Meeeeeooooowwwww ! lol Let's not speculate among ourselves ? Did you read your prior post Are you the only one allowed to speculate - Sorry I didn't know your rules, I guess with you it is a case of do as I say and not do what I do. I am sorry * just remember those facts.. they are according to you In every case posted in this thread, your argument that the deed is void has failed - now that is a fact

lol just want to make it clear that Ben is not and has not ever been a member of the site team, it is an accusation made by posters seeking to deflect the weakness of their arguments (not referring to your Fletch but the people that made the original accusation) I could never do what the site team do, I don't have the patience with people or the self control

Yep, I am guilty as charged

Hello Fletch Thank you do your comments, you must really dislike my posts, I know when I get carried away, my level of english goes clean out the window lol I read my own posts sometimes and think ?? slow down and type properly - My only excuse is that I have chubby fingers ;-0

Enfircer - I have already posted exactly what they were about already, don't you remember the Freedom of Information Act response ? "With reference to your numbered paragraphs, I can confirm that the department holds the information that you have asked for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6, and I am pleased to provide this to you: 1. 10 applications based on the ground of non execution by a lender of a charge have been received by the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber. 2. 1 of those 10 applications has been struck out on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 9(3)(d) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 but the other applications continue (as of 7/1/2014). 3. See the response for 2. 6. 2 of the 10 cases have been listed for hearing on 20 January 2014." I did a freedom of information act request, to prevent certain parties claiming that I 'shoehorned' the above information So does that prove to your satisfaction that I am not misleading people ? An interesting question would be, if a lender does have to sign a mortgage deed, or it is void - why did the Property Chamber strike out one such application because it was " frivolous or vexatious" and an abuse of process ? If there was any real merit to to that argument, the application would not have been struck out on that basis would it

Thank you for your kind words, they are appreciated. Fortunately this thread will be one that has a public conclusion that cannot be denied, twisted and misinterpreted. Many threads, just fall down the listing for various reasons such as the OP stops posting. I consider this far too important a topic to allow that to happen and I will do everything I can to ensure the decision of the property chamber is posted here as soon as possible (which will be far less than 28 days from now) - I consider it of paramount important that the conclusion is made as public as possible, especially as I have seen some of the fanciful ideas from this thread reposted on other forums. Then everyone will be able to see for themselves, who has actually been misleading who.. be able to also see who knows nothing about property law then too Thank you

Enficer, do you have any more suggestions, that butter isn't working

Don't you know Caro ? In between (well at least according to some) being the person that founded CAG, and being various different members of the site team, I also work for every single lender in the country, in addition to working for every single law firm in the country. Somehow I also manage to attend every single hearing Is It Me? has said he has attended. I do get around Disclaimer: the above is me being sarcastic

Now this is confusing - as in I have no idea what you are talking about If you are referring to the case you helped with last week ? I thought you claimed success, why does the lender have 28 days to come back, if you was successful. I don't think it can be the chamber hearing you are referring too as that outcome is in the process of being issued. If you are inferring securitisation documents have gone missing and the lender does not want to show them etc, please let me know the lender and I will see if I can find them for you As for what happened last time and and reasons that I know - sorry I don't have Apples mystical and magical powers of interpretation, I don't have a scooby what you are on about (as usual) - or was the last time, the time you said that you mentioned securitisation and the lenders solicitor went out during the lunch break of the possession hearing and arranged a mortgage for you with a different lender ? - Amazing what someone can do, during their lunch break (I took the liberty of reading some of your older posts) This is exactly why, it will beneficial for everyone that the decision of the property chamber is posted in this thread for everyone to read, it will prevent half stories, insinuations and claims of secrecy - everyone will know all the facts

Hello Is It Me? It is good to see that you are helping someone. Why didn't you just rely upon the void deed argument that you have so much faith in and that you help to promote in this thread ? Was it rejected by the Judge ?

For me personally this thread is and will continue to be my main focus on CAG. A number of claims on this thread have been made which could lead to innocent borrowers incurring thousands of pounds in legal costs. At no risk to the person that made those claims as they have not made an application to the Property Chamber even though they claim mortgages have not been valid since 1925 (or has that argument now fallen away). Until the property chamber 's written decision is posted, disproving those claims once and for all, I want to concentrate my efforts here. However, my previous concerns of many people taking the claims made in this thread seriously, I am pleased to say have proven to be unfounded. Only 10 applications (as per the date of the FOI response) - one of which has been struck out, had been made and only 28 people have signed the petition since it was created. Those numbers indicate how much faith people have in those claims (not a lot)

The good thing is that these little debates won't keep going around in circles for much longer. I think both readers of this thread and members of the site team will both be glad when the debates reach a conclusion. Readers must be bored of the same points being made over and over again and the site team must be tired of having to continually become involved. Hopefully Apple will accept (although I doubt it) the view of the property chamber. I wonder what will then be said... I might need extra strength headache tablets on that day. DB you should prepare yourself for the flood of yes but, no but, yes but posts too ;-) I can recommend ibuprofen lol

Good Morning DB This is the problem with interpretation. As shown it can change with the wind. If in one situation someone wants something to mean 'a' they can and will interpret it to mean 'a'. However, in a different situation that same person wants the same thing to mean "b", they can and will interpret it to mean "b" The biggest problem with interpretation is that as shown in this thread anything can be interpreted to mean anything. I have never understood the need for interpretation, especially when something is written in clear plain English. It is not as if it is written in Chinese or Japanese. You do make a very valid point about supporting evidence though. Many of the interpretations are only supported by more interpretations. A number of sources (including surprisingly a post made by Apple of all people) , including the document we have both posted from the Land Registry (who you would think would know a thing or two about land registration) clearly confirm s.23(2) are the powers of the lender as the registered proprietor of the registered charge. However, such things are dismissed quickly in this thread and brushed under the carpet. After all how can these 3rd party sources (experts and professionals) including the Land Registry, possibly know more about Land Registration than Apple ? Then again as shown interpretation changes with the wind as and when it suits.

Hello Enfircer Sorry I missed your posted earlier. Yes I do know what the cases were about. I have no doubt in my mind which way it will go at all. Thanks for the tip about butter - after yesterday there is a huge bruise, I also left a couple of cracks in the wall too. I will pop out and get some butter later and stock up on headache tablets, as I have a feeling my supply expected to last throughout 2014, will run very shortly. Thank you

Hello Dodgeball I found this post on CAG that might interest you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197424-Mortgage-Securitisation-Paragon-V-Pender-Title-to-Sue-Judgements-For-Debate-amp-Discussion&p=4171099&viewfull=1#post4171099 "Once that 'registrable disposition' (transfer) is registered at HMLR it operates in law to transfer a separate legal estate to the Lender - the lender is the 'owner' of that estate - he is not the 'owner' of the Borrowers legal estate = the legal estate of the Lender means he can exercise the 'owenrship' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23 (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." Read the bit from "Lender means he can exercise the 'ownership' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23 and note the reference to s.23(2) Funny thing is, it was Apple that said the above Is It Me? subsequently thanks Apple for posting the above. Looks like someone has trouble making their mind up about the law or this is evidence that someone interprets the law differently whenever it suits them. When it suits Apple for one purpose s.23(2) are the lenders powers and when it doesn't suit Apple s.23(2) aren't the powers of the lender - some might call that convenient - Either way Is It Me ? agrees with Apple ;-)

I think I have wasted enough of my time explaining the basics to you for one night. It is clear you are prepared to ignore the obvious as and when it suits you Good night ;-)

I have read and responded to it, you need to understand the terminology, as the words themselves rather than your interpretations prove you wrong

You can ignore the law as much as you want Apple, by ignoring the obvious you are not assisting anyone. Please remember what I have posted here tonight, when you read the written decision of the property chamber, after I have posted it. I have tried to give you a heads up and tried in simple terms to explain it too you.

So now your interpreting Is It Me?'s posts lmao His actual words were - ""Ben, I think you have got it wrong with respect, as the LENDER has sub charged the mortgage when they sold it" Please take time to read that link I posted, you must be able to see the error of your ways

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to readers of this thread and members of the site team for my provocative posts tonight, expressing my frustration about a certain posters inability to understand and comprehend the law. Ben

At least pretend you have read the applicable legislation Have you read that link I posted, if there is anything there you still don't understand, let me know and when time permits, I will explain and break it down to you, so that you can understand

? Read your own post. "Registered charge" A "a grant of a charge" is a "registrable disposition" and when it is completed by registration it is a "registered charge" It is that obvious and simple Is anyone claiming that they as the borrower did not sign the deed, which granted the charge ( being a registrable disposition) in favour if the lender, which was registered at HMLR - thus becoming a "registered charge" in favour of the lender - following which the lender became the registered proprietor of that charge and able to exercise the powers as owner as such ?

Hello Is It Me? Sorry I don't mean to keep missing your posts. You said "Ben, I think you have got it wrong with respect, as the LENDER has sub charged the mortgage when they sold it" You are saying it both ways. If it isn't the lender, how can the lender do what you have said ?

If the link doesn't work http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7808/0/ The facts of the case, detailed in last post, should serve to help you understand where you have gone wrong "Facts: The claimant made a loan to the defendant to purchase a house and the loan was secured by a first mortgage on the property (the "principal charge"). On the same date that the principal charge was executed, a sub-charge was executed by the claimant in favour of Bank of Scotland (the "sub-chargee")." I am sorry that it is different to how you thought things were

Hello Apple This has already been posted a number of times in this thread already. Please read it, it will help you understand Originally Posted by bhall: To support my previous comments in relation to s.23 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23 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. http://www.practicalconveyancing.co....t/view/7808/0/ Background: A sub-mortgage is a mortgage of a mortgage. For example, A borrows £10,000 from B and mortgages his house to B as security for the loan. B then needs to borrow £1,000. B borrows the money from C and then mortgages the asset he has i.e. the mortgage of A’s house, to C as security for the loan....... ........Under the LRA 2002, the owner of a registered estate cannot create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise (section 23(1)(a)). The only way to create a legal mortgage is by a charge by way of legal mortgage (pursuant to sections 85(1) and 86(1) of the LPA 1925) or by charging the estate at law with the payment of money (section 23(1)(b) of the LRA 2002). When registered, a charge has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage (section 51 - equivalent to section 27(1) of the LRA 1925). The proprietor of a registered charge cannot create a "legal sub-mortgage" i.e. a transfer by way of mortgage, a sub-mortgage by sub-demise or a charge by way of legal mortgage (sections 23(2)(a) and 23(3)). The proprietor does have the power to "charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge" (section 23(2)(b)). The registered proprietor of a subcharge has, in relation to the property subject to the principal charge, the same powers as the principal chargee (section 53). If the provisions of the LRA 2002 had applied in this case, it is submitted that the principal mortgagee would still have had the right to take possession of the property because a registered principal charge will continue to operate as if the mortgagee had a term of years (pursuant to section 51 of the LRA 2002 and section 87(1) of the LPA 1925). On the assumption that the sub-charge was created pursuant to section 23(2)(b) of the LRA 2002, the sub-chargee will not be deemed to have a term of years under the LPA 1925. However, the subchargee should nevertheless have a right to possession of the property under section 53 of the LRA 2002. As confirmed by the Charges register the proprietor of the registered charge is the lender and not the borrower. s.23 (1) applies to the powers of the borrower as the owner of the legal estate and s.23 (2) apples to the powers of the lender as the owner of the charge A borrower can by law grant a charge by legal mortgage Ben, I think you have got it wrong with respect, as the LENDER has sub charged the mortgage when they sold it