Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

You posted

 

"The effect of Clause 23(1)(a) is that it will no longer be possible to create a legal mortgage over registered land by these means. In future a registered proprietor will only be able to create a legal mortgage by –

(i) a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage"

 

s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 -

 

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

 

 

registered estate Apple, registered estate.

 

Jabba, Apple:

 

Following on from this, it does appear that the owners powers from 23 can be extended other persons...

 

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.

 

My question:

 

How does one become entitled to be registered as the proprieter?

[Jabba the hut]

Jabba, Apple:

 

Following on from this, it does appear that the owners powers from 23 can be extended other persons...

 

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.

 

My question:

 

How is one entitled to be registered as the proprieter?

 

 

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

 

Land Registration Act 2002

 

SCHEDULE 2 Registrable dispositions: registration requirements

 

 

Part 1 Registered estates

 

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.

 

the chargee being the lender

 

 

Charges Register

Note 4

(23.07.2007) Regisitered charges dated 25 June 2007

note 5

(23.07.2007) Proprietor : Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited (co. Reg. No 3266119) 1st floor , 6 Broadgate, London EC2M 2QS, trading as London Mortgage Company

Edited September 30, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[applecart]

You posted

 

"The effect of Clause 23(1)(a) is that it will no longer be possible to create a legal mortgage over registered land by these means. In future a registered proprietor will only be able to create a legal mortgage by –

(i) a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage"

 

s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 -

 

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

 

 

registered estate Apple, registered estate.

 

In response to your post, how can their be a registered proprietor to grant a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, if as you argue it applied to unregistered estates ???

 

What do you think they are the registered proprietor of ?

 

You can't be a registered proprietor of an unregistered estate, you can only be a registered proprietor of a registered estate. Jeez

 

Ah..... Gotcha.....

 

Thanks Jabba for making your point.....the word 'jeez' suggests that you are about to burst a gasket.......I wouldn't want to be responsible for causing you to do that.....so.................instead can I just say..............

 

As you know.....This is a matter that has been put before the Chamber for a determination along with of course the fact that the Lender has failed to execute the Deed.....

 

So, let's not debate it any further here.....Each and every Borrower has the right to apply for a determination in their own right.....those determinations will come back in due course.....and will no doubt be posted up right here for you to see......don't you worry yourself any longer.....you sit back and wait..... ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Jabba, Apple:

 

Following on from this, it does appear that the owners powers from 23 can be extended other persons...

 

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.

 

My question:

 

How does one become entitled to be registered as the proprieter?

 

UNRAM

 

A lender has no power to be 'registered as proprietor'....

 

section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was repealed by the LP(MP)Act 1994 section 21, by virtue of Schedule 2 to the Act.

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

UNRAM

 

A lender has no power to be 'registered as proprietor'....

 

section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was repealed by the LP(MP)Act 1994 section 21, by virtue of Schedule 2 to the Act.

 

Apple

 

Please can you summarise this in laymans terms?

[applecart]

Please can you summarise this in laymans terms?

 

UNRAM

 

I know you do a lot of research in your own time.....can I ask that you look up section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 and you will see it is no longer there......if you go into the 'original' as enacted section to the said Act.... you will see what it used to say......which was:

 

"(3)The statutory covenants implied by a person being expressed to convey as personal representative, may be implied in an assent in like manner as in a conveyance by deed."

 

By repealing the above section...the legislator removed the reliance that Lenders used to circumvent the law - this section used to afford the lender the right to simply get a Borrowers signature on a deed (which we are all seeing in evidence today) - get it registered with HMLR and claim rights to the 'mortgage' of an exiting lender.....

 

so in a nutshell.....It was the 'in-coming' lenders means of avoiding the necessary formalities in relation to their statutory duty to execute the deed......i.e 'assume' any obligation to the Borrower.....

 

This section was the form of 'assent' as referred to in the LPA 1925 at section 52 (2).......it is no longer available .....FULL STOP...

 

They must execute the Deed....

 

All the loopholes were closed by the legislators over the years....and each and every time Lenders have found other means to get around it.....when the RRO came in in 2005.....the legislator took the action to remove any presumption of delivery on sight of a Borrowers signature as well.......so, now..... the lender cannot even rely on estoppal.....

 

Their own fault really, they should have listened to the legislator when he first took steps to curve their 'certain activities'.......now there is simply NO DEFENCE at all.....

 

Apple

[SMZ1187]

Just spoke to a very nice lady at NRAM asking for details of the Court order re my eviction and when were the bailiffs coming round to remove me from the property and she stated NRAM solicitors were unable to go ahead with the eviction as the Court order is no longer valid?! It was a bluff! For anyone else in the same situation ... now you know what to do:

 

1.Call them directly, ask for the Court reference No. and your date of eviction

2. Write to them with a fee schedule quoting the Harassment Act 1997

3. As Apple says - stay focused (or something like that)!

[IS IT ME?]

apple ,

you still at it with Jabba lol

His words and actions are only to stop people from helping themselves and the Lenders getting one over the borrowers for years!

You will note IT STATES NOTING IN ANY OF HIS OR HER POSTS ABOUT THEM!

we ARE all wrong BUT HIM OR HER.

 

I KNOW I AM RIGHT AND KNOW THAT THEY HAVE LIED AND MIS USED THE COURTS WITH TWO FACED WORDS FOR YEARS IN MY FRIENDS CASE AND HAVE NOW BEEN FOUND OUT SO KEEP IT FOCUSED PEOPLE THEY ARE VERY VERY WORRIED.

[applecart]

apple ,

you still at it with Jabba lol

His words and actions are only to stop people from helping themselves and the Lenders getting one over the borrowers for years!

You will note IT STATES NOTING IN ANY OF HIS OR HER POSTS ABOUT THEM!

we ARE all wrong BUT HIM OR HER.

 

I KNOW I AM RIGHT AND KNOW THAT THEY HAVE LIED AND MIS USED THE COURTS WITH TWO FACED WORDS FOR YEARS IN MY FRIENDS CASE AND HAVE NOW BEEN FOUND OUT SO KEEP IT FOCUSED PEOPLE THEY ARE VERY VERY WORRIED.

 

I know, I know.....LOL

 

I fall for it all the time don't I....I get far too 'passionate'....you do remember Ben don't you....you know the one who led me to think he didn't mind the guinea pig under my kilt?.....well, what it was - was that Jabba reminded me of him so much.... I thought I might at least get a chance to drink tea again.....hahahah....needless to say I was duped again.....dratttt!!....oh well, maybe next time huh? : )

 

Seriously though....of course you are right, of course the lender has no defence.....there is only one outcome....The Chamber just has to do its job and uphold the public interests against the 'certain activities' that have led lenders to ignore statutory formalities in favor of chasing the 'horse' that they thought was under every borrowers kilt.......that's all those 48,0000 interested caggers....and growing....

 

Any news from the court?

 

Apple

[caro]

May I ask if there is a time limit for lenders to sign the deed?

 

Is there any reason why they can't sign it retrospectively and it wouldn't be accepted by the powers that be?

[applecart]

Just spoke to a very nice lady at NRAM asking for details of the Court order re my eviction and when were the bailiffs coming round to remove me from the property and she stated NRAM solicitors were unable to go ahead with the eviction as the Court order is no longer valid?! It was a bluff! For anyone else in the same situation ... now you know what to do:

 

1.Call them directly, ask for the Court reference No. and your date of eviction

2. Write to them with a fee schedule quoting the Harassment Act 1997

3. As Apple says - stay focused (or something like that)!

 

'bluff'?? are you sure...do you think that if they could not have moved forward on the back of it that they would not have done so???

 

But I do agree, it was shrewd to call them directly and get the nice lady to confirm the position.....she is not your friend by the way.......so remain vigilant.....

 

Apple

[SMZ1187]

Yes, thanks, well aware of that. She tried several times to trip me up and get me to commit to returning to a payment plan. I continued to ask for a written response to my last letter from their legal team until she gave up. But yes, I'll be calling the Court every other day for a few days to make sure and prepare my defense in the meantime. Still trying to absorb all the information here. There's a lot to take in.

[applecart]

Yes, thanks, well aware of that. She tried several times to trip me up and get me to commit to returning to a payment plan. I continued to ask for a written response to my last letter from their legal team until she gave up. But yes, I'll be calling the Court every other day for a few days to make sure and prepare my defense in the meantime. Still trying to absorb all the information here. There's a lot to take in.

 

There is much to take on board....but you must take it in.....we are looking to simplify by posting up 'letters' and draft 'grounds' to assist as we move forward.....

 

If there is anything you need to know....we will do our best to assist you further ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

May I ask if there is a time limit for lenders to sign the deed?

 

Yes, they must do so in 'solemn form' and do so BEFORE the deed is registered by HMLR

 

Is there any reason why they can't sign it retrospectively and it wouldn't be accepted by the powers that be?

 

Yes, if they leave it until AFTER...then it was not a DEED at the time of registration...for they did not 'assume' it

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[SMZ1187]

Many many thanks

[IS IT ME?]

Ben Jabba and rember the others??? ones with a Greek name

And Carco, no they can not just sign it now and say OK lol

Keep going app;le we will get there in the end.

[applecart]

Many many thanks

 

No problem SMZ

 

Please keep us posted on any events whatever they are ok? : )

 

We can then keep a tab on what they are up to....for the benefit of other caggers...

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Carco,

Can you post up what the figures are for this thread???

[applecart]

Ben Jabba and rember the others??? ones with a Greek name

And Carco, no they can not just sign it now and say OK lol

Keep going app;le we will get there in the end.

 

It's fine for us....what we have to do is point the masses in the right direction.....Thanks to this thread - and your friend.....we are getting the word out at last... : )

 

I've no intention of giving up mate......I sat on Nine Regions (logbook loans) case...like a rabid dog (LOL).... until Justice was done....

 

Regrettably for Banks and Lenders.....the teeth are out again......and the rabid dog is live and kicking......Gawd help em!!!

 

Apple

[caro]

Carco,

Can you post up what the figures are for this thread???

 

49,255 views and 1420 posts.

[TimetogoRAM]

I must say I am very confused with the LPMPA 1989 section 2 and the deed itself. There are some very contradicting posts within this thread that I can't get my head around?

 

It has been previously mentioned that in making an application to the chamber that we must concentrate on the point of this thread, and that is the unsigned (by the lender) deed. Therefore we need to avoid the LPMPA section 2 as this has been the downfall of previous borrowers who have been taken to court.

 

However, it has now been mentioned that in fact the unsigned deed is not relevant and in fact it is the mortgage offer that is void as it does not satisfy the LPMPA section 2? What I don't understand is that I have never signed a mortgage offer, only a mortgage deed, not signed by the lender.

 

Unless I've interpreted wrong or read wrong between the lines.. Could someone please explain as I feel as though the recent posts have made me lose focus...

[UNRAM]

UNRAM

 

I know you do a lot of research in your own time.....can I ask that you look up section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 and you will see it is no longer there......if you go into the 'original' as enacted section to the said Act.... you will see what it used to say......which was: "(3)The statutory covenants implied by a person being expressed to convey as personal representative, may be implied in an assent in like manner as in a conveyance by deed."

Apple

 

I would like to understand this.

 

• Who is the personal representative here please?
  
• Please can you identify the section in the LMPMA1994 that this repeal seeks to implement. I'm sure it must have a context... White papers?
  

[UNRAM]

I must say I am very confused with the LPMPA 1989 section 2 and the deed itself. There are some very contradicting posts within this thread that I can't get my head around?

 

It has been previously mentioned that in making an application to the chamber that we must concentrate on the point of this thread, and that is the unsigned (by the lender) deed. Therefore we need to avoid the LPMPA section 2 as this has been the downfall of previous borrowers who have been taken to court.

 

However, it has now been mentioned that in fact the unsigned deed is not relevant and in fact it is the mortgage offer that is void as it does not satisfy the LPMPA section 2? What I don't understand is that I have never signed a mortgage offer, only a mortgage deed, not signed by the lender.

 

Unless I've interpreted wrong or read wrong between the lines.. Could someone please explain as I feel as though the recent posts have made me lose focus...

 

LPMPA1989 section 2 does not apply to the deed. Any claim relying on this will fail - and has done. There is a deed and there is an agreement. Two separate entities. I have forked discussion of the mortgage agreement to a new thread and will not discuss it here further. Apologies for any confusion, I merely needed to take the opportunity of having some quality time with Mr Hut.

Edited October 1, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

UNRAM, I know you do a lot of research in your own time.....can I ask that you look up section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 and you will see it is no longer there......if you go into the 'original' as enacted section to the said Act.... you will see what it used to say......which was:

 

"(3)The statutory covenants implied by a person being expressed to convey as personal representative, may be implied in an assent in like manner as in a conveyance by deed."

 

This section was the form of 'assent' as referred to in the LPA 1925 at section 52 (2).......it is no longer available .....FULL STOP...

 

Apple

 

52 Conveyances to be by deed.

...This section was the form of 'assent' as referred to in the LPA 1925 at section 52 (2)...?

LPA Section 52

(1) All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.

(2) This section does not apply to (a) assents by a personal representative

 

AEA Section 36

Effect of assent or conveyance by personal representative...

 

How was LPA 52 affected by 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 of it did not apply to assents by a personal representative anyway? Changes to 36 would not affect 52.

 

Am I overlooking or misunderstanding something here?

[Jabba the hut]

52 Conveyances to be by deed.

 

...This section was the form of 'assent' as referred to in the LPA 1925 at section 52 (2)...?

 

LPA Section 52

(1) All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.

(2) This section does not apply to (a) assents by a personal representative

 

AEA Section 36

Effect of assent or conveyance by personal representative...

 

How was LPA 52 affected by 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 of it did not apply to assents by a personal representative anyway? Changes to 36 would not affect 52.

 

Am I overlooking or misunderstanding something here?

 

Do you mean the Administration of Estates Act 1925 ?

 

That applies to a different type of estate - of someone that has died, not the legal estate created of someone that has purchased property (unless that legal estate forms part of the estate of someone that has died)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/introduction

 

Administration of Estates Act 1925

 

 

1925 CHAPTER 23 15 and 16 Geo 5

 

 

An Act to consolidate Enactments relating to the Administration of the Estates of Deceased Persons.

 

section 55 Definitions

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/55

 

“Personal representative” means the executor, original or by representation, or administrator for the time being of a deceased person, and as regards any liability for the payment of death duties includes any person who takes possession of or intermeddles with the property of a deceased person without the authority of the personal representatives or the court, and “executor” includes a person deemed to be appointed executor as respects settled land:

Edited October 1, 2013 by Jabba the hut