Deducing title to tenancy etc re lease extension

[westminster]

I am semi-DIYing a section 42 claim to extend a long leasehold.

Following service of my notice on the landlord, the solicitor for the landlord has asked me to deduce title. I know this means I have to send copies of the Land Registry title and plan for the flat, but do these have to be 'official' copies? i.e. not the ones I can download online, but the official ones I need to apply for on a form?

Solicitor has also asked for copies of any Grants of Probate which are 'relevant' and a copy lease. No-one has died so I assume no GoP, but do I need to confirm there are none?

And I'm curious why they are asking for the lease, when presumably they have a copy.

[leaseholdanswers]

IMHE most accept the downloaded copies as they can, and should verify these on line themselves. They might insist on the official copy so I would ask.

You are correct about the GoP, simply advise that you are the registered owner and are as far as you can tell, still with us....

There are millions of leases "lost" in basements garages fires and archive storage of previous freeholders agents and solicitors... and if the location is known its cheaper to ask you to do it than the time and expense of recall from archive.. You will have to send a copy.

[westminster]

IMHE most accept the downloaded copies as they can, and should verify these on line themselves. They might insist on the official copy so I would ask.

So it's down to what they demand, with no legal requirement either way?

I'd imagined that if I'd sent non-official copies they might say, after the deadline passed, Aha! you didn't deduce title as per the requirements of s.X of the Act within 21 days, so your claim is invalidated!

Is there no adversarial quality to the business of claiming a lease extension, then? Mightn't the LL's solicitor be looking for errors I might make to my disadvantage? Or is it usually all pretty amicable etc?

Obviously delighted to be saving the LL a few quid on acquiring a copy of the lease! *And* they want a coloured leaseplan, if you please, so I'll have to go some distance to find a place with a colour photocopier. Grrr.

[Lawcruncher]

Where there is a contract deduction of title is governed by the contract. Unless you have a dodgy unregistered title, this will invariably be left to the small print of the Standard Conditions of Sale. In the case of registered land what you have to produce is office copies of the register, the title plan and any documents referred to in the register of title and kept by the registrar. Where there is no contract lawyers will generally accept that they need to produce those documents, though if you just want to prove ownership documents referred to will not be needed.

If you submit office copy entries there can be no argument that you have not deduced title as the LRA provides they are "admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original". (For the record if you have one of those cases where the legal estate is not vested in the registered proprietor the appropriate further evidence must be supplied.)

The only reason I can think they want a copy of the lease is to check the extent of the property; the lease plan is likely to be on a larger scale than the title plan.

Given that the expense is not great, taking the line of least resistance is probably the best option.

[leaseholdanswers]

I would add that, after taking a deep breath before you burst a blood vessel that as a general rule never give the other side anything to argue about, even if they are wrong to do so. That you are doing this yourself they may look far more closely.

As a landlord may take an adversarial approach, don't leave anything to chance.

And remember this, the landlord is perfectly happy with the arrangement they have. It is the applicant who wishes to change that and therefore must expect to do the heavy lifting.

[Lawcruncher]

Never give the other side anything to argue about

is a very sound principle.

Equally though:

Never say more than you need to.

[leaseholdanswers]

Indeed that is true. I fear that the latter phrase might be tempting to take to heart when wishing or needing to do the least possible.

In this case it is a simple question of which version of the document to submit none of which should offer too much information, or information that would lead to dispute, other than quibbling by the landlord.

[westminster]

Thank you both for your sage advice. I suspect this thread will eventually run to a few pages...

I would add that, after taking a deep breath before you burst a blood vessel that as a general rule never give the other side anything to argue about, even if they are wrong to do so. That you are doing this yourself they may look far more closely.

As a landlord may take an adversarial approach, don't leave anything to chance.

And remember this, the landlord is perfectly happy with the arrangement they have. It is the applicant who wishes to change that and therefore must expect to do the heavy lifting.

At first glance, I read 'heavy lifting' as 'heavy flirting' haha.

As I said, I am semi-DIYing. A barrister drafted my s.42 notice (as it turned out the competent LL was someone other than my immediate LL). I am hoping that, having served valid notice, the rest is do-able via a combination of forum help, and reading letters from the other side very closely, before responding. I assume I will need professional advice in terms of reviewing the new lease, though.

[leaseholdanswers]

At first glance, I read 'heavy lifting' as 'heavy flirting' haha.

if that reduces the premium.....