bhall why didn't the Chamber offer same advice in response to my own application? wouldn't they have a duty to advise me if this remains the case - as they did for Is It Me? or do you think they are just going to assume everyone knows that now because 70,000 people have viewed this thread?

I dont want to be rude either bhall, but i trust the people on here, too.

There is a possibility the estate may be sold privately before a tribunal hearing or a respondent's reply. This has been a long time coming and has nowt to do with any dispute. Life must go on... so to speak...

I have received a second notice from the lender's solicitor stating they are deducting and undisclosed sum to pay legal costs for their defense from the sale of my estate which will occur before the Tribunal. Charges have been made before they have even responded to the application, let alone attended a Tribunal. They have reeled off terms from the deed - referring to it as a "contract" and are refusing to disclose or itemize any amounts. My reply (in brief): 1. All applications for costs in relation to Tribunal hearing are to be made under jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 and administered by the Tribunal Committee with disposal of the case. 2. The form of charge they have presented as a deed does meet the requirements of LRA2002 Section 91 1, 2(a), 3(b), 3©, 4(b) or 5 and cannot be relied upon. 3. The form of charge's terms and conditions were agreed a priori under terms of a mortgage contract which did not meet the requirements of LPMPA1989 section 2 and can not be relied upon. 4. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 overrides those of a deed that is non-compliant with UK law. Is this a fair and reasonable retort? Amendments? Additions?

Thank you.

My understanding of this is quite limited at present but is it possible there has been no enforcement simply because no one other than the lender understood how it worked, or that both the borrower and the lender were selling a full title not a beneficial interest. Look at the news: new disclosures are being made all the time. Things that previously went unnoticed are now surfacing. The sub-prime lender has been masquerading a legal interest as a "charge by way of legal mortgage" to serve as a distraction when really it owned the whole property (full title) and sold (securitized) on the whole property (with full title). Applecart? Is It Me? Please can you correct, amend or elaborate these statements.

I am inclined to agree with bhall on this point.

After bhalls attempts to debunk assertions made regarding Full Title Guarantee I have been reading further. Full Title Guarantee is one of the two key phrases used to imply covenants for title under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 in an “instrument effecting or purporting to effect a disposition of property” (section 1(1)). The other key phrase is limited title guarantee. Full title guarantee implies that: The disposing party has the right to dispose of the property (section 2(1)(a)). The disposing party will do all it reasonably can to give the title it purports to give, at its own cost (section 2(1)(b) and (2)). If the property being disposed of is registered, there is a presumption that the whole of the property in the registered title is being disposed of (section 2(3)). It does in fact (and in law) appear that we the borrowers really have been unwittingly disposing of the whole of our (registered) properties to lenders...

bhall do you have an opinion on this?

...but that's not the case... no one would unconditionally charge their property... they do so only to obtain credit... there's something in it for both parties... it's part of an agreement... a "mortgage agreement"... its nothing more than a play on words (not yours I realise...) to suggest that the mortgage deed is a "separate document". The terms are conditions are defined under contract... under agreement... by the "agreement"... Worth mentioning: I have a unilateral loan "agreement" signed only by me which defines the actual terms and conditions to be used in the deed... There is no "bilateral" element to my "agreement" with the lender at all. What terms and conditions do they rely on? What terms and conditions can be enforced if a judge says "yes, its a deed"...?

A mortgage deed is a bilateral agreement isnt it? a security in exchange for a loan? am i grossly misunderstanding this?

Its a bilateral agreement isnt it? a security in exchange for a loan? am i grossly misunderstanding this?

A "mortgage deed" and a "charge" are used interchangeably at LR offices. Same document.

1. Does the mortgage agreement to which you refer need to be signed by the lender for their legal costs (or any costs) to be enforceable? 2. When you say agreement is that a bilateral agreement, or a unilateral agreement? 2. Is this the same mortgage agreement that identified the terms and conditions of the deed?

bhall can you also elaborate further on the issue you raised of deeds with lender obligations not being signed by the lender. You previously said that if a lender has obligations but has not signed the deed a judge may simply strike off the obligations if they have not been called upon at the time of a dispute. i.e. obligations to make further advances not made may be erased from the deed? Am I quoting you correctly. Do you still agree that a judge can simply remove terms and conditions from a deed and doesnt this contradict what you said about obligations needing a signature?

I think we are getting to the core of the issue now... however, a mortgage is a bilateral agreement. By signing a mortgage deed I say "I grant you this security in return for the advance". I'm not just saying "I grant you this security". A deed does not exist in isolation - it terms (in my own case) are contractual in their nature insofar that they are defined and agreed in the mortgage offer which appears on its face to be a contract. The charge is granted under contract. If you do not agree can you refer to law that states it is unilateral?

bhall is presenting lots of confusing information that appears relevant but when I have tried to further or elaborate any thread of discussion it trails off to nothing... He is also presenting lots of contradictory information...

...full title guarantee?

You are doing it again... What was actually said was that this information would be considered in conjunction with other actions... What do you hope to gain?

...which you have summarised in your prior assessments of unilateral vs bilateral deeds. Please may I ask: why do you persist in your attempts to confuse subscribers to this thread? What do you hope to gain?

Point I think we all agree on is that nothing less than an director's statement will do as a fair point to raise with the judge. In response to your initial reply, we didn't address the technical issues raised above...

thank you much appreciated.

p.j you are probably best qualified to address this if that is acceptable to you. Are you able to share a summary of your document inventory. Do you have a mortgage offer/contract/agreement/signed/deed/signed etc.etc Do you have evidence of sale of an "equitable interest" in the estate? What form? This is soley to further my own understanding...

yes thats the same point i was raising can you appeal that the appropriate person is ordered to attend court and represent?

To further my own understanding - is the lender relying in this case on owning an equitable interest, or only selling an equitable interest? If its the former then what happened to the charge by way of legal mortgage and what documents does it have/have not to support an equitable mortgage and not a full legal one? If the latter (i.e. selling) then any sale of an equitable interest contradicts evidence from mortgage sale agreements I have read which sell interest with full title guarantee. I've only seen a handful but I'm sure there must be an industry standard format for these mortgage sale agreements. Can an interest in a disposition be both (only) equitable and made with a full title guarantee? I don't fully understand this but the two don't seem to pair well... Does this make any sense? Am I raising a valid question? No offence taken if not...