Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Hi Ben

 

Thanks for the ‘heads up’........it’s a clear reminder as to how the Lender will do anything to rely that their manipulations and circumvention of the LAW will continue to assist him.

 

Like you have shown .........a Lender will jump to Rule 14 (3)(b)...long before they take any notice of the Legislators ‘fanciful ideas’ stated in Rule 14 (1) and (2) to make out that they do not exist.....so, yes.....the ‘heads up’ is much appreciated.

 

Those Rules (14 (1) & (2)) as you know say the Lender must advise the Borrower of who it is that he intends to appoint to represent him and also say that the Lender must give the Borrower the appointed representatives name and address....fortunately we accept the Legislators ‘fanciful ideas’ over that of the Lenders...so no worries there.

 

Thanks to for ‘Halsbury’s Law’ in relation to the relationship between Mortgagor and Mortgagee...

 

Borrowers will need to be mindful that they are not misguided by Lenders into thinking that the Lender can Mortgage their registered estates and fooled into thinking that it applies to them or their applications.....so, yes.....this ‘heads up’ is much appreciated too.....

 

For, as you know....LRA section 23 relates to the Registered Estate...and provides that a Borrower cannot mortgage by demise or sub-demise....so, yes...Thanks for the ‘heads up’.....

 

Once again....no Borrower here is misguided...so we will be vigilant to ensure that they do not sneak this tit bit of Halsbury’s Law into the mix.......When it is another piece of Halsbury's Law that actually applies...

 

Again, with regard to those firms of Solicitors that are going AWOL....3 of them so far......even though it is true that Rule 14 (3)(b) applies to them.........It would appear that when it comes to ‘witness statements’.....they must have realised that the Rules do not permit them to submit witness statements on behalf of the Lender...(un-like what happens in the lower courts)...... kinda leaves them a wee bit stumped don’t it?.....

 

.....must be hard to get a Lender who has ‘gone away’ to submit their own witness statements these days.......or to pursue a Borrower when the Borrower has not been advised by the Lender that you are his appointed representative. ???

 

And yes...according to Rule 16 (2)(a)...we understand that the Tribunal can indeed send out documents of its own violation.....hence the ‘lamb’ and the ‘Fergus’ cases no doubt....

 

Rule 16 (2) says:

 

The Tribunal may provide any document (including any notice or summons or other information) under these Rules by—

(a)itself sending or delivering the document; or

(b)requiring a party to do so.

 

So, yes we are delighted that the Tribunal have sent them to us for our consideration. However as you know after consideration....we have put them in the bathroom next to the Andrex for now......

 

 

Apple

 

As expected you have chosen the sweep it under the carpet option, in regard to Halsbury's as it does not support many of the fanciful ideas you have posted in this thread.

 

Disappointing but not surprising.

 

For those that are interested, other extracts from Halsbury's about some of the fanciful ideas posted in this thread can be found here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender/page12

Edited November 28, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

As expected you have chosen the sweep it under the carpet option, in regard to Halsbury's as it does not support many of the fanciful ideas you have posted in this thread.

 

Disappointing but not surprising.

 

For those that are interested, other extracts from Halsbury's about some of the fanciful ideas posted in this thread can be found here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender/page12

 

No, Not at all..... I'm simply not misguided that's all.....so, whilst that might disappoint you....I'm pleased to note you are not surprised ; )

 

When it comes to Halsbury's Law, you first have to understand what it means in relation to the topic that we are talking about here...and of course take into account that there is no Borrower that can 'mortgage' registered land...and then when you have done that.... you need to take into account that there are no Deeds that meet the formalities of a Deed in relation to the topic of this thread....

 

So, sorry to disappoint you....but I make no apology for maintaining the focus and thrust of this thread ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Oh and Ben... Just so as you know that I am not opting to choose the 'sweep it under the carpet' approach.... I borrowed this titbit from the many references you made to Halsbury's Law from the link in your post.... Here it is:

 

"A legal mortgage of personal property is a conditional assignment to the mortgagee of the mortgagor's legal interesticon in it1. A legal mortgage of land or an interest in land must be by deed2. A legal mortgage of an estate in unregistered land is effected by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage or a demise or sub-demise for a term of years absolute3. The effect of a legal mortgage by demise is to vest the legal estate in the term of years created by it in the mortgagee, who, unless the deed expressly provides for possession by the mortgagor until default, is immediately entitled upon the execution of the deed to possession of the property4; but the mortgagor's legal estate in the reversion of the term of years is not transferred to the mortgagee until the right of redemption is destroyed by foreclosure or sale or otherwise5. A legal charge does not vest any estate in the mortgagee, but creates a legal interest which confers on the mortgagee the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgage by demise6. A mortgage of registered land can be made only by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage or by charging the estate with the payment of money, and cannot be made by way of mortgage by demise7."

 

Bet you can't spot the 'F'LAW?

 

Here it is for you.....

 

"A legal mortgage of an estate in unregistered land is effected by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage or a demise or sub-demise for a term of years absolute"

 

There you go Ben..... So, What now?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Ben,

Don't upset the apple cart!!! lol

 

No thank you apple I am still 100% focus and on BALL here, I know as do you the games and the people they put in play to try and put you off, put doubt in your mind as to what you are doing all that BUT do they really really think that you do not take advice and counsel from others? are they really that stupid??

after all it's no us who have changed sides lol

 

I am 1000% NO 1 million % sure you ARE correct in this thread so thank you once again for your time and input.

[IS IT ME?]

Bhall,

Ben how do you get all these posting from the law, your computer must be a big on lol

I could not post up such a list like that , well done you.

Kept it up your friends are watching. lol

[sequenci]

Guys, a suggestion if I may.

 

You need to focus on this recent development. If the chamber have sent you this information please consider why they have done so. And ensure that you can confidently distinguish your arguments from those that have been discussed within those decisions. Although bickering is entertaining, and I like banter more than most, we're starting to verge towards the business end so now is the time to focus on the task in hand.

[applecart]

Ben,

Don't upset the apple cart!!! lol

 

No thank you apple I am still 100% focus and on BALL here, I know as do you the games and the people they put in play to try and put you off, put doubt in your mind as to what you are doing all that BUT do they really really think that you do not take advice and counsel from others? are they really that stupid??

after all it's no us who have changed sides lol

 

I am 1000% NO 1 million % sure you ARE correct in this thread so thank you once again for your time and input.

 

Thanks for this Is It Me ; )

 

I keep saying and will continue to say.....there simply is NO DEFENCE......

 

There remains as I said ....nothing that Ben & Co can say or do.... the application is on point and it is already with the Chamber......

 

They were wrong to 'mortgage' a registered estate

 

They were wrong to leave the deed un-executed

 

So.....case CLOSED!

 

They need to allow the Chamber to do that which it has been asked to do.....which is to determine the 'mortgage' void along with the Deed.....so that the Lenders charge can be removed from your friends title.....

 

They need to stop wasting Borrowers monies on firms of solicitors who are simply wasting time even attempting to defend the un-defendable ....

 

oooooh yes...and one more humble request....... stop unpsetting the APLECART!!! ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Guys, a suggestion if I may.

 

You need to focus on this recent development. If the chamber have sent you this information please consider why they have done so. And ensure that you can confidently distinguish your arguments from those that have been discussed within those decisions. Although bickering is entertaining, and I like banter more than most, we're starting to verge towards the business end so now is the time to focus on the task in hand.

 

Hi Sequenci

 

We have already considered the information sent.....we have acknowledged it..... and put it in the bathroom next to the Andrex......

 

Do you truly believe we need do anything other than that with it?

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Do you truly believe we need do anything other than that with it?

 

Apple

 

Hi Apple, I've not had a lot of time to really scrutinise the information - so apologies if I've got my wires crossed. But do they not touch on two issues that you've raised yourself?

 

Ta,

 

Seq.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Sequenci

 

We have already considered the information sent.....we have acknowledged it..... and put it in the bathroom next to the Andrex......

 

Do you truly believe we need do anything other than that with it?

 

Apple

 

Yes I agree

What do you think or feel there is in this case which we

Should worry about

[applecart]

Hi Apple, I've not had a lot of time to really scrutinise the information - so apologies if I've got my wires crossed. But do they not touch on two issues that you've raised yourself?

 

Ta,

 

Seq.

 

Really? and what were those then?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Yes that your right apple ha ha

[applecart]

Yes that your right apple ha ha

 

I genuinely have no idea what is being referred to at all.....first we are directed to Halsbury's Law; for which there is no link.... no means of verifying any of the 'information' posted on this thread or the other thread...

 

and.....accordingly....if it cannot be validated...then it is hard to take it into account..... other than to point out the obvious 'F'LAW....which I assume was not intended to be posted for the same analogy was also made out to apply to registered land.....totally confusing I thought......totally ambiguous too.....

 

Now, It has to be said... unless Ben can post up the link to the Volume of Halsbury's Law that he refers to.....then, I'm afraid the 'F'LAW stands as a 'F'LAW..

 

It's up to him....post the link or accept that his reliance on Halsburys Law 'Volume "77"' is 'F'LAWed

 

The Chamber have not sent volume 77 to any applicant....surely, if it contained such condemning information....they would not hesitate to send it out.....given that we are led to understand that the Chamber has power to send out 'documents'..... like I say, copies of that particular volume would solve everything...right?

 

No Lender who is the subject of an application has relied on volume 77 either.....surely, their solicitors would have access to it.....why don't they submit it.....are they waiting until the last minute to do so??...and if so.... why would they do that....surely they want this matter resolved without increasing costs or wasting Chamber time and resources???

 

Why not post up the Link Ben......let's all have a good look at volume 77.....??

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Your be waiting a long long time

[bhall]

Your be waiting a long long time

 

Lol not that long

 

http://lexisweb.co.uk/guides/sources/halsbury-s-laws-of-england

 

 

77 (FIFTH EDITION 2010) (31 JANUARY 2010)

 

MISTAKE

PAUL MATTHEWS, BCL, LLD, Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts: Civil); Deputy Master, High Court, Chancery Division; Consultant, Withers LLP; Visiting Professor, Kings College, London; HM Coroner for the City of London

 

MORTGAGE

THOMAS JEFFERIES, BA, of the Middle Temple, Barrister

 

NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

DR KATHRYN WHITBY-LAST, LLB, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Aberdeen

[bhall]

I genuinely have no idea what is being referred to at all.....first we are directed to Halsbury's Law; for which there is no link.... no means of verifying any of the 'information' posted on this thread or the other thread...

 

and.....accordingly....if it cannot be validated...then it is hard to take it into account..... other than to point out the obvious 'F'LAW....which I assume was not intended to be posted for the same analogy was also made out to apply to registered land.....totally confusing I thought......totally ambiguous too.....

 

Now, It has to be said... unless Ben can post up the link to the Volume of Halsbury's Law that he refers to.....then, I'm afraid the 'F'LAW stands as a 'F'LAW..

 

It's up to him....post the link or accept that his reliance on Halsburys Law 'Volume "77"' is 'F'LAWed

 

The Chamber have not sent volume 77 to any applicant....surely, if it contained such condemning information....they would not hesitate to send it out.....given that we are led to understand that the Chamber has power to send out 'documents'..... like I say, copies of that particular volume would solve everything...right?

 

No Lender who is the subject of an application has relied on volume 77 either.....surely, their solicitors would have access to it.....why don't they submit it.....are they waiting until the last minute to do so??...and if so.... why would they do that....surely they want this matter resolved without increasing costs or wasting Chamber time and resources???

 

Why not post up the Link Ben......let's all have a good look at volume 77.....??

 

Apple

 

How can I post a link to physical books that I have in my possession ?

 

However, I can post a link to evidence that volume 77 of Halsbury's is in regard to mortgages

 

http://lexisweb.co.uk/guides/sources/halsbury-s-laws-of-england

 

"SUMMARY

 

Below is a complete list of all current titles in and contributors and consultants to the Fourth and the Fifth Editions of Halsbury's Laws of England. It is updated each time a new volume is published.

 

The volume number is followed by a description of the status of the volume and the date in brackets is the date at which the volume states the law.

 

The contributors and consultants are described as they were at the time of publication of each volume, and not necessarily as they are now."

 

 

77 (FIFTH EDITION 2010) (31 JANUARY 2010)

 

MISTAKE

PAUL MATTHEWS, BCL, LLD, Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts: Civil); Deputy Master, High Court, Chancery Division; Consultant, Withers LLP; Visiting Professor, Kings College, London; HM Coroner for the City of London

 

MORTGAGE

THOMAS JEFFERIES, BA, of the Middle Temple, Barrister

 

NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

DR KATHRYN WHITBY-LAST, LLB, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of

 

 

lol, so sweep it under the carpet as much you as like

[applecart]

How can I post a link to physical books that I have in my possession ?

 

However, I can post a link to evidence that volume 77 of Halsbury's is in regard to mortgages

 

http://lexisweb.co.uk/guides/sources/halsbury-s-laws-of-england

 

"SUMMARY

 

Below is a complete list of all current titles in and contributors and consultants to the Fourth and the Fifth Editions of Halsbury's Laws of England. It is updated each time a new volume is published.

 

The volume number is followed by a description of the status of the volume and the date in brackets is the date at which the volume states the law.

 

The contributors and consultants are described as they were at the time of publication of each volume, and not necessarily as they are now."

 

 

77 (FIFTH EDITION 2010) (31 JANUARY 2010)

 

MISTAKE

PAUL MATTHEWS, BCL, LLD, Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts: Civil); Deputy Master, High Court, Chancery Division; Consultant, Withers LLP; Visiting Professor, Kings College, London; HM Coroner for the City of London

 

MORTGAGE

THOMAS JEFFERIES, BA, of the Middle Temple, Barrister

 

NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

DR KATHRYN WHITBY-LAST, LLB, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of

 

 

lol, so sweep it under the carpet as much you as like

 

 

All you have to do is scan the pages upon which you rely from the book and post them up.... so that we can have a good look...

 

That's simple enough - right?

 

Apple

[caro]

All you have to do is scan the pages upon which you rely from the book and post them up.... so that we can have a good look...

 

That's simple enough - right?

 

Apple

 

There may be copyright issues.

[bhall]

All you have to do is scan the pages upon which you rely from the book and post them up.... so that we can have a good look...

 

That's simple enough - right?

 

Apple

 

I have typed exactly what is stated word for word (so please excuse any typo's). If you want to believe or disbelieve that what I have posted is what is stated in Halsbury's is a decision that only you can make. Quite frankly, I am not bothered if you do or you don't.

 

I have given you a heads up of what Halsbury's states and how it does not support and disproves your fanciful ideas. Therefore, do not be surprised if during the hearing, reference is made to what I have posted.

 

If you want to read the actual books, I suggest you either buy them yourself, try your local library or even maybe ask a local firm of solicitors. I have shown you that volume 77 exists and that it relates to mortgages, contrary to what you previously implied.

 

The many volumes are quite big though, so you will have to lift that carpet very high up to sweep them under it

 

Ben

[applecart]

I have typed exactly what is stated word for word (so please excuse any typo's). If you want to believe or disbelieve that what I have posted is what is stated in Halsbury's is a decision that only you can make. Quite frankly, I am not bothered if you do or you don't.

 

I have given you a heads up of what Halsbury's states and how it does not support and disproves your fanciful ideas. Therefore, do not be surprised if during the hearing, reference is made to what I have posted.

 

If you want to read the actual books, I suggest you either buy them yourself, try your local library or even maybe ask a local firm of solicitors. I have shown you that volume 77 exists and that it relates to mortgages, contrary to what you previously implied.

 

The many volumes are quite big though, so you will have to lift that carpet very high up to sweep them under it

 

Ben

 

Are there possible 'copyright issues'?

 

Likewise contrary to me looking to 'sweep this under the carpet'....I have invited you to carry out a simple task.....you advise I go to a local library or buy a copy......

 

We have not had to buy a copy of 'lamb' or 'fergus'.... but we have them here scanned and posted up on the thread ....there was no issue as to 'copy right'....in fact.... un-reported cases are difficult to get a hold of.....and yet we have them ; )

 

And here you are.....making bold statements....to do with the very 'incriminating' evidence found in Halsbury's Law vol 77 - 5th edition......and you can't be bothered to validate your 'word for word' quote.....the very information that will save the Chamber, the Lender and Borrowers costs and time.... and you tell us to go buy a copy or go to the library.....Thanks a lot Ben...

 

I fear it is you who is looking to sweep information under the carpet......not me ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Are there possible 'copyright issues'?

 

Likewise contrary to me looking to 'sweep this under the carpet'....I have invited you to carry out a simple task.....you advise I go to a local library or buy a copy......

 

We have not had to buy a copy of 'lamb' or 'fergus'.... but we have them here scanned and posted up on the thread ....there was no issue as to 'copy right'....in fact.... un-reported cases are difficult to get a hold of.....and yet we have them ; )

 

And here you are.....making bold statements....to do with the very 'incriminating' evidence found in Halsbury's Law vol 77 - 5th edition......and you can't be bothered to validate your 'word for word' quote.....the very information that will save the Chamber, the Lender and Borrowers costs and time.... and you tell us to go buy a copy or go to the library.....Thanks a lot Ben...

 

I fear it is you who is looking to sweep information under the carpet......not me ; )

 

Apple

 

 

lol, how am I sweeping information under the carpet, if I have posted it, word for word.

 

As I said before, believe it or disbelieve it - your choice.

[applecart]

lol, how am I sweeping information under the carpet, if I have posted it, word for word.

 

As I said before, believe it or disbelieve it - your choice.

 

No Ben,

 

I do not sweep 'F'LAWS under the carpet ......I expose them .... and until you post up evidence to the contrary - then I'm afraid all viewers of this thread are left no choice other than to view your information with the same 'F'LAWs as highlighted by me....

 

Cheers

 

Ta

 

Apple

[ims21]

then I'm afraid all viewers of this thread are left no choice other than to view your information with the same 'F'LAWs as highlighted by me....

 

Cheers

 

Ta

 

Apple

 

Well of course viewers of this thread have a choice.

 

They can accept what has been posted by Ben, they can research it themselves or they can dismiss it. That decision will be up to the individual.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Apple,

 

Ben’s Post

By executing a deed in accordance with all the requirements for such execution1, the party whose act and deed it is becomes, as a general rule, conclusively bound by what he is stated in the deed to be effecting, undertaking or permitting2. He is, in general, so bound even though another party has not executed the deed3,

Judge Blunsdon - Decision

“ until the charge is registered the chargee has an equitable charge over the registered land” para 22

“The equitable charge over the property sprang into existence on delivery of the deed” pg.18

“ and is a deed validly executed by Mr. Joseph Fergus alone”

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Ben,

 

Why don't you just post it up, it has not held you back before, its in your interest also. Do the honourable thing and get it up here, so the lads can give it a kicking.

 

Many Thanks.