In January the government proposed to move the role to check and record local hazards and obligations to properties (Local Land Charges register) away from individual councils to a central point in the Land Registry.
Yesterday, the public body decided to proceed with the plan despite 95% of respondents to the consultation stating they did not agree with the proposed centralisation.
Under a separate consultation, the results of which have not yet been released, the government proposed to privatise the Land Registry, a move set to make the government £1bn.
James Ferguson, founder of a campaign against the proposal and director of law firm X-Press Legal Services, said the decision ‘does not make sense’.
“The decision to give the Land Registry control over more information is clearly a tactic to fatten up the public body to make it more attractive to private buyers.
“It will be taking away local knowledge and placing the responsibility into the hands of a body or company which knows nothing about the area,” he added.
Ed Lester, chief land registrar and chief executive of the Land Registry, said the transferral of responsibilities will provide a ‘one stop shop’ which would improve the speed and consistency of the service.
But the majority of respondents to the consultation said local authorities had invested in their systems to improve service and the loss of local knowledge would be detrimental to these standards.
Ferguson said: “Users of the Land Registry have reported a 98% satisfaction rating already. The body is currently self-funding and has been reducing its fees year-on-year.
“If it falls into private hands the information will go to a company which will want to make money from public data. The service is not broken so why are we trying to fix it.”
Ferguson’s campaign has approximately 99,000 signatures.
He intends to take the petition to Michael Fallon, the minister for business and enterprise, and business secretary Vince Cable when the campaign has 100,000 supporters.
“This decision is only the next step of the journey,” said Ferguson.
“The transferral of powers, included in the Infrastructure Bill, has to go through the parliamentary process, which we will continue to lobby against.”
