39 of 59

Forensic Assessments

Heneb

Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026

Response status
Disclosing → Not held / refused
Last contact
29 October 2026
Next date on file
None on file
Earlier version
v1.0.0, published 18 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki

Since last assessment

18 October 2026 to 1 November 2026

Our reading: Since 18 October 2026, 7 emails are on file: 4 sent, 3 received (3 with content, 0 automatic acknowledgements). The latest reply moves the response status from “Disclosing” to “Not held / refused”. Most material: 29 October 2026, received, partial (ref GHF/HENEB/2026-09-20): Heneb answers seven questions of 19 Oct 2026: planning, project and admin files searched with nothing found; the HER does not record the information; points to the Suggett 1988 source record online; attaches one redacted change-log row and declines to share more; gives 1 April 2024 as a date asked for; states some documents do not exist; states no files will be deleted or records changed. Nothing here changes the earlier current finding unless stated above; this is a log of contact, not a finding about any person.

  1. Sentrequest

    The requester raises follow-up questions on search scope, archive-location fields, and the identification of the 1988 Archwilio records.

  2. Sentchaseref GHF/HENEB/2026-09-20

    The requester follows up.

  3. Receivedrefusal

    Complaint outcome: not upheld. Heneb points to the public HER for items 1-4 and 7-8, withholds individuals under GDPR (item 5), declines to review the 1990 evaluation, refers the ironwork question to Amgueddfa Cymru, confirms Heneb holds the GGAT records and states it cannot investigate or amend HER entries but will consider new documentary information.

  4. Receivedpartialref GHF/HENEB/2026-09-20

    Heneb answers seven questions of 19 Oct 2026: planning, project and admin files searched with nothing found; the HER does not record the information; points to the Suggett 1988 source record online; attaches one redacted change-log row and declines to share more; gives 1 April 2024 as a date asked for; states some documents do not exist; states no files will be deleted or records changed.

  5. Receivednot held

    Heneb replies that it holds no records on the requests below (Llandough Roman villa and medieval house finds; 1983 fire and archive custody).

  6. Sentfollow-up

    Reply on the 1983 warehouse fire request after Heneb's answer that it does not hold the material.

  7. Sentfollow-upref GHF/HENEB/2026-09-20

    Follow-up asking whether the HER holds or can point to three title records: the 1926 Cardiff Corporation conveyance, Mountjoy Ltd records and the 25 Dec 1938 Western Ground Rents Ltd conveyance.

The assessment as last published

Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (18 October 2026). Links point inside this site.

Page ID: 1546 · Title: Heneb — Forensic Assessment · Evidence status: Not yet labelled — see the Editing Protocol · Version: 1.0.0 · Editing Protocol

Chronology and catalogue links — assessed 17-10-2026: Use the Institutional Involvement Roadmap (1877–2026) for the date-ordered institution/people/evidence sequence. Full email dialogue is catalogued at Heneb / HER — Email Correspondence Catalogue.

ASSESSMENT ISOLATION CONTROL — Heneb

Scope: This page assesses only Heneb (The Trust for Welsh Archaeology / Historic Environment Record Team). Other institutions, companies, courts or individuals appear solely as counterparties, sources, predecessors or matters of chronology. Their conduct is assessed on their own pages.

Accountability test: identify the precise act or omission, the source of authority, what record was held, what was disclosed, when, and under what pressure. Documented failure to disclose held material promptly is recorded as such.

Evidence discipline: only linked artefacts and contemporaneous replies. No reconstruction of missing documents. Where the record shows incomplete first response, reactive digitisation after formal request, or continued narrow classification despite the content of the source material itself, that is stated without reservation. 🕒17-10-2026

Heneb — chronological evidence map

Email evidence register — 17 October 2026. The six Heneb / HER Gmail conversations cited on this assessment now have dedicated item-level records: GHF-E183 — source-file request and replies; GHF-E184 — schedule and 16 October response; GHF-E185 — complaint and acknowledgements; GHF-E186 — 1983 warehouse-fire enquiry; GHF-E187 — preservation notice; GHF-E188 — May 2026 FOI position. Source-status caveat: the current descriptions are based on the Wiki’s existing chronology; original Gmail bodies and attachments still need capture and verification. Each item page separates that neutral summary from its interpretation.

Expand the chronological evidence table (11 dated entries)

Every entry links to the corresponding artefact or reply page. Placeholders and missing items are labelled.

Date / periodHeneb / HER act or recordDirect source
Pre-2026Heneb holds the Historic Environment Record for the former GGAT area, including site record GGAT02038s (Great House Farm, Llandough) and its source file. The online summary on Archwilio classified the site as “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” and incorporated text from the Suggett December 1988 note. The full source file itself was not publicly digitised.Archwilio GGAT02038s (Internet Archive copy, 6 Oct 2026) · Archaeology and Heritage page
22 May 2026HER states: “Heneb is not subject to FOI requests as we are a Limited company. However, if you fill out our Enquiry Form then we will be happy to assist as best we can.”Email catalogue Thread 6
8 September 2026EIR/FOI request to HER Officer seeking the complete HER source file behind GGAT02038s (full entry text, Suggett 1988, museum accession/catalogue slips, distinction of reported finds).Email catalogue Thread 1
19 September 2026Formal schedule of records sent (item-by-item) to make the request processable.Email catalogue Thread 2
24 September 2026FOI request concerning the March 1983 fire at the former GGAT warehouse in Neath and any destruction of Llandough finds.Email catalogue Thread 4
27 September 2026Formal complaint to Heneb concerning HER identifiers and classification of the site (including early-medieval cemetery evidence).Email catalogue Thread 3
28 September 2026Preservation notice copied to hello@heneb.org.uk and her@heneb.org.uk.Email catalogue Thread 5
29 September 2026Steven Foulston (HR Manager) acknowledges formal complaint; appointed investigating officer; five-week target.Email catalogue Thread 3
6 October 2026First substantive reply to 8 Sep request. Points to existing Archwilio summary record 02038s. Does not supply full source-file PDFs.Email catalogue Thread 1
10 October 2026Family presses for the four specific items and physical record location / confirmation of physical check.Email catalogue Thread 1
14 October 2026HER states the source file “has now been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio” as PDFs in the Sources section of 02038s (includes Suggett 1988 as held by the HER). Physical search confirmed no further information in the source file. Separate reply on the 19 Sep schedule points promised.Email catalogue Thread 1 · Direct link to uploaded Suggett 1988 PDF
16 October 2026HER response to the 19 Sep schedule of records. Items 1–2 (and others) stated as “publicly available on Archwilio”; remaining items answered collectively as not held or with generic referrals. Confirms former GGAT paper records kept at Baglan; data management policy under review. Does not address ss.194–195 access route under the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 or Heneb’s EIR public-authority status.Email catalogue Thread 2

Documented involvement and implications

Expand the documented findings and reparations relevance

What the record shows, without reservation:

  • Held material was not released until after formal pressure. The full HER source file, including the Suggett December 1988 note, existed in Heneb’s custody. It was digitised and uploaded only after the EIR request of 8 September 2026 and further correspondence. The first substantive reply (6 October) did not supply it. That is incomplete first response under the Environmental Information Regulations.
  • 38-year delay in public access. A primary source note written in December 1988 about a site demolished amid public controversy remained undigitised and offline until October 2026. For a contested heritage site this is inadequate archival practice.
  • No explanation of process or gaps. The 14 October email states the file “has now been digitised and uploaded” but provides no account of earlier search methodology, why digitisation was delayed, or whether any material was lost, weeded or never catalogued.
  • Classification remains narrower than the source material itself. GGAT02038s continues to be headed and classified “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” even though the now-released Suggett note records possible medieval fabric, reported medieval ironwork, and the historic character of the site next to the parish church. The public record does not accurately surface the content of its own source file.
  • Release under challenge. Disclosure of the source file occurred only after sustained formal requests and after a complaint about HER identifiers had already been lodged. That sequence is a matter of record.
  • 16 October schedule response leaves a practical gap. Generic “publicly available on Archwilio” and collective “not held” answers do not identify the specific record, field or document that answers each numbered item in the 19 September schedule. The former GGAT paper archive at Baglan is confirmed but no catalogue, index or inspection procedure is supplied. Sections 194–195 of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 and Heneb’s EIR status are unanswered.

Liability-relevant note for reparations purposes: The documented failures are process failures under EIR (incomplete first response; delayed release of held environmental information) and archival practice. They establish that held material was not made available promptly. They do not, on the present record, establish that the Suggett note itself was withheld in order to influence the 1988 listing or demolition decisions (the note post-dates the demolition). The ongoing complaint on HER classification remains open (five-week target from 29 September 2026).

Outstanding

Expand the three outstanding items
  • Clarification of the 16 October schedule response (specific URLs/identifiers for items said to be public; item-by-item “not held” distinctions; Baglan inspection/index arrangements; ss.194–195 access route; EIR public-authority position).
  • Outcome of the formal complaint on HER identifiers and classification (investigating officer Steven Foulston appointed 29 September 2026; five-week target).
  • Any further transfer metadata or predecessor-to-successor chain documentation for the inherited GGAT source files and paper collections at Baglan.

Cross-institution boundary: distinguish Heneb’s present custodianship and disclosure conduct from the historic acts of GGAT (1982–1994). Those are assessed on the separate GGAT forensic assessment.

Related navigation: Heneb / HER Email Correspondence Catalogue · FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Records Access Chronology · Evidence Library · Archaeology and Heritage

1974 survey, Suggett note and delayed source-file access: relevance to the 1988–89 proceedings

The distinction is between the HER entry’s public citation of R. F. Suggett’s December 1988 note and access to the underlying source-file material. Heneb’s October 2026 correspondence reportedly stated that the source file had been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio. This supports a documented question about access and timing; it does not, by itself, prove that the existence of the note was concealed or that any custodian acted unlawfully.

The HER entry also refers to H. J. Thomas’s 1974 survey, which reportedly identified historic architectural features and considered a possible medieval core, while noting access limitations. The original survey and the Suggett note are distinct records and must not be conflated. The evidential question for the 1988 demolition and the family’s Strasbourg application (14464/88, inadmissibility decision dated 14 April 1989) is whether the survey or its findings were known to the family and their representatives, Cadw, and relevant decision-makers; what was submitted to the Commission; and whether any missing material could have affected a relevant argument.

Limit: historic significance alone did not automatically confer Grade II listing or establish that demolition was unlawful. The surviving material currently identified does not establish what the Commission received or that it would have reached a different decision. Compare the original 1974 survey, the Suggett note and its source-file metadata, the Cadw listing/spot-listing record, the ECHR application and surviving decision, and the planning records. Related records: GHF-E137 — 1974 H. J. Thomas survey; GHF-E183 — Heneb source-file request and replies; GHF-E184 — Heneb schedule of records and response; GHF-E145 — Strasbourg application and decision.

Research update — 1974 survey, HER source-file access and Strasbourg (17 October 2026)

The HER entry GGAT02038s already cited R. F. Suggett’s December 1988 note and referred to H. J. Thomas’s 1974 survey. Heneb reportedly said on 14 October 2026 that the underlying source file had been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio; its 16 October response addressed the schedule of records. The key distinction is between the public HER citation and the later availability of the underlying source-file material. The present evidence does not establish that the existence of the Suggett note was concealed.

The original 1974 survey predates demolition on 6 December 1988; Suggett’s note postdates the demolition. The research question is what the original survey and note actually record, and when those records were available to Cadw, the planning authorities, the family and their representatives. Historic significance does not by itself prove that statutory listing was required or that demolition was unlawful.

Evidence links: GHF-E137 — 1974 survey; GHF-E183 — source-file request and replies; GHF-E184 — schedule and response.

Response Friction Score — 16 October 2026 schedule response

The response is assessed as mixed: it itemises many answers and explains the HER snapshot limitation, while items 3–5 leave a question about the distinction between non-existent snapshots and information held but withheld on data-protection grounds. This is a request for clarification, not a finding that the stated legal basis is invalid. See the message-level score and source transcript.

Page version & change log

Current version: 1.0.0

VersionDate (UTC)Editor (human or agent name)ChangeSource / evidence
1.0.02026-10-18T15:28Zthe editorsFooter standardised; no content changeEditing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026

Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.

Case file

This file is built for a future reparations claim. Facts are as the records show them; interpretation is labelled “our reading”. Items marked “not checked” have not been compared with the original record.

(a) Conduct timeline

18 dated interactions, oldest first; 5 automatic acknowledgements are left out. Quotations are verbatim from the institution’s email; where the reply’s substance was an attachment, the email subject is quoted instead.

Show the timeline
DateDirectionReferenceTypeVerbatim
22 May 2026received—redirected elsewhereSubject: RE: Great House Farm, Williams/ Buckler Family, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan
23 May 2026sent—otherSubject: Re: Great House Farm, Williams/ Buckler Family, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan
8 September 2026sent—requestSubject: Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff
19 September 2026sent—clarification givenSubject: Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff
24 September 2026sent—requestSubject: FOI "Llandough Roman villa & medieval house finds were destroyed in a 1983 fire"
27 September 2026sent—complaintSubject: Formal complaint — GGAT / Heneb: Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — HER identifiers and the 1978–1995 record
30 September 2026sent—complaintSubject: [3] Re: Formal complaint — GGAT / Heneb: Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — HER identifiers and the 1978–1995 record
6 October 2026received—redirected elsewhereThe additional information referred to in your email dated 19 September 2026 will require further time to review, insofar as it is held within the HER.
10 October 2026sent—requestSubject: RE: Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff
14 October 2026received—not heldHaving undertaken a physical search of our records, I can confirm that no further information is held within the HER source file.
16 October 2026received—partialPlease find below our response to the schedule of records requested by yourself on the 19th September 2026:
19 October 2026sent—requestSubject: RE: Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff
21 October 2026sentGHF/HENEB/2026-09-20chaseSubject: RE: Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff
28 October 2026received—refusalWhat GGAT held in 1988, and what it did not do If you wish to find the information you have enquired about, the HER is a publicly available record
29 October 2026receivedGHF/HENEB/2026-09-20partialAll reasonable efforts to search Heneb’s planning and project archives and administrative files have been undertaken.
29 October 2026received—not heldHeneb does not hold any records pertaining to the below requests.
29 October 2026sent—follow-upSubject: RE: FOI "Llandough Roman villa & medieval house finds were destroyed in a 1983 fire"
29 October 2026sentGHF/HENEB/2026-09-20follow-upSubject: Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff

(b) Inconsistencies and gaps

“Not held” answers set against the duty below

Contradictions between replies, or between institutions

(c) Quarantined-name links

Records on the quarantine register (Kissed Frogs) that sit in, or came from, this institution’s holdings. None is treated as settled.

No quarantined-name record on the register is linked to this institution’s holdings.

(d) Duty and liability — our reading

Liability indicators (our reading): strong

Duty
Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 (the historic environment record; listing and scheduling); Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979; FOIA 2000 / EIR 2004 for the information held.
Indicators the duty was not met
replies that do not agree; “not held” answers.
Evidence still needed to confirm
the institution’s retention schedule and disposal record for the series in question; the catalogue or file list it searched; any internal review or complaint outcome.
Likely extent of exposure if confirmed
Limited to what the record holds and how it was compiled; exposure rises only if a record was omitted or misattributed in a way that affected a decision.

(e) Evidence still needed

Versions

1.1.02026-11-01Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read.
1.0.02026-10-18As published on the Legal Wiki.

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.