Charge on property not noticed by solicitors - who should be reimbursing?

G_M

The Charge will be in the 'Charges Register' which is the 3rd section of the Land registry title.


Once discharged, it would be removed and no longer appear.


For £3.00 you can get a copy here. Make sure you buy the right one! As it's a flat, I assume it is the 'leasehold Title' you want, not the 'Freehold Title'.

ChasingtheWelshdream

G_M wrote: »

The Charge will be in the 'Charges Register' which is the 3rd section of the Land registry title.


Once discharged, it would be removed and no longer appear.


For £3.00 you can get a copy here. Make sure you buy the right one! As it's a flat, I assume it is the 'leasehold Title' you want, not the 'Freehold Title'.

Thank you. I have just downloaded the land registry title, for the leasehold section. Unfortunately it is the most recent one, with the new owners and only their mortgage company showing.

It is incredibly frustrating that mum hasn't got anything to show me - I'm hassling her to get some paperwork for me!

ChasingtheWelshdream

OK, on the basis the search would have been carried out on the title register, and the plan would have been sent to mum to confirm, I'm trying to establish what should have indicated to mum that it was the wrong flat (other than the address, which she believed to be correct at the time)

Looking at the current documents for the correct flat, as sold by her, we have:

Property address
Price stated
Registered owners - current owners, mum's buyers
Lenders

Section A (1):
The Leasehold land demised by the lease referred to below
which lies within the area shown edged with red on the plan of the
above Title filed at the Registry and being Flat A, XXXXXXX.

NOTE: The flat is on the ground floor.

(28.02.2017) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s))
under which the land is held:
Date : DD/MM/ 2017 mum's completion date when purchasing
Term : 999 years from and including 1 October 2014
Parties : (1) Mr Landlord/Freeholder
(2) XX Management Ltd
(3) My mum


Section C:
1 (28.02.2017) A Conveyance of the freehold estate in the land in this
title tinted blue on the title plan and other land dated 14 August 1888
made between (1) Mr XXX (Vendor) and (2) Mr YYY
(Purchaser) contains covenants details of which are set out in the
schedule of restrictive covenants hereto.
2 (DD.MM.2018) REGISTERED CHARGE dated DD/MM/2018. Date mum sold to her buyers
3 (DD.MM.2018) Proprietor: Mortgage company


The title plan is the street plan with the relevant parcel of land outlined. This shows one half of the building - ie, the ground floor flat and the garden


So, assuming she had received the title plan & register for the wrong flat, would the parts indicated in red have been worded differently or omitted?. By that, I have discovered Flat 2 is on the first floor. Would this have been specifically mentioned as 'the property is on the first floor'? And how would the title plan have indicated Flat 2 was not ground floor?

Apologies for my ignorance. We are home owners ourselves and familiar with title registers etc, but have no experience of flats/leasehold

ChasingtheWelshdream

Me again!:rotfl:

Not very MSE I know, but I decided to order the title register and plan for the Flat 2, which I am told was the address everyone worked to up until exchange of contracts. I can then compare both together.

To clarify: The correct address for mum's old flat, as now registered is 1A, Garden Flat - building name

The leasehold title register in the post above is the current, correct documents for this flat.

The following register, is the title register/plan for Flat 2 - same building, but wrong flat. This was sent to mum during her purchase to confirm everything was as it should be. The memorandum of sale (and solicitor letter) listed the address as 'Garden Flat - building name. This was later corrected by the vendor to be Flat 2 - building name So, searches were requested on Flat 2, as follows.



Firstly, there was no leasehold option to purchase, so I downloaded the freehold.

Sections 1 and 2 are fine - the landlord/freeholder and mortgage company.Except, Flat 2 is not mentioned. Just the building name

Section 3 has this:

C: Charges Register

1 (01.09.2000) A Conveyance of the land tinted blue on the filed plan and
other land dated 14 August 1888 made between (1) Mr XXX
(Vendor) and (2) Mr YYY (Purchaser) contains covenants details
of which are set out in the schedule of restrictive covenants hereto.

2 (31.03.2005) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 18 January 2005.
3 (DD/MM/.2018) Proprietor: Vendor's mortgage company

4 (28.02.2017) The lease of Incorrect address - not Flat 2, but the original address in the memorandum of sale to mum (Garden Flat) dated DD/MM 2017 Her completion date
made between (1) XXX (2) XXX Management Ltd and (3) My mum referred to in the schedule of
leases hereto contains restrictive covenants by the landlord.
5 (DD.MM.2017) The parts of the land affected thereby are subject to the
leases set out in the schedule of leases hereto.
The leases grant and reserve easements as therein mentioned.

Schedule of notices of leases
1 DD/MM.2017 Garden Flat, XXXX
1 (part of): 2 and 3

The title plan is of the complete building, with the number 1 overlaid and 2/3 overlaid on the front/rear gardens.


Now, this is very confusing as this is not the flat mum bought, so why is her name on there?

Two things are apparent though.

(1) It does not specifically mention the flat being on the first floor, and therefore mum would not have realised this.

(2) Should the title plan have rung alarm bells as the whole building is shown? Then again, it specifically mentions "part of 1 (building), 2 and 3 (gardens). To me, assuming she believed the address to be correct, it appears to be the correct flat. (Even though we now know it isn't!)

My head hurts!

ChasingtheWelshdream

I can see how this is starting to become a confusing thread, so for those still interested - to summarise: :rotfl:

After looking at everything available to me thus far, I am drawing the following conclusions.

In 2017, both the vendor, estate agent and his solicitor agreed the sale of "Garden Flat - building name" to mum.

This was subsequently changed to "Flat 2 - building name" and searches completed - title register/plan confirmed to be correct by mum.

No outstanding charges (except vendor's mortgage) were indicated.

At the last minute, the vendor states the address is incorrect and should be "Flat 1A, Garden Flat - building name" This was relayed to her solicitor.

Exchange took place shortly afterwards, and completion/registration sent to the land registry.

Fast forward nearly 2 years and mum sells the flat. Her buyer's solicitor runs a search on the correct address (Flat 1A, Garden Flat) and notices an outstanding charge, which is discharged using the balance of sale - out of mum's pocket.

Her current solicitor blames the previous conveyancer, who (it seems) blame mum for providing the incorrect address.

If we can produce written evidence of mum confirming the change of address, and their response that everything was fine, do we appear to have a case to be reimbursed for this charge?

Or, should mum have specifically requested everything be reviewed in case of errors?

One thing that may, or may not be relevant. The freeholder/vendor owns the entire building and rents out most flats. He is gradually re-furbishing the block with the intention to sell individual flats over time. I believe mum's flat was the first to be sold and there were delays as the management company etc didn't exist. Only one other flat has since been sold.

There are leasehold title registers for these two flats. The others only indicate freehold only.

silvercar

When your mum bought her solicitor should have ensured that all previous charges were removed.

All the other information you gave are reasons the solicitor slipped up, it’s still his responsibility to ensure that your mum had clear title.

ChasingtheWelshdream

Thank you,that was our first thought.

However, if they are saying it was Mum’s responsibility to ensure the address was correct - and she did to her knowledge, as supplied by the vendor/their solicitor , is she in some way culpable for not insisting everything was rechecked.

When she informed them of the new address, should she also have said “flat 2 is actually a different property” rather than “I have been informed the address is not flat 2”. (She didn’t in fact know this in any case as she relocated 200 miles, and was not familiar with the block. Then again, neither would the conveyancer)

I really am playing devils advocate to try and see it from all angles before we start a formal complaint

davidmcn

ChasingtheWelshdream wrote: »

Thank you,that was our first thought.

However, if they are saying it was Mum’s responsibility to ensure the address was correct - and she did to her knowledge, as supplied by the vendor/their solicitor , is she in some way culpable for not insisting everything was rechecked.

When she informed them of the new address, should she also have said “flat 2 is actually a different property” rather than “I have been informed the address is not flat 2”. (She didn’t in fact know this in any case as she relocated 200 miles, and was not familiar with the block. Then again, neither would the conveyancer)

I really am playing devils advocate to try and see it from all angles before we start a formal complaint

Assuming any issue with identifying the correct flat was sorted before completion (if it weren't, your mum would have bought the wrong flat), then the solicitors should still have ensured there was nothing adverse going to crop up on the correct flat. It's either the solicitor's fault or (unlikely but possible) some mix-up by the registers.

ChasingtheWelshdream

davidmcn wrote: »

Assuming any issue with identifying the correct flat was sorted before completion (if it weren't, your mum would have bought the wrong flat), then the solicitors should still have ensured there was nothing adverse going to crop up on the correct flat. It's either the solicitor's fault or (unlikely but possible) some mix-up by the registers.

Thank you. This is our thinking so we’ll see where this takes us

steampowered

Am I right to think that the name of the property specified on the sale contract / land registry forms is different from the name of the property the searches were done against?

If so, it definitely sounds like the solicitors were negligent. Checking that the name of the property on the contract and land registry forms matches the property which was searched against is pretty fundamental.

Your mum has two legal options:

1) A claim against the conveyancers for negligence.
2) A claim against the original sellers. The "Standard Conditions of Sale" would have been part of your mum's contract. These conditions have provisions about the property being sold free from charges except for those specified in the sale contract.

A claim against the conveyancers is easier because they are insured and you can complain to the Legal Ombudsman if they fail to deal with the complaint satisfactorily. I would proceed as follows:

1) Your mum should ask the solicitors for a copy of her file and get all of her paperwork together. If she is going to escalate things it is important to have all the information.
2) Then, your mum should ask the conveyancers for a copy of their complaints policy.
3) Your mum should raise a formal written complaint about the charge in line with the complaints policy and see what response she gets.
4) If the conveyancers offer to put things right, great. If not, escalate to the Legal Ombudsman.

As we are only talking about c. £2k, it is probably not worth doing this through solicitors. Your mum does not need a solicitor to raise a claim with the Legal Ombudsman.