Messy title? Should we pull out.

MountainnAsh

A little bit of background. We've put an offer on a property. 

Terraced house with an easement to allow neighbor on left side down alleyway to access back garden. Standard enough stuff right. The Easement is set out in the Leasehold title, however there's a freehold title to the property which makes reference to the leasehold title for this arrangement. 

House has a absolute freehold title in vendors name. However has the aforementioned leasehold title, an absolute title in Vendors name. 
However, this is where it gets pear shaped and has me a little bit worried. 

Freehold title has a charge with one bank from 14 years ago, when the house was last purchased, I'm presuming the Mortgage.

Here's where it gets potentially messy in my eyes. There's no mention of the charge from the Freehold title on the Leasehold title, but there's another charge from another bank on the leasehold title from 2 years ago on the Leasehold title. 

Same house. Two different banks. Should I run away or is there a simple explanation for all of this? Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

user1977

MountainnAsh said:

Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

Yes. Is there any suggestion that the vendor isn't intending to clear them both? Were they both granted by the vendor?

MountainnAsh

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

Yes. Is there any suggestion that the vendor isn't intending to clear them both? Were they both granted by the vendor?

Granted? 
No there isn't any suggestion at this moment. 

user1977

MountainnAsh said:

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

Yes. Is there any suggestion that the vendor isn't intending to clear them both? Were they both granted by the vendor?

Granted? 

Granted by the vendor to whoever the chargeholder is (as opposed to having been granted by a previous owner).

MountainnAsh

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

Yes. Is there any suggestion that the vendor isn't intending to clear them both? Were they both granted by the vendor?

Granted? 

Granted by the vendor to whoever the chargeholder is (as opposed to having been granted by a previous owner).

All the dates in the current charges section would suggest that this has happened under the current vendors ownership. Would that be enough to say it's been granted by the vendor to the chargeholder? 

user1977

MountainnAsh said:

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

Yes. Is there any suggestion that the vendor isn't intending to clear them both? Were they both granted by the vendor?

Granted? 

Granted by the vendor to whoever the chargeholder is (as opposed to having been granted by a previous owner).

All the dates in the current charges section would suggest that this has happened under the current vendors ownership. Would that be enough to say it's been granted by the vendor to the chargeholder? 

Yes, in which case it isn't a problem from your point of view, as it's entirely standard for the vendor to pay off any outstanding mortgages on completion of the sale. Bit odd that one's over the freehold and the other over the leasehold (and perhaps one has been "forgotten" about) but eminently sortable.

MountainnAsh

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

user1977 said:

MountainnAsh said:

Or is it as simple as the Vendor clears both charges and away we go? 

Yes. Is there any suggestion that the vendor isn't intending to clear them both? Were they both granted by the vendor?

Granted? 

Granted by the vendor to whoever the chargeholder is (as opposed to having been granted by a previous owner).

All the dates in the current charges section would suggest that this has happened under the current vendors ownership. Would that be enough to say it's been granted by the vendor to the chargeholder? 

Yes, in which case it isn't a problem from your point of view, as it's entirely standard for the vendor to pay off any outstanding mortgages on completion of the sale. Bit odd that one's over the freehold and the other over the leasehold (and perhaps one has been "forgotten" about) but eminently sortable.

That's settled me a good bit. Thanks.

That's my thoughts to.. Perhaps a second mortgage and whoever did the conveyancing didn't do a right job of it.