Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

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 ;-)

 

Yes, not long (hopefully)......given that you rely that the decision will be made on the initial application made and not the 'amended' submission - we are focused to ensure that the Chamber relies on the 'amended' submission....as they will be required to do...... you are clearly oblivious to this fact....but hey ho.....

 

You have yet to post up the 'page No' to Halsbury's Law

 

Yet to explain your reliance on a borrowers purported power to 'create a legal charge' as distinct from the Borower's power to 'create a sub-charge'

 

Instead you appear to prefer to run through your music library and post those.....

 

Conduct that is more in keeping with the 'slight of hand' deployed by un-scrupulous lenders Ben - best not to associate yourself with Lenders if you can : )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

I think it is kinder to leave the thread now before you embarrass yourself further TA

[bhall]

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

 

This post clearly demonstrates that you do not, even at a basic level understand what a mortgage actually is today. You are stuck on what a mortgage was and not what it is today.

 

Please read the following, it will help you to understand the difference, if you have any questions, let me know, I am willing to help you to understand

 

 

 

"But with a mortgage by legal charge, the borrower gets title to the property. At the same time, the lender has some rights over the property which ensures that the loan is repaid. In the modern mortgage, lenders have a charge over your property. This gives them the right to get paid if there is a problem with your mortgage payments"

 

You need to appreciate the difference between a mortgage by demise / sub-demise and a mortgage by legal charge - this is the point that once you understand and appreciate will let the light in (as per my signature) - It is a simple concept and not exactly rocket science.

 

Why do you feel that you are in any position to offer advice, when you don't even understand the basic's of the topic you are offering advice about ?

 

I can't explain it to you in any simpler terms - how can you not understand ?

 

 

Anyway, the written decision of the property chamber will be issued soon, may be you will accept it in writing from the property chamber. You will soon discover that you have based all your fanciful ideas on your misunderstanding of what a mortgage actually is now.

 

Please accept my reassurances that I am not posting the obvious, to make you look like an idiot or a fool. I am doing it for the benefit of the readers of this thread.

[enfircer]

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 it's good to see you back so soon?. On that note putting chubby checker and the good old mortgage arguement before your good lady wife is surprising to say the least.Is that your good lady wife in the avatar.

[applecart]

This post clearly demonstrates that you do not, even at a basic level understand what a mortgage actually is today. You are stuck on what a mortgage was and not what it is today.

 

Please read the following, it will help you to understand the difference, if you have any questions, let me know, I am willing to help you to understand

 

 

 

"But with a mortgage by legal charge, the borrower gets title to the property. At the same time, the lender has some rights over the property which ensures that the loan is repaid. In the modern mortgage, lenders have a charge over your property. This gives them the right to get paid if there is a problem with your mortgage payments"

 

You need to appreciate the difference between a mortgage by demise / sub-demise and a mortgage by legal charge - this is the point that once you understand and appreciate will let the light in (as per my signature) - It is a simple concept and not exactly rocket science.

 

Why do you feel that you are in any position to offer advice, when you don't even understand the basic's of the topic you are offering advice about ?

 

I can't explain it to you in any simpler terms - how can you not understand ?

 

 

Anyway, the written decision of the property chamber will be issued soon, may be you will accept it in writing from the property chamber. You will soon discover that you have based all your fanciful ideas on your misunderstanding of what a mortgage actually is now.

 

Please accept my reassurances that I am not posting the obvious, to make you look like an idiot or a fool. I am doing it for the benefit of the readers of this thread.

 

I'm sorry Ben..... if we are talking 'since 1925 a new type of mortgage came into being - the mortgage by legal charge'

 

You forget....it is 2014.....you also forget that we have the RRO, the LRA 2002, LPMPA 1989, LPMPA 1994, CA 2006, Article 1 of the first protocol HRA.....etc etc....and a whole host of legislation set to protect the interests and title of the Borrower from un-scrupulous lending practices

 

So, what are you truly trying to say for the 'benefit of readers of this thread'??

 

As a stand alone enactment - The LRA s.23 distinguishes the powers of a Borrower today from those of a Borrower in 1925 - no?

 

Apple

[applecart]

I think it is kinder to leave the thread now before you embarrass yourself further TA

 

I'm sorry Dodgeball - was this intended for me?

 

If it is - may I say; it is you who is the latent poster here - you are clearly not posting to assist the OP - given that the application has already been made - so, in that regard there is little if anything your posts will do to add or take away from it - I'm sure I pointed out to you that I am assisting the OP; why on earth would I leave at this juncture??

 

Apple

[bhall]

ok looks like you still don't understand what a mortgage is - may be this will help

 

http://www.propertyaddict.com/mortgages/

 

Mortgage by legal charge

 

This is the only type of legal mortgage available at the current time in the UK, there was previously and older type of mortgage known as "mortgage by demise" but this type of mortgage was abolished in the Land Registration Act 2002. In Scotland this type of mortgage is also know as "standard security".

 

A mortgage by legal charge means that the borrower remains the legal owner of the property in question throughout the mortgage loan period. However, the lender retains sufficient rights over the property to be able to enforce foreclosure and repossess the property if the borrower defaults on their mortgage payments.

 

Apple, I am willing to help you learn the basics, I really am

[applecart]

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.

 

It is clear from the above that you are intent on 'speaking' at cross purposes - similar to the type of behavior normally reserved by and associated with un-scrupulous lenders - best to avoid it if I were you ; )

 

so, in that regard - yes; I am amazed you are 'arguing' the point from the stand point that you do.

 

We are indeed aware that the Lender has a 'legal charge' - in fact both Ben an yourself have provided chapter and verse of the statute to do with the powers of the lender who has taken a 'legal charge' over a borrowers estate...

 

We are concerned with the finding here to say - how did the lender take, derive and own a 'legal charge' - when a Borrower could not 'create' any more than a 'sub-charge' to secure indebtedness within the permitted law as set out at section 32 to the LRA 2002.....

 

Best to avoid continually speaking of what we know the lender has - best to stick to what we are doing about it - that way we do not inadvertently continue to post at cross purposes I would have thought?

 

Apple

[caro]

I'm sorry Ben..... if we are talking 'since 1925 a new type of mortgage came into being - the mortgage by legal charge'

 

You forget....it is 2014.....you also forget that we have the RRO, the LRA 2002, LPMPA 1989, LPMPA 1994, CA 2006, Article 1 of the first protocol HRA.....etc etc....and a whole host of legislation set to protect the interests and title of the Borrower from un-scrupulous lending practices

 

So, what are you truly trying to say for the 'benefit of readers of this thread'??

 

As a stand alone enactment - The LRA s.23 distinguishes the powers of a Borrower today from those of a Borrower in 1925 - no?

 

Apple

 

As far as I know the Law of Property Act 1925 still stands and is commonly referred to. It may be 2014 but this can't be overlooked simply because there has been other legislation since.

[bhall]

Hi ben it's good to see you back so soon?. On that note putting chubby checker and the good old mortgage arguement before your good lady wife is surprising to say the least.Is that your good lady wife in the avatar.

 

Thanks for your concern. However, she was watching the voice and now Casualty - so she is more than happy at the moment

[bhall]

As far as I know the Law of Property Act 1925 still stands and is commonly referred to. It may be 2014 but this can't be overlooked simply because there has been other legislation since.

 

Hello Caro

 

You are correct the LPA 1925 (as amended) is still law. It has been amended over time but it has not been repealed

[applecart]

ok looks like you still don't understand what a mortgage is - may be this will help

 

http://www.propertyaddict.com/mortgages/

 

Mortgage by legal charge

 

This is the only type of legal mortgage available at the current time in the UK, there was previously and older type of mortgage known as "mortgage by demise" but this type of mortgage was abolished in the Land Registration Act 2002. In Scotland this type of mortgage is also know as "standard security".

 

A mortgage by legal charge means that the borrower remains the legal owner of the property in question throughout the mortgage loan period. However, the lender retains sufficient rights over the property to be able to enforce foreclosure and repossess the property if the borrower defaults on their mortgage payments.

 

Apple, I am willing to help you learn the basics, I really am

 

Thanks Ben

 

I know what a 'mortgage' is. It is the complete disposition of the Legal estate that works to give the title of the legal estate to the lender until all the debt is paid.

 

today......that is not what is intended to happen.

 

Today.... in relation to a 'registered estate' the title to which is on the register - the lender secures his interest by way of 'notice' entered as a sub-charge in the charges section.

 

Nothing more.

 

Apple

[bhall]

I'm sorry Ben..... if we are talking 'since 1925 a new type of mortgage came into being - the mortgage by legal charge'

 

You forget....it is 2014.....you also forget that we have the RRO, the LRA 2002, LPMPA 1989, LPMPA 1994, CA 2006, Article 1 of the first protocol HRA.....etc etc....and a whole host of legislation set to protect the interests and title of the Borrower from un-scrupulous lending practices

 

So, what are you truly trying to say for the 'benefit of readers of this thread'??

 

As a stand alone enactment - The LRA s.23 distinguishes the powers of a Borrower today from those of a Borrower in 1925 - no?

 

Apple

 

What I am saying for "for the benefit of the readers of this thread" is that on virtually every point you have made about property law you are wrong

 

A borrower can grant a legal charge to a lender - the lender is registered as proprietor of that charge and as the registered proprietor of that legal charge, is permitted at law to exercise the powers as defined by statute - I hope that is clear enough, even for you.

[bhall]

Thanks Ben

 

I know what a 'mortgage' is. It is the complete disposition of the Legal estate that works to give the title of the legal estate to the lender until all the debt is paid.

 

today......that is not what is intended to happen.

 

Today.... in relation to a 'registered estate' the title to which is on the register - the lender secures his interest by way of 'notice' entered as a sub-charge in the charges section.

 

Nothing more.

 

Apple

 

From your posts (including this one), it is clear that you have no idea whatsoever what a mortgage actually is today. It is your lack of understanding of what a mortgage actually is today that has led you to invent all your fanciful ideas

 

At least we are making progress, it is now clear where you are confused and how you dreamed up all these theories.

[applecart]

As far as I know the Law of Property Act 1925 still stands and is commonly referred to. It may be 2014 but this can't be overlooked simply because there has been other legislation since.

 

Good point Caro

 

We have not 'overlooked' the LPA 1925; in fact we are conscious that it has not been repealed - it has however had a number of amendments made to it by virtue of the various statute that I posted in reply to bhall.

 

We cannot and do not ignore the significance of the amendments made to the LPA 1925 by virtue of other statutes.

 

All are integral to derive a complete understanding of the Law of Property.

 

It is not enough to 'pluck' sections from the LPA or the LRA - to prove a point........not unless you have taken into account the amendments too.

 

For example, if you look at the LPMPA 1989 - unless you look to the amendments - you would assume that what you see is still relevant - it is not until you look to the amendments made that you get to understand how it is to be viewed today.

 

Apple

[applecart]

From your posts (including this one), it is clear that you have no idea whatsoever what a mortgage actually is today. It is your lack of understanding of what a mortgage actually is today that has led you to invent all your fanciful ideas

 

At least we are making progress, it is now clear were you are confused and how you dreamed up all these theories.

 

No Ben

 

Not at all.....

 

But, I certainly get a better measure of where you get your information from - chubby chekker indeed ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

I am willing to work with you through all your incorrect assumptions to help you understand the applicable law.

[bhall]

No Ben

 

Not at all.....

 

But, I certainly get a better measure of where you get your information from - chubby chekker indeed ; )

 

Apple

 

The fact that you don't even realise that you don't understand what is a mortgage today, is expected - let me help you to understand

 

My offer of help is sincere Apple, I can help you

[bhall]

Good point Caro

 

We have not 'overlooked' the LPA 1925; in fact we are conscious that it has not been repealed - it has however had a number of amendments made to it by virtue of the various statute that I posted in reply to bhall.

 

We cannot and do not ignore the significance of the amendments made to the LPA 1925 by virtue of other statutes.

 

All are integral to derive a complete understanding of the Law of Property.

 

It is not enough to 'pluck' sections from the LPA or the LRA - to prove a point........not unless you have taken into account the amendments too.

 

For example, if you look at the LPMPA 1989 - unless you look to the amendments - you would assume that what you see is still relevant - it is not until you look to the amendments made that you get to understand how it is to be viewed today.

 

Apple

 

And one of those amendments was

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87

 

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]

 

F1S. 87(4) inserted (13.10.2003) by Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9), ss. 133, 136(2), Sch. 11 para. 2(8) (with s. 129); S.I. 2003/1725, art. 2

[applecart]

What I am saying for "for the benefit of the readers of this thread" is that on virtually every point you have made about property law you are wrong

 

A borrower can grant a legal charge to a lender - the lender is registered as proprietor of that charge and as the registered proprietor of that legal charge, is permitted at law to exercise the powers as defined by statute - I hope that is clear enough, even for you.

 

More than clear - Thankyou.

 

The issue is - today - a borrower of a registered estate does not have statutory power to 'create a legal charge' to secure indebtedness.

 

A 'legal charge' is clearly created over the 'estate' - for money or money's worth - see LRA s.23 (1) "Estates"

 

The loan is a debt - indebtedness is secured by 'sub-charge' - see LRA s.32

 

A Borrowers statutory power to secure indebtedness is by virtue of LRA s.23 (2)(b) "Charges"...correlates nicely with LRA s.32 - see my reply to Dodgball on this point - it sets out all corresponding legislation to do with securing indebtedness.

 

I welcome your posts - your library - not to sure of your music library though - and like you - I do not post to cause anyone to think of you as being foolish either; only to ensure we do not as we move forward - continue to speak at cross purpose.

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

You can start to understand, when you stop with your interpretations (it is written in english after all) and just read and accept what it actually says and not what you wish and dream it said

[bhall]

More than clear - Thankyou.

 

The issue is - today - a borrower of a registered estate does not have statutory power to 'create a legal charge' to secure indebtedness.

 

A 'legal charge' is clearly created over the 'estate' - for money or money's worth - see LRA s.23 (1) "Estates"

 

The loan is a debt - indebtedness is secured by 'sub-charge' - see LRA s.32

 

A Borrowers statutory power to secure indebtedness is by virtue of LRA s.23 (2)(b) "Charges"...correlates nicely with LRA s.32 - see my reply to Dodgball on this point - it sets out all corresponding legislation to do with securing indebtedness.

 

I welcome your posts - your library - not to sure of your music library though - and like you - I do not post to cause anyone to think of you as being foolish either; only to ensure we do not as we move forward - continue to speak at cross purpose.

 

 

Apple

 

Apple it is ok, I know that you just don't get it.

 

s.23(1) are the borrowers powers and by s.23(1)(a)

 

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

 

As it says - the owner of the registered estate has the power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law

 

Shall we take a look at dispositions.... ?

 

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.

 

The grant of a legal charge, is a disposition which is required to be completed by registration and it is a disposition that is permitted at general law.

 

Contrary to your fanciful ideas and wishful thinking a borrower can and does grant a charge to the lender

 

Come on, just read it, it is all there in plain english for you

 

as for s.23(2) they are the powers of the proprietor of the legal charge.. who is that again ? Oh yeah, the law confirms the lender is the proprietor of the legal charge.

[IS IT ME?]

ok looks like you still don't understand what a mortgage is - may be this will help

 

http://www.propertyaddict.com/mortgages/

 

Mortgage by legal charge

 

This is the only type of legal mortgage available at the current time in the UK, there was previously and older type of mortgage known as "mortgage by demise" but this type of mortgage was abolished in the Land Registration Act 2002. In Scotland this type of mortgage is also know as "standard security".

 

A mortgage by legal charge means that the borrower remains the legal owner of the property in question throughout the mortgage loan period. However, the lender retains sufficient rights over the property to be able to enforce foreclosure and repossess the property if the borrower defaults on their mortgage payments.

 

Apple, I am willing to help you learn the basics, I really am

Ben

I think it is you, this is from a estate agents!

[bhall]

Come on Apple this is really basic stuff we are talking here, put your interpretations to one side and just read what the law actually says. Let me help you to get a grasp on the topic you have been giving advice about. - It will have to be another time now, I am afraid Casualty finishes soon and it is now time to go back to the wife

[IS IT ME?]

Apple it is ok, I know that you just don't get it.

 

s.23(1) are the borrowers powers and by s.23(1)(a)

 

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

 

As it says - the owner of the registered estate has the power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law

 

Shall we take a look at dispositions.... ?

 

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.

 

The grant of a legal charge, is a disposition which is required to be completed by registration and it is a disposition that is permitted at general law.

 

Contrary to your fanciful ideas and wishful thinking a borrower can and does grant a charge to the lender

 

Come on, just read it, it is all there in plain english for you

 

as for s.23(2) they are the powers of the proprietor of the legal charge.. who is that again ? Oh yeah, the law confirms the lender is the proprietor of the legal charge.

Ben your WORNG it's the OWNERS (borrowers) under this and it goes on to 3 what does that one say pray tell!