Land Registry questions

silvercar

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

Works both ways.

It is for the buyer's protection, so the buyer should pay.

It s the seller that has missing information/ incomplete records/ breached ancient covenants, so the seller should pay.

G_M

silvercar wrote: »

Works both ways.

It is for the buyer's protection, so the buyer should pay.

It s the seller that has missing information/ incomplete records/ breached ancient covenants, so the seller should pay.

So the fairest solution would be to get two policies and pay for one each.

Land_Registry

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

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?

Others have already explained but a few things to emphasise

Unregistered ownership is proven by a series of deeds/documents showing how the land/property has been sold/bought/owned over a period if time. Those deeds will inc rights , provisions and covenants as appropriate.

Some deeds may refer to other deeds to reimpose such matters and that is what will have happened here. Unfortunately no copy if the said deed will have been submitted on first registration or since. So we know it may well have contained such matters but we cannot be sure hence the entry made and reference to 'may'

The new buyer knows that but wants to insure against the risk of the deed coming to light and the covenants fir example being enforced. Hence the policy request. How small the risk is will only really be relevant to whether insurance can be found and it's cost I imagine.

Indemnity insurance is far more common nowadays than it was say 20/30 years ago

Covenants run with the land so whilst who imposed them way back when can be relevant it's more a case of which land, owned by them at that time, had the benefit of any covenants.

POPPYOSCAR

G_M wrote: »

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?

I am not really fussed about selling.

We have not actually marketed the property as such.

The builder stands to make a lot of money from the redevelopment
and we already accepted £5000 less than we really wanted.We also had an agreement with him which is not being reflected in the contract.

We have been offered another deal by a different company who would have one house and we keep the other one. This could give us an extra £30000 but obviously means waiting until they are built.He has already done this several times in the same road.

TBH I am fed up with his conveyancer. They are asking stupid questions such as overhanging balconies(It is a bungalow!) and is there any decking in the garden how is the property heated etc.

The builder has not even stepped inside the place, just measured the plot!

Our conveyancer is writing to them to emphasize this.

If a different buyer came into the picture it would be condition of sale that they would get their own indemnity policy if they wanted one.

POPPYOSCAR

Land_Registry wrote: »

Others have already explained but a few things to emphasise

Unregistered ownership is proven by a series of deeds/documents showing how the land/property has been sold/bought/owned over a period if time. Those deeds will inc rights , provisions and covenants as appropriate.

Some deeds may refer to other deeds to reimpose such matters and that is what will have happened here. Unfortunately no copy if the said deed will have been submitted on first registration or since. So we know it may well have contained such matters but we cannot be sure hence the entry made and reference to 'may'

The new buyer knows that but wants to insure against the risk of the deed coming to light and the covenants fir example being enforced. Hence the policy request. How small the risk is will only really be relevant to whether insurance can be found and it's cost I imagine.

Indemnity insurance is far more common nowadays than it was say 20/30 years ago

Covenants run with the land so whilst who imposed them way back when can be relevant it's more a case of which land, owned by them at that time, had the benefit of any covenants.

Why is that?

Land_Registry

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Why is that?

The comment is based largely on the reading of numerous threads on a variety of forums and as part of our enquiry handling. We don;t deal directly with indemnity insurance of this type as it happens away from the registraiton process itself.

So we won't know the exact reason(s) but if I was to offer one suggestion it would be that in some cases insuring against the risk may be easier/cheaper than investigating/trying to resolve it. In cases such as yours the odds of the actual deed emerging are very small but the risk remains a real one

Risk avoidance tends to be more in the domain of the mortgage lender than conveyancer but attitudes will vary across all professionals depending on a number of factors including experience/knowledge, systems/processes etc etc

We insure against the risk by referencing the issue on the register. If we had said 'It's mentioned in the old deeds but not present so we won't register it.......' then we would be bearing the risk of the benefiting party producing it and seeking to enforce any covenants for example.

POPPYOSCAR

Land_Registry wrote: »

The comment is based largely on the reading of numerous threads on a variety of forums and as part of our enquiry handling. We don;t deal directly with indemnity insurance of this type as it happens away from the registraiton process itself.

So we won't know the exact reason(s) but if I was to offer one suggestion it would be that in some cases insuring against the risk may be easier/cheaper than investigating/trying to resolve it. In cases such as yours the odds of the actual deed emerging are very small but the risk remains a real one

Risk avoidance tends to be more in the domain of the mortgage lender than conveyancer but attitudes will vary across all professionals depending on a number of factors including experience/knowledge, systems/processes etc etc

We insure against the risk by referencing the issue on the register. If we had said 'It's mentioned in the old deeds but not present so we won't register it.......' then we would be bearing the risk of the benefiting party producing it and seeking to enforce any covenants for example.

Thank you for your replies.

I have been reading up about this and someone working in the insurance industry itself has tried to get claims experience but been unable to.

Some are of the opinion it is a money making exercise for the insurance industry and little else!

I am inclined to agree.

I also understand can only be obtained through a solicitor or conveyancer as well.

Do they commission I wonder?

TimmyG1964

We are looking to buy site covered by 3 land registry titles, all currently owned by the same person.

We are having problems arranging a commercial mortgage as none of the titles are what I would consider to be 'sensible' compared to what is on the ground . For example, an old barn was knocked down in 2005 and replaced with a pair of semi detached cottages. The current owner didn't split the titles and didn't make official provision for access across the land of one of the other titles, so these 2 properties are essentially 'landlocked' and the vendor has refused take any action to fix the titles.

IF we are able to sort the finance, I would then like to make the necessary adjustments to all 3 titles and also split the title for the 2 cottages so that they are each on their own title and have adequate provision for access.

My solicitor has told me that this is something the land registry wont consider. Can you conform if this is correct.

If it is something we CAN do how do we proceed and how long is it likely to take?

Thanks

chappers

TimmyG1964 wrote: »

We are having problems arranging a commercial mortgage as none of the titles are what I would consider to be 'sensible' compared to what is on the ground . For example, an old barn was knocked down in 2005 and replaced with a pair of semi detached cottages. The current owner didn't split the titles and didn't make official provision for access across the land of one of the other titles, so these 2 properties are essentially 'landlocked' and the vendor has refused take any action to fix the titles.

Then they are fools as no solicitor can advise their client to buy properties which have no access to them. Surely a simple deed of rectification would sort this, probably cost a few hundred quid to sort.

chappers

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Thank you for your replies.

I have been reading up about this and someone working in the insurance industry itself has tried to get claims experience but been unable to.

Some are of the opinion it is a money making exercise for the insurance industry and little else!

I am inclined to agree.

I also understand can only be obtained through a solicitor or conveyancer as well.

Do they commission I wonder?

Whilst that might essentially be true the risk is still there, risks which could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend.
It's a bit ironic as the cheaper the premium the less likelihood of enforcement as well as cost to rectify the breach.

For example you have a new boiler installed and it's not logged with building control. indemnity will probably cost you £20 is that value or not, probably not as the risk of enforcement after 12 months is virtually nil and before that enforcement is also highly unlikely and in any case will probably involve you getting a gas safety certificate for £60. The chances of claiming are also low from the insurers point of view.

Now take indemnity to protect against lack of listed building consent, is £500 worth it?
Probably as enforcement has no limit in time and responsibility passes from proprietor to proprietor and could also lead to criminal proceedings.
Defending enforcement could run into tens of thousands of pounds and compliance possibly hundreds of thousands.
The risk is also still very small, but the cost of piece of mind is also small when compared to the consequence.

then there is the things in between that the lender insists are in place where it's quicker to address with indemnity rather than the faff of resolving