1. Property Law and Practice — Practice Questions
Which of the following is the BEST advice as to where replies may reveal information about the existing planning permission for the bingo hall?
A. Only the Local Land Charges search (LLC1) will reveal anything about planning permission.
B. Only enquiries of the local authority on form CON29 will reveal planning information.
C. Only the pre-contract enquiries of the seller (CPSE) will deal with planning matters.
D. Planning information cannot be obtained by search; the buyer must apply directly to the planning portal.
E. Replies to the CON29 enquiries of the local authority, the pre-contract enquiries of the seller (CPSE) and, where relevant, the LLC1 may each reveal information about the planning permission.
Answer & explanation
Option E is correct. Conveyancing searches frequently overlap, and information about an existing planning permission can surface from more than one source. The standard CON29 enquiries of the local authority specifically ask about planning permissions, building regulation consents and planning enforcement/stop notices; the CPSE pre-contract enquiries of the seller ask the seller to provide copies of permissions and consents relating to the property; and the LLC1 register of local land charges records certain planning charges (for example conditional planning permissions and tree preservation orders). A competent solicitor would not rely on a single search. Options A, B and C are each wrong because they assert that only one search is relevant, which understates the overlapping coverage. Option D is wrong: the local authority searches are precisely how planning information is obtained in a conveyancing transaction, so it is not true that no search reveals it.
Which of the following best states when the solicitor may act for both parties?
A. The solicitor may act for both only if there is no conflict of interest between them and no significant risk of such a conflict arising.
B. The solicitor may always act for both parties in a conveyancing transaction provided each gives written consent.
C. The solicitor may act for both because the seller wishes to charge VAT while the buyer does not wish to pay it.
D. The solicitor may act for both because the seller is conducting a contract race with several buyers.
E. The solicitor may act for both because the seller is giving the buyer an undertaking as to vacant possession.
Answer & explanation
Option A is correct. Paragraph 6.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct prohibits a solicitor from acting where there is a conflict of interest or a significant risk of one, subject to limited exceptions. In a buyer/seller conveyancing transaction the parties' interests typically conflict (most obviously over price and terms), so acting for both is generally impermissible. It may be possible only where there is genuinely no conflict and no significant risk of one, for example where property is being gifted or transferred between closely related or associated persons. Option B is wrong because consent alone cannot cure an actual conflict on opposing sides of a transaction; the 'substantial common interest' and 'competing for the same objective' exceptions are narrow and do not generally cover ordinary buyer/seller dealings. Options C, D and E each describe a circumstance that, if anything, increases rather than removes the risk of conflict (differing VAT positions, a contract race exposing the buyer to risk, and the giving of an undertaking), so none of them justifies acting for both parties.
A. The landlord may refuse consent, but the tenant may nonetheless be able to carry out the works using the statutory improvements procedure if the court is satisfied the works qualify.
B. The landlord can absolutely prevent the works, because the structural-alterations covenant is absolute and no statute can override it.
C. The landlord cannot refuse, because statute implies into the structural-alterations covenant a term that consent must not be unreasonably withheld.
D. The landlord must consent, because otherwise the tenant can carry out the works and automatically claim compensation from the landlord at the end of the term.
E. The landlord can insist that the works be carried out by the landlord in exchange for an increase in the annual rent.
Answer & explanation
Correct: A. The proposed works (removing the shopfront, enlarging the opening, installing bi-folding doors) are external and structural, so they fall within the absolute covenant against external/structural alterations — there is no consent proviso and the implied 'not to be unreasonably withheld' term does not apply to an absolute covenant. However, even where a covenant is absolute, a tenant who wishes to make an 'improvement' may serve notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s.3; the landlord may object, and the court may then authorise the works if it is satisfied that they add to the letting value of the holding, are reasonable and suitable to its character, and do not diminish the value of other property of the landlord. So refusal is permitted but is not necessarily the end of the matter. B is wrong: the s.3 procedure can override even an absolute covenant. C is wrong: the implied 'unreasonably withheld' term (Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s.19(2)) applies only where the covenant is qualified (consent required); it does not convert an absolute covenant into a qualified one. D is wrong: compensation for improvements under the 1927 Act (s.1) is not automatic and is subject to the statutory procedure and conditions. E is wrong: there is no such right for the landlord to commandeer the works in return for a rent increase.
A. Where there is no conflict of interest between seller and buyer and no significant risk of one arising, for example a transfer between close family members.
B. Where a conflict of interest exists but the 'substantially common interest' exception applies, because both parties want the sale to complete.
C. Where the seller intends to charge VAT on the sale and the buyer objects to paying it.
D. Where the seller is conducting a contract race between competing buyers.
E. Where the seller has been asked to give a solicitor's undertaking to the buyer's lender.
Answer & explanation
Correct: A. A solicitor may act for two parties only where there is no own-interest or client conflict and no significant risk of one (SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors para 6.2). In a sale and purchase the parties' interests are inherently opposed, so acting for both is permissible only in rare cases where in substance there is no real conflict, e.g. a gift or a transfer between parties related by blood, marriage, civil partnership or who live together. B is wrong: the 'substantially common interest' exception does not apply to a normal sale/purchase, because one party is buying and the other selling, giving them opposing interests despite both wanting completion. C is wrong: a dispute over VAT is itself a conflict, pointing away from acting for both. D is wrong: a contract race creates a clear conflict and heightened conduct duties; it does not permit dual acting. E is wrong: the giving of an undertaking is unrelated to whether a conflict of interest exists between buyer and seller.
A. Davisons should grant three consecutive six-month leases, because no business tenancy of under 12 months can ever attract security of tenure under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
B. Davisons can grant an 18-month fixed-term lease, but to ensure it does not attract security of tenure must apply to the court for an order excluding Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
C. Davisons can grant an 18-month fixed-term lease but, to be sure it does not attract security of tenure, must serve the prescribed warning notice on Morten and obtain Morten's signed declaration before the lease is completed, so that Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is excluded.
D. Davisons can grant an 18-month fixed-term lease and rely on a landlord's break clause exercisable after 12 months, which will of itself prevent Morten acquiring security of tenure.
E. Davisons cannot lawfully grant any lease that excludes Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, because the protection cannot be contracted out of in any circumstances.
Answer & explanation
Option C is correct. Security of tenure under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 can be excluded ('contracted out') for a fixed-term business lease using the procedure introduced by the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003. The landlord must serve a prescribed-form warning notice on the tenant, and the tenant must make a declaration (a 'simple' declaration if the notice is served at least 14 days before the lease, otherwise a statutory declaration) acknowledging the loss of protection, with a reference to the notice and declaration endorsed on or contained in the lease. Option A is wrong: a tenancy for a term certain not exceeding six months is outside Part II, but the exemption is lost where there is provision for extension/renewal or where the tenant (with predecessors in the same business) has been in occupation for more than 12 months (s.43(3)); three successive six-month leases would breach this. Option B is wrong: since 1 June 2004 NO court order is required to contract out - that is the very change made by the 2003 Order. Option D is wrong: a landlord's break clause does not exclude the Act; the tenancy would still be protected and the landlord could only end it on a statutory ground under s.30, so a break clause alone does not defeat security of tenure. Option E is wrong: Part II protection can be validly contracted out of using the statutory procedure.
A. Whether the easement is registered against the servient land's title, whether it is adequate for the buyer's intended use, who is responsible for maintaining it, and whether the route is an adopted public highway.
B. Whether the easement is popular with neighbours, how easy it is to use, who insures it, and whether it is well lit.
C. Whether the easement was created by deed, whether it benefits the seller personally, whether it can be removed by the seller, and whether it is mentioned in the lease.
D. Whether the easement is visible on the ground, whether it is registered as a local land charge, whether the seller pays council tax on it, and whether it is fenced.
E. Whether the easement is registered against the buyer's own title, whether it is exclusive to the buyer, how popular the route is, and whether it is in a good location.
Answer & explanation
Option A is correct. Where a property has the BENEFIT of a right of way, a buyer's solicitor should check, in substance: (1) registration of the burden - that the burden of the easement is noted against the servient (neighbouring) title, so the right binds successors and is not merely personal/at risk of being lost; (2) adequacy - whether the right as granted is sufficient for the buyer's intended use (e.g. vehicular access for the workshop, not merely pedestrian); (3) maintenance - who is liable to maintain and repair the route, and whether the buyer must contribute; and (4) adoption - whether the route is in fact a publicly adopted and maintained highway (in which case private easement concerns fall away). Options B, D and E list irrelevant or invented criteria (popularity, lighting, insurance, exclusivity, location, council tax), none of which are the recognised conveyancing checks for the benefit of an easement. Option C confuses the analysis: the relevant registration is of the burden against the servient land, the right must benefit the LAND (not the seller personally) to be a valid legal easement appurtenant to the property, and these are not the four standard issues.
A. Nothing need be done, because the freehold out of which the lease is granted is already registered.
B. The lease must be substantively registered with its own title, because it is granted for a term of more than seven years; the tenant must apply.
C. Nothing need be done, because the lease is for less than 21 years and so takes effect as an overriding interest.
D. The landlord must apply to register the lease, because the landlord retains the reversion.
E. The lease must be noted against the freehold title only; it does not require its own registered title.
Answer & explanation
The grant of a lease for a term of more than seven years out of a registered estate is a compulsorily registrable disposition under s.27(2)(b)(i) Land Registration Act 2002. A nine-year term exceeds seven years, so the lease must be substantively registered with its own title; until registration is completed it does not operate at law (s.27(1)). The applicant for registration of a disposition is the disponee, i.e. the tenant. Option B is therefore correct. Option A is wrong: the trigger is the length of the term, not whether the freehold is already registered. Option C is wrong: the relevant threshold is seven years, not 21; a lease of more than seven years cannot take effect merely as an overriding interest under Schedule 3 (those protect short leases of seven years or less). Option D is wrong: it is the tenant (the disponee), not the landlord, who applies for registration. Option E is wrong: a lease of more than seven years requires its own registered title (and the Registry will also enter a notice against the landlord's freehold), not a mere notice in lieu of registration.
A. The buyer will be bound by the restrictive covenants referred to in the missing conveyance, even though their precise terms cannot be read from the register.
B. The buyer will not be bound by the covenants, because their terms cannot be ascertained from the register.
C. The buyer will be bound by all covenants of any kind relating to the property, whether or not noted on the register.
D. The buyer will be bound only if the covenants had been set out in full in the charges register.
E. None of the above; the covenants take effect as overriding interests regardless of the register entry.
Answer & explanation
Restrictive covenants are protected by entry of a notice on the charges register, and a buyer takes subject to interests protected by such a notice (ss.29-32 Land Registration Act 2002). Entry 2 expressly refers to restrictive covenants in the 1999 conveyance, so they are protected and bind the buyer notwithstanding that the Registry holds no copy and the wording is not reproduced; the buyer is fixed with the covenants and should seek the deed/an indemnity. Option A is correct. Option B is wrong: the buyer is bound by reason of the noted entry even though the exact terms are not available from the register. Option C is wrong: a buyer of registered land is bound only by interests properly protected (or overriding), not by every covenant 'of any kind'. Option D is wrong: protection arises from the notice referring to the covenants; the covenants need not be set out in full to bind. Option E is wrong: restrictive covenants are protected by notice, not as overriding interests, and the entry here is the operative protection.
A. The Enquiries of the Local Authority (CON29).
B. The Local Land Charges Search (LLC1).
C. The Optional Enquiries of the Local Authority (CON29O).
D. The official copies of the register obtained from HM Land Registry.
E. An OS1 priority search at HM Land Registry.
Answer & explanation
Whether a road abutting the property is a highway maintainable at public expense (adopted under s.36 Highways Act 1980) is revealed by the standard Enquiries of the Local Authority, the CON29, so A is correct. B is wrong: the LLC1 reveals registered local land charges (e.g. financial charges, tree preservation orders, planning restrictions), not adoption status of roads. C is wrong because the CON29O contains optional enquiries (e.g. road proposals, public paths, gas pipelines) chosen for particular transactions; the basic adopted-road information is in the standard CON29, not the optional set. D is wrong: HM Land Registry official copies show the registered title (proprietorship, charges, rights), not whether roads are publicly maintainable. E is wrong: an OS1 is a pre-completion priority search of registered land protecting the buyer's application; it gives no information about highway adoption.
A. Report the title class to the client, check the mortgage lender's requirements, consider and advise on title indemnity insurance, and consider whether the title might be upgraded to absolute.
B. Inform the client but take no further steps, because HM Land Registry fully guarantees every registered title and will pay compensation for any defect.
C. Reassure the client that possessory title raises no concerns because such titles are common and as good as absolute title.
D. Advise the client to withdraw immediately, because possessory title is a defective class that can never be safely accepted.
E. Proceed as normal without mentioning the title class, since the class of title is an internal Land Registry matter of no relevance to the buyer.
Answer & explanation
Possessory title is granted where the proprietor cannot produce documentary evidence of title or claims through adverse possession; the state guarantee does not cover any estate, right or interest subsisting or capable of arising before first registration. For any title that is not absolute, the buyer's solicitor should: report it to the client; if there is a mortgage, check the lender's requirements (and, where also acting for the lender, ensure the lender is told - failing which there is a conflict); consider and advise on title indemnity insurance; and consider the possibility of upgrading to absolute title (e.g. if missing deeds can be found or the requisite period elapses). A states this correctly. B is wrong because the guarantee for possessory title is limited, not full, so reliance on automatic compensation is misplaced. C is wrong: it is not 'as good as' absolute title and cannot simply be brushed aside. D is wrong because withdrawal is not the inevitable response; the risk is often manageable with insurance and lender approval. E is wrong because the class of title is plainly relevant and must be reported and addressed.
A. CRAR is available only if the lease contains an express clause permitting the landlord to seize and sell the tenant's goods; without such a clause CRAR cannot be used.
B. CRAR may be used only where the lease is in writing and the net unpaid principal rent is at least the prescribed minimum (seven days' rent); an enforcement agent must give the tenant at least seven clear days' notice of enforcement before taking control of goods, and a further notice and minimum period must elapse before the goods can be sold.
C. Ms Verma may instruct an enforcement agent to seize the goods immediately the moment any rent is unpaid, and may sell them straight away without any notice to the tenant.
D. Ms Verma must wait for the minimum arrears period and serve a notice, but once the notice period expires she may seize and sell the goods on the same day without any further notice of sale.
E. CRAR applies to any sum due under the lease, including service charge, insurance rent and interest, and Ms Verma personally may enter and remove goods without using a certificated enforcement agent.
Answer & explanation
CRAR (Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Part 3, and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013) applies only to commercial premises let under a lease in writing, and only to net unpaid 'rent' (principal rent, excluding VAT, interest, service charge and insurance rent). A minimum of seven days' net rent must be outstanding. A certificated enforcement agent must serve a notice of enforcement giving at least seven clear days before entering to take control of goods; after goods are taken into control, the agent must give the tenant a further minimum notice (at least seven clear days) before the goods may be sold. Option B captures these requirements accurately. A is wrong: CRAR is a statutory self-help remedy that does not depend on an express forfeiture/distress clause in the lease. C is wrong: there is a minimum-arrears threshold and a mandatory notice of enforcement, and goods cannot be sold without the required notice. D is wrong: a separate notice of intended sale and a further minimum period are required before sale; same-day sale is not permitted. E is wrong: CRAR is confined to principal rent (not service charge, insurance rent or interest) and must be carried out by a certificated enforcement agent, not by the landlord personally.
A. Carry out a bankruptcy-only search (a search of the Land Charges Register against Mr Chen's name) at the Land Charges Department, specifying the relevant counties where he has lived.
B. Ask Mr Chen to sign a personal undertaking confirming that he has not been made bankrupt and that no petition is pending.
C. Carry out a Local Land Charges search against the address of the property being purchased.
D. Carry out an Index Map search at HM Land Registry against the property's title.
E. Take no action, because there is no reliable means of checking an individual's bankruptcy status before completion.
Answer & explanation
Bankruptcy orders made against individuals and pending bankruptcy petitions are registered at the Land Charges Department (Central Land Charges Registry) and are revealed by a search against the individual's name (a form K16 bankruptcy-only search), specifying the relevant counties in which the person has resided. This is the standard pre-completion step a lender's solicitor takes to confirm the borrower is not bankrupt and that no petition is pending, so option A is correct. B is wrong: an undertaking from the borrower is not independent verification and does not satisfy the lender's instruction to check the public register. C is wrong: a Local Land Charges search reveals matters affecting the land registered with the local authority (e.g. planning charges), not an individual's bankruptcy. D is wrong: an Index Map search identifies whether land is registered and its title number; it says nothing about the borrower's bankruptcy. E is wrong because there is a reliable check, namely the bankruptcy search against the name at the Land Charges Department.
A. The firm can never act for both buyer and lender in a commercial transaction, because such transactions always involve a conflict of interest.
B. The firm may be able to act for both, provided the mortgage is on standard terms and the firm is satisfied there is no conflict of interest or significant risk of one.
C. The firm may act for both only if it treats the matter as a residential transaction and the lender's terms are standard.
D. The firm cannot act for both because there is no substantially common interest between buyer and lender.
E. The firm can act for both because acting for borrower and lender on a commercial mortgage carries no risk of conflict.
Answer & explanation
This tests the conflict-of-interest rules in Paragraph 6.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors as applied to acting for borrower and lender. The starting point is that a solicitor must not act where there is a conflict, or significant risk of conflict, between two clients. However, where a mortgage is on standard terms (a 'standard mortgage'), the borrower's and lender's interests are usually aligned and a firm may decide there is no conflict and act for both. This applies to commercial as well as residential transactions. Option B captures this correctly. Option A is wrong: there is no blanket prohibition for commercial deals; the test is whether a conflict exists or is likely. Option C is wrong because the transaction is commercial, not residential, and the analysis does not depend on re-characterising it. Option D is wrong: the relevant gateway is the absence of conflict on a standard mortgage, not the 'substantially common interest' exception (which is a distinct Para 6.2(a) limb, and in any event a common interest does exist here). Option E is wrong because it overstates the position; a non-standard or specially negotiated commercial mortgage can readily generate a conflict, so the firm must assess each case rather than assume no risk.
A. 14 days
B. 21 days
C. 30 working days
D. 30 calendar days
E. 2 months
Answer & explanation
This tests the pre-completion search of the register under the Land Registration Rules 2003. An official search with priority of a registered title (Form OS1, or OS2 for part) confers a priority period of 30 business (working) days from the date of the search result (r.131 Land Registration Rules 2003). Provided the buyer's (and lender's) application to register the disposition is received by the Land Registry within that priority period, it takes priority over any entry made on the register after the search certificate date, protecting against the 'registration gap'. Option C is correct. Option A (14 days), Option B (21 days) and Option E (2 months) are simply incorrect periods. Option D (30 calendar days) is the common trap: the period is 30 working days, not calendar days, which in practice is materially longer, so D is wrong.
A. £10,693.61, comprising the annual rent, VAT, default interest, the service charge and VAT on the service charge.
B. £9,618.41, comprising the annual rent, the VAT on the annual rent and the default interest.
C. £11,038.61, comprising the annual rent, the service charge, the insurance rent and VAT and interest on all of them.
D. £8,000.00, comprising the annual rent only, because VAT and interest cannot be recovered under CRAR.
E. £8,018.41, comprising the annual rent and the default interest only, because VAT is never recoverable under CRAR.
Answer & explanation
CRAR (Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with the Taking Control of Goods Regulations) permits recovery only of the principal (pure) rent payable for possession and use of the premises, together with any VAT and interest on that rent. Sums reserved as 'rent' in the lease but which are in substance service charge, insurance rent or other ancillary charges are NOT recoverable through CRAR, however the lease labels them. Here the recoverable amount is the annual rent (£8,000) plus VAT at 20% (£1,600) plus the default interest on the annual rent (£18.41), giving £9,618.41. B is correct. A is wrong because service charge (and VAT on it) is not recoverable under CRAR. C is wrong for the same reason and because insurance rent is also excluded. D wrongly excludes VAT and interest, which CRAR does allow on the principal rent. E wrongly states VAT is never recoverable - VAT on the principal rent is recoverable where the landlord has opted to tax.
A. As beneficial joint tenants, so that the right of survivorship operates and the survivor automatically takes the whole on the first death.
B. As beneficial tenants in common in equal shares, so that each share can be left by will.
C. As mere licensees of the lender, with no beneficial interest until the mortgage is redeemed.
D. As legal and equitable co-owners without specifying the form of beneficial holding, leaving it to be implied later.
E. As shareholders in a special purpose vehicle company that holds the legal and beneficial title.
Answer & explanation
Where a married couple contribute equally to the purchase of their matrimonial home and want the survivor to take automatically on the first death, the standard advice is a beneficial JOINT TENANCY. Under a joint tenancy the co-owners hold the whole beneficial estate together and the right of survivorship (jus accrescendi) passes the whole to the survivor automatically on death, outside the will. Option A is correct. Option B (tenancy in common) is wrong as the general advice here: it creates distinct, devisable shares with no survivorship, which is appropriate where parties contribute unequally or want to leave their share by will, not the typical equal-contributing married couple seeking survivorship. Option C is wrong: a mortgage does not reduce the borrowers to licensees; they hold the legal and beneficial estate subject to the lender's charge. Option D is wrong and non-responsive: the question asks specifically about the form of BENEFICIAL holding, and the TR1 requires an express declaration of how the equitable interest is held. Option E is wrong: an SPV company structure is used for commercial/investment purposes, not the purchase of a family home.
A. Rely on the bank's mortgage valuation, since the bank will not lend unless the property is sound.
B. Commission a basic valuation report of her own to confirm the market value.
C. Commission a full structural (building) survey, given the age and construction of the property.
D. Commission a homebuyer report, which is the most thorough survey available.
E. No survey is necessary, because the seller is under a duty to disclose all physical defects.
Answer & explanation
C is correct. The most detailed survey is the full structural (building) survey, which is recommended for older properties, those of unusual construction, or those in poor condition. A farmhouse built in 1875 plainly falls into this category, so a full structural survey is the appropriate advice notwithstanding its higher cost. A is wrong: a mortgage valuation is carried out for the lender's benefit only, to confirm the property is adequate security; it is not a survey of condition and the buyer cannot rely on it. B is wrong: a buyer's own basic valuation report merely confirms market value and reveals little about condition — inadequate for a Victorian property. D is wrong: a homebuyer report is intermediate in detail and is unsuitable for older or non-standard properties; it is not the most thorough survey. E is wrong: subject to limited exceptions, the principle of caveat emptor applies to the physical condition of property — the seller is not obliged to disclose physical defects, which is precisely why the buyer must survey.
A. To investigate the seller's title for the first time, which is otherwise done only after completion.
B. To reveal any changes to the register since the official copies were obtained before exchange, and to confer a priority period for registering the buyer and lender.
C. To confirm, for the first time, that the seller is the registered proprietor of the property.
D. To obtain a priority period that protects only the lender's charge, not the buyer's transfer.
E. To satisfy the requirement that the buyer's solicitor reports the result to HM Revenue & Customs for SDLT purposes.
Answer & explanation
B is correct. Title is investigated, and the seller confirmed as registered proprietor, before exchange of contracts. The OS1 official search has a twofold purpose: (i) to disclose whether any entries have been made on the register since the date of the official copies used to investigate title pre-contract; and (ii) to obtain a priority period (30 working days from the date of the search result) within which the buyer must lodge the application to register, protecting that application against any intervening entries. Where the search is made in the lender's name, the protection of the priority period extends to the buyer's transfer as well as the lender's charge. A and C are wrong: investigation of title and confirmation of the registered proprietor are done before exchange, not by the pre-completion search. D is wrong: a search in the lender's name protects both buyer and lender, not the lender alone. E is wrong: the OS1 is a Land Registry priority search; SDLT reporting and payment to HMRC is a separate post-completion step via an SDLT return, unrelated to the purpose of the OS1.
A. As stakeholder, holding the deposit until completion.
B. As agent for the buyer.
C. As agent for the seller's estate agent.
D. As agent for the seller.
E. As either agent for the seller or as stakeholder, at the solicitor's option.
Answer & explanation
Correct: D. Where the deposit is held by the seller's solicitor as AGENT FOR THE SELLER, it may be released to the seller as soon as contracts are exchanged, so the seller can use it immediately (here, to pay personal debts). A is wrong: a stakeholder holds the money on behalf of both parties and must retain it until completion (the Standard Conditions of Sale default), which would defeat the seller's wish to use it now. B is wrong: holding as agent for the buyer would mean the buyer's side controls the money — it would not be released to the seller and the buyer's solicitor, not the seller's, would hold it. C is wrong: the estate agent has no entitlement to the deposit, so it is never held as agent for the estate agent. E is wrong: only the 'agent for the seller' capacity guarantees immediate use; offering 'either ... or stakeholder' does not, because the stakeholder limb would prevent immediate release, so E is not the single best answer.
A. Insist on a certified copy of Mr Adeyemi's death certificate being supplied on completion.
B. Require Mrs Adeyemi to appoint a second trustee to join in the transfer so that any beneficial interest is overreached.
C. Require the personal representatives of Mr Adeyemi to execute a written assent of his share to Mrs Adeyemi.
D. Check that no memorandum of severance was endorsed on Mr Adeyemi's grant of representation.
E. Require a Form A restriction to be entered before completion to protect the buyer.
Answer & explanation
The absence of any restriction on the proprietorship register tells the buyer that the co-owners held the beneficial interest as joint tenants (had they held as tenants in common a Form A restriction would appear, requiring a second trustee to overreach). On the death of a beneficial joint tenant, the deceased's interest passes automatically to the survivor by survivorship, and the survivor holds both the legal and beneficial title free of any trust. The buyer therefore takes good title from the survivor alone, and the only evidence needed is proof that the co-owner has in fact died: hence option A is correct (a certified copy of the death certificate). Option B is wrong because, with no Form A restriction, there is no trust interest to overreach and a second trustee is unnecessary. Option C is wrong because a joint tenant's share cannot pass under a will or assent by the personal representatives; it passes by survivorship, so the PRs have nothing to assent. Option D is wrong because a memorandum of severance is only relevant where it has been protected by a restriction on the register; in registered land an unprotected severance does not bind a buyer, and the register here shows none. Option E is wrong because a Form A restriction would only be appropriate if the survivor were not solely entitled (i.e. a tenancy in common), which is not the case here; insisting on one would be misconceived.
A. The ground rent payable under the lease and evidence that it is paid up to date.
B. The service charge position, including any arrears and any large works anticipated.
C. The buildings insurance arrangements, including who insures and the cover provided.
D. Compliance with covenants in the lease, including any consents required for alterations.
E. None of the above - each is a relevant and appropriate leasehold enquiry for such a flat.
Answer & explanation
On a leasehold flat in a block, each of the listed matters is a core enquiry a competent conveyancer would raise. Ground rent: the buyer needs to confirm the amount and that it is paid up to date (a clear last receipt) to avoid taking over arrears or disputes. Service charge: the buyer must check the level of charges, any arrears (which can attach to the property), and any forthcoming major works for which a large bill may fall due. Insurance: lenders require the building to be insured for its full reinstatement value against a comprehensive range of perils; leases of flats usually require the landlord to insure, so the buyer should obtain a copy of the policy. Covenants: the buyer needs confirmation of the absence of any known breaches (for example, that any alterations had the landlord's consent) because outstanding breaches can lead to forfeiture or remediation costs. As every one of options A to D is a genuine and appropriate leasehold enquiry, option E ('none of the above') is the correct answer: there is no item in the list that should be excluded.
A. A reference to the registered title number of Birch Cottage.
B. A provision that Birch Cottage is sold with vacant possession.
C. A special condition fixing the latest time for completion of the sale earlier than the corresponding time for completion of the purchase of Elm House.
D. A provision that the buyer of Birch Cottage will be responsible for any Stamp Duty Land Tax properly payable.
E. A provision identifying the property by its postal address and any rights benefiting the land.
Answer & explanation
Option D is the provision that would NOT normally be included and is therefore the answer. SDLT on a purchase is the buyer's own liability arising by operation of the Finance Act 2003; it is no concern of the seller and is not dealt with in the seller's contract, so including such a clause is unnecessary and inappropriate. Option A is wrong (i.e. it WOULD be included): a contract for sale of registered land must always identify the registered title number so the buyer can deduce title. Option B is wrong: vacant possession is the standard basis on which a dwelling house is sold. Option C is wrong: where sale proceeds fund a linked purchase, it is sensible and common to insert a special condition ensuring the sale completes before, or no later than, the purchase, so the funds are available in the chain. Option E is wrong: identifying the property and benefiting rights is a normal contractual particular.
A. A Land Registry official search of the registered title with priority (OS1).
B. A bankruptcy-only search (Form K16) against the buyer.
C. A local land charges search (LLC1).
D. A central Land Charges Department search (Form K15).
E. All of the above.
Answer & explanation
Option A is correct. For a registered title, the appropriate pre-completion search is a Land Registry official search with priority (OS1 for the whole, or OS2 for part). It reveals the up-to-date register and, crucially, confers a priority period of 30 working days from the certificate during which any application by the searcher to register is protected against intervening entries (Land Registration Act 2002, and the Land Registration Rules 2003). Option B is wrong: a bankruptcy/land charges bankruptcy search is only relevant where there is an individual borrower whose solvency a lender needs to check; here the buyer is a company (which would be checked by a company search, not a bankruptcy search) and is buying without a mortgage. Option C is wrong: a local land charges search is carried out before exchange as part of pre-contract enquiries, not as a pre-completion search. Option D is wrong: a central Land Charges Department search (K15) applies only to unregistered land; this title is registered, so it is inappropriate. Option E is wrong because B, C and D do not apply.
A. The draft contract supplied by the seller's solicitor.
B. The drainage and water search (CON29DW).
C. The Land Registry official copies and index map search.
D. The local search comprising enquiries of the local authority (CON29) and the local land charges search (LLC1).
E. The environmental (contaminated land) search report.
Answer & explanation
Correct: Option D. Standard enquiries of the local authority (form CON29) include specific questions about road schemes — whether any land has been or is to be acquired for highway construction or improvement, and whether there are proposals for new roads, road widening, or alterations within a defined radius of the property. The local land charges search (LLC1) reveals registered charges such as planning and highway-related entries. So the buyer's concern about a road-widening or bypass scheme is answered here. Option A is wrong: under caveat emptor the seller need not volunteer a known road scheme in the contract (it is not a defect in title); the contract is the wrong place to look, though the seller must answer a direct enquiry honestly. Option B is wrong: the drainage and water search deals only with water mains, sewers, drainage and connection matters, not road schemes. Option C is wrong: the Land Registry index map search shows whether title is registered and the title number, not local highway proposals. Option E is wrong: an environmental search addresses contamination, flooding and ground stability risk, not planned road works.
A. He may sell as sole surviving proprietor once he has produced his wife's death certificate to the buyer.
B. He must appoint a second trustee so that the two of them together execute the contract and transfer, thereby overreaching the equitable interests.
C. He must obtain an order of the court authorising the sale before he can proceed.
D. He may sell alone because, as surviving legal owner, the entire beneficial interest has passed to him by survivorship.
E. He must first transfer the property to himself by assent before he is able to sell it.
Answer & explanation
Correct: Option B. The restriction is the standard 'Form A' restriction that appears where the equitable owners hold as tenants in common. It prevents a sole surviving proprietor from giving a valid receipt for capital money, because on a tenancy in common there is no survivorship of the beneficial interest — the deceased's share passes under her will (here to the charity). To sell, the survivor must appoint a second trustee so that capital money is paid to (at least) two trustees, which overreaches the beneficial interests (s.2 and s.27 LPA 1925) and satisfies the restriction. Option A is wrong: producing a death certificate suffices only for a beneficial joint tenancy (where survivorship operates and the survivor can sell alone); here the Form A restriction shows a tenancy in common. Option C is wrong: the restriction's reference to a court order is the alternative to overreaching, but the ordinary, correct conveyancing solution is to appoint a second trustee, not to litigate. Option D is wrong: with a tenancy in common there is no survivorship of the beneficial share. Option E is wrong: an assent does not assist — the sole-proprietor restriction would still bite, and the wife's half-share belongs to the charity, not the husband.
A. The tenant is absolutely prohibited from assigning part only of the premises.
B. Because the covenant against assigning the whole is qualified (assignment permitted with consent), s.19(1)(a) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 implies that consent must not be unreasonably withheld.
C. The tenant may assign the whole of the premises whenever it wishes, and the landlord has no power to prevent it.
D. On a written application for consent to assign the whole, the landlord must, under s.1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1988, give consent within a reasonable time unless it is reasonable to refuse, and give written reasons for any refusal.
E. None of the above.
Answer & explanation
This question asks for the WRONG statement, which is C. The covenant against assignment of the whole is a qualified covenant (assignment is permitted, but only with the landlord's consent), so the tenant cannot assign 'whenever it wishes': the landlord may lawfully refuse where it is reasonable to do so. A is correct: assignment of part is absolutely prohibited because clause (2) permits assignment of the whole only, leaving the part-assignment prohibition in clause (1) absolute. B is correct: s.19(1)(a) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 converts a qualified covenant into a fully qualified one, so consent may not be unreasonably withheld. D is correct: where consent is required, s.1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 imposes a statutory duty on the landlord to deal with a written application within a reasonable time, not to withhold consent unreasonably, and to give written reasons for refusal. As C misstates the law, it is the answer.
A. It is acceptable, because the landlord is entitled to create privity of contract directly with both the assignor and the assignee for the whole term.
B. It is not acceptable, because the assignor cannot lawfully be required to give an authorised guarantee agreement for a lease granted in 1998.
C. It is acceptable, because the landlord may require the assignor to enter into an authorised guarantee agreement for a lease granted in 1998.
D. It is not acceptable, because the direct covenant from the assignee should instead be given by the assignor.
E. It is not acceptable, because the assignee's direct covenant should be deleted or limited to the period during which the assignee remains the tenant under the lease.
Answer & explanation
A lease granted in 1998 is a 'new tenancy' under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. On a future assignment by the assignee, the 1995 Act will automatically release the assignee from the tenant covenants (s 5). A direct covenant requiring the assignee to perform the covenants 'for the remainder of the term' would impermissibly seek to keep the assignee bound after that automatic release; any provision that frustrates the Act's release is void (s 25). The covenant must therefore be deleted or restricted to the period the assignee is actually the tenant, so option E is correct. Option C correctly states that the landlord may require an AGA from the assignor for a new lease (an AGA is expressly permitted by s 16), but it does not address the defect in the draft and so is not the best assessment; option B is simply wrong because an AGA from the outgoing tenant is precisely what the Act allows for new leases. Option A is wrong: the landlord cannot bind the assignee for the whole term in the face of the statutory release. Option D is wrong: it is appropriate for the AGA (the assignor's guarantee) and a direct covenant (from the assignee) to come from the parties stated; the problem is the duration of the assignee's covenant, not its source.