39 of 59

Forensic Assessments

House of Lords

Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026

Response status
No contact on file
Last contact
None on file
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: 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 (18 October 2026). Links point inside this site.

Page ID: 1556 · Title: House of Lords — Forensic Assessment · Evidence status: Not yet labelled — see the Editing Protocol · Version: 1.0.0 · Editing Protocol

Chronology and catalogue links — assessed 10-10-2026: Use the Institutional Involvement Roadmap (1877–2026) for the date-ordered institution/people/evidence sequence. The reported 1988 Cadw-to-Minister spot-listing letter has its own catalogue placeholder at GHF-E152; the original has not been attached to that page as at 10-10-2026. A placeholder records an evidence gap; it does not establish the letter’s contents or misconduct.

Forensic Assessment — House of Lords

Scope: appellate leave/application stage following the 1987 Court of Appeal decision.

Role

The 1987 Court of Appeal report records: “Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused but a stay pending a possible application to the House was granted on terms.” [EV-0080]. [SOURCE PENDING] Further appellate leave was then sought from the House of Lords. The House of Lords stage must be distinguished from the Court of Appeal merits decision and from the later ECHR application.

Forensic control test

Identify exactly what application was made, what grounds were advanced, what documents were provided, and what the procedural disposition was. The project should not infer that a refusal of leave endorsed every proposition in the Court of Appeal judgment.

Current finding

As at 10-10-2026, the material reviewed does not establish institutional wrongdoing. This does not conclude that every act, omission or record question is resolved. The value of the record is to determine the final procedural history and whether any particular issue was or was not presented for further appeal.

Human action

Obtain the House of Lords leave/application papers and incorporate them into the 1987 judgment reconstruction and preclusion matrix.

Acceptance: final appellate procedural history is documented with exact grounds and disposition.

Institutional appearance timeline — linked source index

Coverage rule: this is a chronological navigation map of published Wiki source pages found by searching the current site index for “House of Lords”. Every event label links directly to the page containing the source. It avoids duplicating source narratives. It records mention/appearance, not culpability. Dates are transcribed from page titles where available; “Date not explicit in title” means the linked source must be consulted. Search indexing is a discovery aid, not proof of exhaustive external coverage. 🕒

Date shown by source title Event / source — open evidence Record class
22 May 1980 GHF-E090-N16 — 22 May 1980: House of Commons, Ted Rowlands MP on Western Ground Rents and the BP pension fund (Hansard) Published Wiki evidence page
22 May 1980 GHF-E090-N16 — House of Commons, 22 May 1980: Ted Rowlands MP on BP and Western Ground Rents (Hansard) Published Wiki evidence page
1987 GHF-E142 — 1987 House of Lords petition for leave to appeal: papers Published Wiki evidence page
3 December 1988 GHF-E090-N08 — “History fight to save farm” (South Wales Echo, 3 December 1988) Published Wiki evidence page
6 December 1988 GHF-E090-N10 — “Farmer fails in final eviction hearing” (Western Mail, 6 December 1988) Published Wiki evidence page
c. 30 April 1988 GHF-E090-N07 — c. 30 April 1988: “Chainsaw farmer vows to fight on” Published Wiki evidence page
c. 7 December 1988 GHF-E090-N11 — “Tears flow as 800 year-old farm house is razed at last” (c. 7 December 1988) Published Wiki evidence page
Date not explicit in title Press Archive — Newspaper Transcripts Published Wiki evidence page

Records-access register appearances — direct row links

Rows below match the institution’s name or an alias in the reply register’s sender/reference or recorded description. A match shows an appearance in the records trail, not necessarily an act by this institution.

Date Correspondence / register item (click to open) Reading rule
23 Sep 2026 R15 — The National Archives FOI Centre. CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 / CRM:007302479. Register row contains a name/alias match; inspect the linked row to distinguish sender, recipient and incidental mention.

Related navigation: FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Records Access Chronology · Evidence Library

Page version & change log

Current version: 1.0.0

VersionDate (UTC)Editor (human or agent name)ChangeSource / evidence
1.0.02026-10-18T15:29Zthe editorsFooter standardised; earlier log rows carried into this table; no content changeEditing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026
2026-10-18 (rollout date; exact time not separately recorded)OpenAI-assisted maintenance agent (GPT-6)Installed this page-local append-only change log and agent instructions. Existing page content was not intentionally rewritten.User-directed site-wide changelog standard. Saved via WordPress API; public rendering of this page not yet independently checked.

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

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
DateDirectionReferenceTypeVerbatim

(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
Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.1 and s.10 (confirm or deny, and supply held information within 20 working days); Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for land and environmental records; records management under the s.46 Code of Practice; Public Records Act 1958 selection and transfer for central government records.
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
An ICO decision notice or a records-management finding; any reparations claim would also need a link between a records failure and the loss.

(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.