Report comment

@Anonymous Commented on: 2 February 2017 07:36 GMT
Rayner @ 09:16 1st Feb and subsequently:

"...I think you have missed the point about the "mortgage". There is no suggestion that the sellers solicitors did not redeem the sellers mortgage. I think the issue is with the buyers mortgage he obtained from his own lender to buy the property. "

I think we agree to here. But funds are received by MDR to redeem a mortgage pursuant to the Law Society standard requisition.

So is this not I (A) buy with funds from (B), the property owned by (C) both details on the Title Register and on the Contract with the undertaking to clear either (C)'c mortgage, or (D)'s mortgage over (C)'s property, given by the Solicitors for (C).

Or am I just looking at this too simply?

That's what always happened when I did Conveyancing. The Requisitions were the last ditch opportunity to check that good title was passing and Mortgages would be cleared.

"...The buyer had received money from his lender, which had been paid away by Mischon to buy a property which could never be owned by the buyer. "..."

Why not? The Bank in this case rightly, lent the cash for a purchase pursuant to the Requisitions and the Covenants for Title.

Am I missing something? Please do say.

BTW it is in reality MDR's problem if they didn't charge enough to get proper people looking at title and the requisitions surely?