Land Registry questions

NeverTooLate

NeverTooLate said:

We've just received this letter from HM LR. Apart from the name and address (which II've redacted) it's complete gobbledegook!

It came with another letter which was legible telling us that an original document was being returned, the document was also enclosed.
Are you able to find out what this letter was about for me? It's a voluntary first registration, title #SL273743

Thanks

In case this happened to anyone else, I emailed noticeresponse@landregistry.gov.uk as suggested here by LR and received a phone call the next day to tell me that there had been a computer glitch and several letters like this had been sent out.
They are resending me the letter - hopefully this time I will be able to read it!

Land_Registry

SprostonGreenHead said:

Hi LR.

How long should we expect to wait, as buyers for "Land Registry pre-completion checks"? I believe these are to check there are no charges against the titles being transferred. One title is a whole whilst another is a transfer of a part. My solicitor told me at the start of the week that they're usually instant, but transfer of a part "can take a few days". From what they're telling me, they're still not back today. We were meant to exchange today but it's blocked waiting for these which apparently "can't be expedited or chased".

To be quite honest, I'm not sure these were ordered when I'm being told they were, just wanted to get an idea of max timelines. Thanks.

The information given is correct as an OS1 (search of whole) is invariably instant if nothing pending. An OS2 (search of whole) requires manual handling and is usually processed with 2 (or 3) days. 

We recommend such searches are submitted at least 5 working days before completion 

SprostonGreenHead

Land_Registry said:

SprostonGreenHead said:

Hi LR.

How long should we expect to wait, as buyers for "Land Registry pre-completion checks"? I believe these are to check there are no charges against the titles being transferred. One title is a whole whilst another is a transfer of a part. My solicitor told me at the start of the week that they're usually instant, but transfer of a part "can take a few days". From what they're telling me, they're still not back today. We were meant to exchange today but it's blocked waiting for these which apparently "can't be expedited or chased".

To be quite honest, I'm not sure these were ordered when I'm being told they were, just wanted to get an idea of max timelines. Thanks.

The information given is correct as an OS1 (search of whole) is invariably instant if nothing pending. An OS2 (search of whole) requires manual handling and is usually processed with 2 (or 3) days. 

We recommend such searches are submitted at least 5 working days before completion 

Thank you.

I've since learned (after asking multiple times) that these were not actually ordered until Wed this week. Our solicitor led me to believe they were ordered on Monday but I think one of her underlings let her down.

Still sounds like assuming these checks come back clean that we'll be able to complete as planned on 3rd Feb but I could have done without the stress my solicitors office have created.

Have a good weekend, LR!

SprostonGreenHead

SprostonGreenHead said:

Thank you.

I've since learned (after asking multiple times) that these were not actually ordered until Wed this week. Our solicitor led me to believe they were ordered on Monday but I think one of her underlings let her down.

Still sounds like assuming these checks come back clean that we'll be able to complete as planned on 3rd Feb but I could have done without the stress my solicitors office have created.

Have a good weekend, LR!

Further to this, it appears that LR responded today, but cancelled the application. Apparently on the basis that a transfer of a part was requested, but that was the intention. My solicitor is rather confused and has submitted the same request again.

At this point I'm worried, because there is something awry and we're running out of time.

LR, would it be possible to say why an OS2 search ordered against a transfer of part out of LA562768 (part identified as LAN266622 due to the previous adverse possession claim) would be cancelled by LR? Is this still a transfer of part if LR has provisionally created a new title for it on the basis it was subject to an AP claim?

My solicitor said:

"We received correspondence from HMLR this morning as they have cancelled the application because we have lodged an application for an official search of part.  I am confused as to why this was cancelled as we are lodging a transfer of part and am wondering if it might be something to do with the issue with the plan previously.  Nonetheless, I immediately asked [my colleague] to resubmit the search.

I will call them first thing on Monday morning for clarification and if it needs submitting again (hopefully this will not be the case) then we can do so and still exchange early next week. I will also ask under the circumstances if this can be expedited, due to the fact it has already been submitted previously)."

Land_Registry

SprostonGreenHead said:

SprostonGreenHead said:

Thank you.

I've since learned (after asking multiple times) that these were not actually ordered until Wed this week. Our solicitor led me to believe they were ordered on Monday but I think one of her underlings let her down.

Still sounds like assuming these checks come back clean that we'll be able to complete as planned on 3rd Feb but I could have done without the stress my solicitors office have created.

Have a good weekend, LR!

Further to this, it appears that LR responded today, but cancelled the application. Apparently on the basis that a transfer of a part was requested, but that was the intention. My solicitor is rather confused and has submitted the same request again.

At this point I'm worried, because there is something awry and we're running out of time.

LR, would it be possible to say why an OS2 search ordered against a transfer of part out of LA562768 (part identified as LAN266622 due to the previous adverse possession claim) would be cancelled by LR? Is this still a transfer of part if LR has provisionally created a new title for it on the basis it was subject to an AP claim?

My solicitor said:

"We received correspondence from HMLR this morning as they have cancelled the application because we have lodged an application for an official search of part.  I am confused as to why this was cancelled as we are lodging a transfer of part and am wondering if it might be something to do with the issue with the plan previously.  Nonetheless, I immediately asked [my colleague] to resubmit the search.

I will call them first thing on Monday morning for clarification and if it needs submitting again (hopefully this will not be the case) then we can do so and still exchange early next week. I will also ask under the circumstances if this can be expedited, due to the fact it has already been submitted previously)."

An OS2 is a search of part so should be submitted with a plan normally to identify the part to be protected. If we’ve cancelled it then we must have explained why so I’m unclear why there’s any confusion 
As you/they already know we don’t expedite searches as they are processed quickly anyway. If they’ve simply resubmitted the same search then odds are it will be rejected again. 

I’ll take a look re the title you’ve quoted but your solicitor is on the case and needs to find the solution - if they do then the 3rd Feb is still doable 

SprostonGreenHead

Land_Registry said:

An OS2 is a search of part so should be submitted with a plan normally to identify the part to be protected. If we’ve cancelled it then we must have explained why so I’m unclear why there’s any confusion 
As you/they already know we don’t expedite searches as they are processed quickly anyway. If they’ve simply resubmitted the same search then odds are it will be rejected again. 

I’ll take a look re the title you’ve quoted but your solicitor is on the case and needs to find the solution - if they do then the 3rd Feb is still doable 

Thank you, LR.

I think I know what might have caused the confusion. The plan that my solicitor is likely to have attached with the OS2, actually resembles a whole title, indeed even has a whole title number on it, that of the (provisional I assume) title which was created when the land that makes up the part was the subject of an AP claim and surveyed by LR in order to serve notice to the title owner. The title owner who now offers to transfer this same land, for a fee, intends to use this same plan as the plan to the part-transfer. So rather than being a plan of the title from which said part is being transferred (and showing said part), it's a plan of a whole (albeit provisional) title, complete with title number. The land that the plan shows is however the part from a wider title which is intended to be transferred. As far as I know, the solicitor will have included the actual title number from which the part is to be transferred, as part of the text-format part of the application.

My suspicion is that LR official tasked with the search has seen an OS2 (search for transfer of part) supplied with a title plan of a whole title, complete with whole provisional title number, and ascertained that the application is for the wrong search (whole instead of part). I suggested to my solicitor that if she resubmits she should make clear why the attached plan is for a whole title (albeit a provisional one) rather than specifically showing said part on the wider title it's being transferred from. I hope this makes sense!

Land_Registry

SprostonGreenHead said:

Land_Registry said:

An OS2 is a search of part so should be submitted with a plan normally to identify the part to be protected. If we’ve cancelled it then we must have explained why so I’m unclear why there’s any confusion 
As you/they already know we don’t expedite searches as they are processed quickly anyway. If they’ve simply resubmitted the same search then odds are it will be rejected again. 

I’ll take a look re the title you’ve quoted but your solicitor is on the case and needs to find the solution - if they do then the 3rd Feb is still doable 

Thank you, LR.

I think I know what might have caused the confusion. The plan that my solicitor is likely to have attached with the OS2, actually resembles a whole title, indeed even has a whole title number on it, that of the (provisional I assume) title which was created when the land that makes up the part was the subject of an AP claim and surveyed by LR in order to serve notice to the title owner. The title owner who now offers to transfer this same land, for a fee, intends to use this same plan as the plan to the part-transfer. So rather than being a plan of the title from which said part is being transferred (and showing said part), it's a plan of a whole (albeit provisional) title, complete with title number. The land that the plan shows is however the part from a wider title which is intended to be transferred. As far as I know, the solicitor will have included the actual title number from which the part is to be transferred, as part of the text-format part of the application.

My suspicion is that LR official tasked with the search has seen an OS2 (search for transfer of part) supplied with a title plan of a whole title, complete with whole provisional title number, and ascertained that the application is for the wrong search (whole instead of part). I suggested to my solicitor that if she resubmits she should make clear why the attached plan is for a whole title (albeit a provisional one) rather than specifically showing said part on the wider title it's being transferred from. I hope this makes sense!

It does, kind of, but a search of part is exactly that a search against part of a registered title, the part that’s going to be purchased. 

It’s not a search for transfer of part as a result but a search to protect the purchase of a part of the whole title. 

Submitting it against the right title and protecting the right part is key so if that wasn’t ‘accurate’ then it would be cancelled/rejected. 

Hopefully the solicitor can correct things on resubmission 

Simon321

Hi LR

We are in the process of buying a house (and selling our flat).
We are almost ready for completion (and so are our buyers).
There is only an outstanding issue with one of the proprietor's name in the title register.
The property title lists two owners, a married couple, both deceased, the wife 2y ago and her husband 1y ago.
The administrator of the estate is now his son.
The death certificate of the deceased wife is in her full name "FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME, SURNAME" while in the tile register it is only "MIDDLE NAME, SURNAME".

The sellers conveyancer submitted a AP1 application, expedited, in December, Land registry came back with a rejection only this week, stating that "the account that the application was lodged with is incorrect" and LR suggested to hand in another application and expedite it, but the sellers conveyancer is concerned this will not be done in a timely manner and suggests to just go ahead with completion (the conveyoncers suggested this already beforehand and needed to convinced handing in a AP1 application).
 
Our solicitor says the title is defective and the sellers conveyancer needs to get it amended (from AP1) before completion.
The sellers conveyancer says the title is is not defective and this can be easily sorted, stating "a statutory declaration is simply needed to clarify the position".

Everything is not going forward at them moment and we running out of time and feel a bit helpless and don't know which side is right.
What is your opinion?
Obviously there are many variables  but as last resort would be LR satisfied with a statutory declaration like the sellers conveyancer suggests, or what scenarios are common?

Many thanks

Land_Registry

Simon321 said:

Hi LR

We are in the process of buying a house (and selling our flat).
We are almost ready for completion (and so are our buyers).
There is only an outstanding issue with one of the proprietor's name in the title register.
The property title lists two owners, a married couple, both deceased, the wife 2y ago and her husband 1y ago.
The administrator of the estate is now his son.
The death certificate of the deceased wife is in her full name "FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME, SURNAME" while in the tile register it is only "MIDDLE NAME, SURNAME".

The sellers conveyancer submitted a AP1 application, expedited, in December, Land registry came back with a rejection only this week, stating that "the account that the application was lodged with is incorrect" and LR suggested to hand in another application and expedite it, but the sellers conveyancer is concerned this will not be done in a timely manner and suggests to just go ahead with completion (the conveyoncers suggested this already beforehand and needed to convinced handing in a AP1 application).
 
Our solicitor says the title is defective and the sellers conveyancer needs to get it amended (from AP1) before completion.
The sellers conveyancer says the title is is not defective and this can be easily sorted, stating "a statutory declaration is simply needed to clarify the position".

Everything is not going forward at them moment and we running out of time and feel a bit helpless and don't know which side is right.
What is your opinion?
Obviously there are many variables  but as last resort would be LR satisfied with a statutory declaration like the sellers conveyancer suggests, or what scenarios are common?

Many thanks

There’s no common scenarios but discrepancies in names do occur and must be resolved in some way. Where such discrepancies arise it’s down to the parties involved and their conveyancers to resolve 
Often a conveyancer can certify that the people as named are one and the same but that depends on the conveyancer being 100% satisfied that is the case. 

If not then then options exist including applying to update the register with birth/marriage certificates or driving license or passport - all official documents confirming names 
I don’t follow the rejection information plus timely manner issue - if we have an application submitted correctly and expedited then it will be processed in a timely manner/quickly. Where the issue tends to be with the evidence lodged and if that’s not in order/good enough then a delay can arise 
So two things to get straight/consider with the first and most important being the name variation and confirmation that the registered owner is the same as the deceased person as evidenced by death certificate/probate for example. 

The second is whether the register needs amending first or whether you can complete without doing that. That second point may not always be an issue if point one is 100% covered off. 

papekani

Hi LR,

We were due to exchange contracts on our purchase this week, but a conveyancer further up the chain has just informed everyone that there a name needs removing from one of the titles before they can proceed. We don’t know exactly why the name needs removing, but assume it is a death at some point that was not registered with you.

My question to you is whether this could just be done as part of the normal conveyancing process, i.e. when the TR1 is lodged to transfer the title to the buyers of the property, rather than halting everything until the name gets removed from the title, only to then transfer the title in any case?

The solicitor involved says that they have requested that the removal gets expedited, but I understand that this could still take a couple of weeks, which will create an unnecessary and costly delay to exchange and completion. What are the current timescales for processing an expedited DJP form (assuming that’s what it is)?

Many thanks