We hear you when you say you want quick, accurate and consistent support from us, so we are modernising and reshaping HM Land Registry to ensure we can provide the level of service you expect and deserve.
I covered a high-level view of our activity to achieve this in my previous blog. Today, I want to share more details about how we will improve our call handling. I will also cover some of the ways we are helping to simplify certain aspects of conveyancing.
Improving our call handling
You’ve been telling us you need quick, consistent support and that you need us to complete registrations quickly and accurately. Part of our work towards this over the last year has involved setting up our Customer Support Centre (CSC) which handles most of your contact with us.
Our people within the CSC ensure you get a more consistent answer from us. They are fully casework-trained and have access to the same systems and information as our caseworkers. In most cases, they will be able to deal with the queries you have. If they can’t, they will arrange for you to speak to the right person.
You asked us to process registration applications quicker and our CSC helps here too. Our people who handle your calls allow our caseworkers to focus on applying their skills, expertise and judgement on processing the applications you send us, without being distracted by direct calls.
However, we know that our call handling times are often longer than they should be, so we are investing in our people and technology to address this. Our investment in our people includes recruiting, so we will have more people to support you. We are also providing ongoing training and aim to become accredited with the Institute of Customer Service, giving us access to their research and further training.
Accreditation can only be achieved if our customers are satisfied with our service, meaning we will need continued investment. Our technology investment includes working with partners to introduce new call handling software and equipment at our CSC, while upgrading what we currently use. This is enhancing our call routing, monitoring and service planning, allowing us to better meet your needs during peak business hours.
All this means we will be able to:
- answer your calls quicker
- handle them more consistently
- increase the opportunity to deal with your query straight away
- reduce rework and unnecessary calls
You can expect improvements over the coming months and we plan to have everything in place for you by the end of autumn 2019.
There are things that you can do to help, such as using our online channels to exchange information with us. When you do this, you'll help to reduce the number of calls we receive, so you'll be able to speak with us quicker when you really need to. You can:
- get new information about your application to the caseworker who's processing it through the portal's Reply to Requisition function
- use our online Application Enquiry service to check the progress of your application instead of calling us
- join one of our lodging quality applications through the portal webinars to find out how you can get the most from this service, or register for one of our other webinars (through analysis and customer feedback we've created four webinar topics that answer your frequently asked questions)
Having a central CSC also provides us with the data we need to plan for the changes we expect in the future. This data will help us work with our technology partners to continuously improve our support to suit your needs and give you a fully joined-up, prompt, and professional experience when handling your enquiries.
Working together to drive out inefficiencies
Alongside this work, we want to find solutions to the challenges we both face. This will help to make conveyancing simpler for all of us by driving inefficiencies out of conveyancing and registration processes.
One of the ways we can do this is to work with you to reduce the number of application enquiries (requisitions) we send you.
The top two reasons we send application enquiries are for issues relating to discharging charges (such as a mortgage) and for issues relating to restrictions in the register. We recognise that in some cases, it can be hard for you to get the evidence we need for these applications, because you need to get it from a third party. Would the process be more efficient if we gave you more time to get this evidence? We are about to start trials to find out – in response to your feedback. We’ll tell you more about this soon.
We are also continuing to improve the consistency of the application enquiries we send you. During the summer, our caseworkers attended sessions about when and how to raise application enquiries, and we are continuing to work with all teams to improve our consistency.
Finally, we will shortly share more details about our Application Enquiries dataset that we plan to start publishing next month. This will help to improve application enquiry volumes and supports our ambition to be a world leader for our open approach to data. It also supports the Government’s transparency agenda; the Industrial Strategy; and it aligns with the Competitions and Market Authority’s recommendations for greater transparency in the legal sector.
Find out more about our wider transformation in our Business Strategy, and don’t forget to familiarise yourself with our customer charter. This sets out what you can expect from us, and what we need from you. I will continue to share details of our progress as we work together to make conveyancing simpler, faster and cheaper for everyone. Enjoy Christmas and watch out for my next blog in the new year.
50 comments
Comment by devonlady posted on
Let me give you an instance where I feel you let yourselves down. I sent an application for registration last Friday. It has been registered and returned this morning BUT with correspondence saying inadequate information as to whether BJT or TIC. However, on reviewing the information sent. The Transfer signed by the Seller did NOT have Section 10 completed BUT the Transfer signed by the Buyers DID have Section 10 completed and clearly said Joint Tenants. Surely if the application had been looked at fully and appropriately, the fact that the Buyers had indeed completed their part of t he Transfer and said what they wanted should have been noted and dealt with. Instead of raising correspondence and then requiring me to check to the documents and email you to deal with it. Simples!
Comment by AdamH posted on
Devonlady - I am sorry that you feel that we let ourselves down and I would encourage you to raise the point when resubmitting the application. Alternatively if you can give me the title number I can investigate further?
My understanding is that whilst the two parts of the same Transfer will have a different execution they <strong>must be identical</strong> in all other respects and this would be something we would ask you to amend as the applicant. Whether that means rejecting it at source as we did or raising it as a requisition but retaining the applications priority is something I can also check and confirm
Comment by Simon posted on
Hi Adam..I have an interesting question. I sold my property three years ago, it included a deed of gift piece of land adjoining my own garden from my parents. It had a Land Registry number, and was included in the house sale. Three years later I have been informed that this section of land was not included in the sale, thus my name is on Register. I am now being held accountable by the local Council for pest and vermin and Anti Social behaviour for this land.. If a Solicitor had done a proper search..would this have been highlighted as my name was on all papers..these deeds were sent to Solicitors...and there would have been two land registry numbers. And House of course..
Comment by AdamH posted on
Simon - if you are looking to blame someone then you would need to work back through the conveyancing process to ascertain whether the contract to sell/purchase included the relevant details but were then left off the actual transfer itself. If it wasn't included in the transfer deed then the title remains in your name so you are the legal owner. If that was an error then whilst identifying how and when it happened will help in one respect if it is to now be changed then you still need a legal transfer deed
Comment by Simon posted on
Hi Adam
Thanks for info, the land was included in sale, as Buyer. Estate Agent all walked on this land at time of sale.. but looks like the Solicitors who had the deeds, did not read all the relevant paperwork and missed this document. The land in question is inaccessible from any direction, so I would not have wanted it, plus I now live 200 miles away...
Comment by AdamH posted on
Simon - understood but ownership changes hands by way of a legal deed so IF the one executed and registered did not include it then that is what is now needed. The land's position and your having moved away would not change that legal requirement.
Comment by Arwyn Williams posted on
I have just been reading up on your guidelines for a DB application, it states the following:
Paragraph 3.3.3 of Practice Guide 40, "If an application is made without the agreement of the adjoining owner and we think there is an arguable case, we will serve notice on them. They may object and the additional costs of having that disagreement resolved can be very high ..."
Given the information above, I would like to know where do you consider our neighbour to have an arguable case?
Your completion of registration issued to us only a few months ago confirms that the title plans issued have not changed, the TA6 “Law society property information” a signed contract by the previous owner also states that no boundary changes have been made in the last 20 years, the plans match and are now supported by the land surveyors accurate measurements, additionally the DB application does not in any way affect our neighbour, it is only a means of confirming the exact boundary.
I just don’t understand why you have still served notice? It has (in my opinion) no basis and is outside your own guidelines as per the Practice Guide 40 - Are you now putting in question the plans that you sent to us with our title deeds, are you saying that the plans actually do not represent our property and you have falsified our registered property?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Arwyn - if you have concerns re a specific application or registration then please use our contact form. We can’t deal with such matters via a blog comment
https://help.landregistry.gov.uk/app/contactus_general
Comment by Arwyn posted on
Hi Adam,
I have tried but cannot contact the caseworker directly, I have also requested that the caseworker calls me to discuss this situation.
I was very disappointed and angry yesterday as I don’t understand your thoughts regarding this DB application and the reason to serve notice?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Arwyn - whilst I can understand feelings of frustration and anger if you disagree with casework decisions made then it is best to put those in writing. A phone call won’t resolve such matters even in ‘normal’ times and far better for all, you and us and neighbours, to keep th8ngs in writing.
I should stress that during Covid 19 then the opportunity to speak to people over the oho e is even more restricted
Comment by devonlady posted on
AdamH - please re-read my comment - It was neither rejected nor requisitioned - registration was completed with an unnecessary Restriction on the Register which we now have to deal with. Whilst I appreciate both parts of the Transfer should be identical, the actual information from the Buyer/Transferee was absolute and unarguable. Commonsense seems to be extremely lacking here!
Comment by AdamH posted on
Devonlady - apologies for misreading your comment. Can you give me the title number please so I can feedback to the caseworker concerned.
Comment by Dr P Lall posted on
We have purchased 3 land registry enquiries and all the information eg the present owners are not upto date. As we have tried to contact all and all letters sent recorded by Royal Mail have been returned as owners have left the location and no longer present. Kind Regards
Comment by AdamH posted on
Dr Lall - the registered owners are responsible for keeping us up to date re their contact addresses in case we need to contact them for registration purposes. There is no obligation for them to do so for wider reasons. So the legal ownership is correct but if you wish to try and trace them you will have to try alternatives e.g. tracing agencies, local enquiries etc
Comment by John Harvey posted on
When will LR make the online Application Service available to buyers as well as business customers so that they can check progress?
Comment by AdamH posted on
John - it is something we would like to provide but at the present time we are reviewing our online services. So there are no immediate plans for widening that part of the service I'm afraid
Comment by Alsodevon posted on
I agree with Devonlady. If you want to improve efficiency, then I don't see how having other people answer the phone helps. You have to have the caseworkers read what they are sent and what they are sending. Sometimes you just want to call that exact caseworker, not a call centre with no access to them, and say: Did you actually read this??
Comment by AdamH posted on
Alsodevon - I do understand your frustrations of not being able to speak directly to the person who issued a correspondence with their direct dial number listed.
One of the key areas of concern for many of our customers currently is the delay in processing some types of applications. The general feedback from customers is that they want us to maximise our resource on processing applications. We established that a considerable time of a caseworker was spent on dealing with telephone calls and recording the conversation details in most cases. Directing calls to a central team helps by freeing up some capacity for caseworkers to concentrate on processing registration applications. It therefore assists us in improving our speed of service in the current climate of very high intakes of work.
We also believe that we are improving the customer service by directing telephone calls and emails to a central point of contact as we can negate any risk of a direct contact to a caseworker being missed due to the member of staff not being available. Having said that, you can still ask to speak to the caseworker if you feel that speaking to the person may be more helpful in relation to your application. Where possible we will try to transfer the phone call, and if that is not possible, we will arrange for the caseworker to call you back.
Comment by Topic63 posted on
100% agree, I was on the telephone today discussing an issue with someone that clearly did not understand but could NOT discuss it directly with the case worker. Extremely frustrating and annoying.
Comment by Megan Jenkins posted on
Although I understand the efficiency gain for HMLR in cutting off contact with caseworkers handling applications, AlsoDevon's point above is a good one. We often need to speak to the person dealing with the application. When this happens we call the Customer Contact Centre and leave a message for them. Unfortunately, many of our calls are not returned by the caseworkers working on applications and so we remain unable to resolve issues with the right person. This undermines customers' trust in the new communications process and in the CCC teams.
We have also seen lots of examples like Devonlady where caseworkers do not seem to have read all the documents we submit. One example recently was a correct transfer in original and counterpart where the caseworker requisitioned us saying the transfer had not been executed by all the parties. Please read the whole application before wasting everyone's time. Customers would be a lot more satisfied if we saw better service and greater attention to our applications in return for the change in communication methods.
Comment by ianflowers posted on
I am sorry to hear of the poor service you received in many cases when a call back is required. Once of the main benefits of the centralised arrangements is to reduce the need to refer calls to caseworkers who may not be available. Whatever the arrangements, on the occasions where a message is left with a caseworker, we need to focus on calling back promptly. I can assure you that we are working to improve our service in this regard and feedback like yours is extremely helpful
In the meantime, you can assist by using the 'Reply to Requisition' facility in portal if you need to contact us about a pending application. If you do that, your communication will be sent direct in our system to the application in question and it is the first thing that the caseworker will see when they open it. That way, the person dealing with your application will see and deal with your communication.
I do apologise for the instances when incorrect requisitions have been raised and where we have not shown sufficient attention to detail. Our centralised arrangements for handling customer contacts should be of benefit here as they allow caseworkers to concentrate fully on processing registration applications.
That said, we needs to play our part in improving our quality and consistency in how we handle applications and our systems generally. We have an application quality strategy in place that encompasses a number of actions, both for us and our customers. Our colleague Andrew Robertson wrote about this in the Law Society Gazette in December 2017 - http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/property/magazine/december-2017/quality-time/5063651.article . A more recent blog on our customer charter - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-customer-charter also sets out what customers can expect from us and what we expect from them.
Comment by Riley posted on
Hi I have been trying for over a month to get my deeds put back into my name so the sale of my property can go through the solicitor dealing with the case sent it in but it still pending. I have emailed the land registry but know one has come back to me the buyer is going to pull out if I don’t let his solicitor know how long this will take....
Comment by AdamH posted on
Riley - the lodging solicitor needs to contact us online with a request to expedite and documentary evidence of the linked transaction. If they do that, or have done already, then it can be expedited and actioned ASAP. We can’t be definitive re how long as the crisis has significantly disrupted our services. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/government-advice-on-home-moving-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak#contents
Comment by Riley posted on
Hi AdamH thank you for your help I will get in contact with the solicitor and let her know is it ok to send her a copy of the info you have sent me so she know I am not speaking crap because she’s like that . Do you have any idea how long this will take 1 or 2 days?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Riley - I would suggest simply asking them to confirm that expedition has been requested and approved as appropriate.
We can’t be definitive re timescales as I said so expedition means best case scenario, namely as soon as possible. Without expedition then worse case scenario remains at several weeks
Comment by Riley posted on
AdamH ok I’ll suggest that and see what they say thank again for your help
Comment by Riley Mcknight posted on
Hi I have been trying to get my deeds put back into my name but I keep hitting a brick wall the solicitor dealing with my case keep asking for more info she has sent back the paperwork needed but it’s not enough it is affecting the sale of the property. Is there any special paperwork that they need apart from the TR1 from OR they are asking for proof is acting for my trustee.
Comment by AdamH posted on
Riley - we can’t help you via the blog I’m afraid as it’s a specific scenario rather than something general. If the application has been rejected then the rejection should be clear as to what’s lacking. Your conveyancer needs query that if unsure.
Comment by Riley Mcknight posted on
Ok thank you I will inform them on that .thanks Adam.
Comment by Topic63 posted on
I have just been reading up on your guidelines for a DB application, it states the following:
Paragraph 3.3.3 of Practice Guide 40, "If an application is made without the agreement of the adjoining owner and we think there is an arguable case, we will serve notice on them. They may object and the additional costs of having that disagreement resolved can be very high ..."
Given the information above, where do you consider our neighbour to have an arguable case?
Your completion of registration issued only a few months ago confirms that the title plans issued have not changed, the TA6 “Law society property information” A signed contract by the previous owner also states that no boundary changes have been made in the last 20 years, the plans SL113007 & SLxxxxxx both match and supported by the land surveyors accurate measurements, additionally the DB application does not in any way affect our neighbour, it is only a means of confirming the exact boundary.
I don’t understand why you still felt it necessary to serve notice? It has (in my opinion) no basis and is outside your own guidelines as per Practice Guide 40 - So are you bringing into question the registered title deeds & plans that you issued me?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Topic63 - please use our contact form. We can’t deal with such matters via a blog comment
https://help.landregistry.gov.uk/app/contactus_general
Comment by Topic63 posted on
Hi Adam,
I have tried but the person I spoke to clearly did not understand?
I requested that the caseworker call me to discuss the issue so we are are of the same understanding?
Why can you not speak to the person directly dealing with the application, surely they are the best ones to sort out any problem and should have a clear understanding of the application.
Comment by AdamH posted on
Topic63 - please see reply to your other comment under a different user name.
Comment by Matthew posted on
Hello,
I am in the process of purchasing 38A Lostock Avenue, POYNTON, SK12 1DR.
I believe there is an expedited application is progress to get the property title deeds ready for the seller to sell to me.
The latest request from LR relates to a charge that was paid off. Have you received a response from the Solicitors of the vendor as yet with the correct supporting evidence?
Many thanks,
Comment by AdamH posted on
Matthew - whilst we received a response we are still waiting for more from them. They are hopefully aware as our last contact was on the 27th
Comment by Matthew posted on
Thank you. Is this still in an expedited state as this is currently holding up a chain of sales?
Once LR receive the relevant info and it is correct, how quickly should the registration be completed to allow the seller to transfer ownership as part of the sale, to me?
Kind regards
Comment by AdamH posted on
Matthew - it is still expedited. So when the details are provided it will be considered again ASAP. Currently that generally means with8n 1 or 2 working days providing it’s just a lack of detail and no wider checks/considerations are then required.
Comment by Belinda posted on
When a first registration application is made and there is a prescriptive right of way across the adjoining property, what is the process please?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Belinda - see our Practice Guide which explains how we would deal with such a claim https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription
Comment by Belinda posted on
What happens on first registration if a right of way is specifically written into the conveyance of a property and the route is shown on a plan?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Belinda - if it’s registrable then it would be included in the register. With rights (easements) much depends on the type and whether the benefiting and subjective land are registered. See Practice Guides 1 and 62 for guidance https://www.gov.uk/topic/land-registration/practice-guides
Comment by Belinda posted on
What if the subjective land was registered without showing the right of way mentioned, if the right of way was being used at the time of the land being registered?
If the benefitting land was registered for the first time some years later, how would this be dealt with please?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Belinda - investigated and considered on merit. If the application was to register and easement then it’s all about what evidence exists to prove it was validly granted. If it wasn’t noted on the servient title then I’d expect them to be contacted
Comment by Belinda posted on
If a right of way is absolutely supported with solid legal evidence, ie a w conveyance are there any reasons why the title to the benefitting land would not mention the right of way? and are there any reasons why the serviant land owner could object to the registration?
If the land registry made an error in the registration how should it be dealt with please?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Belinda - there’s no general answer to your Q. It could only be answered specifically so if you have a title/easement then I’d suggest you focus on the detail and use our contact form
https://help.landregistry.gov.uk/app/contactus_general
If you think an errors been made then provide details and supporting evidence as appropriate
Comment by Belinda posted on
Has my reply been moderated please Adam?
Comment by AdamH posted on
Belinda - we won’t be able to help you on the blog I’m afraid so won’t approve or respond to further enquiries re the issues you are facing
Comment by Belinda posted on
The LR guidance is clear for a first registration, so why would the LR make an error?
Why would it be necessary for the owner benefitting from a right of way to make a subsequent application to amend a LR error?
and since the first registration guidance is quiet clear, why would LR refer an application which was to amend their error to a land tribunal?
Please
Comment by AdamH posted on
Belinda - it’s not why but how really. Errors aren’t deliberate in my experience. We always need an application as a formal record. And references to the tribunal usually arise as the parties involved can’t agree on any amendment.
This blog isn’t going to assist you with the matter if you’ve already or are going through that process. I’d recommend you use any available channel you already have re the specific issues as raised with the tribunal
Comment by Belinda posted on
Thank you for your responses. From my understanding it is the LR role to register land in accordance with the legal documentation and their practice guides. When legal documents are clear & specific it is surely not the LR role to suggest or make amendments surely that should be up to the owners of the land and their lawyers?
As one last comment I truly believe the LR acted unlawfully by deliberately failing to register my land in accordance with the conveyance and legal papers for a first registration. Unlawfully allowed an objection so that LR with the co-operation of unscrupulous lawyers could force us to the land tribunal. The way LR acted and behaved tortured the mental health and wellbeing of myself and husband almost to a point of no return. As we learn to live with the experience the LRegistrar responsible will retire on a nice golden pension and when he does I sincerely hope he reflects on the way he treated us and probably others. I will not be making any further comments.