KATIE MORLEY INVESTIGATES

If a company has let you down, our consumer champion is here to fight your corner

LETTER OF THE WEEK House is worth £50k less as Lloyds has lost the deeds

My wife and I bought our house in 1985 from the estate of a late relative. Back then there was no need for house purchases to be registered with the Land Registry. In 2008 we paid off the mortgage and Lloyds, our provider, gave us what we assumed were the title deeds.

Now we are trying to sell our home as we need to move to look after my wife’s 95-year-old father, but we’ve run into a problem. Our solicitor has advised that the title deeds we hold are just an extract of the original. Because evidence of who some of the previous owners were is missing from our version, the Land Registry will only grant us something called a “possessory title” rather than an “absolute title”. We’ve been advised that this means the deeds do not meet the minimum level of documentation needed to sell the house at full value.

We think Lloyds lost the deeds. We asked it to look for them. It said it had searched its archives but hadn’t found anything. To sell the house without the full deeds, our estate agent said we would need to reduce the price by £50,000, which is nearly a tenth of its £575,000 value.

We want Lloyds to write to the Land Registry and tell it our property deeds were lost while in its charge. Once the Land Registry has this admission, it should be able to issue us with an absolute title, meaning we can sell our house at full market value.

This is pressing as winter is coming, and we would like to be able to help our elderly relative before it gets really cold.

CB, GLOUCESTERSHIRE

It seems absurd that £50,000 could be shaved off your house price just because of a few missing pieces of paper. When I spoke to you on the phone, you said your house was on the market for £525,000, which was £50,000 below its full value.

When you had it valued in the summer, your estate agent said it was worth £575,000. That was before he knew about the incomplete deeds. Because of the potential problems this presents for prospective buyers, your agent advised you to reduce the price accordingly. People buying homes with missing deeds can expose themselves to the risk of a previous owner crawling out of the woodwork and trying to dictate matters relating to the property. Though unlikely, it’s an ugly prospect many buyers would rather avoid.

On its own, the £50,000 financial blow was devastating. But on speaking to you, it is clear to me that you had somewhat downplayed in your letter the acute level of stress that you and your wife were continuing to suffer because of the delay in moving. I really feel for you. Your father-in-law desperately needs you nearby and yet here you are stuck arguing with Lloyds and solicitors over paperwork. I might add that you did nothing wrong to cause this.

In a major stroke of luck, since you originally bought the home from a family member, you have enough proof of the previous owners for the Land Registry to grant you the absolute title you need.

The sticking point had been that the Land Registry needed Lloyds to put in writing that it had lost the deeds. For the past six months, Lloyds had been refusing to do this. However, after my involvement, it has finally confessed. It has now put in writing that it lost your deeds all those years ago, and has paid you £1,000 to say sorry for the stress and inconvenience caused.

You have now heard confirmation from the Land Registry that it is granting you an absolute title. Your estate agent put your house price back up to £575,000 and you have just accepted an offer of £550,000.

Your willingness to accept lower than asking price shows how badly you needed a quick sale. In the end, my ability to squeeze a confession out of Lloyds has facilitated your move and left you at least £26,000 better off. I hope the sale hurries along quickly now, so you can give your elderly relative the support he needs.

We earn less than £16,000 a year, so we got a “golden ticket” from the council entitling our two-year-old to a free nursery place. I filled in a basic form at a local nursery and my daughter was shown around. There were no payment or contract terms explained, as it was a free place.

In the second week, I was given a contract to sign, which we didn’t get around to doing. My wife went in a couple of days later and she was rudely told that if she didn’t hand over the signed letter, we shouldn’t bother sending our daughter in. Our daughter would cry terribly and was inconsolable when getting ready to be dropped off at nursery. We never sent her back.

We have now decided against sending our daughter to nursery. Instead, she will stay at home until she starts school. But the nursery has sent us an invoice for payment and is now threatening court action. Surely the free childcare place does not have to be paid for? We cannot afford to pay.

MH, VIA EMAIL

Toddlers often cry when they are placed in new environments and it isn’t necessarily a sign of anything untoward. I can’t see any evidence that this nursery isn’t properly caring for children. It has good Ofsted reports, despite most of its children coming from deprived homes.

But, of course, you had every right to pull your daughter out if you felt it wasn’t right for her. You also say your wife felt she was rudely spoken to by staff, which heightened tensions.

After removing your daughter you were understandably horrified to be billed £81 for a short stint that should have been free. I phoned the owner of the nursery to ask why she felt it was appropriate to bill a low-income family £81 for a council-funded service. She threatened to sue this newspaper, which struck me as premature and rather aggressive.

She went on to explain that, owing to a quirk in the council funding system, the nursery would not be reimbursed for the two weeks your daughter spent in its care, leaving it out of pocket. Children who start nursery in September and do not remain beyond an official “census date” of October 3 lose their council funding, she said. This explains why staff were so desperate for you to sign the form.

At the root of this case appears to be a nursery funding system that is working against nurseries, and worst of all, failing to put first the best interests of children. The nursery owner needs to take this up with the council.

You say your daughter will now stay at home, but the nursery believes you have cynically used it to get two weeks’ free childcare. It suspects that the nursery you really wanted to send her to wouldn’t have her until October. The owner said other families have pulled this “trick”, leaving her incensed. Whatever the truth, she tells me she will not pursue you for the money because “it isn’t worth it for £81”.

You are very relieved. But as a service dealing primarily with hard-up families, this nursery owner could use a little more empathy over money issues.

We received shock £81 bill for ‘free’ nursery place