Land missing from title-future lending problems?

Brodiebobs

Land_Registry said:

First point to make here is that MapSearch is simply a tool to enable users to identify title numbers. It is not definitive re the registered extents of those titles or unregistered land. 
Users and clients should then rely on the actual title plans for the title numbers identified and if there is uncertainty involved complete a search of the index map to see what that reveals.
I imagine the solicitors have done all of this and confirmed that the land you are referring to is unregistered and not included in either title. Do not rely on MapSearch alone
If the registered information is as shown, and the 'missing' land is unregistered, an application to register the land for the first time based on the owners claim of legal ownership should be submitted.
If the owners have been there for such a long time and the land is clearly within their curtilage then the registration should not be an issue. It will however, even with expedition, take a while to complete as there will be a site visit/survey and wider checks needed. That can mean a wait of 2-3 months.
Any lender would rely on the legal advice provided and their own mortgage offer algorithm may say NO based on the increased risk associated with the lack of certainty re the ownership of the land in question

Thankyou thats helpful (and probably the opposite of that my solicitor told me, she said mapsearch was the definitive).

We were, after the sale completes, going to merge the titles (im not sure why they never have done this would have made everyones life easier!) would we be able to register the land as such new owners? As solicitors said the only way would be adverse possession which we’d have to be there for 21 years to do. 

Land_Registry

Brodiebobs said:

Land_Registry said:

First point to make here is that MapSearch is simply a tool to enable users to identify title numbers. It is not definitive re the registered extents of those titles or unregistered land. 
Users and clients should then rely on the actual title plans for the title numbers identified and if there is uncertainty involved complete a search of the index map to see what that reveals.
I imagine the solicitors have done all of this and confirmed that the land you are referring to is unregistered and not included in either title. Do not rely on MapSearch alone
If the registered information is as shown, and the 'missing' land is unregistered, an application to register the land for the first time based on the owners claim of legal ownership should be submitted.
If the owners have been there for such a long time and the land is clearly within their curtilage then the registration should not be an issue. It will however, even with expedition, take a while to complete as there will be a site visit/survey and wider checks needed. That can mean a wait of 2-3 months.
Any lender would rely on the legal advice provided and their own mortgage offer algorithm may say NO based on the increased risk associated with the lack of certainty re the ownership of the land in question

Thankyou thats helpful (and probably the opposite of that my solicitor told me, she said mapsearch was the definitive).

We were, after the sale completes, going to merge the titles (im not sure why they never have done this would have made everyone’s life easier!) would we be able to register the land as such new owners? As solicitors said the only way would be adverse possession which we’d have to be there for 21 years to do. 

You mean amalgamation of the titles. Merger is the closure of a leasehold title and merging it back into its superior title. 

Amalgamation is not necessary/essential and is often refused by us. If the lender won’t lend against a property registered under two titles though than can be a valid reason for us not to refuse. 

The real issue here is to firstly confirm IF the land is outside of both titles. If it is then it’s all about any legal claim as to ownership as to what happens next. It reads as if that would be your claiming the land through adverse possession. That’s not 21 years so unsure where that number has come from. See Pigs 4 and 5 for guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/land-registration-practice-guides#guides-1-to-10

Brodiebobs

Thank Land Registry rep.

I have spoken to my solicitor, she is adamant an Indemnity Policy wouldnt cover this circumstance, so wouldnt be any good. I think I need to do some more research on this. 

She has asked the vendor to apply for a possessory title, but the vendor’s solicitor has advised this isnt possible as apparently they take months to complete and they are not willing to wait.

They have however agreed to complete a statement of truth so we can apply for adverse possession but we couldnt do this until after the sale completes.

Which leaves us (excuse the pun) in no mans land, as the lender wont give us the money without this resolving.

Ive asked our solicitor to go back to the lender and see if they would accept a statement of truth with our intent to persue after purchase but if not im not sure how else we can resolve? 

user1977

Brodiebobs said:

I have spoken to my solicitor, she is adamant an Indemnity Policy wouldnt cover this circumstance, so wouldnt be any good.

Did she explain why?

Land_Registry

Brodiebobs said:

Thank Land Registry rep.

I have spoken to my solicitor, she is adamant an Indemnity Policy wouldnt cover this circumstance, so wouldnt be any good. I think I need to do some more research on this. 

She has asked the vendor to apply for a possessory title, but the vendor’s solicitor has advised this isnt possible as apparently they take months to complete and they are not willing to wait.

They have however agreed to complete a statement of truth so we can apply for adverse possession but we couldnt do this until after the sale completes.

Which leaves us (excuse the pun) in no mans land, as the lender wont give us the money without this resolving.

Ive asked our solicitor to go back to the lender and see if they would accept a statement of truth with our intent to persue after purchase but if not im not sure how else we can resolve? 

All noted and appreciated and remember any solution starts with your mortgage lender. If they won't lend then you can't buy presumably so they have first say
Based solely on experience of reading similar issues and responses I would make the following points for emphasis but you must rely on your conveyancer here

1. I suspect the conveyancer is adamant as the lender won't accept an indemnity policy as a means to enabling the mortgage offer to go through
2. The seller's conveyancer will push back as they don't want to wait. They will be aware that such an application can be expedited and processing started quickly but also that such a claim as to ownership is still likely to take 10-14 weeks (if all goes well) to complete
3. As a result they can offer a statement of truth but that's not going to solve your lender's needs so not a solution to enable your purchase with that mortgage
4. I would have thought the conveyancer would already know the lender's answer to that final Q hence the impasse you have reached

Brodiebobs

user1977 said:

Brodiebobs said:

I have spoken to my solicitor, she is adamant an Indemnity Policy wouldnt cover this circumstance, so wouldnt be any good.

Did she explain why?

She said this would only cover any “financial loss” but wouldnt provide a solution to the issue, as it still wouldnt belong to us, and someone could in theory fence it off and block entry to our property. 

user1977

Brodiebobs said:

user1977 said:

Brodiebobs said:

I have spoken to my solicitor, she is adamant an Indemnity Policy wouldnt cover this circumstance, so wouldnt be any good.

Did she explain why?

She said this would only cover any “financial loss” but wouldnt provide a solution to the issue, as it still wouldnt belong to us, and someone could in theory fence it off and block entry to our property. 

Well, yes, but that's inherent to any insurance of this sort.

In practice if a third party turned up claiming ownership, it's much more likely that they can be paid off by the insurers (i.e. the insurers buy the land for you, which would actually solve the problem), rather than the other party insisting on occupying the odd bit of land they own - but even if they did the latter, the insurance would pay out to you for the resulting loss in value of the house.

GDB2222

The property is not as originally described. The seller doesn't want to sort out the issue. So, how much discount are they offering you to take 'damaged goods'? 

If this property is unmortgageable because of the issue, it's probably only worth around 70% of the normal value, as all-cash buyers are few and far between.

I don't think the sellers can have their cake (full price) and eat it (not sort out the problem). 

Brodiebobs

Thanks.

Ive had a very lengthy discussion with my solicitor today. 

She is adamant the indemnity will not cover what we need it to-she said for indemnity to be taken out to cover the access they need to have at least a possessory title, she tells me in her 30 years as a conveyancer she has not known of a policy that would cover the lack of title, and the lack of access-I have to trust an expert in this I guess-and she tells me the lender (and future ones) will think the same.

Its also not guaranteed any statement of truth will enable us to gain possession of the land after the sale either. 

If the bridge lender is willing to accept this she will proceed but we have to sign a disclaimer to absolve them (the solicitors) of any accountability in this part of the transaction as were going against the firms advice should this crop up at any further point in the future.

We dont want to do this, obviously, and we dont want to gamble on being stuck on a bridge without being able to remortgage, so we have agreed to go back to the vendors and insist on posessory title. 

Otherwise im not sure we have any option but to walk away 😢