You will no doubt be aware that since late 2023 the changes in registration practice being implemented by the Land Registry have been a source of growing frustration for solicitors and their clients. The Law Society’s Conveyancing Committee has been clearly communicating those frustrations to the Land Registry based on the practical examples provided by practitioners around the country. None of these changes were discussed with the Conveyancing Committee by the Land Registry prior to their introduction.

The purpose of this note is to provide solicitors with an update on the ongoing engagement that the Conveyancing Committee is undertaking on your behalf with the Land Registry. While the Conveyancing Committee has been forthright in its interactions with the Land Registry on these issues, to date there has only been limited progress.

The Land Registry has taken on board some of the criticisms and concerns that we have aired, and it has made some changes.

There is still a wide gulf between the views of the Land Registry and the Law Society on how best to improve the client experience of the registration process. The Land Registry does not share the Law Society’s view that significant changes are required. However, we are committed to continued constructive engagement with the Land Registry so as to find a lasting solution to the persistent challenges that practitioners continue to encounter. In this, and in respect of several other matters of concern to the profession, the Conveyancing Committee continues to engage with senior Land Registry officials.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank solicitors from around the country who have provided concrete examples of some of the ways that the current system is impeding the timely registration of properties at a time of national crisis in housing. These examples are critical in demonstrating to the Land Registry and other stakeholders how the recent changes are making the system worse, not better.

Background to the current situation

At a routine meeting on 13 October 2023, members of the Conveyancing Committee’s Land Registry Task Force discussed with the Land Registry some apparent changes emerging in Land Registry practice, and it was confirmed by the Land Registry at the time that while Land Registry processes were always under consideration that there were no immediate changes in hand.

In late 2023 significant changes were introduced by the Land Registry which it claims were aimed at improving internal efficiencies and processing times.

It became apparent, from a deluge of correspondence from practitioners to the Committee in that significant changes had in fact been introduced by the Land Registry and these changes, and increasing rejections, continue to give rise to a lack of confidence and predictability in the system.

The most notable change to the Land Registry process was to reject applications outright without providing a reason. It was previously the case that all the issues perceived in relation to an application would be explained in correspondence, often while the application itself was retained by the Land Registry pending a resolution of any issues.

In its subsequent contacts with the Conveyancing Committee’s Land Registry Task Force, the Land Registry has maintained that:

• its internal processes are matters for determination by it alone;
• its criteria for rejecting dealings have not changed (albeit earlier practice would have been to examine all of the dealing and then provide a list of the rejectable reasons); and
• it is not an advisory body and does not have the capacity to devote resources to checking every application for errors, but rather intends to devote available staff to processing applications which are in order.

The Land Registry has explained that staff have an increasing workload, both due to increasing numbers of applications generated by simple demographics but added to by the staffing issues and continuing changes in the banking market, with large numbers of charges being transferred, in addition to transfers of the underlying properties.

The Land Registry reported that its aim in introducing this approach was to improve efficiency in the processing of applications generally, such that when a determination had been made that the application cannot be registered and is to be rejected, then the available resources can be allocated to the applications that are in order.

Rejection process

Initially the new rejection policy was simply to reject applications without providing any reason for the rejection.

We are pleased to say that following engagement with the Conveyancing Committee, the Land Registry’s position in this regard was modified and the Land Registry agreed to provide the “first rejectable reason”, being the first reason discovered by Land Registry staff which would prevent registration from happening and warrant a rejection.

The Conveyancing Committee engaged with the Land Registry on the sometimes vague nature of some of the rejectable reasons being given, and the Conveyancing Committee is pleased to report that the Land Registry has agreed that a generic reason is not sufficient, and more information shall be provided to the practitioner.

The Conveyancing Committee has identified other issues with the new processes in terms of title deeds being in transit etc, and some practitioners have reported time delays in receiving fee refunds in order to relodge applications.

Unfortunately, the change in process has led to multiple lodgements of the same applications and on occasion applications have been rejected because of Land Registry staff errors. In previous practice these errors might have been addressed in correspondence while an application was held by the Land Registry and the solicitor was afforded an opportunity to remedy it without the need for a formal rejection.

These concerns will be the subject of further engagement.

Land Registry Checklists

It has been confirmed to us that these checklists form the basis of the initial triage process used by Land Registry staff, and we would again urge practitioners to use these checklists when lodging applications.

The Conveyancing Committee issued a guidance note in May 2024 and brought Land Registry use of checklists for applications to the attention of practitioners.

Use of Forms

The Land Registry has made clear that adherence to its statutory forms is critical for applications to be processed. In particular, there has been an increase in the number of rejections to Form 1 / Form 2 applications, where modifications have been made to the published Land Registry forms. Therefore, we encourage practitioners to use the published forms and complete the “optional” sections with great care.

The Land Registry has made it clear that the statutory form is there for a reason, so that such forms can be processed effectively and efficiently.

The Conveyancing Committee Task Force is engaged with the Land Registry on an emerging trend of very strict adherence to statutory forms in some cases, particularly matters where the intent of a deed is obvious, but the rejection policy is deployed sometimes without addressing the substance of the matter. The Land Registry maintain that guidance used by its staff in validating applications has not been changed to be more strict.

Equally, the Land Registry has acknowledged that some applications which have been brought to its attention have been rejected in error.

Abandonment and timing

Another point which has emerged over the last year is the Land Registry’s treatment of abandoning applications, which is the process followed when a query is issued. As matters stand, an abandonment warning (which gives a number of days to reply) is issued after a period of at least one month has passed without queries having been addressed by practitioners.

The Conveyancing Committee has made representations to the Land Registry that a degree of proportionality should apply in allowing time for queries to be addressed, given that in some cases the Land Registry may hold an application for many years and then raise queries which a solicitor will have to address at a time when, perhaps, they no longer act for the client concerned, or critical advisors such as surveyors may have been long stood down.

We have recently raised this issue with the Land Registry, and it has maintained that it is not presently in a position to change its practice on this matter. This will also be the subject of further engagement with the Land Registry.

Anonymisation

The Land Registry recently published a note that it will begin issuing certain registration queries via email.

While this is welcome, practitioners will note that the queries are not coming from named individuals. The Land Registry has explained to us that this is in ease of their case management processes, and that practitioners can still call following an anonymous letter and their call will be directed to an appropriate person. The Conveyancing Committee awaits hearing how this works out in practice.

Changing practice directions

The Conveyancing Committee has also raised the issue that the Land Registry’s amendments to its internal documents can occur without notice to practitioners, such that new Practice Directions may be published on the Land Registry’s website without any external announcement beyond an amendment of the website.

The Conveyancing Committee is pleased to confirm that the Land Registry has taken its representations on board in this regard and has been assured that changes in published processes will be notified by the Land Registry through the Law Society’s Conveyancing Committee.

The members of the Committee have also pointed out to the Land Registry that the mailing list which practitioners can sign up to on the Land Registry website is not in fact operational and should be taken down.

Novel queries

As part of our engagement with the Land Registry, the Conveyancing Committee also highlighted a number of novel queries being raised by Land Registry staff. These included the requirement of lodging schedules of documents in duplicate, and the Conveyancing Committee is pleased to say that the Land Registry responded positively to our request that this requirement be dropped.

Similarly, practitioners began to note that first registrations were being rejected on the basis that maps were not physically attached to the Form 1 or Form 2 as the case may be. When this was highlighted to the Land Registry, the Land Registry moved promptly to address the problem.

There remains a matter of Land Registry errors which are leading to unwarranted rejections and consequent delays and costs for clients. The Conveyancing Committee has raised this issue with the Registry and as evidence of errors grows, we hope that it will become clear that the rejection policy is causing more delays than it is remedying.

If practitioners are continuing to see applications rejected incorrectly, they should advise the Secretary of the Conveyancing Committee so this can be passed into our engagement with the Land Registry, in addition to taking the matter up with the relevant Quality Assurance and Complaints units at the Land Registry.

The Conveyancing Committee continues to engage proactively with the Land Registry and invites practitioners to continue to share any issues they have with the Secretary to the Conveyancing Committee at conveyancing@lawsociety.ie.