Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 20
    • AH90
    • By AH90 13th Apr 18, 7:44 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    AH90
    AH90 i think you may need to double check the details of the problem

    If the owner has died then the executor will need probate and the Assent then refers to the executor as being the personal representative in that capacity

    And if they are selling to you that woukd be by way of a Transfer, by the executor, to you.

    Can you check/clarify please as it's probate and deed that normally matter here. Not death certificate
    Originally posted by Land Registry

    Thanks for your response. Our solicitor has said it’s all quite complicated. If it helps from what I understand the house has been granted probate to the children of the deceased. But i think the assent is from the 1970’s and is accented from the grandparents to the now deceased parents. So I don’t think the executors are referred to on the accent.
  • Land Registry
    Thanks for your response. Our solicitor has said it!!!8217;s all quite complicated. If it helps from what I understand the house has been granted probate to the children of the deceased. But i think the assent is from the 1970!!!8217;s and is accented from the grandparents to the now deceased parents. So I don!!!8217;t think the executors are referred to on the accent.
    Originally posted by AH90
    I suspected that may be the case, namely that it's one of the earlier assents that may be at fault.

    Where a property remains in a family they don't always do an Assent as probate is granted and the will read and the family simply hold on to the property. If they want to actually transfer the ownership then they go with an Assent and if it was in the 70s then I suspect it did not trigger the need to register it then.

    I suspect, but do not know, that we are most likely to respond by saying that we simply won't consider the issue until an application to register is made. That may seem somewhat officious but the key is that we have to consider the application as a whole re such matters and taking a specific issue in isolation is in our view inappropriate.

    Registration, the same as buying, is in part about managing the risks. And you can only have a clear picture of what those risks are if you have the whole picture.

    So let's say you have a series of Assents within the family showing how the proeprty has been transferred by each executor, with probate, and the one you have an issue with is somwhere in that chain. The risk may be fairly small when looked at as a whole as you have a later Assent so someone was happy to go with the previous details.

    My concern is that you are referring to an anomally with the death certificate and as explained if probate is involved then the death certificate is not a crucial item here. The probate confirms death also and it is it's detail which is most relevant to the Assent, namely A N Other as executor of Mr John Deceased - so if John Deceased is the person named in the probate as having died there is no issue, even if you also have a death certificate which refers to a Jon Deceased, if you see what I mean. The ownership link is between the probate and Assent.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • bhughes1986
    • By bhughes1986 13th Apr 18, 5:21 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    bhughes1986
    Leasehold to Freehold timescales
    Last August we purchased the freehold of our house and used a local solicitor.

    In January I chased him for an update to be told that the Land Registry were encountering delays in registering this type of application. I’ll be chasing again later this month but before I go back to our solicitor, is it correct that the LR process can take a very long time?

    On the LR website there are currently 3 entries; 2x freehold, 1x leasehold.
    • Chanit01
    • By Chanit01 14th Apr 18, 10:07 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Chanit01
    Hello.

    We are in the process of buying a property which has some land not included in the boundary even though it's very clear it belongs to the property.

    The sellers solicitors did and adverse possession application which was unsuccessful (we were not told why, they have been living there over 12 years).

    They are now doing an FR1 form. It has supposedly been 5 weeks and we have not had any update apart from that it was received by the land registry.

    I am aware there is a backlog of these applications and am less worried about time frames (although I don't want our mortgage offer to run out) and more interested in it being successful. We are being told by the sellers solicitors that they are waiting for an update for a week or so now.

    How quickly after submitting an application would you find out if it's being rejected? As the buyer can I find out about where we are in the process such as if a surveyor has been out or been instructed to do so? We have no reference numbers unfortunately.

    Thanks

    Chani
  • Land Registry
    Last August we purchased the freehold of our house and used a local solicitor.

    In January I chased him for an update to be told that the Land Registry were encountering delays in registering this type of application. I!!!8217;ll be chasing again later this month but before I go back to our solicitor, is it correct that the LR process can take a very long time?

    On the LR website there are currently 3 entries; 2x freehold, 1x leasehold.
    Originally posted by bhughes1986
    Yes there are delays but that seems very long. Although completed in August the key date for us is the date its lodged with us.

    Do you have the title number involved?
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
  • Land Registry
    Hello.

    We are in the process of buying a property which has some land not included in the boundary even though it's very clear it belongs to the property.

    The sellers solicitors did and adverse possession application which was unsuccessful (we were not told why, they have been living there over 12 years).

    They are now doing an FR1 form. It has supposedly been 5 weeks and we have not had any update apart from that it was received by the land registry.

    I am aware there is a backlog of these applications and am less worried about time frames (although I don't want our mortgage offer to run out) and more interested in it being successful. We are being told by the sellers solicitors that they are waiting for an update for a week or so now.

    How quickly after submitting an application would you find out if it's being rejected? As the buyer can I find out about where we are in the process such as if a surveyor has been out or been instructed to do so? We have no reference numbers unfortunately.

    Thanks

    Chani
    Originally posted by Chanit01
    We also have a backlog of this type of work but you already appreciate that and the process it seems. And if you are talking in terms of weeks then I'm guessing the seller's solicitor has asked for it to be expedited.

    Expedition essentially cuts the wait time between receipt and consideration. It's normally then considered within 2 weeks of expedition

    A survey will be needed, if the evidence lodged is deemed sufficient to warrant that, and it sounds as if first time round that wasn't the case or the wrong type if application was made. A survey normally happens within 2 weeks of that initial consideration

    They are notified that a survey is to be carried out so they should know - do they?

    And once that result is in everything really depends on whether it is as 'obvious' as suggested and whether we need to do further checks e.g. contact adjoining property owners. If we do then that can add an additional delay as we wait fir those checks to be completed

    You can contact us to confirm receipt/expedition but we wouldn't go into much more detail than what I've said here. But it may help to join some of the dots in understanding what's happening and possible timescales
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • bhughes1986
    • By bhughes1986 16th Apr 18, 6:30 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    bhughes1986
    Yes there are delays but that seems very long. Although completed in August the key date for us is the date its lodged with us.

    Do you have the title number involved?
    Originally posted by Land Registry
    Hello, it is CYM384737.
    • Fitzsy
    • By Fitzsy 16th Apr 18, 9:10 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fitzsy
    I am currently in the process of purchasing a property - however it has come to light that the headlease cannot be found, below is the exact quote from my solicitor

    “The only issue I believe that may cause a problem is the fact that the Head lease upon which the Lease was granted for your property is not available. This means that we will be unable to deduce the title to your lender. Most leases tend not to allow subletting of part, which is what has happened”

    There is a sublease that was granted in 2005 for 125 years, and I am confused how this has happened without a headlease?

    Any information would be great, as it’s confusing without much to go off
  • Land Registry
    I am currently in the process of purchasing a property - however it has come to light that the headlease cannot be found, below is the exact quote from my solicitor

    “The only issue I believe that may cause a problem is the fact that the Head lease upon which the Lease was granted for your property is not available. This means that we will be unable to deduce the title to your lender. Most leases tend not to allow subletting of part, which is what has happened”

    There is a sublease that was granted in 2005 for 125 years, and I am confused how this has happened without a headlease?

    Any information would be great, as it’s confusing without much to go off
    Originally posted by Fitzsy
    Fitzsy it's not really worth speculating on something so specific without looking at the precise title details - do you know the title number involved?
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
  • Land Registry
    Hello, it is CYM3**737.
    Originally posted by bhughes1986
    Many thanks - that title is the parent title, namely the one out of which each plot is being sold.

    There's nothing pending at present so we are now up to date on that development.

    The last application, which using your user name suggests that's the one relevant to you, was lodged in September and completed mid Feb.

    That's a while ago now but suggest checking again with your solicitor to be sure as they would have been notified same day as it was registered
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • dunroving
    • By dunroving 17th Apr 18, 10:24 AM
    • 1,280 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    dunroving
    I've just discovered this thread, which looks like it is for people with questions for Land Registry (correct?)

    Here is my situation, which is also described in my thread titled "Title - leasehold vs. freehold?"

    House was purchased leasehold in 1963 by Mr and Mrs X. Lease is currently unregistered and as far as I know, original deeds have been lost/can't be found.
    Freehold was purchased by Mr and Mrs X in 1996. The copy title document refers to the prior lease.
    Mr and Mrs X recently deceased and I am purchasing the house from their son, who is the executor.

    The TR1 form refers only to the Freehold, which means if I proceed, I will own the Freehold but not the leasehold - not a good situation.

    I believe my options are as follows, but would appreciate any opinion from Land Registry.

    Option 1: Ask the vendor/vendor's solicitor to merge the leasehold and freehold, so that there is only the freehold applying to the property. This is likely to be a very slow process, especially as I believe the original leasehold deeds cannot be found, and the leasehold has never been registered. (Land Registry: What is the likely timeline if we went this route?)

    Option 2: Add the leasehold to the sale (i.e., it currently is not on the TR1 form). I am thinking that this may also be time-consuming as I believe the leasehold will need to be registered as part of the sale, and as above, the original leasehold deeds cannot be found. (Land Registry: What is the likely timeline if we went this route? Would the lease title need to be registered prior to sale?)

    Another option (not even sure if it is an option; I have asked my solicitor about it in an email), is whether the sale can proceed on the basis of the freehold, with a legal undertaking by the vendor/vendor's solicitor to register the leasehold and then transfer to me. I would want this to be legally watertight, with agreed timelines, and possibly even a portion of the sale proceeds to be held back until it has been done. (Land Registry: This may be beyond your comfort zone, as it is a legal question, but are you aware of this process being followed in other house purchases?)

    (Freehold) title number if needed is HW183124
    Last edited by dunroving; 17-04-2018 at 11:23 AM. Reason: Added title number
    (Nearly) dunroving
    • Fitzsy
    • By Fitzsy 17th Apr 18, 11:11 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fitzsy
    On one of the lease docs there is:

    Lessors title number - EX81460
    Leeses title number - EEL105619

    However I assume this wouldn't the headlease title number?
  • Land Registry
    On one of the lease docs there is a title number - EEL105619

    However I assume this wouldn’t the headlease title number?
    Originally posted by Fitzsy
    Ok - it is probably EGL and it relates to a specific property although the title you mention is now closed.

    But there is a Freehold, Head lease and then Sub Lease. The Head Lease dates from 1909 and we do not have a copy on file it seems
    You are buying the sub lease although I think that is 2003 and not 2005.

    What your solicitor seems to be suggesting is two things

    1. Without a copy of the head lease they don't have a full picture of how the titles interact with one another and what the specific details are under which the head leaseholder has their lease

    I assume that neither the current head leaseholder or freeholder have a copy of the lease themselves. I ask as we are not responsible for holding a copy and both the freeholder and the lessee would be expected to have a copy/the original

    2. Most leases contain what is known as an 'alienation clause' whereby the lessee cannot sublet or transfer part of their leasehold title without the consent of the freeholder.

    They are presumably concerned that the sub lease was granted contrary to such a clause although the head lease and sub lease are registered

    You will need to rely on your solicitor here to try and unravel the issues raised. They will also have to satisfy your lender's requirements as mentioned.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • Staffordia
    • By Staffordia 17th Apr 18, 11:24 AM
    • 124 Posts
    • 584 Thanks
    Staffordia
    My deeds (CB331404) show a restriction between the company who built the house and the previous owners, namely that the property can't be sold with a certificate signed by the applicant for registration. The building company went into liquidation before I purchased the property, and my conveyancer states that this needs to be removed but doesn't appear to know how to go about this.

    Any ideas?
  • Land Registry
    Option 1: Ask the vendor/vendor's solicitor to merge the leasehold and freehold, so that there is only the freehold applying to the property. This is likely to be a very slow process, especially as I believe the original leasehold deeds cannot be found, and the leasehold has never been registered. (Land Registry: What is the likely timeline if we went this route?)

    Option 2: Add the leasehold to the sale (i.e., it currently is not on the TR1 form). I am thinking that this may also be time-consuming as I believe the leasehold will need to be registered as part of the sale, and as above, the original leasehold deeds cannot be found. (Land Registry: What is the likely timeline if we went this route? Would the lease title need to be registered prior to sale?)

    Another option (not even sure if it is an option; I have asked my solicitor about it in an email), is whether the sale can proceed on the basis of the freehold, with a legal undertaking by the vendor/vendor's solicitor to register the leasehold and then transfer to me. I would want this to be legally watertight, with agreed timelines, and possibly even a portion of the sale proceeds to be held back until it has been done. (Land Registry: This may be beyond your comfort zone, as it is a legal question, but are you aware of this process being followed in other house purchases?)

    (Freehold) title number if needed is HW183124
    Originally posted by dunroving
    Option 1 - they would apply to cancel the noted lease. Similar to merger but as the lease is not registered it is a case of appying to cancel the noted lease.

    Outcome then depends on what evidence they have to support the application in form CN1. If sufficient then timescales are around 10/15 working days. The apparent advantage here is that the noted lease refers to the original freehold registered owners as the lessees also so making the link/limiting the risk seems doable.

    Option 2 - if you buy the freehold title you buy it subject to the noted lease. You don't add the lease to the form TR1 as it is only noted. It simply means you own the freehold subject to the lease and there is a risk that someone may come forward at a later date and claim they own that lease now........

    Option 3 - seek to register the lease in it's own right. Why if all you want to do is merge it? If it can be canceleld as a noted lease then it could be merged as a registered lease so little point gewtting it registered and then closing it.

    In my experience, and based on the level of detail provided Option 1 seems to be the route to go for the seller to apply to cancel the noted lease
    They would submit form CN1 along with documents of title to the determining leasehold interest showing satisfactory evidence of title to the unregistered lease similar to that required if they were looking to register it in it's own right for the first time.
    As those details have been lost they would look at the option of providing evidence based on the deeds/lease having been lost

    I'm sure your/the seller's conveyancer will be aware of what is required re either Option

    The alternative is to buy it subject to the noted lease but I suspect your conveyancer will advise against it or your lender won't lend due to the risk. So Option 1 is probably the only option here but please do rely on your conveyancer as we can't advise you on what to actually do but we can explain what we might expect in each scenario
    Last edited by Land Registry; 17-04-2018 at 11:45 AM.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • dunroving
    • By dunroving 17th Apr 18, 12:10 PM
    • 1,280 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    dunroving
    Option 1 - they would apply to cancel the noted lease. Similar to merger but as the lease is not registered it is a case of appying to cancel the noted lease.

    Outcome then depends on what evidence they have to support the application in form CN1. If sufficient then timescales are around 10/15 working days. The apparent advantage here is that the noted lease refers to the original freehold registered owners as the lessees also so making the link/limiting the risk seems doable.

    Option 2 - if you buy the freehold title you buy it subject to the noted lease. You don't add the lease to the form TR1 as it is only noted. It simply means you own the freehold subject to the lease and there is a risk that someone may come forward at a later date and claim they own that lease now........

    Option 3 - seek to register the lease in it's own right. Why if all you want to do is merge it? If it can be canceleld as a noted lease then it could be merged as a registered lease so little point gewtting it registered and then closing it.

    In my experience, and based on the level of detail provided Option 1 seems to be the route to go for the seller to apply to cancel the noted lease
    They would submit form CN1 along with documents of title to the determining leasehold interest showing satisfactory evidence of title to the unregistered lease similar to that required if they were looking to register it in it's own right for the first time.
    As those details have been lost they would look at the option of providing evidence based on the deeds/lease having been lost

    I'm sure your/the seller's conveyancer will be aware of what is required re either Option

    The alternative is to buy it subject to the noted lease but I suspect your conveyancer will advise against it or your lender won't lend due to the risk. So Option 1 is probably the only option here but please do rely on your conveyancer as we can't advise you on what to actually do but we can explain what we might expect in each scenario
    Originally posted by Land Registry
    Thank you, that clarifies, and indeed confirms some of my current understanding.

    I had read some online threads about these situations (property has freehold AND leasehold), and the opinion was that in some cases, it is more advantageous to own the leasehold and the freehold, rather than merge/cancel the leasehold. I think examples were where the leasehold gave certain rights that might be lost if it were cancelled/merged with the freehold.

    I simply want to get this done as expeditiously as possible and had (mistakenly, by the looks of it) thought that purchasing the leasehold and freehold would be the most straightforward solution.

    We had originally asked the vendor's solicitor to remove the leasehold and according to the estate agent, they had received an email from the vendor's solicitor querying this, viz (quote), "They are questioning the necessity of deleting the lease from the register as it is referred to on many occasions within the freehold." My concern is, as you pointed out, that if I simply go ahead, the leasehold still exists and is owned by the estate of the deceased owner.

    I think the vendor's solicitor was just trying to take the path of least resistance but it sounds like cancelling the leasehold will be a fairly straightforward solution.
    (Nearly) dunroving
  • Land Registry
    My deeds (CB331404) show a restriction between the company who built the house and the previous owners, namely that the property can't be sold with a certificate signed by the applicant for registration. The building company went into liquidation before I purchased the property, and my conveyancer states that this needs to be removed but doesn't appear to know how to go about this.

    Any ideas?
    Originally posted by Staffordia
    I'd refer them to section 3.8 of our Practice Guide 19 if they are unable to comply with the restriction

    The restriction requires them to confirm that the provisions of the plot Transfer have been complied with. If they can't comply then next step is normally to consider if the restriction can be disapplied
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
  • Land Registry
    Thank you, that clarifies, and indeed confirms some of my current understanding.

    I had read some online threads about these situations (property has freehold AND leasehold), and the opinion was that in some cases, it is more advantageous to own the leasehold and the freehold, rather than merge/cancel the leasehold. I think examples were where the leasehold gave certain rights that might be lost if it were cancelled/merged with the freehold.
    Originally posted by dunroving
    That can be something to consider but in your case you don't have a registered lease and you don't have a copy of the lease. As such you don't seem to have any 'easements' to consider that may benefit the lease but not the freehold.

    You/your solicitor need to account for any noted interests. The lease is an important one. The seller and their solicitor may for their own reasons see it differently but the 'risk' is yours if you buy hence the probable need to resolve before you do
    Last edited by Land Registry; 17-04-2018 at 1:38 PM.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • dunroving
    • By dunroving 17th Apr 18, 2:11 PM
    • 1,280 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    dunroving
    That can be something to consider but in your case you don't have a registered lease and you don't have a copy of the lease. As such you don't seem to have any 'easements' to consider that may benefit the lease but not the freehold.

    You/your solicitor need to account for any noted interests. The lease is an important one. The seller and their solicitor may for their own reasons see it differently but the 'risk' is yours if you buy hence the probable need to resolve before you do
    Originally posted by Land Registry
    Thanks again. I have now instructed my solicitor that unless she can see reasons otherwise, I would like to take this route (cancel the noted lease). I think the vendor's solicitor was just being a bit lazy and not bothered to chase this up. That's OK for him but as you pointed out, *I* am the one who would be taking the risk.

    I will post a brief update when this is all resolved, for the future information of anyone in a similar situation.
    (Nearly) dunroving
    • dougybrown
    • By dougybrown 17th Apr 18, 10:40 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    dougybrown
    Register right of way
    Thanks for your answers to date Land Registry, much appreciated!

    I've found one further complication before I fill in the Assent forms. I've discovered a grant of right of way that has not been registered with the Title. The deed was made in 2003 for the sum of £250.

    Is it possible to add this right of way to the Title during the Assent or will this be a separate process? If it can how would it be done, what form needs to be completed and what evidence would be required?

    Thanks
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

429Posts Today

6,939Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin