Acting for Both Parties - Why Worspaces charge 2 sets of Fees

[ChristaC]

Hi Team

Just enquiring about whether this applicable to a family law property transfer on the following basis:

Party A as Proprietor on Title = represented by Firm A

Party B as Proprietor on Title = represented by Firm B

Party B as Incoming Proprietor = represented by Firm B

This situation (excluding a bank's involvement) results in three PEXA fees being charged, two of which are payable by Party B.

Is Party B also entitled to a refund of their second PEXA fee?

Thanks, Christa

[Jgal3]

Hi Christa, 

Yes , generally you can apply to PEXA for a refund of the second fee (but you do need to pay it first) because PEXA fees are generated per workspace, not per participant. Party B will effectively have two workspaces, even though it is the same workspace ID. 

Send an email to TeamNSW@pexa.com.au requesting a refund for the duplicate fee for a singular transacting party. You should include details of the workspace ID in your email. 

[GeorgePolus]

Hi Christa

When dealing with any Party who is represented as both a relinquishing AND a receiving Party, it is important that you use the feature in PEXA where a PoT Party may be 'brought forward' in the Transfer as the Party receiving. 

This is important for two reasons.

1.  Duty.   PEXA is required to send transfer related data to Revenue NSW.  Unlike NSW LRS, which as a Land Registry is interested only in the tenancy of the receiving parties for registration on title, Revenue NSW is interested in the share fraction received.  

For example, in the transaction you have mentioned A+B --> B  (where A and B are represented by different firms).

If you create B as an IP Party, Revenue NSW cannot assume Party B receiving is the same party a B relinquishing.  Revenue NSW must assume it is a different Party an the share fraction received by B is 1.

If, on the other hand, you 'bring forward' Party B relinquishing as also Party B receiving (and assuming B holds 1/2) then Revenue NSW are able to conclude that B received 1/2 BECAUSE the same Party record was referenced for B relinquishing as B receiving and 1 - 1/2 = 1/2.

2.  The same logic applies to PEXA billing.   If the same Party is used as both Party relinquishing and Party receiving then PEXA 'knows' to bill only once. 

Please contact me @GeorgePolus  if you need more info 

Rgds

Geroge

[ChristaC]

Hi George

In terms of the practice of 'bringing a party forward', are you able to elaborate on the steps to take in PEXA? I have never heard of this before.

Thanks, Christa

[GeorgePolus]

Hi Christa,

Lets assume the transaction is A -->  A+B.

You will have created and established representation of Party B as the IP Party.    Party A will have been created by PEXA from land title data and you will have established representation of Party A.

The Transfer Doc will ask:   'Is a PoT Party remaining on title?'  

Respond:  Yes

Next:  Select Party A as Transferor

Next:  In the Transferee section select the tenancy required - e.g JT

Then select Party A (Proprietor on Title) as one of the tenants receiving and select Party B as the other tenant receiving. 

Rgds

George