Policy paper

Law Commission review of the Land Registration Act 2002: government full response

Updated 25 March 2021

Introduction

1. The Law Commission’s Twelfth Programme of Law Reform included a project examining the Land Registration Act 2002. The Law Commission explained its project was ‘not designed to fundamentally reformulate the Act, but to improve specific aspects of its operation within the existing legal framework’.

2. The Land Registration Act 2002 is the principal legislation governing land registration in England and Wales. It sets out provisions for the keeping of a register of title to land and requirements for its administration by HM Land Registry under a Chief Land Registrar.

3. The Law Commission published its conclusions and a draft Bill in July 2018 (see Current project status and Updating the Land Registration Act 2002 (PDF, 4.1MB). Its report ‘Updating the Land Registration Act 2002’ contained 53 recommendations.

4. The government issued its interim response in accordance with the Protocol between the Lord Chancellor and the Law Commission on 31 January 2019. The preliminary conclusions were that many of the recommendations were likely to be acceptable in principle.

5. This document is the government’s full response to the Law Commission’s recommendations.

General comments

6. The government welcomes the Law Commission’s examination of the Land Registration Act 2002. It is important to review periodically the core statute which ensures effective land registration in England and Wales. The government thanks the Law Commission for the comprehensive review that has been undertaken, which has included consultation with a wide range of interested parties.

7. The government recognises the critical role that HM Land Registry plays in England and Wales. HM Land Registry’s ambition is to become the world’s leading land registry for speed, simplicity and an open approach to data. It published its business strategy in November 2017, which reinforced its commitments to support the government ’s housing strategy and aim for comprehensive registration. The extent of land and property registration currently stands at over 87%, which is comprised of more than 25 million registered titles.

8. Land registration underpins the economy. A recent HM Land Registry assessment showed that the register of land and property ownership, detailing property assets valued at approximately £7 trillion, enables over £1 to 1.5 trillion worth of personal and commercial lending to be secured against property across England and Wales. ln the last financial year, HM Land Registry handled in excess of 35 million requests for its services.

9. The Law Commission stated that the review recommended some technical reforms to iron out the kinks in the law, help prevent fraud and make conveyancing faster, easier and cheaper for everyone.

Government response to the recommendations

10. The government has considered each of the 53 recommendations carefully. Most of the recommendations are technical and/or narrowly targeted. The government considers that the land registration regime is generally functioning effectively. Three recommendations impact on the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal, which adjudicates disputes relating to land registration matters.

11. The table at Annex A lists the recommendations and government ’s response to them. The government accepts 40 recommendations, a small number of which on the basis that they are modified prior to implementation including to consider the appropriate legislative mechanism to allow for greater flexibility to bring into effect mandatory electronic conveyancing. HM Land Registry continues to work with customers to develop new digital services that enable property professionals and citizens to lodge applications electronically and online. It has ended the need for paper based transactions by accepting electronically signed transfers and other deeds for registration. It is pioneering further innovation that will improve the speed and security of conveyancing and unlock the benefits of digitalising the property market in England and Wales

12. The government rejects 3 recommendations. The government believes they would create significant change to the generally effective land registration regime, without clear cut benefits, and/or risk unintended consequences in key areas without there being a clear problem to be resolved in practice.

13. There are 10 recommendations where the government has been unable to reach clear conclusions. In one case the government wishes to consider the issues alongside other policy development work around comprehensive registration. In one case it wishes to consult further before reaching any view. In most of the other cases the government has not reached clear conclusions because of the recommendations’ combined impact and translation into the draft Bill attached to the Law Commission’s report. On those, the government will confirm its position when the focus moves to implementation and the Bill is redrafted.

14. The government has discussed with the Law Commission its rationale for rejecting or reserving its position on the following recommendations, in line with the Protocol.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

15. The government supports the aim of improving the transparency and completeness of the land register. HM Land Registry is committed to the goal of achieving comprehensive land and property registration against published milestones.

16. The government acknowledges that the complex issue of mines and minerals should be explored. However, at the current time, it does not accept the recommendation to introduce compulsory triggers for registration of estates in mines and minerals, as proposed by the Law Commission. The registration of below-surface interests is not part of HM Land Registry’s specific business strategy commitments. However, HM Land Registry will consider whether mines and minerals ownership should be brought within the compulsory requirements of registration as part of its wider policy development.

Recommendation 2

17. The government acknowledges the intention of this recommendation is to provide transparency for property owners. The government is generally supportive of that ambition, but it considers the issues to be complex and notes that the Law Commission report recognises there are challenges in this area.

18. The government will consult further as part of its consideration of any next steps in this area. Therefore, it does not accept the recommendation (and the suggestion to alter the Land Registration Rules 2003 contained in the Law Commission’s report), which it believes would need further consideration alongside other options.

Recommendations 14 and 15

19. The Law Commission has recommended a significant change to the process where an owner applies for the removal of a unilateral notice. The Law Commission has set out its belief that doing so could “prevent unmeritorious unilateral notice applications and … facilitate resolution of disputes at an earlier stage, preventing litigation before the Tribunal” (see paragraph 9.22 of Updating the Land Registration Act 2002 (PDF, 4.1MB)). The government agrees with that ambition.

20. The government acknowledges the Law Commission took into account concerns around unilateral notices raised by the Justice Committee following its scrutiny of manorial rights in 2015.

21. However, the government does not share the Law Commission’s view that there is an ongoing significant issue that requires the substantial reform proposed. It is also concerned the recommendation would be difficult to operate in practice.

22. The expired transitional nature of the change in the requirements to register manorial rights means that specific problems in the context of manorial rights which the Justice Committee was concerned with are unlikely to arise again. Moreover, the Law Commission’s recommendation would apply to all unilateral notices, not just those protecting manorial rights. HM Land Registry has examined a sample of relevant cases and concluded there is insufficient evidence of the concerns that underlie the Law Commission’s proposal to warrant statutory intervention.

23. The recommendation would be a disproportionate step at the current time. The added complexity around how the recommendation would operate in practice risks causing delay and unnecessarily opening HM Land Registry to challenge. The government rejects recommendations 14 and 15.

Recommendations 23 to 30

24. Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 contains provisions that deal with the Chief Land Registrar’s and the Court’s power to make alterations to the land register, including where there is a mistake.

25. Recommendations 23 to 30 have resulted in a draft Bill that makes the schedule significantly longer and more complex. This seems to be largely because of two principles that run through the drafting.

26. First, several recommendations involve a proposed ten-year ‘longstop’, or deadline, after which changes to correct a mistake would be possible only in very limited circumstances. This would be a significant change and the government does not consider that the Law Commission has put forward clear evidence that there is a problem to fix. The government rejects those elements of the recommendations in so far as they involve that principle.

27. Secondly, the Law Commission’s draft Bill introduces separate provision for three types of proprietor in possession (an original proprietor, the current proprietor and any other proprietor). This impacts upon the implementation of several of the recommendations as expressed in the draft Bill. Again, the government does not consider that evidence has been shown establishing the need for such separate provision.

28. The government needs to see the impact on the amendments to Schedule 4 of removing the long-stop. It also needs to understand whether the distinction between registered proprietor types could be removed (or its impact upon the complexity of the revised Schedule 4 reduced). Until then, it cannot reach final conclusions on the recommendations and their combined effect.

29. More generally, the government must ensure any perceived clarification or improvement in the law arising from the implementation of the recommendations does not make Schedule 4 substantially more complex, or otherwise increase the risk of litigation and/or unintended consequences arising, where there is no clear evidence the current law is failing in practice.

Recommendation 36

30. The government rejects the recommendation to introduce a statutory list of factors for HM Land Registry and the courts to consider when assessing whether a title plan correctly shows the general position of a boundary. The government considers it unlikely the recommendation would bring the clarity and certainty the Law Commission seeks to achieve. It does not consider the recommendation would be an improvement on the current law.

31. The government acknowledges that the current law can result in some uncertainty, which is inevitable in a land registration regime built on general boundaries. However, it is concerned that the recommendation would introduce a greater risk of litigation. There are several reasons for this, including that:

• there may be cases that test whether the recommendation has fundamentally altered the law
• the recommendation does not necessarily prevent litigation that would otherwise have arisen, because the proposed test is not definitive
• there may be arguments over the relative weight of factors to be considered – those in the Act, those in secondary legislation, and those HM Land Registry or the court might conclude it is necessary to consider

Conclusions and next steps

32. The government considers the Law Commission work to be a thorough and helpful contribution to the scrutiny of the land registration regime. The government will consider implementation alongside wider land registration policy development and HM Land Registry business strategy priorities. The government will consider implementing the recommendations it has accepted as parliamentary time permits but may need to re-examine the benefits of implementation, and consult on a revised Bill, prior to any implementation.

Annex A: Law Commission recommendations to update the Land Registration Act 2002 (July 2018) and government response

Ref	Law Commission recommendation	Government response
1	We recommend the introduction of new compulsory triggers for registration of an estate in mines and minerals in the following instances: (1) where mines and minerals are separated from a freehold estate, or a leasehold estate for a term exceeding seven years, following a transfer for valuable or other consideration, or by way of gift; (2) where mines and minerals are separated from an unregistered legal estate following the grant of a lease for a term exceeding seven years for valuable or other consideration, or by way of gift; (3) where an unregistered freehold estate in mines and minerals held apart from the surface, or a leasehold estate for a term exceeding seven years in mines and minerals held apart from the surface, is transferred for valuable consideration; and (4) where a lease of a term exceeding seven years is granted out of an unregistered estate in mines and minerals held apart from the surface for valuable consideration.	The government does not accept this recommendation at the current time but will consider the issues raised further as part of wider comprehensive registration policy development.
2	We recommend that surface owners should be notified of an application to register an estate in mines and minerals beneath their land, regardless of whether it is to be registered with qualified or absolute title.	The government does not accept this recommendation at the current time and will consult further on this issue.
3	We recommend that the requirement of compulsory first registration should apply to the transfer of a discontinuous lease and to the grant of a discontinuous lease out of a qualifying estate.	The government accepts this recommendation.
4	We recommend that it should be possible to enter a notice in respect of any discontinuous lease in the register of title of the landlord’s estate.	The government accepts this recommendation.
5	We recommend that the priority rules governing unregistered land should apply to dispositions arising after compulsory first registration has been triggered under section 4 of the LRA 2002, but before the application for first registration to HM Land Registry is made. However, section 14(3) of the Land Charges Act 1972 should continue to provide that it is neither possible nor necessary to protect under the Act a land charge that is created within the same instrument as a disposition of an unregistered estate that triggers first registration under the LRA 2002.	The government accepts this recommendation.
6	We recommend that it should be clarified that, if registration is unsuccessful after a disposition triggers compulsory first registration under section 4 of the LRA 2002, the priority rules governing unregistered land should apply to interests created after the application for first registration was made.	The government accepts this recommendation.
7	We recommend that it should be made clear that a person with a derivative interest under a trust may apply for a caution against first registration of the legal estate to which the trust relates.	The government accepts this recommendation.
8	We recommend that the LRA 2002 should be clarified such that, in the case of a person entitled to be registered as the proprietor, owner’s powers are not limited by reason only of the fact that the person is not yet registered as the proprietor and so merely has an equitable, rather than a legal, title.	The government accepts this recommendation.
9	We recommend that the owner’s powers provisions in the LRA 2002 should be clarified to ensure that any limitation on a trustee’s powers of disposition, not reflected by an entry in the register, does not affect the validity of the title of the disponee.	The government accepts this recommendation.
10	We recommend that the LRA 2002 should be clarified such that a person who is dealing with a person who is entitled to be registered, but is not yet registered as the proprietor, is bound by any limitations on that person’s powers of disposition not reflected in the register.	The government accepts this recommendation.
11	We recommend that the definition of valuable consideration in section 132 of the LRA 2002 be amended so that “a nominal consideration in money” is no longer excluded from the definition of valuable consideration.	The government accepts this recommendation.
12	The reform we make to the definition of valuable consideration in the LRA 2002 should not apply to the requirement for valuable consideration in section 86 of the LRA 2002 (bankruptcy of the registered proprietor).	The government accepts this recommendation.
13	We recommend that where a person applies for a unilateral notice in respect of an interest which was formerly overriding until 12 October 2013, and the title indicates that there has been a registered disposition of the title since that date, the applicant should be required to give reasons why the interest still binds the title. The notice will only be entered if the reasons given are not groundless.	The government accepts this recommendation.
14	We recommend that, if a registered proprietor applies to cancel a unilateral notice, the beneficiary of the unilateral notice will be required to respond within 30 business days (subject to an extension to a maximum of 40 business days at the discretion of the registrar). The response must produce evidence to satisfy the registrar of the validity of the beneficiary’s claim. (1) If the beneficiary does not produce evidence to satisfy the registrar of the validity of his or her claim, the registrar must cancel the unilateral notice. (2) If the beneficiary does produce evidence to satisfy the registrar of the validity of his or her claim, the unilateral notice will remain in the register. If the registered proprietor continues to dispute the beneficiary’s objection to the application to cancel, the registrar must, after allowing time for the parties to negotiate, refer the matter to be determined by the Tribunal.	The government rejects this recommendation.
15	We recommend that our reform of the procedure for objections to cancel a unilateral notice should apply to unilateral notices that were entered in the register before the implementation of our reforms.	The government rejects this recommendation.
16	We recommend that it should be possible for agreed notices to identify the beneficiary of that notice, or when relevant the title number of the benefiting land, in a similar way to the entries made in relation to a unilateral notice.	The government accepts this recommendation.
17	We recommend that when the identity of the beneficiary has changed, or there are additional beneficiaries, the new beneficiary can apply to update the entry of the agreed notice so that it reflects the change of identity. Such an update to the identity of the beneficiary of the notice should not affect the interest’s priority.	The government accepts this recommendation.
18	We recommend that the LRA 2002 should contain a power for the Secretary of State, after consultation, to make rules to determine: (1) whether particular types of contractual obligation cannot be capable of protection by way of a restriction; and (2) whether particular types of contractual obligation should only be capable of protection by way of a restriction that requires notice to be given to a beneficiary.	The government generally accepts this recommendation as it is translated in the Bill (which is wider than in the recommendation as set out to the left). The provision would give the Secretary of State additional power to help improve the conveyancing process. However, the government believes the power as translated in the draft Bill may require modification to avoid arguments around whether obligations covered by rules are contractual. The government also believes the power should permit its application to obligations that exist only in specific contexts.
19	We recommend that it should be made clear that a court may order the entry of a restriction to protect a charging order relating to an interest under a trust, but that such a restriction must be in Form K.	The government accepts this recommendation.
20	We recommend that it should be made clear that an application under section 43(1) of the LRA 2002 is not notifiable under section 45 of the LRA 2002 where that application is for the entry of a restriction to protect a charging order relating to an interest under a trust.	The government accepts this recommendation.
21	We recommend that the land registration rules should be amended to make express provision to permit the recording of a non-dispositive variation of a lease on either the landlord’s registered title, or the tenant’s registered title, or both.	The government accepts this recommendation.
22	We recommend that the LRA 2002 should explicitly confirm that the ability of a person to seek alteration or rectification of the register to correct a mistake should not be capable of being a property right.	The government accepts this recommendation.
23	We recommend that where the proprietor of a registered estate has been removed or omitted from the register by mistake, the proprietor should be restored to the register if he or she is in possession of the land, unless it would be unjust to do so. We recommend that a person who would have been the successor in title to that proprietor were it not for the mistake in the register should be restored to the register if he or she is in possession of the land, unless it would be unjust to do so. We recommend that: (1) The protection afforded to the proprietor of a registered estate who has been removed or omitted from the register by mistake should not be confined to when he or she is personally in possession, but should apply where a proprietor would be considered a proprietor in possession within section 131of the LRA 2002. (2) The protection afforded to the proprietor of a registered estate who has been removed or omitted from the register by mistake should not be confined to situations where his or her possession of the land has been continuous, as long as he or she is the proprietor in possession when schedule 4 is applied.	The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
24	We recommend that the register should not be rectified in order to correct a mistake so as to prejudice the registered proprietor who is in possession of the land without that proprietor’s consent, except where: (1) The registered proprietor caused or contributed to the mistake by fraud or lack of proper care or; (2) Less than ten years have passed since the original mistake and it would be unjust not to rectify the register. We recommend that after ten years from the mistaken removal of the former registered proprietor from the register, the register should not be rectified to correct the mistake so as to prejudice the new registered proprietor even where the new proprietor is not in possession of the land. Exceptions should be provided only for where the former proprietor or his or her successors in title are in possession of the land, for where the new registered proprietor consents to the rectification, and for where the new registered proprietor caused or contributed to the mistake by fraud or lack of proper care.	The government rejects the part of this recommendation that proposes a deadline of 10 years (described as a ‘longstop’ in recommendation 27). The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion on the remainder without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
25	We recommend that a chargee who has been registered by mistake, or the chargee of a registered proprietor who has been registered by mistake, should not be able to oppose rectification of the register (once a mistake has been found by the registrar or a court) so as to correct that mistake by removing its charge.	The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
26	We recommend that the LRA 2002 provides that where the registration of a registered proprietor is held to be a mistake, registration of any estates or charges granted by the registered proprietor, and any entry made in the register in respect of a derivative interest granted by the registered proprietor, should also be classed as a mistake.	The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
27	We recommend that sections 11 to 12 and 29 to 30 of the LRA 2002 should be subject to schedule 4. This means that where, through a mistake, a derivative interest has been omitted or removed from the register, the holder of the interest should be able to apply for alteration or rectification of the register to have the priority of the interest over the registered proprietor restored. The outcome of the application should be determined by the same principles that apply when the application for alteration or rectification relates to the title to the estate, including the operation of the longstop. We recommend that where a derivative interest in land is mistakenly omitted or removed from the register and consequently loses priority to another derivative interest, the court and the registrar should have the power to restore the interest to the register with the priority it would have had if the mistake had not been made. We recommend that where the application for alteration or rectification relates to a derivative interest, the ten-year longstop on alteration of the register should run from the time when, as a result of the mistake, the holder of the derivative interest lost priority, not from the time of the mistake.	The government rejects the part of this recommendation that relies on the longstop of 10 years. The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion on the remainder without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
28	We recommend the following: (1) Cases of multiple registration should be resolved through the application of our scheme for rectification. Therefore, in a case of multiple registration, a claim to adverse possession should not be possible. (2) Where as a result of the operation of the longstop a multiple registration remains in the register, the party who does not benefit from the longstop should have their title amended to remove the multiple registration. The party whose title is amended in such circumstances should be entitled to an indemnity.	The government rejects the part of this recommendation that relies on the longstop of 10 years. The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion on the remainder without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
29	We recommend that where a first registered proprietor was bound by an interest through the operation of priority rules in unregistered land, but obtains priority over the interest on registration as a result of section 11, no indemnity should be payable on rectification of the register to include the interest at a time when the estate is still vested in the first registered proprietor.	The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
30	We recommend that alteration or rectification of the register should not be possible in respect of an interest that ceased to be overriding on 13 October 2013, where first registration of the affected estate takes place on or after that date. An exception should be made, however, where on first registration HM Land Registry omitted a notice in relation to that interest that should have been entered under rule 35 of the LRR 2003 or overlooked a caution against first registration.	The government is not able to reach a clear conclusion without clarification of the combined effect of recommendations 23 to 30 through a revised Bill.
31	We recommend the introduction of a statutory duty of care in the following terms: (1) A duty of care on the part of those who, in the course of a business or profession: (a) make an application to the registrar; (b) execute a deed or other document intended to be used in connection with an application for registration; or (c) assist or advise in the same matters to take reasonable care to verify the identity of the parties on whose behalf they are acting. (2) The steps required to be taken to verify identity should be provided by HM Land Registry in directions. (3) A breach of the statutory duty will not affect the ability of a party to claim an indemnity from HM Land Registry as a first resort. Instead, the breach of duty will enable HM Land Registry, having paid the indemnity, to recover sums paid from the conveyancer.	The government accepts these two recommendations. The government notes the recommendations would enable HM Land Registry to specify steps that should be taken in property transactions to establish the identity of the parties. However, the government believes the provision should go further to limit the risk that present or future transactions are fraudulent. For example, it should enable HM Land Registry to set out reasonable steps that individuals should take to establish their own identity where no conveyancer is involved. Steps might include providing information to a third-party, and/or to HM Land Registry.
32	We recommend that HM Land Registry’s powers in respect of identity checks should be enhanced to enable the registrar, through directions, to provide mandatory requirements in respect of identity verification, including provision for electronic verification of identification and sub-delegation. We recommend that HM Land Registry should be required to consult prior to the introduction of mandatory requirements in respect of identity verification.
33	We recommend that: (1) for indemnity claims under paragraph 1(1)(a) of schedule 8, the limitation period should start to run from the date on which the register is rectified; and (2) for indemnity claims under paragraph 1(1)(b), the limitation period should start to run from the date of the decision not to rectify the register.	The government accepts this recommendation.
34	We recommend that the registrar’s rights of recourse under schedule 8, paragraph 10(2) ought to be subject to the following statutory limitation periods. (1) In a case within schedule 8, paragraph 10(2)(a), HM Land Registry should have the longer of (i) the remaining limitation period applicable to any cause of action the indemnity claimant would have had if an indemnity had not been paid; or (ii) 12 months from the date the indemnity is paid. (2) In a case within schedule 8, paragraph 10(2)(b), HM Land Registry should have the longer of (i) the remaining limitation period applicable to any cause of action the person in whose favour rectification has been made would have had if the rectification had not been made; or (ii) 12 months from the date the register is rectified.	The government accepts this recommendation.
35	We recommend that where an indemnity is payable in respect of the loss of an estate, interest or charge following a decision not to rectify, the value of the estate, interest or charge should be regarded as not exceeding its value at the date of the rectification decision, but valued as if both the estate, interest or charge and the land had remained in the condition it was in at the time of the mistake.	The government accepts this recommendation.
36	We recommend the introduction of a non-exhaustive list of factors, to be included in the LRA 2002, to be considered to distinguish boundary and property disputes: (1) The value of the disputed land as determined by an objective assessment of the facts; (2) Subject to the assessment of the value of the land, the relative size of the disputed land in comparison to other land within the remainder of the registered proprietor’s title; and (3) Whether the common law presumptions about boundaries in land wholly determine the dispute. We recommend that the LRA 2002 should grant a rule-making power to add further factors to be considered to distinguish boundary and property disputes.	The government rejects this recommendation.
37	We recommend that, where the grant of a lease is not a registrable disposition, easements and profits à prendre which benefit that lease, and which are created by the deed granting the lease should not be required to be completed by registration in order to operate at law.	The government accepts this recommendation.
38	We recommend that all easements and profits à prendre benefiting leases which are not required to be created by deed by virtue of sections 52(2)(d) and 54(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, including equitable easements, should be capable of being overriding interests.	The government accepts this recommendation.
39	We recommend that a claimant to title to registered land through adverse possession should be prevented from: (1) making a further application for registration under schedule 6, paragraph 1 when his or her previous application has been rejected under schedule 6, paragraph 5; and (2) making an application for registration under schedule 6, paragraph 6, unless the conditions in that paragraph under which a second application is currently permitted are satisfied.	The government accepts this recommendation.
40	We recommend that where a claimant relies on the condition in schedule 6, paragraph 5(4), he or she must apply within 12 months of when his or her reasonable belief that the land belonged to him or her came to an end.	The government accepts this recommendation.
41	We recommend that where a person becomes the first registered proprietor of title to land which has in fact been extinguished by an adverse possessor, where (i) the registered proprietor did not have notice of the adverse possessor’s claim and (ii) the adverse possessor is not in actual occupation of the land at the time of registration, an alteration of the register should be classed as rectification.	The government accepts this recommendation.
42	We recommend that an adverse possessor of unregistered land should not be able to apply for first registration with possessory title until the unregistered proprietor’s superior title has been extinguished under the Limitation Act 1980.	The government accepts this recommendation.
43	We recommend that an adverse possessor of registered land should not be able to apply for first registration of any legal estate acquired by adverse possession (since the coming into force of the LRA 2002) except through the procedure in schedule 6.	The government accepts this recommendation.
44	We recommend that where an adverse possessor in unregistered land is incorrectly registered with possessory title when the prior title has not been extinguished, the period of adverse possession should continue to run while the possessor’s title is open.	The government accepts this recommendation but notes that recent case law might impact on it (including the need for its implementation). This will be considered at the time of implementation of other recommendations.
45	We recommend that it should be possible for a beneficiary of an express trust of a registered charge to make further advances on the security of that charge which rank in priority to a subsequent charge pursuant to the provisions of section 49 of the LRA 2002.	The government accepts this recommendation.
46	We recommend that the LRA 2002 should be amended, to clarify that the owner’s powers provisions in section 23(2) of the LRA 2002 are confined to the power of disposition in respect of the registered charge itself.	The government accepts this recommendation.
47	We recommend that the powers of a chargee shall be taken, under section 52 of the LRA 2002, to be free from any limitation contained in that charge, or any subcharge, unless there is a restriction limiting the powers of that chargee in the register. A purchaser from a chargee will not be affected by a limitation that is not entered in the register, but this protection afforded to the purchaser would not affect the lawfulness of the disposition as between the chargee and the chargor or subchargee.	The government accepts this recommendation.
48	We recommend that: (1) there should be a power in the LRA 2002 to make electronic conveyancing mandatory without also requiring simultaneous completion and registration of dispositions; (2) there should continue to be a power in the LRA 2002 to make electronic conveyancing mandatory that also requires simultaneous completion and registration; and (3) in a system without simultaneous completion and registration, equitable interests should be capable of arising in the interim period between completion and registration.	The Government accepts these recommendations. However, the Government notes in particular the recommendation to allow for greater flexibility to bring into effect mandatory electronic conveyancing. The Government will wish to consider the appropriate legislative mechanism(s) for achieving that at the time of implementation.
49	We recommend that: (1) following the enactment of secondary legislation by the Secretary of State under section 93, and under the proposed new section 92A (inserted by clause 27) the setting of the timetable for ending paper-based conveyancing, in each case on a disposition by disposition basis, should be delegated to the Chief Land Registrar; and (2) the Chief Land Registrar should be required to consult with stakeholders before exercising his or her powers in respect of mandating electronic conveyancing.
50	We recommend that in an electronic disposition to which section 91 of the LRA 2002 applies– (1) a beneficiary’s interest in a trust of land can be overreached when trustees collectively delegate their power to a single conveyancer to sign an electronic conveyance and give receipt for capital money; (2) a beneficiary’s interest in a trust of land can be overreached when two or more trustees, by power of attorney, grant to a single conveyancer the power to sign an electronic conveyance and give receipt for capital money; and (3) evidence of the delegation to a single conveyancer, whether under section 11 of the Trustee Act 2000 or section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925, must be provided in the format required by HM Land Registry. For overreaching to take place, it will remain necessary for the disposition that follows the delegation to be one with overreaching effect.	The government accepts this recommendation.
51	We recommend that the Land Registration Division of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) should be given an express statutory power to decide where a boundary lies when an application is referred to it under section 60(3) of the LRA 2002.	The government accepts this recommendation.
52	We recommend that in making a determination in accordance with Recommendation 51, the Land Registration Division of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) shall give a direction to the registrar as to where the determined boundary lies.	The government accepts this recommendation.
53	We recommend that the jurisdiction of the Land Registration Division of the First tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) should be expanded to include an express statutory jurisdiction in cases that come before it to allow it: (1) to determine how an equity by estoppel should be satisfied; and (2) to declare the extent of a beneficial interest.	The government accepts this recommendation.