Land Registry Issue - causing selling issue

AlanCD

Selling/Sold STC my house, which is a freehold but there is an entry (leasehold) from 1946 on Registry. Land Registry don't have any copies of this but it is there.

Buyers solicitors have found this on a search and are refusing to complete until it is fully removed. The freehold was bought in 1997 and this 1946 lease (99 years) is stopping everything.

The solicitors aren't very clued up on this but I have provided them with paperwork for both 1946 lease and the 1997 freehold. They are refusing any kind of indemnity and want it removed or else they will pull the plug. As I have bought (STC) a new house and everything is done on that and my partner is 6 months pregnant it's all getting very stressful!

Has anyone had this issue before? How did you resolve it? - I think a DL & CN1 might sort the issue but is it as easy as showing a leasehold from 1946 and the freehold from 1997 (that supersedes it) and that will enable removal from the registry?

Stressed out to say the least

Thanks for any help.

G_M

What makes you so sure the 1997 freehold supersedes (do you mean rescind?)the lease?

1997 was (possibly/probobly) the 1st registration of the freehold, but the freehold will have existed for the previous 200+ years.

More information on the lease required (by us, and, obviously, by the buyers).

I have provided them with paperwork for both 1946 lease ....

What does it say?

dc197

I know it is hard but try not to worry and stress. In a few days this will hopefully be resolved and it will be remembered as just one of a few hurdles you crossed before the finish line.
Last house I bought there were problems which at first seemed terminal but were quickly resolved once all information was dug up.
Good luck.

AlanCD

G_M wrote: »

What makes you so sure the 1997 freehold supersedes (do you mean rescind?)the lease?

1997 was (possibly/probobly) the 1st registration of the freehold, but the freehold will have existed for the previous 200+ years.

More information on the lease required (by us, and, obviously, by the buyers).


What does it say?

I suppose rescind would be a better word yes!

This is the first house I have sold so might be a little wet behind the ears, but the house was built in the 30's and was in the hands of the Americans during WW2, then when they all packed up and left the house was sold and this lease was placed. As far as I can see it was just a straight forward lease of £5 pa from 1946 (99 years I think, don't have the paperwork - at solicitors).

It just gets me a little that I can't get straight answers off my side, their solicitors etc and it seems up in the air.

When doing a search on the house it shows as freehold, but this is showing on the search too. I suppose that would make it registered? - I just hope it can be removed asap so can move forward.

silvercar

Did your solicitors mention this when you bought? Seems strange that it is an issue when you sell but not when you buy. Any chance you had an indemnity policy arranged when you bought?

AlanCD

silvercar wrote: »

Did your solicitors mention this when you bought? Seems strange that it is an issue when you sell but not when you buy. Any chance you had an indemnity policy arranged when you bought?

Yeah I was thinking that, as I don't remember it coming up at all. As far as I am aware there was no indemnity set up, might have slipped the net maybe..

They have flat refused an indemnity so the only way forward is removal.

bouicca21

So who is the leaseholder?

danslenoir

AlanCD wrote: »

I suppose rescind would be a better word yes!

This is the first house I have sold so might be a little wet behind the ears, but the house was built in the 30's and was in the hands of the Americans during WW2, then when they all packed up and left the house was sold and this lease was placed. As far as I can see it was just a straight forward lease of £5 pa from 1946 (99 years I think, don't have the paperwork - at solicitors).

It just gets me a little that I can't get straight answers off my side, their solicitors etc and it seems up in the air.

When doing a search on the house it shows as freehold, but this is showing on the search too. I suppose that would make it registered? - I just hope it can be removed asap so can move forward.

I don't want to burst your bubble but the Land Registry are currently overburdened and I'd imagine that if you want to remove the leasehold from your deeds you would need to make an application to the Land Registry with the evidence supporting your claim, which could take several weeks, if not months, to process and be actioned.

AlanCD

bouicca21 wrote: »

So who is the leaseholder?

An individual from 1946, who set up the lease terms with the company who sold the house, as they owned the land too.. This was then sold in 1951 and continued as a leasehold until 1997 when the previous owner bought the freehold from the company (original build company).

The owner in 1951 was the father of the person who bought the freehold in '97. As when he passed he the house and was transferred. I then bought the house from him in 2003.

Finding it all a bit weird!

AlanCD

danslenoir wrote: »

I don't want to burst your bubble but the Land Registry are currently overburdened and I'd imagine that if you want to remove the leasehold from your deeds you would need to make an application to the Land Registry with the evidence supporting your claim, which could take several weeks, if not months, to process and be actioned.

Maybe a trip into one of their offices might quicken it up?

G_M

AlanCD wrote: »

....the house was built in the 30's and was in the hands of the Americans during WW2, then when they all packed up and left the house was sold and this lease was placed. As far as I can see it was just a straight forward lease of £5 pa from 1946 (99 years I think, don't have the paperwork - at solicitors).

OK, the misunderstanding you have is that a property always has a freehold. It may or may not have a leasehold as well.

* Pre1930s someone will have owned the freehold land.
* Then the property was built and(so far as you explain) owned freehold with the land
* th Americans owned it in that way during the war (irt seems)
* in 1946 a lease was created, between the freeholder and 'an individual'. The original freeholder continued to own the freehold land and the 'individual' owned the lease to the property
* in 1951 the lease was sold, but the freehold was unchanged
* in 1997 something happened. Either
a) the lease was sold again, and the freehold unchanged, or
b) more likely the owner of the lease bought the freehold, so that he then owned 2 things: both freehold (to the land) and lease (to the property sitting on it).
An alternative explanation is that after buying the freehold, the leaseholder rescinded the lease such that he owned the property on a freehold basis (the lease no longer existed). However in this case, the lease would not appear on the Land Registry.

* in 2003 you bought something: either
a) the lease to the property, or
b) the freehold to the land, or
c) possibly, both or
d) the freehold property with no lease in existance

Only the Land Registry Titles, and historic paperwork, will determine the truth.