Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[p.j]

Hi applecart thank you.

ok got my grounds letter sorted got the tda 1999 sorted, use the one you did for alisono which states the sale to eurosale instead of the one you did for me is this correct..pj

[p.j]

sorry posted twice

Edited September 26, 2013 by p.j
posted twice

[applecart]

Dear CAG reader, I recently made a similar application to the Property Chamber. I decided to go into voluntary arrears 5 months ago after the lender started referring to my mortgage payments as a subscription (a very strange setup and the lender is refusing to offer any further communication on the subject). I recently presented the legal information in this thread directly to the lender's CEO ahead of making the application and I have been met with silence - i.e. no reply at all. No legal action has been taken for repossession of my property and the lender is even refusing to tell me if it is charging interest on the subscription arrears or whether it is making further "administrative" charges. Apparently all this is regulated by the FCA who are refusing to make any comment or offer any advice or assistance on the irregularities I have described to them.

 

Thanks for this UNRAM

 

Well and truly and timely posted..... It is because they have NO DEFENCE....

 

Let's hope all of their customers do the same as you have.....that's what the Legislator intended and it is now happening...

 

So far...as far as I can tell......there is Northern Rock.....SPML...... Accord.....and oh yes..... Preferred

 

All of whom have been referred to the Chamber....Let's keep the applications flowing in.....there are other lenders out there.....who also leave the deed un-executed.......that means there are other Borrowers out there who remain unaware of the statutory remedies available to them.....

 

Keep the Pressure on....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi applecart thank you.

ok got my grounds letter sorted got the tda 1999 sorted, use the one you did for alisono which states the sale to eurosale instead of the one you did for me is this correct..pj

 

Brilliant.... yes that's correct....

 

Please take care to read it all through before you send it off....make sure.... letter to court and lender - recorded delivery...keep copy for yourself...

 

make sure you also send the.....application form and 'grounds'...make sure you sign and date the 'grounds' with a statement of truth..... and include as much relevant evidence to Chamber....i.e... the mortgage deed - title register - mortgage offer - extracts from 'case law' ('garguillo' and 'bibby' - you will find these on this thread...you don't need to print off the whole of 'bibby'...it is huge....just the first page...and the pages that contain the references cited in the 'grounds')...any relevant communication.... front page of Mortgage Sale Agreement....get the pages to do with 'power of attorney'.....the Appendix... or the page from the Appendix with your mortgage account number on it.....(if you don't send this in - don't worry...you can send it in as an addendum to the application at any time after you have sent in the main application)

Keep an 'index' of all the documents you send and a copy of the application and a copy of the documents too...

 

Do not send a copy of the application due for the Chamber to the Court or to the Lender - the Lender will be sent a copy by the chamber.... The court will not have time to consider it in 10 - 15 mins....so, the letter is enough to seek an adjournment....

 

Be careful though.... Alisono's letter to the court includes reference to having been sent a letter from the Lender to say they sold the beneficial interest......you do not have such a letter from them...

 

You will need to re-word it...more to say...." I have a copy of the lenders mortgage sale agreement that purports to a sale of the beneficial interest to Eurosail"...and lead on from there...ok?

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

 

P.s: I saw your other thread.... I have posted on it..... : )

[p.j]

hi apple thank you for your help and i saw your post ; )

Edited September 27, 2013 by p.j
wrong reply

[Jabba the hut]

Apple just on a train but have heard that he has papers back from property chamber which gives him a hearing

 

When is this hearing supposed to take place ?

 

In sept some time I would really like more people to be aware of this thread and that is why I ask if it could be changed and what you accept as one many thanks

 

Monday is the last day of Sept (September) has there been some kind of delay ?

[Jabba the hut]

Hi Is It Me

 

I captured all of Jabba the huts posts - they are in my 'emails- in-box'......my concern is that they will be in each and everyone else's too.....

 

I'm pleased they have been removed from your thread....

 

The point Jabba made however is not one I wish to ignore....in fact I think it is important to re-iterate a few points....

 

Jabba sought to make out that a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' is being permitted within the general law.....

 

We understand here that a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' IS permitted within the general law......BUT what Jabba failed to understand is that ....a charge by way of legal mortgage....IS NOT permitted when the Land is REGISTERED

 

So...to RE-ITERATE...................A Charge by Way of Legal Mortgage...neither 'expressed' or 'within the general law' is NOT permitted when the land is 'registered'

 

To provide a different point of view (to that expressed above) that a legal mortgage is in fact permitted of registered land

 

 

Land Law

By Kevin J. Gray, Susan Francis Gray

 

About the authors

 

Kevin Gray is a Barrister and Fellow of Trinity College, University of Cambridge. He has been a Professor of Law in the University of London and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.

 

Susan Francis Gray was for many years an Assistant Land Registrar, having responsibility amongst other things for the registration of the Channel Tunnel project. She has also been a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Greenwich.

 

 

Creation of a legal mortgage over registered land

 

 

8.29 An expressly created legal mortgage of registered land (whether freehold orleasehold) must be effected by way of registered charge. (The cumbersome method of mortgage by demise or subdemise is no longer available in relation to registered land (See LRA 2002, s.23(1)(a).)

 

- Charge by way of legal mortgage

 

In the absence of any contrary entry in the register, every proprietor of registered land is statutorily empowered to charge his registered estate at law with the payment of money (LRA 2002 ss23(1)(b), 24(1) . The proprietor may thus mortgage to a lender declaring that the land comprised in the registered title is charged ‘by way of legal mortgage as security for the payment’ of sums specified to be due under the charge (e.g.in the sum of £xxx,xxx, the capital plus the interest). A legal charge of registered land may now be effected as a deed, in the standard form provided by the LRR 2003 (see LRA 2002, s25(1); LRR 2003 e103).

 

- Effectiveness ‘at law’

 

The grant of a charge over a registered estate ranks as a disposition which requires to be ‘completed’ by registration (LRA 2002, s.27(2)(f).The charge therefore becomes effective ‘at law’ only when the charge (i.e. the lender) is entered as the proprietor of the charge in the charges register of the chargor’s title (LRA 2002 ss 27(1) 59(2), sch 2, para8)

 

Effect of the registered charge

 

8.30 The registration of a legal charge at the Land Registry being about the following consequences:

 

- Rights of the registered charge

 

- All registered chargees are statutorily invested with a general power ‘to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law’ in relation to the registered charge (LRA 2002 ss.23(2)(a). The charge also has available, most significantly, a power of sale in respect of the estate which has been charged(see LPA 1925, ss 87-108)

[Jabba the hut]

To continue on from the 'power of sale'

 

Land Registry

Customer Training Programme

 

Power of Sale

 

Introduction

 

A chargee’s power to sell the property of a defaulting borrower is governed by the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925).

 

The power of sale must have arisen and must have become exercisable before a charge can exercise its power of sale and sell theproperty of a defaulting borrower.

 

The main provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002(LRA 2002) relating to sales by chargees can be found in ss.23(2)(a), 24, 51 and52.

 

Taken together, the effect of these provisions is thatthe proprietor of a registered charge has the power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law (other than a legal sub-mortgage) subject to any entry to the contrary in the register.

 

This therefore includes the power to sell the property, provided that the power of sale arisen has become exercisable.

 

How must the charge be entered in the register ?

 

A transfer of registered land in exercise of the statutory power of sale cannot be completed by registration unless the chargeitself is registered under s.51 LRA 2002

 

This is because only the charge will give the chargee the owner’s powers needed in order to sell the property under s.23(2)(a) LRA 2002.

 

The extracts from the book 'Land Law' and the above from the HMLR confirm that s.23(2) are the chargee's powers (i.e. the lender) and not the chargor's powers (i.e. the borrower)

[IS IT ME?]

Jabba, Can you please stop posting on this thread.

Where in the post 1306 does it say a hearing date???????

You will have all the time you need to say this at the property chamber so why not wait until then a??

[UNRAM]

The extracts from the book 'Land Law' and the above from the HMLR confirm that s.23(2) are the chargee's powers (i.e. the lender) and not the chargor's powers (i.e. the borrower)

 

Section 23(2) defines the Owner’s powers in relation to a registered charge. Not the Chargor's. Not the Chargee's. Not even the Proprieter's. The Owner's...

[Jabba the hut]

Section 23(2) defines the Owner’s powers in relation to a registered charge. Not the Chargor's. Not the Chargee's. Not even the Proprieter's. The Owner's...

 

Land Registration Act 2002

 

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.

 

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

 

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

As above

 

The chargee is the proprietor of the charge and is entitled to exercise the powers of the owner in relation to that charge. Those powers are as my previous posts

Edited September 27, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[UNRAM]

Land Registration Act 2002

 

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.

 

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

 

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

As above

 

The chargee is the proprietor of the charge and is entitled to exercise the powers of the owner in relation to that charge. Those powers are as my previous posts

 

Are you suggesting then that neither borrower nor lender can create a charge by way of a legal mortgage? LRA2002 section 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) transfer by way of mortgage, (b) sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and © charge by way of legal mortgage?

[UNRAM]

Don't waste your time with jabba he is not who he states his posts are only there to mislead people and let people loses the thread.

 

I'm confused. Mr Hut's logic appears to be supporting Applecart's assertions that "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 © charge by way of a legal mortgage."

 

According to Mr Hut's posts (and logic) no-one can create a charge by way of legal mortgage.

Edited September 27, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

I think posts 1174 on page 59 states it all as it clearly states WAITING FOR HEARING DATE

They have have been many people on here over the years putting people off asking questions and only relying on having a good judge when going cap in hand into court

BUT now this has changed some one like applecart has begun to ask the right questions and with they help this will come to the help of borrowers.

Jabber the Hut has only now come onto this thread not by his or her postings to help but to stop people in there tracks as I can see NO postings of any help or stating you should go down this line or do this and you have to ask WHY????

That's the way you lose, they lead you down a path and while your thinking about it jump on you and your dead as your thoughts are on some thing else.

[UNRAM]

I think posts 1174 on page 59 states it all as it clearly states WAITING FOR HEARING DATE

They have have been many people on here over the years putting people off asking questions and only relying on having a good judge when going cap in hand into court

BUT now this has changed some one like applecart has begun to ask the right questions and with they help this will come to the help of borrowers.

Jabber the Hut has only now come onto this thread not by his or her postings to help but to stop people in there tracks as I can see NO postings of any help or stating you should go down this line or do this and you have to ask WHY????

That's the way you lose, they lead you down a path and while your thinking about it jump on you and your dead as your thoughts are on some thing else.

 

According to Mr Hut's posts (and logic) no-one can create a charge by way of legal mortgage.

[Jabba the hut]

According to Mr Hut's posts (and logic) no-one can create a charge by way of legal mortgage.

 

 

No

 

What I have said is that a borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate to a lender

 

The two references quoted confirm that s.23(2) defines the lenders powers and s.23(1) defines the borrowers powers, with s.23(1)(a) confirming that a borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate.

[Jabba the hut]

I'm confused. Mr Hut's logic appears to be supporting Applecart's assertions that "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 of that description, other than a © charge by way of a legal mortgage."

 

According to Mr Hut's posts (and logic) no-one can create a charge by way of legal mortgage.

 

You have quoted s.23(2) which defines the lenders powers and not the borrowers powers. s.23(1)(a) confirms that a borrower can grant a charge by way of legal mortgage

 

1. s.27 of the LRA confirms that the grant of charge is a disposition that is completed by registration.

 

27 Dispositions required to be registered

 

(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.

 

2. schedule 2 - 8 confirms that when a legal charge is created the lender is registered as proprietor

 

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.

 

3. s.24 confirms that the proprietor is entitled to exercise the powers of the owner

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

 

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

4. s.23(2) defines those powers

 

23 Owner's Power's

 

(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.

 

 

Re: s.23(2) - Lenders Powers

 

Quote from the book 'Land Law'

 

"All registered chargees are statutorily invested with a general power ‘to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law’ in relation to the registered charge (LRA 2002 ss.23(2)(a). The chargee also has available, most significantly, a power of sale in respect of the estate which has been charged(see LPA 1925, ss 87-108)"

 

Quotes from HMLR

 

"The main provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002(LRA 2002) relating to sales by chargees can be found in ss.23(2)(a), 24, 51 and52."

 

"This is because only the charge will give the chargee the owner’s powers needed in order to sell the property under s.23(2)(a) LRA 2002"

 

Re: s.23(1) - Borrowers Powers

 

Quote from the book 'Land Law'

 

"8.29 An expressly created legal mortgage of registered land (whether freehold or leasehold) must be effected by way of registered charge. (The cumbersome method of mortgage by demise or subdemise is no longer available in relation to registered land (See LRA 2002, s.23(1)(a).)

 

Charge by way of legal mortgage

 

In the absence of any contrary entry in the register, every proprietor of registered land is statutorily empowered to charge his registered estate at law with the payment of money (LRA 2002 ss23(1)(b), 24(1) . The proprietor may thus mortgage to a lender declaring that the land comprised in the registered title is charged ‘by way of legal mortgage as security for the payment’ of sums specified to be due under the charge (e.g.in the sum of £xxx,xxx, the capital plus the interest). A legal charge of registered land may now be effected as a deed, in the standard form provided by the LRR 2003 (see LRA 2002, s25(1); LRR 2003 e103)."

Edited September 27, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[TimetogoRAM]

No

 

What I have said is that a borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate to a lender

 

The two references quoted confirm that s.23(2) defines the lenders powers and s.23(1) defines the borrowers powers, with s.23(1)(a) confirming that a borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate.

 

That's a a very interesting way of interpreting that Jabba. I really don't understand how you've come to that...

S23 1a A borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate (NO FULL STOP) OTHER than (a) transfer by way of mortgage, (b) sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and © charge by way of legal mortgage. There's not even any dispute here, the borrower doesn't have the power to create a b & c END OF!!

Edited September 28, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[UNRAM]

That's a a very interesting way of interpreting that Jabba. I really don't understand how you've come to that...

S23 1a A borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate (NO FULL STOP) OTHER than (a) transfer by way of mortgage, (b) sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and © charge by way of legal mortgage. There's not even any dispute here, the borrower doesn't have the power to create a b & c END OF!!

Incorrect. Section 3 only applies to subsection 2 not 1.

[UNRAM]

No

 

What I have said is that a borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate to a lender

 

The two references quoted confirm that s.23(2) defines the lenders powers and s.23(1) defines the borrowers powers, with s.23(1)(a) confirming that a borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate.

 

What does LRA2002 Section 24 (b) "entitled to be registered as the proprietor" mean?

[UNRAM]

Mr Hut, Applecart,

 

I thank you for the valuable time and information you have contributed to these discussions.

 

I would like to ask a further question if I may: where a mortgage agreement exists in the form of a mortgage offer with written terms and conditions (for the offer, not the disposition), does this document need to be in the form of a simple contract and satisfy Section 2 of LPMPA1989? Is a mortgage offer a simple contract that could be accurately referred to as a contract for a future disposition? If such a document exists where a mortgage has been granted, but that document does not meet section 2, is the disposition created from the agreement void? I realise that claims from both (Mortgage Business vs) Lamb and (Eagle Star vs) Greene cases were rejected on the basis that formalities (e.g. signatures, and valid terms and conditions) for an actual disposition do not have to meet section 2, but what of the agreement defining terms for the creation of the future disposition via the deed to grant the charge by way of a legal mortgage? Does this fall under Section 2?

Edited September 28, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Mr Hut, Applecart,

 

I thank you for the valuable time and information you have contributed to these discussions.

 

I would like to ask a further question if I may: where a mortgage agreement exists in the form of a mortgage offer with written terms and conditions (for the offer, not the disposition), does this document need to be in the form of a simple contract and satisfy Section 2 of LPMPA1989? Is a mortgage offer a simple contract that could be accurately referred to as a contract for a future disposition? If such a document exists where a mortgage has been granted, but that document does not meet section 2, is the disposition created from the agreement void? I realise that claims from both (Mortgage Business vs) Lamb and (Eagle Star vs) Greene cases were rejected on the basis that formalities (e.g. signatures, and valid terms and conditions) for an actual disposition do not have to meet section 2, but what of the agreement defining terms for the creation of the future disposition via the deed to grant the charge by way of a legal mortgage? Does this fall under Section 2?

Helden vs Strathmore 2011: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/542.html

 

27. Mr Helden's case on section 2 is hopeless. It proceeds on a fundamental misunderstanding of the reach and purpose of that section (LPMPA1989 section 1), a misunderstanding, it is fair to say, which appears to be not uncommon. Section 2 is concerned with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land[1], not with documents which actually create or transfer such estates or interests[2]. So a contract to transfer a freehold or a lease in the future, a contract to grant a lease in the future, or a contract for a mortgage in the future, are all within the reach of the section, provided of course the ultimate subject matter is land. However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all.

 

Notes:

 

[1] mortgage offer.

[2] mortgage deed.

 

Question: why are there no cases going through courts where a mortgage offer defining terms and conditions (to be used in the future deed to charge the estate by way of a legal mortgage) fails to meet LPMPA1989 section 2?

Edited September 29, 2013 by UNRAM

[Jabba the hut]

Helden vs Strathmore 2011: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/542.html

 

27. Mr Helden's case on section 2 is hopeless. It proceeds on a fundamental misunderstanding of the reach and purpose of that section (LPMPA1989 section 1), a misunderstanding, it is fair to say, which appears to be not uncommon. Section 2 is concerned with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land[1], not with documents which actually create or transfer such estates or interests[2]. So a contract to transfer a freehold or a lease in the future, a contract to grant a lease in the future, or a contract for a mortgage in the future, are all within the reach of the section, provided of course the ultimate subject matter is land. However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all.

 

Notes:

 

[1] mortgage offer.

[2] mortgage deed.

 

Question: why are there no cases going through courts where a mortgage offer defining terms and conditions (to be used in the future deed to charge the estate by way of a legal mortgage) fails to meet LPMPA1989 section 2?

 

Answer: There is and has been

 

Modern Land Law

By Martin Dixon

 

About the Author:

Fellow of Queens'College, Cambridge.

Faculty of Law,Cambrdige University

Editorial panel:The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer

Visiting Professorof Law, City University, London

 

10.8.4 Mortgages by estoppel

 

As we have seen in Chapter 9, proprietary estoppel may operate to give a claimant an interest in land even though the claimant cannot produce the deed or written instrument that is normally required to establish aproprietary right. Moreover, we also know from Jennings v Rice (2002) and cases before it, that the court has an equitable jurisdiction to grant the remedy that is necessary to remove the unconscionability that triggered estoppel –sometimes described as ‘the minimum equity to do justice between parties’. There is no reason why this remedy should not be such so as to give the claimant an equitable mortgage over the defendant’s land, even despite the absence of formality. This is unlikelyto be the case where the defendant landowner has made some unspecific promise to the claimant, but what if the defendant has done some act that leads the claimant to believe they actually have a mortgage and the claimant acts on that belief ?

 

As we know from Taylor Fashions v Liverpool VictoriaTrustees (1982), if one person promises an interest in land to another and that is relied upon to their detriment, equity will enforce the promise and can give effect to the claim of the promise. So, if a lender has actually advanced money on the basis of a promise (either orally or represented by the deposit of the title deeds), it is possible that the mortgage will be enforced despite the absence of any formality.

 

The difficulty is, of course that to use estoppel in these circumstances appears to be side stepping the statutory imposedrequirements of formality – after all, the lender will have an action in the debt for recovery of the money and why should estoppel be used to create aproprietary claim simply because the parties failed to use the proper formalities? The answer is that estoppel can operate in these circumstances not simply because formalities were not used, but because it would be unconscionable in the circumstances in the circumstances to deny the mortgage.

 

Thus, in Kinane v Alimany Mackie-Conteh (2005), the Court of Appeal accepted that the claimant had a mortgage by estoppel because he had lent money to the claimant on the faith of an assurance that a valid mortgage would be forthcoming. When the mortgage did not materialise – the written agreement attempted by the parties did not comply with section 2 of the 1989 Act – estoppel stepped in. In particular the Court of Appeal specifically decided that a failed contract could indeed form the basis of the assurance necessary to support estoppel. Critically, this was not to be regarded as the avoidance of statutory formalities, because a failed contract could form the assurance necessary to generate an estoppel if there was unconscionability.

 

Thus, in the words of the Court the cause of the action in proprietary estoppel is thus not founded on the unenforceable agreement but on the defendant’s conduct which, when viewed in all relevant aspects, is unconscionable. In this case then, a mortgage was generated by estoppel because of the borrower in leading the lender to believe that a valid mortgage did indeed exist.

 

Another example is provided by Halifax plc v Popeck (2008). In which Halifax’s charge appears to have arisen by estoppel because it lent money on the faith of an assurance by the borrowers that it would be granted a legal mortgage over the whole of the borrower’s land. When it transpired that Halifax only had a registered legal charge over a narrow strip of land –because of fraud perpetrated by the borrowers – it was granted an equitable mortgage over the entire property because of estoppel and in the result of this equitable mortgage prevailed over the claimants to the proceeds of the sale of the land.

[applecart]

To provide a different point of view (to that expressed above) that a legal mortgage is in fact permitted of registered land

 

 

Land Law

By Kevin J. Gray, Susan Francis Gray

 

About the authors

 

Kevin Gray is a Barrister and Fellow of Trinity College, University of Cambridge. He has been a Professor of Law in the University of London and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.

 

Susan Francis Gray was for many years an Assistant Land Registrar, having responsibility amongst other things for the registration of the Channel Tunnel project. She has also been a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Greenwich.

 

 

Creation of a legal mortgage over registered land

 

 

8.29 An expressly created legal mortgage of registered land (whether freehold orleasehold) must be effected by way of registered charge. (The cumbersome method of mortgage by demise or subdemise is no longer available in relation to registered land (See LRA 2002, s.23(1)(a).)

 

- Charge by way of legal mortgage

 

In the absence of any contrary entry in the register, every proprietor of registered land is statutorily empowered to charge his registered estate at law with the payment of money (LRA 2002 ss23(1)(b), 24(1) . The proprietor may thus mortgage to a lender declaring that the land comprised in the registered title is charged ‘by way of legal mortgage as security for the payment’ of sums specified to be due under the charge (e.g.in the sum of £xxx,xxx, the capital plus the interest). A legal charge of registered land may now be effected as a deed, in the standard form provided by the LRR 2003 (see LRA 2002, s25(1); LRR 2003 e103).

 

- Effectiveness ‘at law’

 

The grant of a charge over a registered estate ranks as a disposition which requires to be ‘completed’ by registration (LRA 2002, s.27(2)(f).The charge therefore becomes effective ‘at law’ only when the charge (i.e. the lender) is entered as the proprietor of the charge in the charges register of the chargor’s title (LRA 2002 ss 27(1) 59(2), sch 2, para8)

 

Effect of the registered charge

 

8.30 The registration of a legal charge at the Land Registry being about the following consequences:

 

- Rights of the registered charge

 

- All registered chargees are statutorily invested with a general power ‘to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law’ in relation to the registered charge (LRA 2002 ss.23(2)(a). The charge also has available, most significantly, a power of sale in respect of the estate which has been charged(see LPA 1925, ss 87-108)

 

Hi Jabba

 

I truly appreciate your contribution....also noted as 'timely'.....

 

Non the less, I think it is fair to say that other posters have provided for you the error in each and every post already.....

 

Each and Every poster that has replied to you has done so correctly...... to say that you have not posted anything that will overcome or defend the FACT that NO BORROWER has power to grant a 'mortgage' in relation to registered land....

 

And.....certainly will not have done so.....when the LENDER did not execute the deed.......

 

This thread is on point Jabba.....There is no ambiguity here.....We are not mislead nor misguided.....We are focused......

 

The Lender has NO DEFENCE.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Land Registration Act 2002

 

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.

 

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

 

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

As above

 

The chargee is the proprietor of the charge and is entitled to exercise the powers of the owner in relation to that charge. Those powers are as my previous posts

 

The Borrower has no power to grant a 'charge'...to do so would be to 'charge' the property itself......that power is not one that ANY Borrower has power to do...

 

Like I said before....the only power the Borrower has is to 'grant a sub-charge' in relation to his/her Principal Charge

 

The Lenders 'sub-charge'...should be noted as a 'sub-charge'...when the land is registered....The Lender is intended to be the 'proprietor' of the 'sub-charge' only...NOT the Principal charge.

 

There is no ambiguity...we are not mislead nor misguided.....we are FOCUSED.....There is NO DEFENCE.

 

Apple