Buying unregistered house with missing deeds, should buyer or seller first register?

woodpeckerx

Thrugelmir said:

The mortgage lender is the one with the greatest risk exposure. Their money, their decision.  

That doesn't answer the points at all and I will have far more invested than a lender.

GDB2222

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

TBG01 said:

woodpeckerx said:

canaldumidi said:

Both solicitors are right.

The seller's solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Your solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Me? I'd insist the seller registers or I'd walk.

When you say both are offering the best solution, why is the seller not registering his best solution?

Because there's more costs, work involved, and first registrations can end up being a nightmare to get registered.

Yes they'll be called onto assist, but as far as the seller and their solicitor is concerned they no longer own the property and its on the buyer to get it registered. No matter how long or difficult it might be.

Thanks for the replies so far, is my thinking below correct:-

If the seller does not locate the deeds, the title is most likely to be registered as possessory whichever one of us registers it first, is that correct?

An indemnity will be required due the missing title deed, the seller would be expected to pay for that due to him selling with poor title.

If the seller did the first registration he would pay the Scale 1 first registration fee.

If I did the first registration I would pay the Scale 1 first registration fee.

Does this really just come down to who will pay the registration fee or is that too simplistic a view. In the bigger picture of the purchase the registration fee is irrelevant.

Suppose, for a second, there's a big snag, and the property can't be registered. If that happens, would you be happy with the price you are paying? 

That leads me to ask, is it common / likely that a property can't be registered?

Have you read PG2?  The sellers would be far better placed to answer the LR questions than you. 

You will need to give an account of the events that have resulted in the loss or destruction, which we will consider on its individual merit. However, we will probably grant only a possessory title where the evidence supplied does not establish those events and the history of the title beyond doubt. It is often more important to prove who held the deeds prior to their loss or destruction than to establish what they contained.

When the title deeds have been lost or destroyed we will sometimes ask a surveyor from Ordnance Survey to inspect the land before we complete the registration. A fee may be payable if an inspection is required.

Many of these applications relate to situations where the deeds (or some of them) have been lost or destroyed while in the custody of (or in the post from) a conveyancer, bank or building society. However, we will also consider applications where the loss or destruction has occurred in other circumstances. These may include the theft of deeds, or their destruction in a natural disaster or as a result of enemy action.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-registration-of-title-where-deeds-have-been-lost-or-destroyed



If you ask on the LR thread on this forum, the LR rep may be able to tell you how often they have to turn down a registration request, and how often it becomes a long drawn out affair.  

sammyjammy

My nans house wasn't registered when she died, the house was sold and registered by our solicitors beforehand.  I'd walk too!

As has been said by others we had to provide evidence, luckily the house had been bought from the council and they helped provide the evidence, they still had it from over 40 years ago.

GDB2222

woodpeckerx said:

Thrugelmir said:

The mortgage lender is the one with the greatest risk exposure. Their money, their decision.  

That doesn't answer the points at all and I will have far more invested than a lender.

I fear that the train of events is this:

Mortgage lender lends you 10% on the basis that they get a charge on the property, registered at the LR.

The solicitor reports back to the lender that he's unable to do that, after all.

The lender then demands immediate repayment of the 10%.

Would you be able to scrape together the money to repay them quickly?

woodpeckerx

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

TBG01 said:

woodpeckerx said:

canaldumidi said:

Both solicitors are right.

The seller's solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Your solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Me? I'd insist the seller registers or I'd walk.

When you say both are offering the best solution, why is the seller not registering his best solution?

Because there's more costs, work involved, and first registrations can end up being a nightmare to get registered.

Yes they'll be called onto assist, but as far as the seller and their solicitor is concerned they no longer own the property and its on the buyer to get it registered. No matter how long or difficult it might be.

Thanks for the replies so far, is my thinking below correct:-

If the seller does not locate the deeds, the title is most likely to be registered as possessory whichever one of us registers it first, is that correct?

An indemnity will be required due the missing title deed, the seller would be expected to pay for that due to him selling with poor title.

If the seller did the first registration he would pay the Scale 1 first registration fee.

If I did the first registration I would pay the Scale 1 first registration fee.

Does this really just come down to who will pay the registration fee or is that too simplistic a view. In the bigger picture of the purchase the registration fee is irrelevant.

Suppose, for a second, there's a big snag, and the property can't be registered. If that happens, would you be happy with the price you are paying? 

That leads me to ask, is it common / likely that a property can't be registered?

Have you read PG2?  The sellers would be far better placed to answer the LR questions than you. 

You will need to give an account of the events that have resulted in the loss or destruction, which we will consider on its individual merit. However, we will probably grant only a possessory title where the evidence supplied does not establish those events and the history of the title beyond doubt. It is often more important to prove who held the deeds prior to their loss or destruction than to establish what they contained.

When the title deeds have been lost or destroyed we will sometimes ask a surveyor from Ordnance Survey to inspect the land before we complete the registration. A fee may be payable if an inspection is required.

Many of these applications relate to situations where the deeds (or some of them) have been lost or destroyed while in the custody of (or in the post from) a conveyancer, bank or building society. However, we will also consider applications where the loss or destruction has occurred in other circumstances. These may include the theft of deeds, or their destruction in a natural disaster or as a result of enemy action.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-registration-of-title-where-deeds-have-been-lost-or-destroyed



If you ask on the LR thread on this forum, the LR rep may be able to tell you how often they have to turn down a registration request, and how often it becomes a long drawn out affair.  

I have already looked at that but thanks for pointing it out again.

canaldumidi

woodpeckerx said:

canaldumidi said:

Both solicitors are right.

The seller's solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Your solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Me? I'd insist the seller registers or I'd walk.

What would be your reason for walking?

When you say both are offering the best solution, why is the seller not registering his best solution? If buyers walk he will end up out of pocket with a property he will still find hard to complete a sale with.

The best solution for the seller is for the buyer to undertake 1st registration on Completion. That is therefore what the seller's solicitor is recommending. Less work/cost for the seller. Less delay. No risk to the seller.

Best solution for buyer is for seller to understak 1st registratiom. Yes, some delay, but less cost/work and definately ess risk. The buyer then has certainty about what he is buying: a property wth a registeed ttle, albeit probably not full title guaranteed. There is a (admittedly) small chance that when the buyer comes to register, the Land Registry raise issues/questions, refuse to register, or other issue arise meaning his purchase is in doubt.

 

woodpeckerx

sammyjammy said:

My nans house wasn't registered when she died, the house was sold and registered by our solicitors beforehand.  I'd walk too!

As has been said by others we had to provide evidence, luckily the house had been bought from the council and they helped provide the evidence, they still had it from over 40 years ago.

Thanks for your reply, would you mind if I asked a question. Was the process that they waited for the grant of probate and then registered it into your name, or did they register into your nans name then sell?

GDB2222

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

TBG01 said:

woodpeckerx said:

canaldumidi said:

Both solicitors are right.

The seller's solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Your solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Me? I'd insist the seller registers or I'd walk.

When you say both are offering the best solution, why is the seller not registering his best solution?

Because there's more costs, work involved, and first registrations can end up being a nightmare to get registered.

Yes they'll be called onto assist, but as far as the seller and their solicitor is concerned they no longer own the property and its on the buyer to get it registered. No matter how long or difficult it might be.

Thanks for the replies so far, is my thinking below correct:-

If the seller does not locate the deeds, the title is most likely to be registered as possessory whichever one of us registers it first, is that correct?

An indemnity will be required due the missing title deed, the seller would be expected to pay for that due to him selling with poor title.

If the seller did the first registration he would pay the Scale 1 first registration fee.

If I did the first registration I would pay the Scale 1 first registration fee.

Does this really just come down to who will pay the registration fee or is that too simplistic a view. In the bigger picture of the purchase the registration fee is irrelevant.

Suppose, for a second, there's a big snag, and the property can't be registered. If that happens, would you be happy with the price you are paying? 

That leads me to ask, is it common / likely that a property can't be registered?

Have you read PG2?  The sellers would be far better placed to answer the LR questions than you. 

You will need to give an account of the events that have resulted in the loss or destruction, which we will consider on its individual merit. However, we will probably grant only a possessory title where the evidence supplied does not establish those events and the history of the title beyond doubt. It is often more important to prove who held the deeds prior to their loss or destruction than to establish what they contained.

When the title deeds have been lost or destroyed we will sometimes ask a surveyor from Ordnance Survey to inspect the land before we complete the registration. A fee may be payable if an inspection is required.

Many of these applications relate to situations where the deeds (or some of them) have been lost or destroyed while in the custody of (or in the post from) a conveyancer, bank or building society. However, we will also consider applications where the loss or destruction has occurred in other circumstances. These may include the theft of deeds, or their destruction in a natural disaster or as a result of enemy action.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-registration-of-title-where-deeds-have-been-lost-or-destroyed



If you ask on the LR thread on this forum, the LR rep may be able to tell you how often they have to turn down a registration request, and how often it becomes a long drawn out affair.  

I have already looked at that but thanks for pointing it out again.

I should probably have emphasised the words: "which we will consider on its individual merit."  So, there's no guarantee. 

Ask the LR rep how often there's a problem. Maybe, it's a tiny risk.

woodpeckerx

canaldumidi said:

woodpeckerx said:

canaldumidi said:

Both solicitors are right.

The seller's solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Your solicitor is recommeding the best solution... for his client.

Me? I'd insist the seller registers or I'd walk.

What would be your reason for walking?

When you say both are offering the best solution, why is the seller not registering his best solution? If buyers walk he will end up out of pocket with a property he will still find hard to complete a sale with.

The best solution for the seller is for the buyer to undertake 1st registration on Completion. That is therefore what the seller's solicitor is recommending. Less work/cost for the seller. Less delay. No risk to the seller.

Best solution for buyer is for seller to understak 1st registratiom. Yes, some delay, but less cost/work and definately ess risk. The buyer then has certainty about what he is buying: a property wth a registeed ttle, albeit probably not full title guaranteed. There is a (admittedly) small chance that when the buyer comes to register, the Land Registry raise issues/questions, refuse to register, or other issue arise meaning his purchase is in doubt.

 

Thanks for that, if the deeds are found does that change things?

Also if we insist on seller registration first, does the seller wait for the probate and then register in thier name or register now in the deceased name? Not even sure if the latter is possible?

RAS

Or register it as the executors of "deceased."