Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Looking at my original post it was too long, so I have broken it in two to make it easier to read -

 

In case it was missed in my previous post, I did not say or imply that any personal information about Is It Me?'s friend should be posted on CAG- only the legal arguments submitted to the Adjudicator -

 

Essentially, all that needs to be confirmed is if Is It Me? followed Apples advice to the letter, or changed it in someway. If the advice was not followed, how was what was submitted different to Apples advice. Again, as Is It Me? has already submitted that information, there is little risk of a breach of confidentiality. This is even more the case as nothing relevant to Is It Me?'s friend need be disclosed on CAG, as any personal information would be completely irrelevant.

 

You have said that you will now not respond to my posts. I am sorry that is how you feel. I appreciate and regret that the truth is not always something that is nice to hear.

 

I would like to wish you all success in your attempts to help your friend and out of respect to you, I will not make any further posts in this thread.

 

I leave with one final thought, who knows more about Property Law ? Apple a faceless poster on an internet forum or the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber ?

 

At least take the time to read the applicable rules http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/contents/made

 

Remember despite everything that Apple has posted, he/she has never been able to post any statutory requirement or case law that expressly states that a mortgage deed that has not been signed by the lender is void - That omission, speaks for itself.

 

All the best

 

Ben (not sure who Simon is)

 

Thank you to those that have clicked on the green reputation as a result of what I have posted in this thread, it is very much appreciated

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

Naughty...Me?... not to my knowledge... but if the Site Team wishes to appear to treat me as some 'ogre' then that is within their power to do so....I would personally not cast any such derogatory aspersion against any site team member at all....

 

How soon we forget that it was Applecart's posts that put an end to the circular contention to do with LBL's - all validated within the law - I was also one of a few to be personally invited by the OFT to attend the Appeal hearing against LBL's and my case documentation and legal findings that were included along with that of a select few others to assist the OFT bring them home to roost.....If I am not mistaken....., I'm sure it is my 'sticky' in regard to LBL's that remains on the CaG.....??

 

To imply that I may be a 'friend' doing no more than advising a Cagger as to what they 'want to hear' is totally unfair.....when there is nothing that I have posted that cannot be verified within the substantiating law as it applies today...to the issue we are dealing with....

 

So, if I say a response is 'ambiguous'... then, I do so..... because the Law contradicts what the 'response' says...a CH1 is not a Deed... mortgages by demise were repealed by the LRA 2002 s.23....a document in the form of a Deed with only the signature of the Borrower does not create a 'legal' charge....a Deed is a 'specialty contract' and as such must be signed by both the Lender and the Borrower..... need I go on and on.....to suggest that a CH1 is to be construed as one and the same document as a Deed.....with the same legal implication is 'ambiguously' implied and stated...

 

I do not have to get into tittle tattle debates about the meaning of words such as 'ambiguity' for example...the poster has already provided the meaning... no need to say anymore about it...

 

I do not see this issue as an idle afternoon chat in the sun... when the safeguarding of someones home is at stake.....

 

I did not look on and accept the actions of LBL's .... thank goodness that I didn't.... because look at that... the franchise in question's licence was revoked....and I would no more sit back idly and watch similar unscrupulous activity going on in the mortgage market and not look to see what can be done to protect consumers.....

 

I could have quite easily dealt with the issue without coming on the CaG to 'share' my 'experience' and 'knowledge' to do with LBL....but I didn't.... I shared the information.....

 

That is exactly what I seek to do with this issue...

 

If this stance is so repugnant that I am to be made out to be some kind of 'ogre'.... then, I was an 'ogre' with LBL too....let the debate continue...

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

.... because the Law contradicts what the 'response' says...a CH1 is not a Deed...

 

Erm I need to correct you here again

 

Remember - "charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage"

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/_media/downloads/forms/CH1.pdf

 

10. The borrower must execute this charge as a deed using the space opposite. If there is more than one borrower, all must execute. Forms of execution are given in Schedule 9 to the Land Registration Rules 2003

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-29

 

A charge may be made in form CH1 in accordance with r.103, LRR 2003. This form is not prescribed and lenders may use charges tailored to their own particular requirements.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/103/made

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

Form of charge of registered estate

 

103. A legal charge of a registered estate may be made in Form CH1.

Edited July 11, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

a document in the form of a Deed with only the signature of the Borrower does not create a 'legal' charge...

 

According to the Property Chamber that incorporates the Adjudicator of the Land Registry

 

 

• Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower.
  
• The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution by the borrower is needed.
  

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ticle/103/made

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

Form of charge of registered estate

 

103. A legal charge of a registered estate may be made in Form CH1.

 

Remember the order from the Property Chamber states -

 

"The LR form CH1 does not require execution by a lender except where a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for."

Edited July 11, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

Hello Is It Me?

 

If I worked either for the lender or their legal side, why would I have spent so much time, correcting the advice given by Apple ?

 

Ben, you have not 'corrected' anything that I have 'said'...you could start by answering....: -

 

What is a 'specialty contract' is... what is it's application in relation to land and what is necessary for such a document to be legally executed?

 

Wouldn't it be better if I worked for the lender or their legal side, to let you go to court with a defense to possession based on Apples misunderstandings rather than the law ?

 

Whether you work for the Lender or whoever is not at issue here... it is that you rely that 'Eagle Star' is as factual to day as it was way back then.......when it is out of date given the changes made to the Law since it was decided...the case relied on the Law at a time when it was more than legal for a Borrower to grant a charge by way of legal mortgage by demise or sub-demise...that right of any borrower has since been repealed by the LRA 2002 s.23, which came into force just after the decision was made.....

 

It is not I that misunderstands the Law Ben, I do however question your ability to do so....

 

If I worked for either a lender or their legal team, I would just sit here quietly and not say a word and let you walk into court with an argument that has absolutely no legal basis. This is not just my opinion, you have to remember it is also the opinion of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber.

 

You could also promote 'Eagle Star' as though it is as gospel today as it was back then couldn't you....being that you are so willing to assist rather than 'sit back', as you say.,....that perhaps you could let us know which part of the LRA 2002 section 23 failed to repeal the Borrowers legal right to grant mortgages by demise/sub-demise?

 

The order you have posted states that the Property Chamber, which incorporates the Adjudicator for the Land Registry considers that -

 

 

 

'No prospect of succeeding'

 

Ben, with respect...we are yet to know what it is that Is It Me put in the application, we need to see how come the response has been made in this way... we cannot run off on a folly all over the entire CaG...Lording a response as being 'gospel' to the Cagger's issue as though it is 'gospel' to any likely application to be made when we don't know the detail....

 

You have to remember, it is the view of the Property Chamber that is important, Apple can say and believe whatever he/she wants. When you go back to Court, you will be asked what was the response from the Adjudicator, not what is the view of Applecart.

 

What??? You forget Ben, in court it is the Lender that has been asked to provide detail for the Judge,....the detail put before the Adjudicator is a separate issue is it not... why are you saying the Judge will ask for it...??

 

Let's be realistic here for a moment, is it even possible that you could have submitted anything that would have any impact upon the findings of the Property Chamber - being

 

• Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower.
  
• The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution by the borrower is needed.
  

Of course not, the Property Chamber has told you that it is a matter of law that the deed does not always have to be signed by the lender.

Since the LRA 2002 section 23 repealed mortgages by demise, both your relied upon decision in 'Eagle Star' and mortgages evidenced as mortgages by demise or sub-demise by virtue of section 53 (1) © are illegal.... so, where do you go from here Ben.....??

The Property Chamber has also told you that as it is the borrower that creates the charge, generally only the borrower needs to sign it.

 

Wrong..... not since LRA 2002 has this been correct I'm afraid...

 

I have gone to great lengths to explain in detail why this is the case in my previous posts (obligations etc)

 

The reason the information that I have posted, is so similar (as you and apple both say almost it is almost word for word) to the order of the Property Chamber, is because my posts have been based upon the law, as the order from the Property Chamber would have been and not Apples incorrect interpretations of the law. I take it as a compliment that you consider my posts to be on par to the Property Chamber's findings.

 

When you answer the question posted above as to what a 'speciality deed' is... when you advise your interpretation of LRA s 23 etc etc.... then and only then would I if I were you.... take any such compliment... because right now, given the substantiating Law.... there is nothing for you to compliment yourself about.....(no offence)

 

Apple

[applecart]

Erm I need to correct you here again

 

Remember - "charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage"

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/_media/downloads/forms/CH1.pdf

 

10. The borrower must execute this charge as a deed using the space opposite. If there is more than one borrower, all must execute. Forms of execution are given in Schedule 9 to the Land Registration Rules 2003

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-29

 

A charge may be made in form CH1 in accordance with r.103, LRR 2003. This form is not prescribed and lenders may use charges tailored to their own particular requirements.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/103/made

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

Form of charge of registered estate

 

103. A legal charge of a registered estate may be made in Form CH1.

 

eeerm, let me correct you.......http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-30

 

"This guide deals with the approval of standard forms of legal charge and deeds of variation/priority/ postponement for use by lending institutions. It applies only to deeds that will be registered or noted under the Land Registration Act 2002. This guide is aimed at lending institutions and you should interpret references to ‘you’ accordingly. Land Registry staff will also refer to it."

 

"You may apply in an approved charge for notice of an obligation to make further advances to be entered in the register. Unapproved charges not in form CH1 must be accompanied by a form CH2".

 

"Land Registry Head Office will give each approved form of charge a unique reference beginning with the letters ‘MD’. This reference allows staff at Land Registry offices to access details of the document on a computer database."

 

"To qualify for approval, a charge must contain or provide for (as the case may be):

 

• a date
  
• the names and addresses of the borrower(s)
  
• the name and address of the lender, including its company registration number, if any
  
• a description of the property being mortgaged, including its title number
  
• a valid charging clause
  
• a valid execution clause with provision for attestation."
  

 

Lender are using their own 'approved' form of charge.... the Deeds that are not complying with the LAW at LPA 1925 s.52

[sequenci]

Afternoon both.

 

Will you keep it down? I'm trying to watch the Cricket

[applecart]

According to the Property Chamber that incorporates the Adjudicator of the Land Registry

 

 

• Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower.
  
• The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution by the borrower is needed.
  

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ticle/103/made

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

Form of charge of registered estate

 

103. A legal charge of a registered estate may be made in Form CH1.

 

Remember the order from the Property Chamber states -

 

"The LR form CH1 does not require execution by a lender except where a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for."

 

It is clear that Lenders and HMLR have side stepped this regulation by using the deed as 'approved' by HMLR Ben... so, your point is???

 

Apple

[applecart]

Afternoon both.

 

Will you keep it down? I'm trying to watch the Cricket

 

Is it really that loud..... sorry, I'll try to keep it down a bit : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Oh, and this in answer to HMLR answering the question as to whether there is an 'approved form of charge is stated as:

 

"At present, charges, unlike transfers, do not have a mandatory form. Lenders may use form CH1 (see Appendix A) if they wish."

 

So, again Ben, I ask you what is your point please???

 

Apple

[bhall]

Lol I thought my point was obvious.

 

I will make it again, just to make it clear.

 

As confirmed by the Property Chamber which incorporates the Adjudicator of the Land Registry, you have misunderstood the law. You reasoning is flawed and has no legal basis except that of your own misunderstanding and interpretation.

 

You are blinded to the obvious realisation that you have this wrong. This reminds me of watching the Apprentice last night, that guy was so sure about his business plan that he refused to even consider that he was wrong, even when people that knew told him.

 

Sounds very familiar to this thread ;-)

[bhall]

Afternoon both.

 

Will you keep it down? I'm trying to watch the Cricket

 

Lol, will do Sequenci. I have a headache from banging my head against the brick wall that is Apples ego anyway.

 

I guess even if you show someone a plank, they still can't see the wood for the trees. Apple remember the property chamber has said that you are wrong. Time to accept it.

 

I need say no more

[applecart]

Lol I thought my point was obvious.

 

I will make it again, just to make it clear.

 

As confirmed by the Property Chamber which incorporates the Adjudicator of the Land Registry, you have misunderstood the law. You reasoning is flawed and has no legal basis except that of your own misunderstanding and interpretation.

 

You are blinded to the obvious realisation that you have this wrong. This reminds me of watching the Apprentice last night, that guy was so sure about his business plan that he refused to even consider that he was wrong, even when people that knew told him.

 

Sounds very familiar to this thread ;-)

 

Yes, I watched it....rather reminded me of you in fact....not me... unlike you, I substantiate my posts... and I also answer questions put to me....unlike you,

 

The chap you refer to was called 'Jordan' he struggled to answer too..... we all know what happened to 'Jordan' don't we????

 

Ben... like Jordan... your fired..... LOL

 

Apple

 

Apple

[applecart]

You points need re-establishing Ben.... there is substantiating Law that contradicts all that you say and rely upon within your posts so far....you are not 'banging your head' Ben.....rather sticking it in the sand...You must appreciate that until you re-establish your points made.... getting red faced and trying to save face by saying things like 'lol...I thought my point was obvious'... does not answer any of the questions put to you....

 

You have an opportunity (unlike Jordan) to save face here Ben.. why not do so by answering the questions?

 

Oh, and stop referring to the response from the Property Chamber when you do, for the direct questions put to you have not been put to them.....

 

Apple

[citizenB]

If ISITME wants to email the documents to me, then they can be depersonalised and posted on the thread.

 

I will private message a secure email address.

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me,

 

It is clear that the response you received has not come from a Judge at the Property Chamber at all.....

 

If it helps and adds to your knowledge - this is the stage you are at with your application:

 

The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 - Rule 5

 

“Delegation to staff

 

5.—(1) Staff appointed under section 40(1) of the 2007 Act (tribunal staff and services) may, with the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals, carry out functions of a judicial nature permitted or required to be done by the Tribunal.

 

(2) The approval referred to at paragraph (1) may apply generally to the carrying out of specified functions by members of staff of a specified description in specified circumstances.

 

(3) Within 14 days after the date that the Tribunal sends notice of a decision made by a member of staff pursuant to an approval under paragraph (1) to a party, that party may apply in writing to the Tribunal for that decision to be considered afresh by a judge”.

 

Those 14 days are closing in....

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you apple,

I think you have said it all, I note that like another person who was on here saying you can't do this and you can't do that some time ago but we did and put a stop to LBL.

 

I will post the email to the site team later and if you would be so kind as to help in this then please do so.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Apple and caro,

I have spoken to my friend and as time is getting on they say to just put it up with out their names and details which I shall now do, I like apple can not for the life of me see

a how this can just be thrown out

b not even asking any questions.

so here goesApplication to rectification

art 1 to 2 is there details.

Part 3:

Details of Persons whom order sought;

HMLR office address

Part4:

Details of Application;

That the deed so registered is void and is an erroneous deed as it does not comply with the LR Act

grounds on which is based Garguib v Gershinson (2012)

Hilmi & ass Ltd v Pembridge Villias (2010)

Bibby financial services Ltd v Magson (2011)

Part 5

Copy of the Mortgage Deed.

Then was asked to supply better details which when apple's document was then given I used the

grounds on which application is based

Adjudicators Jurisdiction

Establishing the legal grounds for altering the register.

I then used the Legal cases from apples document.

I fully believe that this is another one of the oh please do make us do any thing cases and I give notice now This is not going away and after seeing what these people are like.

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you CB for the email but why am I now banned?

What have I done against the rules?

[honeybee13]

Thank you CB for the email but why am I now banned?

What have I done against the rules?

 

Hello Is it Me. What makes you think you're banned please? If you can post, you can't be.

 

My best, HB

[applecart]

Thank you apple,

I think you have said it all, I note that like another person who was on here saying you can't do this and you can't do that some time ago but we did and put a stop to LBL.

 

I will post the email to the site team later and if you would be so kind as to help in this then please do so.

 

It is imperative that you do submit the application itself containing the detail you speak of in your other post - and I will also need to see all the detail from the response.

 

I'm hopeful that you will appreciate that I cannot begin to add to your knowledge if I am expected to respond in the 'dark' so's to speak....

 

I'm pleased your friend has agreed to allow us to look at the detail from both sides - Thank you : )

 

Get the info on asap...because I will need time this end to spend a wee bit of time considering the implications from both sides of the fence as cautioned to do so by other Caggers...ok?

 

Cheers in advance

 

Apple

[citizenB]

Thank you CB for the email but why am I now banned?

What have I done against the rules?

 

Eh.. how are you banned ?

 

ISITME.. please read your private message..

Edited July 12, 2013 by citizenB

[citizenB]

Isitme,

 

I think there has been a serious misunderstanding of what I said. I have emailed and private messaged to put the record straight.

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry it was in the email but if not no worries

[IS IT ME?]

Hi apple will do later tonight