We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Advice needed please.
Comments
-
El's_grandma wrote: »Good Morning, I have done the land registry search but don't really understand what it's telling me, this is what I found,
2 (28.04.1992) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar no
disposition by the proprietor of the land is to be registered without
the consent of Dad and Mum of XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
My brother is the first named owner, & this is underneath his name. I have removed names & address.
Doesn't that mean the house was owned as 'tenants in common'?0 -
I wondered if that was the case but it does not sound like the parents are named as owners (or are they?)
TIC would normally have something like"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".0 -
Flugelhorn wrote: »I wondered if that was the case but it does not sound like the parents are named as owners (or are they?)
TIC would normally have something like0 -
El's_grandma wrote: »Good Morning, I have done the land registry search but don't really understand what it's telling me, this is what I found,
2 (28.04.1992) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar no
disposition by the proprietor of the land is to be registered without
the consent of Dad and Mum of XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
My brother is the first named owner, & this is underneath his name. I have removed names & address.
Thank you all for your advice, this sight is invaluable, regards
You say your brother is the first named owner, implying there is at least one other named owner. Are the other named owners your mum and dad? If not, who is/are the other named owner(s)?0 -
This is the full copy from land registers,
B: Proprietorship Register
This register specifies the class of title and
identifies the owner. It contains any entries that
affect the right of disposal.
Title absolute
1 (28.04.1992) PROPRIETOR: Brother of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
2 (28.04.1992) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar no
disposition by the proprietor of the land is to be registered without
the consent of Dad and Mum of
Xxxxxxxx XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX0 -
Mum and Dad can't now be the legal owners as there is a restriction in their favour. You can't restrict yourself. I think OP means that the Reg Prop is solely the brother.
The register refers to the legal ownership so at some point presumably Mum and Dad transferred it to him. And registered the restriction to protect their right to live there/life interests as someone else posted
Brother could now apply to cancel the restriction but he'd need to show that the interest it protects has come to an end. If there was a legal agreement in place that specified the life interest and it ending on death then that may be enough. If not then he may need letters of administration to demonstrate how he can now deal with the estate, which presumably includes what the restriction was intended to protect
On a separate point as raised by others, not OP the register is not definitive re such detail and the term 'tenants in common' is not referred to on the register.
Joint owners may indicate that they wish to hold the property as tenants in common when they are registered or may decide to sever their joint tenancy at some stage.
When this happens, and where the land is registered, we can register a Form A restriction on the registered title, namely
'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'
The Form A restriction does not itself change the ownership from beneficial joint tenancy to tenancy in common. The restriction only reflects the request or change made. So to say that it's TIC when there is a form A restriction or JTs when there isn't may not be an accurate statement.
For further information see Joint property ownership available on the GOV.UK website“Official Company Representative
I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards