As we have previously noted, the LR will introduce a fundamentally important change of practice on 3 August, when it enforces ‘early completion’.

The new policy will apply whenever an application for discharge of a whole has been made together with another application – but without sufficient evidence of the discharge of the charge. In that situation, the LR intends to reject the application for discharge, but complete the other applications. The end result will be that the old (existing) charge will remain registered.

However, the LR has backed down to some extent, following the uproar that this proposal has generated amongst conveyancers. Under this modified approach, there is an important distinction between situations where (a) a restriction prevents registration and (b) there is no restriction but the LR still has to raise a requisition. Under its original plans, the LR said that requests for an extension of time would be considered ‘on their merits’, but it was made clear that they would not be routinely granted. The new policy will allow one extension of 20 business days where a restriction in favour of the existing charge prevents registration. However, this will only apply if the conveyancer specifically asks for this extension in writing; and shows that he or she is actively pursuing the matter; and shows that the existing lender is causing the delay. Note that further extensions are ‘unlikely to be given’. If any requisitions are raised for other matters (ie when there is no restriction in favour of an existing charge) then no extension of time will be granted. Plus, of course, if no requisitions arise at all, then the LR will simply go ahead on the basis of its ‘early completion’ policy.

It goes without saying that most conveyancers will still be deeply unhappy about these new proposals. The fundamental flaw in the conveyancing system is that it depends on solicitors being able to rely on each other’s undertaking, with the LR being prepared to accommodate situations where a lender delays in forwarding the discharge. If that flexibility is to be removed, then it is difficult to see how a buyer can rely upon a seller’s undertaking, given the potential for loss if the discharge is not produced in time.