Land Registry & Indemnities

Graye

We are selling a very old house. On looking at the prevous Deeds we have and the last plan approved by the Land Registry (ie in the Purchase details from 1994), there is an outhouse which, despite being in plain sight, having been used throughout and referred to often on the plans attached to earlier Deeds is not included on their own Register.

I realise we could probably make a new Declaration or challenge the old one but basically we want this sale to proceed without any more delays, there have already been several caused by the age of the property and the need for indemnities to do with rights of way, flying freeholds and so on. Does anyone know whether there is yet another indemnity policy which should cover this final hurdle please?

We made the mistake of using an off-the-peg solicitor and struggle to get action so if I am pre-armed with solutions to problems it seems to help progress somewhat!

G_M

Provided the property boundary is correct, everything within it will be included.

I guess the only issue might be if the buyers think the outhouse has been added recently and ask for planning permission and/or Building Regs - but if it is clear it's been there for decades, then neither would be required so there should be no problem.

Graye

The boundary on the plan is actually the outline of house, the garden is shared and there are rights of way across paths etc. So the outhouse is effectively outside of the bundary as things stand. The house (and the outhouses) were built in around 1750. It was originally two semi-detached cottages owned by one family (hence the shared garden) but is now subdivided (since 1930) into four. The outhouses ares in the garden, which does not appear on anyone's Land Registry documentation.

Graye

The boundary on the plan is actually the outline of house, the garden is shared and there are rights of way across paths etc. So the outhouse is effectively outside of the boundary as things stand (at least on Land Registry documents, the plans show the true position). The house (and the outhouses) were built in around 1750. It was originally two semi-detached cottages owned by one family (hence the shared garden) but is now subdivided (since 1930) into four. The outhouses ares in the garden, which does not appear on anyone's Land Registry documentation.

mufi

We had a vaguely similar problem, only the LR showed our boundary going through two rooms of our house:eek:. There was no dispute with the neighbours over who actually owned this land, but the only way of resolving it was to wheel out a LR surveyor to have a look and get the boundary changed - this involved the LR writing to our neighbours plus their lenders; there was a time limit for them to respond, after which the boundary line was changed provided there was no objection. We also had old deeds etc showing the boundary in the correct place - it was the LR records that were incorrect for some reason.

The whole thing took about six weeks. Richard Webster, a solicitor and regular poster on here, will hopefully trot along shortly and confirm (or not!) that your case is similar.

Sorry I can't be more positive time-wise.

mufi

Just to add, I've now located my beloved's original thread on our problem - hope it helps:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/37265190#Comment_37265190

Graye

Thanks for the info, interesting thread too! To be honest we don't have six weeks (we will lose the house we want to buy otherwise) so I'm wondering if the indemnity route would be quicker. I look forward to any more ideas too...

mufi

The advice we got at the time was that there was no alternative to the route we took with the LR, but I can't guarantee that's correct. Our preferred route was to get a signed statement from our neighbours relinquishing any rights to the land, and they were perfectly happy to do that, but that was not acceptable to the legal eagles.

Looking at it again, it actually took five weeks, but we were right behind everyone involved making a nuisance of ourselves; we also feared we would lose our purchaser, but that didn't happen - we were lucky, and I hope you have the same good fortune.

All the best.

Richard_Webster

Yes I was going to refer to that story - but the link does it.

I have had another similar case recently where it was as plain as a pike staff that our client's seller had lost an area of land fenced within our seller's garden for 12+ years but the LR gave the neighbour 65 working days to reply! Seller went to see neighbour who wouldn't co-operate by consenting more quickly. My client pulled out of the purchase.

So vital to secure the active co-operation of the neighbour.

mufi

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Seller went to see neighbour who wouldn't co-operate by consenting more quickly. My client pulled out of the purchase.

So vital to secure the active co-operation of the neighbour.

Presumably no lender involved? The advice we had from our solicitor was (obviously) to secure the active co-operation of our neighbour, but not to chase up their lender and simply allow the permitted time to reply to elapse, the explanation being that the lender, if pushed to actually do something, may not do what we wished them to...

Graye

No lenders for either of us.

The buyers' solicitor has had a field day insisting on indemnities for everything (we are up to four at the moment). So we were hoping a final one might solve this problem. There are actually three neighours who would need to be involved and all the properties are rented out for holiday cottages. I see problems as we do not even know how to contact the owners.

The outhouse is about four feet by three and I suspect we might just tell them that they go ahead "as is" or we'll complete the purchase of the new house and put it back on the market MINUS any reference to the outhouse!