Separate Title Deeds Problem

evsue

We transferred our share of an ex rental property to our ex business partners 17 years ago. (The partnership originally comprised of two married couples).
They continued to rent the property out but have now decided to sell, however their solicitors have discovered that our names were never removed from separate title deeds for the garage/land. 

They are currently using the Head Office of the same firm of solicitors who we used to transfer the property to them.
The letter we have received from their solicitors contains a recommendation to seek legal advice before signing the TR1 form (for nil consideration) which they have enclosed to transfer the garage/land.

This same firm of solicitors (different office) was also actually used to purchase the property originally for the partnership at which point they had correctly registered both sets of Title Deeds in all four names.  When we eventually transferred our share to our ex business partners the same solicitors stated we could both use their firm for the conveyancing if we used a different office.   We therefore used a different office, which has now closed.  Our partners however decided to use a completely different firm of solicitors. 

We are concerned that this same firm of solicitors have asked us to sign a disclaimer if we don't use a solicitor, stating that they have given us the opportunity to take legal advice but that we are happy to proceed without this. They haven't offered to provide this legal advice and we would effectively be having to pay for this again.  We have contacted the Head Office to query this as the original branch office we originally used has now closed.  As our ex business partners are now using the same solicitors' head office we understand there is a conflict but could they facilitate at their cost, our using a different office for legal advice as they suggested 17 years ago?  They have 7 different offices in the same city.

We are unsure what the risks to us are if we don't seek legal advice but should we be concerned that we have been issued with this disclaimer to sign ?

Our ex business partners have been told that they could sue their solicitors but don't intend to as they need a solicitor for their current sale anyway.  It seems unfair that we have to pay again because neither of these solicitors completed the conveyancing.

The Title Deeds on the garage/land actually cross reference both sets of Title Deed numbers in the Charges section naming the mortgage provider, so we don't understand how the solicitors missed this, especially given that our solicitor correctly registered both Deeds when they acted for us all in purchasing the property.

Any advice on this would be gratefully appreciated.

loubel

If you believe that your solicitors who acted on the sale 17 years ago were negligent in not seeing that there were two titles then you should raise a complaint with them. It doesn't matter that they are now acting for your buyer. If they accept that their negligence is the cause of you having to pay for legal advice now then they should offer to pay for this or provide it for free if they feel they can do so without creating a conflict with their current clients. 

Of course they may argue that you didn't instruct them to sell the second title...

propertyrental

So 17 years ago you sold a property, and believed that at the same time you were selling a separate garage?

You received the payment you had agreed for the sale of both the property and the garage.

Now you find that you still own the garage.

Surely it is simply a matter of correcting the error made 17 years ago? It does not really matter where responsibility for that omission lies, provided you are not being asked to pay anything extra.

The solicitors acting for your ex partners have a duty to point out to you that you are entitled to independent legal advice, and yes, if you feel the need for this then ask the ex partners to pay for it.

Or, indeed, you could refuse point blank to cooperate, and put the garage up for sale yourself and gain some unexpected cash

But my advice? Do the simple, and honerable, thing, sign the TR1 and return it.

Job done

evsue

propertyrental said:

So 17 years ago you sold a property, and believed that at the same time you were selling a separate garage?

You received the payment you had agreed for the sale of both the property and the garage.

Now you find that you still own the garage.

Surely it is simply a matter of correcting the error made 17 years ago? It does not really matter where responsibility for that omission lies, provided you are not being asked to pay anything extra.

The solicitors acting for your ex partners have a duty to point out to you that you are entitled to independent legal advice, and yes, if you feel the need for this then ask the ex partners to pay for it.

Or, indeed, you could refuse point blank to cooperate, and put the garage up for sale yourself and gain some unexpected cash

But my advice? Do the simple, and honerable, thing, sign the TR1 and return it.

Job done

Thanks for your reply.  We have no intention of keeping the garage, this is not the dilemma in question.  We are simply querying the fact that the solicitors who originally acted for us in transferring the property to our ex business partners are asking us to sign a disclaimer if we ignore their recommendation to seek legal advice, when now transferring the garage, despite the fact that this is what we actually paid them to do for us 17 years ago.

We feel 'the honourable thing' would be for the solicitor to arrange this legal advice at no further cost to ourselves as they are recommending this course of action and had acted for us originally.   There will be a cost if we have to pay for legal advice again, unless the solicitor can facilitate this through another office.  So far they have not agreed to do this.  As you said, the cost of the omission should fall where the responsibility for it lies.  There were two sets of solicitors involved in the transfer 17 years ago, but it seems we are expected to pay this cost again for the same job.  We can't approach the other solicitor involved as they were acting for our ex partners, not us.

We had no idea there were two sets of Title Deeds, however the original conveyancing solicitor did establish this fact as they had all four names added to both sets of Title Deeds in the first place.   The now prospective purchaser's solicitor is also aware that there are two sets of Title Deeds which is why this issue has been raised.  We don't know how this could have gone so wrong when the Transfer from one set of partners to the other occurred with two solicitors involved, one being the solicitor we are now dealing with and who also acted for all four partners previously in purchasing the same property.

We want to get this cleared up quickly but don't normally ignore advice from a legal professional.   As this solicitor has made a very specific recommendation, highlighted in bold print, we were querying what the possible risk is in ignoring their advice, especially given that the solicitors have seen the need to cover themselves with a disclaimer stating that if we ignore their advice we do so at our own risk.   

eddddy

Maybe a slightly different approach is to say that you require your fees for legal advice to be covered - but you don't care who covers them...

• The solicitors firm
• Your ex-partners (who are now the sellers)
• Or even your ex-partners' buyers (but that seems unlikely)

Hopefully, that way you're stepping out of the argument - it's between your ex-partners and their solicitor.


I guess you need to be slightly careful in how you present this, as somebody might agree to pay your fee for your legal advice - and then the legal advice is that you cannot or should not sign the TR1. (Although that seems unlikely.)

user1977

eddddy said:

and then the legal advice is that you cannot or should not sign the TR1. (Although that seems unlikely.)

If anything the advice might be that the OP must sign it...(depending on what the original agreement was)

But really, I'd just sign it and forget this argument about advice. The solicitors' warning is perfectly normal (in fact, compulsory) when they're sending things to a party for whom they are not (currently) acting, it doesn't meant there's actually something to worry about.