Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Ben, Ben, Ben...

 

The Borrower does not legally grant the Lender any such legal 'ownership' rights ....the Law prevents the Borrower from doing that...

 

The fact that HMLR by mistake take as 'valid' terms such as 'charge by way of legal mortgage' and 'full title guarantee' is a matter that is before the Property Chamber....

 

The example you post is notably to do with a charge made in 2001...ambiguously HMLR present this today as an 'example' on line.... it does not evince current substantiating legislation...they should remove it...look how it has confused you....what say other unwary Borrowers hey??? they are supposed to present to the public 'reliable guidance'... the example is far from that.....

 

You know as well as I do that we have moved on since the decision in 'paragon'....The Penders property was charged back in the 80's.... or early 90's....it should not be having the effect it has been allowed today as it did back then....valid charging clauses have all together changed now mate....that's just one of the issues that spring to mind with that decision when relied upon today.....imo

 

Apple

[applecart]

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 ?

 

Yes, that too needs amending...another little 'oversight' by HMLR - stands to mislead the public imo....they need to distinguish the relevance of that document and stop 'approving' lenders own forms of 'charge'.....that contain invalid charging clauses as similar to their own......that would go a long way to stop confusion,.....

 

I think I am correct in surmising that HMLR are more than 'complicit' with an unscrupulous lenders objectives due to these on-going failures to update their guides in line with the amendments made to legislation....

 

Apple

 

Apple

[bhall]

Ben, Ben, Ben...

 

The Borrower does not legally grant the Lender any such legal 'ownership' rights ....the Law prevents the Borrower from doing that...

 

The fact that HMLR by mistake take as 'valid' terms such as 'charge by way of legal mortgage' and 'full title guarantee' is a matter that is before the Property Chamber....

 

The example you post is notably to do with a charge made in 2001...ambiguously HMLR present this today as an 'example' on line.... it does not evince current substantiating legislation...they should remove it...look how it has confused you....what say other unwary Borrowers hey??? they are supposed to present to the public 'reliable guidance'... the example is far from that.....

 

You know as well as I do that we have moved on since the decision in 'paragon'....The Penders property was charged back in the 80's.... or early 90's....it should not be having the effect it has been allowed today as it did back then....valid charging clauses have all together changed now mate....that's just one of the issues that spring to mind with that decision when relied upon today.....imo

 

Apple

 

Come on Apple, getting a wee bit silly now

 

Can someone who has a mortgage deed registered after the LRA 2002 came into effect please confirm or deny if the lender is still registered (as per the example) as the proprietor of the registered charge.

 

UNRAM, can you please look at your deed and confirm if in the charge section, your lender is detailed as the proprietor

[bhall]

Come on Apple, getting a wee bit silly now

 

Can someone who has a mortgage deed registered after the LRA 2002 came into effect please confirm or deny if the lender is still registered (as per the example) as the proprietor of the registered charge.

 

UNRAM, can you please look at your deed and confirm if in the charge section, your lender is detailed as the proprietor

 

Nevermind... found one

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/guides/public-guide-1

 

 

28.11.2003 - The lender is still the registered proprietor of the registered charge Apple (over a month after the LRA 2002 commencement date of 13 October 2003) - This example shows one charge registered before the LRA 2002 and one charge registered after the LRA 2002 - Both charges have the lender as the registered proprietor - In otherwords the lender is the owner of the charge in both instances.

 

Should also be noted the above practice guide was updated in July 2013 - Therefore represents the current and uptodate guidance of the Land Registry

Edited August 14, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Yes, that too needs amending...another little 'oversight' by HMLR - stands to mislead the public imo....they need to distinguish the relevance of that document and stop 'approving' lenders own forms of 'charge'.....that contain invalid charging clauses as similar to their own......that would go a long way to stop confusion,.....

 

I think I am correct in surmising that HMLR are more than 'complicit' with an unscrupulous lenders objectives due to these on-going failures to update their guides in line with the amendments made to legislation....

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

It is amazing how many things you feel need amending to fall in line with your assertions Apple. May be it is time to consider that it is not all these things that need amending but the assertions you have made.

 

Just saying.......

Edited August 14, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

It is amazing how many things you feel need amending to fall in line with your assertions Apple. May be it is time to consider that it is not all these things that need amending but the assertions you have made.

 

Just saying.......

 

Ben, I'm pleased you flag up a more up to date example.....however, the example as updated by HMLR shown as updated in July 2013...still fails to show a true example of what the law would recognise as containing 'valid charging clauses'....

 

Your allegiance to all things HMLR is commendable but remains wholly misguided...imo

 

If it is my assertions that you suggest need 'amending;.... then, you are essentially saying that my reliance on the LAW needs to be re-considered and effectively....you are suggesting that the LAW needs amending...

 

I did not make the LAW Ben.....I simply follow it...unlike as is clearly shown by way of the examples you have posted ...HMLR

 

Let's not waste time on your ego Ben....direct your posts to supporting the upcoming hearing at the Chamber.....that would make more sense...you are simply covering ground that has already been dismissed....

 

By the way...just a quicky....are you ready to let us know what your interpretation of a 'speciality contract' is as yet?....(That may be a more useful way of you taking time out to post on this thread)

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just to advise the unwary... Ben has resorted to posting up example copies of a 'title register'....which clearly confirm that they have been drawn up by virtue of 'invalid charging clauses' that are contained in the CH1 form or from a form of charge as approved by HMLR....i.e the 'deed'

 

Apple

[bhall]

This response from the Land Registry might be of interest to some

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/title_register_proprietor

 

This response is dated 13 February 2013

 

"When a company such as Santander lend people money to buy their property we note the mortgage in section C (Charges register). They are referred to here as being the ‘proprietor’ of the mortgage as they ‘own’ it and they remain on the title register until the mortgage is paid off by the property owner"

[bhall]

This is another 'working example' of the title register from the Land Registry

 

In the charges section, it refers to a charge 1 September 2011, again the Lender is the registered proprietor (owner) of the registered charge

 

https://www.searchflow.co.uk/cms/downloads/Land%20Reg/LR_Electronic_Register_View_%28E%29.pdf

[IS IT ME?]

BUT BEN PLEASE OH PLEASE THIS IS THE CHARGE ONLY AND NOT THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE

It clear states ' IT IDENTIFIES THE OWNER'

AND THE CHARGES REGISTER IS XYZ LENDER AS THE PROPRIETOR OF THE REG CHARGE.

and that only.

[applecart]

This response from the Land Registry might be of interest to some

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/title_register_proprietor

 

This response is dated 13 February 2013

 

"When a company such as Santander lend people money to buy their property we note the mortgage in section C (Charges register). They are referred to here as being the ‘proprietor’ of the mortgage as they ‘own’ it and they remain on the title register until the mortgage is paid off by the property owner"

 

eeeerm ...notably the 'customer' asks HMLR to refer him to the LAW that they rely on.....typically.... and in keeping with all things 'ambiguous'....HMLR refer the 'customer' to their own misguided practices in this example Ben......

 

Santander only 'own' it because HMLR have no doubt relied that Santander's chargng clauses...are just as 'valid' as approved by them......not by the legislator...

 

Perhaps you can help HMLR out here Ben....can you point us to the law that says that 'charge by way of legal mortgage' or 'full title guarantee'.....which will have been the clauses relied on by HMLR to provide the response to the 'customer' after all....cheers?

 

If not....then.....Have you got anything a bit more convincing than this link please?

 

Apple

[applecart]

This is another 'working example' of the title register from the Land Registry

 

In the charges section, it refers to a charge 1 September 2011, again the Lender is the registered proprietor (owner) of the registered charge

 

https://www.searchflow.co.uk/cms/downloads/Land%20Reg/LR_Electronic_Register_View_%28E%29.pdf

 

Ben,

 

This example is more like the way that ALLL title registers should show,.....to depict as the law intends that the lender has no more than a notice that secures the indebtedness....not that the Lender is the 'owner' of the 'charge'.....

 

The charge....is a notice only...it is the Borrowers estate that it is noted on...and identifies that the Borrower consented to the 'notice' being entered...HMLR have entered it under the charges section ...where it should be...and nowhere else

 

Notably the notice is to the favour of Barclays....you know that bank, that would stand to be crucified all over again...(libor scandal) if this example showed something other than the LAW says it could legally do......

 

If Barclays sought to raise funds via securitisaton....it would not get this notice past the listing agencies as one that conferred any legal ownership rights...under close scrutiny....no chance....all Barclays could do is release it's own interest in relation to the debt...by way of notice to the Borrower....LPA s,136 I believe.... : 0

 

All together different to the deeds held by HMLR or that Borrowers have copies of hey Ben?

 

Got anything else up your sleeve mate....?

 

Apple

[bhall]

We must also not forget 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.

 

 

Taking into consideration rule 9 of the LRR 2003, does any one have their own name and not their lenders name, registered as the proprietor of the legal charge ?

 

As Is It Me?'s friends deed is the one in dispute, may be he could confirm who the registered proprietor of the legal charge is in the Charges Register - This will no doubt be confirmed during the hearing anyway.

 

For that matter, anyone else that is contemplating following Apple's advice can check their own Title Register to see if their lender is the registered proprietor (owner) of the registered charge. This will allow you to see for yourself if Apple is right or not.

 

There will not be a single one where the borrower is the registered proprietor of the registered charge, as the borrower gave the charge to the lender, at which point following registration, it became the legal owner of the legal charge -

 

As confirmed by Pender the registered proprietor of the legal charge is the legal owner of the legal charge.

 

Enough from me for one day

 

Ben

[applecart]

BUT BEN PLEASE OH PLEASE THIS IS THE CHARGE ONLY AND NOT THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE

It clear states ' IT IDENTIFIES THE OWNER'

AND THE CHARGES REGISTER IS XYZ LENDER AS THE PROPRIETOR OF THE REG CHARGE.

and that only.

 

Not far off Is It Me,

 

Better put, it identifies that Barclays are more the ' subject of a notice in the register',....they are not intended to 'own' the charge.....that's HMLR and Ben just 'chatting'.....when they speak of any lender 'owning the charge...

 

see here LRA section 30 (2)(a) (i):

 

30 Effect of registered dispositions: charges

 

(1)If a registrable disposition of a registered charge is made for valuable consideration, completion of the disposition by registration has the effect of postponing to the interest under the disposition any interest affecting the charge immediately before the disposition whose priority is not protected at the time of registration.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), the priority of an interest is protected—

(a)in any case, if the interest—

(i)is a registered charge or the subject of a notice in the register,

(ii)falls within any of the paragraphs of Schedule 3, or

(iii)appears from the register to be excepted from the effect of registration, and....

 

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Ben dear Ben go and lie down in a dark corner,

you have once again answered your own question THE LENDER IS THE OWNER OF THE CHARGE NOTHING MORE

WHAT YOUR SAYING IF I am reading it right the lender owns your house ????

Thank you apple for having some faith in me, yes it has been hard to get some one any one to listen but now we have this has been going on for over 2 years so I can not see any court or tribunal not saying go away you have no case before now and as I said before and many times ' it is how the questions are put and answered ' which is the question.

So now its time to start getting back to a fair playing field because as I've said before this is only the start as when the rates go up many more people will be in this boat.

[UNRAM]

Come on Apple, getting a wee bit silly now

 

Can someone who has a mortgage deed registered after the LRA 2002 came into effect please confirm or deny if the lender is still registered (as per the example) as the proprietor of the registered charge.

 

UNRAM, can you please look at your deed and confirm if in the charge section, your lender is detailed as the proprietor

 

...NRAM are listed on my property's register of title under C: Charges Register as the proprietor of the charge. Is ownership of the charge entirely relevant to the case being built here? There has been so much back and forth over the charge I have lost sight over why it is relevant....

Edited August 14, 2013 by UNRAM

[bhall]

Ben dear Ben go and lie down in a dark corner,

you have once again answered your own question THE LENDER IS THE OWNER OF THE CHARGE NOTHING MORE

WHAT YOUR SAYING IF I am reading it right the lender owns your house ????

Thank you apple for having some faith in me, yes it has been hard to get some one any one to listen but now we have this has been going on for over 2 years so I can not see any court or tribunal not saying go away you have no case before now and as I said before and many times ' it is how the questions are put and answered ' which is the question.

So now its time to start getting back to a fair playing field because as I've said before this is only the start as when the rates go up many more people will be in this boat.

 

Exactly Is It Me?

 

The lender is the owner of the charge. As you understand, can you please explain it now to Apple

 

No I am not saying the Lender owns the property. On the contrary a charge by way of legal mortgage does not transfer ownership of the property to the Lender.

 

The borrower grants the lender a charge expressed by deed by way of legal mortgage.

 

The lender only owns the charge not the property you or I live in.

[applecart]

We must also not forget 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.

 

 

Taking into consideration rule 9 of the LRR 2003, does any one have their own name and not their lenders name, registered as the proprietor of the legal charge ?

 

As Is It Me?'s friends deed is the one in dispute, may be he could confirm who the registered proprietor of the legal charge is in the Charges Register - This will no doubt be confirmed during the hearing anyway.

 

For that matter, anyone else that is contemplating following Apple's advice can check their own Title Register to see if their lender is the registered proprietor (owner) of the registered charge. This will allow you to see for yourself if Apple is right or not.

 

There will not be a single one where the borrower is the registered proprietor of the registered charge, as the borrower gave the charge to the lender, at which point following registration, it became the legal owner of the legal charge -

 

As confirmed by Pender the registered proprietor of the legal charge is the legal owner of the legal charge.

 

Enough from me for one day

 

Ben

 

Phew, I'm glad this will be all you will post for today mate..... : )

 

Let this be my last post for now too...

 

As long as you continue to confuse the effect of the Borrowers 'Registered Charge'....that's the Borrowers charge that is registered with HMLR before they use their owners "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," (LRA s.23 (2) (a) and the Borrowers "power to charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge" (LRA s.23 (2) (b)

 

You will unwittingly continue to believe that the Lender has derived this power as if he were the owner of the original registered charge with powers of the owner...who is the Borrower...other than by means of the invalid charge clauses as approved by HMLR....

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

THEN APPLE IS RIGHT they have to sign the deed!

[bhall]

THEN APPLE IS RIGHT they have to sign the deed!

 

We will find out if Apple is right or wrong at the hearing.

 

Just hope for your friends sake Apple is right. However, I can't in full honesty say Apple is right about anything Apple has posted with regard to property law.

[IS IT ME?]

would you like to come to the hearing and hear it yourself?

[bhall]

would you like to come to the hearing and hear it yourself?

 

I won't need to as the decision will be a matter of public record and will be available online.

 

It is not to late Is It Me?, for the sake of your friends family home, contact Ell-en etc and discuss this matter. There may be something that can be suggested to help your friend save his home.

 

Your friend has nothing to lose by at least you considering taking that step.

 

Don't put all your friends apples in one basket (no pun intended)

[UNRAM]

Apple

 

Given that I do not know the securitization status of my mortgage and I don't think it is relevant in a case for presentation to the Property Chamber other than as further proof of lender possession, can we adapt your earlier representation to my circumstances so that I may get the ball rolling with PC myself...

[applecart]

This is my last post for the night....just as things are gearing up as well...but I've been at this the best part of the night and all day so far....

 

Remind yourselves what a 'valid charging clause' should ideally look like here:

 

http://www.landirect.ie/eng/Legal_Professional_Customers/Legal_Practices_Procedures/Approval_of_Deeds_of_Charge_Mortgage/Solicitors/Coakley_Moloney_Solicitors_January_2011.pdf

 

I think we should all attend the public hearing......all 17000 of us and growing...... : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Then why oh why has ELL-en not put any thing on here to say apples wrong or his or her ( I don't know which) arguments are wrong??