Consent to sever under the Planning Act, got this wrong twice now
Vendor owns two lots side by side, bought them at different times, both registered in her name. She agrees to sell one of them. No consent applied for.
I said the deal closes fine because they were always two separate lots with two separate descriptions. Explanation says the transfer does not convey what the buyer thinks it conveys. Second time I have lost a mark on this and I still cannot see the step I am skipping.
9 replies
Two descriptions on two instruments does not mean two parcels any more. Once one person holds abutting land, the question stops being how it was bought and becomes what she holds today.
so owning them both is itself the problem?
Best answer
Owning both is the problem. Side by side, one owner, and they stop being independently sellable. Selling one off needs a consent first.
right. my notes have this under a heading about dividing land and I never connected it to someone who already owns two whole lots
That heading is why everybody files it wrong. Dividing sounds like taking a knife to one parcel. The rule reaches a vendor who is dividing up a holding rather than dividing a lot, and a fact pattern will hand you the two purchase dates precisely so you tick off that she owns both.
are there exemptions or does every one of these need consent
There are exemptions and they are listed, so read them once rather than reasoning about them. The one people remember is a transfer to the other spouse. What I would not do under time pressure is try to invent an exemption from first principles.
flag on my page says two purchase dates, one owner, abutting, stop. has saved me on three sets since
stealing the flag wording. does the same trap come up with easements or is it only severances?
Sign in to take part in this discussion. If you have purchased an examination from us, you already have an account.