Relative is in process of getting his ex-partner off a joint mortgage and another relative put on in place.

The solicitor doing the transfer has informed my relative that before the variation is sent to Register of Scotland they must do a search on him to see if he has an interest in any other property because he has a “common name”.

Never heard of this and can’t understand why it matters. My google searches have produced nothing so can anyone enlighten ?

Will be getting in touch with solicitor tomorrow, but want some background information.

Thanks

I can see why they’d want to know if he owns anything else or has any mortgages…but he’d have disclosed that on his application Shirley?

It’s not my area tho.

The Sol is acting for relative tho…so won’t be stiffing him?

Cheers cynical-al.

He’s the main mortgage holder – same property, mortgage, terms, amount and period just a new joint mortgagee. Same solicitor is acting for him and his relative and yes, when the stuff at the lending bank was done both had to declare other financial commitments.

Will see what solicitor says tomorrow other than “and we’ll be charging you £xxx for this”

Hi, sounds like the reason for the search has been lost in the translation between the solicitor and the relative.

The solicitor is obligated to get a search in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudictaions ( a “personal” search)against the relative to check that he can validly grant the security (ie enter into the mortgage)over the property and hasn’t been inhibited from doing so. The cost of getting this (on top of the other searches) he will be getting will only be about £10-£20 so no need to worry about it.

I was a property solicitor for about 20 years and used to get fed up explaining to people why we had to get all these searches so just told them any old cr*p to brighten up what was a a very mundane job. Sad I know

Blimey…I’ve served a few inhibitions in my time…never got that from the description.

Obvious Q but separate advice has been taken yes?

Thanks for that cyclical, clears up the confusion.

I think you’re right re. the lost in translation. The separation from his ex was a doozy and really floored him and he’s still not exactly firing on all brain cells – hence me sticking my nose in.

Cynic-al, no just the one solicitor. Were advised that this could be done as the parties are related and there’s no dispute between them.

Ah OK ta, I assumed it was a split.