Solicitor won't remove extra owner from house docs

[NotCitrus]

Friend (let's call her Ann) has a problem.
About 8 years ago she inherited money from an uncle and wanted to buy a house. The uncle's brother lent her a chunk of his inheritance so she coukd pay him back and not need a mortgage.
She has been happily repaying her uncle, and has now paid him back completely.

Apparently, when buying the house (in England), uncle was made a co-owner of the house as solicitor said that was how these things worked, just like a mortgage company owns your house jointly until the mortgage is paid off. This sounds odd - I thought the bank just got first dibs on money if the house was sold and didn't own it, but could force sale if you defaulted?

The problem is that despite everyone agreeing she no longer owes anything, the solicitor says uncle can only be removed from ownership if he proves his identity, and the only acceptable proofs are passport or full driving licence. Uncle is an eccentric sod and has never driven and has never had a passport, and refuses to acquire either. Which means Ann can't sell the house which she wants to do in the next year or so, because legally Uncle Bob owns half of it.

Ann may have misunderstood some of the issues, but if anyone could clarify if it is normal to refuse to accept any alternative forms of ID in this situation, and whether co-ownership even once a loan is repaid is normal, I'd be most grateful. Or if a new solicitor is called for. Many thanks.

Not a lawyer
I think that the mortgage company ( or other debtor) has a charge on the house rather than actually owning any of it so if uncle Bob is listed as an owner then he is.
No idea about getting his name taken off but it seems logical that anyone wanting to make changes like that would need to prove who they were

When we bought our house DH had only been self employed for 6 months so had no books to prove his income. So our mortgage was based upon mine and FILs salary, the three of us were named on the mortgage.

A couple of years later when we wanted to renew and DH could prove his income we had to go to a solicitor who drew up a letter for FIL to sign, saying he was no longer owning and in no way in receipt of any increase in value of the property. And I’m sure he had to submit ID to prove he was who he is.

Ownership is ownership, regardless of whether there’s any debt against the house still.

Presumably the uncle has a birth certificate, and documentation such as letters from banks, Inland revenue, credit cards, gather a selection of these together and present with uncle at the solicitor's office. Or if he lives far away, his local solicitor who can witness the uncle's signature as being authentic on the documents needed to remove his name from property paperwork.

You can contact the Land Registry, and for a small fee, find out who owns a property and if there is an "interest" lodged on the property by another party.

Thank you both.
@AdaColeman Apparently uncle has offered all those other ways to prove who he is, and solicitor says no, which is the bit that surprises me. I know money-laundering regs have made things harder in recent years, but a compulsory passport doesn't sound reasonable.

Ann's family are trying to get a birth certificate so they can present Bob with a passport application form to sign, but he's still swearing he won't, while happy to show any other papers, bank statements etc to a sol near either of them.

I’m a solicitor. It’s not his/her fault- the LR will need ID unless uncle has a conveyancer acting’s, but the conveyancer would also need ID so one way or another he’ll have to find it.

This lists what is acceptable assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710307/ID1__2018-05-25_.doc

Oh and he’s wrong about the passport being compulsory, but a passport photo is. Could that be the confusion maybe?

ID1 can be completed by any solicitor not just by the one acting- so uncle could go to one near him.

So how did the uncle manage to get named as an owner without ID?

Anyway. Can't your friend sell the house anyway? Houses are owned jointly all the time, and sold.

Annuva uncle would need to provide the same ID to sell as to transfer into his niece’s sole name.

How he got to be a co-owner without ID is indeed a mystery- along with why that was ever a good idea as opposed to a charge.

Well, the Govt. list of approved documents includes things like a letter from your GP to say that you are registered with them, or an entry in the electoral roll (presumably the paper work to confirm your entry} and as mentioned a birth certificate.

It looks as though the Solicitor isn't being as cooperative as he could be, perhaps print out the approved list and take it along to show the solicitor so that he agrees with what documents the uncle can provide.

I can understand the uncle not wanting to spend money on a passport.

Well, the Govt. list of approved documents includes things like a letter from your GP to say that you are registered with them, or an entry in the electoral roll (presumably the paper work to confirm your entry} and as mentioned a birth certificate

Not sure which list you are looking at but none of the above is acceptable to the Land Registry. The list of acceptable documents is on the form linked to by Namechangeforthiscancershit above.

So two items from list B eg a credit card and a utility bill, no need for a passport or driving licence, or am I reading that wrong?

So am I right that the usual way of doing things, which is what Ann and Bob both thought they were doing, is merely to put a charge on the property, not make Bob an owner? There's plenty of emails showing that was their intention. Any idea why the sol would have made him an owner (and not spelled this out), other than cock-up?

It's not the cost of the passport but The Principle of the Thing.

Sol swears that that approved list which Ann has is not relevant in this situation.

Bob used bank statements, work ID pass etc previously when the purchase happened. No-one suggested this was unusual at the time but then they also didn't explain to Ann and Bob that they are co-owners of a house - it was a shock to both of them a few months ago (yes, I know everyone's responsible for what they sign, but legalese isn't easy even for intelligent graduates and if the lawyer says this bit means blah, people take their word for it.)

Just that’s right- plus a passport photo signed by a solicitor or similar.

NotCitrus the normal thing is to have a secured loan like the bank does. That would need ID to be removed so wouldn’t avoid this problem but would avoid a few others (which luckily don’t sound like they have arisen). I can’t think of an advantage of doing it the way that this solicitor has.

The list of approved documents I was looking at is the on GOV.UK website ~ "proof of identity checklist for individuals" under the Money Laundering section.