buying house vendor cant find or has lost deeds

Richard_Webster

You really need to ask your solicitor for a detailed explanation of what this is all about.

Put simply, if the property is registered at the Land Registry then what is the problem, as you don't need "deeds"?

It could be that at some point in the past the deeds were lost and as a result when the title was registered at the Land Registry, the registry could not be sure that there were no covenants or rights for others that applied to the property. Possibly the insurance is to do with that, in which case the seller should certialy be paying for it because he should have got a policy when he bought and if he didn't then he should be blaming the solicitor who acted for him then.

This is a good example of why it is not a good idea to use the same solicitor as the seller. There is effectively a conflict of interest here.

firstaspect

nik1984 wrote: »

we do have an electronic copy from the land registry showing the vendor as title absolute , this was a copy in the hip pack

Then you don't need any deeds.

DVardysShadow

Richard_Webster wrote: »

... This is a good example of why it is not a good idea to use the same solicitor as the seller. There is effectively a conflict of interest here.

Nik, there you are, you have it from the horse's mouth.

In your position, I would be going to the solicitor saying

• 6 months is too long
• Although the 'conflict of interest' issue may be covered, it is quite plain that they are not working in your interests
• You have lost confidence in them because there is an Land Reg. title document and they are talking about title indemnity policies
• You are going to get your own proper solicitor

And I would be going to the Agent saying

• 6 months is too long
• You have sacked the solicitor as you doubt their competence
• Your offer on the house stands - provided the seller pays off your solicitor's bill

You do risk losing the house, but I would say you need to move this along and take the risk.

lavandergirl_2

who is acting for you? a solicitor? a licensed conveyancer? paralegal acting in behalf of the solicitor? or a trainee supervised by a solicitor?

Richard_Webster

You have lost confidence in them because there is an Land Reg. title document and they are talking about title indemnity policies

The delay could be a problem but you need to seek proper explanations.

The point about the need for an indemnity policy may not be stupid - I have already suggested a possible reason - but your solicitors need to explain it to you in a way that you understand. Ask them to do this.

nik1984

thanks for replys peeps

also the property is freehold and leasehold is this a problem , the brouchure shows its freehold , but we went down the landregistry office and they said its both and there is still mortgage owed on the house . both freehold and leasehold titles are in same name

C_Mababejive

Sounds like claptrap and money making by solicitors.

AFAIK as long as the property is registered at landreg,the docs can be downloaded there and there is no need for ancient scripophily.

Richard_Webster

also the property is freehold and leasehold is this a problem , the brouchure shows its freehold , but we went down the landregistry office and they said its both and there is still mortgage owed on the house . both freehold and leasehold titles are in same name

No. If they own both they can transfer both to you and when they sell their mortgage should get paid off.

Sometimes the lease is kept in being because it is gives rights 9e.g to use a rear access way that might not be in the freehold deeds. It isn't problem because you will be your own landlord!

We still haven't got to the bottom of what it is that was lost and why this is causing a problem. Have the solicitors explained it to you yet?

vectistim

Is it down as absolute title, or only good title (or some variant thereof) - if the latter then Richard's explanation would make sense?

nik1984

it is vendors name as absolute title