A. WITHDRAWAL OF PREVIOUS REGISTRARS' CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
1/2011 - The following Registrars' Conference Resolutions are withdrawn:
B. PREVIOUS REGISTRARS' CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
C. DEEDS REGISTRIES ACT NO. 47 OF 1937
D. REGULATIONS TO THE DEEDS REGISTRIES ACT 47 OF 1937
E. GENERAL - (ACT NO. 47 OF 1937)
F. OTHER LEGISLATION THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON ACT NO. 47 OF 1937
G. SECTIONAL TITLES ACT NO. 95 OF 1986
H. OTHER LEGISLATION THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON ACT NO. 95 OF 1986
I. GENERAL (ACT NO. 95 of 1986)
J. PROPOSALS FROM THE SURVEYORS-GENERAL
I am advised that the Pmb deeds office is the only one in the country to insist on Regulation 68(1) applications being lodged and registered before the transfer can be lodged with the duly issued VA copy of the lost deed, resulting in a minimum of 3 weeks delay in eventual registration. I am further led to believe that the only reason for this practice being implemented is to improve the registrar's turnaround stats, but this is mere speculation. Can anyone shed any light on this issue?
Not only PMB Deeds Office, JHB Deeds Office follow the same procedure.
The Cape Town deeds office also follow this procedure which causes unnecessary delays in the whole process.
Ek het die afgelope jaar verskeie transaksies gehad met groot finansiële implikasies vir verkoper en koper wat vertraag was weens die praktyk van Kaapstad aktekantoor dat jy eers die Regulasie 68 Aansoek moet indien en wag vir aflewering. Tans bevind ek myself weer in presies dieselfde posisie met 2 transaksies wat ons eers sal kan registreer gedurende Februarie 2012 as ons gelukkig is. Dié tipe van praktyk is absurd, onaanvaarbaar en 'n mors van tyd en geld.
CT expedites delivery of the 68(1) after registration. We get them back within approximately 7 days.
We are the lucky ones!!! Mpumalanga Deeds Office doesn't follow the above procedure - so there are no undue delays!!
I fail to see the point of requiring the Reg 68(1)to be registered prior to lodgement of transfer or further bond or a bond cancellation or any other matter. This procedure is a complete waste of time without any legal basis and actually it is one of the schemes perpetuated by the Government Offices to hamper delivery of services to consumers. In the past there were requirements for publishing notices in newspapers and gazette and the whole thing proved to be futile exercise and wasteful as the title deeds do get misplaced in any event. In the spirit of Govt's Batho Pele principles, I am of the opinion that the practice in PMB and JHB need to be revisited.
I support Seleka's comment.
I am the registrar of deeds PMB. I have experienced a lot of problems with reg 68(1) applications and this procedure has managed to eliminate same. I have committed to delivery of same at the fastest possible time in order to enable further registrations. The procedure will not be changed in PMB deeds, however I undertake to have deeds delivered at earliest possible time. Conveyancers experiencing difficulty with delivery can approach the registrar directly.