I did put it in bold, hoping you would not miss it " That deed created the mortgage. It was an actual mortgage that satisfied s.53 of the 1925 Act and s.1 of the 1989 Act..." The judge said that it satisfied s.1 He also said . 'Delivery' for this purpose simply means the signing of the deed with the intention to be bound by its contents and not the physical sending or arrival of the document" There is of course also this little snipet

Something for you to consider DB from the Fergus case "8. The provisions of Section 85 of the law of property act 1925 apply to registered land as a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage is a disposition within section 23(1) (a) of the land Registration Act 2002 and by section 27 and schedule 2 of the 2002 Act a legal charge is required to be completed by registration" "registered land as a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage is a disposition within section 23(1) (a) of the land Registration Act 2002"

Hello DB You are supposed to ignore the fact that the Judge relied upon s.1 as one reason of many to dismiss the appeal. "My reasons for such dismissal are as follows" "That deed created the mortgage. It was an actual mortgage that satisfied s.53 of the 1925 Act and s.1 of the 1989 Act... ..... The deed made it clear on its face that it was intended to be a deed, it was signed and it was delivered. A deed executed after 31st July 1990 need not be sealed: see s.1(1)(b) of the 1989 Act. 'Delivery' for this purpose simply means the signing of the deed with the intention to be bound by its contents and not the physical sending or arrival of the document" DB you also have to ignore all the 'by the way of legal mortgage' too * the above is my attempt at sarcasm

Looks like a quiet afternoon, makes a nice change from recent exchanges in this thread. - the site team especially must be enjoying the rest It is probably for the best too, whilst everyone waits for the Property Chamber to issue it's written decision For those interested in keeping an eye out for the decision, it should be available online not long after it is issued http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/tribunal-decisions

You are a better man than me

Not sure if I posted this before but as it is related to the thread, I will post it, just in case Halsbury's Laws of England/DEEDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/1. DEEDS/(4) EFFECT OF A DEED/64. Accepting benefit without execution. 64. Accepting benefit without execution. Where a person named in some deed, whether as a party to it or not, has, without executing the deed, ac-cepted some benefit thereby assured to him, he is obliged to give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was therein expressed to be conferred; and he must, therefore, perform or observe all covenants or stipulations on his part which are contained in the deed, and on the performance or observance of which the benefit conferred was meant to be conditional1. For example, a mortgagee who has made a loan on mortgage, but has not executed the mortgage deed (which has been executed by the mortgagor only), is bound to give effect to a proviso contained in the deed for reduction of the rate of interest on punctual payment, or for allowing the loan to remain on the mortgage for a certain term2. If a person enters into land under an assurance made to him by deed (which he has not executed) for a term of years, for his life or in tail, and it subsequently appears that the grantor who made the assurance had no rightful title to the land, the person who has so entered is estopped from asserting, against the remainderman under the deed, a possessory title to the land as derived from his own wrongful entry and the effect of the Limitation Act 19803, even though he may be able to set up such a title against the original rightful owner4. Where a company takes the benefit of an apprenticeship agreement which it has not executed, it will be taken to have adopted it and will be bound by it5. 1 YB 38 Edw 3, 8a; YB 45 Edw 3, 11, (pl 7); YB 8 Edw 4, 8b; Littleton's Tenures s 374; Bro Abr, Dette (38, 80), Obligation (13, 14, 27); 1 Dyer 13b, pl 65; Co Litt 230b and n (1); Brett v Cumberland (1619) 2 Roll Rep 63; R v Houghton-le-Spring (1819) 2 B & Ald 375; Webb v Spicer (1849) 13 QB 886 at 893 (on appeal sub nom Salmon v Webb and Franklin (1852) 3 HL Cas 510); Linwood v Squire (1850) 5 Exch 234 at 236; Macdonald v Law Union Insurance Co (1874) LR 9 QB 328 at 330 and 332; Aspden v Seddon (1876) 1 Ex D 496 at 503, CA; Westhoughton UDC v Wigan Coal and Iron Co Ltd [1919] 1 Ch 159 at 174, CA; Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169, [1957] 1 All ER 371. Before 1926, a grantee of land, subject to the reservation of an easement thereover, was bound, if he accepted the grant, to give effect to the reservation, though he did not execute the conveyance (May v Belleville [1905] 2 Ch 605); but now the reservation operates to create the legal estate reserved without execution of the conveyance by the grantee (see the Law of Property Act 1925 s 65(1); and PARA 239 post). 2 See note 1 supra; and Morgan v Pike (1854) 14 CB 473 at 483-486. 3 See the Limitation Act 1980 ss 15, 17 (as amended), Sch 1 (as amended); and LIMITATION PERIODS. 4 Dalton v Fitzgerald [1897] 2 Ch 86, CA; cf the Limitation Act 1980 Sch 1 (as amended) (see LIMITATION PERIODS); and see Littleton's Tenures s 374. 5 McDonald v John Twiname Ltd [1953] 2 QB 304, [1953] 2 All ER 589, CA.

lol most of it has been copied here I am very interested in "void mortgage deeds arguments" have you not noticed ? (sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't see your post)

I know you wasn't, I am grateful for what you said, as others may have been thinking the same. After you said that I had to double read it, just to make sure lol The confusion was my fault. I posted the email as it was received (minus the date and reference numbers). I should have amended it, to make it clearer

Be fair, I must have made at least 40% - give me some credit lol

Hello Fletch in the email it refers to two - The decision relates to both of the applications - It would appear by posts in this thread that one was Is It Me?'s friend and the other remains unidentified - I am not interested in anyone's identity, just the decision. Once I receive a copy of it, I will remove any names and any thing that can identify the applicant before, I post it to this thread "The Mortgage dispute Decision is still outstanding with the Judge, so I would advise you to keep checking back with this office after xxx 2014 when a Decision is more likely to have be issued. For your information the mortgage application Case numbers are REC/2013/00xx & 00xx." Two case reference numbers are quoted - I have just edited them with xx I have added a space to the above which was not present in the original email to more clearly show the & The tally based upon information received and information posted in this thread is Out of the 10 applications made 1 application struck out 2 applications heard 7 applications stayed until an outcome is issued

These are the posts I was referring too and

Any other conspiracy theories you want to try ? Enfircer if you spent more than 5 seconds looking at their website, that email address you posted (which has now been removed) belongs to a Brian and not a Ben And for the record unlike Brian, I don't watch rugby

check out http://www.192.com and see how many Ben Hall's come up lol 10/10 for effort but sadly 1/10 for results Enfircer - So there can be no confusion, I do not work for woodfines and until you posted about them, I had not even heard of them, so a coincidence that someone else has the same first initial and surname as me - eh yes lol

The following is taken from Lamb to show that s.1 of the LP (MP) A 1989 was considered by the court ( I hope this can be considered to be related to the topic of the thread)

My personal opinion and it is nothing more than speculation is that the decision of the property chamber in regard to the cases heard on 20 Jan will be applied to the remaining 7 applications and any future applications. The purpose of the hearings on 20 Jan is in my view to put a decision in place to apply to subsequent applications - as this is a topic that has not yet previously been determined by the Property Chamber This is based upon what the Property Chamber has said (and as previously posted in this thread) to UNRAM and IS IT ME?

As for any reliance put upon the previous link to the Council of Mortgage Lenders - http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/about "The Council of Mortgage Lenders is a not-for-profit organisation and the trade association for the mortgage lending industry, and our members account for around 95% of UK residential mortgage lending." And when this trade association asked its members about the mortgage deed - http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/handbook/englandandwales/question-list/741 Question: 14.1.5. Does the lender need to be sent the original mortgage deed? In the majority of cases the mortgage deed is never even sent back to the lender - if it is not sent back to them, they can't sign it as part of Apples fanciful ideas about delivery of a deed

Lmao You are a right one Enficer So who am I supposed to be today ? logged off already ? lol

No you stay, I will log off and let you post your fanciful ideas uninterrupted ;-)

Apple it is not for you decide what is and what is not posted and discussed in this thread. If the site team feel that any posts are off topic, they can and will remove them. Why don't you leave those decisions to the site team

As for where "we" are at... Personally I am where what the law actually states and not where you interpret what it means .

Please note The registered proprietor or person entitled to be registered as proprietor of a registered charge over registered land is entitled to exercise owners' powers5, which include power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a legal sub-mortgage6. Originally Posted by IS IT ME? 23 Owner’s powers (1)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate consist of— (a)power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, and (b)power to charge the estate at law with the payment of money. (2)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered charge consist of— (a)power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a legal sub-mortgage, and (b)power to charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge. (3)In subsection (2)(a), “legal sub-mortgage” means— (a)a transfer by way of mortgage, (b)a sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and ©a charge by way of legal mortgage. ONWERS ie are the BORROWERS Ben NOT THE LENDERS The law says different (if I say that in capital letters will it help, i will give it a try, as you often do) THE LAW SAYS DIFFERENT I think you need to take a little time to read the Land Registration Act 2002. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/2 Creation of legal charge 8 In the case of the creation of a charge, the chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the charge. The law confirms that the chargee (that would be the lender) must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the charge It is written in plain english and no matter how extensive Apples mysterious powers of interpretation and translation are, the meaning can not be changed. So that is clear that the lender as chargee must be registered as proprietor of the charge, please refer to the explanatory notes for the Land Registration Act 2002 - You should rely upon the official explanatory notes - not what Apple wants things to mean (just some friendly advice) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/.../division/4/14 Creation of legal charge 223.Paragraph 8 relates to a newly created charge over a registered estate or a registered rentcharge. The charge must be recorded in the register relating to the registered estate and show the chargee (typically the lender) as proprietor of that charge. Notice the words 'registered estate' ? Anyway, so the law is clear that the lender as chargee must be recorded in the register as the proprietor of the charge - This is not even disputable, nevermind how much Apple may try - it says what it says.... So now we have established beyond any reasonable question that the lender must by law be registered as the proprietor of the charge, we go back to the Land Registration Act 2002. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23 I will focus on s.23(2) as I think it is accepted by everyone that s.23(1) relates to the borrower. "(2)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered charge consist of— (a)power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a legal sub-mortgage, and (b)power to charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge." Please note the law 'owner's powers in relation to a registered charge' The biggest hint for you (and for that matter Apple) is that it says registered charge - This is a charge that is effective at law as it has been completed by registration. If the charge is registered, the estate must also be registered (blowing Apples fanciful theories apart) Anyway returning back to the LRA 2002 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/24 24 Right to exercise owner’s powers A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is— (a)the registered proprietor, or (b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor. A person is entitled to exercise owner's powers in relation to a registered charge if he is the registered proprietor. Now who must by law be recorded as the proprietor of the charge ? Oh yes, I remember, by law the lender must be recorded as the registered proprietor of the charge. Therefore, by law, the lender as the registered proprietor of the charge is entitled to exercise the owner's powers in relation to that registered charge. Nice, simple, straightforward and undeniable. I hope that is now very clear for you that the owners powers in regard to the registered charge. Ben

In terms of the charge Originally Posted by Halsbury's Laws of England/mortgage (VOLUME 77 (2010) 5TH EDITION)/8. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE MORTGAGEE/(4) SALE OUT OF COURT/(iii) Statutory Power of Sale/443. Application of the statutory power. (iii) Statutory Power of Sale 443. Application of the statutory power. A power of sale is conferred by statute1. The mortgagemust be made by deed, but, subject to this, the power applies to any mortgage, charge or lien on real or personal property or any interest in it, or any thing in action2, except certain bills of sale3, and possibly debentures upon a statutory public utility company4. The registered proprietor or person entitled to be registered as proprietor of a registered charge over registered land is entitled to exercise owners' powers5, which include power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a legal sub-mortgage6. An equitable mortgagee under a memorandum of charge by deed containing an appropriate power of attorney7 can convey the legal estate on sale by him in exercise of the statutory power of sale8. The power of sale does not affect the right of foreclosure9, may be varied or extended by the mortgage deed, applies to the mortgage only so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in it, and has effect subject to the terms of the mortgage deed and to the provisions contained in it10. 1 See the Law of Property Act 1925 s 101(1)(i), (5). The power in s 101(1)(i) is subject to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s 21 (no disposition of part-units: see COMMONHOLD vol 13 (2009) PARA 350): Law of Property Act 1925 s 101(1A) (added by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s 68, Sch 5 para 2). As to mortgages of commonhold land see PARA 203. 2 See the Law of Property Act 1925 s 205(1)(xvi), (xx). 3 Ie bills of sale subject to the Bills of Sale Act 1878 (amendment) Act 1882: see Calvert v Thomas (1887) 19 QBD 204, CA. See also FINANCIAL SERVICES AND INSTITUTIONS vol 50 (2008) PARA 1742. 4 In Blaker v Herts and Essex Waterworks Co (1889) 41 ChD 399 at 406, debentures of all companies were thought to be excluded; but Deyes v Wood [1911] 1 KB 806 at 818, CA, suggests that the exclusion is limited as stated in the text. As to enforcing a security under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 see CONSUMER CREDIT vol 9(1) (Reissue) PARA 220 et seq. 5 See the Land Registration Act 2002 s 24; and LAND REGISTRATION vol 26 (2004 Reissue) PARA 908. 6 See the Land Registration Act 2002 s 23(2). 7 See PARA 133. 8 See Re White Rose Cottage [1965] Ch 940, [1965] 1 All ER 11, CA. 9 Law of Property Act 1925 s 106(2). As to foreclosure see PARA 566 et seq. 10 See the Law of Property Act 1925 s 101(3), (4).

Please note By executing a deed in accordance with all the requirements for such execution1, the party whose act and deed it is becomes, as a general rule, conclusively bound by what he is stated in the deed to be effecting, undertaking or permitting2. He is, in general, so bound even though another party has not executed the deed

Turning to deeds Originally Posted by Halsbury's Laws of England/DEEDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/1. DEEDS/(4) EFFECT OF A DEED/57. General effect. (4) EFFECT OF A DEED 57. General effect. By executing a deed in accordance with all the requirements for such execution1, the party whose act and deed it is becomes, as a general rule, conclusively bound by what he is stated in the deed to be effecting, undertaking or permitting2. He is, in general, so bound even though another party has not executed the deed3, or he has himself executed it in a false name4. He is, as a rule, estopped from averring and proving by extrinsic evidence that the contents of the deed did not in truth express his intentions or did not correctly express them, or that there are reasons why he should not be obliged to give effect to the deed. This is equally the case whether the deed is expressed to operate as a conveyance of property or as a contract or otherwise5. In a claim founded on the deed, an executing party is also in general estopped from denying the truth of a precise and unambiguous representation of fact contained in the deed where the representation is material to the transaction effected by the deed and appears clearly enough to have been made or adopted by him with a view to the other party's relying on it6. However, to all these general principles there are exceptions, cases where the deed may be a nullity or may be avoided or corrected7. 1 See PARAS 1 et seq, 27-34 ante. An instrument intended in a certain event to be an effective deed may be delivered as an escrow, ie so as to become the delivering party's act and deed only if the event occurs: see PARAS 37-39 ante. 2 See PARA 65 post. 3 Lady Naas v Westminster Bank Ltd[1940] AC 366 at 374-375, [1940] 1 All ER 485 at 489, HL. As to the effect of non-execution by a party see further PARA 62 post. 4 See PARA 69 note 1 post. A person whose execution of a deed has been forged is also estopped from denying that he is bound by the deed if, after becoming aware of the forgery, he delays in informing the person ostensibly entitled to the benefit of the deed, so causing detriment to the latter: Fung Kai Sun v Chan Fui Hing[1951] AC 489 at 503, 506, PC; and see PARA 72 post. As to estoppel generally see estoppel. 5 Littleton's Tenures ss 58, 693; Co Litt 45a, 47b, 352a, 363b; 1 Plowd 308-309; Whelpdale's Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 119a; Style v Hearing (1605) Cro Jac 73; 2 Bl Com (14th Edn) 295, 446; Xenos v Wickham(1866) LR 2 HL 296. 6 See Greer v Kettle[1938] AC 156 at 166-167, [1937] 4 All ER 396 at 401, HL; and ESTOPPEL vol 16(2) (Reissue) PARA 1014 et seq. 7 See PARAS 60, 62-63, 67, 88 post.

Please note A legal mortgage of unregistered land1 can be created only by demise, sub-demise or legal charge2. A legal mortgage of registered land can be made only by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage or by charging the estate with the payment of money, and not by demise3.