Land Registry - Ownership

dickibobboy

Afternoon All,

I'm just after some clarification if possible.

A house i am looking to purcahase has two parts listed on the Land Registry information. I will seek proper advice if i do fully purchase the property but i just want to try and get a few things clear.

Background
The property has a rear garden which backs onto an access road for other residents. Some properties on the road have extra land at the other side of the access road.

The property i am looking at has extra land as part of the main land registry information for the address which is easily seen when viewing the property and it's land.

I know the ex owner of the property i am looking at used to use another plot of land to the left of the land defined on the LR information. After looking the land is registered as a seperate part on the LR but part of the same address "land west of address"

Here is an image from the LR, This is from the one registered as the "land west of address" and the Yellow is the lines defined from the "address" LR.



Number 1 is the property i am looking at, the next numbers corrispond as to who has what land.

Looking through the title plan for the extra land it seems it was sold by 'Number 2' some years ago.

1998) A Transfer of the land in this title dated 02 September
1998 made between owners of number 2(still owers currently and number 1 the following covenants:-
"The Transferees for the benefit and protection of the remainder of the
land comprised in the title above mentioned ("the Retained Land") or
any part or parts therof and so as to bind so far as may be the
property hereby transferred into whosesoever hands the same may come
hereby jointly and severally covenant with the Transferor and the
persons deriving title under them will at all times hereafter not use
the property or any part thereof other than as garden or allotment land
and not for any commercial or industrial use."
NOTE:- The retained land referred to adjoins the Eastern boundary of
the land in this title.

To me that reads that the land was sold to the Number 1 property by the owners of Number 2 property but only to be used as a garen/allotment land.

I decided to do a check on the Number 2 property, nothing in the title register mentions sale of the land however the land plan shows the extra land now assumed to be part of Number 1 but crossed with some text.



You may think why am i asking, i don't own the property and it may all come clear however the Number 2 still use the land to park their cars on which may become and issue for whoever does purchase Number 1, maybe they are potentially trying to claim the land back already in hope the new owners don't know, if you initially look it matches up to the back of their garden. Who knows!

I appreciate your input.

Thanks

da_rule

Ok, what appears to have happened:

2 sold the parcel of land to 1 - this would have been a sale of part and a TP1 would have been prepared. In this, there would be a plan showing what land from 2 would be sold. I would assume it would be identified as the land edged red in your first image.

Are all the pieces of land marked 1 on one title or are there separate title numbers?

The plans look like ones that would have been drawn up at the time of transfer rather than the Land Registry plan. If you download the title plans (£3 each) this will show you the extent of all of the titles.

G_M

In the first instance, ask the owners of 1 when you view what exactly they own, and what exactly they are planning to sell.

This of couse will need verifying later during the conveyancing process.

How many Land Registry Title numbers are involved. From what you describe it seems there are separate Title numbers for

a) the main house of 1, which also includes the land opposite
b) the land opposite house of 2, which was sold
c) the main house of 2, which excludes the land opposite

Is this correct?

Who are the named owners of the (3?) LR Titles?

You said:

After looking the land is registered as a seperate part on the LR but part of the same address "land west of address"

What do you mean by 'part of the same address'? I have assumed above that this land has it's own LR Title (owned by.....?), but that since it is not a postal address, it is described in the LR Title as 'land west of [property 1]'. Is this correct?

You appear to be correct that the owner of this land could only use it as garden/allotment.

It appears the owner of property 2 has no right to park there, other than whatever agreement he may have reached with the new/current owner of the land (the owner of property 1?). Eg property 1 may be renting the land for a monthly fee to property 2, or may just have granted him a licence (permission) to use it.

Or the parking may be unauthorised.

dickibobboy

G_M wrote: »

In the first instance, ask the owners of 1 when you view what exactly they own, and what exactly they are planning to sell. The house is owned by the mortage company as it is a repossession house, the owner that lived there is no longer.

This of couse will need verifying later during the conveyancing process.

How many Land Registry Title numbers are involved. From what you describe it seems there are separate Title numbers for

a) the main house of 1, which also includes the land opposite ex-owner is named,
b) the land opposite house of 2, which was sold ex-owner is named, which includes the parragraph i quoted in the first post stating the sale from current owners of property 2 in 1998
c) the main house of 2, which excludes the land opposite current owners are named.

Is this correct? Fully correct yes. Apart from the picture(second one in first post) from the LR of 2 which shows the land opposite 2 as part of theirs but with markings on the drawing.

Who are the named owners of the (3?) LR Titles? as above


You said:
What do you mean by 'part of the same address'? I have assumed above that this land has it's own LR Title (owned by ex owner of 1), but that since it is not a postal address, it is described in the LR Title as 'land west of [property 1]'. Is this correct? correct

You appear to be correct that the owner of this land could only use it as garden/allotment.

It appears the owner of property 2 has no right to park there, other than whatever agreement he may have reached with the new/current owner of the land (the owner of property 1?). Eg property 1 may be renting the land for a monthly fee to property 2, or may just have granted him a licence (permission) to use it. Quite possibly, they were the ones (from what i can see) that sold the land to the owner of property 1 in 1998.

Or the parking may be unauthorised.

I've filled in the above, i have all the titles from the LR site for both houses and the land. Property 2 doesn't state anywhere that the land was sold, im not sure if it needs to be or not. the LR title of the extra land does state the sale to the property & owners of property 1 from property 2.

dickibobboy

da_rule wrote: »

Ok, what appears to have happened:

2 sold the parcel of land to 1 - this would have been a sale of part and a TP1 would have been prepared. In this, there would be a plan showing what land from 2 would be sold. I would assume it would be identified as the land edged red in your first image.

Are all the pieces of land marked 1 on one title or are there separate title numbers? The yellow outlined is one title, the red outlined is another title belonging to the property of hosue 1.

The plans look like ones that would have been drawn up at the time of transfer rather than the Land Registry plan. If you download the title plans (£3 each) this will show you the extent of all of the titles.

The images are all from the LR plans, I have just added on the yellow and numbers.

da_rule

Does the plan for property 2 make a reference to 'land coloured blue' or any other such reference?

dickibobboy

da_rule wrote: »

Does the plan for property 2 make a reference to 'land coloured blue' or any other such reference?

It indeed does

(02.07.1976) The Freehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the
above Title filed at the Registry and being property 2,.
2 There are excluded from the registration of the land tinted blue on the
filed plan the mines and minerals and the ancillary rights excepted and
reserved by a Conveyance thereof and other land dated 02 March 1919
made between **.

and

A Conveyance of the land tinted blue on the filed plan and other land
dated 1 May 1919 made between contains the following covenants:-
"AND the Purchaser for herself her heirs and assigns (with intent to
bind all persons in whom the land hereby conveyed shall for the time
being be vested but so as not to be personally liable for the breach of
any restrictive covenant after they have parted with the said land)
hereby covenant with the Vendors in manner following that is to say
(1) That no dwelling house or other permanent building except
outbuildings which are usually appurtenant to private dwellinghouses
shall be erected upon the said land.
(2) That neither the said land nor any building to be erected thereon
shall be used for any offensive noisy or dangerous trade business
pursuit or occupation or any purpose which shall or may be or grow to
be in any way a nuisance damage grievance or annoyance to the Vendors
their heirs or assigns or their tenants or to the owners or tenants of
any of the neighbouring property or the neighbourhood"

da_rule

I've just tried to Private Message you, but apparently you're over your storage limit.

If I gave you my email address, would you be willing to email the Land Registry documents over with the title plans as only seeing snippets makes it hard to get a full picture.

G_M

2 There are excluded from the registration of the land tinted blue on the
filed plan the mines and minerals and the ancillary rights excepted and
reserved by a Conveyance thereof and other land dated 02 March 1919
made between **.

So property 2 does not own the land, which in any case has its own LR Title, showing ownership by the (repossessed) owner of property 1.

This raises a further Q: has the bank which is now selling repossessed BOTH plots (property 1 AND the separately registered land)? It may well be the owner took out a mortgage on the property only. Indeed this is quite likely.

In that case, the 'land' would still be owned by the the 'owner', not the bank.

This is something to verify. As my original post said, you need to establish from the seller what exactly they are selling.......

As for the car parking, the bank will probobly have no knowledge. You could simply deal with this once you own, by negotiating, or enforcing your rights on the neighbour. But there is a slim chance that he has a contractual right to use the land which might be hard to retract.

One option would be to ask - he might say "Oh it's just an informal arrangemet I had with the last owner. Obviously if you buy I'll stop parking there (unless you let me)."

Or he might be more insistant he has some right which might ring alarm bells since, at best, you have an angry neighbour and maybe a legal dispute.....

moneyistooshorttomention

Someone can be "insistent they have a right" even though they know perfectly well they don't.

Been there/done that - with my nfh insisting they had rights they simply didnt have.

All sorted out now - and the answer to "Is there a dispute would be" = "There was - but it's now resolved and past history". So I would say OP is in that same position by the look of it. If they won't budge off the land when asked politely to do and with the facts pointed out - then stop them coming on anyway and the "dispute" will be over.

I very much doubt they could have acquired any rights to that land in actual fact.

OP is wise to find out the actual facts and then go ahead and treat all of his property as his property. End of....

dickibobboy

G_M wrote: »

So property 2 does not own the land, which in any case has its own LR Title, showing ownership by the (repossessed) owner of property 1.

This raises a further Q: has the bank which is now selling repossessed BOTH plots (property 1 AND the separately registered land)? It may well be the owner took out a mortgage on the property only. Indeed this is quite likely.

In that case, the 'land' would still be owned by the the 'owner', not the bank.

This is something to verify. As my original post said, you need to establish from the seller what exactly they are selling.......

As for the car parking, the bank will probobly have no knowledge. You could simply deal with this once you own, by negotiating, or enforcing your rights on the neighbour. But there is a slim chance that he has a contractual right to use the land which might be hard to retract.

One option would be to ask - he might say "Oh it's just an informal arrangemet I had with the last owner. Obviously if you buy I'll stop parking there (unless you let me)."

Or he might be more insistant he has some right which might ring alarm bells since, at best, you have an angry neighbour and maybe a legal dispute.....

Sorry i have been offline a few days, that would be great if you could have a look. I've cleared my PM's out now.

I'm not sure what is happening, i seem in my head that the land will still be registered to the previous owner but it seems harsh that they will still own 'land of' the property i could potentially own.

I can ask the lenders however the EA seem to even have difficulty getting in contact and answers off them. It's not a sticking point of me buying the property but if i have the extra land it would be a good bonus as its a good size!

The other day the owner of property 2 was taking some material that was on the actual land of property 1 (only bricks and so on) was a little annoying that these could belong to me in time to come but i can hardly say anything about it as it's currently nothing to do with me :rotfl: