Jump to content


Land Registry Charge Mistakes


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5185 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Have a look at the following links. There's some rather crucial points to make when seeking to change a 'mistake' relating to a charge against your property.

 

Property Law UK

 

And this one is a more in-depth version of one of the cases:

 

Guy v Barclays Bank Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 452 (09 April 2008)

 

..some points:

 

'..would have to be on the footing that her case fell squarely within the words "For the purposes of correcting a mistake."

 

'..Then the judge quoted a passage from Ruoff and Roper on Registered Conveyancing which takes the view that the reading of "a mistake" is narrow and the concept of mistake is restricted to mistake in registration..'

 

'23. With the greatest of respect to what Judge Langan says there, and I understand perfectly why he took the view that he did, it seems to me that it is necessary to grasp the nettle of what is meant by "mistake". In that respect, while the scope of the phrase "correcting a mistake" is no doubt something that requires to be explored and discussed and developed in the course of future litigation, which will be decided upon the facts and upon the merits of each case, I cannot see that it is arguable that the registration of the charge can be said to have been a mistake, or the result of a mistake, unless at the least Mr Guy can go so far as to show that the bank, the mortgagee, had either actual notice, or what amounts to the same, what is referred to as "Nelsonian" or "blind eye notice", of the defect in the title of the mortgagor, Ten Acre Limited in the present case. I simply cannot see how it could be argued that if the purchaser or chargee knows nothing of the problem underlying the intermediate owner's title, that the registration of the charge or sale to the ultimate purchaser or chargee can be said to be a mistake. That seems to me inconsistent with the structure and terms of the 2002 Act. So the question is whether Mr Guy can show an arguable case, on the evidence, for saying that Barclays Bank had actual notice or was turning a blind eye to matters that it knew, which would if it addressed them properly, have shown it that Ten Acre Limited did not have a good title to the property.'

 

May make some changes to the above as I read through any other available cases...

 

ZillaK :)

 

ps - remember this too - 'but by virtue of Section 58 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and the other provisions of that Act the register is conclusive, subject only to its rectification pursuant to the provisions of the Act itself.'

Edited by ZillaK
corrections
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...