Land Registry Issue Scuppering House Sale

Northernsoul123

@Land_Registry Thank you so much for the reply. I do not understand when you say:
"Their own scenario re Absolute/Possessory titles is though an amalgamation and not a merger and the latter can usually be upgraded after 12 years and then amalgamated with the absolute title in most cases. "
Are you saying that there would be a further step necessary after completing a merge for the title just to be a standard freehold (amalgamation)? And this could not happen for 12 years?

I can see from the comments made by @annetheman as compared to your own and those of my solicitor that people seem to have very different views of the significance of the leasehold/freehold not having been merged. It's not a problem for many but for others it is a dealbreaker.
I wanted to add here in defence of the steps I have taken with the buyer that it is not as simple as that I am refusing to do a merge. I have been told my both my solicitor and her director that this would be likely to be refused and so I accepted this as fact and have only now seen that it might not be the case; I was led to understand that realistically the buyer would have to do this. Secondly, the buyer's solicitor themself is recommending that they have the titles merged on completion; the buyer unfortunately has been flaky throughout (not just over this issue) and refuses to respond to their own solicitor (they are currently doing exactly that while we all wait to have a response from them) so it is very difficult to know their views. 
I do understand that this has been caused by my own actions as I stated in my OP but what is the point of having a go at me now? I am only repeating what my solicitor and other posters have said when I said the buyer is seen as being unreasonable.
Right now, after discussion with the person I have been trying to buy from, we have given an ultimatum to my buyer as I will lose that house anyway shortly.  I could go back to the buyer and say I will do the merge myself going from advice received here but then it might take months anyway if something cropped up even if expedited so offering this doesn't seem a way out. The people I want to buy from can't wait for months.

It's looking as though the chain may well collapse. Not really anything I think I can do to save it unless the buyer agrees to have the merge done after completion. 

user1977

Northernsoul123 said:

I can see from the comments made by @annetheman as compared to your own and those of my solicitor that people seem to have very different views of the significance of the leasehold/freehold not having been merged. 

I think @annetheman has misunderstood the situation, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to what they've said.

Northernsoul123

@user1977 Thanks! 🙂 I was already feeling bad enough when I got up today and it just got worse! 

RHemmings

It seems to me that even if the merge is likely to fail, that it can still be applied for. And, given what @Land_Registry says, I'm not sure that the situation is as pessimistic as your (OP) lawyer suggests. Unless there's more that we don't know. 

Then, even if the chain collapses, at least perhaps there's a chance that the situation will be better next time. 

As a purchaser, I wouldn't want anything 'messy' in a purchase. Others may criticise me as being over-cautious, but if it's my money then I'll do things my way. As my conveyancer said to me, it's important to be aware of all potential problems because on completion they become my problems. 

In my opinion, even if buyers who won't want the property are being over-cautious, just the fact that there are such buyers (no matter what people here think of them) reduces the pool of potential buyers and therefore even sensible buyers may see the issue as a problem. 

Northernsoul123

@RHemmings Sensible advice. Thank you.

Land_Registry

Northernsoul123 said:

@Land_Registry Thank you so much for the reply. I do not understand when you say:
"Their own scenario re Absolute/Possessory titles is though an amalgamation and not a merger and the latter can usually be upgraded after 12 years and then amalgamated with the absolute title in most cases. "
Are you saying that there would be a further step necessary after completing a merge for the title just to be a standard freehold (amalgamation)? And this could not happen for 12 years?

I can see from the comments made by @annetheman as compared to your own and those of my solicitor that people seem to have very different views of the significance of the leasehold/freehold not having been merged. It's not a problem for many but for others it is a dealbreaker.
I wanted to add here in defence of the steps I have taken with the buyer that it is not as simple as that I am refusing to do a merge. I have been told my both my solicitor and her director that this would be likely to be refused and so I accepted this as fact and have only now seen that it might not be the case; I was led to understand that realistically the buyer would have to do this. Secondly, the buyer's solicitor themself is recommending that they have the titles merged on completion; the buyer unfortunately has been flaky throughout (not just over this issue) and refuses to respond to their own solicitor (they are currently doing exactly that while we all wait to have a response from them) so it is very difficult to know their views. 
I do understand that this has been caused by my own actions as I stated in my OP but what is the point of having a go at me now? I am only repeating what my solicitor and other posters have said when I said the buyer is seen as being unreasonable.
Right now, after discussion with the person I have been trying to buy from, we have given an ultimatum to my buyer as I will lose that house anyway shortly.  I could go back to the buyer and say I will do the merge myself going from advice received here but then it might take months anyway if something cropped up even if expedited so offering this doesn't seem a way out. The people I want to buy from can't wait for months.

It's looking as though the chain may well collapse. Not really anything I think I can do to save it unless the buyer agrees to have the merge done after completion. 

Apologies if my post lacked clarity for you - the point I was making is that amalgamation and merger are two entirely different things. On paper they read as if they are the same as often going from two titles/tenures to just the one but that's it as far as commonality goes.
A merger is one of a number of ways in which a lease can be determined. So the lease is brought to an end. In the case of a merger the lease is 'merged' back into it's superior title and is no more. So the leasehold title is closed and the superior title is updated to no longer refer to that lease.
An amalgamation is where you have two titles/tenures that are the same, so both Absolute and both held in the same capacity. For example main property and a bit of extra land and the applicant asks us to amalgamate the two. One of the titles is closed and either the other title is up[dated to inc the extra land.
As for your dealbreaker point then that's been covered as the lender, conveyancer or even buyer can be that person but the reason(s) for being so will vary. Every scenario is unique re those three parties and of course you and your conveyancer are too. So what works for some won't work for others - fact and not a Q of being unreasonable for example. There are always reason(s).
Hope you find a positive solution and outcome 

Northernsoul123

@Land_Registry Thanks very much. Just to say, this forum is brilliant and I have really appreciated everyone's advice.

BarelySentientAI

Land_Registry said:

Apologies if my post lacked clarity for you - the point I was making is that amalgamation and merger are two entirely different things. On paper they read as if they are the same as often going from two titles/tenures to just the one but that's it as far as commonality goes.

A merger is one of a number of ways in which a lease can be determined. So the lease is brought to an end. In the case of a merger the lease is 'merged' back into it's superior title and is no more. So the leasehold title is closed and the superior title is updated to no longer refer to that lease.

An amalgamation is where you have two titles/tenures that are the same, so both Absolute and both held in the same capacity. For example main property and a bit of extra land and the applicant asks us to amalgamate the two. One of the titles is closed and either the other title is updated to include the extra land.

And unfortunately, a lot of internet articles talk only about amalgamation and don't always make clear that this is what they mean.  Leads to quite some confusion when trying to research.