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

woodpeckerx

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

You have been at this 14 weeks, and the vendors still don't have probate. The turnround time at the Probate Registry, at the moment, seems to be 6-8 weeks. 

Yes, this is what happens when you get lied to, was told probate had been applied for before we viewed in January. After kicking off at all involved found out probate was only applied for in March, 2 months AFTER we agreed the price!

The state of estate agency in the UK is at an all time low, the whole system needs reform.

user1977

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

Not sure they are actually refusing to though? It means less of an argument for insisting that the vendors register it, as it would be mortgageable for buyers who are prepared to deal with registration.

woodpeckerx

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

You have been at this 14 weeks, and the vendors still don't have probate. The turnround time at the Probate Registry, at the moment, seems to be 6-8 weeks. 

Yes, this is what happens when you get lied to, was told probate had been applied for before we viewed in January. After kicking off at all involved found out probate was only applied for in March, 2 months AFTER we agreed the price!

The state of estate agency in the UK is at an all time low, the whole system needs reform.

Just to add, I have no proof it has even been applied still, it could be more lies.

woodpeckerx

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

What is the opinion on this bit, does a 30 year old certified copy of a conveyance provide a good root of title?

GDB2222

woodpeckerx said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

What is the opinion on this bit, does a 30 year old certified copy of a conveyance provide a good root of title?

Surely, it’s only useful if it shows the deceased vendor as owner?

Tiglet2

woodpeckerx said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

What is the opinion on this bit, does a 30 year old certified copy of a conveyance provide a good root of title?

It would depend on what the conveyance says.  The root of title is usually determined by a series of conveyances that show the property passing from one owner to another (the Epitome of Title).  If there is no connection between the conveyance showing the transfer to the new owner's name at that time and the names of the current vendor, then this conveyance alone would not be sufficient.  

woodpeckerx

Tiglet2 said:

woodpeckerx said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

What is the opinion on this bit, does a 30 year old certified copy of a conveyance provide a good root of title?

It would depend on what the conveyance says.  The root of title is usually determined by a series of conveyances that show the property passing from one owner to another (the Epitome of Title).  If there is no connection between the conveyance showing the transfer to the new owner's name at that time and the names of the current vendor, then this conveyance alone would not be sufficient.  

The copy conveyance I have shows the transfer of the original dwelling and a lease to the deceased. It also lists the deceased purchasing the freehold from the lease holder and states the price paid for the freehold. It names the original owner, the transfer to the deceased and the freehold purchase by the deceased.

GDB2222

woodpeckerx said:

Tiglet2 said:

woodpeckerx said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

What is the opinion on this bit, does a 30 year old certified copy of a conveyance provide a good root of title?

It would depend on what the conveyance says.  The root of title is usually determined by a series of conveyances that show the property passing from one owner to another (the Epitome of Title).  If there is no connection between the conveyance showing the transfer to the new owner's name at that time and the names of the current vendor, then this conveyance alone would not be sufficient.  

The copy conveyance I have shows the transfer of the original dwelling and a lease to the deceased. It also lists the deceased purchasing the freehold from the lease holder and states the price paid for the freehold. It names the original owner, the transfer to the deceased and the freehold purchase by the deceased.

I am probably just showing my ignorance here, but that sounds like enough to me. The only problem is that it’s a copy, not the original. Is that what your solicitor says?

 You started the thread saying that the deeds are missing, so I’m a bit confused.

woodpeckerx

GDB2222 said:

woodpeckerx said:

Tiglet2 said:

woodpeckerx said:

woodpeckerx said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

woodpeckerx said:

user1977 said:

theoretica said:

It seems to me that an unregistered property with lost deeds must be worth considerably less than a registered one.  

It will be unmortgageable unless the vendors register it first (and adequate indemnity insurance is provided).

The UK Lending Handbook (which is the set of instructions most mortgage lenders use) says possessory title is acceptable provided it's already a registered title on completion, and there's insurance in place:

https://lendershandbook.ukfinance.org.uk/lenders-handbook/englandandwales/?srch=possessory&search=Submit#C9107

Doesn't this mean it is mortgageable?

 or on completion the borrower will be registered at the Land Registry as registered proprietor of a possessory title

D'oh! Possibly, yes. Assuming your solicitor is happy to sign off to the lender that you'll get a registered title.

Isn't this going round in a circle, as it sounds like the op's solicitor would be reluctant to do that.

I've been reviewing all the correspondance again and we have been supplied a a certified copy a conveyance dated well over 30 years ago. The sellers solicitor has remarked this would be the root of title and this is why they refuse to register it.

What is the opinion on this bit, does a 30 year old certified copy of a conveyance provide a good root of title?

It would depend on what the conveyance says.  The root of title is usually determined by a series of conveyances that show the property passing from one owner to another (the Epitome of Title).  If there is no connection between the conveyance showing the transfer to the new owner's name at that time and the names of the current vendor, then this conveyance alone would not be sufficient.  

The copy conveyance I have shows the transfer of the original dwelling and a lease to the deceased. It also lists the deceased purchasing the freehold from the lease holder and states the price paid for the freehold. It names the original owner, the transfer to the deceased and the freehold purchase by the deceased.

I am probably just showing my ignorance here, but that sounds like enough to me. The only problem is that it’s a copy, not the original. Is that what your solicitor says?

 You started the thread saying that the deeds are missing, so I’m a bit confused.

I presume the deeds are made up from multiple documents, they are saying they can't find "the deeds" which I presume is just one document, presumably the most recent which would still be quite old now. They also think it may be being looked after by a bank and have written to the bank.

The copy conveyance provided is a certified copy from the original lease holder, the lease holder holds all the original documents for thousands of leases and provides what they call certified copies. I would think the original can be viewed but my solicitor has mentioned that he hasn't seen the original.

SDLT_Geek

One issue with an unregistered title where the original deeds are missing is to deal with the possibility that they were given to a lender to hold as security.  For unregistered land that used to be a valid way of creating security.  That would then affect title.  It is difficult to prove a negative, so part of what the Land Registry would be looking for is an explanation of the circumstances in which the deeds have gone missing.  This can create a problem, even in cases where one has copies of the relevant deeds.