This blog should be of interest to any reader who owns a freehold or a leasehold property (of over seven years duration) and wants to check their details at the Land Registry.
Like most people, one sneakily asks personal type questions of AI Generative models (e.g. “AI AI please be clear, what’s the maximum DPO salary this year?”). In my case, I asked what was in the public domain about my house and AI told me, under the heading, “Land Registry transaction history” that I had sold the property 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, I have lived at the same address for 40 years with no transfer of ownership.
This raises concerns. Just imagine the chaos that might ensue if my adult children, who will inevitably inherit my estate and perhaps sell my property, discover that the Land Registry contains an inaccuracy concerning the legal title or, perhaps, an unknown covenant.
So I put in a Subject Access to the Land Registry for my personal data. This was refused in total, the Land Registry quoting an exemption which has been wrongly applied. Hence this blog.
I have appealed to the Land Registry using the provisions that require complaints be sent to the controller first. If I am proved correct (which I think I am), millions of data subjects should be able to check, free of charge, the accuracy of their household details held by the Land Registry. Hence explaining my reasoning becomes important.
I should add that exploring such issues by the right of access is precisely why data protection legislation has been enacted. Even in discredited Durant Judgement under the DPA1998, the Court of Appeal recognised that data subject rights were essential safeguards for every data subject.
This Appeal judgement approvingly agreed with the lower court as follows:
Secondly, the purpose of the [Data Protection] legislation … is to ensure that records of an inaccurate nature are not kept about an individual. A citizen needs to know what the record says in order to have an opportunity of remedying an error or false information.(quoted at paragraph 69; see references).
The Land Registry position
The Land Registry refused my request because “where any personal data is held on record for a registered title, the exemption provided at Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 5(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 is engaged”.
This provision states:
“5(1) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data consisting of information that the controller is obliged by an enactment to make available to the public, to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from complying with that obligation.” (my emphasis).
According to the Land Registry: “This means that any personal data held on the register title will not be disclosed in response to a subject access request.”
It follows that a data subject, who merely wants to check the accuracy of their personal data, has to purchase the full Registry details (which could result in excessive detail being provided compared with an actual SAR) as well as pay the fees normally associated with conveyancing.
I should add that the ICO’s advice on the use of this exemption is, shall we say, “not as clear as it could be”.
The mistakes the Land Registry have made
In summary, the exemption in Schedule 2, paragraph 5 has been applied by the Land Registry to all data subject rights when in practice not all rights can be exempted.
This can be seen with reference to the “listed GDPR provisions” detailed in Schedule 2, paragraph 1(a). These provisions are defined to refer all of the rights in Articles 13 to 21 “which may be restricted by virtue of Article 23(1) of the UK GDPR”.(my emphasis).
The use of the word “may” includes may not. In other words, the exemptions listed might apply or they might not; controllers can pick and choose to apply only the appropriate exemptions from Articles 13 to 21.
Second, the key word in the exemption quoted above is the word “prevent”? I cannot see how providing me with the personal data I have requested prevents the Land Registry from making the personal data available to the public for general conveyancing purposes.
However, if one considers the right to erasure, it can be seen that exercising the right to erasure can prevent the Land Registry in its obligation to make such personal data public.
The right of erasure satisfies the requirement that “the application of those provisions [i.e. accepting the right of erasure] would prevent the controller from complying with that obligation [to make complete conveyancing details available to the public], as personal data, subject to the right of erasure, would have been deleted.
The same argument on the right to erasure applies to the right to rectification or objection to the processing.
One could argue that to permit subject access to personal data could prevent the Land Registry revenue stream from being maintained at its current high level (£400 million according to the latest Annual Report).
However this is not the case. This is because solicitors involved with conveyancing need the authorised Land Registry official copies of documents that contain the complete registration details (e.g. of easements, mortgages, covenants etc, going back at least 15 years in the case of unregistered land). These details could include personal data of other living individuals who previously owned the property to be conveyed.
Note that details of previous living owners are not the personal data of the requesting data subject (as are details of previous owners who are deceased or inanimate details about the estate).
It follows that conveyancing solicitors cannot rely on the product of a subject access request to meet their professional or legal requirements when conveyancing (i.e. ALL the information in a Land Registry document/register is unlikely to be the data subject’s personal data and subject to the right of access).
By contrast, conveyancing solicitors need ALL the information in a specified document/register (i.e. including information that is not the personal data of the requesting data subject).
It follows that satisfying subject access requests will not prevent the Land Registry maintaining its current revenue stream (a nice little earner).
The wider public interest
I happened to catch a BBC program (Morning live, 27 May 2026, broadcast around 9.40am) which is relevant to this blog. The broadcasted story related the use of restrictive covenants, to permit what can be only be described as legalised extortion. Details of covenants are included in Land Registry registers.
The extortion works as follows. Suppose a property developer builds 100 houses on a new-build housing estate, each of which has a freehold title. Suppose further the developer, prior to a sale, places a restrictive covenant not to build an extension or loft conversion on each freehold title. Finally, suppose a purchaser of a freehold title buys the property but in later years builds an extension or loft conversion.
On the sale of the property, where full details are publicised on the estate agent’s website, the property developer can approach the owners of the property asking them to pay £10,000+ to be released from their restrictive covenants. The BBC examples included release from restrictive covenants relating to extensions/loft conversions built by previous or even deceased owners.
I raise this to explain that there is a clear public interest in home owners checking whether they are vulnerable to such extortion. They should be able to check their position without going through the complex procedures associated with conveyance of a property.
What do I think will happen?
Well, the Land Registry has four options:
- accept that I am correct and provide the personal data;
- hope the ICO drops any further complaint into his “no further action” folder or the ICO tells me to seek a “compliance order” from the Courts (shockingly this has happened).
- change the argument; or
- stick to its guns about the exemption.
With respect to sticking with the exemption, my only recourse is to complain to the ICO and wait eight months or so for the white smoke of any investigation to appear. The risk to the Land Registry arises because the request potentially relates to millions of data subjects and the ICO could agree with my analysis (i.e. the exemption use could be overturned).
With respect to “change the argument”, the Land Registry might try to argue that the personal data I have requested is not personal data at all (so can’t be accessed by Subject Access). For example, the data they hold on restrictive covenants are all about the land, and such covenants are well known to “run with the land” and not the individuals who have possession of the land.
Personally, I don’t think that works as the covenants have “run with my land”. Plus the fact, the Land Registry did not refuse my request on the grounds that the requested information was not personal data. If they were now to argue it’s not personal data then this is not the end of the matter, as the obvious FOI request follows (where the applicant can argue the case before the Tribunal if needed if the ICO does not agree).
The Land Registry could have banked on ICO’s inaction when Mr. Edwards was in charge. However, the alleged bully resigned (last Friday) and no one knows who the new sheriff is.
In addition, the Good Law Project’s Judicial Review concerning Mr. Edwards’ inaction is still in place. If the new Data Protection Commissariat wants to distinguish itself from Mr Edward’s imperial reign, then taking “no further action” because a controller is a public body is a good place to start.
A likely outcome?
So what will the Land Registry do? Well, if I were facing this, I would try the following:
- give the data subject what he wanted and
- maintain using the exemption wrongly until the ICO says “stop”.
From the data subject’s perspective, they obtain the requested personal data. They cannot them complain to the ICO that the Land Registry is in breach of the subject access requirements as there is no breach (the controller has provided the requested personal data).
There is no investigation from the ICO and no ruling about the lawfulness of the Land Registry’s approach to its exemption. In short, it’s an example of giving way in one awkward case in order to allow a controller to continue to abuse the data subject rights of the masses.
In that way, the status quo is maintained. Everyone is happy (except of course data subjects who do not read this blog!).
References
Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746; [2004]
Data Protection Courses in July
Advanced training for Data Protection Staff including on the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025
- Data Protection Practitioner: (5 days : Zoom or classroom: BCS syllabus). Monday to Friday, 6 to 10 July. (5 days – £2,650.00+VAT). The course is ideal for those who need a deep dive into the nitty-gritty of data protection. Next course is
- The Data (Use and Access) Act Workshop. (1 day : Zoom only) on Wednesday 29 July, 2026. (1 day – £275.00+VAT). Ideal for those who need a detailed view of the new law and the changes to the DPA2018 and UK_GDPR.
To find out further details of all course content and booking arrangements, please go to the Amberhawk website (www.amberhawk.com) or email us direct: mailto:info@amberhawk.com
