HMLR: how long does it take to conclude registration?

[ildigv]

Hello,

I'd like to know how long does it take for the land registry to update the title
details for a property once they receive notification of a sale.
Is it a matter of days or weeks?

Also does the buyer have to comply with deadlines to register their property?

thanks

[jeffrey]

Hello,

I'd like to know how long does it take for the land registry to update the title
details for a property once they receive notification of a sale.
Is it a matter of days or weeks?

Also does the buyer have to comply with deadlines to register their property?

thanks
1. Time depends. Registration takes:
a. a couple of days if it's an already-registered property in its own unique title;
b. a little longer if it's part of a larger title;
c. up to a month if it's:
i. a new lease; or
ii. land not yet registered.

2. The deadline within which the application must be lodged is:
a. expiry of official search result period (1a and 1b); or
b. two months from completion (1c).

[ildigv]

Thanks.


Just found our from land registry that our sale has not been recorded.

The sale went through at the beginning of July.
We owed the property for nine years.

I've rung my solicitor and he does not seem interested in pursuing the
matter. He says it is the buyer's problem.
I asked if we are still legally responsible for the property and he said we are not and it is their problem.

What can I do to sort this out?
There have been issues with the M Co in the past and we don't want our name linked to that property. Should we write to the seller telling them their sol has not registered the property buy?

[jeffrey]

"Registration" might be being used in two different senses here:
A. Registration at HMLR.
B. Telling L of a change of leaseholder, under a covenant in the lease requiring formal notification.

Your original purchase nine years ago will have triggered first registration in any event (i.e. even if the property had not previously been registered at HMLR).

Yes- you should write to the buyer [not 'seller'- which is you, innit?] on the lines that you suggest.

[ildigv]

Jeffrey,

So should i insist with my solicitor that he writes to the buyer?

Or can i do this myself.

The property has existed for 40 years and has had several owners.
LR told me they have had no notification of sale.


Regards,

[jeffrey]

Jeffrey,

So should i insist with my solicitor that he writes to the buyer?

Or can i do this myself.

The property has existed for 40 years and has had several owners.
LR told me they have had no notification of sale.


Regards,

Either you or your solicitor can do this- but why not instead tell the purchaser (direct) that his purchase has not been registered? He is the party with most to lose. He can then press his solicitor; after all, there may be a perfectly adequate reason (e.g. SDLT delays).

[Richard Webster]

To clarify further, as Jeffrey has pointed out there are 2 separate points - registration at Land Registry and registration with Management Company etc.

The Land Registry issue is up to the buyer's solicitors and doesn't affect you at all. There might be a delay in getting your mortgage lender to produce the discharge for your mortgage (if you had one).

The Management Company can keep sending you bills etc until they have had the notice from the buyer's solicitors so it is worth your solicitors pushing them to deal with this.

[ildigv]

Well,


We've already had the management asking us for money shortly after the sale had completed.
We pushed our solicitor to write to the buyer's solicitor to instruct the m co of the sale. It took some work to get him to do that.

But today i've found out that the property is still in our name. Our sol says it is not his problem and to forget about it.
I am not too happy with this response and in fact i am considering discharging him from acting as our sol for the property we are about to buy.

We've rang the buyer of the property we sold and told him what has happened. Do you think we should follow this up with a letter to the buyer?

[ildigv]

[QUOTE=Richard Webster;51928]To clarify further, as Jeffrey has pointed out there are 2 separate points - registration at Land Registry and registration with Management Company etc.

The Land Registry issue is up to the buyer's solicitors and doesn't affect you at all. [QUOTE]

If our name is on the land registry database technically we can still be chased for any issue affecting the property (and the m co).
We want to avoid this so that is why we are worried about this.

[jeffrey]

BUT your sale Transfer should contain an indemnity covenant whereby P has to pick up the tab thereafter.

[ildigv]

the contract page we signed was only one page long and did not contain any covenant details.

I would not trust my sol to have done this right. A bit too late to realize.

[ildigv]

Hi again,


We have contacted the buyer and he is looking into it. He seems to think it is an oversight at their end.

I am curious to know what happens if a buyer registers his property
later than the allowed deadline. Do they have to pay a fine?
Are we as sellers likely to be involved in anything?

Regards

[jeffrey]

the contract page we signed was only one page long and did not contain any covenant details.

I would not trust my sol to have done this right. A bit too late to realize.

"Contract" is not "Transfer". Did that one page show "TR1" or "TP1" in top RH corner?

[jeffrey]

Hi again,


We have contacted the buyer and he is looking into it. He seems to think it is an oversight at their end.

I am curious to know what happens if a buyer registers his property
later than the allowed deadline. Do they have to pay a fine?
Are we as sellers likely to be involved in anything?

Regards

No fine, but:
a. the search priority period may elapse, leaving P (and mortgagee) unprotected against post-completion entries; and
b. you are not entitled to the benefit of the property any longer. Legal ownership (registered title) might be still in your name; equitable ownership (benefit) has passed over; so you are holding on trust for P until he is registered.

[ildigv]

No fine, but:
a. the search priority period may elapse, leaving P (and mortgagee) unprotected against post-completion entries; and
b. you are not entitled to the benefit of the property any longer. Legal ownership (registered title) might be still in your name; equitable ownership (benefit) has passed over; so you are holding on trust for P until he is registered.


Jeffrey,

point b about holding the property in trust. What does this mean, do we have obligations?
The buyer is now renting the property, does this affect us at all? I really do not want to have problems for a property we sold three months ago.


Can the buyer still register his property even if they are late at doing this?

[jeffrey]

You do not have obligations. Point b simply means that, even though legal ownership has not [yet] moved, the benefit of the properety's value is now owned by P. Obviously, P has to register- not only purchase but also the mortgage which rests on the purchase.

[ildigv]

You do not have obligations. Point b simply means that, even though legal ownership has not [yet] moved, the benefit of the properety's value is now owned by P. Obviously, P has to register- not only purchase but also the mortgage which rests on the purchase.


Thank you very much for your support Jeffrey. I must say that I've had bmore help from you on this subject than from my solicitor who was paid a lot of money.

One last question, can they still register even though they have passed the deadline?

[jeffrey]

Can they still register even though they have passed the deadline?

Yes, they can. The ownership Transfer is valid, after all, just unconcluded by registration.
Only problem for P: if you were unfortunately to go bankrupt or to die before registration!

[ildigv]

"Contract" is not "Transfer". Did that one page show "TR1" or "TP1" in top RH corner?

The paper we signed does not contain the above.

Is the covenant that protects the seller from any charges post completion included in the standard conditions of sale or should it have been added separately as a special condition?

In the special conditions there does not seem to be mention of this covenant.

[jeffrey]

There are two types of covenant.
One is simply to indemnify. P agrees to pay if, after completing sale, V is billed.
The other is a new and separate obligation (e.g. if V sells part to P, keeps other part, and imposes new covenant on what P buys).
Inclusion of an indemnity covenant in the Transfer is usually covered by Standard Conditions of Sale, without the need for specific mention. Inclusion of a new covenant, however, is compulsory only if a special (=extra) contract condition explicitly demands it.
Either way, the covenant must appear in the Transfer (or Conveyance, Assignment, Assent, or new Lease)- otherwise it does not exist legally and is not enforceable.

[ildigv]

Inclusion of an indemnity covenant in the Transfer is usually covered by Standard Conditions of Sale, without the need for specific mention. Either way, the covenant must appear in the Transfer (or Conveyance, Assignment, Assent, or new Lease)- otherwise it does not exist legally and is not enforceable.

I am probably confusing these two things. You mention that an i covenant is covered by the standard conditions of sale with no specific mention but then you say it must appear in the Transfer. Wouldn't appearing in the transfer be a specific mention in itself?

apologies if the question sounds stupid.

[jeffrey]

Sorry. Let me explain!

A covenant is legally binding only if there are properties benefitting from (and burdened by) it, and is either:
a. a new covenant imposed by the Transfer; or
b. an existing covenant brought forward by the Transfer.

As to the Contract, a covenant's creation in the Transfer is required if:
a. the Standard Conditions of Contract apply so as to demand it; or
b. there is a Special Condition in the Contract which demands it.

[ildigv]

so in effect our transfer doc should mention clearly that after completion the new owner picks up the tab.


I will enquire with our sol as to whether this has been done. I will be slightly unhappy if this is not the case....

[jeffrey]

so...transfer doc should mention clearly that after completion the new owner picks up the tab.
Yes. There should be at least an indemnity covenant by P in favour of V (= you), obliging P to indemnify you against future performance of existing leasehold covenants.
It is phrased like this simply because:
a. it does not impose a new obligation (only brings-forward existing ones); and
b. L is not a party to the Transfer and so cannot directly enforce the new covenant against P (unless, exceptionally, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 were to apply).

[ildigv]

Yes. There should be at least an indemnity covenant by P in favour of V (= you), obliging P to indemnify you against future performance of existing leasehold covenants.
It is phrased like this simply because:
a. it does not impose a new obligation (only brings-forward existing ones); and
b. L is not a party to the Transfer and so cannot directly enforce the new covenant against P (unless, exceptionally, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 were to apply).

Thanks. This is very interesting. As a layman I would think that theoretically issues affecting properties / landlords / m co could bring into discussion several previous owners under these covenants whether they are in favour of buyers and or sellers.

[jeffrey]

Yes. That's why P always requires evidence that V has paid all rent + service charge that fell due before (or on) the completion date.
Also see s.45(2) of Law of Property Act 1925. This effectively makes a clear and unqualified rent receipt (from L) impliedly confirm (to P) that there are no subsisting breaches of covenant.

[ildigv]

Well, after nearly four months our sale has been registered at HMLR.
This is after a direct phone call with buyer, a letter from my sol to the buyer's sol and a further letter to the buyer.

It was not even my job to check if this had been done but after being told by our sol that the buyer's sol did not have a clue during the whole sale process I thought I'd better check if they had registered the purchase following completion which surprise surprise had not been done, not to mention the fact that the M Co had not been informed either of the transfer and i got nasty letters from them!!

I find it outrageous that a high street firm messed up something which imho is standard practice in property law.

To all you sellers (and buyers) out there, check if your transfer have been registered after compeltion, don't just think that it will be done 100%.

[jeffrey]

P's solicitors should:
a. always notify P once purchase has been satisfactorily registered; and
b. (preferably) provide P with a copy of the Title Information Document issued by HM Land Registry to show P as registered proprietor.