Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

 

You are welcome : )

 

I am not sure, why you are asking the question....I could put two and two together - but.... I prefer that you tell me why you ask this question? and, if there was such a 'format' etc.... what purpose do you think it will serve???

 

Your reply will assist me direct the response on point.....

 

Apple

 

For 6 months NRAM have been refusing to disclose whether my mortgage was securitised. I need to know where to start looking to see for myself but I am having difficulties getting started and hoping there is some industry standard document I may refer to. However I will also be grateful for any assistance in discovering these facts...

[applecart]

For 6 months NRAM have been refusing to disclose whether my mortgage was securitised. I need to know where to start looking to see for myself but I am having difficulties getting started and hoping there is some industry standard document I may refer to. However I will also be grateful for any assistance in discovering these facts...

 

Gotcha... : )

 

Pleases tell me, what month of which year was your mortgage taken out?

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Gotcha... : )

 

Pleases tell me, what month of which year was your mortgage taken out?

 

Apple

 

March 2007. Thank you.

[IS IT ME?]

Apple just on a train but have heard that he has papers back from property chamber which gives him a hearing so. Please Ben tell me where and what apple has no done right

I have said before you are full of it so please don't waste people's time and hopes as this is going in the right direction and this only confirms it

Will amend letter to the points you raised

Thanks once again

[TimetogoRAM]

I have been reading this thread with interest for the past week & I think I'm just about grasping this. First of all, as this is IS IT Me's thread, I wish him all the best in retaining his property and his fight against his lenders.

I have requested my mortgage deed and recently received this. The following information is seen -

 

Top of page certified stamp from solicitor 'we certify this document is a true copy of the original'

Lender and 'mortgage deed' in top right hand corner

Date: xxxx

YOU (the borrower): xxxxxx

WE (the lender): lender's details

The mortgage conditions: lender conditions 2001 (filed at HM Land Registry under ref: MDxxxx/xx)

The property: xxxxxxxxx

The title: xxxxxx

1. The mortgage conditions apply to this mortgage. You confirm that you have received a copy of the mortgage conditions and you agree to them.

2. You charge the property by way of legal mortgage with payment of all the money you have to pay us under the mortgage conditions. The mortgage is made with full guarantee.

3. We are obliged to make further advances on the conditions agreed between you and us. We apply to the Chief Land Registrar to enter a note on the register to that effect.

4 you hereby apply to the Chief Land Registrar for the registration against the registered title to the property of restriction in terms that (except under an order of the Registrar) no transfer or lease by the proprietor for the time being of this mortgage.

SIGNED AS A DEED by you in the presence of a witness(each signature should be separately witnessed but not by another borrower)

Borrower signature Witness

Xxxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxx

Form of charge filed at HM Land Registry under reference MDxxxx

 

1. Do I actually need to get hold of the original?

2. Is this my mortgage deed or do I need to get hold of anything else as it appears very poor and unprofessional!

3. There is absolutely no area or space on this document which can be signed by a lender and therefore executed. Is this usual?

4. part 2 states as above. Please clarify difference between 'charge the property by way of legal mortgage' and what Im led to believe is the correct and 'legal' wording -'mortgage by way of legal charge.' Is it simply the way this is worded which makes this a mortgage by demise? (Apart from the obvious absence of the lenders signature and the fact that my mortgage has obviously been sold on..)

4. UNRAM has asked the above question with regards to info on where you can find info as to if the mortgage has been securitised and who now owns this. I would also like to ask this question too....?

Any help would be most appreciated..... Thanks

[IS IT ME?]

You can get a copy from the land reg

To find out if yours has been sold on I would need to know who the lender is and if there is any court action going on

[TimetogoRAM]

My previous post is basically what I received from HMLR at a cost of £11. Ridiculous price for a copy of useless information in my opinion. Although it does tell me my deed number and the lack of lender signature. - no court action and nram.

[bhall]

Apple just on a train but have heard that he has papers back from property chamber which gives him a hearing so. Please Ben tell me where and what apple has no done right I have said before you are full of it so please don't waste people's time and hopes as this is going in the right direction and this only confirms it

Will amend letter to the points you raised

Thanks once again

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

I hope you are well

 

I think I have been as clear as I can be in relation to where Apples arguments are flawed. I am sure you don't really want me to go through each one again.

 

Whilst I do wish your friend the best of luck, in terms of the readers of this thread and others apart from your friend that may be considering following Apple's advice, as a hearing has been granted (which will be a matter of public record and freely available to everyone as per the previously posted hearings of the former Land Registry Adjudicator) - The hearing will at the very least clarify which arguments made in this thread are based in law and which arguments are shall we say 'imaginative'.

 

I just hope that your friend, doesn't lose his home by following the advice given in this thread by Apple, rather than the sound, tried and tested advice found in the Home Repossessions forum, or more importantly in the Home Repossession Success forum that is provided by members of the CAG site team.

 

Neither myself or Apple have anything to personally lose by our contributions to your thread (maybe one might get a bruised ego). However, I do find it strange that whilst Apple has directed your friend on a certain course of action, if Apple was so sure of the arguments he/she has posted, why Apple has not challenged his/her own deed, by submitting an application such as the one, Apple has recommended that your friend submit- I am sure there is a reason for that - I am sure Apple does not intend to use your friend as a guinea pig for Apple's theories, with no risk at all for Apple, if those theories are proven at the hearing to be flawed.

 

I would like to say that I am personally very glad that your friend has been granted a hearing and hope that your friend gets the outcome he needs. Either way, it will being a conclusion to the discussions on this topic.

 

Best Regards

 

Ben

Edited August 13, 2013 by bhall

[IS IT ME?]

Yes just what you did not want to happen and as you have as I have always stated here never given any help what so ever and I fully believe work for the lenders

And I ask here what advice do you give from stopping some one loading there home and again you say nothing

You can tell your bosses this is one they are not going to win and what would happen when they lose

[bhall]

Yes just what you did not want to happen and as you have as I have always stated here never given any help what so ever and I fully believe work for the lenders

And I ask here what advice do you give from stopping some one loading there home and again you say nothing

You can tell your bosses this is one they are not going to win and what would happen when they lose

 

If I worked for the lender or any other party that had an interest in line with that of the lenders, why would I suggest contacting the site team or following tried and tested advice,

 

If I worked for the lender, I would encourage you to follow Apples imaginative, untried and untested advice as it is by far the riskier option for your friend.

To be clear, I do not work for any mortgage provider or any other financial institution.

 

 

However, the hearing will resolve the discussions and arguments within this thread one way of the other.

 

If it turns out, through the course of the hearing that Apples arguments are flawed, will you still think that I work for the lender ? Even if it is shown the information contained in my posts was correct ?

 

Remember, both you and Apple have both joked previously that the initial response from the Property Chamber was identical to the information, I had posted. - You may find that may happen again.

 

Again, I wish your friend the best and hope he does not pay the price for testing Apples theories. I will monitor the relevant sources for the outcome of the hearing, with the hope that your friend succeeds.

 

Ben

Edited August 13, 2013 by bhall

[IS IT ME?]

But as usael you say apple is wrong but what if he or she is right what then

Do you think for one minute you or I could waste the courts and chambers time no one from the site team has as far as I can see posted any thing on here

Why is that

Please do not waste any more of my or your time

[caro]

Yes just what you did not want to happen and as you have as I have always stated here never given any help what so ever and I fully believe work for the lenders

And I ask here what advice do you give from stopping some one loading there home and again you say nothing

You can tell your bosses this is one they are not going to win and what would happen when they lose

 

I really don't understand why you think bhall works for any lenders Is It Me. I have seen a great deal of good advice from him on this thread, and good counter arguments for you to consider ahead if any hearing. As an example, bhall draws your attention in the post below to the tried and tested methods used on CAG to save people's homes. There's a great deal of very useful information there if you care to take the time to look.

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

I hope you are well

 

I think I have been as clear as I can be in relation to where Apples arguments are flawed. I am sure you don't really want me to go through each one again.

 

Whilst I do wish your friend the best of luck, in terms of the readers of this thread and others apart from your friend that may be considering following Apple's advice, as a hearing has been granted (which will be a matter of public record and freely available to everyone as per the previously posted hearings of the former Land Registry Adjudicator) - The hearing will at the very least clarify which arguments made in this thread are based in law and which arguments are shall we say 'imaginative'.

 

I just hope that your friend, doesn't lose his home by following the advice given in this thread by Apple, rather than the sound, tried and tested advice found in the Home Repossessions forum, or more importantly in the Home Repossession Success forum that is provided by members of the CAG site team.

 

Neither myself or Apple have anything to personally lose by our contributions to your thread (maybe one might get a bruised ego). However, I do find it strange that whilst Apple has directed your friend on a certain course of action, if Apple was so sure of the arguments he/she has posted, why Apple has not challenged his/her own deed, by submitting an application such as the one, Apple has recommended that your friend submit- I am sure there is a reason for that - I am sure Apple does not intend to use your friend as a guinea pig for Apple's theories, with no risk at all for Apple, if those theories are proven at the hearing to be flawed.

 

I would like to say that I am personally very glad that your friend has been granted a hearing and hope that your friend gets the outcome he needs. Either way, it will being a conclusion to the discussions on this topic.

 

Best Regards

 

Ben

[applecart]

March 2007. Thank you.

 

Hi Ya

 

Thanks for this... I will see what I can find...

 

A few posts back, I flagged up a link to securitisation documentation to do with Northern Rock that led to a link to Virgin Money....The Mortgage Sale Agreement therein confirmed that all the MD No's are contained on a CD Rom...You could start by contacting 'Clifford Chance' I think....and ask them to send you a copy....??

 

Just a thought....What do you think?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple just on a train but have heard that he has papers back from property chamber which gives him a hearing so. Please Ben tell me where and what apple has no done right

I have said before you are full of it so please don't waste people's time and hopes as this is going in the right direction and this only confirms it

Will amend letter to the points you raised

Thanks once again

 

That's fantastic news!!!!!!

 

WELL DONE YOU!!!!!!!

 

When you have viewed the papers....let me know if there is anything we need to address...it may contain 'directions' that we need to adhere to in preparation for the hearing..

 

Speak soon : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I have been reading this thread with interest for the past week & I think I'm just about grasping this. First of all, as this is IS IT Me's thread, I wish him all the best in retaining his property and his fight against his lenders.

I have requested my mortgage deed and recently received this. The following information is seen -

 

Top of page certified stamp from solicitor 'we certify this document is a true copy of the original'

Lender and 'mortgage deed' in top right hand corner

Date: xxxx

YOU (the borrower): xxxxxx

WE (the lender): lender's details

The mortgage conditions: lender conditions 2001 (filed at HM Land Registry under ref: MDxxxx/xx)

The property: xxxxxxxxx

The title: xxxxxx

1. The mortgage conditions apply to this mortgage. You confirm that you have received a copy of the mortgage conditions and you agree to them.

2. You charge the property by way of legal mortgage with payment of all the money you have to pay us under the mortgage conditions. The mortgage is made with full guarantee.

3. We are obliged to make further advances on the conditions agreed between you and us. We apply to the Chief Land Registrar to enter a note on the register to that effect.

4 you hereby apply to the Chief Land Registrar for the registration against the registered title to the property of restriction in terms that (except under an order of the Registrar) no transfer or lease by the proprietor for the time being of this mortgage.

SIGNED AS A DEED by you in the presence of a witness(each signature should be separately witnessed but not by another borrower)

Borrower signature Witness

Xxxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxx

Form of charge filed at HM Land Registry under reference MDxxxx

 

1. Do I actually need to get hold of the original?

2. Is this my mortgage deed or do I need to get hold of anything else as it appears very poor and unprofessional!

3. There is absolutely no area or space on this document which can be signed by a lender and therefore executed. Is this usual?

4. part 2 states as above. Please clarify difference between 'charge the property by way of legal mortgage' and what Im led to believe is the correct and 'legal' wording -'mortgage by way of legal charge.' Is it simply the way this is worded which makes this a mortgage by demise? (Apart from the obvious absence of the lenders signature and the fact that my mortgage has obviously been sold on..)

4. UNRAM has asked the above question with regards to info on where you can find info as to if the mortgage has been securitised and who now owns this. I would also like to ask this question too....?

Any help would be most appreciated..... Thanks

 

Hi and Welcome : )

 

I agree with you that your deed is poorly written, however, the key words in evidence suggest that your lender purports to be in possession of your property (‘legal estate’) to secure repayment of the whole loan/debt....by use of the words: “full guarantee”, and “by way of legal mortgage”.....The fact that it has not been executed by the lender falls within the assertions made in this thread, which is to say that the Disposition (the instrument used being the deed) is VOID....no lender execution...no disposition....due to be set aside....

 

I noticed that your deed makes reference to ‘mortgage conditions’ in 2001....when did you take out the loan?...

 

The reason I ask is because.....the words ‘full guarantee’ and ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ were for all intent and purpose ‘valid charging clauses’ within the statutory provisions of the LRA 1925 ....this statute was the applicable law before the LRA 2002 came into being....but do not fear....it has never been ‘valid’ for a lender not to execute a deed.....(a deed is a speciality contract...for its validity it must be signed by the Borrower and executed by the Lender)....In fact it is the LP(MP)Act 1989 that abolished any reliance on what is said to be ‘part performance’ (i.e sight of a borrowers signature alone).....so, again, you should be ok to rely on most of what is posted in this thread....

 

So far, I believe there are Mortgage Securitisation documents floating about the threads for lenders such as:

 

Accord, SPML and NRAM....all of which can be found to have securitised the mortgages...all of whom have not executed the deed......is your lender any one of these??

 

Who ‘owns’ the mortgage is a question on the lips of many borrowers...what I have tried to do is suggest that Borrowers concentrate their focus on the deed...on the basis that if the deed is set aside...the intent of the legislator as far as I can tell...given the amendments to statute...... is that whomsoever ‘owns’ the mortgage will be left with nothing.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can I just say....

 

The posts on this thread do not look to undermine the excellent work and dedication carried out by site team members or anyone else who seeks to assist Caggers negotiate payment terms to stave off claims for possession....

 

This thread at no time seeks to rely on negotiating payment terms....this thread deals specifically and purposely with the invalidity or validity of a mortgage deed......and yes, we know it is not the 'norm'....but it is not intended that it should be.....

 

It has to be fair to say that 'Any' Cagger who seeks assistance to negotiate payment terms should rightly be directed to the tried and tested forums to do so.....If that is what a Cagger wants to do.....then This is NOT the place to find info to assist them......

 

This thread intentionally serves an all together different purpose......more than 16000 views....says that there are a growing number of Caggers/guests who have become aware of an issue to do with the deeds....Caggers/guests have every right to consider their options.....and to seek out information that may assist them to challenge/defend or if they viewing from a lending institution...to recognise that this matter is drawing growing public interest......so that when a lending institution submits a claim for possession - he should not take for granted that it will be a 'rubber stamped' deal....not when the defence highlights what the LAW says when the deed is un-executed and is VOID........and so long as there is public interest...the posts will continue.... to assist one and all...That as I understand it.....is in keeping within 'the spirit' of the CAG.....

 

Yes, Is It Me's Friend has chosen to follow the information contained in this thread....he could have sought to negotiate payments....he chose not to....that's his choice...

 

Let it be said and understood by one and all.......I do not need to 'guinea pig'....with respect, I am working with Is It Me, and even dare I say 'Ben' to assist Is It Me's friend so that others can 'guinea pig'..... that too is within the spirit of the CaG as I understand it...?

 

If the Property Chamber finds against the information submitted to them so far...that is not the end of the matter...there will be an appeal...without a doubt!

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

Hi and Welcome : )

 

I agree with you that your deed is poorly written, however, the key words in evidence suggest that your lender purports to be in possession of your property (‘legal estate’) to secure repayment of the whole loan/debt....by use of the words: “full guarantee”, and “by way of legal mortgage”.....The fact that it has not been executed by the lender falls within the assertions made in this thread, which is to say that the Disposition (the instrument used being the deed) is VOID....no lender execution...no disposition....due to be set aside....

 

I noticed that your deed makes reference to ‘mortgage conditions’ in 2001....when did you take out the loan?...

 

The reason I ask is because.....the words ‘full guarantee’ and ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ were for all intent and purpose ‘valid charging clauses’ within the statutory provisions of the LRA 1925 ....this statute was the applicable law before the LRA 2002 came into being....but do not fear....it has never been ‘valid’ for a lender not to execute a deed.....(a deed is a speciality contract...for its validity it must be signed by the Borrower and executed by the Lender)....In fact it is the LP(MP)Act 1989 that abolished any reliance on what is said to be ‘part performance’ (i.e sight of a borrowers signature alone).....so, again, you should be ok to rely on most of what is posted in this thread....

 

So far, I believe there are Mortgage Securitisation documents floating about the threads for lenders such as:

 

Accord, SPML and NRAM....all of which can be found to have securitised the mortgages...all of whom have not executed the deed......is your lender any one of these??

 

Who ‘owns’ the mortgage is a question on the lips of many borrowers...what I have tried to do is suggest that Borrowers concentrate their focus on the deed...on the basis that if the deed is set aside...the intent of the legislator as far as I can tell...given the amendments to statute...... is that whomsoever ‘owns’ the mortgage will be left with nothing.....

 

Apple

 

Many thanks for your indepth insight into my situation - this is consistent with the material in this thread. Just to answer your question. My mortgage was taken out with Northern Rock now NRAM in Jan 2006. Is it not strange that my mortgage conditions supersedes the LRA 2002? I do have my mortgage application and offer paperwork, but that's as far as it goes. I have never signed any paperwork (apart from the deed) and do not have a contract apart from the 'speciality contract' which has not been signed by the lender. I'll have to do some digging for the conditions.

[UNRAM]

I did not consider this until now - mortgage terms & conditions specified on my deed (granted 2007) are dated 2001. Not like I'm paying too much (any) attention to them because (as I understand so far) not one term or clause is relevant due to Northern Rock's failure to reference them from a document signed by all parties to the contract. As I understand it so far... the 'contract' between myself and NRAM has no legal terms and conditions and therefore no form...

 

Just an observation... I don't want to divert further discussion from the deed...

Edited August 14, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you apple on e again you have put into better words than I and like every one else in life you can chose to do Some thing or not some cagers may find that the lenders may take arrears payments on top of the monthly payment but what happens when the amounts keep going up like it will by the end of the year

As for being a g pig well if that's what it takes then so be it I for one would not be doing this if (a) there was any other way of dealing with the lender but when all they say is we want the house then it's time to say no your not (b) would as I say every one waste their time, the courts time, etc if there was not some thing in this and FULLY believe that this is on the right track

[UNRAM]

Apple

 

If the deed is set aside from the register, what happens to the charge on the property? Is that automatically removed? Is the charge a seperate registrable entry?

 

I understand I can obtain a copy of the charge from companies house: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/generalForms/MG01_particulars_of_a_mortgage_or_charge.pdf

 

The charge is clearly not the deed. Is the charge automatically invalidated if the deed is set aside? A few words of explanation on relationship between charge and deed would be useful.

 

What I want to really know is: is the property free from encumbrance if the deed is set aside or do I also need to apply for a (separate) removal of charge and if so, how would I go about it?

Edited August 14, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Excellent points made by both 'timetogoram' and unram....Thank you both for your timely contributions....

 

It would appear that many lenders will cause the deed to refer to whatsoever mortgage conditions that are 'live' at the time the deed is signed by you........

 

It would appear that they do not bother to amend or update the register should they update and impose upon you a change in those 'conditions'...

 

But I agree with UNRAM....given that the main 'charging clauses' contained in the deed is 'invalid'.....nothing, not even the fact that they are stating one set of 'conditions' against those that are in current use...will make no difference to the asserted fact in this thread.....that the deed for its intent and purpose.....is void.....

 

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

When I am hungry, I could eat a beef burger from McDonalds or a beef burger from Burger King. They are both beef burgers and both will have the same effect of not making me hungry anymore. However, whilst both being beef burgers, a beef burger from McDonalds is different from a beef burger from Burger King. Please excuse my rather simplistic analogy however, I think it is the only way I can make this distinction clear at this time.

 

This analogy is nearing perfection. Neither of these fast food junk products is close to being a "beef burger" the products are being mis-sold. I strongly recommend laying off the xxxx burger analogies they can cause bloating and flatulence. When you are hungry there are healthier things to eat... that are what they say they are...

[UNRAM]

This analogy is nearing perfection. Neither of these fast food junk products is close to being a "beef burger" the products are being mis-sold. I strongly recommend laying off the xxxx burger analogies they can cause bloating and flatulence. When you are hungry there are healthier things to eat... that are what they say they are...

 

Just having a bit of fun bhall no offense intended... I cant stand McNasty or Nasty King so any opportunity...

[applecart]

Thank you apple on e again you have put into better words than I and like every one else in life you can chose to do Some thing or not some cagers may find that the lenders may take arrears payments on top of the monthly payment but what happens when the amounts keep going up like it will by the end of the year

As for being a g pig well if that's what it takes then so be it I for one would not be doing this if (a) there was any other way of dealing with the lender but when all they say is we want the house then it's time to say no your not (b) would as I say every one waste their time, the courts time, etc if there was not some thing in this and FULLY believe that this is on the right track

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Cheers...as you know, first I was a 'horse' if you recall....now I'm a 'guinea pig'..... what next from the 'love' of my life...two sugars I tell you is all he gave me...and then after I drank the tea....I was led to think I would becomehis one and only, I was even willing to become part of his hare.....I should have known that the many times that he went off on 'vacation'....that something was up...... he came back the last time and dashed all my hopes to tell me he was in fact married....and...after all our courting and messing around...., he told me he no longer liked what was under my kilt...ever since.... the 'love' of my life has verbally abused me at any given opportunity....I just don't get it...if he doesn't want me...surely he should leave me alone...right?....you what... I think he still wants me.....but I can't prove it...I'm totally distraught...................LOL!!!

 

On a serious note Is It Me.....It is not an open and shut case as you know....there was much more work to do.....for a start....as you can see.... since having put together the draft written representation... I have posted more information to assist you make sense of the content within it.... It was important that I did, because it was not 'exhaustive'.....had time not been an issue...I can assure you ...that document would have been much longer....tighter.....

 

The important thing though is that your friend gets the chance to be 'heard'.....we will work on this moving forward....when know more...let me know and we will get on it...

 

Apple

[bhall]

Just having a bit of fun bhall no offense intended... I cant stand McNasty or Nasty King so any opportunity...

 

lol no offence taken UNRAM - I admit my choice of item was poor. However, the over riding principle I was trying to make I feel was clear

 

However, the hearing will show if that principle is correct or not.

 

It will be interesting to see if the Property Chamber's stance changes from it's initial response -being

 

Apple

Here is the full reply;

 

Upon reading(?)lol the application dated 10th may under sec 108(2) of the LR Act 2002

and upon the tribunal considering that the application ought to be stuck out as there is no reasonable prospect of the application succeeding.

 

It is ordered as follows;

 

Her Majesty's land reg is to be removed as the respondent[ person against whom an order is sought] to this application

 

The applicant has until 5pm 16th July to make written representations in relation to the proposed striking out of the application

 

This order is made pursuant to rules 9 and 10 of the tribunal procedure (first tier tribunal property chamer rules 2013.

Reasons,

 

1 The application is to set aside a charge dated xxyyzzz made between (1) Lender and (2) the borrower HM land registry is not a party to that charge. The application is made under sec 108(2) of the LR act 2002. The tribunal has no power to make an order to alter the register when exercising its jurisdiction under sec 108(2).

 

It can only rectify or set aside a document under sec 108(2) and the register of title is not a document for the purpose of that provision.

 

So, HM land registry should not be named in part 3 of the application but the lender should be named instead of HM 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 requires execution by the borrower.

 

The applicant does not contest that they executed the charge so dated.

 

The charge is not in a form showing it required to be executed by the lender.

The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge.

 

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

and that's it.

 

what I would say is that there has been no CH1 form nor have they really read the application because it does very clearly state that the lender should execute the deed.

 

I also note is uses the term generally, always and why say the tribunal can not rectify the register because it's not a document?

 

so what do you think apple lets prove your right.

 

Especially in terms of these two points that go to the very heart of this matter

 

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 requires execution by the borrower.

 

CH1 Form - Legal Charge of a registered estate

 

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

 

What I find most surprising is that the response you received would seem to have come straight out of Ben's mouth (sorry Ben, but it really does...lol)

 

To be honest, I really began to really consider that it was Ben that you mailed the application to - or maybe, the 'independent' Adjudicator from his 'independant office' passed your application to Ben to respond to?....................lol

 

LOL big time just what I was thinking funny how its word for word. I do not know where the ch1 form came from as like you say sent the ' deed ' with his application

Speak soon

 

As I have said previously the fact that the initial response from the Property Chamber is almost 'word for word' the same as the information I have posted, should be evidence of the accuracy of the information I have posted.

 

The hearing will bring much needed clarity to the information posted in this thread. As I posted previously the decision of the hearing will be a matter of public record and will be accessible to everyone that is interested in this topic. No doubt, in time the decision will be posted in this thread (minus any personal details). Despite, everything I do hope that I am wrong and that your friend is successful

 

I thought it may help IS IT ME? to be given an example of how the Property Chamber delivers it's decision. Whilst this particular decision is unrelated to the topic of this thread, it shows how quickly decisions are made public and the format used by the Property Chamber when delivering its decision.

 

http://www.residential-property.judiciary.gov.uk/Files/2013/July/MAN_00BQ_OAF_2013_1_03_Jul_2013_06_56_57.pdf

 

Ben

Edited August 14, 2013 by bhall
Spelling Mistake