Is it me? Who does the law say must be registered as the proprietor of the charge ? From the same report The grant of a legal charge 4.29 The grant of a legal charge is a registrable disposition.100 To register the charge, the chargee or his or her successor in title must be entered in the register as its proprietor.101 By way of an exception, the creation of a legal charge that is also a local land charge does not require registration.102 The reasons for this exception are more fully explained in Part VII of this Report,103 but may be summarised as follows¾ which of course is 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. And the applicable explanatory note http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ision/4/14/1/7 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. (registered estate - not unregistered estate)

You don't need to interpret the statute. Just read what it says, you even posted about a report that helps people to understand it " Originally Posted by applecart Full background to the Bill and detailed explanations on the purpose and content of its clauses can be found in the joint Law Commission and HM Land Registry report, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century:A Conveyancing Revolution (Law Com No. 271)." That statutory power for a borrower (registered proprietor) of a registered estate to grant a legal charge (charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage) is s.23(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002. The report details the applicable legislation and sections prior to the LRA 2002, that also detailed that statutory power It is all there in black and white

I was watching it on the news this morning, I feel so sorry for those effected. There are some interesting threads on here about the insurance. I was reading one the other day about a FOS decision - the borrower had his/her own insurance but the lender kept charging for their own arranged insurance. - it looks like with some lenders this is a regular tactic.

Ok, You have said previously that this was raised during the hearing at the Property Chamber. Instead of us going around in circles, it is clear subject to moderation that you can post what you want. Why not clear this matter up once and for all and simply post what happened during the hearing ? It will be detailed in the written decision anyway, so it is hardly going to be a secret, is it, Is It Me? Why are you so reluctant to post any specifics about the hearing ? - being subject to moderation does not prevent you.

Hello Is It Me? Applecart has already posted exactly what it is "Originally Posted by applecart Full background to the Bill and detailed explanations on the purpose and content of its clauses can be found in the joint Law Commission and HM Land Registry report, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century:A Conveyancing Revolution (Law Com No. 271)." The "bill" became the Land Registration Act 2002 - as per the above, the report gives the background and detailed explanations on the purposes and content of its clauses (those clauses are the different sections of the Act, for example s.23) - so you could say it explains the law

Ok, just this once, I will take the bait. So you are not going to post it because you don't want to tell me, as I was there and I know what it was ? If I was there and if I know what you are talking about, why am I posting what I have continued to post ? For the record, I was not there and I have no idea what you are talking about. However, I do admire your commitment to this thread, as on the day of the hearing you still found time to post.

From the same report The grant of a legal charge 4.29 The grant of a legal charge is a registrable disposition.100 To register the charge, the chargee or his or her successor in title must be entered in the register as its proprietor.101 By way of an exception, the creation of a legal charge that is also a local land charge does not require registration.102 The reasons for this exception are more fully explained in Part VII of this Report,103 but may be summarised as follows¾ which of course is 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. And the applicable explanatory note http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/14/1/7 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. (registered estate - not unregistered estate)

Glad it is not just me then. Thanks

I must offer my apologies to the followers and readers of this thread. It has just occurred to me that I have not posted the following, from the above mentioned report. THE POWER TO CREATE CHARGES AND THE POWERS OF THE CHARGEE Legal charges The creation of charges and the powers of the chargee 7.2 Under the present law, a registered proprietor can by deed create a legal mortgage or charge1 of registered land in any one of three ways (1) he or she may in the usual way create a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage;2 (2) he or she may charge the registered land with the payment of money and this will take effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, even though not expressed to do so;3 or (3) he or she may create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise but must do so expressly: the presumption is in favour of a charge by way of legal mortgage. These three propositions state the combined effect of sections 25(1) and 27 of the Land Registration Act 1925. The reason for (2) is historical. Charges over registered land were introduced by the Land Transfer Act 1875.4 They therefore pre-date by half a century the introduction of the charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage in section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925.5 Mortgages by demise or sub-demise ¾ (3) above ¾ are in practice now obsolete because of the advantages offered by a charge. The main advantages of a charge are that¾ (a) freeholds and leaseholds can be the subject of a single charge rather then separate demises or sub-demises; (b) the grant of a charge over a lease is not thought to amount to a breach of the common-form covenant against subletting without the landlord’s consent (such consent would be required to a mortgage by sub-demise); and © the form of legal charge is short and simple.6 It should be noted that the mortgage by demise or sub-demise was as much a creation of the Law of Property Act 1925 as was the charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. The charge over registered land for the payment of money ¾ (2) above ¾ is in fact the form of permitted legal mortgage or charge that has the longest pedigree.7 This then leads onto my previous post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4469874&viewfull=1#post4469874 "7.3 As we have explained in Part IV of this Report, the Bill implements a recommendation in the Consultative Document that it should not be possible to create mortgages by demise or sub-demise in relation to registered land. Under the Bill, a registered proprietor can create a legal mortgage in one of two ways (1) by a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage; or (2) by a charge to secure the payment of money. Of course the above two mentioned ways that a registered proprietor of a registered estate can create a legal mortgage can be found in 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.

Random question do posts seem to change page for anyone else ? Crapstones last post for me, was on the previous page, now it is on this page Anyway that is enough from me for now

Hello BP Here you go http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/11 (8)In section 87, at the end there is inserted— “(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).” and a link to section 87 which includes the actual amendment http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87 [F1(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).F1] Personally and this is not said to persuade you one way or the other, I think the above should be read/considered in conjunction with the explanatory notes for s.23 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/3/1/1 Section 23: Owner’s powers 55.This section states the unlimited powers of an owner. It makes one change to the current law. Under the existing law, there is a presumption that a registered charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, unless there is clear provision to the contrary, or it is made or takes effect as a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. Mortgages by demise or sub-demise are now in practice obsolete, because of the advantages of a charge (that enables freeholds and leaseholds to be made the subject of a single charge rather than separate demises or sub-demises; the grant of a charge of a lease is not thought to amount to a breach of the common-form covenant against subletting without the landlord’s consent; and the form of legal charge is short and simple). Subsection (1)(a) therefore abolishes them, with prospective effect. As it says, . Mortgages by demise or sub-demise are now in practice obsolete, because of the advantages of a charge - hence why in terms of registered land, they were abolished by s.23(1)(a) leaving the registered charge, as the amendment confirms that it is not affected by s.23(1)(a)

56 pages? I will save that read for another day. Thank you Crapstone

you could not be more right, the borrower is the registered proprietor of the registered estate. However, as previously pointed out, you overlook that a registered estate does not include the registered charge. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/132 “registered estate” means a legal estate the title to which is entered in the register, other than a registered charge; Therefore, I agree there is no dispute - Glad that is settled

I note the 2010 case states 2. The basic facts are as follows. By 2003, Mr Guy had acquired the freehold title to some 19 hectares of land in Manchester ("the Land"), which was registered at HM Land Registry ("the Registry") under four titles, and he accordingly became the registered proprietor under all four titles. Pursuant to a transfer ("the Transfer") dated 22 June 2004, the Land was purportedly transferred to Ten Acre Ltd ("TAL"), who were duly registered as proprietors in place of Mr Guy on 30 July 2004. 3. On 8 March 2005, TAL executed a charge ("the Charge") over the Land in favour of the Bank to secure all moneys owing to the Bank by Lexi Holdings plc ("Lexi"), a company effectively owned and run by a Mr Shaid Luqman, who, it subsequently transpired, was dishonest in a major way. The Bank was registered as proprietor of the Charge on 23 March 2005. The Bank was registered as proprietor of the Charge on 23 March 2005. - That sounds familiar, I am sure someone has said that in this thread http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/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. 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

Hello Apple I have not omitted the word UNREGISTERED. With the upmost respect I think you will find that s.23(1) relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate - However, I will refrain from disputing this further with you, as that is what it says 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 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 *Edit I have amended the above post after it was subsequently quoted

Not wishing to reignite the unsubstantiated allegations made in this thread, if anyone is in the least bit intrigued, at the end of the FOI request response it said - Disclosure Log You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-of-information-disclosure-log I have checked and at the moment it has only been updated until December 2013. The date of the response to my FOI request was 9 January 2014. Hopefully, the Disclosure Log will soon be updated confirming the response from the Ministry of Justice, as I have previously posted.

Hi Fletch I would not be so concerned, it is not the first time such a claim has been made As we know, despite this "great news" the lenders were not stopped dead in their tracks and this matter did proceed to be heard by the Property Chamber I am sure for the benefit of the other applications, not being Lamb, Is it Me?'s friend or the person that made the other application that was heard on 20 Jan 2014 - this yet unrevealed revelation will be made public at some stage. - If there is something that could help those other people, I am sure Apple and Is It Me? after encouraging people to make applications, would not abandon them now in their hour of need and keep such important information to themselves.

Apologies for the break, Eastenders was on. To continue from my last post Something else that I will put out there to be considered or dismissed 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 The owner (the registered proprietor) of a registered estate can make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. The Law Commission said "there are two ways of creating a legal mortgage: the mortgage must either execute a demise for a term of years absolute ("a mortgage by demise") or must execute a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage ("a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage") Question - Has anyone executed a demise for a term of years absolute or have they executed a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage So if we accept what the Law Commission states that there are indeed two ways to create a legal mortgage 1) Mortgage by demise (or sub-demise) 2) A charge Clearly s.23(1) abolishes a mortgage by demise but would appear to remain silent on a mortgage by legal charge. The amendment however, would appear to state that s.23(1) does not apply to mortgages by legal charge. However, s.23(1) is not silent on a mortgage by legal charge. It confirms that a owner (registered proprietor) of a registered estate can make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27 27 Dispositions required to be registered (2) In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration— (f) the grant of a legal charge. The above being s.27(2)(f) of the LRA 2002, confirms that in the case of a registered estate, the grant of a legal charge is a disposition that is required to be completed by registration s.23(1) confirms the registered proprietor of a registered estate can make a disposition permitted by general law and s.27(2)(f) confirms that the grant of a legal charge is such a disposition. The amendment to s.87 of the LPA 1925 also confirms that s.23(1) does not apply where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

The amendment also refers to the owners powers of a registered estate - not owners powers of an unregistered estate - something else you can either accept as a friendly suggestion that you should think about, or you can simply dismiss it http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...-paragraph-2-8 SCHEDULE 11 Section 2 (8)In section 87, at the end there is inserted— “(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).” “On Report the Government and the Opposition moved amendments to clause 23 to deal with the question of how a legal charge could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to can no longer be created. This problem arises because the bill will take away the power to create a mortgage by demise. Baroness Scotland explained the Government’s amendmenticon. Clause 23(1)(a) states than an owner’s powers to deal with a registered estate do not extend to the creation of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. As your Lordships will recall from Committee, that is a simplification of the existing law, introduced because those methods of creating mortgages are not used any more . I very much appreciate the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to that change. Noble Lords opposite helpfully spotted that Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a mortgage has the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgagee by demise or sub-demise. The amendment should make the intended effect abundantly clear. However, we respectfully suggest that it is necessary to retain the reference to the creation of mortgages by demise or sub-demise, as that will still be possible in relation to unregistered land. It is beyond the scope of the Bill to legislate in respect of such land. Can it really be refuted that s.23(1)(a) being the powers of the registered proprietor of the registered estate - preventing them from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise - as a result of the amendment has not effect on s.87(1) of the LPA 1925 being where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. To a simpleton such as myself it would read to say s.23(1) which prevents a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, does not have an affect on a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. - Afterall, s.23(1) only relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate Whilst you can still mortgage by demise or sub-demise a unregistered estate, you can only mortgage a registered estate by legal charge - as a result of s.23(1) of the LRA 2002 and because of the amendment by the LRA 2002 to s.87 of the LPA 1925, as detailed above

LPA 1925 s.87 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of unregistered land You can consider this a friendly suggestion, or you can dismiss it - You might want to think about what you have said and the conclusions you have reached A registered proprietor of unregistered land Think about it, how can someone be registered as the proprietor of something unregistered http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/132 “registered” means entered in the register; You appear to be stating that the borrower has been entered in the register as the proprietor of something that isn't itself registered - I must be misunderstanding what it is you have said, as that isn't possible Something to think about

"The number of applications are actually increasing so I've heard on the grapevine......and there are definitely more than "10" applications made - contrary to what Bhall purports to be the case.... wonder why the Chamber would even reply to such a request and in accepting that they did - cuz Ben said so and he posted the evidence (albeit I noticed he's a dab hand at drawing up posters and plastering them on here....not sure he bothered to put it on his own thread) - why did they suppress the truth from him???" FYI The Property Chamber replied to such a request, as they are required to respond by law. You might have heard of it, it is called the Freedom of Information Act. You imply that they would not provide this information as a result of a FOI request but you subsequently state you was provided with the same information (in terms of number of applications, just a different number implied ) I had requested, freely during a telephone conversation. "It's like this Fletch.....you press some digits on your mobile phone....you call the Chamber......and when your call is answered - you ask politely "can you tell me, rumour has it that you have only received 10 applications.....is that true?" You then wait for the person to answer you and take a note of what is said - then post it up for one and all to see.....I did not need to ask or infer who had been heard or not..... I simply asked - the 'rumour has it'.....'is that true'? the "grapevine" is - I'm not willing to divulge to you who I spoke to at the Chamber.....because - with respect - it's non of your business....."

Not paranoid at all, your unsubstantiated claims about me are a matter of record in this thread ;-) You have accused me of being a liar on more than one occasion and now you imply fraud. - Those are quite serious and unsubstantiated allegations you have made. I accuse you of knowing nothing about property law - a claim I regularly substantiate on an almost daily basis. I am also able to substantiate my other claims about you, to satisfy a balance of probabilities threshold.

I also have a number of outstanding FOI requests that once I receive a response I will post details of them in this thread, safe in the knowledge that as it is information Apple is not aware of, again I will be accused of being a liar, fraud and no doubt other accusations will be made ;-) With such accusations and the recent changes to the law - It is lucky I am not the bhall, Enfircer claimed I was ;-)

Hello Fletch It is one of Apple's tactics recently to accuse me of being a liar and now it would appear to accuse me of committing fraud. The first time Apple accused me of being a liar was after I posted a number if extracts from Halsbury's Laws of England. Whilst Apple confirmed he/ she had not read Halsbury's, Apple accused me of shoehorning additional information into those extracts. The only basis of that accusation was that the extracts from Halsbury's disproved a number of Apples fanciful ideas. So in Apples mind it must be made up - This was the first unsubstantiated accusation made by Apple about me being a liar. Is It Me? ordered Halsbury's for £29.99 in an attempt to substantiate the accusation made by Apple. To date, no evidence to support Apples accusation has been presented. You may recall that recently Apple challenged the accuracy of an email, I recently posted from the Property Chamber. Again it was implied that the content was not accurate. Again this claim was unsubstantiated and based upon nothing other than it was information Apple was not aware of. Unbeknown to Apple to pre-empt such an accusation, before posting about the email, I took the liberty of sending an unedited copy to a member of the site team. Apple now accuses me of being a liar and by changing the number of applications made, Apple accuses me of committing fraud. Unbeknown to Apple again, the Ministry of Justice maintains a public record of Freedom of Information Act requests it has complied with and it is available to view on its website. Currently the log of completed requests is only up to Dec 2013, no doubt it will shortly be updated to include Jan 2014. At that time, everyone will be able to see on the Ministry of Justice website a copy of the response to my FOI request, confirming that as of the date of that response only 10 applications had been made. I am sure Apple will then apologise for the accusations that I have lied and committed fraud.

The above mentioned report http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc271_land_registration_for_the_twenty-first_century.pdf "7.3 As we have explained in Part IV of this Report, the Bill implements a recommendation in the Consultative Document that it should not be possible to create mortgages by demise or sub-demise in relation to registered land. Under the Bill, a registered proprietor can create a legal mortgage in one of two ways (1) by a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage; or (2) by a charge to secure the payment of money. There will be no practical difference between these two methods any more thanthere is now. This is because, on completion of the relevant registration requirements,a charge has effect “if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage”,with the concomitant powers. Those powers are, of course, those conferred on a legal mortgagee by the Law of Property Act 1925 (unless modified or excluded by the terms of the charge) together with any additional powers that may be conferred by the charge." SUB-CHARGES AND THE POWERS OF THE SUB-CHARGEE 7.11 A sub-mortgage is a mortgage of a mortgage. The effect of Clause 23(2) and (3) of the Bill is that there is only one way in which a registered chargee can create a legal sub-charge, namely the method specified in Clause 23(2)(b).The chargee is thereby empowered “to charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge”. In other words, what is actually charged is the indebtedness secured by the registered charge. This power, which is unique to registered land, is derived from the present provisions of the Land Registration Rules 1925 as to the creation of sub-charges.A sub-chargee can, of course, further sub-charge the indebtedness which its sub-charge secures." The above confirms that the borrower as the registered proprietor of the estate can create a legal mortgage by a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. The above also confirms that the lender as the registered proprietor of the charge of the can create a legal sub-charge This confirms that s.23(1) are the powers of the borrower and s.23(2) are the powers of the lender and that a borrower can grant still grant a mortgage so that is 3 points for the price of one For the avoidance of doubt the registered chargee is the lender