Why privatising the Land Registry is wrong

Photo of land certificate

28 March 2016

Former Chief Land Registrar John Manthorpe explains why land registration needs to stay public.

The Government’s Annual Spending Review, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th November 2015, included a proposal to “consult on options to move operations of the Land Registry to the private sector from 2017”.

The Government published its consultation document on 24th March. Less than two years ago a similar and wide ranging government consultation was conducted by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). This led to an overwhelming rejection of such a proposal from a wide range of stakeholders. Consultees made clear that the Land Registry must remain as a public department of Government. Despite this informed response the Government are now to renew the consultation – presumably disregarding the clear views expressed last year from those who use and depend on the Land Registry’s services. 

Constitutional position in Government - land registration ‘an act of sovereignty’

Land registration is the exercise by government under statute of the impartial control and development of an adjudicatory system which enables the ready creation, extinguishment and exchange of private interests in land under the law. It is the positive choice of government to provide and create certainty and security for the citizen, for business, and for public authorities and financial institutions. By establishing trust and confidence in title it promotes private ownership, secured lending and economic development. It does this by reserving to itself, on behalf of the Crown and under the law, the power to grant, and to rectify, title and to maintain a single authoritative and guaranteed register of legal interests in land. Where land is registered the register forms the only title to land recognized by law. 

The act of registration has been described as an “act of sovereignty” inasmuch as it is in exercise of its sovereign power that the State declares title after examination to be absolute and makes it valid against the world.

The Registry’s independence from commercial or specialised interests is essential to the trust and reliance placed on its activities. It would not be possible for actual or perceived impartiality to be maintained or public confidence sustained, if a private corporation or institution (particularly if such a body had conveyancing, financial or land holding functions) were to assume responsibility for the granting of legal estates in land and the maintenance of a public register

The new consultation can be said to fall into a continuous series of Royal Commissions, Inquiries and Reviews that have been conducted over three centuries. This includes the land registration statutes enacted by Parliament since 1862 (most recently the Land Registration Act of 2002) but also specific government sponsored reviews of the Civil Service which have included reviews of the organisation and financing of HM Land Registry. All of these reasserted unequivocally that the Land Registry must remain as a public department of Government. 


The Land Registry has been a public department of Government since its establishment 153 years ago in 1862. For 149 years it was a legal department of the Ministry of Justice (and its predecessor departments). The Chief Land Registrar, as Head of the Department and full Accounting Officer, was directly accountable to the Lord Chancellor. In 2012 it transferred to (BIS) with the Chief Land Registrar now accountable to the Minister at BIS.

What the Land Registry does

In understanding why successive administrations have been so clear about the Land Registry’s position as a public department of Government it is helpful to restate what the Registry actually does - as set out in the following paragraphs.

There is, every day, a massive movement across the country in interests in land.  These can arise from sale and purchase, inheritance, mortgage, discharges, leases, restrictions, matrimonial and family matters.  In addition bankruptcies, repossessions, the protection of third party rights and Orders of the Court relating to land rights require protection by registration. The Registry handles all house sales activated by Estate Agents, all sales and purchases handled by conveyancers and every secured loan generated by Banks, Building Societies and other lenders.  Because it is constantly maintained, and records the priority of all pending land transactions in England and Wales, the land register stands to give authoritative and guaranteed notice to all.  This includes those who deal with land occasionally (e.g. purchasers) and those who deal regularly (e.g. lending institutions). It is the maintenance of the national land register which enables vendors to demonstrate proof of ownership, and purchasers and lenders to carry through their intentions to contract and to completion safely and simply. 

None of this massive and daily movement of guaranteed interests in land, between citizens, business, public bodies and financial institutions, on which the market economy depends, could function without an impartial and trusted system of land registration

The input to this dynamic land register is the constant flow of agreements, contracts, deeds and documents - freely made between people, banks, institutions, local and central government and the Crown – in any combination and at any time. Decisions are made, contracts are agreed, registration is effected.  The ever changing legal relationship of land and people is constantly and instantly reflected in a public place. What would otherwise be hidden is synthesized into a common, guaranteed and public record open to all. Security, confidence, transparency, choice - all become possible. Publicly registered land rights are ‘good against the world’. Individually they protect the interests of the registered owner; together they constitute the underwritten record of the collective wealth of the country. Around the world a trusted system of land registration is central to social stability and economic success 

The secured credit activity of Banks, Building Societies and other financial institutions depend on the guarantees provided by the Land Registry. These guarantees and reserved priorities are essential before any decision can be made to generate a secured loan or to go to contract. All lenders secure their power of sale in the event of default by substantive registration of their mortgages. 

On every transaction the Registry is responsible, on registration, for the validation of documentation and for ensuring that conveyances, transfers, mortgages etc, are properly executed and legally effective. The Registry must verify that an owner has the power to sell and that the transaction is made having regard to any prior claims by third parties affecting the property. This constant curative process ensures, before the legal estate passes, that the interests of all parties affected by the transaction are properly considered and that any necessary Notices have been served on those entitled to receive them.  Quite apart from ensuring that any legitimate interests are protected the Registry is able to resolve potential problems, disputes or ambiguities at an early stage so avoiding, as far as possible, future dispute and litigation. 

It is this which is the core and dominant work of the Land Registry. It is this which ensures the continuing existence of an up to date, trusted, register of legal interests in land. It is this central task of the Registry that employs the majority of its staff, many with highly developed professional and specialist skills. It is this that provides the essential and statutory machinery that enables a massive, and continual, movement in land interests to take place with confidence.
Land Registry and its specialist staff

Maintaining the land register in the fluctuating and sometimes complex, competitive property market requires the exercise of sound risk taking judgement by the Registry’s staff drawing on long standing practical experience and the interpretation of primary and subordinate legislation.  Their decisions have to be visibly impartial and free from conflicts of interest, dealing as they do with the sometime competing and contrary interests of individuals, neighbours, financial institutions, private companies and public bodies.

Self financing – no cost to the exchequer

The Land Registry is self-financing operating at no cost to the public purse. It has an excellent record of holding and reducing its costs, and its fees to customers. It pays an annual dividend to the Exchequer. It is highly regarded by those who depend on it as a provider of trusted, prompt services.

Land registration is not an activity that any responsible Government can transfer to the private sector.

The Land Registry is a national treasure - sign the petition to keep it that way.

Photo of land certificate

Photo used under Creative Commons licensing, thanks to Paul Downey.

Do you believe in public services for people not profit?

Win campaigns for public ownership by subscribing to our mailing list! We'll hold your data in accordance with our privacy policy and send you carefully chosen information about current and future campaigns, projects and appeals. You can unsubscribe at any time.


Adele Foster replied on Permalink

Keep Land Registry public - we cannot afford not to.

Wayne Kelly replied on Permalink

This does not make commercial sense.

Anonymous replied on Permalink

It makes a lot of commercial sense, just not for us. For the people that end up owning it and their friends. For them it makes alot of sense.

Denise Day replied on Permalink

I completely endorse John Manthorpes comments. As an employee of Land Registry ( now retired) for 35 years I know first hand the high regard in which the organisation is held. Also the importance of impartiality and confidence in title to land which the Registry provides.

Diana Smith replied on Permalink

I have attempted on several occasions to contact John Manthorpe, as l know he included into his comments for the consultation paper in 2010 , that it was important to keep Land Registry Offices open to enable the elderly and vulnerable to access local offices as near as possible to where they lived. I have been prevented from accessing my local office (Kingston upon Hull Land Registry), to the point of when the Equality & Human Rights Commission assisted me , l was removed from a -booked appointment by Humberside Police summoned on a 999 call by their CSM who previously had interfered with my DPA(SAR) when there was involvement of The Information Commissioners Office ( Land Registry was found to be in breach of the DPA). This same CSM had previously been found to have telephoned my acting / conveyance , solicitors in the matter of declaration(s) for a "totally paperless claim " , that was stated to be "solely based" upon said declarations, purely because it had been these ( my own) solicitors who had witnessed them. I can understand your affinity with the Land Registry you worked for all those years ago and while l do find myself going along the same lines and beliefs of John Manthorpe, he was actually on "shift" , while Marco Pierleoni was their CEO and stating for the Financial Statement for 2009-2010 that there was only three complaints to the PHSO about Land Registry , two quicky dealt with, leaving just one complaint in the pipeline for that year. It was Marco Pierleoni himself that wrote to me in April 2010 , stating to me , that l owned a registered title and "assuring" me that l could not be deprived of land from that title , by a different address being lodged at a Land Registry Office . However , l had flagged up an "error" in the caution register ( a legal aid green paper for someone else), back in early March 2000, that even when l raised it on many more occasion , it allowed for someone working for East Lindsey District Council in their planning department , to lodge this fraudulent claim for already registered land, that started in May 2007 , being the very month of an Adjudication of the Advertising Standards Authority on the 30 th May 2007 , with Land Registry on record and in the public domain, stating "no claim of adverse land possession can be made against already registered land". The land being sought , had already been confirmed by KUH Land Registry to be myregistered land ( also TID sent out to me [Title Absolute}), that included the further 50 acres of the error caution). Then behind my back they lodged a adverse land possession claim and even surveyed the land for re-registration to this neighbour, without notifying me or the other interested four parties. It then turns out while l was being advised by the Independent Complaints Review and the Operations Manager ( Evelyn Holt) at Peterborough Land Registry to involve the PHSO and to copy The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry into lobbying my MP to write to the PHSO in March 2009, there was a whole batch of twenty-two others cases deemed by the AHMLR as totally unsuitable cases for Land Registry to have referred these cases to . During March -October 2009 the AHMLR sent these cases to the ICR even though they are not the body to deal with such cases and l was being excluded despite keeping everyone in the loop, pretty much as l had done previously in 2000-2005, when two judges found in my favour regarding amounts of a charge that were not mine ( the legal aid green paper for someone else , pretending to be living at my actual address and everything hidden by a different address for service having been lodged and repeatedly not corrected). If you are able to contact John Manthorpe by other means than l have access to, could you please ask him why he has allowed cases like mine to happen on his shift?

Jennifer Homeyard replied on Permalink

so narrow minded to sell an asset for a short term profit

Vivienne Garrett replied on Permalink

It is a great organisation don't let it be privatised

Christine Somers replied on Permalink

This proposed action is open to corruption, this Government is sinking in sewage

Wendy Farrier replied on Permalink

The Land Registry has always had a good reputation for being impartial and has always been well thought of by the legal profession. Let us keep it that way.

Marilyn Lang replied on Permalink

why in earth would they contemplate selling this off, apart from the short term profit? It must remain impartial and in public ownership. Hands off

Edward Lamb replied on Permalink

The function of the Land Registry is clearly an activity central to the sovereignty of the nation. As such it must remain in state ownership.

JOHN BENJAMIN FIELD replied on Permalink

What ever is the point of privatisation of the Land Registry. It is not a burden on he tax-payer as it is self financing and indeed, often makes a surplus which is, I believe passed on to the Treasury. Keep the Land Registry as it is; it is impartial, swift to react to legislative changes, provides a state guarantee ot title and is respected by the legal profession. Keep it in the public arena.

Alison Gove-Hum... replied on Permalink

This land is OUR land!!!!

Linda Stevens replied on Permalink

Under public ownership the Land Registry is impartial, this would not continue to be the case if it were to be privatised.

John Tranter, B... replied on Permalink

"Sinking in Sewage" is very good!

Alan David Bewley replied on Permalink

This is driven by pure dogma.

Jill johns replied on Permalink

Leave this alone, it has been respected and worked for years. It doesn't need changing, do what you were elected to do and listen to the public. Sort out what is vital to be sorted. Try living in the real world. When was it requested you did this?

Brian Kitching replied on Permalink

A sneaky attack on a respected, well run, independant, totally reliable public organisation. An example of right wing dogma at its worst.

David Miller replied on Permalink

Stopping the actions of this ineffectual Gornment is simple, a vote of no confidence would do it. Get moving you lot !i

John Skinner replied on Permalink

There is no sound reason why the Land Registry should be privatised. It has functioned extremely well as a public entity since its inception. It has a sound record of impartiality and propriety. It is not driven by profit nor concerned for what shareholders in a public company may expect. "sneaking" this proposal out on a day when it may attract little public attention illustrates only how shameful and corrupt this government is.

Chribs Bitton replied on Permalink

This has got nothing to do with economic sense, it has everything to do with outdated political dogma (the reduction of the number of public servants)and, as others have said, to sneak it in under the radar smacks of a degree of desperation. Undoubtedly they will keep trying to get away with this until they get the answer they want.

Pau, Halden replied on Permalink

The Land Registry must stay independent with full government backing. Do not waste time & effort in privatisation but increase income by raising taxes on the ridiculous high earners in this country. I have to say that I am very disappointed that this government is pursuing this issue once again.

Diana Smith replied on Permalink

We must prevent privatisation of Land Registry as there are hundreds of thousands of cases requiring redress from the " errors / mistakes" , already inflicted on the property / landowning UK Public. I cite the Adjudication of The Advertising Standards Authority against the misleading literature of Land Registry that had been orcastrated to be sent to fifty percent of property / landowners, in England & Wales in 2006. Land Registry referred over 6,500 cases for judicial involvement while not making any of these cases aware of their own errors with such literature, pre-empting those cases from the information needed under The Human Rights Acf , section 6. As The Land Registry ( Rules ) Committee , sitting in 2008 stated they were :- " satisfied the LRA2002 complied with the HRA and section six of that Act" , which they conferred to still be the case . Staff at Land Registry need to be made accountable under our present government and made to put right all the wrongs committed. The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry also sent out misleading literature to the UK Public , while sitting on the correct literature, and their website holding wrong information. My attempts previously for the statistics of how many were sent wrong literature, have been nobbled by the AHMLR & The Information Commissioners Office. Putting a request via the " whatdotheyknow" website to The Land Registry ( Rules) Committee for these statistics has been refused by Land Registry's Gurmale Sondh, after he had first provided the figures for the judicial referrals regarding the misleading Land Registry literature. Add to both of these misdirections of " wrong literature" , the fact the website of Land Registry for many years advised the UK Public to not quote The Freedom of Information Act , when requesting information, as information would always be provided on the basis of the FOIA. Thus misleading the UK Public into believing there was a compulsion to be open and honest. The website of Land Registry was confusing to say the least as it would come up in welsh , enough to put most people off from going further. John Manthorpe assisted with a paper in October 2010, over the proposed closing of some of the Land Registry Offices, whereby his comment was these offices needed to stay open to help elderly / vulnerable people, who needed to attend them. Here is the clue he knew it was this very area of the public who would be targeted and helped in that targeting by Land Registry Staff to deprive them of lawfully owned property / land. We need to prevent privatisation and take a leaf out of The Legal Ombudsman Site , by naming and shaming staff of Land Registry, thereby driving out the crime al element and keeping the jobs safe of the honest staff.

Adam Young replied on Permalink

Why is the Land Registry important?


Add new comment