About SARSIM0003

SARSIM0003 · ‎14-06-2018

Hi George, Just wondering if there has been any update on this. are we still required to fill in the duties form and are there any plans to remove this requirement? thanks sarah

SARSIM0003 · ‎25-04-2018

Hi Lyndel, The only dealings we have done on Pexa so far have been from LPR to specific a single beneficiary of a Will. We have not yet encountered the situation you described but I think we may have one coming up shortly.

SARSIM0003 · ‎15-03-2018

We need to lodge a caveat for the "owner of shares in the registered proprietor with the following parties and date, where the holding of the shares entitles their owner to exclusive use and occupancy of an apartment/flat/unit, being part of the building erected on the land". The only place we can find these words is if we choose the Grounds of Claim Category "Charge" which brings up the option "Charge of shares in the Registered Proprietor with the ...." The grounds of claim should be owner of shares not charge of shares. If we look back at all the other caveats lodged on these titles there is no mention of a charge. We are concerned that in lodging the caveat with the grounds of claim "Charge" it might be seen as incorrect and not stand up in court if challenged as there has been no "charge" given by the service company nor taken. Can the grounds of claim options be amended to allow this type of caveat to be registered correctly. - I am happy to provide the example vol fol privately to enhance this discussion.

SARSIM0003 · ‎21-02-2018

The SRO website and help desk advise that when transferring land to a beneficiary under a Will (where the transfer is exactly as stated in the Will) there is no requirement to complete a duties form if you lodge in paper over the counter, as it falls under the memorandum of understanding between SRO and titles office in Victoria. However, Pexa have advised that the SRO mandates that anyone who uses Pexa for such a transfer must fill in a duties online form (even though the same is not required when lodging by paper). This seems absurd, the electronic platform is supposed to make everything more streamlined and remove unnecessary form filling however, in this scenario we have to go through the process of completing a form (and having it signed by all parties) that was not previously required. I wonder if this has been acknowledged as an issue by Pexa and SRO and if there is any plan to remove the requirement for a duties online form when transferring land to a beneficiary under a Will in Pexa?

SARSIM0003 · ‎21-02-2018

We have noticed that often when we claim duties online forms into Pexa (in Victoria) there is a mismatch. Often it appears the only differences are insubstantial such as: Duties on line shows the transferor or transferee title of “Mrs, Mr etc” - Pexa does not show any title Duties online automatically brings up property addresses with abbreviated street type ie. “25 Kilburn Gr” and “140 Queens Pde” - Pexa has automatic addresses with street type written in full ie. “25 Kilburn Grove” and “140 Queens Parade” Duties online show CoT as “vol 02897 fol 281” - Pexa shows CoT as “2897/281” These are auto fields that cannot be overwritten by the user. Often these are the only differences between the forms. What concerns me is that if we always get a warning that there are discrepancies between the forms, we could easily get complacent and believe the only issue is a mismatch in the way the address is written and miss a real error like misspelling of a name or typo in the vol/fol etc. something that is detrimental to the transfer. I wonder if the respective programming teams at Pexa and Duties online are aware that the auto form filling is causing a mismatch of information? The issue seems simple enough to sort out between Pexa and Duties online in an update. Thanks Sarah

SARSIM0003 · ‎21-02-2018

Hi Cheryl, We have noticed that where there are two or more titles in a transfer only one of them appears on the printed version of the notice of acquisition. In these cases we have to revert to a manual notice of acquisition as others have had to do in these comments. It would be great if your review of the notices of acquisition looking into how all titles can appear on the printed notice. Thanks Sarah

SARSIM0003 · ‎21-02-2018

I also think a tick box for Thanks & Acknowledged + [timestamp] would be a good enhancement. On the topic of conversations (and apologies if this is not the best place for my comments), yesterday I started a reply to a participant and then at the last minute I thought I had better include the bank into my comments. I clicked the to add participants and lost my comments entirely. This also happens if I am part way through a comment and I have to review another page to confirm the facts (i.e. to confirm funds required etc.) Luckily my comments are usually only a few lines and I have now learnt to copy my text before I click out of the conversation box, however, it would be helpful if there was a warning when you click out of a conversation that "you will loose your current comments if you continue, would you still like to continue?" or better still if a draft was kept if you click out of the conversation before hitting send.

About SARSIM0003

Re: transfer of land to a beneficiary - duty form

Re: transfer of land to a beneficiary - duty form

VIC Caveat Grounds of Claim

transfer of land to a beneficiary - duty form

Warning when claiming VIC stamp duty

Re: Notice of aquisition

Re: Conversation clutter - "thank you"