Land Registry questions

Land_Registry

Adamtrappett wrote: »

Thanks for your quick response!
We received this email last week from our solicitor.

"Thank you for your email.
We have this morning received a request from the Land
Registry through their online portal (which is how we made
our application for removal of the restriction).

The Registry's query is asking whether the wrong company
name was entered in the lease and restriction or whether the
company no longer has an interest.
We are responding to the Land Registry today and will let
you know once we hear further"

In regards to the title number where would I find this or could my solicitor provide it to me?

Thanks again
Adam

Many thanks - so it won't be an RX1 as the application is to remove a restriction rather than put one on.

So they have responded and said they will let you know once they hear further - that was last week so have you asked them for an update?

They will have the title number/reference

AnotherJoe

Adamtrappett wrote: »

Myself and my partner are 23 weeks into a no chain house move and all that remains is an RX1 form before we can complete. We have asked our solicitor how long this will take, however all they are saying is that they can’t give us a time scale. Our buyer has emailed us today informing us that she is going to pull out this Friday if everything is not in place. We will be left devastated as well as the lady who’s property we are purchasing. Is there any way to get these forms sorted quicker. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks
Adam

Sounds like a chain to me, by definition !?

Adamtrappett

Hi,
I have requested the title number/reference from our solicitor and await to hear back.

Here is an earlier email we received in regards to the issue.
"The company number stated in the current restriction is the same company number for Castle Gate Marlborough Way Limited and so we do not understand why you are unable to sign Form RX1. The restriction needs to be amended only to show the correct name of the company and not to change the company number at the moment with the restriction being incorrect it is arguably open to our client to ask the land registry for removal of the restriction altogether.

we are of the opinion that we wait for the signed for RX3 and make an urgent application to the Land Registry to remove the restriction. We can then inform CoSec that we have removed the restriction and advise that there is now no restriction on the title and so it would be in their interests to sign the RX1 so that a restriction in favour of Castle Gate (Management Company) is noted on the title.
I have received the signed RX3 form (to remove the restriction) in today’s post, and we have now submitted an urgent application to the Land Registry to remove the restriction. I cannot confirm the turnaround time for the Land Registry dealing with our application, but we have asked them to deal with it urgently."

I will post the title number as soon as we hear back, thanks again.

Adam

Adamtrappett

We have now received the title number

SF559441

Land_Registry

Adamtrappett wrote: »

We have now received the title number

SF559441

Many thanks - appears we have received some additional and requested information this morning from the solicitor involved.
That will need to be considered by the processing office now to see what next steps are required.

Adamtrappett

Thanks ever so much for confirming that for me, would you be able to give an idea of when we are likely to get a response as we are scared our buyer is about to pull out.

Thanks again.

Dedekind

Land_Registry wrote: »

If it were in the same title then when you search online both results would come up and you'd have a '(1)' against them and a warning note to say they were identical

Yes exactly both have a (1). Our solicitor showed us on the map search that the plot we expect to buy has both entries so seems to be all fine.

Doozergirl

Land_Registry wrote: »

We contacted the lodging solicitor on 14th March for more details and are awaiting their response it seems

Thank you so much. Just got back on the phone to them to chase them up. Been using this solicitor for 15 years and never again, it seems!

keepersgate36

Hi,

Not sure if I need to do something about this or how to proceed.
A number of years ago, when moving lenders, the intended new lender raised a concern about certain restrictive covenants that were on our register. They seemed to imply that we could not sell our house without either a) a court order or b) a certificate from the original land owner.
Obviously absurd, we took up the matter with the house developer and their solicitor and duly (after some time) received a letter that the latter had been sorted. We passed this on to the lender and the mortgage went through.
Since we have paid off our mortgage and I have downloaded our register to check that the charge had been removed (We didn't get a written confirmation that this had been done from the lender). The strange restrictions are still there.
They read as follows
'3 (16.02.2006) RESTRICTION: No disposition by a sole proprietor of the
registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital
money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the
court.
4 (16.02.2006) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate by
the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any
registered charge is to be registered without a certificate signed by
the conveyancer of the proprietor of the registered estate or charge
(as the case may be) that the provisions of clause 21 of the Agreement
dated 20 May 2004 made between (1) xxxxx, xxxxx and (2) xxxxx
have been complied with.'

Also, section C states that there are restrictive covenants.


Should we go through the process we went through several years ago again?

Thanks

Land_Registry

Adamtrappett wrote: »

Thanks ever so much for confirming that for me, would you be able to give an idea of when we are likely to get a response as we are scared our buyer is about to pull out.

Thanks again.

We cannot be precise but hopefully it will be reconsidered in the next few days.
I should stress that it is not a routine matter, which you already appreciate, hence the need for the wider consideration.