charge on land, not registered

This forum is for Garden Law problems that don't fit into the other categories. Please treat it with respect.

Moderator: Angelisle

Post Reply
andrew54
Posts: 6994
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:25 pm
Location: north yorkshire

charge on land, not registered

Post by andrew54 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:10 pm

Your views would be appreciated.

A landowner voluntarily registers land in 2010, providing Land Registry with a chain of conveyances and deeds going back a hundred years. There are no charges on the land registered, no limitations, agreements or restrictions of any kind. Wind forward nine years and an organisation contacts the landowner producing an agreement document signed by the landowners predecessor in 1959. This agreement restricts the landowner's use of the land to just one use unless permission is granted by this organisation.

The organisation says the agreement should have been registered as a charge on the land at first registration. They also claim that the restrictive agreement is still valid despite not being registered with Land Registry.

I tend to think that the organisation had over thirty years in which to register their interest at Land Registry, before first registration took place, so I feel they now have no valid claim. I feel the landowner can ignore this old agreement.

What do you think?

FilthWizzard
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:00 pm

Re: charge on land, not registered

Post by FilthWizzard » Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:05 pm

Possibly, probably, charges can be pretty strange sometimes. Kinda depends how ancient the law they use is. Firstly, best to provide the wording from the charge here so people can provide accurate advice. You may well find a chat with a suitable solicitor will be advised, but best to post full wording. If it's just a covenant you can probably front it out but the devil is in the detail.

Caution - if the wording involves the term 'rentcharge' then you need to be extremely cautious. Doesn't sound like it, but I mention because these things can be sneaky and very nasty and a company approaching folk out of the blue is just what can happen with rentcharge issues. I will be able to advise in some depth on that topic as I have researched it in great detail and am used to statutory instruments and acts, though many solicitors will struggle as it's pretty exotic stuff.

ukmicky
Posts: 4956
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: charge on land, not registered

Post by ukmicky » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:18 am

andrew54 wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:10 pm
Your views would be appreciated.

A landowner voluntarily registers land in 2010, providing Land Registry with a chain of conveyances and deeds going back a hundred years. There are no charges on the land registered, no limitations, agreements or restrictions of any kind. Wind forward nine years and an organisation contacts the landowner producing an agreement document signed by the landowners predecessor in 1959. This agreement restricts the landowner's use of the land to just one use unless permission is granted by this organisation.

The organisation says the agreement should have been registered as a charge on the land at first registration. They also claim that the restrictive agreement is still valid despite not being registered with Land Registry.

I tend to think that the organisation had over thirty years in which to register their interest at Land Registry, before first registration took place, so I feel they now have no valid claim. I feel the landowner can ignore this old agreement.

What do you think?



Covenants are a very complicated area of the law ,so much so they scare people including those with law degrees. Most solicitors don’t know the law and most would not give you a definite answer without the backup of a barristers opinion on this one even if they knew the law . That’s how much they scare people.

So as I’m not a solicitor with a barristers opinion I’m only giving you advice or a view but it’s view you can check out through a little googling and then can make you own mind up.


So as your probably aware restrictive covenants run with the land so successors can be burdened by them.

However a restrictive covenant is what they call a registerble disposition and the law says for a successor in title to be bound by a restrictive covenant he must have notice of it. In other words he must be able to find out about it before he purchases the land for money’s worth as the law puts it.

For any covenant that came into being after 1926 when the Land charges Act 1925 came into force , if the land it was burdening was not registered the covenant had to be registered as a class D land charge against the estate owner of the burdened land and for registered land it must have an entry on the register of title for the burdened property or it will not exist in law.

Without that notice it only exists in equity not law and as equity deals with fairness it would be unfair legally for a purchaser of land for money to be burdened by the covenant .

So I take it it hasn’t been registered as a class D land charge and there is no entry on the land charges register in the name of the original owner of the land. ? If so it’s a simple reply and in it you quote the actual law.
Land Charges Act 1972 section 4(6)

(6)An estate contract and a land charge of Class D created or entered into on or after 1st January 1926 shall be void as against a purchaser for money or money’s worth of a legal estate in the land charged with it, unless the land charge is registered in the appropriate register before the completion of the purchase.
The courts have also said the land that it benifits must be clearly identifiable ,(no guess work can be involved) so if the corporation can’t provide a signed covenant that clearly identifies the land it benifits it also cannot bind your friends land due to that reason.

So if it were me I would be saying to these people . The law says for it to run with the land and burden a successor in title a successor in title must have notice of it. For that to happen the it had to be registered as a land charge whilst the original covenantor was still the owner of the land . As you didn’t protect it by registering it as a land charge on the appropriate register I legally had no notice of it and therefore I am not bound by it and bought my land free of any charges...

They funny thing is they are actually correct when they say it is still valid . The problem is it’s only valid against the original person who agreed to it and not a successor in title.
Any information provided is not legal advice and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

pilman
Posts: 2997
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: charge on land, not registered

Post by pilman » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:29 pm

A landowner voluntarily registers land in 2010, providing Land Registry with a chain of conveyances and deeds going back a hundred years. There are no charges on the land registered, no limitations, agreements or restrictions of any kind. Wind forward nine years and an organisation contacts the landowner producing an agreement document signed by the landowners predecessor in 1959. This agreement restricts the landowner's use of the land to just one use unless permission is granted by this organisation.
If the land-owner voluntarily registered his land was a search of the Land Charges Register ever made?
That is not made clear by the OP.

The fact that this posting refers to "an organisation" would imply that such "an organisation" may have used a solicitor who would have applied for a D(ii) Land Charge to be recorded.

ukmicky
Posts: 4956
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: charge on land, not registered

Post by ukmicky » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:42 pm

The organisation says the agreement should have been registered as a charge on the land at first registration. They also claim that the restrictive agreement is still valid despite not being registered with Land Registry.
I read the above quote from the OP where it says should have been ,to mean it wasn’t registerred as a land charge but should have been.

Also the organisation have got it wrong as it should have been registered as a charge before first registration in order to protect it.

Also any land charge to be binding on the land and against a successor in title had to be registered as a class D charge before a successor in title bought the burdened land. if. It wasn’t under the rules it would only exist as an equitable charge that would not run with the land.
Any information provided is not legal advice and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

arborlad
Posts: 8351
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: charge on land, not registered

Post by arborlad » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:50 am

andrew54 wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:10 pm

The organisation says the agreement should have been registered as a charge on the land at first registration. They also claim that the restrictive agreement is still valid despite not being registered with Land Registry.

I tend to think that the organisation had over thirty years in which to register their interest at Land Registry, before first registration took place, so I feel they now have no valid claim. I feel the landowner can ignore this old agreement.

What do you think?


I tend to agree with you. Legalese aside, I think the bottom line would be the difference in value of the land with and without the 'restriction'.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Post Reply