Who pays the land registry/solicitor fees

[AK2021]

Who pays the land registry/solicitor fees - the estate or the beneficiary?
In the estate in question there are several parcels of land some with charges some without

parcel 1
There are no charges or debt and it appears the title can pass by assent to a single beneficiary with a small land registry fee.
Potentially the executors could do this, but may ask the solicitor to do it along with the other transfers below.

Parcel 2
There is a charge on the land and a debt in the name of the deceased.
The single beneficiary will take on the debt, and is in direct discussions with the lender about this.
This will almost certainly require a solicitors input and so fees.

Parcel 3
There is a charge on the land and a debt in the name of the deceased.
There are two beneficiaries and the title will be split.
One beneficiary will take on all the debt, and is in direct discussions with the lender about this.
This will almost certainly require a solicitors input and so fees.

The question in all three cases is who is responsible for the fees incurred on removing/renewing the charges and the associated solicitors fees and land registry costs.
All the gifts of land/property are specific gifts.
There is not a lot of cash in the estate so it may well have to abate pecuniary gifts. This makes it important that the fees are paid from the correct pot.

[pawncob]

The Execs are responsible for carrying out the instructions in the Will. Any costs incurred are down to them.

[someone]

The Execs are responsible for carrying out the instructions in the Will. Any costs incurred are down to them.

Yes. I didn't comment because I really don't know in this situation what the legal position is but there are likely costs as a result of (I assume) the beneficiaries taking out a mortgage to replace the existing mortgage.

Were the mortgage being repaid from the estate then I agree that all of the costs would be born by the executors, but in the case where there are costs related to the beneficiary taking on a new mortgage it's not so obvious to me. It gets even more complicated if, as a result of the beneficiary taking on the debt, the bank are waiving any early repayment charges because the total costs as a result of the beneficiary taking over the mortgage are probably lower than the costs for the estate to redeem the mortgage early.

(It's almost guaranteed that the beneficiary will be taking out a new mortgage and the old one will be redeemed, even if the new mortgage is on identical terms to the existing one. I'm not sure if it absolutely has to work this way, but this is the way it's always done in practice)

My gut feeling is that it has to be thought of like this:

1. Beneficiary secures funds to release the existing debt. (costs fall on beneficiary)
2. Beneficiary submits funds to executors (costs fall on beneficiary)
3. Executors remove existing charges on the property that would otherwise prevent it being transferred to the beneficiary (costs fall on executors - but how much of these costs were included in 1? The c100GBP to release the charge and any solicitors fees I'd guess is executor but ERC I've no idea)
4. Executors transfer property to beneficiary
5. Beneficiaries lender adds charge to property to secure the loan from step 1.

The problem is that if the same solicitor is used for everything (which makes the most sense and may be the only option if the mortgage is effectively being transferred to the beneficiary) then it's not easy to apportion the costs. If the estate and the beneficiary have separate solicitors and the beneficiaries mortgage is not connected to the original mortgage then it's likely clearer but much more expensive - but not completely obvious to me that it will be more expensive for the beneficiary, only for the estate.