Land Registry application to cancel a restriction (RX3)

artifarti

Hello,

I struggle to understand on what grounds my application to cancel a restriction was refused by Land Registry.

My situation: I own a leasehold flat. There is a restriction on the title in favour of the property developer. The property developer has sold the freehold 8 months ago. As of today the restriction has not been updated with the details of the new freeholder.

I applied to Land Registry to cancel the restriction using form RX3. I provided evidence that the freehold has been transferred. I argued that the property developer no longer had an interest in the property and as such the restriction should be lifted.

Please note that two months before I lodged the RX3 I contacted solicitors of the property developer and the new freeholder. Property developer solicitors said their clients no longer had interest in the property as it has been sold. New freeholder solicitors said they would look into it but as of now the restriction has not been updated.

I do not believe it is justified for Land Registry to refuse my application as:
1) Property developer (named in the restriction) no longer has interest in the property
2) New freeholder had sufficient time (8 months) to update the title if the wished to

I would really appreciate if someone could explain to me on what grounds my application was refused let me know if I stand any chance challenging the Land Registry decision.

Thank you very much.

agrinnall

The LR rep on here may well respond, but I would assume that they disagree with your point 2, and are waiting to find out what the new freeholder wants to do. What is the restriction, is that something that could have a financial benefit to the freeholder?

Land_Registry

agrinnall wrote: »

The LR rep on here may well respond, but I would assume that they disagree with your point 2, and are waiting to find out what the new freeholder wants to do. What is the restriction, is that something that could have a financial benefit to the freeholder?

I can't really comment on any specifics as clearly a matter being raised directly re the property/title.

But point 2 in my experience would not come into play as an interest rarely ceases to exist simply due to the passing of time unless the restriciton stated as much. So the focus would be on point 1.

The restriction would have been registered to protect a specific interest or set of circumstances. And if your application was refused then it may help others to read the reasons for refusal which have presumably been explained in any letter of rejection/cancellation?

G_M

As the LR Rep says, it would help to understand:

* what was/is the restriction?
* precise wording (esp relating to the beneficiary: named Developer or 'freeholder' etc?)
* reasons quoted by LR in their rejection letter