Making a P24 Check Survey request - plans registration staff

General

Details of any relevant information (reports, answers/further information on application form, correspondence etc.) which may help the Mapbase Maintenance (MBM) Manager in his/her decision to accept or reject the P24 Check Survey must be provided. All surveys must be countersigned by an RO1 Officer or above. The caseworker should also complete a P5 survey notification letter (can be found in the LRS picklist) and submit it electronically with the P24 to MBM. It should not be sent out prior to the survey being vetted by the MBM manager. Final approval for such a survey request lies with the MBM manager. The MBM Manager may request additional evidence or further information from the caseworker, or may need to discuss the request with the caseworker or countersigning officer, before authorising a survey.

Useful Links

Processing a P24 Check Survey request - MBM staff

Completion of a P24 Check Survey - OS

Basic requirements

1 All survey requests must be submitted electronically to the generic Mapbase Maintenance mailbox.

The survey request should consist of a minimum of three elements:

- the electronic P24 form;
- the electronic copy of the P5 letter;
- and scanned images of the OS map and the deed plan (if appropriate).

2 When a plans officer wishes to submit a P24 survey request, the following steps should be taken:

Complete an electronic P24 Check Survey form, including RO1 countersignature.
Scan the supporting documentation and name the files using the conventions detailed, below.
Attach an electronic copy of the P5 letter.
Create a folder containing all the appropriate files, including the P24, P5 and other documents.
Submit the folder to the generic Mapbase Maintenance mailbox. This email should be sent by the Plans RO1 who is countersigning the P24 as evidence of their approval/countersignature.

3 The file names should be in the following format:

Title number followed by "P24", or title number followed by "images". For example, "MID12345 P24" and "MID12345 images".
Where possible, all images should be scanned as a single file; this happens automatically using the MFD machines when the images are all scanned together. If this is not possible then the file names should include a number reference. For example, "MID12345 images1" and "MID12345 images2".

4 If the survey requires access to a property to check internal divisions and/or floor levels or you are aware of any access problems, a contact telephone number and name must be provided, before sending to MBM. If you are aware of any unresolved dispute this must also be noted on the survey requisition.

5 Once the P24 has been actioned and returned by the OS, the plans settler must arrange for the P24 documents to be archived along with their case (this is to be done even when the OS response is "no change").

What to consider before sending a P24 Check Survey

In the most straight forward example where the deed plan information disagrees with the detail on the Ordnance Map, consideration needs to be given to whether the deed plan, or the Ordnance Map, is wrong. Before instigating a P24 Check Survey you should ensure that the following 8 points have been considered:

1. Information in the application

1.1 Does the application include any further information relating to the problem (e.g. notes on the application form, letters, additional plans and or photographs)?

1.2 Has the agent confirmed that the legal extent depicted in the deeds submitted agrees with the occupied extent as viewed?

1.3 Is there any note of adverse possession?

1.4 Are there any further deeds referred to that either add to, or remove from the land, that results in agreement between the deeds and the Ordnance Map?

1.5 Is there any corrective conveyancing either with the application, attached applications or pending applications?

2. The deed for extent

2.1 Is the extent of the subjects based on a new plan annexed to the Deed Inducing Registration (DIR), a plan annexed to a previously recorded deed, or (in the case of an application for voluntary registration only) a certified plan?

2.2 Is the area in question excepted from warrandice?

2.3 Are there any errors made in the quoted dimensions in the text or the plan to the deed for extent?

2.4 Is the deed plan a dimensioned sketch?

This problem results from the use of an architect's plan which shows the proposed layout. Instead of producing a further survey which shows the position as built on the ground, the vendor's solicitor arranges for a site visit on each sale, runs a tape measure round the main features and shows the dimensions of those features on the architect's plan. No attempt is made to make the deed plan reflect the picture on the ground and it is therefore impossible to scale from such plans. In some instances, if the dimensions shown on this type of plan conform with the Ordnance Map, mapping can proceed based on the dimensions.
Identification of these types of plans requires experience, if in doubt, refer to your plans referral officer.

2.5 Is the deed plan or description defective (e.g. Floating Shape)?

The quality of the deed plan may be so poor as to make it unacceptable for registration purposes. The 2012 Act states that the description or plan used to identify the plot of land to be registered must allow the keeper to delineate its boundaries on the cadastral map - the keeper uses the Ordnance Map as the base for the cadastral map. Do not waste time trying to make a plan or description fit, when it is clear that it is inadequate for the purposes of registration.
Any plan referred to must meet the keeper's published Deed Plan Criteria.

2.6 Is the deed plan qualified by the remark "demonstrative only and not taxative"?

When the plan is annexed to the DIR, and the DIR contains this qualification - the application should be considered for rejection as it does not meet the keeper's published Deed Plan Criteria.
When the plan is annexed to a previously recorded deed and the plan or deed contains this qualification - if there are material differences between the deed plan and the Ordnance Map, the above quote may be read as no more than a disclaimer as regards the accuracy of the deed plan. Consideration should be given to whether it is more appropriate to reject the application as the plot of land cannot be accurately delineated on the cadastral map rather than spending further time and incurring expense on a P24 Check Survey when the discrepancy may arise from the deed plan and not the Ordnance Map. If the application is rejected and re-submitted with a new deed plan annexed to the DIR, the former apparent discrepancies may not actually exist.
When the plan is provided as a certified plan in an application for voluntary registration, and the application form or plan contains this qualification - the application should be considered for rejection as it does not meet the keeper's published Deed Plan Criteria.

3. Map data

3.1 Can the problem be accounted for by the tolerances and criteria of the OS Map?

3.2 Is there any evidence to be gleaned from the Ordnance Map that suggests severe slopes exist that may account for differences in the lengths of boundaries? (Look for spot heights, or symbols representing sloping banks or steps shown on the Ordnance Map.)

3.3 How are the subjects depicted on the County Series?

3.4 How are the subjects depicted on prior versions of the Ordnance Map?

3.5 How are the subjects depicted on the aerial photography layer of the Universal Web Viewer?

3.6 How are the subjects depicted on MasterMap and does the Topographic Identifier (TOID) include any details on the age and nature of features and/or the date surveyed?

3.7 Have the subjects (or the area surrounding the subjects) been updated as part of the Positional Accuracy Initiative (PAI)?

3.8 Is the current map held by the keeper up to date? Check for latest detail on the OS website.

3.9 Are there any pending updates on the DMS which have yet to be released?

4. Reports

4.1 Has a Plans Report that highlights the conflict been issued in respect of these subjects?

And if so, has any action been taken by either the selling or purchasing agent in response to it?
Note: if the Agent has not taken any action, refer to a Plans RO1 for consideration - the applicant/agent must have commented directly on the nature of the discrepancy, either by answering the questions on the application form or by documenting his findings and intentions in writing (submitted with the application), before a Survey can be requisitioned. If the applicant/agent has not commented on the situation and the lack of action, the application should be considered for rejection if it cannot be accurately mapped onto the cadastral map.

4.2 Has a Plans Report been issued which did not highlight the conflict?

Note: if Yes refer to a Plans RO1 to discuss how to proceed before considering a P24 Check Survey. Irrespective of the terms of the Plans Report issued, it may be necessary to reject the application.

5. Information from the index map

5.1 Does the area in question fall within or outwith the Research Area (RA) / Parent Title?

If affecting, does the RA include mapping instructions?

5.2 Are the subjects covered by Development on the Ground procedures?

Note: Under the 2012 Act, the keeper must not follow previously established development on the ground procedures if that would mean registering a different extent for a plot of land than is shown/described in the application. Where development on the ground procedures were previously used, it may be necessary to reject the application and then applicant must re-submit with a new deed plan or conveyancing description in the DIR.

5.3 Are there any notes or procedures already established and annotated on the Index Map e.g. Pre Registration Correspondence (PRC) and / or Back Up Files (BUFs)?

Note: Under the 2012 Act, the keeper must not follow previously established mapping decisions if that would mean registering a different extent for a plot of land than is shown/described in the application. Where mapping decisions were previously used and set up in BUFs, etc, it may be necessary to reject the application and then applicant must re-submit with a new deed plan or conveyancing description in the DIR.

6. Adjoining land register titles/cadastral units

6.1 Are the adjoining subjects registered or pending registration in the Land Register?

6.2 Does the extent of the adjoining registration and / or pending registration agree with the deed plan or Ordnance Map depiction of the subjects in this title? (Provide copy deeds / plans as appropriate from RoS archives and Scottish Record Office.)

Note: Under the 2012 Act, if the registered extent of the adjoining registered/pending subjects overlap with the extent shown on the deed plan, the later application should be rejected.
Note: Under the 2012 Act, the keeper will not check adjoining titles that are still in the Sasine register.

7. Consider risks

7.1 Adjoining registrations may negate a problem, e.g. if the extent of the subjects in this title falls short of a particular boundary, but the adjoining title abuts the boundary, it may be a reasonable risk (taking into account the OS tolerances at the base scale of the map in that area) to accept as defined, depending on the area of ground involved, but see below.

7.2 If the legal extent falls short of a physical boundary, particularly if it should form a narrow parallel strip, the situation could be correct. The strip may form an access to other property, or a maintenance strip belonging to adjoining property.

8. Prior surveys

8.1 Check for prior surveys in the development / estate – what were the results:-

(a) no change - another individual survey is not likely to be an option at this stage. Instead, consideration should be given to whether it is more appropriate to reject the application.

(b) changed to agree with deed plan - it would then be a justifiable risk that the deed plan reflects what is on the ground, therefore the options to be considered are either to plot legal extent or contact the MBM Manager to consider if OS should be contacted to re-survey the whole development.

(c) changed to disagree with deed plan – an additional survey may be considered, contact the MBM Manager to consider if Ordnance Survey should be contacted to re-survey the whole development.

ompleting the P24 Check Survey request form

After you have carried out all the before-mentioned examinations and the conclusion is that a survey is required you then have to fill in the P24 Check Survey request form. Consider the questions you need to ask, and how best to ask them. Details of what type of information the OS surveyor can provide can be found at Completion of a P24 Check Survey - OS.

Prior to completing the Requisitions part of the P24 form please give consideration to the following: -

List what you want to know, and how you want it presented.
Don’t assume that the surveyor will provide information; if you require specific information, ask.
Will the results raise more questions?
Resolving one error may affect other registered titles.
Working piece-meal is not ideal, try to cover wider areas if possible.
If, in the future, the case is questioned, what supporting evidence will help?

After filling in the form, it is important to review it before submission. Ask yourself:

Do my questions make sense?
Do they really ask for the information I need (if in doubt,ask someone else to read it to see what they understand you are asking for).
If, after the survey, the map detail doesn’t change to agree with the deed, have I ask all the pertinent questions required to find out all the relevant facts in case I have to send the application to a Senior Caseworker or explain a decision to reject to the agent?

Downloading the P24 Check Survey request form