Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

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?

 

The 'deed' itself is not 'registered'....it is the 'charge' that is entered/registered on your title....the 'deed' is the document that underpins that registered charge if you will...(the reason why the entry has been made...it is the terms contained within the deed that have been relied upon to cause HMLR to make the 'entry' on your title'.....if the deed is 'set aside'...then there is nothing underpinning the registered charge that is entered....if your application to set aside the deed is successful....then it will be within the powers of the Chamber to cause HMLR to remove the registered charge, who will only do so on the order of the court or the chamber.......so, yes the charge is a 'separate registrable entry' and is apt to be removed if the deed is found to be void...

 

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

 

You can obtain a copy of the charge on your title from HLMR....you can obtain copies of documents that you know are held at Companies House for £1 that can be sent to you 'on- line...if you know who the SPV is...and take receipt of any documents that refer to 'charges' that they have registered...can be quite revealing too...

 

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.

 

That's correct, the 'charge' is not the 'Deed'.....No, it will not be 'automatic'...you have to frame your case...the charge once entered is 'conclusive' it operates at law by virtue of the LRA section 51 and 58....that's why you have to satisfy the chamber that the application satisfies paragraph 6 schedule 2 as well....i.e to show that it is a 'mistake' in an official copy...it is a mistake as you had no power within the substantiating law to grant the disposition and jump through hoops basically to get it said in your written submission...or if you haven't quite made out your case in writing....push for the chance to get a hearing...so that you can better state your case.....

 

As I said above...the charge is entered by HMLR on reliance that they have acted on a 'valid charging clause'.....the relationship between the deed and the Charge is that the deed underpins the charge....the deed is supposed to contain a 'valid charging clause'...PG 30.....if the charging clause is not 'valid'....then you have to say why it is not valid....we have gone a long way to say why this is so...

 

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?

 

No, the written representation gives an idea of how to combine both

 

If you look at the draft written representation you will see how we went about it.... it says:

 

"2. 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."

 

The above is essentially advises the Chamber that the application looks for a determination to say that the deed should be 'set aside' and asks it to grant the request within its jurisdiction pursuant to section 108 (2) LRA 2002....we are requesting that in the event the deed is found to be 'void' then we request that the Chamber exercise it's power to order HMLR to alter the register pursuant to 'paragraph 5 (a) of Schedule 4 LRA 2002....

 

LRA 2002 - Schedule 4 (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.

 

Below is what we are asking the Chamber to cause HMLR to do.....

 

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.

 

so, yes, you have to apply to set aside the deed and request that the charge is removed from the title...bare in mind...this is not a simple task....because it will not be done at all if you have failed to satisfy the Chamber that 'paragraph 6 (2) of schedule 4 LRA 2002' is satisfied:

 

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.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[bhall]

The now infamous MD reference number is a number assigned by the Land Registry to the lender. This reference number confirms that the mortgage deed used by the lender has been approved by the Land Registry for use.

 

As confirmed by the Land Registry's Practice Guidance 30 'Approval of Mortgage Documentation'

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-30#guide-mark-9

 

7 Would you ever refuse to approve a charge?

 

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.
  

We would not approve any charge that failed to satisfy one or more of these criteria.

 

The Land Registry by granting the MD reference number to all of the Lenders that have deeds posted on this topic would appear to be satisfied that each and every one of them does contain a valid charging clause - An example

 

"The Borrower with full title guarantee charges the Property by way of legal mortgage with the payment of all monies which are or may become payable to the Lender by the Borrower, (except monies payable under any agreement whenever made which expressly provides that they are not to be secured by this mortgage)"

 

http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002MR.pdf

 

MD reference MD740K

 

As for the comments regarding to 'Full Title Guarantee'

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/36/section/3/enacted

 

3 Charges, incumbrances and third party rights

 

(1)If the disposition is expressed to be made with full title guarantee there shall be implied a covenant that the person making the disposition is disposing of the property free—

 

(a)from all charges and incumbrances (whether monetary or not), and

(b)from all other rights exercisable by third parties,other than any charges, incumbrances or rights which that person does not and could not reasonably be expected to know about.

 

The reference to 'Full Title Guarantee' in relation to a disposition of a charge (the granting of a charge from the borrower to the lender) only means that the Lender asserts that the legal estate is free from other charges and incumbrances etc. It has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing it the mortgage is by demise or by legal charge.

 

For the avoidance of doubt a charge by legal mortgage unlike a mortgage by demise does not involve the conveyance of the property to the lender.

 

Furthermore, the word 'or' does mean the alternative - it never means the same.

 

As confirmed by the LPA 1925

 

“legal mortgage” means a mortgage by demise or subdemise or a charge by way of legal mortgage

 

Don't forget that at section 7 of the Land Registry's own CH1 (which is signed by the borrower as a deed) form it states -

 

"charges the property by way of legal mortgage"

 

The Land Registration Act 2003 confirms

 

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

 

Form of charge of registered estate

 

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

 

 

Is It Me? Why not at the very least discuss this matter with Ell-en and Co, what do you have to lose by obtaining a second opinion on the steps you can take to protect your friends home from repossession

[bhall]

eeeerm Ben... who is the 'owner' of first instance? Is it not the Borrower??

 

At which point do we find that the Lender can be 'said' to be owner Ben??? Is it not AFTER the Borrower signs the Deed???

 

Is the Lender who exercising 'owners' powers doing so legally Ben??? or is he doing so because HMLR have accepted invalid charging clauses as valid?? when the law removed any power for the Borrower to confer or for HMLR to give effect to any such power in the Lender????

 

Do you assert that an un-executed deed grants ownership powers to the lender??? that's not what the Law says Ben....

 

eeerm...sorry Ben..... there is no need to take any notice of the information that you post ....it is dismissed...... : )

 

Apple

 

Sorry Apple I thought I made it clear

 

The owner of the charge, once it has been granted by the Borrower is the lender. As such the lender is able to exercise the powers of the owner of the charge.

 

I refer you to the House of Lords that debated the LRA 2002 and amended it before it became law

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/11030-13.htm

 

"amendment No. 27 deals with a related matter. Clause 23(2) lists the powers that an owner of a registered charge has to deal with that charge, which will no longer include the possibility of creating a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. The appropriate way of securing a mortgage over registered land is to create a charge. The Bill also simplifies the powers of the chargee to deal with his charge. After the Bill comes into force, the appropriate way to do that will be by way of sub-charge. The amendment would allow the chargee to create a charge by way of a legal mortgage over the charge as well by way of a sub-charge. That would add an unnecessary complication."

 

As I am sure you will appreciate and understand the chargee is the lender and not the borrower

[applecart]

There is no doubt Is It Me that We have come a long way:

Did We Get.....From this:

1] "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."

 

To This:

“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”

 

Because of comments like this:

3] “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.”

 

Or Because of my finding that was this:

4] “Yes, my thoughts are that somewhere along the line they are reading the info you have submitted in the application as a request to set aside the registered charge and somewhere along the line you may have unwittingly failed to cause the Adjudicator to recognise or interpret your application for the setting aside of the deed......”

The draft written representation addressed the issue made out in No:‘4’.....the purported ‘accuracy of the information’ was not ever considered an obstacle....and has been ignored by the Property Chamber once they were made to understand what Is It Me’s application was intended to say.....

 

And then agreed by the property chamber when they said this:

 

"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".

 

Now,...... if Ben in his many posts had guided Is It Me in this way, then I’m sure he could claim all the credibility that he hungers for....unfortunately he did not do so....instead...he offered these...:

At post No: #116...”This is I am afraid to say correct and a true reflection of current legislation - being s.1 and not s.2 and it should be noted it is exactly the same points as I have posted in the thread created to discuss if a mortgage deed is required to be signed by the lender (which it clearly isn't).”

 

#123: "You will note that this deed, is only required to be and is only signed by Accord and a witness. It is only required to be signed by Accord as it only contains obligations for Accord. Brass No.1 does not have to sign it, as the deed includes no obligations for brass. Naturally, this deed is subject to the mortgage Sale Agreement and the clause previously posted in regard to perfection"

 

#149 "Given that the above is the official findings of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber and is as I have posted on numerous occasions during the last few months, fully supported by case law and legislation (just not your interpretation of that case law and legislation), don't you think it maybe time to consider that you simply have it wrong and you have misunderstand the legalities involved ?

If you have not considered that possibility, it might be time that you should."

 

# 151 "You will also see that I have said that in some situations a signature of the lender is required. An example being the CH1 form when there is an obligation for a further advance.

I have not and do not say that the legislation is wrong. All I have ever said and continue to say is that Apples interpretation of the legislation is wrong. If you look at the changes made by the RRO 2005, it doesn't make any change that refers to the requirement that a lender must sign the deed.....

 

I feel that Apple, be it with the best intentions has confused what a company must do when it grants a deed with her argument that a lender must sign the deed. They are of course two different things and should not be confused.

 

Please remember, unlike Apple of course that told you that the mortgage Deed HAD to be signed by the lender, otherwise it is Void.

 

The order you have received clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt confirms that is not the case - In otherwords, if a mortgage deed is not signed by the lender, it does not automatically make it void."

 

#170 "I hope Is It Me? decides to continue to use CAG , as using another forum such as the void mortgages / freeman type forums will in my opinion be of little benefit except to give him a one sided view of the world, full of unsuccessful arguments and a lot of wishful thinking.

 

My own view remains unchanged and is reinforced by the order posted by Is It Me?

 

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.

 

Both of these findings clearly confirm that Apples entire argument is based upon the misunderstanding that if amortgage deed has not been signed by the lender it is void.

 

Now that a response has been provided by the Land Registry, Apple is blaming IS IT ME? for the response - being the complete opposite to Apples argument - Apple considers that IS IT ME? Must have done something wrong - It can't be that Apple is wrong - that would be impossible.

 

So much so that as the response from the Property Chamber disproves rather than proves Apples argument - Apple considers the posting of the order to be "allegations" and hearsay that could result in either the poster of the order or even CAG (????) facing litigation."

 

#175 " 'No prospect of succeeding'

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

# 176 "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 ?

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"

 

 

I think Caggers can make their own minds up.......

 

Apple

[bhall]

There is no doubt Is It Me that We have come a long way:

Did We Get.....From this:

1] "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."

 

To This:

“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”

 

Because of comments like this:

3] “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.”

 

Or Because of my finding that was this:

4] “Yes, my thoughts are that somewhere along the line they are reading the info you have submitted in the application as a request to set aside the registered charge and somewhere along the line you may have unwittingly failed to cause the Adjudicator to recognise or interpret your application for the setting aside of the deed......”

The draft written representation addressed the issue made out in No:‘4’.....the purported ‘accuracy of the information’ was not ever considered an obstacle....and has been ignored by the Property Chamber once they were made to understand what Is It Me’s application was intended to say.....

 

And then agreed by the property chamber when they said this:

 

"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".

 

Now,...... if Ben in his many posts had guided Is It Me in this way, then I’m sure he could claim all the credibility that he hungers for....unfortunately he did not do so....instead...he offered these...:

At post No: #116...”This is I am afraid to say correct and a true reflection of current legislation - being s.1 and not s.2 and it should be noted it is exactly the same points as I have posted in the thread created to discuss if a mortgage deed is required to be signed by the lender (which it clearly isn't).”

 

#123: "You will note that this deed, is only required to be and is only signed by Accord and a witness. It is only required to be signed by Accord as it only contains obligations for Accord. Brass No.1 does not have to sign it, as the deed includes no obligations for brass. Naturally, this deed is subject to the mortgage Sale Agreement and the clause previously posted in regard to perfection"

 

#149 "Given that the above is the official findings of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber and is as I have posted on numerous occasions during the last few months, fully supported by case law and legislation (just not your interpretation of that case law and legislation), don't you think it maybe time to consider that you simply have it wrong and you have misunderstand the legalities involved ?

If you have not considered that possibility, it might be time that you should."

 

# 151 "You will also see that I have said that in some situations a signature of the lender is required. An example being the CH1 form when there is an obligation for a further advance.

I have not and do not say that the legislation is wrong. All I have ever said and continue to say is that Apples interpretation of the legislation is wrong. If you look at the changes made by the RRO 2005, it doesn't make any change that refers to the requirement that a lender must sign the deed.....

 

I feel that Apple, be it with the best intentions has confused what a company must do when it grants a deed with her argument that a lender must sign the deed. They are of course two different things and should not be confused.

 

Please remember, unlike Apple of course that told you that the mortgage Deed HAD to be signed by the lender, otherwise it is Void.

 

The order you have received clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt confirms that is not the case - In otherwords, if a mortgage deed is not signed by the lender, it does not automatically make it void."

 

#170 "I hope Is It Me? decides to continue to use CAG , as using another forum such as the void mortgages / freeman type forums will in my opinion be of little benefit except to give him a one sided view of the world, full of unsuccessful arguments and a lot of wishful thinking.

 

My own view remains unchanged and is reinforced by the order posted by Is It Me?

 

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.

 

Both of these findings clearly confirm that Apples entire argument is based upon the misunderstanding that if amortgage deed has not been signed by the lender it is void.

 

Now that a response has been provided by the Land Registry, Apple is blaming IS IT ME? for the response - being the complete opposite to Apples argument - Apple considers that IS IT ME? Must have done something wrong - It can't be that Apple is wrong - that would be impossible.

 

So much so that as the response from the Property Chamber disproves rather than proves Apples argument - Apple considers the posting of the order to be "allegations" and hearsay that could result in either the poster of the order or even CAG (????) facing litigation."

 

#175 " 'No prospect of succeeding'

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

# 176 "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 ?

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"

 

 

I think Caggers can make their own minds up.......

 

Apple

 

Unlike some I have no desire in winning a popularity contest, I am just interested in the truth.

 

In relation to a hearing being held, I thought you would be more familiar with the applicable rules Apple but I guess not.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/31/made

 

Decision with or without a hearing

 

31.—(1) Subject to the remainder of this rule, the Tribunal must hold a hearing before making a decision which disposes of proceedings.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day

 

Ben

Edited August 14, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

Sorry Apple I thought I made it clear

 

The owner of the charge, once it has been granted by the Borrower is the lender. As such the lender is able to exercise the powers of the owner of the charge.

 

I refer you to the House of Lords that debated the LRA 2002 and amended it before it became law

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/11030-13.htm

 

"amendment No. 27 deals with a related matter. Clause 23(2) lists the powers that an owner of a registered charge has to deal with that charge, which will no longer include the possibility of creating a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. The appropriate way of securing a mortgage over registered land is to create a charge. The Bill also simplifies the powers of the chargee to deal with his charge. After the Bill comes into force, the appropriate way to do that will be by way of sub-charge. The amendment would allow the chargee to create a charge by way of a legal mortgage over the charge as well by way of a sub-charge. That would add an unnecessary complication."

 

As I am sure you will appreciate and understand the chargee is the lender and not the borrower

 

Wrong.....statute prevents ANY borrower from granting a "legal mortgage" ever since 2002.... the lender as the so called 'owner' of the 'charge' is your way of suggesting that because its name was intended by the legislator to be there to secure indebtedness, that it somehow means they have 'ownership' and 'legal' rights....this was not the intent of the legislator....not the intent of the borrower as based on the amendments to the Law to remove all powers from a borrower to ensure it would not happen....and yet you say....this is not so...you rely not on 'statute' for your assertions...bu instead of your alliance with HMLR and their Practice Guides....which are 'ambiguous' to say the least......we are addressing this as a bona fide issue in this thread....

 

e.g...how on earth HMLR can say that they would never accept an 'invalid charging clause'....when 'a charge by way of legal mortgage' is exactly that....not to mention 'full title guarantee' and its legal implication and so on....

 

You continue to assume that a 'charge' requires the same formality as a 'deed'...You confuse the 2 concepts....Gawd knows why?......This being so; even when we all now recognise that the Property Chamber has accepted the amended application the amended application makes the distinction between a 'deed' and a 'charge' and the formalities to do with them as being individual entities very clear....

 

You also incorrectly continue to assert that once the lender is registered..that the charge itself cannot be undone....you are wrong....it is a FACT...if the Deed is Void...the charge can and must be removed....

 

The Lender is not intended to 'own' anything ..... he is intended to purely rely that his 'charge' is legally entered to secure the debt....not entered to secure legal rights of the Owner of the Estate in it's totality.....

 

Like I said the matter is before the Property Chamber for determination.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Unlike some I have no desire in winning a popularity contest, I am just interested in the truth.

 

In relation to a hearing being held, I thought you would be more familiar with the applicable rules Apple but I guess not.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/31/made

 

Decision with or without a hearing

 

31.—(1) Subject to the remainder of this rule, the Tribunal must hold a hearing before making a decision which disposes of proceedings.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day

 

Ben

 

One things for sure Ben....they haven't exercised their power under Rule 9 have they, hey.....?

 

You should exercise a wee bit more of the 'caution' that you seek to impose on others...engage your brain before you put your mouth into gear....so's to speak...

 

Your comments and posts are always welcome as you know...but, as much as you take issue with my posts...understand that your posts are also open to scrutiny....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just to make it clear...all proceedings are conducted with a view to 'disposing' of the issues in the case....this is not as Ben would try to imply.... that - the proceedings are merely being conducted as an exercise to somehow pass the time or to lead a consumer into a false sense of security...he confuses the role of the Judiciary with the role of Lenders and HMLR; both of whom I have problem in stating are the ones that appear most likely to seek to confuse and mislead you into thinking they are right and all Borrowers are wrong....and no issue in stating that both a lender and HMLR have a vested financial interest in doing all they can to keep things the way they are....and have succeeding in doing so since 2002.....their Bank Accounts are thriving at the expense of many Borrowers.....totally untoward I tell you...., totally untoward....

 

The Justice system as I understand it..will hear both sides ....that's what is understood to be 'fair justice'.....If Is It Me fails to make out his argument/case...then, yes, he will not win....But that is not the same as being invited to be heard only to find that the decision has been or could have been made long before he gets there.....

 

The written Submission must be considered with any oral submissions that Is It Me cares to make....it would be unfair to do otherwise...I have every faith that Is It Me is more than capable of making out his case face to face...he has already shown his ability to make his point out in the courts....he has staved off a possession on his friends behalf so far single handedly....

 

That is no mean feat...and I will defy anyone who suggests or implies that he is not doing a champion, sterling job and long may he continue to do so....

 

His failure....affects every Borrower...his victory....likewise affects every Borrower...

 

We Should continue to support him as he moves his friends case forward.....

 

Rant now over : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Apple,

 

What is the difference between charges registered at Companies House and those at HMLR?

[UNRAM]

Below is what we are asking the Chamber to cause HMLR to do.....

 

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.

 

so, yes, you have to apply to set aside the deed and request that the charge is removed from the title...bare in mind...this is not a simple task....because it will not be done at all if you have failed to satisfy the Chamber that 'paragraph 6 (2) of schedule 4 LRA 2002' is satisfied:

 

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.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

 

this is not a simple task?

Why not? Are you referring to the need for this thread to thrash this out? I am hoping by the time I make my own application this will indeed be a simple task... Your thoughts appreciated...

[applecart]

Apple,

 

What is the difference between charges registered at Companies House and those at HMLR?

 

Non... in my opinion...they both say that the registered charge notifies the world at large that the charge is 'registered'...once'registered' it operates at Law....so you have a situation where both the Original Lender and the SPV have charges registered..both operating at LAW...at the expense of the Borrower...said to be an 'acceptable practice'....eeerrrrmmmm???

 

Apple

 

I

[applecart]

this is not a simple task?

Why not? Are you referring to the need for this thread to thrash this out? I am hoping by the time I make my own application this will indeed be a simple task... Your thoughts appreciated...

 

That's correct... it is not 'simple' at all..

 

We 'drafted' the written representation....it has given Is It Me some further 'head way' so far...The hearing is the opportunity to expand on what it says..if Is It Me submitted it 'as is'....I suspect that this is the case...

 

The Property Chamber have granted him the chance to expand on it....so, Is It Me will need further support to assist further making 'oral' representation before the chamber....

 

I am posting as much info as possible to 'thrash this out'....before he gets there....

 

I can imagine there are many who hope that it will become the order of the day...making this whole issue and addressing it a 'simple task'.....

 

The main point that Is It Me will have to get across is that the entry in the name of his lender is due to the reliance on a invalid charging clause within the deed to make it clear that it has no legal basis and is void...and is due to the mistaken application of the substantiating Law by staff at HMLR....That's one of the Key points that needs to be stated at the hearing....

 

But, we need to stick at this, post as often as possible...ask me questions....I do my best to try to address all potential pitfalls, but sometimes without 'prompts'...they go unmentioned...even though I know.....

 

so, please do post up any concerns you feel are relevant...no matter if they are like the ones Ben posts or anyone else...all are relevant...

 

Apple

[applecart]

We must address another issue to avoid being misguided......

 

The Owner of the Registered Charge is the BORROWER...it is the Borrowers legal estate...it is registered...... All Registered titles are listed at HMLR....Lenders rely that you have a ‘registered estate’ so that they can create the illegal legal rights that they purport to have...to enter into possession of the Borrowers legal estate to effect an extra judicial sale of the beneficial interest to SPV’s and enjoy the beneficial financial spoils of the Money Markets.....

 

A Registered Legal Estate will always denote the Borrower as the ‘absolute proprietor’ of that ‘registered estate’ in the ‘proprietorship’ section and by being registered it denotes that it is the Borrower who accordingly is the ‘owner’ of the legally ‘registered charge’ due to being so registered at HMLR...

.

WP has already mentioned this....she is wholly correct.....do not be confused by what Ben asserts...he is wholly misguided...to further the point made by WP...

 

HMLR can either enter ‘notices’ or ‘restrictions’ on a Borrowers registered estate....

 

‘notices’ are always entered in the ‘charges section’ and ‘restrictions’ in the ‘proprietorship section’

 

HMLR ‘notify’ the world at large of any ‘indebtedness’ that is intended to be secured by the Borrowers legal estate.....LRA 2002 section 32 tells you the intended nature and effect of the ‘notice’ – that’s to say...sight of the Lenders name entered in the ‘charges’ section of the borrowers title document:

 

Nature and effect:

 

(1)A notice is an entry in the register in respect of the burden of an interest affecting a registered estate or charge.

(2)The entry of a notice is to be made in relation to the registered estate or charge affected by the interest concerned.

(3)The fact that an interest is the subject of a notice does not necessarily mean that the interest is valid, but does mean that the priority of the interest, if valid, is protected for the purposes of sections 29 and 30.

 

Notably....it does not say the notice entered is to be considered ‘valid’ what it says is that "IF IT IS VALID"...it will be protected.....otherwise...it will not be...

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Non... in my opinion...they both say that the registered charge notifies the world at large that the charge is 'registered'...once'registered' it operates at Law....so you have a situation where both the Original Lender and the SPV have charges registered..both operating at LAW...at the expense of the Borrower...said to be an 'acceptable practice'....eeerrrrmmmm???

 

Apple

 

I

 

More questions...

 

1. As far as I understand any reference to Companies House charges is moot as they are not a legal requirement from our perspective. Please confirm.
   
2. If so, what is the point of the Companies House charge? It does not seem to be referred to in the law we are considering here.
   
3. Do SPV's also register with HMLR or only Companies House? i.e. if my mortgage has been securitised will HMLR (or Companies House) have registry entries tied to the deed number?
   

Edited August 14, 2013 by UNRAM

[bhall]

We must address another issue to avoid being misguided......

 

The Owner of the Registered Charge is the BORROWER...it is the Borrowers legal estate...it is registered...... All Registered titles are listed at HMLR....Lenders rely that you have a ‘registered estate’ so that they can create the illegal legal rights that they purport to have...to enter into possession of the Borrowers legal estate to effect an extra judicial sale of the beneficial interest to SPV’s and enjoy the beneficial financial spoils of the Money Markets.....

 

A Registered Legal Estate will always denote the Borrower as the ‘absolute proprietor’ of that ‘registered estate’ in the ‘proprietorship’ section and by being registered it denotes that it is the Borrower who accordingly is the ‘owner’ of the legally ‘registered charge’ due to being so registered at HMLR...

.

WP has already mentioned this....she is wholly correct.....do not be confused by what Ben asserts...he is wholly misguided...to further the point made by WP...

 

No Apple,

 

The borrower grants the charge to the lender. This means that the borrower gives the charge to the lender. Once the charge has been given by the borrower, the charge is owned by the lender. This is why your points are flawed and not based in law.

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

 

109. In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV.

 

From the above:

 

 

• It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it.
  
  
• One incident of its legal ownership
  
• Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership
  
• Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge
  

111. The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

 

 

From the above:

 

Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge

 

If we look at an example of a Title Register from the Land Registry

 

http://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/QDMPS-Portlet/resources/example_register.pdf

 

we can see that the borrower is the proprietor of the ABSOLUTE FREEHOLD and the lender is the proprietor of the registered charge.

 

Proprietor means owner Apple... The Lender is the proprietor of the legal charge and as confirmed by case law - the lender is the legal owner of the legal charge.

 

As confirmed by the court of appeal

 

"Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it"

 

" Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it)" Of course in that case Paragon was the lender

Edited August 14, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

If case law does not convince you may be legislation will

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/9/made

 

Contents of the charges register

 

9. The charges register of a registered estate must contain, where appropriate—

 

(a)details of leases, charges, and any other interests which adversely affect the registered estate subsisting at the time of first registration of the estate or created thereafter,

 

(b)any dealings with the interests referred to in paragraph (a), or affecting their priority, which are capable of being noted on the register,

 

©sufficient details to enable any registered charge to be identified,

 

(d)the name of the proprietor of any registered charge including, where the proprietor is a company registered under the Companies Acts, or a limited liability partnership incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, its registered number,

 

(e)an address for service of the proprietor of any registered charge in accordance with rule 198,

 

(f)restrictions under section 40 of the Act, including one entered under section 86(4) of the Act, in relation to a registered charge,

 

(g)notices under section 86(2) of the Act in relation to a registered charge, and

 

(h)such other matters affecting the registered estate or any registered charge as are required to be entered in the charges register by these rules.

 

Again I draw your attention to the use of the term 'Proprietor' of the legal charge - meaning the owner of the legal charge.

[applecart]

More questions...

 

1. As far as I understand any reference to Companies House charges is moot as they are not a legal requirement from our perspective. Please confirm.
    
   That is in my experience the case..a court appears to say that because it is a separate register.....it has no effect on what is going on at HMLR...the Lender is said to retain its purported legal interest..so long as it's name remains on the title at HMLR......along with the purported legal right to possession.....eeerrrm??
    
   
2. If so, what is the point of the Companies House charge? It does not seem to be referred to in the law we are considering here.
    
   The point is clear...the SPV has an all together commercial interest...it must secure a 'legal interest' to satisfy and 'underwrite'... for want of a better word...the mortgage backed securities...as required by the Stock Market regulators....as we know, they are 'seen' to have done so...by registering the legal interest at Companies House.... eeermmmm??
    
   
3. Do SPV's also register with HMLR or only Companies House? i.e. if my mortgage has been securitised will HMLR (or Companies House) have registry entries tied to the deed number?
    
   They do not register at HMLR at all....that would defeat the overall objective of Mortgage Securitisation...the Borrower is never told or intended to find out that the mortgage is securitised....it is us as Borrowers that have 'found out' what they have been up to...caggers that have long since stopped posting highlighted the issue.....we have realised that where their sale documents insist that the deed remain as 'escrow'...i.e not executed by the Lender...it is directly affords the whole mechanism that is 'securitisation' the ability to exist....but of course....the consequence of this finding is that as the underlying originated interest was created with a borrower..we can rely on the protection of the law to undermine the whole scheme of things...because what they rely upon as a necessity for a deed to remain in 'escrow'..we can legally rely is 'VOID'...
   

 

Apple

[applecart]

No Apple,

 

The borrower grants the charge to the lender. This means that the borrower gives the charge to the lender. Once the charge has been given by the borrower, the charge is owned by the lender. This is why your points are flawed and not based in law.

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

 

109. In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV.

 

From the above:

 

 

• It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it.
  
  
• One incident of its legal ownership
  
• Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership
  
• Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge
  

111. The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

 

 

From the above:

 

Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge

 

If we look at an example of a Title Register from the Land Registry

 

http://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/QDMPS-Portlet/resources/example_register.pdf

 

we can see that the borrower is the proprietor of the ABSOLUTE FREEHOLD and the lender is the proprietor of the registered charge.

 

Proprietor means owner Apple... The Lender is the proprietor of the legal charge and as confirmed by case law - the lender is the legal owner of the legal charge.

 

Ben,

 

The Lender has 'secured' those purported 'legal' ownership rights by way of 'invalid charging clauses'....

 

Nothing of what you say here will change that FACT...

 

We are addressing the issue as you know based on the applicable LAW....The Lender at no time was intended to have legal rights since 2002...there is simply nothing that you can post that will change that mate.....nothing....there is no defence to an un-executed Deed mate....none....sorry : (

 

Apple

[applecart]

If case law does not convince you may be legislation will

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/9/made

 

Contents of the charges register

 

9. The charges register of a registered estate must contain, where appropriate—

 

(a)details of leases, charges, and any other interests which adversely affect the registered estate subsisting at the time of first registration of the estate or created thereafter,

 

(b)any dealings with the interests referred to in paragraph (a), or affecting their priority, which are capable of being noted on the register,

 

©sufficient details to enable any registered charge to be identified,

 

(d)the name of the proprietor of any registered charge including, where the proprietor is a company registered under the Companies Acts, or a limited liability partnership incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, its registered number,

 

(e)an address for service of the proprietor of any registered charge in accordance with rule 198,

 

(f)restrictions under section 40 of the Act, including one entered under section 86(4) of the Act, in relation to a registered charge,

 

(g)notices under section 86(2) of the Act in relation to a registered charge, and

 

(h)such other matters affecting the registered estate or any registered charge as are required to be entered in the charges register by these rules.

 

Again I draw your attention to the use of the term 'Proprietor' of the legal charge - meaning the owner of the legal charge.

 

Ben...I've tried to direct you previously...you have clearly.... as usual ....avoided that direction...but that's fine...we are used to you : )

 

Let me say it like this....

 

The OWNER of the 'Registered Charge'...that the one with the right to charge the estate with indebtedness from the outset...is the Borrower..

 

The Lenders charge is depicted by way of 'notice'...that notice is entered under the 'charges section' of the Borrowers legally registered estate within the Borrowers Power as an Estate Owner mate...

 

There is no 'ambiguity' as you try to suggest...it's as clear as day mate...

 

try as you may....you and your posts simply can't change that which the legislator brings into force hun????

 

Apple

[bhall]

Apple if we continue to look at the applicable legislation (taking into consideration the information in my two previous posts)

 

Land Registration Act 2002

 

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

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

I know it is that or word again that you don't like. However, s.24 confirms that a person (including in the legal meaning of person) is entitled to exercise the owner's powers in relation to a registered estate or charge.

 

As demonstrated by the example of the Title Register, the registered proprietor of the legal charge (confirmed by case law to also be the legal owner) is the lender and not the borrower.

As the registered proprietor of the legal charge, the lender and not the borrower is subject to s.23 (2) of the LRA 2002. The borrower is subject to s.23 (1) as the proprietor of the legal estate

 

23 Owner’s powers

 

(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.

 

(3)In subsection (2)(a), “legal sub-mortgage” means—

(a)a transfer by way of mortgage,

(b)a sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and

©a charge by way of legal mortgage.

 

It is the lender as the proprietor (legal owner) of the registered charge that is unable to grant a charge by way of legal mortgage. This is because if the lender granted a change by way of legal mortgage, on the charge by way of legal mortgage granted by the borrower, it would be a mortgage of a mortgage - in otherwords a sub-charge.

 

A charge by way of legal mortgage granted by the proprietor of the legal estate (the borrower) is not a mortgage of a mortgage and is not a sub-charge.

 

In fact a charge by way of legal mortgage granted by the proprietor of the legal estate, as per s.23 (1) of the LRA 2002 is permitted as it is not a mortgage by either demise of sub-demise as confirmed by the LPA 1925 a charge by way of legal mortgage is infact another type of legal mortgage.

 

The explanatory notes for s.23 of the LRA 2002 -

 

"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."

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co....t/view/7808/0/

 

"A sub-mortgage is a mortgage of a mortgage. For example, A borrows £10,000 from B and mortgages his house to B as security for the loan. B then needs to borrow £1,000. B borrows the money from C and then mortgages the asset he has i.e. the mortgage of A’s house, to C as security for the loan."

A sub mortgage is (or least was) a charge granted by the lender to a 3rd party. How can a borrower, grant a charge on a charge it has already given to the lender ?

 

and as previously posted -

 

"The proprietor of a registered charge (as now confirmed by case law - is the lender) cannot create a "legal sub-mortgage" i.e. a transfer by way of mortgage, a sub-mortgage by sub-demise or a charge by way of legal mortgage (sections 23(2)(a) and 23(3)). The proprietor does have the power to "charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge" (section 23(2)(b)). The registered proprietor of a subcharge has, in relation to the property subject to the principal charge, the same powers as the principal chargee (section 53).

 

If the provisions of the LRA 2002 had applied in this case, it is submitted that the principal mortgagee would still have had the right to take possession of the property because a registered principal charge will continue to operate as if the mortgagee had a term of years (pursuant to section 51 of the LRA 2002 and section 87(1) of the LPA 1925). On the assumption that the sub-charge was created pursuant to section 23(2)(b) of the LRA 2002, the sub-chargee will not be deemed to have a term of years under the LPA 1925. However, the subchargee should nevertheless have a right to possession of the property under section 53 of the LRA 2002."

Edited August 14, 2013 by bhall

[UNRAM]

we have realised that where their sale documents insist that the deed remain as 'escrow'...i.e not executed by the Lender...it is directly affords the whole mechanism that is 'securitisation' the ability to exist....

 

Apologies in advance for ignorance of following questions, this is all new to me...

 

 

1. Is this correct: in all cases of residential mortgage securitisation the lender must have taken possession in order to proceed with a sale and must "retain the deed in escrow" according to securitisation terminology?
   
2. Does this imply that evidence of securitisation is evidence that a deed has not been executed? Am I oversimplifying?
   
3. Is the SPV granted a legal interest in the property? i.e. possession? brief explanation would be appreciated.
   
4. Does the purchasing SPV have a charge granted on the property in the same sense that the lender does upon initial registration?
   
5. Does Companies House maintain a list of all charges - original and SPV - for a specific property? i.e. can I go there for a record of legal interests on a specific property?
   

[applecart]

Gotcha Ben...

 

But again, this:

 

Land Registration Act 2002

 

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

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

Does nor relate to the 'Lender'.... it is to with that period of time when a disposition occurs..and the title is waiting to be updated form 'one borrowers' name to another 'borrowers name'....

 

A notice is a notice Ben....the law does not 'suppose' that Lender should at any time be seen to essentially sell the property to himself....it just would never happen mate...but, your post implies that this is the case...when it simply is not....

 

Both WP and UNRAM have done their best to add to your knowledge...but regrettably you still appear to 'believe' everyone is wrong..except you......

 

To be Honest, in lieu of all the information posted to assist you understand the FACTS... you are showing signs of one more interested in protecting your ego...rather than one who is 'interested in the truth'......

 

It is fair to say, your opinion and interpretation is entirely up to you....there is no intent to change your opinion...just means you will one of those that do not 'rush' to make an application to the Property Chamber - yet will stand to benefit from the application made by Is It Me...I'm sure Is It Me will have no issue with that.....??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apologies in advance for ignorance of following questions, this is all new to me...

 

 

1. Is this correct: in all cases of residential mortgage securitisation the lender must have taken possession in order to proceed with a sale and must "retain the deed in escrow" according to securitisation terminology?
    
   yes, that's right...
    
   
2. Does this imply that evidence of securitisation is evidence that a deed has not been executed? Am I oversimplifying?
    
   Most definitely.....no you do not over simplify at all....
    
   
3. Is the SPV granted a legal interest in the property? i.e. possession? brief explanation would be appreciated.
    
   The Originating lender 'purports' that he has a derived a 'legal interest' to the SPV...the SPV 'buys' into the illusion to take 'ownership' of the purported 'legal interest' - that they both agree between themselves that this is the case...and they then collude with the assistance of HMLR to carry out the 'illusion'....to full effect....a [problem] imo...that has been conducted over an extensive period of time against public interest...
   
4. Does the purchasing SPV have a charge granted on the property in the same sense that the lender does upon initial registration?
    
   Yes, but it registers it at Companies House...not at HMLR...all part of the '[problem]'....to purport to the money markets and listing agencies that all is above board....
    
   
5. Does Companies House maintain a list of all charges - original and SPV - for a specific property? i.e. can I go there for a record of legal interests on a specific property?
    
   Good Question, in my experience, there will be no records that the originating lender has crated a 'sub-charge'.....in compliance with the LRA 2002 section 27...thus:
    
   (3)In the case of a registered charge, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—
   (a)a transfer, and
   (b)the grant of a sub-charge.
    
   you will note that if the originating lender had intended to register a 'sub-charge'..this would have been a perfectly legal activity for the to do.....but the intent is not to do that...they enter into possession of the borrowers legal estate..pose as the 'owner'...as a purported 'legal mortgagee' and sell of that which was never there's to sell....they sell the lot..both legal and equitable interest..then jockey into courts of law...to take possession of the borrowers physical property...all done on the back of the un-executed deed....supported by HMLR and the status imposed upon it to ensure that the title register is 'conclusive'....when, this is clearly not the case...
   

 

Apple

[bhall]

Ben...I've tried to direct you previously...you have clearly.... as usual ....avoided that direction...but that's fine...we are used to you : )

 

Let me say it like this....

 

The OWNER of the 'Registered Charge'...that the one with the right to charge the estate with indebtedness from the outset...is the Borrower..

 

The Lenders charge is depicted by way of 'notice'...that notice is entered under the 'charges section' of the Borrowers legally registered estate within the Borrowers Power as an Estate Owner mate...

 

There is no 'ambiguity' as you try to suggest...it's as clear as day mate...

 

try as you may....you and your posts simply can't change that which the legislator brings into force hun????

 

Apple

 

Apple Apple Apple

 

How can the borrower be the owner the registered charge, when the borrower has given the charge to the lender ?

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

To conclude that the borrower is the owner of the registered charge is only possible if you ignore the law -

 

Pender, legislation and the Title Register of the Land Registry very clearly and in no uncertain terms confirm that the Lender is the Proprietor of the registered charge.

 

If you don't believe me, you might believe these -

 

From the Land Registry http://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/QDMPS-Portlet/resources/example_register.pdf

 

 

From Pender http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

#

 

 

From the LRA 2002 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/contents

 

 

 

 

The above with no ambiguity confirms that the Lender as the registered proprietor of the legal charge, is the legal owner of the legal charge. It could not be any clearer

[bhall]

Apple even the Land Registry's own form (CH1) which lenders could use instead of their own mortgage deed's states -

 

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

 

 

'charges the property by way of legal mortgage'

 

Why would the form say that if a borrower was unable to charge the property by way of legal mortgage ?