Application for Registration - Part A - Discrepancies

In an application for registration of a deed affecting an unregistered plot (not a voluntary registration, APR, DW or TP), the names given for the applicant(s) on the form is/are not the same as all the grantee(s) in the disposition/ contract of excambion or the same as the person or persons in whose favour a notice of title is drawn, rejection may be necessary.

See Check Applicant - First Registration for further guidance. If necessary an application should be accepted onto the application record and the issue considered thereafter.

Sometimes where the grantee or person in whose favour the notice of title is drawn is a non-natural person their name might change between the date the deed is delivered and if an explanation for the discrepancy along these lines is provided with the application then the application does not require to be rejected.

See Acceptable Discrepancies below for guidance in relation to the applicant for applications affecting the whole or part of a registered plot or an APR.

This ought to be rare but, where information produced in the application tends to suggest that the applicant named in the form has died (or been dissolved if a non-natural person) prior to submission, the guidance at Applicant's Death or Dissolution Prior to Application needs to be considered before the application is rejected.

It is not possible to be definitive about when there will be sufficient inconsistency between the form and deed such that the form does not provide authority for registration to proceed.

An entirely different deed type combined with different granters, or grantees as specified on the form might be an example where it suggests that the form relates to a different registrable deed. Another scenario where rejection may be necessary is if the address of the affected subjects is substantively different between the form and the deed.

The information that is provided in Part A should be generally consistent with the terms of the registrable deed in relation to party or parties, subjects and deed type.

There are many minor discrepancies, which would not in themselves mean that an application must be rejected. For some examples, see below at Acceptable Discrepancies.

A combination of inconsistencies may indicate that the form has become detached from the registrable deed with which it ought to have been presented and is now accompanied by a registrable deed for another form. This is a matter of judgement and the officer should refer the application to a Senior Caseworker, if they consider the application should not proceed.

An error in the county specified in Part A of the application form as compared with the county mentioned in registrable deed or the title number specified on the form as affected by the transaction would not be a reason for rejection. The Land Register is not legally divided into registration counties: the Keeper administratively manages the register using counties.

• For deeds affecting registered plots or for automatic plot registration applications, the provisions of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2012 and the associated land registration rules do not limit who may apply for registration of a registrable deed. Therefore, the granter of a lease inducing automatic plot registration may be shown as the applicant on the form. If the application form suggests that the applicant named on the form may have died or been dissolved prior to application then the officer must consider this further at Applicant's Death or Dissolution Prior to Application and a referral may be appropriate.
• For an application for registration of an unregistered plot based on a disposition/contract of excambion or notice of title, the applicants should be the disponee(s)/ person in whose favour the notice of title is drawn. For further information see Check Applicant - First Registration.
• For deeds that accompany first registration applications, such standard securities, there is no equivalent condition of registration requiring the grantee of the deed to be the applicant. Such applications are effectively deeds over a registered plot, which are subject to different conditions of registration. This means the grantee of a standard security (or any other deed) that accompanies a first registration disposition/contract of excambion or notice of title, may not be shown as the applicant on the form. Provided the information on the form is generally consistent with the terms of the registrable deed, this is not in itself a reason for rejection.
• In an application for voluntary registration, the applicant is required to be the owner or a common owner of the plot of land for which applicant is made. Note that "owner" includes an owner without a recorded title, i.e. someone who could expede a notice of title and so it cannot usually be assessed at intake stage whether the applicant is an owner and nor will the registration officers dealing with plans or legal settle phases be checking any links in title being submitted. The application form cannot be compared necessarily with the last recorded disposition.
• Usually, the 'beneficiary' of a deed, will apply for its registration. E.g. the heritable creditor in a standard security or all the heritable creditors in a ranking agreement would usually apply for registration. However, this is not essential- the key point for deeds affecting registered plots is that there is no condition of registration requiring that the grantee/beneficiary of a deed be the applicant for registration of the plot. So, in the example of a ranking agreement, if only one creditor is the applicant, the deed can be registered for all the creditors who have entered into the agreement.

If the registration officer at intake notes that fewer title numbers have been provided on the form than are affected as per the terms of the registration deed then, provided that the appropriate fee is tendered or can be taken by direct debit, the application should not be rejected.

If in error fewer applications have been created in LRS at Intake and this is only noted later in the process, the matter should be referred to a Senior Caseworker to consider. On occasion creation of administrative applications may be appropriate, for example, to give effect only to dual registration of real burdens or servitudes. In other cases this is not appropriate because the application record was fundamentally inaccurate from the date of application (for example a disposition of land which land is partly in one parent title and partly in another but where only an application affecting one of those parents was created in LRS) and rejection may be necessary to resolve this difficulty.

Note that a deed submitted as a deed affecting a registered plot (DW or TP) must usually contain the title number of the plot. See Requirements of Registrable Deeds.

Those applying for registration of a deed granted to persons in a special capacity (such as trustees for a club or other form of trust) are recommended to follow the external guidance on completing the application form.

For example, in a case where a deed is granted in favour of A and B as trustees for XY club, the person completing the application form is recommended to break this down into three apparent applicants:

• trustees for the XY club (plus address of club);
• A (plus address of A) in capacity of trustee;
• B (plus address of B) in capacity of trustee.

However, a registration officer can accept an application which does not meet this standard.

For example, the application can be accepted if the applicants for registration are shown as A and B on the form without reference to their capacity then this is acceptable. Also if the application form states that the applicant is the "Trustees of XY" trust or club or other unincorporated association, again the application can proceed as the named trustees in the deed are the Trustees of the XY club.

The registration officer can only reject for an applicant not matching the disponee/grantee in the deed in limited cases. See above at FR - applicant is not grantee in deed.

Many deeds do not have a "granter". However, even where the deed is of a type which does have a granter and grantee, lack of information on the application form about the granter is not in itself a reason for rejection.

• Spelling errors in the applicant's name when compared with the grantee in the registrable deed, or in the granter's name as between the deed and form, should be overlooked.
• If the applicant's name on the form is entirely different from the grantee in a disposition and the application is an application for a deed affecting an unregistered plot, see Check Applicant - First Registration. Otherwise, see Applicant's Death or Dissolution Prior to Application. 
• If a registration officer is uncertain whether the discrepancy between the name of the applicant and the grantee in the registrable deed is acceptable (for example whether an explanation given is acceptable) they should take the application on to the application record but refer the application for further consideration of this point.

• Difference between date of entry on application form and date of entry in the registrable deed.

The date of entry stated in the registrable deed should be entered in both the application workdesk and the title sheet.

• Amount in figures and words differs within a deed.

If the consideration disclosed on the application form corresponds to one of the amounts narrated within a deed (either the amount in words or figures) then the application can be accepted as it can be assumed that the Applicant has confirmed the correct consideration on the application form and the Keeper can, under the Land Register Rules etc (Scotland) Regulations 2014  regulation 12(2), be satisfied that there is sufficient information to make the entry in the proprietorship section of the title sheet.

Provided that the criteria in the following paragraph are met, it is not a matter of concern that the wrong deed type is selected from the list available in eForms.

The criteria are that (a) the appropriate Part B questions appears, (b) the deed submitted is registrable and (c) the correct fee is paid. If the criteria are met then selection of the wrong deed type is not in itself a rejection matter. Combined with other discrepancies, it may be evidence that the wrong form is accompanying the deed. See above at Discrepancies - where rejection may be required.