Ends on: 14 Jan 2008
FINAL ANSWERS (CONFIDENTIAL)
Submitted by Gerald T Moran on 11 Jan 2008 10:33
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 5 ?
Please select one option from the list.
Do you have any comments regarding the proposal? Please supply sufficient detail to illustrate your point.
[ ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 6?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 8?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 9?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 11?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 19?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 37?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 49?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 51?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 52?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 54?
Do you have comments regarding the proposal? Please supply sufficient detail to illustrate your point.
[ But the paragraphs are (6) to (9). ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 68?
Do you have any comments regarding the proposal? Please provide sufficient detail to illustrate your point.
[ Refer to section 4(1)(b) of 1994 Act. ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 70?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 71?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 72?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 72B?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 72C?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 73?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 74?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 75?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 77?
Do you agree with the proposal to revoke rule 78?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 79A?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 86?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 87?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 91A to allow form II to start with the word 'Until' followed by a date?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 91A to provide the option of forms L, N, S, T and II being worded to show that they cease to have effect on the death of a named person or the survivor of named persons?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 91A(6)?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 91B?
[ But signature in name of conveyancing firm to be permitted and no need to state that capacity under the signature if in the text. ]
Do you agree with the proposal to require details of the nature of the applicant's interest and of how that interest arose in cases where an application to enter a restriction is made by a person claiming he has a sufficient interest in the making of the entry?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 93?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 94 to extend the circumstances in which application must be made to enter a restriction in Form A to include situations where two or more persons apply to be registered as proprietor of an estate that is a rentcharge, profit a prendre in gross, franchise or manor and the survivor of them cannot give a valid receipt for capital money?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 94 to provide that the obligation to apply for entry of a restriction contained in rules 94(1),(3) and (4) will be satisfied by an application that has not been made by all the registered proprietors or personal representatives?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 96?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 98?
Do you consider the revised layout of the standard restrictions makes the standard restrictions easier to apply?
Do you have any comments regarding the revised layout? Please provide sufficient detail to illustrate your point.
Do you agree with the proposal that where they occur in standard restrictions, the words "No disposition [or specify details]" should be replaced with "No [disposition or specify type of disposition]"?
[ But if "type of disposition" is being limited to prescribed classes then this should be stated in the Rules. ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend Forms J,K,L,M,N,O,P,R,II, and JJ to make it clear on their face that they do not apply to dispositions by a proprietor of a charge registered before the restriction?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend Form C?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend Forms L,N,S and T to provide for situations when it is intended that a restriction is to have effect after the death of a restrictioner?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend Forms L,N,S and T to allow a certificate or consent to be given by one or other of two (or more) named individuals?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend Forms AA and BB?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend Form JJ to allow the restriction to be used in respect of a statutory charge on a beneficial interest in a registered charge?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce Form MM?
Do you have any other comments on the proposed changes to Schedule 4?
[ Yes. A contents list may be helpful. ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 111?
[ But the rule and note need not refer to specific sections (that may not be correct, if reliance is made upon interpretation provisions). ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 113?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 116A?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 119?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 131?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rules 133 and 135?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 136?
Do you agree with the proposal to revoke rule 139?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 140?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 162?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 175?
Do you agree with the proposal to revoke rule 181?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 182?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 183 and introduce Forms 7 and 8?
[ But the registrar should have power to accept certificates otherwise then in forms 7 and 8 (which may not always be suitable for some jurisdictions). There may also be a need to look beyond the specific constitution - presumably a certified translation is needed if these are not already in English (or Welsh). ]
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 183A?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 187?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 188?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 188A?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rules 194A to G?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 195?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rules 196A and 196B?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 198?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 203?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 216?
[ But certification must be publicised in a manner that can be predicted and, as with certification, should not be at 11 pm on the day itself. The power should be exercised where there are prolonged known problems, not single days that are not predicted. ]
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 223?
Do you think the new Ariel font style and size are an improvement?
Do you have any comments regarding font style or size?
Is the two column format with the instructions and information/guidance notes placed at the side clearer to read?
Will the ability to remove the left-hand panel containing the information /guidance notes be a beneficial feature?
Do you have any other comments regarding the two-column format?
Do you think that forms in the proposed new format will be quicker/easier to complete than the current forms?
If all the forms were changed to the proposed new format would this cause your firm/organisation any significant problems?
Overall do you think the proposed new layout is an improvement over the current one?
Do you have any further comments regarding the layout?
Do you think the request to provide the name of the local authority (to which local searches are made) is clearer than the current request for the 'administrative area'?
Do you have any further comments regarding this proposal? Please provide sufficient detail to illustrate your point.
Do you agree that we should amend all application forms to include separate panels for the applicant's name and the details of the person lodging the application?
Do you agree with our proposal to remove the requirement for the applicant to quote the outline application reference when the follow up application is lodged?
Do you agree with our proposal no longer to raise requisitions with a third party?
Do you ever ask Land Registry to send either the copy register and so on, or specified documents to a third party?
If Land Registry returned everything to the person who lodged the application (except where the only application is the discharge of a charge when we would send the registered proprietor(s) a copy register), would this be acceptable?
Do you agree with our proposal to include a confirmation of identity panel in Form AP1?
[ No evidence that this will defeat fraud where both parties are represented. Note that no alternative applies where the disponor is represented bu may instruct the conveyancer not to be co-operative, perhaps as the disponor is forced to make the disposal by statutory compulsion (relevant legislation may be needed). ]
Do you agree with our proposal to include a confirmation of identity panel in Form FR1?
[ See comments on Q883. ]
Do you agree that the proposed tick box is a useful addition to Form AP1?
Do you consider the proposed Form AP1 is clearer and easier to complete than the current version?
Do you have any further comments on the proposed Form AP1?
Do you agree with the proposal not to ask for confirmation on Form FR1 that no disclosable overriding interests affect the property?
Do you agree with the proposed amendment to panel 12 of FR1 to ask who is in possession of the property rather than if anyone is in adverse possession?
Do you consider the proposed Form FR1 is clearer and easier to complete than the current version?
Do you have any further comments on Form FR1?
Do you consider that the proposed introduction of the new Form HR4 will make it easier to apply to cancel a Home Rights notice?
Do you think that the proposed new Form HR4 is clear and easy to use?
Does the new Form HR4 contain all the information you would require to assist you in lodging all the necessary evidence to support applications?
Do you have any further comments regarding the introduction of this new Form HR4?
Do you agree that the additional panel provides a practical method of indicating a preference for postal delivery of official copies?
Do you think Land Registry's approach in merging the panels on RX1 and other forms is correct?
Do you consider the proposed Forms RX1, AN1, UN4, and UT1 are clearer and easier to complete than the current versions?
Do you have any further comments on the proposed forms RX1, AN1, UN4, and UT1?
Do you consider the proposed introduction of new Form SEV will make it easier to apply for a Form A restriction where there has been a severance of the joint tenacy in equity by agreement or notice?
Do you think the proposed new Form SEV is clear and easy to use?
Does the new Form SEV clearly set out our requirements for supporting evidence where it is required?
Do you have any further comments regarding the introduction of Form SEV?
Do you agree with the proposal to remove from Form UN4 the panel requiring the applicant to supply details of any person, other than the registered beneficiary of the notice, whom the applicant believes is entitled to be registered as the beneficiary of the notice?
Do you agree with the proposal to revoke Forms TR3 and TP3?
Do you agree with the proposal to revoke rule 207?
Do you agree with the proposed new rule 207A?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 210?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 211?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a rule governing transitional arrangements for the introduction of new forms?
Do you think the completion of the 'declaration of trust ' panel in schedule 1 forms of disposition and clause LR14 of a prescribed clauses lease should be made compulsory?
Do you think execution of the disposition by the disponees where the 'declaration of trust' panel has been completed should be made compulsory?
Do you think Land Registry should amend the 'declaration of trust' panel in schedule 1 forms and clause LR14 of a prescribed clauses lease so as to contain a further option for those applicants who do not wish to commit themselves to an express declaration?
Do you have any further comments? Please provide sufficient detail to illustrate your point.
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 27?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce Forms ST1, ST2 and ST3?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 33?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce Form ST4?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 62?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend rule 63?
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new rule 215A?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend the Commonhold Rules?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend schedule 6 part 3?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend schedule 6 part 4?
Do you agree with the proposal to amend schedule 6 part 5?
[ But allow existing form to be accepted if status as deed is stated elsewhere. ]
Please select one option from the list. You must provide an answer to this question.
Please tell us whether you are responding as an individual or on behalf of your organisation. If you wish to provide a corporate resonse on behalf of your organisation please indicate the number people your response represents
Do you wish your responses to be treated as confidential?
If you replied 'yes' to this question please give your reasons:
Please use this panel to supply any further comments you have about the proposals. You are also invited to supply information on the ethnic and gender profile of your organisation and to inform us of any potential impact of our proposals on different ethnic, religous, disability or gender groups.
[ On behalf of The City of Westminster and Holborn Law Society. ]
View Answers View Answers