South Western Brick & Tile Company
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
19 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: documented appearance in one 1961 deed. The company is historic. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.
Documented appearances
| Date | Appearance | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 29 March 1961 | Party to a deed with Western Ground Rents Ltd and Cardiff City (on the WA231076 first-registration schedule). | GHF-E129 |
| 1 Dec 1972; 30 Apr 1974 | “South Western Brick and Tile Company Limited” named in Companies Registry lists under s.353 Companies Act 1948 (probably a strike-off warning, then struck off and dissolved; the two-column layout leaves the heading uncertain). Whether it is the same company as the 1961 deed party is unconfirmed. | London Gazette, 1 Dec 1972, p.14299; 30 Apr 1974, p.5330 (read, 19 Oct 2026) |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, the material reviewed does not establish wrongdoing by the company. The catalogue records the deed; its operative terms and plan have not been read for this review, so what land it concerned and how it relates to the farm parcels is not established here.
Next step
Obtain the deed through HM Land Registry (Form OC2) and read its plan against the two-parcel map. Check Companies House and the limeworks material for the company’s operations. Acceptance: the deed’s land and purpose are stated and sourced.
Related
Western Ground Rents review · Cardiff City Council review · Llandough Limeworks
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.
Related analysis and change record / guest book — 18 October 2026
Added the 1961 deed as a priority record for the institutional chronology. The company’s appearance in a deed establishes a role only to the extent the authenticated instrument shows; it does not itself establish wrongdoing. See the Three-part Parcel A: chronology, order scope and later title transfers assessment for the cross-parcel chronology, competing explanations and prioritized document list.
Change record: Added this cross-reference and a dated guest-book entry to connect this page to the new three-part Parcel A analysis. This is an editorial synthesis of existing leads, not a newly discovered primary record or a finding of dishonesty.
Cross-reference — Cedwyn Estate working theory: The 29 March 1961 deed is a potentially relevant lead for the Cedwyn Estate / woodland hypothesis. Until the complete deed and plan are inspected, it is evidence of a catalogued transaction, not proof that Parcel A land was unlawfully conveyed, that Mary’s title was known to the parties, or that the 1949 and 1961 events were coordinated. See the Cedwyn Estate Working Theory.
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
- No general statutory duty to disclose; UK GDPR Art. 15 for personal data it holds; duties in contract, conveyancing practice or professional rules where it was a party, agent or adviser; once on notice of a possible claim, an expectation to preserve relevant documents.
- 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
- Depends on its role in a transaction: where it was a party or adviser to a dealing in the land, exposure follows that role; otherwise none beyond data-protection duties.
(e) Evidence still needed
- View any deposited papers (company or estate records) at the archive that holds them. 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. |