Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

??

 

I was just wondering why you felt a need to look to take viewers back to 'old skool' (spelling error intended)

 

Apple

[applecart]

Now we are getting somewhere.somewhere. Just link me to this "statutory protection".

 

With respect; like every one else you'll have to start at Post #1..... this thread does not constitute a template....sorry dodgeball...... : (

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Sorry what does any of this mean ?

 

I asked for proof of your theories ?

 

I assume you are a 'layperson'with regard to this thread......it is fair to say that at this point you are potentially NOT up to speed with this thread......(with respect - evident from your posts so far) may I 'humbly' suggest you proceed with 'caution'.... given that the reliance for your ' assertions' are themselves driven by links to untested, unfounded opinions of the LAW from the WWW and un-amended quotes from the pMPA 1989?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

With respect; like every one else you'll have to start at Post #1..... this thread does not constitute a template....sorry dodgeball...... : (

 

 

Apple

 

I do not know how much simpler to make my request, if you are saying that mortgages are a "legal impossibility" please show the statute that confirms this, since you say you rely on statute.

 

Because there are a LOT of people with these impossible arrangements in place that would be very interested in seeing it.

 

I tried post one and then lost interest at about post 200, I am not interest in opinion or rhetoric as I said earlier, and neither will any court be, just case law and statute please,

[Peterbard]

With respect; like every one else you'll have to start at Post #1..... this thread does not constitute a template....sorry dodgeball...... : (

 

 

Apple

 

Just going back over this thread to try and find a point where you actually made a valid argument or answered a relevant question without sidetracking with irrelevancies i gave up.

[Peterbard]

I am not wasting any more of y time on this nonsense and I earnestly urge anyone else not to either , there is nothing of any value here.

 

Night all

[bhall]

I do not know how much simpler to make my request, if you are saying that mortgages are a "legal impossibility" please show the statute that confirms this, since you say you rely on statute.

 

Because there are a LOT of people with these impossible arrangements in place that would be very interested in seeing it.

 

I tried post one and then lost interest at about post 200, I am not interest in opinion or rhetoric as I said earlier, and neither will any court be, just case law and statute please,

 

Hello Dodgeball, I think this is what you are looking for

 

I understand it is difficult to switch from one train of thought to another....however, you have already clearly grasped the understanding that there is something not quite right - you have also understood that there is statute available to protect your interest...the issue is you chose the wrong statute.....that does not represent the 'end of the world' so's to speak.

 

Remember an appeal concerns a finding that the 'decision' of the lower court is wrong....i.e you say s.2...the decision says....nope....the higher court will uphold that 'decision' because like I said before s.2 does not apply to deeds......and you are looking to shoehorn the courts into accepting that a 'offer' is the 'agreement'..... if you have been granted an oral hearing, but have not yet derived permission to appeal...this suggests that ...your oral hearing is for you to argue the points set out in your written submissions of appeal....if s.2 is in that... the likelihood is that you will face the 'helden'. 'eagle star' decisions.....possibly even 'lamb'.......because like her you also mentioned the 'registration gap'........

 

As we extend our knowledge.......You need to understand that the 'agreement' for land purposes relates to the validity of that there 'mortgage deed' - in other words.....the 'mortgage deed' IS the 'agreement' - it is the 'agreement' that needs to be signed by you in solemn form (witnessed) and executed by the Lender in solemn form also.....you have incorrectly stated that the offer is the 'agreement' it isn't..... the LAW says the creation of an interest in land must be by 'deed' (LRA s.52 (1).....not by way of an 'offer'.....that 'deed' must not be a 'mortgage' LRA s.23(1)(a) and not a legal sub-mortgage (LRA s.23 (2)(b).....the law prevents you having any statutory power to grant a deed by charge by way of legal mortgage.....because it has the same legal presumptions of a 'mortgage by demise and a legal sub-mortgage)......

 

When it comes to the Lenders execution.....it is not s.2 that applies ......You should be at least talking Companies Act 2006 section 46.......analogous to LPA 1925 s.74 etc.......RRO 2005 and the LPMPA 1989 s.1 (2) as AMENDED

 

When it comes to your signature....it is LPMPA 1989 s.1(3) as amended........and tied in to the RRO 2005.....and a finding that the law removes any presumption of delivery on your part.....you cannot grant, assume and deliver the deed.....see 'bibby'.....lender can't circumvent the law...see 'garguillo'.....

 

That's just a brief outline......

 

You already have the general picture.... you just need to get the correct statute in place......and frame an oral argument that to see if you can get the judge in the appeal court to find that it would be unjust and a perversion of law to allow the lower court decision to stand against the public/personal interest......the law must prevail.....not unscrupulous lending common practices....

 

Let me know your thoughts?

 

Apple

 

For ease of reference s.23 of the LRA 2002

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23

 

23 Owner’s powers

 

(1)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate 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 mortgage by demise or sub-demise, and

 

(b)power to charge the estate at law with the payment of money.

 

(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.

 

 

 

The explanatory note for the above

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/3/1/1

 

"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."

 

The following may be applicable

 

s.87 of the LPA 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87 (as amended by schedule 11 section 2 of the LRA 2002)

 

87 Charges by way of legal mortgage.

 

(1)Where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits, or any of them) as if—

 

(a)where the mortgage is a mortgage of an estate in fee simple, a mortgage term for three thousand years without impeachment of waste had been thereby created in favour of the mortgagee; and

 

(b)where the mortgage is a mortgage of a term of years absolute, a sub-term less by one day than the term vested in the mortgagor had been thereby created in favour of the mortgagee.

 

(2)Where an estate vested in a mortgagee immediately before the commencement of this Act has by virtue of this Act been converted into a term of years absolute or sub-term, the mortgagee may, by a declaration in writing to that effect signed by him, convert the mortgage into a charge by way of legal mortgage, and in that case the mortgage term shall be extinguished in the inheritance or in the head term as the case may be, and the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits or any of them) as if the mortgage term or sub-term had remained subsisting.

 

The power conferred by this subsection may be exercised by a mortgagee notwithstanding that he is a trustee or personal representative.

 

(3)Such declaration shall not affect the priority of the mortgagee or his right to retain possession of documents, nor affect his title to or right over any fixtures or chattels personal comprised in the mortgage.

 

[F1(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).F1]

 

In addition to the definition of a legal mortgage as provided by s.205 of the LPA 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205

 

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

 

 

Just don't mention the word or and registered estate

 

 

 

 

Ben

[bhall]

I am not wasting any more of y time on this nonsense and I earnestly urge anyone else not to either , there is nothing of any value here.

 

Night all

 

Welcome to my world

[bhall]

More relevant info here

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/1

 

(2)An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

(a)it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

(b)it is validly executed as a deed by that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

(3)An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—

(a)it is signed—

(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

(4)In subsections (2) and (3) above “sign”, in relation to an instrument, includes making one’s mark on the instrument and “signature” is to be construed accordingly.

 

Apple asserts that the amendments made to the above (as below)

 

“(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless:

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

 

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

 

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

 

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

 

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.”

 

In someway have added an additional requirement that the mortgage deed must also be signed by the lender. However, no such requirement is expressed or even implied by statute.

 

I think that is about it

 

Ben

[Crapstone]

Apple have you actually read the post and quote that Ben has put up? I think the law, as quoted, has a very different meaning to what you are implying about it with regard to registered estates and ownership and the deeds being thus invalid. I've read it several times and looked it up and nothing substantiates what you are saying.

 

The deeds should be signed but again I can only imagine that a judge would look at the law, case law and then establish what the intention was by both parties and what the statute intended when it was made.

[bhall]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23

 

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.

 

Apologies, before the anticipated and usual response is made (being that the owner specified by s.23(2) of the LRA 2002 is the borrower) - clarification of the actual identity of the owner/proprietor of the charge is very much required.

 

 

From the explanatory notes for the LRA 2002

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/14/1/7

 

Creation of legal charge

 

223.Paragraph 8 relates to a newly created charge over a registered estate or a registered rentcharge. The charge must be recorded in the register relating to the registered estate and show the chargee (typically the lender) as proprietor of that charge.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/3/1/2

 

Section 24: Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

56.Owner’s powers can be exercised both by the registered proprietor, or someone entitled so to be registered, such as the personal representatives of an owner who has died.

 

The above has been posted to confirm that the lender, as the chargee is the proprietor of the charge (and not the borrower). Furthermore, it confirms that the powers of the owner of the charge can be exercised by the Lender(and not by the borrower), as the registered proprietor of the charge.

 

It goes without saying that s.23(1) and not (2) are the powers exercisable by the borrower as the registered proprietor of the registered estate, thus confirming that the borrower, as the registered proprietor of the registered estate, can as confirmed by statute grant a lender a legal mortgage - being a charge by legal mortgage and not a mortgage by demise / sub-demise.

 

Ben

[bhall]

Apple have you actually read the post and quote that Ben has put up? I think the law, as quoted, has a very different meaning to what you are implying about it with regard to registered estates and ownership and the deeds being thus invalid. I've read it several times and looked it up and nothing substantiates what you are saying.

 

The deeds should be signed but again I can only imagine that a judge would look at the law, case law and then establish what the intention was by both parties and what the statute intended when it was made.

 

Apple should have read it, I have posted it enough times lol

[bhall]

There is no obligation for anyone on CAG to make a donation to us. In fact, very few do. You'll never see any of the site team tryand long arm people in to doing so.

 

CAG does, however, cost a lot of money to run - which is why we've had to result to the Google ads. It wasn't something we wanted to do at all.

 

Apologies for any confusion that I may have caused inadvertently by my choice of words and thank you for your clarification

 

Ben

[bhall]

We are diverting of the thread now sorry about that,I would also like to thank ben for his fatherly advice as Jotho put it.

 

Here is a link to the memorandum.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/144/144w273.htm

 

I note the above memo does make reference to "full title guarantee" - something often referred to by the OP of this thread.

 

"120 For example, Clavis Securities were sold GMAC mortgages under an absolute assignment with full title guarantee on or around 15 June 2006 and after some 2½ years have failed to register its ownership at the Land Registry."

 

This is the reported outcome (from a freeman site of all places), I previously made reference too - posted to permit readers to know the entire picture.

 

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-pretender-lenders-here-in

 

"I also came across it in discussion blogs in the UK, and a lady by the name of Carmel Butler brought the matter up in the House of Commons expressing concern that Securitisation was being used by banks and that poeple whose mortgages had been sold on and securitised by subprime lenders in particular were having the highest rate of reposessions comming before the courts.

 

Carmel Butler was no dawe as we say here, she is a British citizen and a qualified lawyer in New York and she herself was facing reposession of her home by one of these subprime lenders and was going to challenge them on the grounds that her mortgage was sold on and that had contractual implications and other legal implications that I wont bore you with as its heavy reading. But you can look up what im writing about for yourselves and see that its all true, its real and its happening here."

 

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/part-2-the-pretender-lenders

 

"Im not nuts guys, do some reading check out whats happening in the USA, see the consumer action group blog in the UK, type in securitisation, and you see what they have to say and you will see that the case I spoke of in my earlier blog on this Basinghall Finance plc v Butler, a case brought by a british lady who was a qualified American lawyer, lost her case because there was some stuff she didnt know and understand in order to save her home."

 

The above makes reference to a CAG blog about this. I have had a glance at the CAG blog section but without any specific dates, I have not been able to find it. I have also been unable to locate a transcript of the case. The only information I could find was

 

http://www.radcliffechambers.com/barrister-profile/dov-ohrenstein/overview

 

Basinghall Finance PLC v Butler [2009] EWCA Civ 1262 (mortgages, assignment, securitisation, privity, Consumer Credit)

 

 

Ben

[applecart]

Apple have you actually read the post and quote that Ben has put up? I think the law, as quoted, has a very different meaning to what you are implying about it with regard to registered estates and ownership and the deeds being thus invalid. I've read it several times and looked it up and nothing substantiates what you are saying.

 

The deeds should be signed but again I can only imagine that a judge would look at the law, case law and then establish what the intention was by both parties and what the statute intended when it was made.

 

Hi Crapstone

 

Yes, I've read every single one of Ben's posts. He posts his opinion; his interpretations of the law and case law. He is welcome to do so....just like anyone else ; )

 

I'm interested to ask you......what do you mean by "The deeds should be signed".......do you mean: by the Borrower alone or do you mean - signed by the Borrower and the Lender?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

 

In someway have added an additional requirement that the mortgage deed must also be signed by the lender. However, no such requirement is expressed or even implied by statute.

 

I think that is about it

 

Ben

 

Yes thank you this is the conclusion I came to

[Peterbard]

Apple have you actually read the post and quote that Ben has put up? I think the law, as quoted, has a very different meaning to what you are implying about it with regard to registered estates and ownership and the deeds being thus invalid. I've read it several times and looked it up and nothing substantiates what you are saying.

 

The deeds should be signed but again I can only imagine that a judge would look at the law, case law and then establish what the intention was by both parties and what the statute intended when it was made.

 

I agree

[Peterbard]

Thanks Bhall and Capstone for the relevant information. I came on here knowing very little on the subject, but being intrigued by the idea put forward by apple.

 

As usual in such situation I ignored opinion(any opinion) and sought out authority to disprove or prove the contention. I had an open mind, sadly the is none.

 

As Apple said this has been gone over before it seems, however the facts and there real interpretation seem to have been buried somewhat in a barrage of rhetoric and misinformed and unsubstantiated opinion.

 

I thank you for answering my questions and for some of the case law which I have not yet read but will, and hope to increase my knowledge further on the subject.

[applecart]

Excellent post Ben....I’m impressed

 

Initially, you were advising one and all that ‘Owners Powers’ belonged to Lenders....ummm??

 

Now, it would seem that you are at last happy to accept that the ‘Owners Powers’ actually belong to the Borrower after all.....................aaahhh progress ; )

 

If you keep going along this same route.....you will eventually.....just maybe.....get fully up to speed with the OP and others.

 

However, you must be careful NOT to confuse yourself......or others.....as you move forward in your understanding and interpretation of property law.

 

It may have escaped you.......But, let me advise ...... Here in the UK we have two different land concepts ....the first is ‘un-registered’ land...and the second is ‘registered land’

 

As you would expect the Law stipulates what dealings you can or cannot do in relation to un-registered land different from any dealing in registered land.

 

It’s quite simple to find out if you are dealing in registered land.....here’s how....in the “property” section “A” on all titles....Borrowers will see a date depicting when their land was first registered.......that date will show as a date well ahead of the date that a lenders charge will be entered on the title, when a borrower takes a loan from the lender....to secure that indebtedness a date will be entered in section “c” in the “charges” section along with the lenders name.....Notably you will find at section “B”......the Borrower will see his own name......section “B” denotes the borrower as the “proprietor”...........this means the Borrower retains his status – he will remain the happy owner of an existing Registered Estate......Section “A” and section “B” are intended to stay the same....the only change on a registered estate will be in section “c”

 

The Un-registered land owner...well, he owns the free hold....he owns his land...although there was a drive to get all land registered....not all land owners have done so.....however; they do borrow money of course from lenders.....

 

For these un-registered land owners – Lenders can and do ;mortgage the estate....each time they do, they do so by charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage....pursuant to LPA s.87 (1)

 

Where a registered estate owner has no such power to “charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage”.......sub-section 4 simply means the Lender can trot along and mortgage the un-registered estate owners land without concern of LRA s.23 (1)(a) that relates to owners of a registered estate.

 

So, yes you are right...do not speak or mention the words ‘mortgage by demise’ and do not mention that word ‘or’......when we are talking about a Registered Estate...

 

(apologies if this post is duplicated)

 

Apple

[applecart]

Thanks Bhall and Capstone for the relevant information. I came on here knowing very little on the subject, but being intrigued by the idea put forward by apple.

 

As usual in such situation I ignored opinion(any opinion) and sought out authority to disprove or prove the contention. I had an open mind, sadly the is none.

 

As Apple said this has been gone over before it seems, however the facts and there real interpretation seem to have been buried somewhat in a barrage of rhetoric and misinformed and unsubstantiated opinion.

 

I thank you for answering my questions and for some of the case law which I have not yet read but will, and hope to increase my knowledge further on the subject.

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

I'm sure Ben will appreciate your testimony and words of approval ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I note the above memo does make reference to "full title guarantee" - something often referred to by the OP of this thread.

 

"120 For example, Clavis Securities were sold GMAC mortgages under an absolute assignment with full title guarantee on or around 15 June 2006 and after some 2½ years have failed to register its ownership at the Land Registry."

 

This is the reported outcome (from a freeman site of all places), I previously made reference too - posted to permit readers to know the entire picture.

 

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-pretender-lenders-here-in

 

"I also came across it in discussion blogs in the UK, and a lady by the name of Carmel Butler brought the matter up in the House of Commons expressing concern that Securitisation was being used by banks and that poeple whose mortgages had been sold on and securitised by subprime lenders in particular were having the highest rate of reposessions comming before the courts.

 

Carmel Butler was no dawe as we say here, she is a British citizen and a qualified lawyer in New York and she herself was facing reposession of her home by one of these subprime lenders and was going to challenge them on the grounds that her mortgage was sold on and that had contractual implications and other legal implications that I wont bore you with as its heavy reading. But you can look up what im writing about for yourselves and see that its all true, its real and its happening here."

 

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/part-2-the-pretender-lenders

 

"Im not nuts guys, do some reading check out whats happening in the USA, see the consumer action group blog in the UK, type in securitisation, and you see what they have to say and you will see that the case I spoke of in my earlier blog on this Basinghall Finance plc v Butler, a case brought by a british lady who was a qualified American lawyer, lost her case because there was some stuff she didnt know and understand in order to save her home."

 

The above makes reference to a CAG blog about this. I have had a glance at the CAG blog section but without any specific dates, I have not been able to find it. I have also been unable to locate a transcript of the case. The only information I could find was

 

http://www.radcliffechambers.com/barrister-profile/dov-ohrenstein/overview

 

Basinghall Finance PLC v Butler [2009] EWCA Civ 1262 (mortgages, assignment, securitisation, privity, Consumer Credit)

 

 

Ben

 

Hi Ben

 

Thanks for this.....However this thread is not looking at securitisation per se......the issues put before the Tribunal do not concern the finding that a lender sells the ‘mortgage’ on with ‘full title guarantee’ to an SPV

 

The issue for Borrowers is that Lenders have secured ‘mortgages’ of their registered estates with Full Title Guarantee........

 

But, like Is It Me has already stated.....he is doing just fine.....his application is in with the Tribunal and at some point his case will be heard......We will see then what the position is.....subject to appeal of course, if necessary ; )

 

Apple

[marika41]

Good Morning Everyone,

 

To clarify my previous response to Jo (apologies for the sharpness of my response)

 

It is not and never was "your mortgage". The problem is that we are used to saying we have a mortgage with such and such bank or I have a mortgage with Bank x etc. The use of term mortgage is used incorrectly and explains why a lot of fanciful ideas are eventually disproven.

 

A borrower grants a mortgage to the lender as security for a loan. To be clear, the borrower gives the lender a mortgage. Once given to the lender, the lender is the owner of that mortgage and as such is recorded by the Land Registry as the proprietor of the charge.

 

As the owner of the charge, the lender is free (subject to any term to the contrary) to sell or dispose of the charge as it sees fit.

 

Case law clearly confirms beyond any possible confusion that a lender is at law also free (subject to the contrary) to assign the debt to a 3rd party.

 

If you look at other websites you start to see the problems with these types of arguments. One site which heavily promoted the whole void deed issue, still provides its members with a copy of the Lamb case from January 2013, in the full knowledge that in a subsequent case Lamb lost.

 

Before it's forum settings changed (recently) there was never any mention of this.

 

If you look at another site that promoted this concept and that of the POA argument. It offers free membership, yet when you sign up, you have to pay for template letters.

 

CAG is far superior to those websites in that it does not charge, merely seeks a donation and to more a degree allows the freedom to discuss loses and potential loses.

 

Least we forget, two cases were heard by the Property Chamber last week. It would appear by Is It Me?'s post (he is still waiting) that neither of the two cases were one of his friends.

 

The chamber has indicated and it's rules permit that the decision of those hearings could be applied to other applications, including that of Is It Me?'s friend.

 

In closing look at some of the other threads - Marika's for example, she tried the deed route and the POA argument. In much the same way as previously posted by PJ the Judge was not interested and dismissed those arguments.

 

The judge did not even mention the void deed argument at all, I was so shocked at his attitude to everything I tried to say I am going to complain about him and am applying for a copy of the transaction of the case, He lied more than once saying there is no POA and the bank has never signed anything in my name. I am still dazed and confused as to what happened in court I do not know what to do about the void deed issue, how can it be dismissed when it was not even mentioned at all? It was over before I could bring it up myself,the judge would not let me get a word in. I told him I felt bullied for all the good it did, so again I ask can something be dismissed because it was completely ignored and I was not given a chance to bring it up myself? He went straight to my physical duress undue influence part of my claim and dismissed it because I did not tell the bank I was being made to apply for a remortgage against my will and in fear for my life and well being so it is not the banks fault. That is what completely and utterly threw me and stopped me even mentioning the void deed defence. It was an utter farce in that room and how the judge can sleep at night is beyond me.I do not know where I stand now all the judge has left active is the PPI issue so I do not know what to do anymore.Because I did not mention the void deed nor did the judge can it be dismissed along with my undue influence when he said he was dismissing everything?

[Peterbard]

Hi Crapstone

 

Yes, I've read every single one of Ben's posts. He posts his opinion; his interpretations of the law and case law. He is welcome to do so....just like anyone else ; )

 

I'm interested to ask you......what do you mean by "The deeds should be signed".......do you mean: by the Borrower alone or do you mean - signed by the Borrower and the Lender?

 

Apple

 

Sorry crapstone I know this was addressed to you but

 

This is the point as stated by ben ;

"In someway have added an additional requirement that the mortgage deed must also be signed by the lender. However, no such requirement is expressed or even implied by statute."

 

Now you say that there is a statutory requirement for the lenders signature, we merely ask you to show where this requirement is. Certainly not in any of the information provided so far, that I have seen anyway.

[applecart]

Sorry crapstone I know this was addressed to you but

 

This is the point as stated by ben ;

"In someway have added an additional requirement that the mortgage deed must also be signed by the lender. However, no such requirement is expressed or even implied by statute."

 

Now you say that there is a statutory requirement for the lenders signature, we merely ask you to show where this requirement is. Certainly not in any of the information provided so far, that I have seen anyway.

 

Sorry Dodgeball......(no offence)....please appreciate, the question was directed at Crapstone.......it makes no sense moving forward on that point until Crapstone explains what was meant by the comment.

 

Apple

[bhall]

Applecart said

 

"Yes, I've read every single one of Ben's posts. He posts his opinion; his interpretations of the law and case law. He is welcome to do so....just like anyone else ; )"

 

I just wanted to stress to make it as clear as can be that the below does not include any interpretation (I leave that to Apple) - it is actually direct quotes, word for word what the statute states ;-)

 

 

Hello Dodgeball, I think this is what you are looking for

 

 

 

For ease of reference s.23 of the LRA 2002

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23

 

23 Owner’s powers

 

(1)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate 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 mortgage by demise or sub-demise, and

 

(b)power to charge the estate at law with the payment of money.

 

(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.

 

 

 

The explanatory note for the above

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/3/1/1

 

"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."

 

The following may be applicable

 

s.87 of the LPA 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87 (as amended by schedule 11 section 2 of the LRA 2002)

 

87 Charges by way of legal mortgage.

 

(1)Where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits, or any of them) as if—

 

(a)where the mortgage is a mortgage of an estate in fee simple, a mortgage term for three thousand years without impeachment of waste had been thereby created in favour of the mortgagee; and

 

(b)where the mortgage is a mortgage of a term of years absolute, a sub-term less by one day than the term vested in the mortgagor had been thereby created in favour of the mortgagee.

 

(2)Where an estate vested in a mortgagee immediately before the commencement of this Act has by virtue of this Act been converted into a term of years absolute or sub-term, the mortgagee may, by a declaration in writing to that effect signed by him, convert the mortgage into a charge by way of legal mortgage, and in that case the mortgage term shall be extinguished in the inheritance or in the head term as the case may be, and the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits or any of them) as if the mortgage term or sub-term had remained subsisting.

 

The power conferred by this subsection may be exercised by a mortgagee notwithstanding that he is a trustee or personal representative.

 

(3)Such declaration shall not affect the priority of the mortgagee or his right to retain possession of documents, nor affect his title to or right over any fixtures or chattels personal comprised in the mortgage.

 

[F1(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).F1]

 

In addition to the definition of a legal mortgage as provided by s.205 of the LPA 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205

 

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

 

 

Just don't mention the word or and registered estate

 

 

 

 

Ben