Parliamentary Archives
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 1987–88 | House of Lords petition for leave to appeal in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler; papers catalogued. | GHF-E142 |
| 23 September 2026 | The National Archives disclosure identifies the House of Lords judicial papers series YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536, item 19, BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. | Reply register R15 |
| 28 September 2026 | Named among the recipients of the second preservation notice. | Reply register |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, no reply from the Parliamentary Archives is recorded in the reply register and nothing establishes wrongdoing. Whether it, rather than The National Archives, is the custodian of any Lords file on the case is not established.
Next step
Ask the Parliamentary Archives to state whether it holds any papers on the 1987–88 petition and to preserve them. Acceptance: a catalogue reference or a dated negative search result. See also the House of Lords review and the National Archives review.
Related
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.
- KF-16 · EV-0235 (Hansard cols 1671–72) — quarantined: may be a mislabelled Great House Farm (Llandough/Leckwith) record until a physical check.
- KF-24 · Hansard written answer, 25 Jul 1984 — quarantined: may be a mislabelled Great House Farm (Llandough/Leckwith) record until a physical check.
(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; the original items on the quarantine register; 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
- View the original of KF-16 (EV-0235 (Hansard cols 1671–72)) and check the place, parties and plan against Great House Farm, Llandough/Leckwith. for paid visit list
- View the original of KF-24 (Hansard written answer, 25 Jul 1984) and check the place, parties and plan against Great House Farm, Llandough/Leckwith. 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. |