Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

From past experience, and from what I have heard, the danger with large numbers of responses is that, if they are all identical, they will effectively count as one response only - volume does not necessarily sway the outcome. But it is apparent from the consultation document (as with the previous one in 2014) that BIS and UK Government Investments (formerly the Shareholder Executive) and their advisers still really don't understand the true, quasi-judicial nature of Land Registry's work, nor the underlying complexity of property law and all other aspects of the law which land registration law has to reflect (you only have to look at Chapter 2 of the Law Commission's consultation on the LR Act 2002, for example). Nor do they appreciate that LR's primary function is the granting and approval of land titles and rights (and so must be carried out absolutely impartially, free from any actual or perceived conflict of interest), not the production of data - data are a byproduct of LR's statutory duties, albeit a significant one. The inherent value of the data lies in being created and guaranteed by a trusted, reliable and impartial source; by contrast, under the consultation proposals, what is the value of Government guaranteeing something that it has not itself produced?

Your details

Cancel