Land Registry

Tiatodd

The following restrictions are on the deeds of my late husbands property. We were together when we purchased but it was purchased in his name. As it was pre 2003 land registry changes do they mean I am a joint owner or joint tenant?  I still live in the property and I am trying to deal with probate.

3.    (29.01.2003) RESTRICTION: No disposition by a sole proprietor of the

       land (not being a trust corporation) under which capital money arises

       is to be registered except under an order of the registrar or of the

       Court.

4      (26.03.2003) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar no

       disposition by the proprietor of the land or by the proprietor of any

       registered charge is to be registered without the consent of ...................

    

p00hsticks

Surely if the property was only in his name you are neither ?

Robin9

Are the Deeds now in your name ?

Tiatodd

Hi. No the deeds are not yet in my name.

Marcon

Didn't the Land Registry's advice to you last year help: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1839539/charging-order-the-myth/p436

Did you follow their suggestion to take legal advice?

pphillips

The first restriction is the standard restriction used for tenants in common, this means that your late husband's share in the property must be disposed of according to his will / rules of intestacy.
The second restriction appears to be a restriction against mortgaging the property.

Land_Registry

Form A restriction - usually associated with tenants in common but isn’t actually definitive 
Second one is linked to the mortgage (legal charge) 
If it’s registered in his sole name you will need probate
See PG 6 for guidance re legal ownership and form A restriction
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/devolution-on-the-death-of-a-registered-proprietor

Tiatodd

Thank you for your replies. Sorry, I don’t think I made it clear. The second restriction has my name on it not the mortgage company.

Land_Registry

Understood so that restriction protects your interest then. It doesn’t make you a joint owner and doesn’t make you a joint owner either.  

Whenever your late husband consented to that second restriction being added you both presumably did so to protect your interest in some way.