Conveyancing Help - Title question

bradsalmon

Hi,
Regretting the solicitor I chose for my conveyancing and don't want to delay the process by switching at this stage.

Can someone let me know if I have understood the below part of the title I am buying correctly -

The Property Register contains the below section -

There are excluded from this registration the mines and minerals excepted by the Conveyance dated 10 July 1923 referred to in the Charges Register in the following terms and the land is also subject to the following ancillary powers of working:-

EXCEPT AND RESERVING out of the assurance thereby made all mines and minerals in or under the said piece of land thereby conveyed and with full power for the Trustees their heirs and assigns and the Vendor and other the person or persons deriving title under the Indenture of Settlement or Indenture of Re Settlement their heirs and assigns and their Lessees agents servants and workmen to work win and carry away the same mines and minerals and without leaving support for surface or any building which might be erected thereon but by underground workings only making from time to time nevertheless to the Purchaser his heirs and assigns and his and their Lessees and Tenants reasonable and adequate compensation for all damage done or occasioned to the buildings if any for the time being on the said piece of land by reason of subsidence thereby caused.

Charges Register contains -

A Conveyance of the land in this title and other land dated 10 July 1923 made between (1) The Most Noble William John Arthur Charles James Duke of Portland (Vendor) (2) Edward Horsman Bailey and others and (3) Frederick Willman (Purchaser) contains covenants details of which are set out in the schedule of restrictive covenants hereto.


Does this basically mean that when the purchasers bought the land in 1923 they purchased it without the mining rights and hence whomever has sold or passed the land on has done so without the mining rights?
If so, then presumably this means that someone theoretically owns the mining rights passed to them by the seller in 1923 and so could legally mine under this piece of land without informing the owner? Equally it may have already been mined under?
If both of the above are correct then is it possible to trace the current owner of the mining rights? Or is it a burdensome case of following the inheritance trail from the Duke of Portland and working out sales etc along the way to the current owner?
Lastly, whilst I personally have not seen this before in roughly 8 different conveyances is it a common occurrence or unusual in others experience?

Thank you in advance for any help, realise that this should be the solicitors job but they are currently struggling with the more simple tasks and I don't want to muddy the waters at present with questions like these.

Thanks,

Brad

G_M

bradsalmon wrote: »

hi,

the property register contains the below section -

there are excluded from this registration the mines and minerals excepted by the conveyance dated 10 july 1923 referred to in the charges register in the following terms and the land is also subject to the following ancillary powers of working:-

except and reserving out of the assurance thereby made all mines and minerals in or under the said piece of land thereby conveyed and with full power for the trustees their heirs and assigns and the vendor and other the person or persons deriving title under the indenture of settlement or indenture of re settlement their heirs and assigns and their lessees agents servants and workmen to work win and carry away the same mines and minerals and without leaving support for surface or any building which might be erected thereon but by underground workings only making from time to time nevertheless to the purchaser his heirs and assigns and his and their lessees and tenants reasonable and adequate compensation for all damage done or occasioned to the buildings if any for the time being on the said piece of land by reason of subsidence thereby caused.

someone else cand go digging under your land for gold. They get to keep the gold. But they must pay you if they cause damage (eg your house falls into their goldmine.

charges register contains -

a conveyance of the land in this title and other land dated 10 july 1923 made between (1) the most noble william john arthur charles james duke of portland (vendor) (2) edward horsman bailey and others and (3) frederick willman (purchaser) contains covenants details of which are set out in the schedule of restrictive covenants hereto.

ah! So the 'someone' is either the most noble blah blay, and/or edwards and others (a conglomorate company?) or their successors (since they might be dead now)

mr willman agreed to this when he bought the property in 1923, and it binds all sunsequent owners.

does this basically mean that when the purchasers bought the land in 1923 they purchased it without the mining rights and hence whomever has sold or passed the land on has done so without the mining rights?
If so, then presumably this means that someone theoretically owns the mining rights passed to them by the seller in 1923 and so could legally mine under this piece of land without informing the owner? Equally it may have already been mined under?

yes and yes

if both of the above are correct then is it possible to trace the current owner of the mining rights?
difficult.
or is it a burdensome case of following the inheritance trail from the duke of portland and working out sales etc along the way to the current owner?
sales, inheritances etc - yes
lastly, whilst i personally have not seen this before in roughly 8 different conveyances is it a common occurrence or unusual in others experience?

common? In cities and towns, no. In rural locations, reasonably common.

brad

.......................................

:t

davidmcn

bradsalmon wrote: »

If both of the above are correct then is it possible to trace the current owner of the mining rights?

Why would you want to?

Lastly, whilst I personally have not seen this before in roughly 8 different conveyances is it a common occurrence or unusual in others experience?

I can't speak for English properties, but in Scotland it's very common. However, these days it is only of academic interest, given that deep mining isn't economically worthwhile, and even if it were, it would be tricky to get planning permission.

More relevant than any future mining is the possibility of mining having taken place in the past. Your solicitor can advise on what searches are worthwhile, if there is a coalfield in the area then a Coal Authority search is a ubiquitous requirement. There are statutory compensation provisions for property damage arising from coal mining.

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

.....these days it is only of academic interest, given that deep mining isn't economically worthwhile, and even if it were, it would be tricky to get planning permission.

Errrrr.....

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2013/july13/110713/11072013_2

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

Errrrr.....

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2013/july13/110713/11072013_2

No need for the frackers to have any minerals rights reserved to them in your title though - they're getting their rights from the Crown, irrespective of whether you think you own the minerals under your house or not.

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

No need for the frackers to have any minerals rights reserved to them in your title though - they're getting their rights from the Crown, irrespective of whether you think you own the minerals under your house or not.

Very true.

bradsalmon

Thanks to all that replied. Feel a little better about it now.
Brad