Image: Intensive grouse moor management on Millden Estate, Angus.

A report on the damaging environmental and social impacts of the intensification of grouse moor management in Scotland is published today by the League Against Cruel Sports. The authors of the report are Dr Ruth Tingay and myself. The report can be downloaded here (658kb pdf) and a short video here.

The report highlights a land use that where Scotland’s hills are being turned into intensively managed game reserves, where protected species are being persecuted, where electric fencing and roads are being constructed with impunity, and where much of this is eligible for public subsidy.

Image: New grouse butt construction with Firmounth and Scottish Rights of Way sign indicating junction between the ancient Firmounth and Fungle routes (Grid Ref. NO499853) Photo: James Carron

The evidence we have uncovered is a shocking indictment of a land use that is out of control. The methods being deployed to maximise grouse numbers are damaging the environment and are subject to no effective regulation or oversight by the Scottish Government and other public authorities.

The report is published days after a scientific assessment of many of these issues was published by Scottish Natural Heritage. The report was requested in response to concerns of SNH Board members about intensified moorland management practices in some areas, including the spread of hill tracks, increase in muirburn, heavy culling of mountain hares, and using chemicals to dose red grouse to increase numbers of grouse for shooting.

It also comes on the day that the Office for National Statistics published data showing that 33% of jobs in Angus pay below the living wage – the highest percentage of any Scottish local authority. Two of the case studies in the report focus on grouse moors in Angus. This may have something to do with the fact that, as the report reveals, the 2640 full-time equivalent jobs in grouse moor management pay an average of £11,041 which is below the national minimum wage.

 

Heatmap of Confirmed and Probable Raptor Persecution Incidents 2005-2014

The report will be launched at a fringe meeting at the Scottish National Party conference on Thursday 15 October at 6.30pm.

UPDATE 19 APRIL 2020

This blog, together with a subsequent one published on 24 February 2016, were the subject of defamation proceedings brought by Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC against myself in a citation from the Court of Session served on me on 21 March 2017. Since 30 March 2017, following legal advice, the blogs have been password protected. The case (Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC vs. Andy Wightman A111/17) was heard by Lord Clark at the Court of Session from 29 October 2019 – 8 November 2019. A Decision by Lord Clark was published on 11 March 2020 which rejected all of the pleas of the pursuer in what was a comprehensive victory for me. As a matter of law therefore neither of these two blogs are defamatory. The Pursuer issued a statement to the media on 11 March stating that “we will certainly appeal the decision”. However, the 28 day period in which to appeal has now expired and no appeal has been lodged. I am pleased therefore to now remove the password protection and enable them to be read as they were published subject to one caveat.

Lord Clark concluded that in the blogs (and a few tweets which were also complained of) I had made four untrue statements. Contrary to claims by my detractors, none of these was a lie. Indeed Lord Clark made clear that I was a “credible and reliable witness” who “gave his evidence in an honest, straightforward and coherent manner”. Lord Clark stated that “I accept his evidence about what he knew and did not know at the time of the various publications” and that “the suggestion he made statements that he knew were untrue simply has no proper basis.” [Lord Clark at 73]. I have thus edited the two blogs with a footnote marked in red to indicate the relevant untruths and why they arose.

Finally, what was revealed of this case in Lord Clark’s decision was a fraction of what was revealed in Court. What was revealed in Court was a fraction of the evidence assembled in the 1494 Productions (written documents lodged as evidence) lodged in the Court (59 by the Pursuer and 1435 by Defender). And what was revealed in the Productions was a fraction of what I have learned in the course of extensive preparatory research over the past 3 years about the activities of Highland Titles and Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC. I will be publishing a detailed blog revealing what really went on over the past three years. Given the litigous nature of both parties, I will, of course, have these blogs legalled before publication.

UPDATE ENDS

If you plan to set up a fundraising campaign for an environmental project, it is a good idea to think carefully about who is involved and what techniques you plan to use.

Wildcat Haven is a project designed to protect the Scottish Wildcat by preventing hybridisation with feral cats and providing a network of reserves to manage as wildcat habitat. (1)

Yesterday, it launched its campaign. Sponsorship has been provided by Volkswagen, a company responsible for polluting the environment with nitrous oxide emissions that it attempted to conceal through one of the biggest corporate frauds of recent decades. The other sponsor is our old friend Highland Titles, a company based in Alderney that is wholly owned by a charitable trust (Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland) registered in Guernsey. See my blog of February for further information on their operations.

Some time ago, Highland Titles Ltd. blocked my IP address but it came as something of a surprise to discover that I have also been blocked from Wildcat Haven’s website despite only having just seen it. Despite this, I have access via a proxy IP in Germany.

Highland Titles appear to have established a very close relationship with Wildcat Haven which operates via Wildcat Haven CIC (Community Interest Company) and Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC. The Registered Address of both is in Cornwall. One of the defining features of a Community Interest Company is the asset lock – provision that in the event of winding up, the assets must transfer to a nominated body that is a community interest company, charity or Scottish charity; or a body established outside Great Britain that is equivalent to any of those persons.(2)

In the case of Wildcat Haven CIC, the nominated body is a community-based company, Sunart Community Company. The money, however, is being raised by Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC and the nominated body here is Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland. Thus, in the event of Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC being wound up, its assets will be taken over by Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland in Guernsey.

Wildcat Haven Enterprises CIC was incorporated on 30 June 2015 with two Directors, Mrs Emily O’Donoghue and Mr Douglas Wilson. Wilson is a Director of Highland Titles Ltd (1) and a Trustee of Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland. (2)

Wildcat Haven has adopted Highland Title’s dubious methods of selling small souvenir plots of land and claiming that the purchaser is the owner (see extensive faq to this effect). This claim was comprehensively debunked in February this year by legal blogger loveandgarbage. If there remains any doubt, here is the content of a letter written by Professor George Gretton, Lord President Reid Professor of Law at Edinburgh University to the Daily Record newspaper.

Dear Mr Ferguson,

Under Scots law, ownership of land passes from seller to buyer by registration in the Land Register of Scotland. No registration? Then no transfer. This is currently set out at section 50 of the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012. (The previous law was essentially the same.)

(“Souvenir plot” is a term defined in section 22 of the 2012 Act.)

Therefore, if a souvenir plot is sold, registration is required, if the buyer is to acquire ownership of the plot.

But the Land Register does not accept souvenir plots: this rule is set out at section 22 of the 2012 Act. (The previous law was essentially the same.)

So if a company sells a souvenir plot, the sale cannot be completed. The buyer of the plot does not become owner of the plot. Ownership of such plots remains with the company.

Whether buyers of souvenir plots are informed that the seller will retain ownership is something I have no information on.

Sincerely, George L Gretton

Lord President Reid Professor of Law University of Edinburgh
School of Law
Old College
South Bridge
Edinburgh 
EH8 9YL

Professor Gretton should know – he wrote the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2012. See also, a recent academic paper by Jill Robbie and Malcolm Combe which reviews the law in this area.

The plots being offered for sale by Wildcat Haven cost from £30 to £250 for one square foot of land which purchasers are assured, gives them a “personal right to a souvenir plot of land in Wildernesse Wood and the opportunity to change their name to Lord or Lady Wildernesse. Wildernesse Wood is described as “part of the first Wildcat Haven”. “We are asking you to help us by actually buying part of the land we plan to conserve.”, the website claims.

So where is Wildernesse Wood? The Wildcat Haven website does not say, but from this promotional video, it is clear that it is a plot of land above Loch Loyne on the A87 between Invergarry and Glen Cluanie.

In the video, Dr Paul O’Donoghue is filmed standing in the wood. He claims that “Every square foot of land we buy has a direct positive impact on the Scottish wildcat. By supporting this project, you’re helping save the Scottish wildcat step by step.”

There are two problems with this claim.

First of all, this land is, in fact owned by Highland Titles Ltd. who are already selling souvenir plots in a “nature reserve” they have named Bumblebee Haven where you can purchase plots ranging from 10 square feet (£49.99) to 1000 square feet (£499.99) and call yourself Lord or Lady Glencoe (even though the land is 50 miles north of Glencoe).

The land was acquired in February 2014 and the title can be seen here and the plan here  The land is 75ha in extent which, if all sold in 10 square foot plots would generate £40.35 million in sales revenue paid to a company in Alderney in the Channel Islands.

But the more fundamental problem is that the Wildcat Haven project is in Ardnamurchan and Morven – see map below.

The land that supporters are being invited to acquire is not only already owned by a company in Alderney and being sold plot by plot for bumblebees, this “first wildcat haven” is 60 miles to the north of Ardnamurchan and Morven and well outside the area being promoted for wildcat conservation.

I offer this information in the spirit of consumer advice to anyone considering taking up the offer to become the owner of a square foot of land to create a Wildcat Haven.

AN ADDENDUM

As an addendum to the Highland Titles blog in February, I contacted the Chief Minister of Guernsey Jonathan Le Tocq to ask whether it would be possible to examine copies of Annual Returns and Accounts of both Highland Titles Ltd., registered in Alderney and Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland, registered in Guernsey. As I argued then,

Revenue is paid into a company registered in Alderney but as no accounts are published, it is impossible to be sure. The sole share is held by Wilson and McGregor as Trustees for the Guernsey charity. Under the law of Guernsey, no charity is obliged to provide accounts for public inspection and it need only file accounts under certain circumstances.

Thus nobody knows if in fact the charity is in receipt of any funds whatsoever. As the sole shareholder it is not entitled to have any of the revenues of Highland Titles Ltd. transferred to it. These revenues may well be paid out by the Alderney company as management fees or any manner of other payments to third parties.”

Mr Le Tocq informed me that under Guernsey law, the charity is not required to submit any financial returns and access to the Alderney company records would only be available to law enforcement agencies if there was evidence of criminal conduct.

Thus, because this land is owned in an offshore tax haven, we are unable to obtain any information about what happens to the money generated by selling off souvenir plots.

(1) There is some disagreement over the appropriate strategy to be adopted to save the Scottish wildcat. An official project, Scottish Wildcat Action is being run by 20 organisatiosn with the support of the Scottish Government and Forestry Commission among others. Those behind the Wildcat Haven project, however, have criticised the official programme.

(2) The Community Interest Company Regulations 2005

UPDATE 1500hrs 30 Sep 2015

The following response was emailed to me by Emily O’Donoghue and posted on the Wildcat Haven website here. The response is also contained in a comment below this post together with my follow up questions.

Dear Andy,

Just hoped to respond briefly to your primary concerns about the Wildcat Haven project.

Highland Titles Charitable Trust is currently listed as our nominated body, it is acting as a placeholder whilst we agree with a few local organisations in the West Highlands who would be best placed to become the ongoing nominated body. Of course, you’ll have to wait and see on this one, but we have already sent in paperwork replacing HT with another organisation, I’m sure records will be updated shortly.

Our website repeatedly states that the plots being sold are souvenir plots and “a bit of fun”, our own FAQ outlines that registration of souvenir plots is legally impossible so this seems little revelation.

In terms of location, the current Haven fieldwork area is in West Lochaber (Ardnamurchan, Morvern and Sunart).  We have been highly successful in neutering feral cats in this area (we have neutered 50 in the last 7 months alone, leaving close to 500 square miles free of intact feral or pet cats) and are now ready to expand. You are right to highlight that the land in Loch Loyne is north of the current Haven area, however that is the very point, we are expanding northwards and the the long term goal has always been to cover the entire Highlands west of the Great Glen. Loch Loyne is ideally situated being to the east of the Knoydart peninsula and near to a major land bridge to the rest of the Highlands, which needs to be protected from feral cat migration. Wildcat monitoring activities are already underway in the area, we are also looking to start operations in Sutherland which you will note is also well north of the current Haven zone, as well as looking to buy land within the current fieldwork area.

Part of the Loch Loyne site has been gifted to us by Highland Titles and no plots in the area provided to us have been previously sold, so it was free for them to pass on, allowing us to offer actual physical plots to customers immediately, rather than just a promise of buying land in future.

Wildcat Haven has been around protecting wildcats since 2008, our team comes with considerable scientific and conservation credibility, we are currently the only effort to protect wildcats in the wild rather than place them in captivity and our work has been commended and supported by organisations such as Humane Society International for its exceptional standards of animal welfare and delivery of humane feral cat control, as well as receiving considerable coverage across national media recording our work with feral cats, wildcats, local schools and communities for many years.

We’d also like to take this opportunity to thank you for providing us with reduced rate access to the Who Owns Scotland database around 2008/2009 when the project was starting up and needed to start communicating with landowners; you helped us get where we are today, thanks a lot for your support and promotion of the Wildcat Haven project.

Emily O’Donoghue,
Director,
Wildcat Haven

I replied as follows.

Emily, 

Thanks for your response. 

1. It may be a bit of fun but you are asking folk to help you by “actually buying part of the land we plan to conserve” You need to be much clearer that people who spend £100 do not become owners of the land.

2. You say that part of the Loch Loyne site has been gifted to you. Can you tell me when this transaction took place and when it was submitted to the Registers of Scotland for recording? Can you advise the extent and location of this land?

3. Are there any wildcats on the Loch Loyne land?

4. Why is my IP address blocked from viewing your website?

5. What is the role of Highland Titles in your fundraising? Do they receive any payment? Do they receive any commission on each plot sold?

Thank you.

UPDATE FOOTNOTE 19 APRIL 2020

(1) Douglas Wilson in fact was not a Director of WHE at the time of publication of this Blog. He was a Director of Wildcat Enterprises CIC from 6 June 2015 to 21 August 2015 (when he resigned) and again from 21 October 2015 until 17 February 2016 when he again resigned. Guernesy does not have a very transparent, publicly accessible registry of companies being one of the most secretive jurisdictions in the world. Thius, in order to obtain information about when a Director was appointed or resigned, one has to contact the Registry with a specific request. During my research for this blog, I thus phoned the Registry to find out if Douglas Wilson was still a Director of WHE and was informed that he was. I thus made the claim I did in good faith relying upon the only official source able to provide the information.

(2) Douglas Wilson was in fact not a Director of Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland at the time of the publication of this Blog. Unlike the Guernsey Registry of Companies (see footnote (1) above), the Registry of Charities is publicly available online. I checked the entry for HTCTS during research for the Blog and noted that Douglas Wilson was recorded as a Director of HTCTS. I therefore relied upon this official source in good faith in writing the Blog. In fact, Douglas WIlson had resigned as a Director of HTCTS on 6 July 2015. This was not reported in the Guernsey Registry of charities until an update was published on 20 June 2016.

Highland Titles Ltd. is one of those websites that offers you a small plot of land as a souvenir purchase. Yesterday, on twitter, some merriment was had by challenging the claim that such plots conferred any ownership of the land. Highland Titles Ltd. claims that you will become a landowner in the absence of any recording of title in the Land Register. It backs up this assertion by reference to this legal advice from J&H Mitchell WS. But a series of lawyers on twitter challenged this. See this Storify by Malcolm Combe, his subsequent blog, and this lengthy legal explanation by @loveandgarbage.

So if these “plot-owners” don’t own the land, who does? The answer is Highland Titles Ltd. It owns two parcels of land – Keil Wood near Duror extending (originally) to 90.7ha (see map below) and Paitna Green Wood, near Invergarry (to west of A87 above Loch Loyne), extending to 75.1ha. Keil Wood was acquired in 2007 by a company called Lochaber Highland Estates (CI) Ltd. This company changed its name in February 2012 to Highland Titles Ltd. See here for a Scotsman Business video.

Keil Wood title here and plan here.

Paitna Green Wood title here and plan here.

Several half-acre plots have been sold at Keil Wood reducing the extent owned by Highland Titles Ltd. to approximately 75ha meaning that the company owns around 150ha of land which it is offering “for sale” in plots from 1 square foot to 1000 square feet in extent.

What makes this story that little bit more interesting is that Highland Titles Ltd. is a company registered in Alderney and, in a phone call today to the Greffier of the Court of Alderney, it was confirmed that Highland Titles is owned by Douglas Wilson and Helen McGregor as Trustees for The Highland Titles Charitable Trust for Scotland, a charity registered in Guernsey.

According to the five-year plan of Highland Titles Ltd., over 100,000 plots have been sold. Each plot costs anything from £29.99 to £499.99. The larger plots are all in Paitna Green (or BumbleBee Haven as Highland Titles calls it) which is little more than a high altitude sitka spruce plantation on the A87 from Invergarry over the hill to Cluanie (see below)

The revenue from over 100,000 plots is at least £2,999,000 and probably a good deal more. This revenue is paid into a company registered in Alderney but as no accounts are published, it is impossible to be sure. The sole share is held by Wilson and McGregor as Trustees for the Guernsey charity. Under the law of Guernsey, no charity is obliged to provide accounts for public inspection and it need only file accounts under certain circumstances.

Thus nobody knows if in fact the charity is in receipt of any funds whatsoever. As the sole shareholder it is not entitled to have any of the revenues of Highland Titles Ltd. transferred to it. These revenues may well be paid out by the Alderney company as management fees or any manner of other payments to third parties.

The 150ha owned by Highland Titles is enough to provide over 16 million square foot plots which, at £29,99 per plot is a potential gross revenue of over £479 million. And, because the “plot-owners” do not legally own their plots (their ownership is limited to a few bits of paper and perhaps a tartan teddy), these plots can, in theory be sold multiple times.

I find it odd that such an arrangement appears to be lawful in Scotland. Because the charity does not technically operate in Scotland, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator has no role (see ruling from May 2014). And, because the company that owns the land is registered in Alderney, it pays no taxes to HMRC.

In December 2014, another company by the same name – Highland Titles Ltd. – was registered in Scotland. it is unclear what role this company plays.

Finally, the Directors of this Scottish company are Peter Bevis and Helen McGregor who live at Tulloch Farm, Spean Bridge.

Tulloch Farm is owned by Quexus Ltd., a company registered at Trident Chambers, PO Box 146, Road Town, Tortola, British VIrgin Islands.

Which leaves an obvious question. Where is all the money going?

Image: Map of Applecross Estate

Proposal 6 in the Scottish Government’s consultation paper on land reform (see link here) is to introduce a statutory duty of community engagement on charitable bodies that own land. There are four main types of charitable bodies that own land and property.

1. Environmental charities such as the National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Trust and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

2. Educational bodies such as universities, colleges and private schools;

3. Community bodies that own anything from a village hall to large estates such as South Uist, Assynt and Knoydart; and

4. Landed estates formerly owned by private individuals that have been transferred into charitable company and trusts. These include estates of Applecross, Isle of Bute, Drummond Estate, much of Atholl Estate and Conchra Estate.

Environmental and community bodies have reacted to the proposal with irritation, claiming that they already engage with communities. Likewise with community bodies which already have membership open to all who live in the community and are run by boards of directors elected by the community.

In a blog on the Scottish Community Woodlands Association website, Jon Hollingdale makes the case that imposing such a duty across the board is an over-reaction to a problem which is quite modest in scale.

If the issue is with the tiny cohort of private Scottish charities whose landholdings give them a local monopoly, then, rather than imposing general burdens on all, the smart answer is to take another look at the charitable status of these organisations.”

There are a number of charitable bodies that were set up by previous private owners (often for tax purposes) and which, today, own quite large landholdings. Typically, the membership is restricted to a fixed number and with special appointment rights in the hands of the former owner.

For example, the Mount Stuart Trust owns 23,800 acres of the Isle of Bute. It was set up by the 6th Marquess of Bute in 1985 as a charitable trust and incorporated as a company limited by guarantee with no share capital in May 1989.

Under Article 21.1.2 of the Articles of Association of the company, the Marquess of Bute has the power to appoint up to four Directors even though he himself is not a member, a tax-exile and non-resident in the UK.

The Applecross Estate extends to 61,600 acres in Wester Ross. It was bought by the Wills tobacco family in 1929 and is owned today by the Applecross Trust, a company limited by guarantee with no share capital. Back in 1978, the Wills family were worried about the impact of capital transfer tax and, to avoid exposure to it, decided to transfer the estate into a charitable body. As they noted in a letter to residents at the time,

It continues,

Copy of full letter here (2Mb pdf)

Today, the estate is still owned by the Trust and its membership is still associated with the Wills family, Richard Wills being the current Chair of the Board. None of the board members lives in Applecross.

In 2012, around 100 people applied as part of the Land Action Scotland campaign to become members of the two charities the, Mount Stuart Trust and Applecross Trust. All applications were refused. The Applecross Trust response is outlined here & a media report here.

Many local people in Applecross would like to become members of the Trust and play an active role in the management of the estate. The peninsular is very rural and has a fragile economy. Development to retain and create jobs is vital and yet the trust’s charitable objectives are restricted to preservation, environmental protection and amenity, public access and the advancement of education, arts, heritage, culture and science.

This makes it difficult, for example to develop housing since the charitable objectives do not include economic development and thus any sale of land has to be at open market value which is beyond the reach of most local people.

Meanwhile, the Chair, Mr Richard Wills, through a partnership of which he is a member (Deer Management Consultants), rents the deer stalking on the estate. The rent is negotiated on an independent basis with no involvement from Mr Wills. Similarly, Mr Wills rents Applecross House (pictured above) and fishings in the Applecross River for £10,200 per year from 2014-2029. When not at his country house in Applecross, Mr Wills lives in a large country house in Hampshire (pictured below)

Despite the independent arms length negotiation, it is open to question whether these rents represent the best that can be obtained on behalf of the charity in the market. Other similar country houses are available on estates in the region for between £2000 and £2800 per week. Applecross Estate rents the Applecross Manse (sleeps 7) for £1080 per week on the open holiday lets market.

The question raised by the consultation is whether these estates should continue to be owned and managed by charitable bodies that restrict membership to a few members of family and friends, provide exclusive nomination rights for tax-exiles such as the Marquess of Bute, but yet refuse to allow the beneficiaries of the charities – the local population – any right to become members or Directors of the respective company boards. The Applecross Trust even has a vacant on its Board following the resignation of Charles Peregrine Albermarle Bertie in December 2012. But it remains unfilled.

I think it is time to open up these closed shops, review their governance and allow the wider community to have the opportunity to have a stake in the future of their community.

In 2001,the 10,000 acre Cluny Estate, near Laggan in Inverness-shire was bought by Mr Alain Angelil for £3.6 million. He put it on the market on 12 August 2013 (media releasesales brochure 10.4Mb pdf).

Earlier this month, the estate was sold for £7.3 million to a company called Cluny Estates Ltd., PO Box 83, Ordnance House, 31 Pier Road, St. Helier, Jersey (memorandum of association here). This company is owned by two shareholders, OH Securities Ltd. and R&H Investments Ltd., both at the same address. As illustrated by a previous blog about Kildrummy Estate, these two companies are in turn both owned by R&H Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd. which in turn is owned by the two companies that it owns (OH Securities Ltd. and R&H Investments Ltd.) and a third, Woodbourne Nominees Ltd. Who owns Woodbourne Nominees Ltd.? R&H Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd. See below.

So, who is really behind Cluny Estates Ltd.?

Last week, land agents were on site at Cluny Estate. Asked who had bought it, they said they did not know and did not want to know. They are instructed by an agent in London who, in turn, is instructed by another agent.

I understand, however that the real owner is a member (or members) of the Qatar royal family – perhaps Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Missned (pictured above). She and other family members own significant properties in London including Harrods, 95% of the Shard, the Olympic village, half of the world’s most expensive apartment block, One Hyde Park, Canary Wharf and the US Embassy building. See recent reports here and here. Yesterday the family was denied planning consent to create a 17 bedroom palace in Cornwall Terrace, London.

If anyone has any further information, please feel free to share it in comments or directly to me via email mail@andywightman.com. Meanwhile, I have sent an email to the estate office to ask for confirmation.

 

The land illustrated above (Midmar Paddock on the eastern slopes of Blackford Hill, Edinburgh) is currently for sale via Strutt & Parker (sales brochure here – 925kb pdf).

The reason for publishing this blog is to ask “who owns this land? Does anyone know?

Strutt and Parker refuse to divulge the answer.

The land is not registered in the Land Register but deeds are probably recorded in the Register of Sasines but it will probably cost around £50 and 1-2 days work to find out the answer there. I have neither.

So I thought I might ask you. Can anyone help?

The map below shows the location.

Improving access to information on land forms part of the Scottish Government proposals for land reform. See Briefing (1.7Mb pdf).

 © OpenStreetMap contributors Data is available under the Open Database License

UPDATE 31 January 2015

I have now determined the ownership of the Midmar Paddock. The Register of Sasines Search Sheet can be found at the foot of this text for those who are interested to see how land transactions were recorded prior to the Land Register which has been in operation in Midlothian (the old county including Edinburgh) since 1 April 2001.

1923 John Gordon of Cluny sells 18.6 acres (Midmar Paddock and allotments to the north) to Alexander Grant.

In 1938 the land is transferred to the Trustees of Sir Alexander Grant, 15 Hermitage Drive, Managing Director of McVitie & Price, Biscuit Manufacturers, Edinburgh & London.

1954 Allotments area conveyed by Trustees to Graeme Ellizabeth Laing. Midmar Paddock remains with Trustees.

1958 Midmar Paddock conveyed to beneficiaries of Trust – Hector Laing, Alexander Grant Laing and Robert Douglas Grant Laing.

1973 Hector conveys his ⅓ interest to Trustees for Anthony Rupert Laing

1973 Alexander conveys his ⅓ share to Trustees of Alexander Grant Laing.

1973 Allotments area conveyed by Graeme E Laing to Trustees of Alexander Grant Laing.

1983 Trustees of Anthony convey their ⅓ share to Anthony.

1993 Robert conveys his ⅓ share to Nettling Properties Ltd.

1999 Nettling Properties conveys its ⅓ share to Flagstaff Properties Ltd (Turks and Caicos Islands).

2011 Flagstaff Properties Ltd. conveys its ⅓ share to Midmar Properties Ltd.

28 November 2014 Trustees of Alexander G Laing conveys allotments site to Blackford Hill Ltd.

This means that:-

The allotments site to the north is owned by Blackford Hill Ltd.

Midmar Paddock (the site currently for sale) is owned by :-

Anthony Rupert Laing, Coulmony House, Morayshire
Trustees of Alexander Grant Laing
Midmar Properties Ltd.

Blackford Hill Ltd. is a company registered in Scotland No. SC466028 with its registered office at Logie Estate Office, Logie, Forres, IV36 2QN (see here for details of shareholders).

Midmar Properties Ltd. is not a registered company in the UK and is probably incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Interestingly, what this reveals is that the 2003 Tree Preservation Order referred to by Robin in comments names only one of the three joint owners. Additionally, the link to the Local Development Plan response provided by Dave Leslie in comments reflects the views of only one of the three co-owners (Trustees of AG Laing). It also contains a useful map showing the two separate ownerships (though not the up to date owners) and interesting insights into why the owners are wishing to sell the land.

Search Sheet

Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 1
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 2
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 3
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 4
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 5
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 6
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 7
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 page 8
Midlothian Search Sheet 18364 computerised search sheet

 

Yesterday, gamekeeper George Mutch was sentenced to four months imprisonment after being found guilty of four charges including the illegal killing of a trapped goshawk, which he clubbed to death, and the taking of two other birds, a goshawk and a buzzard. See Raptor Persecution website reports here and here and BBC report here. Mr Mutch was employed on Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire.

Under Section 24 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, an employer can be also be guilty of a wildlife offence under the doctrine of vicarious liability. Where an offence has been committed by an employee, the owner or agent is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against unless they can show that they did not know the offence was being committed by the employee AND that they took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to prevent the offence being committed. Mr Mutch was asked whether he had received any training from his employer and he said that he had not. Whether he did or not of course cannot be ascertained from such an admission. But the possibility exists that the Crown will proceed against the owner on the basis of their possible vicarious liability. If proceedings were to be brought against the owner, who is that person?

The owner of Kildrummy Estate is Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. The point of this blog is to try to find out who exactly is the human being or beings behind Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. who might end up being charged with an offence.

Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. is a company registered at 23-25 Broad Street, St Helier, Jersey.

It is owned by;

Magnus Nominees Ltd.,
Fidelis Nominees Ltd. &
Rostand Nominees Ltd.

which are all registered at the same address – 23-25 Broad Street, St Helier, Jersey.

So who owns Magnus, Fidelis and Rostand?

Magnus Nominees Ltd. is owned by;

Coutts & Co. Trustees (Jersey) Ltd. &
Citron 2004 Ltd.

again all at 23-25 Broad Street.

Fidelis Nominees Ltd. is also owned by

Coutts & Co. Trustees (Jersey) Ltd. &
Citron 2004 Ltd.

again at 23-25 Broad Street.

Rostand Nominees Ltd. is ALSO owned by

Coutts & Co trustees (Jersey) Ltd. &
Citron 2004 Ltd.

at 23-25 Broad Street.

So…..

Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd is owned by Coutts and Citron through their ownership of Magnus, Fidelis and Rostand.

So who owns Coutts and Citron?

Coutts is owned by Royal Bank of Scotland International (Holdings) Ltd. registered at 71 Bath Street, St Helier.

Citron is owned by

Coutts & Co Trustees (Jersey) Ltd.,
Magnus Nominees Ltd. &
Fidelis Nominees Ltd.

So who owns Coutts, Magnus and Fidelis?

Coutts is owned by Royal Bank of Scotland International (Holdings) Ltd. (see above). Magnus and Fidelis are both owned by Coutts and Citron (see above). And Citron (which is owned by Coutts, Magnus and Fidelis) owns (together with Coutts) Magnus, Fidelis and Rostand.

Magnus, Fidelis and Rostand of course own Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd.

So, after spending £24 on Annual Returns of the above companies who does own Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd.?

Go back up to the top and start again.

Best of luck to the Crown Office.

Big thanks to Simon Brooke for coming up with a flow-chart which attempts to illustrate the relationships.

UPDATE

These arrangements led to a court case – Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 1991 SC 1, 1992 SLT 787, 1991 SCLR 498 – in 1990 over the liability to stamp duty. The decision outlines the deal that was entered into with Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. and the case is now the foundation for the proposition that one cannot contract with oneself and retain control over the outcome.

 

 

02. October 2014 · Comments Off on The Theft of Ancrum Common · Categories: Land Registration, Land Rights, Who Owns Scotland

Over the past 20 years, I have uncovered many examples of areas of common land across Scotland – remnants of commonties, greens, loans and the like. Unfortunately, little is being done to protect them from land-grabs by an assortment of avaricious individuals. If such claims go without challenge, a legally watertight title can be obtained. Such claims are open to challenge but there are three key difficulties.

Firstly, local knowledge of common land rights is often limited and the institutions don’t exist to maintain awareness and prompt action. This contrasts with the situation in England and Wales where there is a well-developed framework of law. (1)

Secondly, there is often no title for common land, leaving it open for land-grabbing.

And thirdly, where such land-grabs take place, there is no way that local people can know about it. Despite claims being lodged in a public register (the Register of Sasines or Land Register), no local publicity attends the lodging of documents with the Registers of Scotland by solicitors via DX Mail.  Thus the only way one could stay abreast of any such developments would to spend thousands of pounds per day searching the registers every day all year round just in case someone had submitted a  title claim.

For example, in the course of research for my book, The Poor Had No Lawyers, I found a number of examples of such grabs. One, which I have yet to fully document, involved the appropriation of 393 acres of commonty in Perthshire in 1986 by three landowners whose agent (the solicitor), according to a note in the Register of Sasines was “aware that granters apparently only have title to rights in pasturage in xxxx commonty.” The local community was not consulted and today, many locals are angry that a valuable part of their heritage was stolen from under their noses.

Which brings me to the subject of this blog.

Ancrum Common consists of three parcels of land extending to 35 acres in total to the west of the village of Ancrum in Roxburghshire. The lands have been subject to a long history of communal use and there is no evidence that there is any title held by any private interest over the common. In recent years, however, the land has become the subject of dispute although much of what has happened has only very recently become known to the residents of Ancrum.

In 1988 a company called Cranelg Ltd. recorded an a non domino (2) deed in the Register of Sasines. Cranelg Ltd. had two Directors, a Mr Nicholas W Cranston and a Mr William F Elgin (a Chartered Accountant). According to sources, this company specialised in land-grabbing. The company was wound up in 1998.

In 2001, Mr James George Montagu Douglas Scott, the owner of Kirklands Estate, Ancrum then recorded another a non domino deed in which he disponed the Common from himself in favour of himself. In a Court of Session ruling in the case of Aberdeen College v. Youngson [2005] CSOH13,  it was found that such a deed from a person to themselves was invalid. (3)

Finally, in May 2006, Mr Scott conveyed Ancrum Common via an a non domino disposition to his spouse, Sophie Mary Montagu Douglas Scott. And here matter rested until discovered by local residents in the past two years. There is now a quiet fury that the Common has been stolen.

I have found no evidence that Mr Scott has any legitimate claim of ownership of Ancrum Common. I spoke to him at length on the phone and he claimed that the land belonged to him but was unable to provide any account of why this was or to provide any evidence. At one point he claimed, “Listen, I don’t know what I’m talking about. You need to speak to my lawyers – Anderson Strathern. It was they who suggested I do this.”

Understandably, Anderson Strathern was unwilling to discuss its client’s legal affairs.

Evidence that has been uncovered suggests that there was a title to the Common in the name of the Feuars of Ancrum. In the Inland Revenue Survey of landownership in Great Britain and Ireland conducted in 1910 under Section 26(1) of Lloyd George’s Finance (1909-10) Act, the land is noted as being owned and occupied by the Feuars of Ancrum (see images below).

Further research is underway.

Image: Map extract from 1910 Inland Revenue Survey. Part of Ancrum Common (Parcel No. 200)

Image: Extract from IRS Survey Field Book for Parcel 200 (Ancrum Common)

Meanwhile, a Public Meeting has been organised for 7pm on 15 October 2014 in Ancrum Village Hall.

 

For legal reasons no comments will be allowed on this blog.

NOTES

(1) See for example a recent dispute over Garway Common in Herefordshire

(2) An a non domino deed is a disposition (transfer of land) literally “from one who is not the owner”. Professors George Gretton and Ken Reid describe the circumstances in which this used as follows.

“It sometimes happens that someone notices that a piece of ground is unoccupied and apparently abandoned. Using prescription, it is possible to acquire ownership. What happens is that the person gets a friend to grant to him a gratuitous disposition of the land and the disposition is recorded..”

(3) This Registers of Scotland note covers the implications for recording deeds in the Register of Sasines and Land Register.

Among the recommendations of the LRRG are that more effort should be made to complete the Land Register and that patterns of rural landownership should be mapped and better understood. In response to publication of the report, the Scottish Government announced that it had asked the Registers of Scotland to complete the coverage of privately-owned land in the Land Register within 10 years and public land within 5 years.

The Registers of Scotland has launched a consultation on how it might meet this aspiration using the existing statutory powers contained in the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2012 which comes into force in December this year.

Currently 26% of land in Scotland is registered in the Land Register (see map below) with the remainder being still registered in the older Register of Sasines. (1) Currently as land changes ownership, it moves onto the Land Register. The Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2012 introduces new triggers and the LRRG recommended that there be further ones.

This  blog examines the wisdom and desirability of the ten-year target and whether alternative means might be more useful in fulfilling the recommendations of the LRRG and the aspirations of Scottish Ministers.

The Registers

It is important to understand the difference between the Register of Sasines and the Land Register.

The Register of Sasines is a register of deeds – bits of paper that record legal agreements to sell land, to raise a standard security over land, to lease land etc. It was established in 1617. The Keeper’s responsibilities are to record such deeds so as to provide a means by which the interests they represent can be legally enforced and defended.

Being a register of deeds means that in order to find out who owns a parcel of land, these deeds have to be read and interpreted. This can be a laborious process. There are usually no plans associated with the deeds. If there are, they can often be a black & white copy of a plan showing the “lands delineated in pink”.

In 1979, this register was replaced  by the Land Register which provides a state-guaranteed title together with a definitive map. The Keeper undertakes a once-and-for-all search to determine the title to land. She then issues a land certificate containing details of ownership and a detailed plan based on Ordnance Survey mapping (see example here of Stirling Castle – title & plan). She also provides a state guarantee of the title and is liable to indemnify the owner if any mistakes subsequently come to light. A Land Certificate is is the gold-standard in defining and defending property rights. Given the choice, everyone would want one.

But Scotland’s landownership history is complicated and to generate a Land Certificate involves a painstaking check over all the prior deeds to establish what land exactly is contained within the title, what was sold in the past, what rights might be held by others over the land (such as servitudes for access to other land) and the precise boundaries of the land. This is often straightforward in property developed in the recent past but for land the forms part of very old estates or larger holdings that have a complex history of land transactions, it is time-consuming work. This is why, in many cases it can take years to generate a title.

The other fact to appreciate is that the Registers of Scotland is an Executive Agency of the Scottish Government and is self-funding. It receives no public funds from Parliament and, instead, finances its operations entirely from the fees paid to record deeds and titles and, to a lesser extend from search fees and consultancy work.

Is ten years realistic?

So would it be possible to complete the Land Register within 10 years?

My initial reaction to the Scottish Government’s aspiration was skepticism. Land registration is a complex and time-consuming business. Some titles take up to 5 years to be generated (although it can be expedited when, for example, PetroChina wanted to invest in the Grangemouth oil refinery). The Keeper has to check through the history of a property and make sense of sometimes ambiguous information. She has the discretion to withhold indemnity over all or part of a title and, where this happens, the owner must wait for ten years until their ownership is free from challenge.

Over the years I have seen titles that are incorrect. One of the most blatant involved an owner of several hundred hectares of land whose title included a house and garden owned by the parents of one of my childhood friends. This took much time and effort to sort out. Moreover, land registration has been used to claim land that is not owned by the vendor. I myself have advised that a small access strip be incorporated in a title hoping that the Keeper would not notice. She didn’t.

The biggest challenge to a rapid (and ten years is rapid) completion of the Land Register is financial. For over 30 years, the Registers of Scotland has been self-financing. If it were to complete the register within ten years, resources would have to be found. The consultation document is not very transparent about the workload and financial consequences.

Until recently, I was doubtful about the wisdom and practicalities of this target but had an open mind. Reading the consultation document does not convince me that this task is possible. But it was hearing of changes to how the Keeper intends to handle future applications for land registration that has not only confirmed my doubts but convinced me that we are about to embark on a reckless and dangerous path and that the target poses huge risks.

The Keeper’s Memo

In a memo issued to staff in early July, the Keeper announced that;

1) The Keeper will no longer check prescriptive title and will rely instead upon the certification on the registration form that the deed is valid. There will therefore be no search in the Sasine Register and the Keeper will not require sight of links in title to support an application. By certifying the deed is valid the solicitor is assumed to have carried out the relevant checks

2) The Keeper will not check for outstanding securities.

3) Only the deeds lodged with the application will be used and the Keeper will not examine any other deeds.

4) The Keeper will not use her own records to determine whether a deed should be included in the application or not.

In other words, the basic principles of Land Registration under the 1979 and 2012 Act are to be tossed aside and titles will be issued based on the information provided by solicitors. I have seen too many instances of land-grabbing and shady deals by solicitors to have any confidence whatsoever, that the Register will have any integrity if these reforms are implemented. There is nothing now to stop rogue solicitors and their clients abusing the system. Even well-intentioned and honest applications will now be compromised. Even now, many applications contain errors made in good faith. (2)

If there are no independent checks made on applications by the Keeper by looking behind the scenes then there is a significant possibility that anyone, whether a practicing solicitor or not, will be able to concoct a fraudulent application that is never checked. Once the title is registered it will appear to be as valid as any other. This may confer additional rights the applicant never should have had (which may or may not be the detriment of another land owner) and may sit as a ticking time bomb for some future land owner.

The changes appear to be in response to the Scottish Government’s request to meet the ten year target.

One of the biggest threats this poses is to owners of land that border that which is the subject of an application. The process of land registration has always favoured those titles are recorded first. Under the existing regime, owners of neighbouring properties are not consulted about the boundaries claimed by applicants. It is not hard to envisage those with most to gain (large-scale landowners and owners of the most valuable land) taking advantage of the new arrangements to appropriate useful bits of land from homeowners, local authorities, common good funds and others landowners. They will be completely in the dark about such claims and may very well find themselves many years from now having had their interests compromised.

My understanding is that senior staff in the Registers of Scotland have doubts as to whether these changes are consistent with the 2012 Act

Conclusion

It is my view a fundamental and highly dubious change is now in train which should not be made solely to secure a political goal of completing the Land Register within ten years. Indeed it should not be made at all.

I have proposals that would maintain the integrity of the Land Register, assist with the process of land registration AND ensure free public access to good quality information about who owns Scotland. This will be the subject of another blog in the near future.

Meanwhile, it looks like Murdo Fraser’s Economy, Energy and tourism Committee might be well advised to investigate this matter.

NOTES

(1) This equates to 58% of all property titles. The extent of land is less because most titles are small urban sites rather than large rural estates.

(2) See paras 160 onward from the Stage One Report of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

 

The image above (click for larger version) shows the missing slide from the presentation on the Economic Contribution of Estates referred to in the Means and Medians blog from last week. (1) It is important because it shows the significant difference between the mean and the median. (2)

In particular it is important because the researchers who wrote the report stressed that in such a skewed sample, the mean should not be used.

It should, however, be stressed that the overall average values are very heavily influenced by the large and very large estates and the median figures for average income and investment are significantly lower.” (4.2.2 pg. 39)

In presenting the findings, the lead researcher, Rob Hindle stated that,

the mean average [is] significantly skewed by the bigger numbers at one end of the spectrum – so don’t do it – it’s not helpful. You need to start looking for the middle point but be aware even so that the middle point ..there are very big differences between the numbers at one end and the numbers at the other end so the middle point is again to be treated with caution

The means and medians are not published in the report for these very reasons. However, SLE issued a press release on 16 April entitled “New Research Reveals Significant Annual investment on Tenanted Land and Crofts by Estates” with an opening line that read,

Rural estate owners are investing an average of £69,000 per year on their tenanted farms and crofts“, new research has revealed.

The release went on to state that average income amounted to £101,422.

The more accurate figures are the medians and, as the graph shows (second set of columns from the left), the difference is startling.

Median revenue is around £22,000 (22% of the mean) and expenditure about £10,000 (14% of the mean) compared with £101,422 mean revenue and £69,145 mean expenditure

The differences for other categories – notably heritage and leisure are even more pronounced.

NOTES

(1) I should emphasise that the report is an excellent report and I plan to blog at greater length on its findings.

(2) The mean of a sample is the total of all the values divided by the number of values. The median is the middle value in a distribution of values. So, for example in a town with 100 houses where 99 were worth £100 each and one was worth £1 million, the mean would be £10,099 (1,009,900 divided by 100). But describing the average house price in town as being £10,999 is obviously misleading. In a skewed distribution, the median is more useful and in this case is £100 (the middle value when all values are lined up from smallest to largest) – in this case a far better representation of the average or typical price of a house.