potentially sold to a large
conglomerate (before the nationalisation has even taken place). We believe
the initial consultation would have produced even more opposition had the
real outcome of a large privately owned monopoly been clear from the
outset. It is also silent as to whether the commitment to fee reduction can be
sustainably delivered in the long term. It is inevitable that the further this

Page 23 of 28

service is removed from government, the greater the risk of increased cost to
the public.

Impact on staff
155.

The consultation document recognises that current HM Land Registry staff

are critical to delivering and improving land registration services.

156.

Land registration is not simply an administrative task; staff are highly trained,
skilled and extremely experienced. Staff retention is critical to service
delivery.

157.

The consultation states that it is expected that most staff will transfer to any
new company in compliance with employment law.

158.

Such law does not deliver long term protections for staff. This is a complex
area of legislation and is dependent on many factors. Contractual issues and
possible re-negotiations on terms and conditions, etc. will all need to be
considered.

159.

Given the very narrow areas for income being offered to any new company
as part of this consultation, the only means of maximising profits would be
efficiencies in service delivery. We fear that cuts to office overheads and
staffing costs, coupled with unrealistic work pressures, would be used to
drive an increase in profits.

Page 24 of 28

Annexe 1
Quotes from Graham Farrant, HM Land Registry Chief Executive and Chief
Land Registrar`s Blogs
I was fortunate to be shown some of the other work carried out at Durham by a
team which is clearly dedicated and passionate about maintaining the integrity of the
Register! I am very grateful for the huge support and for their organisation of the twoday visit
I am yet to find an office that doesnt have its own unique character and vibrancy
and I have yet to come across a team that are not immensely proud of the work that
they do
I was very impressed by the professionalism shown by the team in Hull, but also
their passionate commitment to the city of Hull,
It was another rewarding visit, reinforcing the impression I had gained from my
previous time there of a vibrant office full of enthusiastic and skilled people across all
parts of the organisation
I also met with Elizabeth Cook who heads the First Tier Tribunal (Property
Chamber) and Siobhan McGrath to get their perspective on Land Registry as an
organisation which supplies cases to their Tribunal. They were very complimentary
about the professionalism of the administration provided by Land Registry and they
had no criticisms of our preparation whatsoever
One notable quote which sticks in my mind from a previous speaker who was
presenting a paper on trends in conveyancing transactions across the market was,
when comparing sources of data Land Registry is more trusted than the Daily
Mail. Talk about damned with faint praise
It is worth reflecting on our successes at this point two civil service awards in two
years, both for digital products,
As I have said before, I can assure you that throughout this work I will continue to
put the assurance that we provide to those who have an interest in land and property
and the integrity of the Register at the heart of considerations.
Government is going to consult on options and whatever one thinks about the
political objectives of this Government, no decision has been taken and no decision
can be taken until the consultation has been completed and views considered
I know that the integrity of the register is dependent on having an experienced, well
trained workforce, and therefore in emphasising the integrity of the register, we also
need to ensure that we protect experienced and skilled staff.
My starting point within Land Registry is one where I believe that I was mis-sold the
job! Arriving on 1 June I found an organisation that was much more proactive and

Page 25 of 28

thinking about efficiency and change than I had expected. The professional pride
and our focus on the assurance that we provide to those that have an interest in land
and property and maintaining the integrity of the register is absolutely clear but does
not get enough profile externally.
On Wednesday morning I set off on the (only 5 hours door to door) train journey
to the Wales Office where I planned to work for a couple of days and took the
opportunity to meet with a number of people and teams. I was particularly impressed
with the positive culture of the office and their can do attitude.
I have spent my entire career working in, or alongside, the public sector, mostly
local government, so I understand the ethos of our services well and I believe
passionately in the need for us to provide high quality services at the lowest possible
cost
Having already visited the Croydon Head Office and Nottingham before starting, I
was not surprised, by the supportive nature of the comments but it was useful to see
the emphasis on the importance of maintaining the integrity of the register, which is a
fundamental building block for me
It was another hectic week last week, culminating in visiting the Peterborough
Office. I was very impressed with the atmosphere in the office, with excellent
participation and staff appear to be well managed and engaged
I was also impressed by the undoubted enthusiasm of all of the teams there and the
in-depth knowledge of the specialists dealing with large and complex infrastructure
projects.
There does appear to be a lack of belief that the Boards actions and words
necessarily reflect the local strength of feeling about the integrity of the Register and
assurance being at the heart of everything that we do.
I am even more convinced that the future of Land Registry as an organisation lies in
us becoming more modern and more efficient but building on the strong heritage and
history that comes from the last 153 years and putting the integrity of the register and
the assurance that we provide back at the heart of everything that we do.
Once again though, I was impressed by the dedication and expertise of that core
group of staff carrying out Voluntary First Registrations and in particular their indepth knowledge of their subject. It is a good reminder of the degree of expertise
and judgement which is applied by our teams on a daily basis.
I have to say the Durham Office exceeded my expectations in terms of the
organisation and the welcome that was given to all of us over the two days.
For now, our focus should be on continuing to provide the excellent services you all
do on a daily basis, putting the assurance that we provide to people who own an
interest in land and property, and the integrity of the Register, at the heart of our
work.

Page 26 of 28

Consultation Questions:

1.

Annexe 2

Do you agree that the ownership of the Registers should remain in

government? Yes No Not sure
Comments:
The whole of Land Registry must remain in government.

2.

What steps should government take and what safeguards should it put in
place to ensure continued and improved access to high-quality and reliable
Land Registry data?
Comments:
The service must remain in government. No safeguards could prevent
the undermining of the protection offered by the current public sector
model.

3.

How could government use this opportunity to improve the quality and
accessibility of data produced by Land Registry for all sectors of the
economy?
Comments:
Please see paragraphs 112-116 in terms of additional use of and
accessibility of HM Land Registry data which demonstrates why a
complete land register is essential and can only be delivered within
government.

On what basis should government manage the relationship with a privately

owned Land Registry to ensure Land Registry meets, as far as is
reasonable, the data quality and availability requirements of all
stakeholders?
Comments:
It is simply not possible to do this. Previous privatisations and
toothless regulation have failed to deliver efficient, reliable services in
the private sector

Do you agree that the suggested safeguards should be included in any

model?
Comments:
This is a bogus question, as no safeguards have been put forward in
this consultation. The fact is that the further away HM Land Registry

Page 27 of 28

moves from government, the less control there will be on fees and
quality.

Are there any other safeguards that you think should be included?
Comments:
It is not enough for the government to claim that retaining ownership of
the land register provides the security and confidence needed to
reassure the public. This makes no sense at all whilst a private
company is free to make changes to the Land Register. The Register
and its maintenance must remain in the public sector. 153 years of
accumulated experience in maintaining a world class land titles system
could be lost. A fundamental cornerstone of the property and mortgage
markets and the wider economy would be sacrificed for a very short
term sale price.
Privatisation should simply not take place.

Do you agree with the preferred option? No

Comments:
Please see summary and main text of response. HM Land Registry
must remain in government.

What are your reasons for your answer to question 7?

Comments: Please read summary and submission.

Do you think an alternative model would be better and why? Yes

Comments:
Status quo must be maintained to prevent problems outlined in
summary and main text.

10

Are there other key costs and benefits that you think we might have missed?
Comments:
Many costs are apparently not understood by government. Extreme
risk that housing market could collapse.

Do you have any other comments that might aid the consultation process as
a whole?
Please see main text.

Page 28 of 28