BP Archive
Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026
Translation pending: the assessment text below is in English, the authoritative record.
- Response status
- No contact on file
- Last contact
- None on file
- Next date on file
- None on file
- Earlier version
- v1.0.0, published 21 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki
Since last assessment
14 October 2026 to 1 November 2026
Our reading: No new correspondence is on file since the last assessment. The earlier finding stands unchanged.
The assessment as last published
Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (21 October 2026). Links point inside this site.
Assessed 14 October 2026. Scope: archive and custody functions only. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.
Documented appearances
| Date | Appearance | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 28 September 2026 | Named among the recipients of the second preservation notice. | Reply register, preservation notices section |
| October 2026 | The name “BP Archive” appears on the 1969 conveyance, 1971 abstract and family-papers evidence pages and on the Warwick Modern Records Centre review as a records lead. | GHF-E131, GHF-E132 |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, no reply from the BP Archive is recorded in the reply register and nothing establishes wrongdoing. What the archive holds for BP Pension Trust and BP Properties, and where it is held, is the open question.
Next step
Ask the archive whether it holds the 1969 conveyance, the 1971 abstract, the 1974 licence-letter file and the 1982–83 registration instructions, and to preserve them. Compare with the Warwick Modern Records Centre review. Acceptance: a catalogue reference or a dated negative search result.
Related
BP Properties and BP Pension Trust review
Created 14 October 2026. Prepared with AI assistance from the wiki’s existing records, on the family’s instruction. Corrections are welcome and will be dated here.
Change history is maintained on the Master Change Log; no separate page-local version footer is maintained.
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
0 dated interactions, oldest first; 0 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
| Date | Direction | Reference | Type | Verbatim |
|---|
(b) Inconsistencies and gaps
None found in the correspondence on file.
(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): none
- Duty
- Custody and cataloguing of deposited records (Public Records Act 1958 for public records and places of deposit; the deposit terms for private collections); FOIA 2000 / EIR 2004 for information about holdings; an accurate catalogue is the finding aid the public relies on.
- Indicators the duty was not met
- none found in the correspondence on file.
- 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 the custodial record unless a mis-catalogued or withheld item is shown to have kept evidence from a decision-maker; then it may extend to the cost of putting the record right.
(e) Evidence still needed
- View the original items and the accession / deposit file at the search room. for paid visit list
Versions
| 1.1.0 | 2026-11-01 | Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read. |
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-21 | As published on the Legal Wiki. |