Post Office Limited
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: modern records-access involvement on a family-history lead. Post Office Limited has no recorded role in the land dispute. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.
Documented appearances
| Date | Appearance | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 24 July 2026 | FOI2026/00751: asked for records of Mr Williams of the Cardiff Post Office Engineering Department and his part in Marconi’s 1897 experiments at Lavernock Point. Post Office Limited states it does not hold the information. | Reply register R41; attachment GHF-E106-R41-A1 |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, the material reviewed does not establish wrongdoing. The response is a nil return for this one request. It does not show that no such records exist elsewhere; the wiki’s separate route is Royal Mail Group and the Postal Museum and Archive (see the Royal Mail Group review).
Next step
Follow the Postal Museum and Archive route and cross-check the press lead at GHF-E090-N02. Acceptance: a catalogue reference is obtained or a dated negative search result is logged.
Related
FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Forensic Assessments index
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
- 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
- Inspect the files it names, or their transferred copies at the archive. 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. |