Land Registry: Interim charging order finally removed
A South London law firm that failed to perform an undertaking given during a property transaction for nearly two and a half years has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Gems Legal Services in Catford was acting on the sale of a property and in August 2022 contacted the purchaser’s solicitors with official copies of the register of title, which showed an interim charging order was registered against the property.
The firm contacted the creditor who bought the debt that was the subject of the interim charging order, but it said it was unable to remove the order because it was imposed by the original creditor. Gems was unable to contact the original creditor to obtain the order’s discharge but nonetheless gave the purchaser’s solicitors an undertaking to discharge the order on completion.
It also undertook to send the purchaser’s solicitors a copy of the form confirming that notice of discharge had been given to HM Land Registry.
Completion took place on 24 January 2023 and Gems failed to discharge the interim charging order.
The purchaser’s solicitors “repeatedly contacted” the firm to obtain confirmation that the order had been discharged and for an explanation for the failure to comply with the undertaking.
They reported Gems to the SRA in September 2024, having not received a satisfactory response.
Gems told the SRA it had not failed to perform the undertaking; rather, there had been “an unforeseen delay”, which was due to the unusual circumstances of the matter.
The firm subsequently commenced court proceedings to discharge the order, having paid the amount necessary to settle the outstanding debt it secured. The court did so in January 2025 and the interim charging order was removed from the property’s title soon after.
The SRA said a rebuke was “an appropriate and proportionate sanction”.
The delay was substantial, “lasting significantly longer” that it should have, and had “a serious, detrimental impact on the purchasers of the property”.
“Some level of public sanction was required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services and to uphold professional standards.”
In mitigation, the SRA recognised that the firm had co-operated with the SRA’s investigation and eventually rectified the failure, while it was also an isolated incident.
Gems was also ordered to pay costs of £1,350.
Leave a Comment