Land Registry questions

Land_Registry

gm0 said:

A question for LR representative on forms for "stopped up" highway and steps to register it into an adjacent title plan - if indeed this is a desirable or necessary step at all vs leaving it well alone.

The scenario is a strip of land which was subject to a succesfull section 116 "stopped up" complaint making it "not highway".  1990s

This area of steep grassy bank is contiguous with my title plan as a garden area at the top and enclosed by a fence and hedge boundary that I maintain at the bottom which is adjacent to a narrow road verge of actual adopted highway. The area inside the fence was the subject of the stopping up complaint due to the title plan edges prior leaving a broad area outside the dwelling title line and thus regarded as part of the "highway" strip. It was unwanted as highway and the 116 succeeded. I have a copy.

I want to do something on that "stopped up" land inside my fence.  A handy south facing slope for solar which is invisible high above the road on the bank behind a hedge. But too near the road so PP needed.

I have an inkling PP on land I don't have inside my title plan will prove - problematic - on that technicality alone before we get to the actual application and any issues there. And that my LA will take many months just to tell me that.  They won't talk to householders so here we are.

The underlying need is on the interaction of PP and stopped up land that I act as though I own but find the legals complicated to understand re registered title. If I have to tackle this by registering the land with LR first to open up the planning loop at all. 

Register it so it is now inside the dwelling title plan edge and a "normal" application is OK if this situation isn't a tolerated one already.  The strip disappears from title plans.

My question on how to proceed.

1 Do you know if I need to tidy the registration prior or can I get PP on "stopped up" highway enclosed and adjacent to title.

2 To register it into the adjacent title - is this an FR1 first registration form of the now "stopped up" previously thought to be highway land to add it. Revised plan colouring in the formerly demarcated and annotated hatched area as a part of the whole. Simplified plan. Moving the current boundary to the actual highway edge. All else unaltered.

3 Or is it / could it be an adverse possession claim instead.  How could I tell

There’s no direct link between PP and registration. The two are very distinct and PP will look at your plans and materials rather than concern themselves whether you own the land or not. 

An application would be needed and if the lands unregistered then FR1 is correct plus the stopping up order. If looking to then 8nclude in your registered title then form AP1 for that and a request to amalgamate the two. 

Stopping up orders relinquish the public rights of way over the road. So in order to register your ownership you need to own land either side. If you don’t then it’s more likely you’ll have to go down the adverse possession route. 

To be frank id strongly recommend seeking legal advice to consider who owns what and how the stopping up order has impacted. Whilst also considering what it is you want to do and how the law/adjoining landowners might view your actions/plans 

Land_Registry

SiliconChip said:

Hi @Land_Registry, about 15 months ago I submitted AP1 and TR1 forms to transfer a piece of land owned by my sister and I to my niece. Both of us received notification that the transfer was complete, but my niece has never received any documentation to confirm that she is now the owner. Is that something that would normally happen, or is it just something that has to be confirmed by paying for the register entry?

Confirmation would only be issued to whoever lodged the application. 

KerfuffleInc

Hi @Land_Registry,

I'm purchasing a leasehold flat in a 2 flat building. The downstairs flat has "half" the garden immediately to the rear of the property and the upstairs flat has the other half of the garden further to the rear of the property.

The last thing that is delaying exchange is that it's been found that the leasehold title plan SGL198167 is showing the same borders as the freehold title when it's thought it should only really be showing the borders of the flat and half the garden to the rear. (to match the lease plan)

The only feedback I'm getting is that the sellers solicitors have approached land reg for "clarity". Would be really appreciative of any info you can offer, has the request been acknowledged, where does this fall on the "complexity scale", are we likely talking days/weeks/months to remedy?

Land_Registry

KerfuffleInc said:

Hi @Land_Registry,

I'm purchasing a leasehold flat in a 2 flat building. The downstairs flat has "half" the garden immediately to the rear of the property and the upstairs flat has the other half of the garden further to the rear of the property.

The last thing that is delaying exchange is that it's been found that the leasehold title plan SGL198167 is showing the same borders as the freehold title when it's thought it should only really be showing the borders of the flat and half the garden to the rear. (to match the lease plan)

The only feedback I'm getting is that the sellers solicitors have approached land reg for "clarity". Would be really appreciative of any info you can offer, has the request been acknowledged, where does this fall on the "complexity scale", are we likely talking days/weeks/months to remedy?

After making enquiries the conveyancer submitted an actual application on the 8th. That’s been expedited and should hopefully be considered this week. I can’t be definitive but wouldn’t expect it to be weeks/months. But too soon to be definitive at this stage 

Moneysavingquery

Hello @Land_Registry My partner and I are prospective first time buyers about to buy a 'Tyneside Flat' property. We have closed our H2Bs, have a mortgage approved and all ready to go when our solicitor has just informed us that there is an error on the lease plan.

Essentially the plan shows that we do not have the shared pathway in front of the property (we are the upstairs flat and share a lease with the downstairs one). The lease itself contains the correct clause, it is just the plan itself that is incorrect. The lease and lease plan for the downstairs flat is also correct showing the shared land in front of the property. Our solicitor has raised this with the Vendors solicitor which they have said that as the other flat lease and plan is correct and given the Tyneside flat arrangement, the intention and right is clear.

Our solicitor is now saying we need an indemnity policy to provide protection for us and our mortgage should a dispute arise in the future. He has gone to the vendors solicitor to ask to pay for this as it is a defect in their lease which we await their response (if they refuse it falls on us to pay for it). The issue is, if we go ahead and obtain the indemnity policy, a buyer in the future may refuse this when we come to sell the flat and insist on the lease plan being corrected. This would need the permission of the downstairs flat and their mortgagee if they have one and can apparently cost several thousand pounds to correct and may take several weeks.

What is the best course of action to now take in this scenario? Our solicitor has basically said that the venders are unwilling to correct the lease plan so we are unsure what to do now. 

Land_Registry

Moneysavingquery said:

Hello @Land_Registry My partner and I are prospective first time buyers about to buy a 'Tyneside Flat' property. We have closed our H2Bs, have a mortgage approved and all ready to go when our solicitor has just informed us that there is an error on the lease plan.

Essentially the plan shows that we do not have the shared pathway in front of the property (we are the upstairs flat and share a lease with the downstairs one). The lease itself contains the correct clause, it is just the plan itself that is incorrect. The lease and lease plan for the downstairs flat is also correct showing the shared land in front of the property. Our solicitor has raised this with the Vendors solicitor which they have said that as the other flat lease and plan is correct and given the Tyneside flat arrangement, the intention and right is clear.

Our solicitor is now saying we need an indemnity policy to provide protection for us and our mortgage should a dispute arise in the future. He has gone to the vendors solicitor to ask to pay for this as it is a defect in their lease which we await their response (if they refuse it falls on us to pay for it). The issue is, if we go ahead and obtain the indemnity policy, a buyer in the future may refuse this when we come to sell the flat and insist on the lease plan being corrected. This would need the permission of the downstairs flat and their mortgagee if they have one and can apparently cost several thousand pounds to correct and may take several weeks.

What is the best course of action to now take in this scenario? Our solicitor has basically said that the venders are unwilling to correct the lease plan so we are unsure what to do now. 

What’s best is only a Q your legal representative can answer for you. If there’s an identified ‘risk’ then an indemnity policy is often the way many conveyancers go but only the6 can answer that for you. Sorry 

inflationbuster

Hi @Land_Registry,
My house was purchase as a leasehold. 
I later purchased the freehold thinking I'd have no leasehold (even though l was told some covenants wouldn't merge l didn't ask what that meant - oh well).   I asked my solicitor to see if they could tidy up leaving me with just the freehold.

The transfer has the following: - 



My solicitor suggests a merger may be objected because of the restriction imposed by the builder but can try at a cost.  What do you think?   I guess it might be tricky to answer unless the covenants are reviewed. The property purchase completed in 2002 and freehold completed in 2023.

Land_Registry

inflationbuster said:

Hi @Land_Registry,
My house was purchase as a leasehold. 
I later purchased the freehold thinking I'd have no leasehold (even though l was told some covenants wouldn't merge l didn't ask what that meant - oh well).   I asked my solicitor to see if they could tidy up leaving me with just the freehold.

The transfer has the following: - 



My solicitor suggests a merger may be objected because of the restriction imposed by the builder but can try at a cost.  What do you think?   I guess it might be tricky to answer unless the covenants are reviewed. The property purchase completed in 2002 and freehold completed in 2023.

See PG 26 section 2.1.2 final bullet point for guidance 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leases-determination

Newhousebuyer97

Hi @Land_Registry
I am currently purchasing a house but the title deed has been lost. The sellers solicitor must reconstruct the deed to get a new deed. What is the current wait time for an expedited case? 
Is it only the seller solicitors that can request expediting ?

Land_Registry

Newhousebuyer97 said:

Hi @Land_Registry
I am currently purchasing a house but the title deed has been lost. The sellers solicitor must reconstruct the deed to get a new deed. What is the current wait time for an expedited case? 
Is it only the seller solicitors that can request expediting ?

Assume it’s unregistered - expedition gets it considered asap and generally within 2 weeks. Everything relies on the facts/supporting evidence and the application being in order. 

Anyone can request expedition but it would usually be the conveyancer 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/request-an-expedite