Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
    • Our main Equity Partner, Cabot Square Capital invests 
    • Yes it’s the garage and warranty company. And then my husband forwarded me the email. 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3758 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The amendment also refers to the owners powers of a registered estate - not owners powers of an unregistered estate - something else you can either accept as a friendly suggestion that you should think about, or you can simply dismiss it

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...-paragraph-2-8

 

SCHEDULE 11 Section 2

 

(8)In section 87, at the end there is inserted—

 

“(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).”

 

 

“On Report the Government and the Opposition moved amendments to clause 23 to deal with the question of how a legal charge could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to can no longer be created. This problem arises because the bill will take away the power to create a mortgage by demise. Baroness Scotland explained the Government’s amendmenticon.

 

Clause 23(1)(a) states than an owner’s powers to deal with a registered estate do not extend to the creation of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. As your Lordships will recall from Committee, that is a simplification of the existing law, introduced because those methods of creating mortgages are not used any more . I very much appreciate the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to that change.

 

Noble Lords opposite helpfully spotted that Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a mortgage has the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgagee by demise or sub-demise. The amendment should make the intended effect abundantly clear.

 

However, we respectfully suggest that it is necessary to retain the reference to the creation of mortgages by demise or sub-demise, as that will still be possible in relation to unregistered land. It is beyond the scope of the Bill to legislate in respect of such land.

 

Can it really be refuted that s.23(1)(a) being the powers of the registered proprietor of the registered estate - preventing them from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise - as a result of the amendment has not effect on s.87(1) of the LPA 1925 being where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

To a simpleton such as myself it would read to say

 

s.23(1) which prevents a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, does not have an affect on a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. - Afterall, s.23(1) only relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate

 

 

Whilst you can still mortgage by demise or sub-demise a unregistered estate, you can only mortgage a registered estate by legal charge - as a result of s.23(1) of the LRA 2002 and because of the amendment by the LRA 2002 to s.87 of the LPA 1925, as detailed above

 

 

Hi Ben, Welcome back, thought you were taking a well earned rest, any how, just a quickie, any chance you could re-post the above link, Ta....BP

Many of life’s failures are experienced by people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. - Thomas Edison

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben, Welcome back, thought you were taking a well earned rest, any how, just a quickie, any chance you could re-post the above link, Ta....BP

 

 

Hello BP

 

Here you go

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/11

 

(8)In section 87, at the end there is inserted—

 

“(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).”

 

and a link to section 87 which includes the actual amendment

 

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

 

[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]

 

Personally and this is not said to persuade you one way or the other, I think the above should be read/considered in conjunction with the explanatory notes for s.23

 

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

 

Section 23: Owner’s powers

 

55.This section states the unlimited powers of an owner. It makes one change to the current law. Under the existing law, there is a presumption that a registered charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, unless there is clear provision to the contrary, or it is made or takes effect as a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. Mortgages by demise or sub-demise are now in practice obsolete, because of the advantages of a charge (that enables freeholds and leaseholds to be made the subject of a single charge rather than separate demises or sub-demises; the grant of a charge of a lease is not thought to amount to a breach of the common-form covenant against subletting without the landlord’s consent; and the form of legal charge is short and simple). Subsection (1)(a) therefore abolishes them, with prospective effect.

 

As it says, . Mortgages by demise or sub-demise are now in practice obsolete, because of the advantages of a charge - hence why in terms of registered land, they were abolished by s.23(1)(a) leaving the registered charge, as the amendment confirms that it is not affected by s.23(1)(a)

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Random question do posts seem to change page for anyone else ?

 

Crapstones last post for me, was on the previous page, now it is on this page

 

Anyway that is enough from me for now

 

Yes mine seems to jump and change and I have to keep refreshing the pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Full background to the Bill and detailed explanations on the purpose and content of its clauses can be found in the joint Law Commission and HM Land Registry report, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century:A Conveyancing Revolution (Law Com No. 271).

 

I must offer my apologies to the followers and readers of this thread. It has just occurred to me that I have not posted the following, from the above mentioned report.

 

 

THE POWER TO CREATE CHARGES AND THE POWERS OF THE CHARGEE

 

Legal charges

 

The creation of charges and the powers of the chargee

 

7.2 Under the present law, a registered proprietor can by deed create a legal mortgage or charge1 of registered land in any one of three ways

 

(1) he or she may in the usual way create a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage;2

 

(2) he or she may charge the registered land with the payment of money and this will take effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, even though not expressed to do so;3 or

 

(3) he or she may create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise but must do so expressly: the presumption is in favour of a charge by way of legal mortgage.

 

These three propositions state the combined effect of sections 25(1) and 27 of the Land Registration Act 1925. The reason for (2) is historical. Charges over registered land were introduced by the Land Transfer Act 1875.4 They therefore pre-date by half a century the introduction of the charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage in section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925.5 Mortgages by demise or sub-demise ¾ (3) above ¾ are in practice now obsolete because of the advantages offered by a charge. The main advantages of a charge are that¾

 

(a) freeholds and leaseholds can be the subject of a single charge rather then separate demises or sub-demises;

 

(b) the grant of a charge over a lease is not thought to amount to a breach of the common-form covenant against subletting without the landlord’s consent (such consent would be required to a

mortgage by sub-demise); and

 

© the form of legal charge is short and simple.6

 

It should be noted that the mortgage by demise or sub-demise was as much a creation of the Law of Property Act 1925 as was the charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. The charge over registered land for the payment of money ¾ (2) above ¾ is in fact the form of permitted legal mortgage or charge that has the longest pedigree.7

 

This then leads onto my previous post

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4469874&viewfull=1#post4469874

 

"7.3 As we have explained in Part IV of this Report, the Bill implements a recommendation in the Consultative Document that it should not be possible to create mortgages by demise or sub-demise in relation to registered land. Under the Bill, a registered proprietor can create a legal mortgage in one of two ways

 

(1) by a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage; or

(2) by a charge to secure the payment of money.

 

Of course the above two mentioned ways that a registered proprietor of a registered estate can create a legal mortgage can be found in

 

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.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same report

 

The grant of a legal charge

 

4.29 The grant of a legal charge is a registrable disposition.100 To register the charge, the chargee or his or her successor in title must be entered in the register as its proprietor.101 By way of an exception, the creation of a legal charge that is also a local land charge does not require registration.102 The reasons for this exception are more fully explained in Part VII of this Report,103 but may be summarised as follows¾

 

which of course is

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/2

 

Creation of legal charge

 

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

 

And the applicable explanatory note

 

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

 

Creation of legal charge

 

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

 

(registered estate - not unregistered estate)

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fletch

 

I would not be so concerned, it is not the first time such a claim has been made

 

 

 

As we know, despite this "great news" the lenders were not stopped dead in their tracks and this matter did proceed to be heard by the Property Chamber

 

I am sure for the benefit of the other applications, not being Lamb, Is it Me?'s friend or the person that made the other application that was heard on 20 Jan 2014 - this yet unrevealed revelation will be made public at some stage. - If there is something that could help those other people, I am sure Apple and Is It Me? after encouraging people to make applications, would not abandon them now in their hour of need and keep such important information to themselves.

 

If you really think I would tell you then you know what.."...............

You will just have to wait for the ruling from the chamber, as you know you were there and what happened when the file came out lol lol

It stop you in your tracks as well you know and this can be confirm by the other applicants who were there!!!!

So just wait Ben not long to go now,

Why have you abandoned your own thread??????

Not many views there and I thought that you would be running home with it given your own posts,

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the FULL sec not just the bit you post Ben

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 CLEARLY states you CAN NOT do that which you have tried very very hard to say we can Ben , nice try lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note and not to detract - At this rate with the way the wind is blowing there may not be much title to be had and I'm in the Midlands so it must be like hell on the coast and with the floods to boot. Not good at all.. :-(

 

It would be interesting, as I've stated before, on how any properties that have sub-prime mortgages AND have had block insurance inflicted on them are dealt with. As previous, they seem to under insure at the max. premium so with such a large event and so many properties involved we might just get a clue what this would mean if a claim for the whole of a property were to happen and what position it would leave the homeowner in. Just a thought..

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer Bens question, I am guessing posts are being edited by the poster or moderated by the team hence posts move. I am also guessing that some of the sillier posts , mine included have been removed.

 

 

Crapstone that would be a great idea, saves me staying up all night reading and cross referencing although as it is now 5 am it might help me sleep

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

BINGO!!!

I wish others could see the error of their ways, lol

 

It will take a while.

 

Some have no issue in understanding that 'yellow and blue make Green'

 

Some will insist that - No - it is 'Blue and Yellow that makes Green'.

 

The outcome will be the same....so long as yellow and Blue is the ingredient.... it will always be Green.

 

under LRA s.23 no borrower has statutory power to grant a mortgage by demise nor a legal charge or any type of disposition that will cause the same effect - The Law is the Law....it is Yellow and Blue.....the FACT remains.....as a Borrower - no matter which way round you look to interpret the statute.....it remains the same.....you still have no power to mortgage your "Estate" or mortgage your "Charge" by way of Legal Sub-Mortgage.......end of ; )

 

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple can you post just a quick synopsis of the key points you are trying to make without copy and paste. Just the ones you are contesting - in brief please.

 

The application looks to the Chamber to say:

 

The Deed is void - the lender has not executed it.

 

The Mortgage is void - the estate is a registered estate - the Borrower has no statutory power to mortgage it.

 

Issues:

 

Lender asserts - Borrower is bound by the Deed - Not the Lender

 

Lender asserts - Borrower has power to mortgage registered estate.

 

As I understand it so far:

 

Chamber agree - Borrower has no power to Mortgage Registered Estate

 

Chamber agree - Borrower not bound by Deed when Lender has failed to execute the deed.

 

Lender has 28 days to set aside decision

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have had chance to look at both of these now Crapstone.....I could see no reference made to LRA s.23.

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had chance to look at both of these now Crapstone.....I could see no reference made to LRA s.23.

 

Apple

 

Hi,

Apple thanks for your help and for keeping this going as I for one watching this can see that the team want to close this AGAIN with the last couple of posts by them.

Sorry but I still can not post which I and others find very very strange but as others have been albe to see that my replies to you and others have been stopped it will all come out in the end.

I have also asked why some posters have got away with things when we have been put in the dock??? Yet to have an answer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I still can not post which I and others find very very strange

 

I'm sure you've been told as to why you're still on moderation. All moderation is periodically reviewed - and I'm sure yours will be lifted once it has been decided your posts don't need to be reviewed. :)

 

I have also asked why some posters have got away with things when we have been put in the dock???!

 

If you see something that requires the Site Team's attention you should report it. I don't ever see reported posts from you. The process is there :)

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the FULL sec not just the bit you post Ben

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 CLEARLY states you CAN NOT do that which you have tried very very hard to say we can Ben , nice try lol

 

I know I said I wold not comment on here again but it really is exasperating.

 

Where exactly does it say that a owner of a registered estate cannot create a mortgage by way of a charge ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer Bens question, I am guessing posts are being edited by the poster or moderated by the team hence posts move. I am also guessing that some of the sillier posts , mine included have been removed.

 

 

 

This will only happen if a post is unapproved/deleted for some reason. Editing only changes the post itself, not the post count.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think I would tell you then you know what.."...............

You will just have to wait for the ruling from the chamber, as you know you were there and what happened when the file came out lol lol

It stop you in your tracks as well you know and this can be confirm by the other applicants who were there!!!!

So just wait Ben not long to go now,

Why have you abandoned your own thread??????

Not many views there and I thought that you would be running home with it given your own posts,

 

Ok, just this once, I will take the bait.

 

So you are not going to post it because you don't want to tell me, as I was there and I know what it was ?

 

If I was there and if I know what you are talking about, why am I posting what I have continued to post ?

 

For the record, I was not there and I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

However, I do admire your commitment to this thread, as on the day of the hearing you still found time to post.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgeball,

 

Originally Posted by IS IT ME?:

This is the FULL sec not just the bit you post Ben

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 CLEARLY states you CAN NOT do that which you have tried very very hard to say we can Ben , nice try lol

I know I said I wold not comment on here again but it really is exasperating.

 

Where exactly does it say that a owner of a registered estate cannot create a mortgage by way of a charge ?

 

I can not see for the life of me why you are so so blind and just out to wind people up,

Does it not say. OTHER THAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We had this at the chamber

I can not be any clearer than that YOU CAN NOT DO IT !!!!!! Understand

This has been as much confirmed at the hearing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will take a while.

 

Some have no issue in understanding that 'yellow and blue make Green'

 

Some will insist that - No - it is 'Blue and Yellow that makes Green'.

 

The outcome will be the same....so long as yellow and Blue is the ingredient.... it will always be Green.

 

under LRA s.23 no borrower has statutory power to grant a mortgage by demise nor a legal charge or any type of disposition that will cause the same effect - The Law is the Law....it is Yellow and Blue.....the FACT remains.....as a Borrower - no matter which way round you look to interpret the statute.....it remains the same.....you still have no power to mortgage your "Estate" or mortgage your "Charge" by way of Legal Sub-Mortgage.......end of ; )

 

 

Apple

 

I see what you are saying here apple about people taking the ingredients of an argument and coming to a conclusion, and you have taken them and done just that ,as have Ben and as have I.

 

Yet using the same starting facts you have come up with a completely different result, which is fine.

 

The difference is that there are others off here that have reached the same conclusions as Ben and i with the same facts, Ben has posted up many, many pieces of evidence which duplicate the same end findings.

 

However you have not shown anyone else who has duplicated your findings, or agrees that those starting point give the same result that you say they do , all the authority says different.

Can you explain this ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3758 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...