Land Registry questions

Spanishdream

OK. Just posting and hoping! I am removing a chimney and am required under the Party Wall Act to serve notice on all owners of the adjoining house. My surveyor did a search and discovered that there are 4 owners of said house; my neighbour, her daughter, grandson and the solicitor who did her Deed of Trust. The first three have all agreed to the work going ahead but the solicitor will not respond. I actually hear him refusing to come to the phone when I call and he does not reply to letters or e mails. I have Googled his company and found some very dodgy reviews. Apart from the delays this is causing us, I am starting to mistrust this person on behalf of my elderly neighbour as she has mentioned that he canvassed her in the first place. My question is: is it normal for a solicitor to be named as an owner on the Land Registry?

Land_Registry

Spanishdream wrote: »

OK. Just posting and hoping! I am removing a chimney and am required under the Party Wall Act to serve notice on all owners of the adjoining house. My surveyor did a search and discovered that there are 4 owners of said house; my neighbour, her daughter, grandson and the solicitor who did her Deed of Trust. The first three have all agreed to the work going ahead but the solicitor will not respond. I actually hear him refusing to come to the phone when I call and he does not reply to letters or e mails. I have Googled his company and found some very dodgy reviews. Apart from the delays this is causing us, I am starting to mistrust this person on behalf of my elderly neighbour as she has mentioned that he canvassed her in the first place. My question is: is it normal for a solicitor to be named as an owner on the Land Registry?

It's maybe not normal but it's perfectly possible, especially I feel there is a Trust involved

But it's really a Q of what the PWA requires you to do here and what options you have based on partial consent/full notification. There are different notices/requirements but presumably there are next steps if you have partial consent after serving notices etc

POPPYOSCAR

Hi Land Registry.

We are selling a property that we have owned for over 30 years.

Buyer, a builder has not even stepped inside as he is buying it for the plot to redevelop.

We have been told that the buyer's solicitor wants an indemnity policy because of this on the Title.

C. Charges Register
1. A conveyance dated 1932 made between .... and ......contains restrictive covenants but neither the original deed nor a certified copy or examined abstract thereof was produced on first registration.

This is the first we have heard about this and has never come up before .

I do not understand how this comes to be on the title when nothing was produced on first registration?
What does this actually mean and how is this a problem if nothing is registered with Land Registry?

G_M

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

...
C. Charges Register
1. A conveyance dated 1932 made between .... and ......contains restrictive covenants but neither the original deed nor a certified copy or examined abstract thereof was produced on first registration.

I do not understand how this comes to be on the title when nothing was produced on first registration?
What does this actually mean and how is this a problem if nothing is registered with Land Registry?

Well at 1st Registration there must have been mention of this Deed somewhere in the paperwork, otherwise the LR would not refer to it. Don't suppose you remember who acted for you back then? Or if they are still in business? Or have records?

It means that if one of the parties to the Conveyance dated 1932 comes forward, perhaps with an original of the Conveyance, and enforces some at-present-unknown covenant, then the Builder could be stuffed eg if it prohibits developing the site.

POPPYOSCAR

G_M wrote: »

Well at 1st Registration there must have been mention of this Deed somewhere in the paperwork, otherwise the LR would not refer to it. Don't suppose you remember who acted for you back then? Or if they are still in business? Or have records?

It means that if one of the parties to the Conveyance dated 1932 comes forward, perhaps with an original of the Conveyance, and enforces some at-present-unknown covenant, then the Builder could be stuffed eg if it prohibits developing the site.

This is what I do not understand.

1932? they would be assuming they were as young as in their twenties at the time, they would now be over 100!!

How likely is that.?

The property was built in 1957 so it has already been developed.

G_M

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

1932? they would be assuming they were as young as in their twenties at the time, they would now be over 100!!

The property was built in 1957 so it has already been developed.

Maybe they had children - that's quite likely. People do you know!

My 'development' suggestion was an example only. The covenant might say anything. Other possibilities:

* not more than 1 residential property to be erected on the site
* no development taller than 2 storeys
* no alcohol to be produced, sold or imbibed on the site (hopefully you haven't breached this yourselves...)
* chicken may be kept but not cockerels

Since there is no way to know at present what the covenant permits or prohibits, the buyer currently has no way of anticipating whether he might breach that covenant in some way.

POPPYOSCAR

G_M wrote: »

Maybe they had children - that's quite likely. People do you know!

My 'development' suggestion was an example only. The covenant might say anything. Other possibilities:

* not more than 1 residential property to be erected on the site
* no development taller than 2 storeys
* no alcohol to be produced, sold or imbibed on the site (hopefully you haven't breached this yourselves...)
* chicken may be kept but not cockerels

Since there is no way to know at present what the covenant permits or prohibits, the buyer currently has no way of anticipating whether he might breach that covenant in some way.

We have got all sorts of covenants on the property we live in, one of which is no show ground stalls or shooting gallery. No bricks to be made or noxious materials burnt.

I think it must be something along those lines.

G_M

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I think it must be something along those lines.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But your buyer's solicitor is not about to advise his client to gamble on that.

POPPYOSCAR

G_M wrote: »

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But your buyer's solicitor is not about to advise his client to gamble on that.

Our solicitor did not think it necessary when we bought it.

I have been doing some research on this.

Most say it is a rip-off and claims are extremely rare and anyway

BIBA say the buyer should get it. Not the seller.

G_M

I agree it's rare.

But so is destruction of a house by fire, yet most people insure against it, and all mortgage lenders require this.

The question of who pays for it is, like everything, down to negotiation.

If the buyer insists you provide indemnity insurance and says he won't purchase unless you agree, what will you decide?

Conversely, if you refuse to provide indemnity insurance and say you'll find another buyer, what will he decide?