Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Hi Dodgeball

 

For the benefit of doubt - here are the 'powers' intended to be relied upon by a lender as a 'sub-chargee' by virtue of a notice entered on the title intended to be to his favor under LRA s.32 : -

 

Here is LRA s. 53:

 

53 Powers as sub-chargee

 

The registered proprietor of a sub-charge has, in relation to the property subject to the principal charge or any intermediate charge, the same powers as the sub-chargor.

 

Section 53: Powers as sub-chargee (Explanatory notes - LRA s.53)

 

100.A chargee can charge the indebtedness which the registered charge secures by way of sub-charge. This section gives the sub-chargee the same powers over the registered estate as the chargee himself has been given by the original charge, as is currently provided by rule. The section also applies to a registered sub-sub-charge in which case the sub-sub-chargee has not only the powers of the principal chargee in relation to the property subject to the principal charge (i.e. the registered estate), but also the powers of the sub-chargee in relation to the property subject to the sub-charge ( i.e. the indebtedness secured by the principal charge). This is a new provision not covered in the current rules.

 

There is nothing here to suggest that the Lender can rely on powers of a 'chargee' under LRA s.51 as incorrectly purported by you to be the case.

 

..... Just for the avoidance of any further doubt, let me say - The Borrower is the "chargee" in this regard who's charge is referred to as the 'Principle chargee' NOT the Lenders ; )

 

There is no 'ambiguity'...no fanciful ideas... just the LAW....

 

A chargee can charge the indebtedness which the registered charge secures by way of sub-charge.

 

Interpretation: "The BORROWER can charge the indebtedness which his registered charge secures by way of sub-charge ONLY"

 

LRA section 23 is wholly founded on statute - not (as purported) "fanciful ideas" - A lender who has secured more than a 'sub-charge' is likely to come unstuck - LRA s.23 is full of MERIT

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Well well at lest I do some thing when was the last time you were in court?

 

I've helped hundreds, if not thousands of people keep their homes in proceedings. It's what I do for a living.

As I am typing on a phone the screens a little small so if the full stops and comers are not there shoot me,

It will still not take away the FACT we will win and I await the site teams replies

 

I wasn't on about punctuation

[sequenci]

Why am I still unable to log on and post freely?

 

You're currently on moderation. This is periodically reviewed, and will be lifted once the Site Team are happy to do so. For the record, that's nothing to do with me. Apple's was recently restored - and I'm sure yours will be in time too.

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball

 

For the benefit of doubt - here are the 'powers' intended to be relied upon by a lender as a 'sub-chargee' by virtue of a notice entered on the title intended to be to his favor under LRA s.32 : -

 

Here is LRA s. 53:

 

53 Powers as sub-chargee

 

The registered proprietor of a sub-charge has, in relation to the property subject to the principal charge or any intermediate charge, the same powers as the sub-chargor.

 

Section 53: Powers as sub-chargee (Explanatory notes - LRA s.53)

 

100.A chargee can charge the indebtedness which the registered charge secures by way of sub-charge. This section gives the sub-chargee the same powers over the registered estate as the chargee himself has been given by the original charge, as is currently provided by rule. The section also applies to a registered sub-sub-charge in which case the sub-sub-chargee has not only the powers of the principal chargee in relation to the property subject to the principal charge (i.e. the registered estate), but also the powers of the sub-chargee in relation to the property subject to the sub-charge ( i.e. the indebtedness secured by the principal charge). This is a new provision not covered in the current rules.

 

There is nothing here to suggest that the Lender can rely on powers of a 'chargee' under LRA s.51 as incorrectly purported by you to be the case.

 

..... Just for the avoidance of any further doubt, let me say - The Borrower is the "chargee" in this regard who's charge is referred to as the 'Principle chargee' NOT the Lenders ; )

 

There is no 'ambiguity'...no fanciful ideas... just the LAW....

 

A chargee can charge the indebtedness which the registered charge secures by way of sub-charge.

 

Interpretation: "The BORROWER can charge the indebtedness which his registered charge secures by way of sub-charge ONLY"

 

LRA section 23 is wholly founded on statute - not (as purported) "fanciful ideas" - A lender who has secured more than a 'sub-charge' is likely to come unstuck - LRA s.23 is full of MERIT

 

Apple

 

I am supposed to be spending time with the good lady wife this weekend. However when I read this...

 

Apple you almost had it, right up to the second you had to use your infamous powers of interpretation.

 

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

 

Who does the law say is the chargee ?

 

Click on the link, the answer can be found at 223.

 

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.

 

 

Despite the law saying the lender, Apple interprets this to say the borrower lmao - What ever interpretation course you went on Apple, I would ask for your money back

 

And as you said above

 

 

Section 53: Powers as sub-chargee (Explanatory notes - LRA s.53)

 

100.A chargee can charge the indebtedness which the registered charge secures by way of sub-charge.

 

You said - "There is no 'ambiguity'...no fanciful ideas... just the LAW...." and the law says the lender is the chargee - for that matter even the english language confirms the lender is the chargee

 

I have made the important points in large text as Is It Me? has said he is reading from a small screen

[bhall]

Originally Posted by bhall:

To support my previous comments in relation to s.23 -

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Background:

 

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.......

 

........Under the LRA 2002, the owner of a registered estate cannot create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise (section 23(1)(a)). The only way to create a legal mortgage is by a charge by way of legal mortgage (pursuant to sections 85(1) and 86(1) of the LPA 1925) or by charging the estate at law with the payment of money (section 23(1)(b) of the LRA 2002). When registered, a charge has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage (section 51 - equivalent to section 27(1) of the LRA 1925).

 

The proprietor of a registered charge 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.

 

As confirmed by the Charges register the proprietor of the registered charge is the lender and not the borrower.

 

s.23 (1) applies to the powers of the borrower as the owner of the legal estate and

s.23 (2) apples to the powers of the lender as the owner of the charge

 

A borrower can by law grant a charge by legal mortgage

 

Ben, I think you have got it wrong with respect, as the LENDER has sub charged the mortgage when they sold it

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

Sorry this is another one of your recent posts I missed.

 

You have said

 

"Ben, I think you have got it wrong with respect, as the LENDER has sub charged the mortgage when they sold it"

 

I think you may have misunderstood what has been said in this thread.

 

I argue that as you have said the lender can grant a sub-charge.

 

It is your friend Apple that argues that it is the borrower that grants a sub-charge

 

If what you have posted is any reflection upon what was actually said on 20 January, it would be to the Lenders advantage and not the borrowers, as it confirms the powers (s.23(2) ) are as I have argued those of the lender

 

Thank you for your post, it is appreciated

 

Ben

[bhall]

Wasn't successful at what ben i think you are talking about something else?

 

I was referring to the fact that as he states RM has been homeless for 3 years and every one he has written too has dismissed his claims. He even relies on s.2 in regard to the deed. Not even Apple does that (anymore)

 

So that is why I have said he wasn't successful, if you think he was successful, we have very different ideas of success

 

Now I am going back to my wife

[caro]

Hi Caro

 

I don't see that there has been a drove of applications made to the Chamber... I think Borrowers are deciding for themselves when to do so...

I think there is no need to warn of the 'risk' - the 'risk' remains whether they wait or not.

 

Let's say the Chamber decide in Is It Me's friends favor - Borrowers will still face the 'risk' that their circumstance is not the same as Is It Me's friend - they may find that just because it was successful for Is It Me's friend - it does not necessarily mean they will be successful and vice versa of course.

 

The Chamber offers a judicial process for any Borrower to make application to set aside the deed - they are entitled to do so...

 

We cannot say - oh well because Is It Me got through that the Chamber is now officially 'open' to Borrowers - likewise - we cannot say that because Tilly Lamb is purported not to have been successful - that the Chamber is 'closed' to Borrowers...and the judicial process is no longer available.

 

I think you are speaking more as to the statutory grounds that we rely on - and yes, the risk is that we have relied on the wrong statute - the OP's case is being decided on it's merit........the statutory grounds relied upon will be pertinent - of that there is no doubt -

 

In that regard.....we did not rely on s.2 ..... we have moved the application forward ...... we are led to understand that LRA s.23 has potential merit...

 

I have set out fully in my reply to Dodgeball that there are only 10 applications said to be in the balance - I think Borrowers are deciding when to make their applications - and waiting to see if the OP's application has merit or not anyway.

 

Apple

 

Agreed it seems there have only been 10 applications, and I'm glad you acknowledge that not all circumstances are the same.

 

This is much better than your earlier assertion that if this application failed, there would be more applications until they were successful, which I frankly found scary. Every failed application has potentially disastrous consequences

for the applicant.

 

10 applicants to the chamber may not sound many, but for those 10 families the consequences could be life changing, for good or bad. All I want is for people to have all the facts and be aware of all the risks before deciding on a course of action.

[IS IT ME?]

I've helped hundreds, if not thousands of people keep their homes in proceedings. It's what I do for a living.

 

 

I wasn't on about punctuation

 

Well going by the last set of figures your not doing a too good job of it!

What court are you at then? Or is it as I feel a desk job?

[Peterbard]

It is all explained quite adequately here, there has been excerpts form this on here before but anyway.

 

Under the LRA 2002, the owner of a registered estate cannot create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise (section 23(1)(a)). The only way to create a legal mortgage is by a charge by way of legal mortgage (pursuant to sections 85(1) and 86(1) of the LPA 1925) or by charging the estate at law with the payment of money (section 23(1)(b) of the LRA 2002). When registered, a charge has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage (section 51 - equivalent to section 27(1) of the LRA 1925).

 

The proprietor of a registered charge 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 sub-charge has, in relation to the property subject to the principal charge, the same powers as the principal chargee (section 53).

 

The lender is obviously and by common sense the owner of the initial charge(23 sub (1). If the lender decides to use this charge to raise capital by creating a sub charge(charge n a charge), then he can within the provisions of subsection (2) of section 23, this section does not apply to the creation of the original charge.

The provision to create the charge subsequently owned by the principle lender is covered by subsection (1) and the LOPA.

 

It is as simple as it sounds, as is usually the case.

[Peterbard]

This is a good point you make here Dodgeball - Thanks for making it ; )

 

However, This thread does not look to confuse a 'charge by deed by way of legal mortgage' in the way you clearly look to do being a loop hole for any lender by virtue of section 51 .... with a "sub-charge" to secure indebtedness against a designated registered estate within the permitted general law and scope of Section 32

 

I'm conscious that you are a latent poster and I am conscious that whilst you say you have read the thread from post #1 - you still appear to have missed the "argument".....that's not unusual ..... or surprising of course ......because from time to time the OP's thread is besieged by posters who wish to express their points of view.....

 

If it helps you get up to speed........Here's where we are up to and what the provisions of LRA s.23 and its application is relied upon when it comes to a Borrower securing an interest for the Lender in lieu of indebtedness:

 

LRA 2002 section 32: 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.

 

Explanatory Note to LRA s. 32:

Section 32: Nature and effect

75.This section explains that a notice is an entry, made in the register, in respect of the burden of a third party’s interest. The entry is to be made against the registered estate or registered charge that is said to be burdened. As under the Land Registration Act 1925, if the interest is not valid (for example, if parties had entered into an agreement that was not a valid contract) the entry of a notice will not validate it.

 

Dispositions Required to be Registered - LRA s.27 (3) (b):

 

(3)In the case of a registered charge, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

(b)the grant of a sub-charge.

 

LRA 2002 – SCHEDULE 2 - PART 2 - REGISTERED CHARGES

 

Introductory

 

Para 9 - This Part deals with the registration requirements relating to those dispositions of registered charges which are required to be completed by registration.

 

Creation of sub-charge

 

Para 11 - In the case of the creation of a sub-charge, the sub-chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the sub-charge.

 

Land Registration Rule 2003 s.84 (1):

 

Entry of a “NOTICE” in the register

 

84. (1) A notice under section 32 of the Act must be entered in the charges register of the registered title affected.

(2) The entry must identify the registered estate or registered charge affected and, where the interest protected by the notice only affects part of the registered estate in a registered title, it must contain sufficient details, by reference to a plan or otherwise, to identify clearly that part.

 

So, with respect Dodgball; I have no issue with you expressing your point of view....however, if you take note of the detail posted above...none of which has been taken from a misconception of the LAW or any misguided intent to stray away from it - non of which is spattered with 'F'LAW....... to the contrary - all taken legitimately, transparently and diligently from statute ; )

 

Apple

 

Everything you have here is correct in relation to a sub- charge. This is a charge where the initial lender is the borrower and the new lender is a third party as stated, (you do understand this?)

[sequenci]

Well going by the last set of figures your not doing a too good job of it!

What court are you at then? Or is it as I feel a desk job?

 

What figures, would you kindly draw my attention to them?

 

Ta.

 

 

 

And, to answer your question, my work covers England, Wales and Scotland - So all over the place.

Edited February 8, 2014 by ims21

[IS IT ME?]

What figures, would you kindly draw my attention to them?

 

Ta.

 

And, to answer your question, my work covers England, Wales and Scotland - So all over the place.

 

As always never answer the question nor give any help

Edited February 8, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

I am supposed to be spending time with the good lady wife this weekend. However when I read this...

 

Apple you almost had it, right up to the second you had to use your infamous powers of interpretation.

 

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

 

Who does the law say is the chargee ?

 

Click on the link, the answer can be found at 223.

 

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.

 

 

Despite the law saying the lender, Apple interprets this to say the borrower lmao - What ever interpretation course you went on Apple, I would ask for your money back

 

And as you said above

 

 

 

You said - "There is no 'ambiguity'...no fanciful ideas... just the LAW...." and the law says the lender is the chargee - for that matter even the english language confirms the lender is the chargee

 

I have made the important points in large text as Is It Me? has said he is reading from a small screen

 

Hi Ben

 

It would seem that you would even go as far as to avoid your good lady wife to rely on that 'slight of hand' more normally reserved for un-scrupulous Lenders......

 

You (as per usual - I like to think you did not do so intentionally) are taking detail from the Statute that clearly relates to the creaton of a "legal charge", which we all know no borrower has statutory power to grant a lender ....because that relates purely to the complete disposition of the Borrowers legal estate..... with the statutory powers that the Borrower does have - which is to create a "Sub-Charge"to 'secure indebtedness.

 

Best to do your utmost to avoid the type of un-scrupulous behaviour and conduct that Lenders reserve exclusively for themselves I would have thought..... ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

On the contrary Apple, as with most things you have misunderstood. I had to post as, whilst reading your post, I nearly spat out my rice crispies in response to your fanciful claims. You never fail to amaze me, just how much you are willing to ignore the law and interpret the complete opposite to what it really states...

 

In terms of the legal charge, it is, as much as you may not like it a disposition of a registered estate (an estate that is registered )

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27

 

 

(2)In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

 

(f)the grant of a legal charge.

 

 

Please note the key words "registered estate" "disposition" and "grant a legal charge"

 

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

 

As confirmed

 

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

 

 

The owner of a registered estate does have the power to grant a legal charge as it is permitted by general law and is not a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

So keep working on your interpretation skills... Even by your standards, you are slipping.

 

You need to speak with Is It Me? about what was actually said on 20 January, otherwise you might look even more foolish

[bhall]

You need to read what the law states and stop the interpretations.

 

You can call that friendly advice if you like ;-)

 

Not long now until the written decision is issued ;-)

[bhall]

But I have to thank you, your claims are becoming more and more comical each day.

 

Thank you

[applecart]

Everything you have here is correct in relation to a sub- charge. This is a charge where the initial lender is the borrower and the new lender is a third party as stated, (you do understand this?)

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

I know 'everything' I stated in relation to the sub-charge is correct - I would not have posted it otherwise.

 

However, I hope you don't mind me pointing out to you - that you are incorrect when you make out that the 'sub-charge' created by the Borrower is a power that belongs to the Lender in the way you do.

 

Once the Borrower creates the 'sub-charge' by virtue of being the owner of the 'principle charge' (hence the term 'sub-charge'); that's the principle charge to which the title relates of course.......the Lender derives the 'sub-charge'.....it is at that point once the lenders 'sub-charge' is entered on the title; that the Lender can then derives powers of the 'principle "chargee"...(Borrower)...... that affords the Lender the same powers of the Borrower..... now as we know....those powers would only allow the Lender to create a 'sub-sub-charge'......to secure indebtedness......

 

So, in answer to your question - Yes Thanks - I understand the statute very well ; )

 

As I understand it - it is the Lender who appears to be having difficulty understanding that he has derived powers that the legislator at no point intended that he should have.

 

As I understand it - the issue is before the Chamber - the Lender appears (reading between the lines of Is It Me's posts) to have had issue dealing with the MERIT of LRA s.23...not the Borrowers.....ooooppppsss!!

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Ha ha , Apple you have to be winding everyone up,, don't you?

 

Nobody can ignore the mountain of evidence that shows your misconceptions, plus it has to be said just plain common sense.

 

I particularly liked this quote"the creaton of a "legal charge", which we all know no borrower has statutory power to grant a lender". By "all "I take it you mean you.

 

As owner of my own house and potential borrower I would like to think I can do what I like with it, including give the title away if I so wish.

 

Isn't there a human rights issue there Apple

[Peterbard]

but i have to thank you, your claims are becoming more and more comical each day.

 

Thank you

 

lol

[applecart]

On the contrary Apple, as with most things you have misunderstood. I had to post as, whilst reading your post, I nearly spat out my rice crispies in response to your fanciful claims. You never fail to amaze me, just how much you are willing to ignore the law and interpret the complete opposite to what it really states...

 

In terms of the legal charge, it is, as much as you may not like it a disposition of a registered estate (an estate that is registered )

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27

 

 

(2)In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

 

(f)the grant of a legal charge.

 

 

Please note the key words "registered estate" "disposition" and "grant a legal charge"

 

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

 

As confirmed

 

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

 

 

The owner of a registered estate does have the power to grant a legal charge as it is permitted by general law and is not a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

So keep working on your interpretation skills... Even by your standards, you are slipping.

 

You need to speak with Is It Me? about what was actually said on 20 January, otherwise you might look even more foolish

 

Ben

 

We have discussed the merit in the argument you present and have found that it is not within the statutory power of any Borrower to 'create a legal charge' of the registered estate - not by demise or sub-demise nor by 'charge by way of legal mortgage' in terms expressed as 'full title guarantee' etc........such terms and powers are reserved only when the estate is being 'mortgaged' for the first time (triggers posted by Dodgeball - please refer back to his posts on the statute)

 

Lenders who are 2nd in time, 3rd of 4th etc.....cannot derive a '"first" legal mortgage' (remember the 'triggers') for 'money or moneys worth' over a designated "registered estate" - to which the general law of LRA s.23 (1)(a) speaks of and is set out and correlates with the LPA 1925 s.87 (4).

 

It is not enough for you to bang your head against the brick wall shown in your avatar.

 

I'm sure if lenders could choose an avatar they would have no choice but to use one depicting an ostrich with its head firmly lodged in the sand - that tends to be the approach taken by most un-scrupulous lenders as far as I can tell......especially when they know the game is up - they can do nothing more than hold the stance until they are physically removed ; )

 

We are on to them Ben.....We are taking steps to remove them - and we will keep going until they are all removed......we are not perturbed by who the lender is - it could be Accord, SPML, Lloyds, GE, Halifax, Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock, Virgin......etc, etc.... we will remove them...

 

Apple

[applecart]

On the contrary Apple, as with most things you have misunderstood. I had to post as, whilst reading your post, I nearly spat out my rice crispies in response to your fanciful claims. You never fail to amaze me, just how much you are willing to ignore the law and interpret the complete opposite to what it really states...

 

In terms of the legal charge, it is, as much as you may not like it a disposition of a registered estate (an estate that is registered )

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27

 

 

(2)In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

 

(f)the grant of a legal charge.

 

 

Please note the key words "registered estate" "disposition" and "grant a legal charge"

 

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

 

As confirmed

 

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

 

 

The owner of a registered estate does have the power to grant a legal charge as it is permitted by general law and is not a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

So keep working on your interpretation skills... Even by your standards, you are slipping.

 

You need to speak with Is It Me? about what was actually said on 20 January, otherwise you might look even more foolish

 

Ben

 

We have discussed the merit in the argument you present and have found that it is not within the statutory power of any Borrower to 'create a legal charge' of the registered estate - not by demise or sub-demise nor by 'charge by way of legal mortgage' in terms expressed as 'full title guarantee' etc........such terms and powers are reserved only when the estate is being 'mortgaged' for the first time (triggers posted by Dodgeball - please refer back to his posts on the statute)

 

Lenders who are 2nd in time, 3rd of 4th etc.....cannot derive a '"first" legal mortgage' (remember the 'triggers') for 'money or moneys worth' over a designated "registered estate" - to which the general law of LRA s.23 (1)(a) speaks of and is set out and correlates with the LPA 1925 s.87 (4).

 

It is not enough for you to bang your head against the brick wall shown in your avatar.

 

I'm sure if lenders could choose an avatar they would have no choice but to use one depicting an ostrich with its head firmly lodged in the sand - that tends to be the approach taken by most un-scrupulous lenders as far as I can tell......especially when they know the game is up - they can do nothing more than hold the stance until they are physically removed ; )

 

We are on to them Ben.....We are taking steps to remove them - and we will keep going until they are all removed......we are not perturbed by who the lender is - it could be Accord, SPML, Lloyds, GE, Halifax, Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock, Virgin......etc, etc.... we will remove them...

 

Apple

[bhall]

Oh dear, here we go again...

 

When it comes to Property Law Apple, you do more twisting (interpreting and changing the meaning) than Chubby Checker in his song

 

 

 

And even more than Sam Cooke did in his song

 

http://youtu.be/ABnnY8PSk8M

 

 

With all the twisting of the law you do, I am surprised that you are not dizzy... Then again may be you are....

 

At least even Is It Me? now says it is the lender and not the borrower that actually grants a sub-charge, I would call that real progress.

 

Now we just have to work on you and your interpretations. What can we do, to help you too understand just how far off the mark your fanciful ideas really are.

[applecart]

Ha ha , Apple you have to be winding everyone up,, don't you?

 

Nobody can ignore the mountain of evidence that shows your misconceptions, plus it has to be said just plain common sense.

 

I particularly liked this quote"the creaton of a "legal charge", which we all know no borrower has statutory power to grant a lender". By "all "I take it you mean you.

 

As owner of my own house and potential borrower I would like to think I can do what I like with it, including give the title away if I so wish.

 

Isn't there a human rights issue there Apple

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

Are you trying to be clever???

 

The OP did not look to 'give the title away'.....he found out that it had been 'taken'.....the LAW says no lender has the right to 'take' the borrowers legal estate.

 

You appear to have 'knowingly' 'given the title away' - might be an idea for you to put that in writing and send it off to your lender ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Oh dear, here we go again...

 

When it comes to Property Law Apple, you do more twisting (interpreting and changing the meaning) than Chubby Checker in his song

 

 

 

And even more than Sam Cooke did in his song

 

http://youtu.be/ABnnY8PSk8M

 

 

With all the twisting of the law you do, I am surprised that you are not dizzy... Then again may be you are....

 

At least even Is It Me? now says it is the lender and not the borrower that actually grants a sub-charge, I would call that real progress.

 

Now we just have to work on you and your interpretations. What can we do, to help you too understand just how far off the mark your fanciful ideas really are.

 

Hi Ben

 

I'm not into 'chubby checker' or 'sam cooke' - I don't recall either of them being legislators - Clearly you are - is this where you are getting your interpretations of the law from....ah it makes sense now - all that ducking, diving, and twisting you do....I should have known you were into chubby checker and sam cooke - Thanks for sharing this with me ; )

 

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball

 

Are you trying to be clever???

 

The OP did not look to 'give the title away'.....he found out that it had been 'taken'.....the LAW says no lender has the right to 'take' the borrowers legal estate.

 

You appear to have 'knowingly' 'given the title away' - might be an idea for you to put that in writing and send it off to your lender ; )

 

Apple

 

I don;t have to be clever Apple, there-is a difference between a possession being taken and it being offered Apple, really cam't believe I am even arguing this. We are talking about creating the charge, not the enforcement os a defaulted one.