Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[fletch70]

Children children please.......... I am getting on in years and can not keep up

 

Ben I forgive you about the dots

 

I have to say that the claim of I can not discuss for legal reasons smacks very much of my old "friend".

I see as well that some people are too busy at having a go at others to actually answer a question

 

(3) A party applying for a decision, or part of a decision, to be set aside under paragraph (1) must make a written application to the Tribunal so that it is received—

 

(a)within 28 days after the date on which the Tribunal sent notice of the decision to the party; or

 

(b)if later, within 28 days after the date on which the Tribunal sent notice of the reasons for the decision to the party.

 

That to me would suggest that the decision had already been published which obviously it hasn't

 

Of course if the link was about appealing to the upper tier then it twas wrong page m'duck

[applecart]

I have to admit I've missed isitme's account of his friends hearing which would have been helpful for those who either have either made applications themselves or are considering it.

 

Hi Caro

 

I agree, we have all missed out - It simply makes sense to take Is It Me off moderation and allow him to post freely for the benefit of one and all.

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Children children please.......... I am getting on in years and can not keep up

 

Ben I forgive you about the dots

 

I have to say that the claim of I can not discuss for legal reasons smacks very much of my old "friend".

I see as well that some people are too busy at having a go at others to actually answer a question

 

 

 

That to me would suggest that the decision had already been published which obviously it hasn't

 

Of course if the link was about appealing to the upper tier then it twas wrong page m'duck

 

No, not the wrong page - It is the correct page Fletch70.

 

Don't worry about it for now..... I only posted it to answer the question you posted - if it doesn't assist you that's no issue - you do not have an application in the Chamber....

 

Apple

[fletch70]

Oh boy how I love being patronised!

 

Oh and why should it be of no issue to me or does the mighty applecart deem me unworthy or trying to expand my knowledge

[Peterbard]

Here is the LRA s.23 (1) ....

 

(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 interesticon of that description, other than a mortgageicon by demise or sub-demise, and

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

 

 

Where and why are you taking issue with the word "or"

 

Both the Definition in LPA 1925 s.205 (xvi) and the LRA s.23 (1) have the word "or" included ....

 

Pray tell - why do you take issue with the word "or"???

 

 

Apple

 

This was pointed out to you last November(yes I have read the whole thread) by steampower, there has been authority pointed out to you explaining why the old style mortgage was withdrawn and scrapped when the 2002 legislation came into force. The fundamental differences between the two arrangements have been pointed out to you.

I have to say that you must be either too stupid or just to arrogant to actually read and admit that you may be mistaken.

 

I do not blame people for getting annoyed with you, and also I do not blame anyone for checking up on any information that you impart.

[ims21]

Hi Caro

 

I agree, we have all missed out - It simply makes sense to take Is It Me off moderation and allow him to post freely for the benefit of one and all.

 

 

Apple

 

Looks like you have enough to discuss here already. Maybe leave these decisions to the Site Team.

[fletch70]

Dodge

All I can say is that you are not wrong!

[enfircer]

Not being one that likes to speculate and as I like to stay up to speed with developments, I took the liberty of keeping in regular contact with the Property Chamber

 

 

From: Land Registration

 

 

 

Sent: 05 February 2014 12:22

To: bhall

Subject: RE: Decision Notification Request

 

Good afternoon,

 

I have double checked the cases that were in court on 20 January 2014. The Mortgage dispute Decision is still outstanding with the Judge, so I would advise you to keep checking back with this office after xxxx when a Decision is more likely to have be issued. For your information the mortgage application Case numbers are REC/2013/00xx&00xx.

 

Sorry the only other case heard that day wasn't relevent to you as it was none mortgage case.

 

Hope this helps

 

Mr xxxx

Property Chamber, Land Registration

3rd Floor 10 Alfred Place

London

WC1E 7LR

 

 

 

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.

 

 

 

I will post it to this thread as soon as I have it

 

Wow ben you are good so what does this mean in terms of the applications?. Do they have no prospect of getting anywhere with them?.

What do you think will happen or do you know already.

[Peterbard]

Oh boy how I love being patronised!

 

Oh and why should it be of no issue to me or does the mighty applecart deem me unworthy or trying to expand my knowledge

 

I wouldn't look to Apple here to expand you knowledge fletch, actually she could learn an awful lot from you.

[caro]

Hi Caro

 

I agree, we have all missed out - It simply makes sense to take Is It Me off moderation and allow him to post freely for the benefit of one and all.

 

 

Apple

 

That is a private matter between isitme and admin which is not for discussion here.

 

If isitme chooses not to post the outcome it won't be a problem as the decision of the tribunal will be in the public domain

[bhall]

After all this time that you have been preaching on this topic you are still unable to grasp the terminology or able to differentiate between a mortgage by demise and a mortgage by legal charge.

 

This is a link to a report produced by the law commission - you are familiar with it as you have quoted from it before

 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc9192/hc00/0005/0005.pdf

 

Please note the following extract - especially for your benefit

 

 

"There are two ways of creating a legal mortgage: the mortgagor must either execute a demise for a term of years absolute ("a mortgage by demise") or must execute a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage ("a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage)"

 

Please before you exercise your magical and mysterious powers of interpretation, please read what it actually says

 

1) There are two ways of creating a legal mortgage - a mortgage by demise being one way and the second being a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

2) For a mortgage by demise a borrower must execute a demise for a term of years absolute

 

3) For a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage - a borrower must execute a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

The above clearly shows that they are two different types of legal mortgage (as per my previous post about the use of the word "or" in the LPA 1925)

 

To grant a mortgage by demise, a borrower must do one thing, to grant a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, the borrower must do something different.

 

Stay with me on this...

 

 

Now look at 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

 

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

 

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.

 

Ok the report from the law commission confirms that a mortgage by demise is one of two types of legal mortgage. Th second type as stated in the report is a charge expressed by deed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

If you read the LRA 2002 and the explanatory notes, even you can see that only one of the two different types of legal mortgage was abolished by the LRA 2002.

 

Only a mortgage by demise has been abolished leaving the only way to mortgage a registered estate is by a charge (a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage)

 

Now to further confirm this look at the actual mortgage deeds

 

Do the mortgage deeds state that they grant a demise for a term of years absolute or do they says that they grant a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

The proof is there, you just need to open your eyes.

 

The below extract that I have posted before, confirms everything that I have stated above.

 

 

Take a deep breath first, then read what I have written before going to the interpretation route.

 

Please for the sake of the sanity of everyone that reads this thread, consider what has been said in this post - at least accept what is stated in the Law Commission report

 

I am running out of ideas of how to explain this basic legal concept to you

 

Ben

[bhall]

Wow ben you are good so what does this mean in terms of the applications?. Do they have no prospect of getting anywhere with them?.

What do you think will happen or do you know already.

 

I am glad you think so

 

I think I have been very clear about what I consider the prospects to be

 

The Property Chamber has already told Is It Me? that as a matter of law the lender does not generally have to sign the charge - The writing was written on the wall about this outcome for months now.

 

One case has already been struck out on the basis it was "vexatious and frivolous"

 

Given the responses from and the actions of the Property Chamber - can this really go any other way ?

[Peterbard]

Won't do any good Ben

[bhall]

Hi Ben

 

LRA s.23 (2) excludes any legal charge by way of sub-mortgage over the principle charge - it tells you - NO Legal sub-mortgage - then it tells you in LRA s.23 (3) that a Legal sub-mortgage is a charge by way of legal mortgage.....

 

SO, please explain the point you are making and why you are fixated on the word "OR"??????

 

Apple

 

because of what "or" means

 

It is basic english

 

red or white

black or blue

yellow or pink

 

"or" = one or the other and not both lol

[bhall]

Hi Ben

 

LRA s.23 (2) excludes any legal charge by way of sub-mortgage over the principle charge - it tells you - NO Legal sub-mortgage - then it tells you in LRA s.23 (3) that a Legal sub-mortgage is a charge by way of legal mortgage.....

 

SO, please explain the point you are making and why you are fixated on the word "OR"??????

 

Apple

 

As you, yourself have posted previously Apple - s.23(2) are the lenders powers

[bhall]

I have to admit I've missed isitme's account of his friends hearing which would have been helpful for those who either have either made applications themselves or are considering it.

 

Personally, I would have thought given how vocal Is It Me? has been in support of the void deed argument and his previous posts encouraging people to make applications - he would have been equally vocal about the hearing - if not in terms of the outcome, at least in terms of procedure and how things works on the day. - Not for my benefit of course but for the people that as a result of his previous insistence also made applications to the chamber - It doesn't sound like he wants to help them now

[bhall]

Hi Caro

 

I agree, we have all missed out - It simply makes sense to take Is It Me off moderation and allow him to post freely for the benefit of one and all.

 

 

Apple

 

As I understand it, subject to moderation he is free to post anything - so moderation is not a barrier for him to post about the hearing - It is clearly a decision he has actively taken himself not to post about it (darn am I using powers of interpretation there)

[bhall]

Oh boy how I love being patronised!

 

Oh and why should it be of no issue to me or does the mighty applecart deem me unworthy or trying to expand my knowledge

 

lol Fletch

 

you obviously have not read the Applecart rule book of this thread - us mere mortals are not worthy

[bhall]

Won't do any good Ben

 

I know, but I do like to try and boy do I try

[Peterbard]

I know this will do no good however http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7808/0/

 

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).

[IS IT ME?]

Personally, I would have thought given how vocal Is It Me? has been in support of the void deed argument and his previous posts encouraging people to make applications - he would have been equally vocal about the hearing - if not in terms of the outcome, at least in terms of procedure and how things works on the day. - Not for my benefit of course but for the people that as a result of his previous insistence also made applications to the chamber - It doesn't sound like he wants to help them now

 

Thank you Ben ,

But as apple has said I can to post freely as you well know,

But I will say this I have printed of the last pages of your posts and will be taking action with the property chamber about your so called informant.

As there was nothing to say about the hearing as NO judgement had been made as well you know so I would like to know how you know what the out come is before those who have made the applications, you have not only dropped yourself in it but also CAG now.

[caro]

I know, but I do like to try and boy do I try

 

Some would say you're very trying!

 

Poor Mrs Hall has been neglected this weekend.

[bhall]

And..... your point is what??

 

Apple

 

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/or_1?q=or+

 

English definition of “or”

 

or

 

used to connect different possibilities:

 

Is it Tuesday or Wednesday today?

You can pay now or when you come back to pick up the paint.

Are you listening to me or not?

The patent was granted in (either) 1962 or 1963 - I can't quite remember which.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose - it's taking part that's important.

There were ten or twelve (= approximately that number of) people in the room.

He was only joking - or was he (= but it is possible that he was not)?

 

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

 

"or" - used to connect different possibilities

 

I hope this explains my previous comments about the significance of the use of the word "or"

 

As I said Apple, basic english

 

(I have added extra emphasis on "different" just to make the obvious point)

[bhall]

Some would say you're very trying!

 

Poor Mrs Hall has been neglected this weekend.

 

Don't... I have to take her shopping on Wednesday because of this and that is even worse than banging my head against the wall explaining basic things to Apple

[bhall]

Thank you Ben ,

But as apple has said I can to post freely as you well know,

But I will say this I have printed of the last pages of your posts and will be taking action with the property chamber about your so called informant.

As there was nothing to say about the hearing as NO judgement had been made as well you know so I would like to know how you know what the out come is before those who have made the applications, you have not only dropped yourself in it but also CAG now.

 

Is It Me? - complete and utter nonsense and I mean that with all due respect.

 

It is information that is in the public domain - Freedom of Information etc- there is even legislation about it, so good luck with that, you will have as much luck with that as you will about a void mortgage deed

 

I have told you about this being all in the public domain before - there will be no way for anyone to hide anything.

 

I don't know what the outcome is, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how flawed Apples fanciful ideas are (can't even grasp the meaning of the word or ), so the outcome has been a foregone conclusion for months. You are just going through the motions.