Tribunal orders restriction removed after finding no valid consent was given
A property tribunal has ruled in favour of a homeowner in a dispute with her former solicitors, ordering the removal of a restriction placed on her property after finding no valid consent had been given.
The case of Deborah Fleet v Bloomsbury Law Solicitors centred on whether the claimant had agreed to a restriction requiring the firm’s consent before any sale of her flat in Worthing.
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) concluded that she had not provided valid consent either in writing or orally, and directed HM Land Registry to remove the restriction from the title.
At the heart of the dispute was a Form CH1 document signed in 2018. The claimant argued she had only been sent a single page to sign, without explanation or context. The tribunal accepted this account, finding she had signed an incomplete document under time pressure and without understanding its implications.
The respondent firm claimed the restriction was agreed after an attempt to secure a charge over the property failed, alleging that the claimant had provided consent, potentially orally. However, the tribunal found no credible evidence to support this assertion. It noted the complete absence of file notes or documentation recording any such agreement.
Judge Robert Brown was particularly critical of the firm’s handling of the case. He described its disclosure as falling “woefully short” of required standards and highlighted repeated failures to comply with tribunal directions.
The judgment also raised concerns about the credibility of the firm’s evidence. The tribunal found the solicitor’s testimony to be unreliable, noting inconsistencies and late changes to the firm’s position during proceedings.
Importantly, the tribunal rejected the argument that oral consent could justify the restriction. It held that the legal framework requires conveyancers to “hold” consent, a term inconsistent with informal or undocumented agreement.
The ruling further clarified that even if the signed document referenced a restriction, it was tied to a proposed charge that was never completed. As such, any purported consent could not survive independently once that arrangement fell away.
The tribunal also noted broader concerns about the respondent’s conduct, including missed deadlines, late submissions, and a lack of cooperation throughout proceedings.
While the tribunal did not address the underlying dispute over unpaid legal fees, it emphasized that procedural fairness and proper consent are fundamental when placing restrictions on property titles.
The claimant, who represented herself, is now expected to recover costs, subject to further submissions.