Quality Checklist - Plans Reports
Plans Reports - Section | Data Point Code | Data Point Name | Data Point Description | Links to Manual |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plans Report Check | RQC1 | Plan | Is the response given in Part 1 of the Report appropriate? Does the plan/bounding description adhere to Deed Plan Criteria e.g. common surrounding detail, appropriate delineation, appropriate scale? | Servitudes - Registration Requirements Under the Title Conditions Act | ||
Plans Report Check | RQC2 | Extent | In relation to the information submitted, does the mapped extent(s) of the subjects in the COF file agree with the plan/description provided? Check that the specifically described and requested extent(s) shown on the submitted plan(s) look the same as the Report extent - i.e. are they the same shape/size? Any doubt then measure. If in the absence of a plan, a full bounding description should be provided which should reflect detail/ measurements on the cadastral map. N.B. If not obvious and a specific description - including nature of pertinent or right - of the subjects has not been supplied, then the Report cannot be completed. |
|
| |
Plans Report Check | RQC3 | O.S. Map | Is the response given in Part 2 of the Report appropriate? Check any shortfalls/overlaps fall out with the OS tolerances for the scale of the map used. |
|
| |
Plans Report Check | RQC4 | References / Notes (non KPI) | Are all of the references in the COF file appropriate and correct? Check that the COF file note details the extent over which the Report was carried out. Have all polygons/polylines been correctly classified? |
|
|
|
Plans Report Check | RQC5 | Exclusive areas | Have all exclusive areas of previously registered Cadastral Units that compete with the submitted plan extent been disclosed in Part 3 of the Report and are the correct colour refs/Title Numbers quoted in the response? Are the exclusive areas or common areas defined by the submitted plan competing with any registered exclusive areas references on the Cadastral map? Check for note advising Map Update (MU) request has been submitted for areas of competition. Where report has a MU note, add "MU request is present" to comments column. (Note: Shared areas and non-ownership competing references from the Cadastral map will not be disclosed in Part 3). | Possible competitions in title affecting any part of the property being registered | ||
Plans Report Check | RQC6 | Shared areas | Have all shared areas of previously registered Cadastral Units that affect the submitted extents been disclosed in Part 4 of the Report and are the correct colour refs/Cadastral Unit Numbers quoted in the response? Shared areas such as pro indivisos/rights in common. (Note: The quantum share of the registered shared areas must be checked to ensure that the total shares do not exceed 1 or 100%. If the total shares exceed 1 or 100% then the competition in title must be made clear in the report answer). |
| ||
Plans Report Check | RQC7 | Non-ownership references | Are all non-ownership references from the Cadastral map disclosed in Part 5 of the Report and are the correct colour refs/Title Numbers quoted in the response? Such references include Servitudes, Burdens, Leases, Minerals, Advance Notices, TPO's, Registered Titles in a Steading. (Not supy titles). |
|
| |
Plans Report Check | RQC8 | Cannot complete (non KPI) | For Cannot be completed responses, has the correct procedure been followed? Plan/bounding description does not meet Keeper's requirements - report type changed to 'Cannot be completed'. | Plans Reports Fees (external link) | Combined Plans and Legal Reports Fees (external link) |
|
Plans Report Check | RQC9 | Response | In relation to the response, have all Parts been completed relevant to the type of Report? Is the response complete/in the correct part? Are all parts of response pertinent? If a plan has been produced, has the plan been correctly added to the report? |
|
|