on 11-03-2019 12:25 PM
In NSW with paper transfers where you don't want the price to known you are able to note the consideration as "see contract dated XXX" or "see NOS form".
This is confirmed here: http://rg-guidelines.nswlrs.com.au/land_dealings/dealing_requirements/transfers/transfer
How can this be done in PEXA and if it can't be done, will this be added as a future upgrade?
on 12-03-2019 01:18 PM
Hi @nfras000 ,
Thank you for raising this. This is a question we receive from time to time and is a complex issue. In it's most simplest form the answer is this can't be currently done in PEXA and would require agreement and change from our integrated partners to do so.
PEXA needs to adhere to the requirements of the Land Registries in each jurisdiction and the NECDS (National e-Conveyancing Data Standards). Currently under this regime we are required to capture the consideration amount for a transfer transaction, render the consideration amount on the transfer document (as per the NSW Land Registry Services style sheet), and present the document for lodgement verification. PEXA also undertakes stamping verification with Revenue NSW which also verifies the consideration amount matches that in the eDR assessment. To make a change to this would require agreement/change from NSW LRS, Office of the Registrar General (ORG), and Revenue NSW and the corresponding changes to each of the data standards.
To move this forward, I will raise this thread with the relevant government partners and operator to understand if there is an appetite to align the paper and electronic processes and what the likely timeline might be.
on 31-05-2019 02:15 PM
Can you please clarify if the position has changed and whether transfers and enos can now be prepared with 'nil' consideration or a reference of 'pursuant to contract date ##'.
on 24-06-2019 12:07 PM
Unfortunately it is still not possible to enter nil consideration for these scenarios. I have raised this with our government partners and discussions are ongoing. I will update in the next few weeks.
on 01-08-2019 02:28 PM
Can you advise if there has been an update as to whether this is now possible?
on 02-08-2019 02:58 PM
No update yet unfortunately. I have followed up with our government partners and a way forward is still being discussed. I'll keep a watching brief on this and report back to the thread as soon as an update is available.
26-08-2019 01:25 PM - edited 26-08-2019 01:28 PM
I am also interested in this functionality, can you please advise if PEXA has now added this option?
And can you advise why this, which was existing functionality under the paper settlement system shown here:
"(D) The consideration is optional. Where shown, consideration stated must agree with the purchase price stated in the NOS form. If it is intended not to show the value of the consideration on the transfer form, marginal note (D) should refer to where consideration is shown, e.g. 'see contract dated 1/1/2000' or 'see NOS form'."
Was not part of PEXA to begin with? And if this is not part of PEXA yet, can we opt for paper settlement for this reason?
on 02-09-2019 10:27 AM
PEXA designs the functionality in PEXA based on data standards provided to us by the Land Registries in each jurisdiction. We are required to adhere to the data standards. In order for for us to make the change in PEXA to allow transfers to not display the consideration, agreement is required from our government stakeholders.
I'm aware there is a discrepancy between what was allowed in paper, and what is allowed electronically which may have been by design rather than accidental, as government look to achieve certain goals through e-conveyancing. Having said that, I think NSW are open to changing this, and the topic is being debated. Once a decision has been made, PEXA will insert this into our development schedule - noting existing priorities and the urgency NSW government place on this. I will certainly pass on the feedback from this thread and endeavour to have this escalated. NSWLRS will need to make some changes at their end to accommodate also, but hopefully we can have this up and running sooner rather than later as I know this is important in certain transactions.
Hope this helps to clarify!