Land registry title deed restriction questions

earlycomputers

I have a question about a Land Registry title deed. If a property is owned by Jo Bloggs but it says on the title deeds that there are two restrictions - namely 'no disposition of the registered estate by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered without a written consent signed by the proprietor', what does this mean in practice? One of the charges is the mortgage lender and the other charge/restriction is a group of people belonging to a single trust. Is there any way the owner, Jo Bloggs, could sell or dispose the property without permission of the charges? What if the mortgage lender (one of the charges) gives permission but the trust (the other charge) doesn't? Also could 'dispose' also mean get passed to Jo Bloggs's heirs on death or given away as a gift? many thanks in advance

Land_Registry

The wording of the restrictions are important to understand what they restrict.

A 'disposition' in this example implies that there has been some act by the proprietor so if the registered owner tried to sell, mortgage or lease the property then the restriction clicks in.

A lender's restriction is standard in most cases so the lender's consent is invariably required. If there are two restrictions and only one consents then the disposition cannot be registered - one restriction does not trump another.

And if the registered proprietor has died then they are not acting so in some cases the restriction would not come into play although that is often because the interest protected by the restriction has changed due to the owner's death e.g. the mortgage is redeemed or the interest of the trust alters.

The devil is always in the detail re such matters so there is no general answer to all of your questions. I would suggest reading our Practice Guide 19 and the section on restrictions and then seek legal advice re the exact set of circumstances you have.

Challs1976

Hi, This is the first time that I am using this site so apologies for any errors.

I have recently found that someone has placed a restriction on my property in January 2015. I have only just become aware of the restriction because I am seeking further funding against my property and it came up in my lender's searches, I have called the Land Registry and they have said that due to their error they failed to write to me in January 2015 to inform me of the RX1 application being made on my property. As such, the restriction has been on my property for the best part of 10 months. As advised by the Land Registry I have made an application in the form of Form RX3 to remove the restriction. I was hoping that as I was not served with the original application in January 2015, that the Land Registry would seek to put me back in the position i would have been in when the other Party made their application to register a restriction. Instead, they have written to the Solicitors who made the application in January 2015 to inform them of my application to cancel the restriction.

It is very likely that the Solicitors acting for the Party who placed the restriction on my property will consent to the removal. I do not think it is fair that I should be prejudiced in this way. Had I received notice from the Land Registry of the application to place the restriction on my property I would have been able to contest it in January this year.

I do not know what my options are now. The land registry acknowledge that they made an error but it seems like i am being penalised for it.

The wording of the restriction is "No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court"

Would you be able to assist?

Thanks

G_M

It is very likely that the Solicitors acting for the Party who placed the restriction on my property will consent to the removal. I do not think it is fair that I should be prejudiced in this way.

In that case I don't really see in what way you will be prejudiced.

chris_m

I've a feeling that there may have been an "un" (as in unlikely) or a "not" missed from the OP's statement.

If my feeling is wrong then I also cannot see how they would be prejudiced.

Land_Registry

Let's work on the basis that the 'un' is missing here as that seems the most likely

As mentioned the devil is in the detail and the OP has not included the restriction's full wording.

In essence we have put you back in the position i would have been in when the other Party made their application to register a restriction as you are now contesting the restriction and the applicant is being given time to object to it's removal. This is similar to what would have happened at the time when you would have received a Notice of the application, objected and then they would contest or otherwise.

Not too sure how you are being penalised here as although we made a mistake some 10 months back you are now seeking to remove the restriction and presumably you either have grounds to do so or the original applicant won't contest it. The lapse of time has presumably not changed that for either party.

So, for others to be able to assist you would need to post the full wording and explain what interest the applicant has in applying for the restriction e.g. what other interest exists for example