A conveyancing firm told its client that a lease extension had completed and would be registered that day. The registration application later received requisitions, the requisitions went unanswered and HM Land Registry cancelled the application. The error was not discovered until the client tried to remortgage almost two years later.
A Legal Ombudsman final decision dated 4 August 2025 directed the firm to pay £48,957.98. Most of that sum did not relate to the cost of correcting the title. It represented the additional mortgage payments incurred because the unregistered lease extension prevented the client from obtaining a favourable five year mortgage.
The decision does not state the precise unexpired term of the original lease, so it should not be described as a specific finding about a short lease. Its wider relevance to short lease and lease extension work is nevertheless clear. If an agreed lease extension is not registered, the title continues to show the earlier lease and a lender may assess the property on that uncorrected registered position.
The decision demonstrates why post completion work cannot be treated as an administrative afterthought. A missed requisition can move rapidly from a registration problem to a mortgage problem, a complaint, a substantial financial remedy and a professional indemnity concern.
The lease extension was completed but not registered
The client instructed the firm in June 2018 to deal with an extension of the lease of her one bedroom flat in London.
On 11 December 2019, the firm confirmed in writing that the lease extension had completed and that it would be registered with HM Land Registry that day. The client then received no further updates.
HM Land Registry raised requisitions in January 2020. They were not answered and the registration application was cancelled on 14 February 2020. The firm did not notice the cancellation and did not tell the client.
The problem remained hidden until December 2021. The client was trying to arrange a new five year mortgage when her mortgage adviser told her that the lender could not proceed because the lease extension had not been registered.
Only after the client contacted the firm did it acknowledge that registration had not taken place.
A completed transaction was not a completed retainer
The case exposes a dangerous distinction between contractual completion and completion of the professional task.
The lease extension document may have been executed and the premium paid, but the client had not obtained the registered title position she had instructed the firm to secure. Until the application was completed, the work remained unfinished.
Our earlier article on the risk of treating post completion work as an afterthought explains why submission delays, requisition rates and cancelled applications should be regarded as core risk indicators. This decision shows the possible human and financial consequences behind those statistics.
A firm should not close a conveyancing file merely because the money has been accounted for, the deed has been dated or the keys have changed hands. Closure should depend on evidence that all required post completion steps have been completed or placed under controlled monitoring.
The requisition was the warning that nobody acted upon
A requisition is not simply correspondence to be stored on the file. It is a live warning that the application cannot be completed in its present form.
Every firm needs a system that records:
- when an application was submitted;
- the HM Land Registry reference;
- every requisition and cancellation warning received;
- the person responsible for responding;
- the response deadline;
- any dependency on the client, landlord, lender or another conveyancer;
- escalation where the response cannot be completed in time; and
- final confirmation that registration has been completed correctly.
The system must also cope with absence, staff departures, changed email addresses and work transferred between teams. A requisition should never depend on one individual remembering to revisit an inbox.
Where the firm cannot answer within the available period, the matter should be escalated before the application is cancelled. If cancellation occurs, it must trigger an immediate exception report, a review of priority and a decision about disclosure to the client and lender.
Cancellation must not disappear into the case management system
The most serious control failure was not necessarily the original defect that caused the requisition. It was the absence of an effective process for detecting that the application had been cancelled.
A dashboard showing that an application remains outstanding is useful, but it is not sufficient if nobody reconciles that record against HM Land Registry status. A cancelled application can otherwise continue to appear internally as merely pending.
Firms should conduct regular exception reporting to identify:
- applications with unanswered requisitions;
- applications approaching a cancellation deadline;
- applications shown internally as pending but no longer live at HM Land Registry;
- matters outstanding materially longer than expected;
- files where the client or lender has not received a promised update; and
- cases where a registration problem may interfere with a sale, remortgage or further advance.
The partner or manager reviewing the report must have authority to allocate resources and demand action. Monitoring without ownership simply documents the backlog.
The loss arose in the mortgage market
By the time the problem emerged, the client was seeking a new five year mortgage. The lender would not proceed while the lease extension remained unregistered.
The firm argued that delays outside its control, including HM Land Registry processing times, meant it was uncertain whether registration would have been completed before the mortgage offer expired. The Ombudsman rejected that argument.
The decision considered the time required to resolve the title issue and negotiate the corrected lease. It concluded that there had been adequate time between the January 2020 requisitions and the expiry of the mortgage offer in 2022 to resolve the problem and complete registration.
The Ombudsman also relied on the firm’s own contemporary correspondence referring to an HM Land Registry timescale of four months. The actual resubmitted application was sent in or around late June 2023 and registration was confirmed by 4 August 2023, approximately one month later.
Once registration was completed, the client swiftly moved to a new fixed mortgage. This supported the conclusion that the registration failure had been the obstacle preventing her from changing product.
Why this is a classic When I Bought problem
The client had been told in December 2019 that the lease extension was complete and would be registered. Nothing then happened to alert her that the legal position recorded at HM Land Registry did not match what she reasonably believed had been achieved.
The defect remained invisible during ordinary ownership. It surfaced only when a later financial transaction required somebody new to examine the registered title. By then, the original application had been cancelled for almost two years and the client was exposed to a mortgage market that had moved against her.
This is precisely why a problem discovered after purchase or completion requires historical investigation rather than an assumption based on the present title. The questions include what the firm was instructed to do, what it said had been completed, what HM Land Registry required, why the application was cancelled and whether the client or lender was ever told.
Where a short lease or lease extension problem first emerges during a later sale or remortgage, the original retainer, completion correspondence, HM Land Registry application, requisitions and evidence of registration may all require examination. The When I Bought lease extension guide explains the historical questions an owner may need to investigate when the outcome of earlier lease extension work is challenged.
A £48,957.98 remedy from one unfinished task
The final remedy comprised:
- £45,877.98 for the financial loss caused by higher mortgage payments;
- £1,080, including VAT, representing reimbursement of half the additional fees; and
- £2,000 for stress and distress.
The total was £48,957.98.
This was a remedy for unreasonable service, not a regulatory fine. The distinction matters, but it provides little comfort to a firm facing a payment of that size, the internal time consumed by the complaint and the possible implications for its insurer and risk profile.
The case is a powerful example of why apparently small conveyancing errors can cost firms thousands. The amount at stake was determined by the consequences of the failure, not by the amount of time needed to answer the original requisition.
Corrective work does not permit unexplained fees
When the registration problem was revisited, additional work was required to resolve defects and complete the new lease. The Ombudsman accepted that the firm had undertaken further work and did not order a complete refund of those fees.
However, the client had not been warned in advance that further charges would be incurred. The firm had provided neither a proper basis for the charge nor a billing statement. The Ombudsman therefore ordered reimbursement of 50 per cent of the additional fees, amounting to £1,080 including VAT.
This is an important distinction. A firm may be entitled to charge for genuinely new work that falls outside the original retainer, even where a problem has emerged during the matter. It must still explain the basis of the charge and provide updated costs information before demanding payment.
Where some of the work has become necessary because of the firm’s earlier service failure, the position requires especially careful consideration. The client should not be presented with an unexplained demand as the price of correcting a problem the firm failed to identify or communicate.
Poor communication increased the award
The client repeatedly sought updates after the problem became known. The decision records unanswered emails and text messages, unfulfilled promises of letters and calls, and a lack of clear information about when the matter would be resolved.
The firm argued that it did not have a facility for receiving text messages. The Ombudsman noted that a representative of the firm had responded to messages, making it reasonable for the client to believe that the method of communication was acceptable. Internal uncertainty about communication channels was not the client’s responsibility.
The financial pressure of paying a higher mortgage rate added to the client’s distress. The Ombudsman considered that the firm’s continued handling of the matter, even after discovering the original failure, justified an award of £2,000 for stress and distress at the higher end of the scale.
This reinforces the point made in our article on managing client expectations in conveyancing. Silence is particularly damaging once a firm knows that its client is suffering continuing financial loss.
The complaint response took too long
The client formally complained in July 2022. The firm did not provide its response until July 2023. Although it admitted partial service failings and offered £7,160, the client rejected the proposal because she considered that it did not address her financial loss.
A prompt and properly informed complaint investigation might have identified the mortgage loss, the ongoing distress and the need for urgent registration action much earlier. A complaint should not be treated merely as correspondence to be answered. It is also a risk notification that may require operational intervention, notification to insurers and steps to prevent continuing loss.
The controls this decision should trigger
Conveyancing firms should use the decision as a reason to test their post completion systems against real failure scenarios.
- Centralise requisitions. Ensure every HM Land Registry requisition enters a monitored workflow rather than an individual inbox.
- Record deadlines. Use automated reminders and escalation well before cancellation.
- Reconcile status. Compare the case management record with the live HM Land Registry position.
- Review exceptions. Require regular management review of aged, requisitioned and cancelled applications.
- Do not close early. Keep the matter operationally open until registration and any lender requirements are completed.
- Tell the client. Explain material delay, cancellation or title difficulty promptly and accurately.
- Identify consequential risk. Ask whether the problem could affect a pending sale, remortgage, rate expiry or further advance.
- Consider expedition. Where a transaction or mortgage offer is at risk, assess whether an expedition request is available and record the decision.
- Update costs information. Agree the basis of any legitimate additional work before charging for it.
- Escalate complaints immediately. Treat allegations of financial loss as a live risk issue, not simply a service complaint.
The firm’s CQS purchase of leasehold policy should address responsibility for registration, requisitions, escalation and evidence of completion. A policy is only effective if the case management workflow, supervision and management information reflect what it requires.
Could one cancelled application be hiding in your post completion queue?
Review outstanding registrations, unanswered requisitions, cancellation warnings and matters where the client or lender has not received final confirmation. The cost of finding a problem internally is likely to be far lower than discovering it during a remortgage or complaint.
For the wider decision facing owners whose lease term is becoming difficult to mortgage or sell, read Short Lease: Extend Now or Wait for Reform?
A short lease problem is not resolved until the extension is registered
The central lesson is simple. Post completion work is substantive legal work with direct consequences for title, lender security and the client’s ability to use the property financially.
Here, an unanswered requisition led to cancellation. Cancellation remained unnoticed. The unregistered lease extension then prevented a remortgage. Delay in correcting the problem exposed the client to higher interest payments, while poor communication magnified the distress.
The resulting £48,957.98 remedy was not caused by a single missed email in isolation. It reflected the absence of a control capable of detecting, escalating and correcting the problem before the client suffered a substantial loss.
This article provides general information about a published Legal Ombudsman decision and does not constitute legal, regulatory or professional indemnity advice. The firm has not been identified because the purpose is to examine the risk management lessons arising from the decision.