Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

I think I have wasted enough of my time explaining the basics to you for one night. It is clear you are prepared to ignore the obvious as and when it suits you

 

Good night ;-)

 

Ben, here's the full wording

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.

IT STATES CLEARLY OTHER THAN

AND THEN THOSE LISTED IN 3

Get it???

[applecart]

I can't quite get to grips with a finding that Ben should mis-construe any of this:

 

LRA 2002 -

 

Part 2 First registration of title

 

Chapter 1 First registration

Voluntary registration

3. When title may be registered

Compulsory registration

4. When title must be registered

5. Power to extend section 4

6. Duty to apply for registration of title

7. Effect of non-compliance with section 6

8. Liability for making good void transfers etc

Classes of title

9. Titles to freehold estates

10. Titles to leasehold estates

Effect of first registration

11. Freehold estates

12. Leasehold estates

Dependent estates

13. Appurtenant rights and charges

Supplementary

14. Rules about first registration

Chapter 2 Cautions against first registration

15. Right to lodge

16. Effect

17. Withdrawal

18. Cancellation

19. Cautions register

20. Alteration of register by court

21. Alteration of register by registrar

22. Supplementary

 

 

With Any of this:........

 

LRA 2002:

Part 3 Dispositions of registered land

Powers of disposition

23. Owner’s powers

24. Right to exercise owner’s powers

25. Mode of exercise

26. Protection of disponees

Registrable dispositions

27. Dispositions required to be registered

Effect of dispositions on priority

28. Basic rule

29. Effect of registered dispositions: estates

30. Effect of registered dispositions: charges

31. Inland Revenue charges

 

It's more than clear to me that the two parts are separate - how Ben manages to confuse the two will remain for tonight a mystery.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Ben, here's the full wording

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.

IT STATES CLEARLY OTHER THAN

AND THEN THOSE LISTED IN 3

Get it???

 

Hi Is It Me

 

It would appear that no matter what you say.....there will be those that see things differently.....we must accept that they do not see it from your point of view - even though we are all talking about the same statute....

 

I can only summise that if in your friends case - the lender failed on the LRA s23 point - then there is clear understanding in the preceding posts as to why that is the case - at least we know why now ; )

 

It would appear from Ben's informative posts - that Lenders must truly believe that they can take 'first legal mortgage' at each and at any time a borrower takes a loan with the intent to secure that indebtedness against the registered estate.....by virtue of LRA s.23 (2)(b).

 

Oh well - they will see the error of their ways in due course - I don't think it will be a very pretty sight - best get an Avatar that depicts 'shielding your eyes' - lol

 

Apple

[enfircer]

I think I have wasted enough of my time explaining the basics to you for one night. It is clear you are prepared to ignore the obvious as and when it suits you

 

Good night ;-)

 

Hi ben i agree you have wasted a lot of your time explaining lots of pages of the same old thing when you should of been tending to mrs ben,Ben do you actually know what the first two cases at the property chamber was about?,You keep mentioning the outcome it would be interesting to know as you seem absolutely sure which way it's going to go?

 

Sorry forgot to say good night ben.One more thing I have heard butter is good to use on a bang to the head.

Edited February 9, 2014 by enfircer

[Peterbard]

OR section 23 (1) could be concerned with the owner of the estate, and his ability to create a charge on his property, which he can then offer to a lender as security for a loan via way of a mortgage.

 

And section 23(2) could be to do with the way that the owner of the charge(the lender )can use that charge as security to raise a loan from a another source ,( a sub charge)in his own right.

Of course a mortgage would be out of the question in this as the estate would not be held in total by the lender, just the charge.

 

However this is just what the legislation says, the way it actually works and incidentally what has enabled countless thousands of people to secure mortgages over the years.

 

So it probably means something completely different

[bhall]

Hello Dodgeball

 

I found this post on CAG that might interest you

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197424-Mortgage-Securitisation-Paragon-V-Pender-Title-to-Sue-Judgements-For-Debate-amp-Discussion&p=4171099&viewfull=1#post4171099

 

"Once that 'registrable disposition' (transfer) is registered at HMLR it operates in law to transfer a separate legal estate to the Lender - the lender is the 'owner' of that estate - he is not the 'owner' of the Borrowers legal estate = the legal estate of the Lender means he can exercise the 'owenrship' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23

 

(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."

 

 

Read the bit from "Lender means he can exercise the 'ownership' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23 and note the reference to

 

s.23(2)

 

Funny thing is, it was Apple that said the above

 

Is It Me? subsequently thanks Apple for posting the above.

 

Looks like someone has trouble making their mind up about the law or this is evidence that someone interprets the law differently whenever it suits them.

 

When it suits Apple for one purpose s.23(2) are the lenders powers and when it doesn't suit Apple s.23(2) aren't the powers of the lender - some might call that convenient - Either way Is It Me ? agrees with Apple ;-)

[Crapstone]

So what if it could mean something totally different? It could mean that the lender can't mortgage the estate in their own right or that once registered the owner can't then divide the mortgaged estate for a further mortgage - such as a farmer mortgaging a barn or field when it is already part of a mortgaged estate.

 

Either way I pretty much give up caring as this isn't going to change millions of mortgages and how they have been formed and accepted. Even if you win, the mortgage companies are just going to argue the same and that the law was not clear enough to them either. Any loophole will be fixed, ( as it doesn't look to me as though the person that wrote it meant that a mortgage should not be secured because of a,b, or c!) and it's just a case of moving on and you'll still have to pay the debt back.

 

If Is It Me spent more time going through their 'friends' accounts, statements and contract they'd find far more concrete reasons to not have the house repossessed. I'm in the process of getting the charge removed on mine as I have proof that payments were actually 3 months ahead when they went to court and that we are now over 4 years ahead, at todays rates, without even overpaying by a penny more than asked. Go figure that out!

[applecart]

Hello Dodgeball

 

I found this post on CAG that might interest you

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197424-Mortgage-Securitisation-Paragon-V-Pender-Title-to-Sue-Judgements-For-Debate-amp-Discussion&p=4171099&viewfull=1#post4171099

 

"Once that 'registrable disposition' (transfer) is registered at HMLR it operates in law to transfer a separate legal estate to the Lender - the lender is the 'owner' of that estate - he is not the 'owner' of the Borrowers legal estate = the legal estate of the Lender means he can exercise the 'owenrship' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23

 

(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."

 

 

Read the bit from "Lender means he can exercise the 'ownership' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23 and note the reference to

 

s.23(2)

 

Funny thing is, it was Apple that said the above

 

Is It Me? subsequently thanks Apple for posting the above.

 

Looks like someone has trouble making their mind up about the law or this is evidence that someone interprets the law differently whenever it suits them.

 

When it suits Apple for one purpose s.23(2) are the lenders powers and when it doesn't suit Apple s.23(2) aren't the powers of the lender - some might call that convenient - Either way Is It Me ? agrees with Apple ;-)

 

Yes Ben...viewers should read the link you kindly posted.

 

Unlike you they will read it within the context it was posted.....

 

That's possibly why you get it wrong time and time again...it is clear to anyone who reads the link to see that you have misconstrued the context and therefore the facts...you appear to be a fab hand at only highlighting half of the facts ...... Be mindful....that's what unsroupolus lenders do.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

OR section 23 (1) could be concerned with the owner of the estate, and his ability to create a charge on his property, which he can then offer to a lender as security for a loan via way of a mortgage.

 

And section 23(2) could be to do with the way that the owner of the charge(the lender )can use that charge as security to raise a loan from a another source ,( a sub charge)in his own right.

Of course a mortgage would be out of the question in this as the estate would not be held in total by the lender, just the charge.

 

However this is just what the legislation says, the way it actually works and incidentally what has enabled countless thousands of people to secure mortgages over the years.

 

So it probably means something completely different

 

 

Errrrmmmm.....yeah right..ok????

 

check the legislation again......best to be mindful of misconstruing the law.....that's what unscroupulus lenders do....

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Errrrmmmm.....yeah right..ok????

 

check the legislation again......best to be mindful of misconstruing the law.....that's what unscroupulus lenders do....

 

Apple

 

Yes and some will meaning but deluded amateurs also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;0

[Peterbard]

Hello Dodgeball

 

I found this post on CAG that might interest you

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197424-Mortgage-Securitisation-Paragon-V-Pender-Title-to-Sue-Judgements-For-Debate-amp-Discussion&p=4171099&viewfull=1#post4171099

 

"Once that 'registrable disposition' (transfer) is registered at HMLR it operates in law to transfer a separate legal estate to the Lender - the lender is the 'owner' of that estate - he is not the 'owner' of the Borrowers legal estate = the legal estate of the Lender means he can exercise the 'owenrship' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23

 

(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."

 

 

Read the bit from "Lender means he can exercise the 'ownership' rights granted within the provision of the LRA 2002 s.23 and note the reference to

 

s.23(2)

 

Funny thing is, it was Apple that said the above

 

Is It Me? subsequently thanks Apple for posting the above.

 

Looks like someone has trouble making their mind up about the law or this is evidence that someone interprets the law differently whenever it suits them.

 

When it suits Apple for one purpose s.23(2) are the lenders powers and when it doesn't suit Apple s.23(2) aren't the powers of the lender - some might call that convenient - Either way Is It Me ? agrees with Apple ;-)

 

Yes Ben this is what gives me the feeling that we are being "wound Up". After all it is not a particularly complicated piece of legislature.

 

Section 23 , the first part deals with the owner of the property and his right to create a charge, subsection two deals with the rights of the subsequent owner of that charge, simple really.

 

It is well explained in the authority posted on here numerous times by both of us. Tellingly there is no external authority at all which supports any other view, odd that.

[Peterbard]

So what if it could mean something totally different? It could mean that the lender can't mortgage the estate in their own right or that once registered the owner can't then divide the mortgaged estate for a further mortgage - such as a farmer mortgaging a barn or field when it is already part of a mortgaged estate.

 

Either way I pretty much give up caring as this isn't going to change millions of mortgages and how they have been formed and accepted. Even if you win, the mortgage companies are just going to argue the same and that the law was not clear enough to them either. Any loophole will be fixed, ( as it doesn't look to me as though the person that wrote it meant that a mortgage should not be secured because of a,b, or c!) and it's just a case of moving on and you'll still have to pay the debt back.

 

If Is It Me spent more time going through their 'friends' accounts, statements and contract they'd find far more concrete reasons to not have the house repossessed. I'm in the process of getting the charge removed on mine as I have proof that payments were actually 3 months ahead when they went to court and that we are now over 4 years ahead, at todays rates, without even overpaying by a penny more than asked. Go figure that out!

 

No I think if it meant such a thing then that is what it would say, also there would be commentary to that effect, there isn't.

 

I agree that examining the contract is probably a far more productive way of finding evidence of wrong doing by the lender and possibly halting enforcement, particularly if it is a CCA regulated second charge.

[bhall]

Hi ben i agree you have wasted a lot of your time explaining lots of pages of the same old thing when you should of been tending to mrs ben,Ben do you actually know what the first two cases at the property chamber was about?,You keep mentioning the outcome it would be interesting to know as you seem absolutely sure which way it's going to go?

 

Sorry forgot to say good night ben.One more thing I have heard butter is good to use on a bang to the head.

 

Hello Enfircer

 

Sorry I missed your posted earlier.

 

Yes I do know what the cases were about. I have no doubt in my mind which way it will go at all.

 

Thanks for the tip about butter - after yesterday there is a huge bruise, I also left a couple of cracks in the wall too.

 

I will pop out and get some butter later and stock up on headache tablets, as I have a feeling my supply expected to last throughout 2014, will run very shortly.

 

Thank you

[bhall]

Yes Ben this is what gives me the feeling that we are being "wound Up". After all it is not a particularly complicated piece of legislature.

 

Section 23 , the first part deals with the owner of the property and his right to create a charge, subsection two deals with the rights of the subsequent owner of that charge, simple really.

 

It is well explained in the authority posted on here numerous times by both of us. Tellingly there is no external authority at all which supports any other view, odd that.

 

Good Morning DB

 

This is the problem with interpretation. As shown it can change with the wind. If in one situation someone wants something to mean 'a' they can and will interpret it to mean 'a'. However, in a different situation that same person wants the same thing to mean "b", they can and will interpret it to mean "b"

 

The biggest problem with interpretation is that as shown in this thread anything can be interpreted to mean anything.

 

I have never understood the need for interpretation, especially when something is written in clear plain English. It is not as if it is written in Chinese or Japanese.

 

You do make a very valid point about supporting evidence though. Many of the interpretations are only supported by more interpretations.

 

A number of sources (including surprisingly a post made by Apple of all people) , including the document we have both posted from the Land Registry (who you would think would know a thing or two about land registration) clearly confirm s.23(2) are the powers of the lender as the registered proprietor of the registered charge. However, such things are dismissed quickly in this thread and brushed under the carpet.

 

After all how can these 3rd party sources (experts and professionals) including the Land Registry, possibly know more about Land Registration than Apple ?

 

Then again as shown interpretation changes with the wind as and when it suits.

[bhall]

The good thing is that these little debates won't keep going around in circles for much longer. I think both readers of this thread and members of the site team will both be glad when the debates reach a conclusion. Readers must be bored of the same points being made over and over again and the site team must be tired of having to continually become involved.

 

Hopefully Apple will accept (although I doubt it) the view of the property chamber.

 

I wonder what will then be said... I might need extra strength headache tablets on that day.

 

DB you should prepare yourself for the flood of yes but, no but, yes but posts too ;-)

 

I can recommend ibuprofen lol

[Peterbard]

The good thing is that these little debates won't keep going around in circles for much longer. Hopefully Apple will accept (although I doubt it) the view of the property chamber.

 

I wonder what will then be said... I might need extra strength headache tablets on that day.

 

I realize that this is the OPs thread so this is probably off topic. But there are far more interesting aspects of this as raised in some of the case law you posted IMO. Unfortunately this thread does not seem to be able to get past the basic aspects of the registration, so discussion of things like the enforceablity of sub mortgages , or mortgages which have an attached sub mortgages cannot be sensibly discussed.

Perhaps a different thread ?

[bhall]

For me personally this thread is and will continue to be my main focus on CAG. A number of claims on this thread have been made which could lead to innocent borrowers incurring thousands of pounds in legal costs.

 

At no risk to the person that made those claims as they have not made an application to the Property Chamber even though they claim mortgages have not been valid since 1925 (or has that argument now fallen away).

 

Until the property chamber 's written decision is posted, disproving those claims once and for all, I want to concentrate my efforts here.

 

However, my previous concerns of many people taking the claims made in this thread seriously, I am pleased to say have proven to be unfounded. Only 10 applications (as per the date of the FOI response) - one of which has been struck out, had been made and only 28 people have signed the petition since it was created.

 

Those numbers indicate how much faith people have in those claims (not a lot)

[bhall]

Hi thanks for your post but as aways never any help and it's easy for you to say that it's it

I'll inform you of a case I helped with last Thursday in London county court this person could afore the rate which was agreed by the court since 2008, but as the lender kept the rates higher every 3 month she was then. In arrears and what do you think happened yes possession hearing and we went to it but had paperwork to show NO higher interest rate and that the rates had not moved but for their bond holders

What did the c/judge do go back to the order of 2008 and set a rate lower than she was paying and an order that NO costs are added to the mortgage

So do I think these lenders are honest NO

Have any of them the funds of there own to lend to borrowers NO

They ARE very very worried about this matter a Ben and co are only doing a better job of showing why

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

It is good to see that you are helping someone.

 

Why didn't you just rely upon the void deed argument that you have so much faith in and that you help to promote in this thread ?

 

Was it rejected by the Judge ?

[IS IT ME?]

Hello Is It Me?

 

It is good to see that you are helping someone.

 

Why didn't you just rely upon the void deed argument that you have so much faith in and that you help to promote in this thread ?

 

Was it rejected by the Judge ?

 

Hi Ben

Thanks for your in put as I thought you had better things to do lol

Yes the deed argument was used but you know what I was accepted that there is some thing wrong with the evidence that the lender has put before the court and as they now have 28 days to come back I will for reasons you know say no more on it, only to say that like before documents do not exist ( remember what happened last time funny that ) and that they don't want to show them why is hat Ben surely the lenders have nothing to hide????? Lol

Also they are very honest people and doing us all a favour lol

[enfircer]

Hello Enfircer

 

Sorry I missed your posted earlier.

 

Yes I do know what the cases were about. I have no doubt in my mind which way it will go at all.

 

Thanks for the tip about butter - after yesterday there is a huge bruise, I also left a couple of cracks in the wall too.

 

I will pop out and get some butter later and stock up on headache tablets, as I have a feeling my supply expected to last throughout 2014, will run very shortly.

 

Thank you

 

Afternoon ben your welcome on the tip. If you know please explain what the hearing was about I for one would like it explaining in detail.

It will also show that if you do know your not misleading people with your posts.

[caro]

Hi Ben

Thanks for your in put as I thought you had better things to do lol

Yes the deed argument was used but you know what I was accepted that there is some thing wrong with the evidence that the lender has put before the court and as they now have 28 days to come back I will for reasons you know say no more on it, only to say that like before documents do not exist ( remember what happened last time funny that ) and that they don't want to show them why is hat Ben surely the lenders have nothing to hide????? Lol

Also they are very honest people and doing us all a favour lol

 

I find this post very confusing.

 

Are you referring to your friend whose case is with the chamber or your friend who you helped in court last week?

 

If the issue if the deed was raised in court last week, was it accepted as having merit by the judge?

 

If you can't say more about whichever case for legal reasons I can understand that. If so does that apply to both cases or just one?

 

Why would Ben know the reasons you can't say more?

 

Has your friend that you helped in court last week got a thread on cag or elsewhere so that their success can be shared with others in a similar situation?

 

In what capacity did you help your friend in court? Eg MacKenzie friend?

 

Sorry for so many questions but I just found your response confusing.

[bhall]

Hi Ben

Thanks for your in put as I thought you had better things to do lol

Yes the deed argument was used but you know what I was accepted that there is some thing wrong with the evidence that the lender has put before the court and as they now have 28 days to come back I will for reasons you know say no more on it, only to say that like before documents do not exist ( remember what happened last time funny that ) and that they don't want to show them why is hat Ben surely the lenders have nothing to hide????? Lol

Also they are very honest people and doing us all a favour lol

 

Now this is confusing - as in I have no idea what you are talking about

 

If you are referring to the case you helped with last week ? I thought you claimed success, why does the lender have 28 days to come back, if you was successful. I don't think it can be the chamber hearing you are referring too as that outcome is in the process of being issued.

 

If you are inferring securitisation documents have gone missing and the lender does not want to show them etc, please let me know the lender and I will see if I can find them for you

 

As for what happened last time and and reasons that I know - sorry I don't have Apples mystical and magical powers of interpretation, I don't have a scooby what you are on about (as usual) - or was the last time, the time you said that you mentioned securitisation and the lenders solicitor went out during the lunch break of the possession hearing and arranged a mortgage for you with a different lender ? - Amazing what someone can do, during their lunch break (I took the liberty of reading some of your older posts)

 

because of company going under had arrears and just wanted to re mortgage but company wanted house so after I stated the facts and showed mortgage sale listing to judge. he broke for lunch were barr/solicitor for the company offered re mortgage with a new co was going took this but then found out ERC was added

which is what I am on here for.

BUT STILL ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION I PUT ON HERE.

 

SS that is what I've said all a long. when we were in court for repro I asked the question do you own our mortgage still? answer its not relevant to this case the judge stated it should be, we will break for lunch and continue at 2.

 

The lender then stuck a deal with me which thinking on it now was so stupid now that I think about it and the one thing I regret but I signed an agreement

and I am now going after them for the ERC of £14K which is some thing for nothing and no one can tell me what its for or why it there and that is what people should be going after them for.

 

100 repo's at £14K to £20K each not bad and that's why they do the repo's as quick as they can.

As I say you will NEVER be told what is going on as it will come down like the Bank charges.

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly why, it will beneficial for everyone that the decision of the property chamber is posted in this thread for everyone to read, it will prevent half stories, insinuations and claims of secrecy - everyone will know all the facts

[bhall]

Why would Ben know the reasons you can't say more?

 

Don't you know Caro ?

 

In between (well at least according to some) being the person that founded CAG, and being various different members of the site team, I also work for every single lender in the country, in addition to working for every single law firm in the country.

 

Somehow I also manage to attend every single hearing Is It Me? has said he has attended.

 

I do get around

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: the above is me being sarcastic

[bhall]

Enficer, do you have any more suggestions, that butter isn't working

[enfircer]

Enficer, do you have any more suggestions, that butter isn't working

 

Hi ben sorry to hear that I don't understand it.May I suggest you get your bumps felt as this could be the reason why you are misleading people and driving the fear into them that what your saying is correct.

In my life time ben I have come accross many people and in those many people you will always find someone like yourself who make it their life's mission to put people off doing the right thing for self gratification or to keep your pockets full from other folks misery.

You might be a nice chap who knows,one thing is clear to me you protest too much when people assume who you are?.

What does it really matter to you ben come on what and don't say its because your worried about costs this costs that people are already in thousands of pounds debt and committing suicide losing their homes?do you know any of those people?NO.