Barbara Foord v Paul Alexander Stevens [2025] UKFTT 1457 (PC)

[2025] UKFTT 01457 (PC)

REF/2023/0748

PROPERTY CHAMBER, LAND REGISTRATION

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

Between

BARBARA FOORDAPPLICANT

PAUL ALEXANDER STEVENSRESPONDENT

LAND Registration act 2002

IN the matter of a reference from hm land registry

Property: Garage on the south side of Langdale Close, Rainham

Title Number: TT138502

Tribunal Judge Daniel Gatty

Sitting at 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LR on 9-10 April 2025 and remotely by CVP on 5 September 2025

DECISION

Keywords:

[1]This dispute arises out of an application to the Land Registry to alter the register made by the Applicant, Mrs Barbara Foord. The alteration sought is the substitution of the Applicant for the Respondent, Mr Paul Alexander Stevens, as registered proprietor of a garage on the south side of Langdale Close, Rainham registered under title number TT138502 (“the Garage”). The Applicant, who is the Respondent’s half-sister, used to own the Garage along with her now deceased husband, Raymond Terry Foord (“Ray”). It was included in the title of their home, 29 Langdale Close, Rainham, Kent ME8 7AE, title no. K311185 (“29 LC”). The Respondent became registered as proprietor of the Garage under title no. TT138502 pursuant to a transfer of part dated 17 March 2021 (“the Transfer”). The Applicant alleges that the Transfer was not properly executed and was obtained by deception.

[2]The Applicant’s application was made by a form AP1 dated 2 August 2023. By a letter dated 6 September 2023, Bridger’s Law Ltd objected to it on behalf of the Respondent. The Land Registry referred the dispute arising out of that objection to this Tribunal on 5 December 2023.

[3]The Applicant had previously made an application dated 5 October 2022 to enter a restriction against the title of the Garage, which was objected to on 10 August 2023 and referred to the Tribunal at the same time as the application to alter the register. I was told at the hearing that the Applicant was not pursuing the restriction application and so I will direct that it be cancelled.

[4]The dispute came before me at a hearing held at Alfred Place, London WC1 on 9 and 10 April 2025. I held a site visit on 8 April 2025. As explained below, it became necessary to adjourn the hearing part-heard and to resume it at a remote hearing on 5 September 2025.

[5]The Applicant was represented by Edmund Body of Counsel instructed by Hawkridge & Co., solicitors. The Respondent was represented by Antonia Halker of counsel instructed by Tolhurst Fisher, Solicitors.

The background to the application

[6]The Applicant and Ray became the registered proprietors of 29 LC, including the Garage, in October 1986. By 2021 they were both elderly and Ray was quite unwell with restricted mobility. Ray died in 2023. The Applicant had, by the date of the hearing at least, poor vision. She is also dyslexic. As a result, she struggles with reading. The Applicant and Ray have adult daughters two of whom live in the Medway region and one who lives further north, as I understand it. The Respondent is about 20 years younger than the Applicant. Like the Applicant, he lives in Gillingham.

[7]The years 2020 and 2021 were, of course, the period of the Covid pandemic. According to the Respondent he regularly visited the Applicant and Ray during that period to bring them shopping.

[8]In summer 2020 the Respondent purchased a motorbike, but, he said, found that he was unable to manoeuvre it into the shed in his back garden where he was planning to keep it and so had to park it on the street.

[9]In 2021 the Garage was not in regular use by the Applicant and Ray. To the extent that it was used, it was for storage. The Applicant had been a regular participant in car boot sales; goods for selling at such sales were stored in the Garage. It also appears that the Garage was not in very good condition and had a leaking roof. It is not necessary for me to make findings about the exact condition of the Garage but I am satisfied that its roof was not in optimum condition.

[10]It seems that in early 2021 a discussion took place between the Respondent and the Applicant about the Respondent using the Garage to store his motorcycle. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the discussion was about the Respondent having the use of the Garage or buying the Garage, but it is common ground that there was a discussion about his motorcycle being stored there when not in use.

[11]According to the Respondent’s evidence, after discussing storing his motorcycle in the Garage with the Applicant, he attempted to repair its roof but concluded that the roof needed replacing. His evidence was that he then asked the Applicant and Ray how much they would want if they were to sell him the Garage and Ray said that he would be happy with £1,000. The Respondent’s evidence is that he established that it would cost him about £6,000 to put the Garage in good repair and then agreed with the Applicant and Ray to buy the Garage from them for £1,000. He subsequently had them sign a typed document dated 5 February 2021 apparently signed by the Applicant and Ray recording their agreement to sell the Garage to the Respondent for £1,000 (“the Agreement”). Below the signatures are copies of the Applicant’s and Ray’s driving licences. The Applicant denies the authenticity of those signatures.

[12]The Applicant’s evidence is that she and Ray did not ever agree to sell the Garage to the Respondent although they were willing for him to use it to store his motorcycle and allowed him to do so. She accepted, however, that the Respondent paid Ray and her £1,000 in cash less £20 which they owed to the Respondent’s wife. Her evidence in cross-examination was that the Respondent offered to buy the garage for £1,000 and Ray said no. Then the Respondent came around with a bag containing £1,000 in cash less £20 that was owed to the Respondent’s wife but Ray said that he could not have the garage for £1,000 but the Respondent left the money with them. She also said, however, that she thought that the money was for use of the Garage, not its purchase.

[13]The Applicant also said in cross-examination that the Respondent offered to get a solicitor for Ray and herself (in relation to the Garage) but, according to the Applicant, she said that she did not want him to, and said that she would get her own if she wanted one.

[14]In mid-February 2021, the Respondent instructed James Carter of Bridger’s Law (“Bridger’s”) to act for him on the purchase of the Garage. Mr Carter arranged for a more junior colleague at Bridger’s, Lauren Murray to act for the Applicant and Ray. The Respondent was to pay both the purchaser’s and vendors’ legal fees. There is no doubt that Ms Murray purported to act for the Applicant and Ray but it is the Applicant’s case that they had no contact with her nor with Bridger’s at the time of the transaction.

[15]At the hearing in April, the bundle contained Bridger’s file in respect of the purchase, i.e. Mr Carter’s file, which had been disclosed by the Respondent. It did not contain Bridger’s file in relation to the sale, i.e. Ms Murray’s file. In a letter dated 3 August 2021 from Mr Carter to Hawkridge & Co. (“Hawkridge”), which had begun acting for Ray and the Applicant in June 2021, Mr Carter wrote that Ms Murray had been asked to send Ray and the Applicant their file. Whether Ms Murray was asked to do that or not, she did not do so and Hawkridge did not pursue the file very strenuously despite the Respondent’s current solicitors asking that it be disclosed. It was clear to me at the hearing that it would, or at least might well, assist me to see Ms Murray’s file. Mr Carter was present at the hearing as a witness as was Mark Hawkridge of Hawkridge. On my initiative, on the first day of the hearing Mr Carter was provided with the Applicant’s authority for Bridger’s to obtain Ms Murray’s file and provide it to Hawkridge. Regrettably the file was in storage and could not be obtained for the second day of the hearing. So the hearing was adjourned part-heard in order that the file could be obtained. Once it had been obtained the parties considered, and I agreed, that there ought to be a further half-day’s hearing to hear evidence and submissions about the documents on the vendor’s file. Consequently, a half-day hearing took place in September 2025 at which the Applicant and the Respondent gave further evidence and by then both the purchaser’s and the vendors’ files were available.

[16]It is apparent from the files that the transaction was conducted as if Bridger’s were acting on both sides of the transaction albeit through different fee-earners, charging each party £500 plus VAT plus disbursements, to be paid by the Respondent. Mr Carter’s file contains a copy letter dated 10 February 2021 which included the following:

“I enclose Terms of Business and Letter of Engagement for Barbara Ford and her husband Terry Ford to sign, and I have made it clear in the Letter of Engagement that their costs will be payable by you. Their costs will be £600, your costs will be £646. I will need from your sister and her husband a copy of their photocopy Driving Licences and a utility bill for each of them that's under three months old, this should not be a mobile phone bill. Please ask your brother-in-law and sister to sign the Terms of Business and Letter of Engagement and return to me with the identity documentation. I also enclose a form for them to sign confirming that they acknowledge this Firm acts for you as well and that they are happy for us to represent you and your sister separately within this office. I, James Carter, will be acting probably on your behalf, and my colleague, Lauren Murray will be acting for your sister and brother-in-law.”

[17]On 1 March 2021, Mr Carter emailed the Respondent attaching, amongst other things, a transfer of part to be used for the transaction. The email included the following:

“I enclose a copy of the Transfer of Part transferring this garage from your sister, Barbara Foord and her husband Raymond to you in consideration of £1,000. I attach a copy of the Official Copy Register of Title to K311185 and a copy of the Filed Plan merely showing the garage edged red that you are acquiring. Your garage you are acquiring is in the block furthest from your sister and brother-in-law's house and is the penultimate most eastern garage in that block. I also enclose a copy of the Transfer and I think it would probably be best if you visited your sister and brother-in-law and arrange for them to execute the Transfer if they are happy with it. They will need to sign the Transfer but doing so in the presence of a witness, the witness cannot be you, it needs to be non-family member over the age of 18. Your sister and brother-in-law sign the Transfer and both of them also sign the Plan, again if they are happy with it. The witness who should be present when they are both present has to sign in ink their name where indicated and then print their name in ink and then print their address. They sign the Transfer, the witnesses do not need to sign the plan. I think that you should confirm and you should get a short letter signed by your brother in law and sister that they have received directly from you the sum of £1,000. Please then return the Transfer to me duly executed together with your sister and brother-in-law's receipt for the capital money of £1 ,000.”

[18]There is then a letter on Mr Carter’s file dated 10 March 2021 from which it is apparent that the Respondent had provided him with a signed transfer but that it was unsatisfactory. Mr Carter wrote: “I enclose a note of my costs in relation to acting for you and I also enclose a copy of the account from Lauren for acting for your sister and brother-in-law. Lauren is waiting for a letter/email from your sister and brother-in-law to confirm receipt of the £1,000. I have back from you the TP1. This is not satisfactory for two reasons, firstly the TP1 has been reduced possibly when we emailed it to you and secondly, you have printed the plan in black and white and therefore the land edged red has not come out in the way that it should. I enclose a fresh copy of the TP1 by email which is for your records, by I am also sending it to you by post. Please use the one sent by post as this will avoid any distortions of scale which sometimes happens with email, but more importantly you will see that the garage is edged red. Please have this document signed by you, your sister and brother-in-law and make sure all three of you sign the plan. As you have done before, regretfully you will need to get a third party who is over 18 and not a relative to sign their name as witness, print their name and print their address. Please return this to me and as soon as this has all been dealt with then we can complete the matter.

[19]On the file is a copy of a transfer apparently signed by the Applicant and Ray and by the Respondent with all signatures apparently witnessed by a Steve Malloy. The first page is struck through.

[20]On 17 March 2021, Amy Webb, Legal Secretary at Bridger’s emailed the Respondent saying. “We do hold the signed receipt from Mr and Mrs Food of the purchase price of £1,000 and confirm that we are therefore completing this matter today.” Six minutes later Ms Webb emailed the Respondent again to confirm that “we have today completed this matter and have dated the Transfer with today’s date.”

[21]By then Bridger’s had been provided by the Respondent with the Transfer, apparently signed by himself, Ray and the Applicant with all signatures witnessed by a Clive Ellis.

[22]Ms Murray’s vendors’ file begins with emails dated 10 February 2021 arranging for a file to be opened in which Ms Murray comments that “James had already sorted the client care letter etc”.

[23]The file contains:(a) A photocopy of the front of the Applicant’s and Ray’s driving licences.

(b) A copy of the firm’s engagement letter dated 10 February 2021 apparently signed by Ray and the Applicant in blue ink and dated 17 February 2021 in black ink. On it, in blue ink, is written “Bank Details for Mr R.T. Foord” followed by what looks like a debit or credit card number and expiry date.

(c) The Agreement. It was the Respondent’s evidenced that he prepared this document and had the Applicant and Ray sign it of his own initiative.

(d) A document dated 17 February 2021 apparently signed by Ray and the Applicant confirming that they understand and are happy for separate solicitors at Bridger’s to act for them and the Respondent.

(e) A typed document dated 15 March 2021 confirming receipt of £1,000 in payment for the Garage apparently signed by the Applicant and Ray (“the Receipt”). It was the Respondent’s evidenced that he also prepared this document and had the Applicant and Ray sign it.

(f) A copy letter dated 19 March 2021 addressed to the Applicant and Ray at 29 LC confirming “completion of your sale of your garage on 17 March 2021” and thanking them for their instructions.

[24]It is not apparent from the file how any of (a) to (e) reached Ms Murray, i.e. whether they were provided directly by the Applicant and Ray or by the Respondent. The file contains a file note dated 4 October 2023 containing the following narrative:

“Call to lauren Murray [who by then had left the firm]. She can’t remember whether the saw the clinets (sic) or not but thinks that they did come into the office. I ask why there is no attendance note and she says tghat (sic) she doesn't know. She possibly took copies of the ID as she scanned it in. She says that James was really driving this matter”

[25]In relation to the photocopies of the Applicant’s and Ray’s driving licences, the Respondent accepted that he made those. His evidence was that the Applicant and Ray gave him their driving licences for that purpose. The Applicant’s evidence was that she does not know how the Respondent obtained copies of the driving licence but she and Ray did not give them to him so he must have taken them from the drawer in which they were kept.

[26]At the heart of this dispute is how the Transfer came to be signed. It was not the Applicant’s case that she did not sign the Transfer. She accepts that on one occasion the Respondent had brought around a document for herself and Ray to sign, that they had signed it and that it might well be the Transfer, although she was not certain about that. However, she denies knowing that the document that they signed was a transfer of the Garage and denied that anyone other than the Respondent was present when she and Ray signed it. So, her case is that if she and Ray signed the Transfer, as they might have done, their signatures were not validly witnessed.

[27]The Applicant’s evidence was that she only ever signed one document, which she now thinks was probably the Transfer. Copies of the Agreement and the Receipt were contained in the bundle for the April hearing and in her evidence she denied having signed them. When she gave further evidence in the September hearing, the Applicant also denied having signed the documents described at (b) and (d) above. In other words, she denied knowledge of any document apparently bearing her signature except the Transfer. In fact, there were two different version of the Transfer bearing her signature, the one witnessed by Mr Malloy and the one witnessed by Mr Ellis but she only accepts signing one document. On the Applicant’s case Ray’s and her signatures must have been forged on one of them because she only ever signed one document that might be the Transfer.

[28]On 31 March 2021 Bridger’s applied to register the Transfer. While the application was still pending, in June 2021, the Applicant’s daughters, learned about the sale of the Garage. On Ms Murray’s file is a note dated 8 June 2021 of a phone call from Deborah Pollock, one of the Applicant’s daughters, which reads as follows:

“Paul Stevens purchased garage from sister (in her 80’s) Deborah is daughter & was unaware of the transaction. Says both parents are vulnerable and dad has alzheimers. Paul will not sell back for less than £6k. She spoke to CAB & Help the Aged both advised to complain to us & query legality of transaction as parents vulnerable”

[29]By 23 June 2021 Hawkridge had been instructed on behalf of Ray and the Applicant. On that day Hawkridge emailed Bridger’s referring to the letter of 19 March 2021 (which must therefore have been received by Ray and the Applicant) and calling for them to withdraw whatever application was before the Land Registry. Correspondence ensued which did not resolve matters.

[30]Hawkridge contacted the Land Registry which then served notice of the application to register the Transfer on Ray and the Applicant. An objection was filed by Hawkridge and notice of the application was given to Bridger’s. They did not respond, according to a letter from the Land Registry to Deborah Pollock dated 28 July 2022, and so the application to register the Transfer was cancelled.

[31]However, according to that same letter, Bridger’s made a further application to register the Transfer on 18 November 2021 (despite the conflict of interest of which they were aware by then). By what it accepted in the letter of 28 July 2022 was an oversight, the Land Registry omitted to give notice of the new application to the Applicant and Ray, and so the application was completed and the Respondent became registered proprietor of the Garage.

[32]Consequently, the application for a restriction mentioned above was made, followed by the application to alter the register that I am concerned with.

The issues

[33]After the applications for a restriction and to alter the register had been referred to the Tribunal and statements of case had been lodged, the Tribunal’s file was considered by Judge D’Cruz who issued an order dated 26 June 2024. In that order, Judge D’Cruz directed the Applicant to make an application to the Tribunal under s. 108(2) of the Land registration Act 2002 to set aside the Transfer by 17 July 2024. In the reasons for her order, Judge D’Cruz explained that: “2. Having considered the statements of case, including the supplemental statements of case as previously directed, it appears to the Tribunal that the Applicant is essentially seeking to set aside the TP1 on the basis that it is voidable.

[3]To ensure that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the matter and potentially set aside the TP1, the Applicant is directed to make an application direct to the Tribunal under section 108(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002. This should be done on form T410. It is acceptable to refer to the pleadings in this reference when completing the form.”

form.”

Judge D’Cruz’s reasons also contained the following paragraph:

“6. The Respondent’s statement of case refers to a written agreement, a copy of which has been provided, and signed receipt, a copy of which has not been provided. It is not presently clear what the Applicant says about these documents. It may be that, if the Applicant denies that she or her husband signed them, there will need to be consideration of whether expert handwriting evidence is required. In this regard, the parties are reminded that no party may adduce expert evidence without the Tribunal’s permission - see Rules 7 (procedure for applying for and giving directions) and 19 (expert evidence) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber)

Rules 2013.”

[35]So, the Applicant and her legal team ought to have been on notice from that order that(i) if the Applicant wished to try to set aside the Transfer because of fraud, undue influence or a misrepresentation about the nature of what she and Ray was asked to sign, she would have to make a separate application to the Tribunal under s. 108 and

(ii) expert handwriting evidence may be needed about the authenticity of signatures for which permission would be required.

[36]Following an enquiry made by the Respondent’s solicitors, the Tribunal wrote to both parties’ solicitors on 6 August 2024 saying:

“A Judge has considered the file and directs me to write as follows. Regarding the Respondent’s query of 30th July 2024, the Applicant filed a Reply on 19th July 2024. The email stated that the Respondent’s solicitor was copied in, although, on reviewing the email, it appears that was not the case. It is assumed that, by now, the Applicant has sent a copy of her Reply to the Respondent. For the avoidance of doubt, she has permission to rely on the same (the delay has been modest and no real prejudice has been caused). In addition, the following was intended to be sent with the directions order but appears to have been accidentally omitted. By an order issued on 26th June 2024, the Tribunal gave various directions. In accordance with those directions, the Respondent has provided a copy of the receipt referred to in his supplemental statement of case, and the Applicant has provided a Reply. However, the Applicant has not made an application to the Tribunal to set aside the TP1 dated 17th March 2021 pursuant to section 108(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002. The Tribunal therefore assumes that she is not seeking to set aside the TP1 on the basis that it is voidable. The Applicant’s Reply accepts signing one document (the TP1) but not another two (the Tribunal assumes that these are the written agreement and the receipt). It also alleges fraud. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal will treat this as an allegation that the Applicant’s signature (and that of her husband) were forged in relation to the written agreement and the receipt. The Applicant’s Reply refers to forensic analysis of the signatures. The parties are again reminded that no party may adduce expert evidence without the Tribunal’s permission - see Rules 7 (procedure for applying for and giving directions) and 19 (expert evidence) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.”

[37]That email did not prompt an application to set aside the Transfer nor for permission to call handwriting evidence. No application to set aside the Transfer was ever made. Nor was any application for permission to adduce expert handwriting evidence made until after the hearing in April, following the obtaining of the vendors’ file. I refused that application by my order dated 21 May 2025 on the basis that it was made too late.

[38]At the beginning of the hearing in April 2025 I ruled that because no application had been made to set aside the Transfer in accordance with Judge D’Cruz’s order nor in response to the email of 6 August 2024, it was not open to the Applicant to ask me to set aside the Transfer on the grounds of fraud, as Mr Brody submitted I should do. Rather, the only question for me was whether the register should be rectified to reverse the registration of the Transfer on the ground that it was a mistake because the Transfer was void.

[39]On the question whether the Transfer was void, the Applicant’s case was that it was void because it had not been properly executed since, if she and her husband had signed it as they might have, their signatures were not validly witnessed. It was not the Applicant’s case that the Transfer was void on any other ground such as non est factum (the requirements of which would have been difficult for her to satisfy).

[40]By s. 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989:(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and (b) it is delivered as a deed.

[41]If the Transfer was not properly executed as a deed in accordance with s. 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, it will have been void at common law so that its registration was a mistake. If so, the registrar would have the power to rectify the register to cancel registration of the Respondent as proprietor and to restore the Garage to the 29 LC title pursuant to para. 5 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002. However, since the Respondent has been in possession of the Garage since before the Applicant’s application was made, para. 6(2) of Schedule 4 applies. Paragraph 6 reads: 6 (1) This paragraph applies to the power under paragraph 5, so far as relating to rectification. (a) he has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or (b) it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made. (3) If on an application for alteration under paragraph 5 the registrar has power to make the alteration, the application must be approved, unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify not making the alteration. (4) In sub-paragraph (2), the reference to the title of the proprietor of a registered estate in land includes his title to any registered estate which subsists for the benefit of the estate in land.

[42]If the Transfer was void for ineffective execution, this application cannot succeed under para. 6(2) unless the Respondent(i) by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to what would be its mistaken registration, or

(ii) it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration to the register not to be made.

[43]Accordingly, the issues for me to decide are:(1) Whether the Transfer was properly executed as a deed in accordance with s. 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 – to be specific whether the requirement in s. 1(3)(a) that a deed made by an individual must be signed “in the presence of a witness who attests the signature” was satisfied, and

(2) If no to (1), as the Respondent has been in possession of the Garage since March 2021, whether the requirements of para. 6(2) of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 are satisfied.

Execution of the Transfer

[44]On behalf of the Respondent, I heard evidence from the Respondent himself and from Mr Ellis about the process by which they say the Transfer was signed and also from Mr Carter. In summary, the evidence of the Respondent, supported by Mr Ellis, was that:(1) He took the first version of the Transfer sent to him by Mr Carter round to 29 LC and Ray and the Applicant signed it. He later asked Mr Molloy to sign as witness which he did, but he had not been present when Ray and the Applicant signed it. So, “When I informed Mr Carter of that, he outlined that the transfer would need to be signed by the parties and their signatures needed to be witnessed at the same time. I proposed to get Gene Malloy to be the witness again however he could not do it.”

(2) Clive Ellis was working on the roof of the Garage for the Respondent at this time and the Respondent asked him to act as witness.

(3) 29 LC has a conservatory situated in its garden behind the living room. Mr Ellis stood in the rear garden of 29 LC and could see into the living room through the door of the conservatory which was open. He was able to see Ray sign the Transfer from the armchair in which he was sitting, and then the Applicant come over to the armchair and sign it too. The Respondent then took the Transfer into the garden via the conservatory where Mr Ellis signed as witness and passed the document to the Respondent who send it back to Mr Carter.

(4) It was common ground that there was no interaction between Mr Ellis and Ray or the Applicant at the time of the signing but in cross-examination it was put to the Respondent that he had not pointed out Mr Ellis to which the Respondent said that he told them that he had messed up the signing previously and that Mr Ellis was there.

[45]The Applicant accepted that there was an occasion on which Mr Ellis and the Respondent were working on the roof of the garage. She said that she went out to see them and offered them tea and a roll. However, her evidence was that on the day when she signed a document at the Respondent’s request, it was raining and the conservatory door was closed, as were the sliding doors between the living room and the conservatory. She said that she and Ray were having dinner when the Respondent came around with something for them to sign. Her evidence was that the Respondent said, “Clive is going to be a witness” and that Clive was around the garage at that time doing something there. She denied that Mr Ellis was in the back garden when she signed the document. Her evidence was that she did not know what the document was when she signed it.

[46]Shortly after being instructed, Hawkridge sent a letter to Bridger’s dated 23 June 2021 headed for the attention of Lauren Murray (she having written the letter of 19 March 2021). The 23 June 2021 letter asked whether Bridger’s “supposedly acted for Mr and Mrs Foord”. It continued: “Neither Mr Foord or Mrs Foord are totally sure of what documents may have been signed. Mr Stevens took a document round to their property and asked them both to sign it. He told them it was relating to the Garage. They signed it and we understand Mr Stevens gave them £1,000.00. Both Mr and Mrs Foard are adamant that there was nobody else present. This raises a number of issues… … Thirdly, there would appear to be an element of coercion or duress in this matter, and finally we would assume that the document signed, given the fact that there is an Application to the Land Registry, was a TPl. This would have to be signed in front of a witness. There was no witness present, and therefore if the documents appear to have been signed in front of a witness, this has been completed fraudulently.”.

[47]Curiously, it was Mr Carter who responded to that letter, even though he had not purported to act for Ray and the Applicant and it was marked for the attention of Ms Murray who had purported to act for them. He replied on 9 July 2021. In relation to execution of the Transfer, Mr Carter’s letter said:

“Your clients' signatures were all witnessed by Clive Ellis of 20 Cowper Road, ME7 5NA. Mr Ellis was working with our client repairing the garage (in fact the roof did have to be completely replaced). Mr Foord is 83 years of age and is vulnerable and is not mobile. Mr Ellis would say that he is aware that there was nobody else in the house other than your two clients. Because of Covid and the risk of transmission and the need to social distance, he did not actually enter the house. Your client, Barbara Foord, took the Transfer from the door after it having been explained to her (and she obviously understood because she did so sign it and sign the plan) that she needed to sign both the Transfer and the plan and that her husband needed to do likewise. The transfer was taken in, brought out, and then Mr Ellis then witnessed the signatures. He was on the curtilage of the premises, but not actually physically in the room because of Covid distancing. In these Covid times, we take this as being "signed in front of a witness" even though the witness was not actually in the room, and ln view of your clients' ages, this was a very good reason. It is certainly not fraudulent.”

[48]It can be seen from Mr Carter’s file that he had a conversation with the Respondent before sending the letter on 9 July 2021. The file contains an attendance note dated 9 July 2021 which reads:

“Discussing the matter with our client on the 8th July. The position is that two of the sisters live in the Medway towns, but our client during Covid has been spending more time with his sister and brother-in-law than would otherwise have been the case. It is just the sister, Jo, who lives well away. I said I would alter the letter in this respect, otherwise I would send the letter. He said he no longer has the motorbike there, he's got the motorbike back in his front garden at his property in Bredhurst. He said it was a pity because his relationship with his sister and his brother-in-law has now broken down whereas he was doing more for them than the two sisters who lived locally.”

[49]It was put to the Respondent that he must have provided Mr Carter with the account given in the 9 July 2021 letter that I have quoted above. The Respondent’s response was that was not what happened. Mr Carter gave oral evidence before me. In relation the passage quoted above, he said that the contents would have been what he was told by his client, i.e. the Respondent.

[50]Hawkridge wrote to the senior partner of Bridger’s on 29 July 2021 making a number of points including that the letter of 9 July 2021 had stated that the witness did not see Ray and the Applicant sign the Transfer and that he could not have done so. Mr Carter passed that letter on to Mr Stevens by an email dated 3 August 2021.

[51]In Mr Carter’s file is an attendance note dated 6 August 2021 recording a telephone call with Mr Stevens. That reads:

“Receiving a telephone call from Mr Stevens and discussing this matter with him. He explained to me how the roof had been replaced. He said he'd started work on it but a friend of his who is a surveyor for a housing association locally said he was wasting his time. Apparently the allegations being made that the felt's been put on upside down. It hasn't, it has been done entirely correctly and done appropriately. The garage door was not replaced, which is an up and over door, it was straighten up and a new lock was put on it. Our client did have to arrange for the clearance of everything from the property and he paid somebody £150 to remove everything with the exception of old tyres and paint pots that there were, and he himself had to get rid of the tyres and paint pots. He said that he had been told by the daughter Debra not to go to the property at all and she has banned him from going around there. He became quite upset by this and was breaking down. I had a discussion with him and he confirmed that if he got his money back and the money spent on the property he would be more than happy. He then went on to explain that he had spoken to his nephew [a reference to Mr Ellis] and what happened was that our client took the Transfer into the property. It was put down on a small little table by a window at the rear of the property, that window opens onto a conservatory. It was signed by Mr Foord who was seated and then signed by our client’s sister. The witness was in fact in the garden but actually could see the signing through the conservatory and through the window to the little table. Our client became upset on a number of occasions and he fears that his relationship with his sister is now irretrievably broken and may be beyond repair. He would be happy to be placed back in funds for all his expenditure.”

[52]So, it appears that the Respondent has been consistent in his account of how the Transfer came to be signed since 6 August 2021, after the issue of whether the witness was present had been raised by Hawkridge, but a different account was given in Mr Carter’s letter of 9 July 2021 which Mr Carter must have got from somewhere. In my judgment, that is probably the first account given by the Respondent. It is apparent from the attendance note dated 9 July 2021 that Mr Carter had provided the 9 July 2021 letter to the Respondent in draft on or before 8 July 2021 and that the Respondent had approved it being sent in the telephone call on 8 July 2021 recorded in the attendance note.

Conclusion on execution of the Transfer

[53]I am unable to accept the Applicant’s evidence that she did not know that she had signed a document transferring the Garage to the Respondent. It is clear to me from her evidence, and I find, that she knew that the Respondent wished to buy the Garage from her for £1,000 and that the £980 in cash he gave Ray and herself was payment for the Garage. I reject her evidence that she thought that the £1,000 was only for use of the Garage.

[54]There are a number of documents apparently bearing the Applicant’s signatures in relation to the transaction, as discussed above. In the absence of any handwriting evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the signatures on them are forgeries. I consider it likely that the Respondent procured the Applicant’s and Ray’s signatures on them and passed them to Bridger’s and that it is likely that the Applicant knew they were connected with the sale of the Garage. In particular, I find that the Applicant and Ray did sign the Transfer understanding that it was to transfer the Garage.

[55]I am not satisfied that Lauren Murray of Bridger’s ever met or spoke to the Applicant or Ray. It seems to me likely that the Respondent was the conduit for all communications between Bridger’s and the Applicant and Ray, except for the letter of 19 March 2021 which Ms Murray sent to the Applicant and Ray to confirm completion of the sale. So, I consider that the Applicant and Ray are likely to have received no legal advice regarding the transaction, but I cannot be satisfied that the Applicant did not know what the transaction was.

[56]It is clear from the evidence that when the Applicant’s daughters learned about the sale of the Garage at least two of them, Joanne and Deborah, became very upset about it. I do not consider that the Applicant has deliberately given dishonest evidence about her knowledge of the transaction. Rather, I suspect that as a result of family dynamics she has come to believe that she did not realise that she was selling the Garage. I cannot accept that belief as accurate, however.

[57]As discussed above, the issues before me do not include whether the Transfer can be impeached as having been improperly obtained – only whether it is void for improper execution. I find that it is void because the Applicant and Ray did not sign it in the presence of a witness who attested the signature. I find that it was not signed in Mr Ellis’s presence and that he did not observe the Applicant and Ray signing it.

[58]In so finding, I reject the Respondent’s and Mr Ellis’s evidence about the signing. I do not do so lightly as Mr Ellis gave evidence before me and has no apparent vested interest in the ownership of the Garage. It was submitted by Mr Body that Mr Ellis was unusually nervous about giving what on the face of it was straightforward evidence and that this indicated he was being dishonest. It is right that Mr Ellis seemed nervous and that Mr Body’s explanation for that is a possible one. It is only a possibility, however. The process of giving evidence is likely to be alien and stressful for many people, and that may manifest in nervousness.

[59]There are, however, two aspects of the documents which make the Respondent’s account unlikely to be accurate, despite Mr Ellis’s support for it. First, the account of the signing process given in Bridger’s letter of 9 July 2021 which I have discussed in paragraphs 46 to 52 above. In my judgment, that account was given on the Respondent’s instructions and is likely to be more accurate, in substance if not in detail, than the subsequent version given once it was clear from the correspondence that Mr Ellis’s location when the documents were signed was important.

[60]Secondly, the Respondent’s account of why he had Mr Ellis present to witness the signature is inconsistent with Mr Carter’s letter of 10 March 2021. It is apparent from that letter that the reason Mr Carter gave for not proceeding with the version of the transfer bearing Mr Malloy’s signature was not, as the Respondent claims, because he had told Mr Carter that Mr Malloy was not present when Ray and the Applicant signed. It was because “firstly the TP1 has been reduced possibly when we emailed it to you and secondly, you have printed the plan in black and white and therefore the land edged red has not come out in the way that it should”. The letter of 10 March 2021 enclosing a fresh transfer said nothing about the witness needing to be present when the parties signed the Transfer, just, “As you have done before, regretfully you will need to get a third party who is over 18 and not a relative to sign their name as witness, print their name and print their address.” I find that Mr Carter had not told the Respondent that Mr Ellis had to be physically present when the Transfer was signed before the occasion when it was signed.

[61]I therefore conclude that the Respondent’s account of the signing process is inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and that I should reject it.

[62]In Euro Securities & Finance Ltd v Barrett

[2023] EWHC 51 (Ch)

[2023] Ch 279

, Judge Tindall sitting as High Court Judge discussed the requirement in s. 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 for the signature of a party to a deed to be made in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. He held at [53] to [54.2] that it is necessary for the witness be present when the deed is signed and to observe, watch or see it being signed.

[63]I find as a fact that Mr Ellis was not able to observe, watch or see Ray and the Applicant sign the Transfer because he was not present in their house nor in their garden when they signed it. In my judgment, it was for the Applicant to show that the apparently valid Transfer was improperly executed. I consider that on the evidence the Applicant has discharged that burden.

[64]It follows from this finding that the Transfer was void at common law so that it was a mistake for the registrar to register it, within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the 2002 Act.

Schedule 4, paragraph 6

[65]As discussed above, even though it was a mistake for the Transfer to be registered, I can only direct that the register be altered to reverse its cancellation if the Respondent has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made.

[66]I am satisfied that it would be unjust for the alteration not to be made for the following reason. The Applicant and Ray objected to the first application to register the Transfer and it was not proceeded with. When a second application was made by Bridger’s on the Respondent’s behalf, the Land Registry made a mistake in not serving notice on the Applicant’s. Had the Land Registry not made that mistake, I have no doubt that the application would have been objected to as the previous one had been, and that it would have been referred to the Tribunal to determine. In those circumstances, the Respondent would not have been able to rely on the protection for a proprietor in possession given by para. 6(2) because he would not yet have been a registered proprietor. For those reasons, I consider that it would be unjust to refuse to direct alteration of the register because the Respondent is a proprietor in possession.

[67]I will therefore direct that the register be altered to cancel the registration of the Garage within a separate title and to restore the Garage as part of the title of No. 29 LC.

Direction to the registrar

[68]By rule 40(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, when directing the registrar to give effect to or cancel an application, I can also include a condition that a specified entry be made on the register of any title affected by my direction.

[69]The Respondent’s fallback position, if I were to direct alteration of the register, is that the Transfer amounts to a binding contract to transfer the Garage at a price of £1,000 even if it is ineffective as a transfer because not effectively executed as a deed. So, it was argued, if I restore the Garage to the title of 29 LC, I should exercise my power under rule 40(3)(a) to require a restriction in favour of the Respondent to be placed on the title.

[70]In written submissions dated 28 April 2025, provided after the April hearings Mr Body accepted that the Tribunal could direct the entry of a restriction if I were to find(1) that there was no fraud or dishonesty by the Respondent,

(2) the Transfer was signed by the Applicant but not witnessed and

(3) the Applicant and Ray intended to sell the Garage.

[71]It seems to me that it is appropriate for me to direct that an entry be made on the register in relation to the Respondent’s claimed interest under the Transfer but that the appropriate form of entry is a notice, not a restriction. The normal type of entry on the register in relation to an interest under a contract of sale is a notice, not a restriction, unless the vendor agrees in the contract to a restriction being entered. A notice will have the effect of protecting the priority of whatever interest the Respondent has under the Transfer without requiring it to be determined in these proceedings what that interest is. It seems to me, the question of what interest arises under the Transfer, or the Agreement, would be best determined in court proceedings to try and enforce that interest, when it will be necessary to determine the point.

[72]So, I propose to direct the entry of a notice. In the leading textbook, Ruoff & Roper: Registered Conveyancing at para. 42.007 the learned authors explain that apart from unilateral notices and agreed notices for which application can be made under s. 34(2) of the 2002 Act, there are notices that the registrar can make without an application, which the authors refer to as “Registrar’s Notices”. One of the circumstances in which the authors consider that a Registrar’s Notice can be entered in pursuant to the registrar’s power to alter the register under sch. 4, para. 5 of the 2002 Act. In my judgment, that is an appropriate power to be exercised here. A notice should be entered on the register to protect whatever interest the Respondent has under the Transfer by way of bringing the register up to date following the alteration of the register to restore the Garage to the Applicant’s ownership.

Result

[73]I will therefore direct the Chief Land Registrar to:(1) alter the register to cancel the registration of the Garage under title no. TT138502 and to restore the Garage as part of the title of No. 29 LC, title no. K311185;

(2) cancel the Applicant’s application for a restriction on the title which was not pursued and is otiose in the light of the alteration that I have ordered;

(3) enter a notice in the charges register of title no. K311185 in respect of the Respondent’s interest under the Transfer, if any.

[74]I have not yet heard any submissions on costs, which I propose to decide with reference to written submissions. So, if any party wishes to apply for costs they should make a reasoned application in writing, accompanied by a schedule of costs. Because of the Christmas period, I will allow until 8 January 2026 for costs applications to be made. The schedule should be limited to costs incurred after the matter was referred to the Tribunal by the Land Registry. Such an application should be served on the other party who will then have 28 days to respond to the application by way of written submissions sent to the Tribunal, copying any submissions to the applying party. Any response to such submissions should be provided to the Tribunal and the other party within 21 days of receipt of the submissions. Daniel Gatty