The only funds that will ever be credited to that account will be your monthly payments. The original advance and monthly and/or annual interest will all be debits to that account.

What fraud do you consider took place ? The account would start with a £0.00 balance then funds would be withdrawn from that account and be released to your solicitor to pay for your house. This creates a debt, which effectively makes the account overdrawn. As you repay your mortgage, providing you have a repayment or a part&part mortgage, the debt / the amount the account is overdrawn by will reduce. In many ways from an bank account perspective it is very similar to an overdraft arrangement, with the exception that by contract you agreed to make regular monthly payments.

If the letter does not confirm the mistake, another line or argument you could try is in regard to the payments and arrears. If the monthly payments are made by direct debit, you can argue that Northern Rock controls the amount taken each month and if there have been no letters regarding arrears, your Mum had no reason to question the amount paid each month. There was a big story about a lender a year or two ago now, I think it was the Leeds that tried this on mass with their borrowers, hence why the FOS published its guidance. I hope it all works out for your Mum

People that post complete rubbish and portray it as factual and that they have some level of knowledge when clearly they have none

People that post complete rubbish and portray it as factual and that they have some level of knowledge when clearly they have none

Nope You will find it is actually a chose in possession that is transferred by delivery and not a chose in action. For a transfer of a chose of action to be effectual at law it must be as per s.136 (including notice to borrower etc) Nope again.. Apple s.1 (1) relates to 'estates in land' Instead you might just want to read s.1(2) as this relates to interests and charges in or over land. Especially s.1(2c) A charge by way of legal mortgage. If it has become twisted, it is through your continued misunderstandings. I now fear your misunderstandings are intentional. Or be honest, you read the word possession and jumped feet first to the wrong conclusion that it related to possession by the lender... The originator is NOT granted 'an estate in fee simple absolute possession' (LPA s.1 (1a) ) by the borrower The originator IS granted a charge by way of legal mortgage (LPA s.1 (2c) ) by the borrower Which leads onto s.87 of the LPA s.87 Charges by way of legal mortgage (1) Where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take possession proceedings..... s.88 and s.89 have nothing to do with the lender selling a charge to an SPV but rather the lender selling the property (land/buildings) to a new owner, usually after possession proceedings, free of the original mortgage. You honestly believe that the SPV owns the estate in fee simple ? I am wondering what you interpret an estate in fee simple to mean.... Trust me, it is NOT what you interpret it to mean (no change there then) Read this http://www.inbrief.co.uk/property-law/estate-in-fee-simple-freehold.htm Then let's see if you still interpret that the SPV owns the estate in fee simple absolute in possession. I know you have had repeated and continued difficulty in the past differentiating between ownership of the land/house and ownership of the mortgage by way of legal charge, by now even you should know the difference. However, here goes - Please read section (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, re estates in land which are capable of subsisting or being conveyed or created at law (an estate in fee simple = freehold & a term of years absolute = leasehold) The owner of the fee simple estate in land, is the owner of that land. When the borrower brought that land / house he gave a mortgage by way of legal charge as security for that loan. So the borrower is the owner of the fee simple estate in land and the lender is the owner of the mortgage by way of legal charge. Now absolute means the ownership is exclusive and in possession means that the owner has the enjoyment of the property right now rather than in the future (taken from Wikipedia, as it is clear you are a huge fan) So fee simple absolute in possession means The owner of the estate in land has exclusive ownership and has enjoyment of the property today. Of course this only applies to freehold, 'terms of years absolute' applies to leasehold. To put it in simple terms, the owner of the fee simple estate in land is the freehold owner. Now if you take a few moments to read a 395 form and it's replacement the MG01 form, both state at the top Particulars of a mortgage or charge. In other words it has nothing to do with and does not determine who is the owner of the fee simple estate in land. A FREEHOLD ESTATE IS A FEE SIMPLE IN ABSOLUTE POSSESION. You really need to stop playing the word association games. Companies House register, records charges granted by companies over their assests. The Land Registry, records the details of the registered owners of land and the registered charges created by those owners. What you have suggested is utter nonsense. You even know that the "dual registration" of which you speak is utter nonsense. Look at your previous posts, in particular to the Land Registration Act 2002. S.58 conclusiveness How can the registry be in anyway conclusive if you was correct in anyway ?????? Whoever, let common sense escape this thread, can you please go find it and return it here urgently. You say you have researched this topic, I see no evidence in any of your posts of understanding of the topic. On the contrary you disgard the applicable law and common sense and replace it with your interpretations. You don't even have a basic grasp of the fundamental principles. I hope you are not an interpreter by trade, if you are, I would give up the day job. Seriously, you read the word black and interpret it to say white. You confuse ownership of property - land/building with the ownership of a charge, time and time again for no reason. You use the most tenuous link to support your understanding when clear links disprove your understanding. In your post 180 you said "if you refuse from posting" ??? I guess you only want people posting that agree with you, yet you say you want a discussion. You even confuse the point of this thread and misunderstand the purpose of a discussion. You accept no responsibility for the rubbish you post. If someone does in anyway use anything you have posted, I hope you will put them up at your place, after their possession hearing. Anyway you have implied you do not want me to post anymore in your thread (understandable as no one likes to be proven wrong), so you will get your wish. I hope you will one day see past your ego but I doubt it.

No need to apologise and I am sorry if that came across as rude of me. What I meant was that if you have any issues unrelated to securitisation, people that may be able to help may not see your questions in this particular thread. It is alway better to start your own so that you get maximum exposure and help relating to your own circumstances. If you ever have similar problems again, get in touch with Ell-en on here, she has helped countless people. I wish you the best of luck in with whatever you are trying to do.

Hello Fitz Sorry I must have missed that post. The poster has read the word charge and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Charges on a companies assets must be registered at Companies House. This can be way of a fixed charge or a floating charge. A fixed charge is a charge secured on particular property and a floating charge is usually an equitable charge on all the companies assets, both present and future. In the case of securitisation the undertaking and assets of the SPV are charged in favour of a security trustee. It is this charge that is registered at companies house - a charge created by a company etc. - A charge granted by the SPV over it's assets. A mortgage by way of legal charge is a charge you grant the lender on your home. This is why the charge is registered with the Land Registry. In terms of your home, the asset of the SPV are receivables (your monthly payments) and the security for their repayment (the charge you gave to your lender). This means that at best the charge at companies house can be described as a charge on a charge. Halsbury's Laws of England states that this charge takes effect as an equitable sub charge. So sadly this is just more nonsense that only serves to confuse readers of this thread. Must have been one of Apple's posts. The charge given by the SPV to the Security Trustee has been confused with the charge given by the borrower to the lender. You can only give a charge for something you own. To cut a long story short. It is the REGISTERED PROPIETOR of the REGISTERED CHARGE as detailed on your Title Register that has the sole right to possession. Proceedings must be started by the Registered Proprietor or in their name.

Hello Fitz You should really start your own thread. What does your charge state on your Title Register ? Some state an amount secured by the charge. In any event, the lender can only claim the amount owed and costs etc. The lender should following possession seek the best price for the property. However, this may involve the property being marketed for 2/3 months and then sold at auction. Any surplus funds should be released to the borrower. However, it may not be that straight forward if other debts to the same lender are involved etc...

The biggest problem with flights of fancy is that they have a habit of crashing and burning. Posters on forums are the ones with the parachutes. The homeowner in court is the one left in the plane. So from a place of safety, posters can tell you the sky is orange and the sea is pink. Which it is when looked through different quality street (over tins of chocolate confectionary are avaliable) coloured sweet wrappers. However, when you look at the sky and sea without those coloured sweet wrappers (for the sake of this thread 'interpretation') you can see that the sky is not orange and the sea is not pink. They are both in fact blue, amazing how people can see reality for themselves without the need for interpretation (or coloured sweet wrappers) It is ultimately the homeowner that takes the risks.

If anyone tells you different, I would politely ignore them as they do not even have a basic grasp of the applicable law. Look at the charges register on your title deeds. The named PROPRIETOR of the REGISTERED CHARGE has the right to possession - Possession Claims will be made by the Registered Proprietor of the Registerd Charge or at the very least in the name of the Registered Proprietor of the Registered Charge. No amount of interpretation can escape that one fundamental legal principle. Pender 2003 confirms this most basic principle 138. Now this all makes sense. It means that the Defendants need only deal with the registered chargee and no one else. Anything else would be nonsense. "Anything else would be nonsense" I don't think I could be put it any better than that "Anything else would be nonsense" - consider that when reading the posts in this thread that tell you different. Nonsense - Meaning: Subject matter, behaviour, or language that is foolish or absurd Matter of little or no importantance or usefulness Says it all really....

The title to sue argument in a possession claim will be as much use as a chocolate teapot. I would like to take this opportunity to say to all readers of this thread, if you are facing possession proceedings go to the Home Repossessions sub forum and contact Ell-enn. She and others will help you the best they can to save your home and they won't suggest any pure flights of fancy. You could also go to the Home Repossession Successes sub forum and try to find one successful thread about the use of the securitisation - title to sue argument. In fact I will save you from wasting your time, there isn't any.

The Vicky Pollard counter argument of yes but, no but, yes but, all said in the nicest possible way (anyone remember Kenny Everett) is misinterpretation taken to the most outlandish degree. There is more chance of a snowman, staying standing up in the middle of the desert than the majority of those points standing up in court. The hole in the title to sue argument is bigger than the one that sank the titanic. Think of a fishing net that someone had cut holes in and you will still see less holes than those in the title to sue argument. The stainless steel sieve in my kitchen had less holes in it than the title to sue argument. As the law stands at the moment (legislation and case law) the title to sue argument has no basis in law. In fact the applicable law goes so far (s.27 & s.58 of the Land Registration Act 2002, 116 of the Land Registration Rules 2003, various sections of the Law of Property Act 1925 and all of the cases I have previously mentioned in this thread) make it clear that the title to sue argument is completely baseless. I hope that no one will ever choose to rely upon it.

Hello Non Fitz To determine who is the owner of the charge at law, all you need to do, is go to the Land Registry website and download the Title Register for your home. This will cost £4.00. Within the title register you will find a section entitled Charges Register. This section details all the charges (including the mortgage by way of legal charge) It will state something along the lines of 1. REGISTERED CHARGE dated (whatever date it was registered) to secure the moneys including the further advances therein mentioned. PROPRIETOR (Name and address of the proprietor/owner of the registered charge) Initially the Proprietor of the registered charge will be your lender, who you gave the mortgage by way of legal charge to as security for a loan to purchase your home. The lender will remain the Proprietor of the registered charge until a completed TR4 is submitted to the Land Registry. When processed and only at that time will your Lender be replaced as the proprietor of the registered charge and the Charges Register will be updated to reflect the change of proprietor. Whilst the Lender remains as the PROPRIETOR of the REGISTERED CHARGE as detailed within the CHARGES REGISTER of the TITLE REGISTER of your home, it will have the right to possession of your home. This simple fact was stated in the Pender 2005 case ". It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV." To put it simply Whoever is the the registered proprietor of the charge (as detailed in the charges register of your property) is the legal owner of that charge. One incident of legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. A SALE of the charge that has not been completed by registration (The proprietor of the registered charge has not been changed in the charges register section of the title register for your home) will not in any shape of form impact upon the right of possession of the Lender as the REGISTERED PROPRIETOR of the REGISTERED CHARGE. The title register is conclusive proof of ownership and an official copy of the register is admissible in evidence in a court. In terms of who has the legal right to possession, it is and only is the Registered Proprietor of the Registered Charge, detailed within your title register.

Well your responses to Lea_HTH's comments are doing you a disservice now. There is no justification for how you have responded.

Apple You are now doing yourself a disservice.

I dare not respond further

I thought all the girls loved my Wang waving Now I know why I am single..... See not only do you give good consumer advice, you also give good dating advice* *The above is an attempt to inject a little humour ;-)

Apple* You have made repeated references to s.88/s.89 including "Borrowers may view this as some kind of contradiction on the basis that once you have sold your 'legal charge' how is it that a lender still believes it can legally seek possession of a borrowers property on a 'legal charge' that no longer belongs to it? when LPA s.88 (staute-applicable law) advises borrowers that the right is supposed to have been extinguished....???" "You are a Lawyer, you will know or should know instantly that if the 'estate in fee simple' is sold that s.88/89 is engaged" You have said that once the 'estate in fee simple' has been sold the lenders right to possession is extinguished as a result of s.88 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Time has come to put this little misunderstanding to bed once and for all. The 'estate in fee simple' to which you refer is**for all practical purposes, equivalent to outright ownership. However, the owner is subject to certain restrictions, for example the land must not be used in such a way as to cause nuisance to neighbours and any development is subject to planning controls. In legal documents, this estate will often be referred to as `the estate in fee simple'. So yes once the 'estate in fee simple' - being the mortgaged property and not the legal charge, is sold by the lender it's mortgage is extinguished, so that the purchaser buys the property free from that mortgage (as per s.88 of the Law of Property Act 1925) 88. Where an estate in fee simple has been mortgaged

Slightly hypocritical of you. Your posts in response to Lea_HTH's contributions to this discussion reek of frustration that she has dared to not agree with you. What is the task at hand. Exactly what do you want to achieve from this discussion ?

Apple you said in response to Lea_HTH "You stand on one side of the fence - Consumers on the other - In the meantime, please appreciate Borrowers will need to empower themselves and get on with looking at means of keeping the roofs over their heads without legal assistance - because guess what? - they have no money either." She may be a lawyer but does that make her any less than a consumer than you ? If she has a mortgage, it has more likely than not been securitised too. Empower consumers to do what exactly, rely upon legally flawed arguments about securitisation ?

Apple you said in response to Lea_HTH "You are a Lawyer, if the 'applicable Law' is being applied incorrectly, then please advise us all How and Why you believe this to be the case and how it should be applied - for it cannot be ignored can it? I asked you to advise on 'what grounds' in a previous thread - your reply assisted no one really... would you care to expand now?" Apple, if you look under Lea_HTH's name you will see a number of green indicators, this will tell you that her posts do assist people.

Transfer of the Legal Right to the Mortgage Debt It is clear that for a transfer of the legal right to the mortgage debt, from the seller to the buyer, to operate at law, it must be transferred by Legal Assignment (as per s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925). Any other transfer would not operate at law, only in equity. If the assignment (the deed not notice) is not written under the hand if the assignor and the borrower does not receive express notice the transfer can and will only operate in equity.* If the above is incorrect - please quote legislation (including reference to specific section) to disprove this point. Transfer of the Legal Charge It is also clear that (as per s.27 of the Land Registration Act 2002) for a transfer of a registered charge to operate at law, it must be completed by registration. If it is not completed by registration, the transfer operates in equity and does not serve to divest the lender of the right to possession as the registered proprietor of the legal charge. The transfer must be made (as per Rule 116 of the Land Registration Rules 2003) in Form TR3, TR4 or AS2 and not by Deed. None of the comments made in this thread really deal with the fact that a transfer of a registered legal charge, to operate at law must be completed by registration. Registration means that a completed prescribed form must be received by the Land Registry and the details amended on the charges register for each residential property to reflect the new registered proprietor of the legal charge. It is a legal fact (confirmed by case law: Pender 2005) that a transfer that has not been completed as above by registration does not operate at law and does not divest the lender as the current registered proprietor of the legal charge of its right to possession.* This one requirement is a hurdle to any counter argument.* The requirement for registration is confirmed by both the applicable law - case law and legislation. The result of the transfer being left uncompleted - not completed by registration is confirmed by the applicable law - case law and legislation. A transfer of a legal charge that has not been completed by registration does not operate at law and does not divest the lender of its right to possession. This is undeniable and is the rule of law. If the above is incorrect - please quote legislation (including reference to specific section) to disprove this point. All discussions about other points are smoke and mirrors. What is being achieved by going around in circles and ducking the core issues. The law as it stands at the moment, will not support a possession defence based upon securitisation. This has been shown time and time again in the cases I previously quoted. The only arguments to support securitisation as a possible defence are based upon lacklasture over reliance on semantics, confusion between the common law right to the mortgage debt and security in equity with the lenders power of sale of the mortgaged property. I don't think it would be unfair or wrong to say that those arguments have more holes in than a fishing net and have a hint of a flight of fancy about them. I read some of the points made in this thread and I am not sure if I should laugh or cry. I guess that is what the power of interpretation can do. I recently built a trampoline for my niece. It came with instructions that were in English but obviously originally written, in I think Chinese. The instructions were translated word for word but the meaning of the instructions - being sentances was lost in translation. In a similar way I feel the meaning of certain case law and legislation has been lost through interpretation to support a certain point of view. If that point of view was correct, no interpretation would be necessary. Can securitisation be used to prove the lender has no right to possession ? As the law stands today No. Will this change in the future ? Only if the law is changed. I hope no one is foolish enough to rely upon a defence based on the title to sue of the lender.

We must not lose sight that possession is not in any case enforcement of the mortgage debt.

Can the transfer of the legal right to a debt operate at law by any other means than assignment ? Going by the above, I think not.