Help from the Land Registry Rep?

Somerset

Hello


I saw on another thread where you helped a poster make sense of a land registry issue, including by PM.


Can I be cheeky and similarly ask you to take a look at something ? It's too complicated to post on here. We employed a solicitor to do something a while back, a new solicitor has said parts were done wrong and left us in the lurch. I think the new guy's wrong but am not confident in this area.


Any chance please ?

G_M

This is a forum for sharing problems and solutions with the wider world - it helps everyone to see what happens, as well as helping the poster get an answer.

If you want 1-2-1 advice from the Land Registry, they have several helplines!

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/access-and-opening

https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/portal/!ut/p/b1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOKNjSxMDA1NjDwsjM3MDTxN3dyNDUNMjQ2CDfSDU_P0C7IdFQEFq0xh/

(see? now anyone else who wants to contact the LR direct can see how to do it. However anyone else who happens to have a similar problem to yours will learn nothing from this thread)

Land_Registry

Somerset - to maintain the integrity of this forum it would help to share some of the details here as it does help others and it will also help us decide whether there is anything we can really look into further for you.

The bare bones posted suggest it may be more of a conveyancing issue than a registration so can you add a little more meat to them so we can all consider it further please?

G_M has linked you to some of our contact options online but we also have an enquiry form and a support forum that you can try instead if you so wish

Somerset

Thanks G M


Neither link is appropriate for my enquiry. They both are geared toward 'how to' and practicalities of using the LR.


My query relates to interpretation of various LR titles.
1)There are three relating to the freehold (freehold superior & head)
2)A solicitor claims a failure to transfer a separate superior lease
3)As a result of (2) flat leases granted by the freeholder are incorrect


Normally the response would be ''consult a solicitor'' - however there have been multiple solicitors involved, the solicitor that dealt with all the LR titles, the two solicitors that dealt with sale/purchase of two flats (3) no flags thrown up, and now the new one who is throwing up a flag :


For the other freeholders who have had their leases already extended, these are referred to against the freehold title in the Schedule of Notices of Leases. However you will note the Land Registry have qualified each entry by inserting a note to state that during the subsistence of the extended lease of each flat, the head lease takes effect as an underlease as to the land demised. What this means in simple terms is that each flat owner is not actually entitled to possession of their own flats until the head lease has actually expired


So I'm confuddled. I really need someone to 'interpret' the LR entries to establish if the new bloke is right and the previous ones wrong, or vice versa. As I said, it's complicated.

Land_Registry

Somerset - the wording you have added normally relates to what is known as a 'concurrent lease'. These are not that common but can happen and you will really need to rely on your legal advice here.

It's not the sort of thing I have seen discussed or aired on MSE before as the devil is very much in the detail re these things. So I will set out a general understanding of what a concurrent lease is and how you might match it to your scenario. Others may have an awareness/understanding of course but IF the scenario does not fit then they may need more details I'm afraid

A concurrent lease is one granted for a term that will commence before the expiration of an existing lease of the same land to another person.

For example where where landlord X grants a lease to Y, and then grants another lease of the same land to Z for a term which commences before the date of expiry of Y’s lease, the lease to Z will be a concurrent lease.

During the period when both leases are running concurrently, the lease to Z then becomes the ‘reversionary estate’ to the lease to Y. This entitles Z to have the benefit of the rent reserved by and the covenants contained in Y’s lease during that period.

To put that in 'real terms' Landlord X grants a lease to Y for 25 years commencing 1 April 2010.

Landlord X then grants another lease of the same land to Z commencing 1 January 2013.

As Z’s lease commences on 1 January 2013 (i.e. before Y’s lease expires) and is therefore a concurrent lease.

So from your perspective if the answer to these 3 questions in order is YES
1. Is your new lease granted for a term starting before the end of the existing lease of the same land?
2. Is the new lease granted to a tenant who is not the current tenant under the existing lease?
3. Does the new lease expire before the existing lease?

then that is what you have here, a concurrent lease, and a Note to the effect is added to make it clear that it takes effect as an underlease as per the wording you have added.

Somerset

Many thanks Land Registry Rep


Do you mind if I post an actual scenario, as I still don't get it.


Original Situation :
Freeholder (A) grants lease to Head Lessor (B) for 99 years for entire building.
Head Lessor (B) grants five individual leases of 99 years less 3 days to five individuals (C) who each buy one of five flats.
So each flatowner has a head lessor who in turn has a lease with the freeholder - with a 3 day period where the head lessor owns the flats.


Change of Situation :
The head lessor declares bankruptcy. The OR writes to the individual flatowners and says he has no interest in the lease (can't remember the phrase) but doesn't want it.
Since the head lessor is now out of the equation, the flatowners band together and instruct a solicitor to :
- Deal with the buying of the freehold
- Removing the head lessor interest
- Allow the new freeholder (management company) to grant new long leases to the flatowners.


We thought all of this had been done properly. Two of the flats have subsequently been bought/sold with no issues picked up.


This has now been highlighted by a solicitor acting for one of the original flatowners (who didn't sort out his long lease at the time but is trying to now).


I'm assuming if this is a concurrent lease that it involves the head lessor (B) who wasn't correctly removed/dealt with by the original solicitor ?

G_M

Thanks for sharing that Somerset, I appreciate the learning experience.

Land_Registry

Somerset - all sounds quite possible but clearly some complication and I guess the third flat owner did not get involved at the time as they were not selling. May have been a better option to have got involved at the same time but all in hindsight of course.

The phrase you are looking for is I suspect 'disclaimer' or 'disclaimer of onerous property'

The trouble is you have added to the mix with the bankruptcy and the slightly odd circumstance re the head lease issue being resolved for two but not the third flat and the original post referring to a failure to transfer the head lease?

I suspect, but do not know, that the buyers of the two flats were happy with the situation re the effect of the head lease based on the details you have now provided i.e. the risks involved are minimal. That is though complete conjecture and the issue now raised may indeed be a valid one but there is nothing we can really add here other than the registered details you already have access to.

The key seems to be that the head lease is still registered and it is impacting on the subsequent leases - if the head lessor is now bankrupt and the leasehold tenures have been disclaimed then this should probably be resolved and the head lease removed from the equation - that is though for you conveyancer to resolve and as such I suspect, going back to your OP, the new flag is a valid one but the devil will be in the detail.

Somerset

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Somerset - all sounds quite possible but clearly some complication and I guess the third flat owner did not get involved at the time as they were not selling.
Four out of the five flats obtained new long leases, one didn't. It's the missing one that is now trying to do same but solicitor has highlighted the issue
May have been a better option to have got involved at the same time but all in hindsight of course.
But his solicitor is saying it affects all five flats ?

The phrase you are looking for is I suspect 'disclaimer' or 'disclaimer of onerous property'

The trouble is you have added to the mix with the bankruptcy and the slightly odd circumstance re the head lease issue being resolved for two but not the third flat and the original post referring to a failure to transfer the head lease?
But if I'm reading his letter right (bit quoted in #4) the solicitor is saying it isn't resolved for the four long leaseholders ie the 'note' on the LR entries. Which implies there was a failure to properly deal with the head lease ?

I suspect, but do not know, that the buyers of the two flats were happy with the situation re the effect of the head lease based on the details you have now provided i.e. the risks involved are minimal.
I don't think they knew there was a problem at all ??
That is though complete conjecture and the issue now raised may indeed be a valid one but there is nothing we can really add here other than the registered details you already have access to.

The key seems to be that the head lease is still registered and it is impacting on the subsequent leases - if the head lessor is now bankrupt and the leasehold tenures have been disclaimed then this should probably be resolved and the head lease removed from the equation - that is though for you conveyancer to resolve and as such I suspect, going back to your OP, the new flag is a valid one but the devil will be in the detail.

Hello Land Registry Rep


Apologies for the delayed reply, I lost internet/phone - I've now been repaired


I think what spooked everyone was the ''What this means in simple terms is that each flat owner is not actually entitled to possession of their own flats until the head lease has actually expired''


How does this sound ?
We go back to the original solicitor (if still in business) explain that we think 'bits' ie the head lessor issue, was not correctly dealt with and attach the new fella's letter. Then expect them to correct what they need to correct. I suppose I'm asking if this is fixable though that is silly as you can't know the answer to that

Land_Registry

Raising the issue with them is always an option but may not elicit a response so you may be no further forward. I'd ask your 'new fella's' advice as he should be able to explain what happens next depending on whether they respond or not - ultimately resolving the head lease issue presumably remains, irrespective of who deals with it after all.

It does read as if someone failed to deal with the head lease scenario so presumably now that has been identified it can now be dealt with - I suspect it won't just go away so all 5 flats have a vested interest in resolving it as by removing the head lease from the whole equation you presumably then have what each thought they had all along.