Problem question on registered and unregistered title to land

Dick brought a free hold factory building together with adjoining land before six months from Tom.The property was correctly registered at HM land registery with absolute title.After the purchase the following problem arises.(a)Trace money Ltd claims that it has a legal mortgage over the land granted by Tom 3 years ago.It says that as installments are now considerably in arear it wishes to inforce a security.(b)Elena has produced a letter which signed by both Elena and Tom which Tom agreed to allow her graze goat on the land.(c)Ryhan who owns adjoining land has produced an old deed which prohibits any industrial activities taking place on Dick"s land.(d)Tanna claims that Tom allowed her to sit on the land to paint and she hopes that Dick will continue to do so.
Ans.There are three points to be focused here(1)Dick holds the freehold(2)The land is registered so we must apply the land registeration rules applicable on a subsequent regiseration(3)It is registered with the title absolute which is the best grade.
It can be said that none of the issues found on the register.Let"s find out the solution of the issues.(a)Claims of the legal mortgage of the Trace finance Ltd-Trace money ltd claims that they have a legal mortgage but there is no mention of it on the register when Dick purchased it.According to section 27(2)(f) of the LRA 2002 a legal mortgage is required to be registered as a legal charge over the land,if this requirement is not fulfilled then according to section 29(1) of the LRA it will not binding a purchaser for a valuable consideration.So Dick is not bound by Trace money"s mortgage and it can not enforce the mortgage against him.(b)Elena's claim to graze her goats on Tom's land is a profit a pendre as she is claiming the right to enter intoTom's land and take something from it.A profit created by deed is a legal profit but here the profit has been done by a letter thatswhy it will be an equitable lease and it will have to satisfy the requirement of the section 2 of the Law of  Property Act 1989.According to the mentioned law a contract for the sale or other dispositions of an interest in land which include a profit must be in writting and signed by both parties and the writting must incorporate all the terms agreed by the parties.We are not clear that there was a contract but if there was it was in writing and signed by both Elena and Tom but we are not sure that all the terms were incorporated in the deeds.If the requirement of section 2 are satisfied,Elena has a valid equitable profit but to bind Dick it must be protected on the register as provided by section 32 of the LRA 2002 if so section 29 of the LRA says that it will have priority over any later disposition of the land.If Elena protected her interest by a notice,it would bound Dick but she did not do it so Dick is not bound.(c)Ryhan produced an old deed contains a restrictive covenant.We can assume that it is valid and it applies to Tom's land.Generally restrictive covenants are equitable interest in land and they are not to be substantively registered they must be protected by a notice on the register as for the equitable profits.As it has not been protected,Dick will not be bound.(d)Tanna's claim can only be catagorized by a licence.In the case of Thomas v Sorrel Vaughan CJ held that a licence properly passes no interest nor alters or transfers property in anything.According to the principle of this case law a licence does not create an interest in land and so it can not bind a third party.In the case of King v David Allen  a licence can not bind the third parties.Here Tanna's claim is clearly a licence and her sitting on Tom's land  can not be amounted  to an occupation that could give her an overriding interest.Now if Dick wishes to allow her to continue he can but he is not bound to do so.