In part one of this blog, we explored how HM Land Registry is reducing the number of requisitions we send and why this is important not only for us but also for you, our customers.
In part two, we’re going to look more closely at why we are so intent on driving down requisitions. Surely a couple of typos and a missing date in a transfer, or a black-and-white plan that’s not signed, cannot cause too many problems?
The simple fact is, they do. And the main problem is: requisitions lead to delays.
The impact of requisitions
We are not in any way suggesting errors such as these are the sole cause of longer processing times but they are a significant contributing factor.
We’ve looked at how many requisitions we send in relation to just 10 simple groupings of mainly administrative errors and omissions, which we refer to as “avoidable”. The chart shows the actual number of requisitions sent over each error type from October 2023 to September 2024 – all together more than 600,000 points.
Our economists examined how much it costs conveyancers to rectify a mistake in a simple application to update the register, such as a straightforward transfer or remortgage. Based on average pay levels in the sector, they calculated a sum of between £5 for each “avoidable” clerical error and £30 for issues that involve chasing third parties for a document or consent, for example. Multiplied across all firms, these ‘minor mistakes’ become hugely expensive, costing the industry anything between £3.2 million and £19.1 million every year.
The chart below shows a breakdown of the estimated costs of the most common requisition types. They also add on average 15 working days to the time it takes for the transaction to be registered.
It also takes HM Land Registry time and resources to manage and resolve these requisitions. We are sure you can appreciate the impact they have on the number of applications awaiting responses, and in taking our staff away from processing others.
How we can help
Errors and omissions affect how quickly we can complete an application. We recognise there have been some issues at our end, and we’ve talked about the measures we’re taking to reduce the amount of requisitions we raise. We’ve also talked about the support available to customers in making complete and correct applications.
We are also actively exploring ways to make our data more accessible and meet your current and future needs. This includes empowering you to self-serve and further understand your own requisition rates, while ensuring you have the information you need to make actionable improvements – for the benefit of your business and ours.
A shared goal – let’s do this!
It’s clear that the only way we’re going to bring down the sheer number of requisitions as much as we all need is by continuing to work together.
If you have any feedback or suggestions – or if you’d like to share your success in reducing requisitions in a case study – please get in touch with us at CustomerCommsTeam@landregistry.gov.uk.
Please scan the QR code below or visit the HM Land Registry training hub on GOV.UK for free training and support resources from HM Land Registry.
We welcome your comments about this blog in the comments below. Please note that we are unable to discuss individual cases through the comments section and would request that all such queries be directed to our Contact Us web form where you will receive a response as soon as possible.
4 comments
Comment by Tim posted on
Whilst this is useful information it’s not just solicitors or conveyancers to blame for the requisitions. It would also help if everyone at the LR were consistent. We are having to add weeks on transactions as we are having to ask other lawyers to remove form A restrictions because you keep raising requisitions even though they have been overreached. The same with form B restrictions. But funny enough at my old firm you registered a property without a transfer signed by the transferor. I think you need to look at your own training rather than solicitors or conveyancers. I also put in a possessory title application and the estimated date for registration was march 2026. I don’t understand how it can take someone 17 months to review.
Comment by Gavin Curry posted on
We wholeheartedly agree: we don’t want to send requisitions any more than you want to receive them. Which is why we are changing our processes to improve our consistency with requisitions, looking at how can we make them clearer, and at how can we work with you to lessen the amount you receive.
Comment by Roy Perrott posted on
I think that law firms are all too aware of the cost of dealing with requisitions, which will usually be irrecoverable from our clients. I think it is important to point out that many of the "avoidable" requisitions could be avoided if the Land Registry took a more pragmatic and common sense view.
For instance, we recently received a requisition where a power of attorney was granted to an individual using his full name (including middle name) but the printed name on the document next to his signature omitted his middle name. The requisition required us to amend the document to include his middle name. Was this really necessary? This is not an isolated incident, sadly.
Comment by Gavin Curry posted on
We are very keen to reduce the number of requisitions we send. After a thorough audit, we found an issue with approximately one in ten requisitions sent out. Our plan to address this includes increasing caseworker capability to avoid unnecessary requisitions.