why are we not being given PM facilities if they are available? i asked this before and was given a very distracting and confusing answer...

I too have a hearing scheduled for December/January. Date TBC.

Unless my name birth name is UNRAM (pretty as it might be its not) then that's what this is and that not topic of discussion which is private messaging on public forums.

What does this mean please?

hello CAG whats the policy regarding allowing people to share information privately. is CAG against this?

Im happy to set up a google docs or similar facility and we can share the passcode through CAG if document sharing is going to become an obstacle...

http://lawcommission.justice.gov .uk/...nsultation.pdf What is required for delivery? 6.2 Originally, delivery was the physical act of handing the deed over to the other party, or instructing him to take it up, but the matter is now essentially a question of the intention of the maker of the deed. A deed is delivered in law “as soon as there are acts or words sufficient to [show] that it is intended by the party to be executed as his deed presently binding on him”, and even though that party retains possession of the document.1 It does not matter whether this intention is actually communicated to the other party, so long as it is shown by some sufficient act or words. The mortgage deed I signed only says "signed as a deed" not "executed as a deed"... I've checked T&C's... Nothing anywhere about intention to execute a deed.

The Law Commissions Consultation Paper on the Execution of Deeds and Documents by or on behalf of Bodies Corporate, Consultation Paper 143 (1996) http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/...nsultation.pdf 2.2 The law of England and Wales makes an important distinction between instruments which are executed in “solemn form” as deeds, and other instruments which are generally referred to as being in “simple form” under hand.1 Where the instrument is a contract, this is recognised by the distinction made between a contract executed as a deed, which is a specialty, and an instrument under hand, which is a simple contract. 2.5 It will be seen that at common law, all deeds were documents under seal.6 Hence contracts executed in solemn form were and are still commonly referred to as “contracts under seal”. 11.6 [section omitted] A deed is an instrument in solemn form. Such an instrument (or, depending on how the term “specialty” is used, any obligation contained in it) is a specialty because it is in solemn form.[section omitted] A contract which is executed by an individual as a deed (that is by attested signature), and which makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed, will therefore be both a deed and a specialty.

Are there any other court cases to reinforce the principle? Surely this issue came up before 2010?

What is your source for information this please?

If determination is made in the lender's favour what is the evidence that a deed is a "specialty contract" requiring a signature? What exactly does solemn form mean?

How can a lender say they relied on the borrower having the statutory power? If its not the case then surely that was their mistake? Don't they have a responsibility to understand the law in force at the time? What's their actual defense here?

not a dig...more of a poke... couldn't resist... i have looked at the document it looks sound... i will read and re-read over the weekend...

Certainly. I believe that the cocument may have been incorrectly labelled.

I anticipate that there will be scope for individual appeals if there are any conflicts arising from grouping cases together. As you have said before the borrower can't be 'wrong' if we are merely standing by the legislators intent. For the benefit of other readers here is the "missing link"... The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 Requirements directed to the registrar 40. (1) The Tribunal must send written notice to the registrar of any direction which requires the registrar to take action. (2) Where the Tribunal has made a decision, that decision may include a direction to the registrar to— (a) give effect to the original application in whole or in part as if the objection to that original application had not been made; or (b) cancel the original application in whole or in part. (3) A direction to the registrar under paragraph (2) must be in writing, must be sent or delivered to the registrar and may include— (a) a condition that a specified entry be made on the register of any title affected; or (b)a direction to reject any future application of a specified kind by a named party to the proceedings— (i)unconditionally; or (ii)unless that party satisfies specified conditions.

If the Property Chamber intends to determine this as a class action in December or January would there be any merit in creating a shorter application that references the statute without the full legal background? It is clear this is already recognized and established for judges to be accepting applications. If the Property Chamber intend to make a determination based on principle can some details be omitted? e.g. securitisation questions. The level of detail and understanding required of the application may be a barrier to many. The PC are obviously going to recognize and group new applications as they arrive. The initial applications 'opened the door' - can we now make it any easier for others to walk through?

I've just caught up we have already discussed this and from that discussion I made a request for an amendment for which I have a receipt from the PC. I made telephone inquiries regarding amendments and they advised to email them with assurance that amendments would be considered by their legal team. My email is as follows (after removal of personal info). It looks as though they may have overlooked the amendment or that processing the document did not catch up. Either way I will email them again and notify them of the apparent discrepancy (for which I will receive another receipt). This amendment includes the omissions from my original application. To whom it may concern, I called today to discuss making amendment to my recent application regarding property title [title number removed] submitted 03/09/2013 and acknowledged by [name removed]. Today I spoke with [name removed] by telephone who advised I submit a written request for your consideration.I request an amendment to the original Remedy as I was not aware at the time of submitting the application that it was within the Chamber's jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 1 (b) of Schedule 8 LRA 2002 to indemnify for loss by reason of a mistake whose correction would involve rectification of the register. In light of this I wish to amend my original remedy to: "i. To set aside NRAM's purported mortgage deed as used to grant and register a charge on the property pursuant to section 108 (2) LRA 2002 ii. Order the removal of the charge created in (i) from the property title register . The applicant also seeks remedy by way of an order within the provisions of the Chamber's jurisdiction pursuant to section 108 (2)(a) LRA 2002 and to paragraph 5 (a) of Schedule 4 to the LRA 2002 subject to the application satisfying the additional requirements set out in paragraph 6 (2) of schedule 4 to the LRA 2002 for indemnity and consequential damages for all money claimed by the respondent to which it was not entitled by law from the date of the first mortgage payment up to and any including proceeds from sale of the property if a sale should precede the Tribunal's determination and disposal of the case. Due to the extended period of time it has taken the applicant to find a suitable purchaser it is requested that no action is taken (or permitted by the respondent) that may obstruct normal conveyancing of the property and which may cause detriment to the applicant, and it is requested that any sale is enabled to proceed normally and indemnity be applied retrospectively if a determination is made in favor of the applicant and the Chamber deems it appropriate". Yours sincerely, UNRAM

This reference is derived from your draft presentation - "To amend the stated jurisdiction of the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber from ‘alter’ to ‘set aside the deed’ pursuant to section 108 (2) LRA 2002; and to state the jurisdiction in this application with regard to an Order that HMLR rectify the register as being the body liable to ‘alter’ the register within the provisions of paragraph 5(a) of schedule 4 to the LRA 2002 subject to the application satisfying the additional requirements set out in paragraph 6 (2) of schedule 4 to the LRA 2002". Is my omission likely to affect the applications ability to achieve my goal if I do not submit an amendment? For clarity here are the relevant sections... LRA 2002 108 Jurisdiction (2)Also, the adjudicator may, on application, make any order which the High Court could make for the rectification or setting aside of a document which— (a) effects a qualifying disposition of a registered estate or charge, (b) is a contract to make such a disposition, or © effects a transfer of an interest which is the subject of a notice in the register. Land Registration Act 2002 SCHEDULE 4 Section 5 Alteration otherwise than pursuant to a court order 5 The registrar may alter the register for the purpose of— (a) correcting a mistake, (b) bringing the register up to date, © giving effect to any estate, right or interest excepted from the effect of registration, or (d) removing a superfluous entry. Land Registration Act 2002 SCHEDULE 4 Section 6.2 6(1) This paragraph applies to the power under paragraph 5, so far as relating to rectification. (2) No alteration affecting the title of the proprietor of a registered estate in land may be made under paragraph 5 without the proprietor’s consent in relation to land in his possession unless— (a) he has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or (b) it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made. Do I need to make these references explicit in my application in order to proceed? As stated they will accept amendments via email.

What is the significance of this please? "The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register".

I have received notice from the Property Chamber my application is going forward and I have been ORDERED to send a copy of the application and all supporting documentation to the lender. The lender is ORDERED to respond within one calendar month. I will scan the documents if there is some way of getting them to you. They have indicated that there is going to be a group tribunal in London in November or December. This is exact wording of the reply... "The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

I didnt intend this as a joke. This really does seem to be the case. But I'm glad it was taken in good humour...

My lender died in 2008 and appears to have come back as some kind of zombie...

I have submitted an application to the Property Chamber based on RRO and LRA2002 23 and a case has been opened based on this information. I have already included a reference to this issue though I am happy to wait for the respondent's reply before adding any detail to my original application. This also offers more time to explore relevant law and case history, and discuss the repercussions and possible lines of defence from the lender ahead of their response. Some case law has already been posted to this thread that I have yet to digest so I personally have not reached any forgone conclusions yet...

...and to agree the terms and conditions of the deed 'under contract'.

The whole topic is quite mind-bending.