TR1 transfer of shared freehold advice really needed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    TR1 transfer of shared freehold advice really needed

    I live in a Victorian conversion of 2 leasehold flats and we jointly own the freehold. The other owners are selling and I have received the TR1 form to sign. I went through the form last night and found some places it was not filled in correctly according to the Land Registry guidance, so I replied highlighting this to co-freeholders and their solicitors. Their response has raised some concerns and questions for me:

    Who normally fills in the TR1 form, the buyer's or the vendor's solicitor?

    I am both a transferor, along with the vendor, and one of the transferrees, along with the new buyer. There is no space on the forms I've been given for the buyer to sign and I've been told that they are counterpart forms where I sign this form with the vendors and the buyer alone signs a separate form. Can this be right? It sounds very odd to me, it was not done in this way when I bought my flat nor when the current other owners bought theirs. Is there any good reason to do this or any reason I should refuse to sign in this manner?

    I asked to be provided with the form when the other parties have signed it so that I can take a copy for my records. I didn't ask for this when the current owner bought their flat and I never got a copy, I ended up having to buy one from the Land registry. I have been told that this is not possible as it's not 'the way it works'. Is this true?

    I asked for the details of the buyer's solicitor but they have not provided these. Is it unreasonable for me to request this information?

    When I compared the current form to that which I signed when I bought get my flat, on the old one there were a lot of restrictions listed to the implied covenants under the Law of Property Act 1986, which are not now included. I tried to get advice from some local conveyancing solicitors but they all seem to only be interested in doing full conveyancing and will not offer ad hoc advice on any basis. If I post the wording of these restrictions would someone be able to tell me a) what they mean in laymans terms, b) for whose benefit they were included previously?

    I am feeling like I probably do need to engage a solicitor if I can find one willing, however I do not feel like it is right that I should incur cost when I am not the one selling my flat. Does anyone have any views or advice on this?

    #2
    Further to the above, the additional information in the old TR1 was as follows:
    "Section 2(1)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 shall apply as if the word "at his own cost" had been deleted and substituted by the words "at the cost of the person to whom the disposition is made"

    The covenant implied by section 3(1) of the the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 shall not extent to any charge encumbrance right covenant or other matter created before the Transferor acquired the property and shall apply as if the words "and could not reasonably be expected to" had been deleted.

    For the purposes of Section 6(2)(a) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 all matter recorded in registers open to public inspection are deemed to to be within the actual knowledge of the Transferee

    The Transferee hereby covenants with the Transferor to pau the rents and observe and perform the covenants contained in the Lease registered against the above title and to indemnify the Transferor against any breach thereof

    The Transferor shall not be liable under the covenant implied by Section 4 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 for any breach of the terms of the Lease concerning the state and condition of the Property and the Registrar is requested to note such modification of the Register.

    This Transfer may be executed in any number of parts each of which when executed and delivered shall be an original and all the parts together shall constitute one and the same instrument."

    It's all a bit legalese to me, but seems to be to the benefit of the Transferor. Should I care about this as I am not the vendor on this occasion - although I am both a Transferor and a Transferee?

    Thanks

    Comment


      #3
      Section 2(1)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 shall apply as if the word "at his own cost" had been deleted and substituted by the words "at the cost of the person to whom the disposition is made

      The covenant implied by section 3(1) of the the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 shall not extent to any charge encumbrance right covenant or other matter created before the Transferor acquired the property and shall apply as if the words "and could not reasonably be expected to" had been deleted.

      For the purposes of Section 6(2)(a) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 all matter recorded in registers open to public inspection are deemed to to be within the actual knowledge of the Transferee


      None of the above are necessary when the TR1 is made to transfer the freehold on the occasion of one leaseholder replacing another.

      The Transferee hereby covenants with the Transferor to pau the rents and observe and perform the covenants contained in the Lease registered against the above title and to indemnify the Transferor against any breach thereof

      The Transferor shall not be liable under the covenant implied by Section 4 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 for any breach of the terms of the Lease concerning the state and condition of the Property and the Registrar is requested to note such modification of the Register.


      The above only apply on a transfer of leasehold property.

      This Transfer may be executed in any number of parts each of which when executed and delivered shall be an original and all the parts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

      That is needed if the transfer is prepared with different parties signing each part. That is a bit unsual, but possible. It is probably done to avoid re-execution if one the signatories loses the transfer after others have signed.

      A TR1 (whether a single document or in parts) must be signed by all the transferors. The transferees need to sign it if they are covenanting with the transferor or the transferor contains a declaration. If a person is both transferor and transferee he only needs to sign once. If the transferees need to sign I think you are entitled to expect at least a certified copy of the part signed by the transferee. Have you sent it back yet?

      Comment


        #4
        Thank you for your clear advice on the bits from the old Tr1.
        I have not sent it back because it listed the intended address of the transferees (ie myself and the new owner of the other flat) as that flat's address and I do not intend to live in their flat with them (!) so have asked for this to be amended.
        Forgive my ignorance but is a certified copy something I would be asking for before I sign, or does that not happen until all parties have signed?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by jammh View Post
          Forgive my ignorance but is a certified copy something I would be asking for before I sign, or does that not happen until all parties have signed?
          It needs to be a copy of the completed document.

          Have you seen my private message?

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by AndrewDod
            I think the issue here is not so much the lease (if it is bad, that is a problem) but what the options are when the lease/law are disobeyed (as is commonly the case). Certainly if one is charitable and generous (as you are) and assumes the lease/law will be obeyed rigorously, then the lease is key....
            01-07-2022, 17:52 PM
          • Less than 50% of freehold
            by raskitt
            I have just started conveyancing for a share of freehold flat. The flat is the ground floor of a converted house.

            I have just found out that the other 2 share of freehold flats are owned by the same person (who originally owned the whole building).

            How much of a problem is...
            29-06-2022, 13:28 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by Gordon999
            Obviously, my feedback can be wrong. OP 's solicitor should check the terms in the lease are all acceptable before he commits to exchange of contract for purchase of "leasehold flat".

            He should not try to buy a "freehold flat" which does not qualify for mortgage...
            01-07-2022, 17:12 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by AndrewDod
            Neither of the above are necessarily true



            Read this forum and the comments already made. Plenty of reason to worry....
            01-07-2022, 12:52 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by Gordon999
            If you own a 1/3 rd share in the freehold title , you do not pay ground rent and you can give your flat a statutory lease extension at nil premium.

            The service charge for maintenance of the building should contributed 1/3rd by your flat. If the other freeholder contributes 2/3rds for...
            01-07-2022, 12:33 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by flyingfreehold
            another problem with share of freehold is that neighbours can end up in dispute and at each others throats. And having to sue neighbours is most undesirable. Those campaigning for leasehold reform havent gone into print as to how to enforce against leaseholders who refuse to pay. We have one leaseholder...
            30-06-2022, 22:34 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by AndrewDod
            No. Your obligations and those of the FH are determined by the lease. When the FH does not obey the lease (or cheats) you have recourse via the courts. If you are part of the freeholder (but with no actual ability to uphold those obligations) you would be taking legal action against yourself. If as...
            30-06-2022, 15:11 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by raskitt
            AndrewDod,

            Thank you, my thoughts are going this way. Could you explain briefly why it would be worse? I assume because I'm on the hook for shared costs whereas if I had the same flat but without the freehold I would not
            30-06-2022, 14:40 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by raskitt
            Yes that is correct...
            30-06-2022, 14:38 PM
          • Reply to Less than 50% of freehold
            by AndrewDod
            If you own a minority share of the freehold, then true you have no say at all. The freeholder still has to obey the lease and the law though.

            I would not buy it. Owning a minority share in a "share of freehold" situation is far worse than not owning any share at all (and having...
            30-06-2022, 11:54 AM
          Working...
          X