Land registry mess up

AdrianC

Olliesuz wrote: »

Just to add - on the subject of evidence, the statement of truth was completed by the seller (to me) confirming the land boundaries have been indicated by fencing for the last 30 years, so there is not any real doubt that the whole plot was intended to be sold and bought by both myself and the previous owner. The previous owner was the land owner for 8 years but the immediate neighbour of the plot since 1986, so can testify to the boundaries as they are in practice, as it were. Hence my conclusion that the initial purchase was erroneously registered, by the LR or the conveyancing solicitors, who knows now?

The one small fly in that ointment, though, is that neither the LR nor the solicitors will have ever visited the plot. Which is why they rely on the registrant, when they're being transferred from original deeds, then the subsequent vendor/purchasers to double-check the boundaries on the plan are where those people believe they should be on the ground...

moneyistooshorttomention

It does sound to me, in both our scenarios, that the registrant (ie original registrant when the properties swopped over to being Registered and having Title Plans) trusted the professionals to do their job properly to a greater extent than was warranted in the event (amongst other factors).

After all, it is only a few decades since a much more "deferential" approach was the normal attitude to have to "professionals". It is hard to picture this, from the position of having the mindset of a 21st century intelligent person coming from an area where "questioning" is pretty much the standard mindset but it wasn't an uncommon way to think within living memory and there are still traces of that mindset in place.

Admits to feeling embarrassed at having assumed that previous owner/s of my house were more intelligent and generally savvy than they actually turned out to be and would have "got things sorted"....apologies to my father, who has been trying to tell me for years "You'd be surprised how intelligent most people ARENT. It's not their fault. They cant help it but that's how it is...".

But I do still hold to the theory that it would have been more difficult for the Land Registry to tell just what land neighbours did or didn't own in pre-Registration/pre-Title days.

Olliesuz

I have a few things to add after more digging this afternoon. I can confirm that the title deeds which include a map match the plot of and and the actual boundaries as shown on the ordinance survey map. The LR map is, however much more detailed and the altered boundary appears in there and is different to the actual boundaries, hence the startling discovery after completion, having seen only the OS map. Thanks for pointing out on this thread that they may be different....it helps to see how things went wrong although doesn't solve the problem.
I phoned the LR this afternoon and apparently they have not discounted the statement of truth entirely and have asked for amendments to be made and resubmitted by December. Sounds good, I thought.....however, the gentleman did say that the matters were multiple and complex and involved getting permissions from the mortgage holders of neighbouring lands....I think I just quietly despaired at this point because I can't see how we can get any information on the neighbouring lands and presumably my solicitors will want a hefty fee if they have lots of extra work to do. I am awaiting something direct from them but suspect I am no further forward really (the statement of truth already has been amended once at the LR request, so this is the second rejection). I have spoken also to the seller and asked for any remaining paperwork that they have in their possession to look through in case it throws any more light on what went wrong with their registration process. Will keep you posed...!

Olliesuz

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It does sound to me, in both our scenarios, that the registrant (ie original registrant when the properties swopped over to being Registered and having Title Plans) trusted the professionals to do their job properly to a greater extent than was warranted in the event (amongst other factors).

After all, it is only a few decades since a much more "deferential" approach was the normal attitude to have to "professionals". It is hard to picture this, from the position of having the mindset of a 21st century intelligent person coming from an area where "questioning" is pretty much the standard mindset but it wasn't an uncommon way to think within living memory and there are still traces of that mindset in place.

This must be a legacy for many as I think it is a big factor in why things don't go smoothly based on a historic error. Perhaps we need a simpler system to mop up these and correct them ready for future generations to have a better time of it....:rotfl:

moneyistooshorttomention

Olliesuz wrote: »

I have a few things to add after more digging this afternoon. I can confirm that the title deeds which include a map match the plot of and and the actual boundaries as shown on the ordinance survey map. The LR map is, however much more detailed and the altered boundary appears in there and is different to the actual boundaries, hence the startling discovery after completion, having seen only the OS map. Thanks for pointing out on this thread that they may be different....it helps to see how things went wrong although doesn't solve the problem.
I phoned the LR this afternoon and apparently they have not discounted the statement of truth entirely and have asked for amendments to be made and resubmitted by December. Sounds good, I thought.....however, the gentleman did say that the matters were multiple and complex and involved getting permissions from the mortgage holders of neighbouring lands....I think I just quietly despaired at this point because I can't see how we can get any information on the neighbouring lands and presumably my solicitors will want a hefty fee if they have lots of extra work to do. I am awaiting something direct from them but suspect I am no further forward really (the statement of truth already has been amended once at the LR request, so this is the second rejection). I have spoken also to the seller and asked for any remaining paperwork that they have in their possession to look through in case it throws any more light on what went wrong with their registration process. Will keep you posed...!

...and just what are you supposed to do if one of these landowners thinks they see a chance to try and add to their land by saying "Sorry...mate...wont be giving permission".??

I know my own Naughty Neighbours application for adverse possession of my bit of garden will be refused (as it doesn't match the criteria) - and that is one of the concerns I have that, when that happens and she has been defeated and my application is in for First Registration (ie to put right past mistakes by others) I've just got this concern that she might be asked to "give permission" to me having my own land officially Registered as mine. Leaving my land as mine, but me the only one recognising it is and, if that happened, then what? Presumably "law of the jungle" and I would have to just "take it over" regardless and its down to who yells loudest??

I cant quite believe LR would leave people at each others throats for evermore and surely they have, at some point, to say "It belongs to X - now stop the arguing" and you and I can just get on with using our land in peace? Or, alternative scenario of telling both parties to go to a Court to settle it (even if at least one of the parties cant afford it) - ie washing their hands of it and leaving the chips to fall where they may?

*******************

Surely, in your case, LR have to explain themselves as to why they have done a different map to the original one??

I'm also confused by LR man saying "mortgage holders" of neighbouring lands. Surely he meant "owners"?? I would have thought its irrelevant as to whether nearby owners do or don't have mortgages? I'm guessing that the people contacted at LR can be pretty variable and some will understand clearly and use exact correct words in replies and give clear simple explanations. Others, on the other hand, have to have it explained to them about 6 times (using different phrases each time) that you are making a simple request for a simple form (eg a recent conversation I had with one, where all I was doing was requesting a simple form to show any enquiries about my Title Plan that get made in future, as a protective measure). At about attempt no. 6 to explain very clearly and simply, I decided to phrase it in language even a 5 year old would understand and the message got through at last and they agreed to send me one. I had about given up hope of trying to simplify my language any further by that point and nearly lost the will to live...

silvercar

I guess mortgage lenders consent is required because on paper the lender would be agreeing a reduction in the land that they have a charge over. At the very least they may want confirmation that the change doesn't reduce the value of the property. In the same way that you can't sell part of your garden to your neighbour without getting the lender's consent.

The fact that "on paper" may not translate to actuality is not something a lender is going to bother themselves about.

Olliesuz

silvercar wrote: »

I guess mortgage lenders consent is required because on paper the lender would be agreeing a reduction in the land that they have a charge over. At the very least they may want confirmation that the change doesn't reduce the value of the property. In the same way that you can't sell part of your garden to your neighbour without getting the lender's consent.

The fact that "on paper" may not translate to actuality is not something a lender is going to bother themselves about.

We seem to get back to a paper pushing exercise once more and adding to the solicitor's fee without any way of containing the cost. Another sleepless night for me then!!!:(

Olliesuz

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

...I'm also confused by LR man saying "mortgage holders" of neighbouring lands.

To be fair, I was pretty confused myself by today's conversation, and the LR definitely prefer to deal with the agent rather than give information to the person who actually paid for the land. Is it me, or is that a bit of red tape reflection on how the common man has been ousted from understanding the process these days....I do appreciate the officialdom posts on the thread though - at least someone is trying to throw some light on things

moneyistooshorttomention

I can understand what Silvercar is getting at re "mortgage holders", rather than "owners" and he/she probably has a point there. I have seen various other threads on this sub-forum referring to mortgage companies having a say about "owners" property (ie in case anything happened that reduced the amount of equity tied-up in a property).

Yep...we know its not their property...its yours....

That makes logical sense to me put like that. I had an episode years back with the GrAbbey (you might know which building society that meant then....), whereby they had to give their permission for me to get a grant to do work to my own house. The reason being because I still had a mortgage on my house that I had taken out with them. By that time it was a tiny/weeny little mortgage and the thought had never crossed my mind that they would be considered anything to do with it. They bl*ody well were considered to be something to do with it by the grant-awarding body (ie the local Council) and I could not proceed without one little signature on one little bit of paper from them. Getting that blimmin' signature that it would take someone literally 30 seconds to do on a piece of paper turned into a bit of a saga and I had to do a bit of lateral thinking to get that signature in the end (clue = someone somewhere will be efficient/helpful/not too scared for their own back to actually make a decision and I had to work out how to find that person).

*********************

Maybe the LR person you got in that conversation was one of the ones that occur in any organisation of the watch own back/don't know their job that well/only in it for the salary and if you had got someone else then things might have gone better. There are some people there (as in any organisation) that do know their job reasonably/are capable of getting the "vibes" as to who is the correct person in this (ie yourself)/sympathetic to people who cant afford to listen to their standard mantra of "Make sure you get legal advice" and can and will explain things clearly.

Many people in any organisation forget that outsiders don't know the "insider jargon"/ways of thinking. Take it from someone who used to work for a government department and could see from inside just how variable people were.

If you are talking to a person who seems to be talking in jargon and/or has no empathy for your situation then ring off and call back later and chances are you will get a different person and might have a better result.

moneyistooshorttomention

Olliesuz

Could you ask an LR employee to send you a sample letter of the type they expect sent to nearby "mortgage holders" and then copy it out the requisite number of times and send it yourself (ie rather than pay a solicitor to do it for you)?

Just because someone is a solicitor doesn't necessarily mean they are brighter than you are you know. My Naughty Neighbours solicitor could have found out in pretty short order that he would be wasting her money to send up that application for "adverse possession" if he knew much at all about the qualifying grounds for that. He sent that letter anyway. That means one of two things:
- either he just wants a bit of short-term money in and couldn't care less what he just did wont "work"

OR

- he doesn't know what he's doing and I actually (by now) know more than him about it

It could be the first one...but, on the other hand, solicitors sometimes aren't that well-informed.

Second thought being to clarify with the Land Registry if its only "mortgage holders" that require to be sent these letters - or do all "owners" regardless of whether they have a mortgage or no?

Make sure that you get the Register entry (as well as Title Plan) for each property involved. That Register will tell you if they have a mortgage and, if so, who with.

It can (often does) feel like extracting blood from a stone to get information out of some of these official bodies (ie I had loads of fun - not - extracting details of how to do a very simple procedure as quickly and easily as possible from a County Council). I managed to do so in the end (it took question after question after question to several different people in a row - when the first person should have known what was what and told me in 5 minutes flat - but I got my information in the end).

You just have to try and be a bit patient with them and remind yourself "Probably very few people have one parent who has caused them to understand things pretty well and the other parent who demanded that they explain things in very clear simple language". I have come to regard that as an advantage very few people have....