Questions about deeds

[salawinder]

Hi, Fist post of what could be many!

We have a situation that (to us) is very stressful and has many questions, and wish I'd found this forum sooner. I have already learned a lot, but still have more to discover.

The whole situation spans many years, so probably best if I give a breakdown of what has happened:

1959 - My grandfather-in-law bought a shop.
1971 - My father-in-law bought the shop from his father (jointly with his wife).
1971 - My father-in-law and his wife bought the plot of land next to the shop.
2012 - My in-laws sold a part of the land to the side of the shop to a developer.
2018 - My mother-in-law recovered the deeds for both properties from the solicitors. These were then put in storage.
2020 - I (acting on behalf of my in-laws) instigated a sale of both properties.

It was at this point that things went askew. We instructed a solicitor recommended by the business transfer agent, who immediately pointed out that some of the deeds were missing. He contacted the solicitor that dealt with the sale of part in 2012, but they denied any wrongdoing.

The sale fell through, and the way the solicitor was dealing with the case was very abrupt, and causing stress to my mother-in-law, so we ceased dealings with him.

We then instructed the solicitor that had dealt with the sale of part to carry out a first registration of both properties. Our thoughts were that if they had messed up they might be best placed to 'fix' it rather than admitting messing up.

The solicitors looked into the situation, and said that according to their documents the deeds for the plot of land were sent to the buyers solicitors so that hey could register the part of the land they had bought, but were never returned.

We have since looked into this and our understanding is that prior to 2016 all first registrations required original documents to be sent in, and after this certified copies were acceptable - so it makes sense that the buyer would need the original documents.

The solicitor eventually had some original documents returned by the buyers solicitor, which confirms the line that they gave them the documents but never got them back. Missing, however is the original of the 1971 conveyance (the most important document!).

Now though, the solicitor is saying that they never gave the buyers solicitor the original of the 1971 conveyance. They are saying as far as they are concerned all documents were handed back in 2018 - even though this is clearly not true as the buyers solicitor returned some documents in 2022.

The solicitor is saying our only option is to complete a first registration with missing deeds, gain a possessory title, then attempt to sell with indemnity insurance (at our expense) or wait 12 years to gain absolute title. The buyer we were dealing with had said he would not buy with a possessory title, so we think this would be the worst possible outcome.


Sorry for the (very) long post, I thought best to provide as much information as possible!

My questions are:

As the sale of part was prior to 2016 would the buyer's solicitor have needed the original documents?

I have read on here about getting deeds 'reconstructed'. Would this be possible in this case? (we have copies, and an allegedly certified copy)

I read (can't remember where) that if a solicitor admits fault in losing the deeds the Land Registry may provide absolute title - Is this true?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

[Clitheroekid]

My questions are:

As the sale of part was prior to 2016 would the buyer's solicitor have needed the original documents?

No. On a sale of part of an unregistered title the seller's solicitor prepares a document known as an `epitome of title'. This is essentially a photocopy of the original deeds. They then certify it as a true copy and send it to the buyer's solicitors.

They would in turn send it to the Land Registry for first registration.

The seller's solicitors would (or at least should) never send the original documents to the buyer's solicitors unless the buyer had bought all of the property comprised in the deeds.

I have read on here about getting deeds 'reconstructed'. Would this be possible in this case? (we have copies, and an allegedly certified copy)

There's no such process as reconstruction. What happens in a situation like this is that an application is made for first registration on the basis of deeds that are missing.

I read (can't remember where) that if a solicitor admits fault in losing the deeds the Land Registry may provide absolute title - Is this true?

In certain circumstances this may be accepted as satisfactory evidence, but each case is treated on its merits, and it would be for LR to decide whether or not the evidence was sufficiently convincing to grant absolute title or just possessory title.

2018 - My mother-in-law recovered the deeds for both properties from the solicitors. These were then put in storage.

There would have been a schedule with the deeds - did it include the 1971 conveyance? If so, and your mother signed a receipted schedule, they could legitimately say that it was lost in her possession.

The solicitor is saying our only option is to complete a first registration with missing deeds, gain a possessory title, then attempt to sell with indemnity insurance (at our expense) or wait 12 years to gain absolute title.

No, in this situation they should be applying for absolute title.

But on the basis of what you're saying they may (I couldn't be certain without a lot more detail) have been negligent, in which case they are obliged to obtain absolute title at no expense to you, and potentially to compensate you if you've suffered any financial loss from the sale falling through.

[salawinder]

Clitheroekid, Thanks for your help.

Firstly, when my mother-in-law collected the documents in 2018 there was no schedule, in fact the documents (nearly 100 individual documents) were in a bundle with elastic bands around them. Both properties documents were mixed in with each other too, so when I went through them there was a lot of head scratching.

No. On a sale of part of an unregistered title the seller's solicitor prepares a document known as an `epitome of title'. This is essentially a photocopy of the original deeds. They then certify it as a true copy and send it to the buyer's solicitors.

Oddly, you may have something there... I have a sneaking suspicion that the solicitors royally f*d up and did complete the sale as a sale of the whole. Numerous things that have happened point me to this, but I have been told this couldn't have happened, and the latest email from them states 'sale of part' twice.

The firm has a residential arm and a commercial arm, and for some reason the residential arm dealt with the sale of the part of the land. I think their inexperience in land sales (which I have been told should always be commercial) may have led to mistakes being made.

To clarify though - The plot was advertised with a diagram showing the part to be sold, the buyer has registered only the part they were meant to buy, and we have had full access and use of the remaining part ever since (there is a fence between the two parts).

But it is possible that our solicitors may have completed the sale as if they had bought the whole plot. This would explain the complete set of original documents being sent to the buyers solicitor.

No, in this situation they should be applying for absolute title.

This has me confused - I have been led to believe (mainly by the solicitor, but also by others) that if you apply for first registration with lost documents you will only ever get a possessory title. This is why my hopes were raised when it was suggested that we might get absolute if the solicitor admits fault.

Directly from the solicitors email:

In the absence of original deeds the Land Registry will only likely provide possessory title (as opposed to absolute title).

Is this not the case?

[staffordian]

Re your last paragraph, I see no contradiction between CK's assertion and the quote from your solicitor.

The quote implies you may only get possessory title, but doesn't say that's what you apply for. My (layman's) guess is that you apply for absolute title but might not get it.

[Charlottesquare]

Why not just get copy deed from wherever they are registered? In Scotland (Sasine) this is what I get our solicitors to do for the odds and ends we still own that have yet to be registered on the LR. (In fact we are dealing with a first reg right now where some of the required deeds were obtained via this route.)

Deeds get destroyed all the time and there are obviously ways to get round the issues or a Deed may apply to more than one title, who holds>? E.g. say an earlier Feu Disposition may impact the titles of more than one property when a house is say later split (this applies to my property which is an upper Victorian villa) , obviously my downstairs neighbour and myself cannot both hold the original deed as there is only one of it.

[genou]

Why not just get copy deed from wherever they are registered? In Scotland (Sasine) .

My emphasis. I think the rub is that the English never got around to having any register prior to the LR. So the deeds are the title that the LR will accept.

[Charlottesquare]

Why not just get copy deed from wherever they are registered? In Scotland (Sasine) .

My emphasis. I think the rub is that the English never got around to having any register prior to the LR. So the deeds are the title that the LR will accept.

Seriously? What did they do re fires etc over the years, deeds must surely have been destroyed every so often. That is shocking if correct.

[genou]

My emphasis. I think the rub is that the English never got around to having any register prior to the LR. So the deeds are the title that the LR will accept.

Seriously? What did they do re fires etc over the years, deeds must surely have been destroyed every so often. That is shocking if correct.

Initial reply was off the top of my head, but here you go - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/1862-act-re ... nformation.

And I think that first register was voluntary. If the OP's property hasn't changed hands in long enough ( as seems to be the case ) there are only the deeds themselves, I think. I have no idea what you do / did if there are no deeds, but CK seems to have a clue.

Edit: the house I am in ( built 1902 IIRC ) was first registered on my purchase in 1991. I have a thick pile of paperwork which was returned to me as scrap paper. I haven't the heart to ditch it, but I've never made the time to actually read the stuff.

[Charlottesquare]

Seriously? What did they do re fires etc over the years, deeds must surely have been destroyed every so often. That is shocking if correct.

Initial reply was off the top of my head, but here you go - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/1862-act-re ... nformation.

And I think that first register was voluntary. If the OP's property hasn't changed hands in long enough ( as seems to be the case ) there are only the deeds themselves, I think. I have no idea what you do / did if there are no deeds, but CK seems to have a clue.

Edit: the house I am in ( built 1902 IIRC ) was first registered on my purchase in 1991. I have a thick pile of paperwork which was returned to me as scrap paper. I haven't the heart to ditch it, but I've never made the time to actually read the stuff.

Iron them out then wallpaper the downstairs loo. We have a lot of older deeds (post LR) lying around and I have often thought papering the walls of the property in question ,so one can sit and read them, might not be a bad idea - they then stay with the property.