Shared Ownership and Land Registry Title

tiredflower

I am selling my shared ownership flat, it's proving to be a nightmarish project with delays and incomprehension with solicitors from both sides, even if it is a chain free transaction. Conveyancers from buyer's side are now saying that the land registry title doesn't show I had staircased from 35% to 50% (I did this at the same time of purchasing). But a title usually says the name of the owner and since when, am I correct? Where are they searching or seeing the detail about the exact share I won? Is the memorandum of staircasing signed deed not enough?

eddddy

tiredflower said:

Conveyancers from buyer's side are now saying that the land registry title doesn't show I had staircased from 35% to 50% (I did this at the same time of purchasing).

Is the conveyancer saying that this is a problem - or are they just making an observation?

As I understand it, you can choose to register a Memorandum of Staircasing with Land Registry, or you can choose not to.

It sounds like the buyer's conveyancer could be mentioning that it seems you have chosen not to - and maybe is asking if that's correct.

So maybe you could reply that you're not sure whether the Memorandum of Staircasing was registered with Land Registry or not, but you have the original paper copy anyway.

So, as I understand it, there shouldn't be a problem.

tiredflower

eddddy said:

tiredflower said:

Conveyancers from buyer's side are now saying that the land registry title doesn't show I had staircased from 35% to 50% (I did this at the same time of purchasing).

Is the conveyancer saying that this is a problem - or are they just making an observation?

As I understand it, you can choose to register a Memorandum of Staircasing with Land Registry, or you can choose not to.

It sounds like the buyer's conveyancer could be mentioning that it seems you have chosen not to - and maybe is asking if that's correct.

So maybe you could reply that you're not sure whether the Memorandum of Staircasing was registered with Land Registry or not, but you have the original paper copy anyway.

So, as I understand it, there shouldn't be a problem.

many thanks, they are quoting it as a problem and that's what left me worried that we are wasting a lot of time on additional enquiries that are not even fully correct. They requested my conveyancers "formal docs from the land registry to prove my 50% was registered with them". Or at least this is what the buyer reported to me. I am afraid when I purchased no one explained to me that I should register the MoS more formally. But I already shared the MoS and definitely the housing association is treating as a owner at 50%

eddddy

tiredflower said:

They requested my conveyancers "formal docs from the land registry to prove my 50% was registered with them". Or at least this is what the buyer reported to me.

So in that case, maybe the buyer has misunderstood.

If the buyer is using vague terms like "formal docs" rather than "Memorandum of Staircasing" - it suggests that the buyer might not have a good understanding of the technicalities.

Maybe just reply to the buyer that it shouldn't be problem because you have the original paper copy, and if the buyer is worried about it, they should check with their solicitor.

tiredflower

Is there a way at my end to check whether the Memorandum of Staircasing was registered with Land Registry or not? Which file or form is required? The vague terms are allegedly being used by the buyer's solicitors and I am worried that everyone is having poor knowledge of shared ownership conveyancing.

eddddy

Your own conveyancing solicitor is probably the best person to check if the Memorandum of Staircasing was registered with Land Registry.

But you have the original paper copy, so it doesn't matter.


It sounds like you're acting on feedback from the buyer. But what does your solicitor say about this?

Does your solicitor say it's a problem? Or does your solicitor say that the buyer's solicitor has raised it as a problem?

tiredflower

eddddy said:

It sounds like you're acting on feedback from the buyer. But what does your solicitor say about this?

Does your solicitor say it's a problem? Or does your solicitor say that the buyer's solicitor has raised it as a problem?

My solicitors have disappeared for 2 months and delayed dealing with buyer's solicitors outstanding queries. So at a certain point I tried to coordinate/touch base more regularly with the buyer, as we are both desperate to complete by end of the year, and tried to find the documents their solicitors were asking. I had shared my land registry title and my memorandum of staircasing (everything I found from the time I had purchased the flat), the buyer passed those to their solicitors and then they were further questioning that my staircased share is not to be seen in the title. I tried to ask to my solicitors if/how this is an issue and I have no clear answer yet.

Land_Registry

As already posted the purchase of additional shares can be registered with us but most don't. The initial share/staircasing is of course registered and the final one too in their own distinct ways. But most are not.
As such the registered information is not conclusive re any additional shares bought/staircased and you would be reliant on the paperwork created between you/the landlord as appropriate 

tiredflower

Thanks everyone!!! I have a follow up query if possible, as again the comments the buyer is passing to me from their solicitors are very confusing. They are mentioning that "We have received confirmation from the landlord that the pre emption is not applicable as the property was sold on the open market. I have asked that they provide a letter from the landlord confirming this so that I can use this for land registry purposes. The land registry may not register you as the new owner of the property if we do not receive this, hence why I have requested this."
Is this correct? The housing association gave the green light for me to advertise on the open market both for my share (50%) or on 100% basis, but the buyer selected the shared ownership scheme as well. I don't get it that they could have issues in being recorded as new owner with the land registry. We are all respecting and following the shared ownership regulations

Land_Registry

tiredflower said:

Thanks everyone!!! I have a follow up query if possible, as again the comments the buyer is passing to me from their solicitors are very confusing. They are mentioning that "We have received confirmation from the landlord that the pre emption is not applicable as the property was sold on the open market. I have asked that they provide a letter from the landlord confirming this so that I can use this for land registry purposes. The land registry may not register you as the new owner of the property if we do not receive this, hence why I have requested this."
Is this correct? The housing association gave the green light for me to advertise on the open market both for my share (50%) or on 100% basis, but the buyer selected the shared ownership scheme as well. I don't get it that they could have issues in being recorded as new owner with the land registry. We are all respecting and following the shared ownership regulations

From a registration perspective it’s the register entries that will need complying with. For example a restriction on the register may require a consent/certificate. That may be what they mean by “for land registry purposes”?

tiredflower

Land_Registry said:

 For example a restriction on the register may require a consent/certificate. 

I took the pre-emption definition from LEASE website. Of course I got the approval from the housing association to put my shared-ownership flat on sale and they wouldn't buy it back. 
Is this not a standard restriction that of course my lender wants me to extinguish the mortgage and pay any exit fees when I sell? it's the only restriction I see on my title