Sorry bro, if I do not have sight of the charge, I can't tell you what discrepancies your lawyer is referring to. What I can tell you is that if there are discrepancies (or mistakes), surely the charge would not have been registered successfully and the existing financier would not have disbursed the loan sum in the first place.

You would be better off to meet your lawyer personally and get more details off what he is trying to say.

Of course, if the discharge of charge cannot be registered, it will be a delay on the vendor's side to complete the transaction and as such, the completion date would be extended in favour of the purchaser.

You didn't mention which side of the fence you are on, so I hope you're on the right one.

Cheers. 

Sorry bro, if I do not have sight of the charge, I can't tell you what discrepancies your lawyer is referring to. What I can tell you is that if there are discrepancies (or mistakes), surely the charge would not have been registered successfully and the existing financier would not have disbursed the loan sum in the first place.

You would be better off to meet your lawyer personally and get more details off what he is trying to say.

Of course, if the discharge of charge cannot be registered, it will be a delay on the vendor's side to complete the transaction and as such, the completion date would be extended in favour of the purchaser.

You didn't mention which side of the fence you are on, so I hope you're on the right one.

Cheers. 

Sorry boss missed out your earlier post. Too many criss-cross all of a sudden.

How can the bank suddenly find out that there's a first charge over the property? How did they secure their interest in the first place if they did were not the first to create a charge over the property?

Furthermore, the purchaser's financier would not have released the redemption sum unless their interest is secured. If there is another earlier charge created over the title, they would've been reluctant to redeem a loan with a security which is not lodged as priority in sequence.

Are you represented? Ask for a copy of the title search from your lawyer and take a look at it. You can see if there's another charge which is created over the property.

If there is a first charge over the property, there is no way your financier is holding the original title. It will be with the first chargee. Your financier will be the second chargee.

So probably there's more than meets the eye in your case.

Sorry boss this is beyond my limited expertise and knowledge. I fail to understand how a property without an individual title can have a charge registered in favour of a chargee for one chargor, when the other 3 owners/borrowers do not have a charge created in favour of their lender bank. Same land, same scenario, but different security documents? 

And if it is the same bank all the way, how can this same bank just "find out" there was an earlier charge created in favour of...their own selves? 

Sorry bro I don't think I can help you out in this. I hope you have a lawyer who can help you settle this mess. Good luck.

Humble apologies 

Yes you can. You would just need to deduct 12 days from the total number of days of delay to account for the delay on your part. You can calculate the total days of delay once the SPA is completed - normally from the date of receipt of the purchaser's solicitors of the balance purchase price from the purchaser's financier.