Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[TimetogoRAM]

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.

 

No problem UNRAM. I don't know where you are going with this because this thread has gone over the fact that a borrower needs to concentrate on the unsigned deed. Borrowers have failed in court previously because they have gone back to LPMPA section 2. Forgive me if I'm wrong but are you falling into the same trap...?

 

I believe we need to concentrate on the deed, but I would be grateful for your reasoning to get sidetracked because I believe I am in the same boat as you!

i.e mortgage offer unsigned with attached t&c's and then a signed (by the borrower) mortgage deed which explains referral to t&c's from the offer and an explanation on the deed of a charge by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee.

[UNRAM]

No problem UNRAM. I don't know where you are going with this because this thread has gone over the fact that a borrower needs to concentrate on the unsigned deed. Borrowers have failed in court previously because they have gone back to LPMPA section 2. Forgive me if I'm wrong but are you falling into the same trap...?

 

I believe we need to concentrate on the deed, but I would be grateful for your reasoning to get sidetracked because I believe I am in the same boat as you!

i.e mortgage offer unsigned with attached t&c's and then a signed (by the borrower) mortgage deed which explains referral to t&c's from the offer and an explanation on the deed of a charge by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee.

 

I am not being sidetracked I am not treating this thread as gospel nor as a single final solution. Reason always prevails. You appear to be failing to understand the distinction between the contract and the deed. However I prefer not to continue this thread of discussion here...

[TimetogoRAM]

I understand the difference between the contract and the deed and LPMPA section 1 & 2. In law terms.

 

What I don't understand is how these two subsection's can be separated in my case because as I've already mentioned my mortgage offer has not been signed by anyone. It is only the deed that has been signed by me, so what I am saying is how can the difference be separated between the two with your argument as the deed is the only document signed. What you're essentially doing is voiding your agreement/offer/contract, which therefore voids the deed..... So you're back to square one!

[Jabba the hut]

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

 

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

 

Apple the Administration of Estates Act 1925 is an Act to consolidate enactments relating to the Administration of the Estates of Deceased Persons

 

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

 

A “Personal representative” means the executor, original or by representation, or administrator for the time being of a deceased person

 

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

 

Who has died ?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[UNRAM]

I am not separating anything I am working from previous case law that historically makes the distinction. See Eagle Star vs Green, Lamb vs Mortgage Business. I am not making this stuff up...

 

I am not personally voiding anything - the law states the document should have a specific form and it doesn't. I don't set the law I am merely able to comment.

 

Please continue this discussion here if you have further points: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404532-What-is-the-legal-status-of-a-mortgage-deed-if-the-mortgage-agreement-is-deemed-void-%281-Viewing%29-nbsp.

 

If you post your interest you will be updated when further opinions arrive....

Edited October 1, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

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...

 

Hi TimetogoRam

 

No…your confusion is borne because you ARE switched on and FOCUSED…. Which is exactly what you need to be…..

 

The easiest thing to do is to remember:

 

LPMPA section 1 = Unexecuted Deed

 

LPMPA Section 2 = Unsigned Mortgage offer/Agreement

 

No Executed Deed = Lender has NO right to possession of your home

 

No Executed Mortgage Offer/Agreement – Lender has NO right to the debt

 

There is no harm done in understanding both angles, or expanding your application to the Chamber to take LPMPA 2 into account.

 

By doing so....you stave off any attempts by the lender looking to secure the indebtedness off the back of the mortgage offer.

 

I shall look in on UNRAMS' new thread with interest : )

 

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

The easiest thing to do is to remember:

 

LPMPA section 1 = Unexecuted Deed

LPMPA Section 2 = Unsigned Mortgage offer/Agreement

 

No Executed Deed = Lender has NO right to possession of your home

No Executed Mortgage Offer/Agreement – Lender has NO right to the debt

 

There is no harm done in understanding both angles, or expanding your application to the Chamber to take LPMPA 2 into account.

 

By doing so....you stave off any attempts by the lender looking to secure the indebtedness off the back of the mortgage offer.

 

I shall look in on UNRAMS' new thread with interest : )

 

Apple

 

Thank you for clarifying this I hope this clears up any confusion... All contributions to the new thread are most welcome. It has not been my intention to try to confuse the issue and I urge all participants engaging this thread to 'stay focussed' on the main themes that have been presented here.

 

However, I must add that I have discovered from personal experience that the lender is trying to confuse borrowers into believing that section 2 does not apply to their "product" in any way and is clearly trying to divert attention from it. I have brought up the issue I have raised with section 2, and I have been met with silence. I have also yet to see any case law relating to this legislation.

Edited October 1, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Apple the Administration of Estates Act 1925 is an Act to consolidate enactments relating to the Administration of the Estates of Deceased Persons

 

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

 

A “Personal representative” means the executor, original or by representation, or administrator for the time being of a deceased person

 

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

 

Who has died ?

 

I would certainly appreciate further clarity on this. References to AEA 1925 have caused (me) some confusion...

[UNRAM]

LPMPA Section 2 = Unsigned Mortgage offer/Agreement

No Executed Mortgage Offer/Agreement – Lender has NO right to the debt

Apple

 

I believe it may go further than this relationship... The terms and conditions used in the deed were agreed under contract as sub-terms of the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement. It would appear that the agreement is void where LPMPA89 section 2 has been ignored, which may leave all of its terms (and it's sub-terms) unenforceable.

[applecart]

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?

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Yes, you are.......Let me try to explain....I probably did not make it as clear as I could and should have done.....

 

look to the ‘white papers’ of the commentary by the Law Commission – Law Com 271…….page 124… in the sub notes at the bottom you will see where it refers you to:

 

“46 See r 163(1) which provides that “The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the

proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as

sub-charges”. This does of course echo the power of a proprietor of a registered estate to

charge that estate with the payment of money at law which is, again, unique to registered

land: see above, para 7.2.”

 

When you follow through to Rule 163 (1) it says this:

 

Registration of a personal representative

163.—(1) An application by a personal representative to become registered as proprietor of a registered estate or registered charge—

(a)in place of a deceased sole proprietor or the last surviving joint proprietor, or

(b)jointly with another personal representative who is already so registered, or

©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,

must be accompanied by the evidence specified in paragraph (2).

Like you I thought ‘that’s strange, how does that work…..but this is where the Law Commission says you should look……so, that’s how the ‘personal representative’ comes into the mix….....

 

I have a habit of checking the ‘repeals’ of any enactment that I look at….when I looked at LPMPA 1994 schedule 2….Bingo…….there was the repeal of Section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 …… so not only does it give you the understanding of how a ‘personal representative’ assent to a deceased estate….but the Law commission explained the Acts correlation with the LPA 1925 section 52 for you to find that it is the incoming lender that takes on the guise of the personal representative when the old lenders charge is 'dead' 'discharged' …. Double Bingo : )

 

So, whilst the AEA 1925 is said to apply only to the estate of those that are deceased....the statutory magic which is all things Law of Property enables your mortgage lender to 'assent' to your exiting lenders mortgage by virtue of LPA 1925 section 52 (2)...

 

This is why you will find that schedule 2 of the LPMPA 1994 includes the repeal of section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925....

 

Just to make sure that the 'little' loop hole was not relied upon by Lenders ......

 

So, again......all done in the public interest ..... to make sure that the public interest is foremost in the mind of the Property Chamber when they see applications being sent in......

 

Hope this helps you?

 

Apple

[applecart]

I believe it may go further than this relationship... The terms and conditions used in the deed were agreed under contract as sub-terms of the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement. It would appear that the agreement is void where LPMPA89 section 2 has been ignored, which may leave all of its terms (and it's sub-terms) unenforceable.

 

Oh yes, I totally agree..... there is no doubt that the lender will not be able to rely on an unsigned mortgage offer/agreement - whilst the lender will be able to claim that you benefited from the funds.....and that he gave you the funds..... he will not be able to enforce the agreement against you in any court of law......for that - he should have signed it.....there is not only section 2 of the LPMPA 1989....but also the repeal of section 40 to the LPA 1925 to defend that on sight of your signature alone......he cannot rely that any court in the UK will enforce it......

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

Hi TimetogoRam

 

No…your confusion is borne because you ARE switched on and FOCUSED…. Which is exactly what you need to be…..

 

The easiest thing to do is to remember:

 

LPMPA section 1 = Unexecuted Deed

 

LPMPA Section 2 = Unsigned Mortgage offer/Agreement

 

No Executed Deed = Lender has NO right to possession of your home

 

No Executed Mortgage Offer/Agreement – Lender has NO right to the debt

 

There is no harm done in understanding both angles, or expanding your application to the Chamber to take LPMPA 2 into account.

 

By doing so....you stave off any attempts by the lender looking to secure the indebtedness off the back of the mortgage offer.

 

I shall look in on UNRAMS' new thread with interest : )

 

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

 

Apple, that helps a great deal thanks. Is there any chance this side of the argument can be added to the property chamber app as a draft? This strengthens our position even more!

[Jabba the hut]

Hi UNRAM

 

Yes, you are.......Let me try to explain....I probably did not make it as clear as I could and should have done.....

 

look to the ‘white papers’ of the commentary by the Law Commission – Law Com 271…….page 124… in the sub notes at the bottom you will see where it refers you to:

 

“46 See r 163(1) which provides that “The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the

proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as

sub-charges”. This does of course echo the power of a proprietor of a registered estate to

charge that estate with the payment of money at law which is, again, unique to registered

land: see above, para 7.2.”

 

When you follow through to Rule 163 (1) it says this:

 

Registration of a personal representative

163.—(1) An application by a personal representative to become registered as proprietor of a registered estate or registered charge—

(a)in place of a deceased sole proprietor or the last surviving joint proprietor, or

(b)jointly with another personal representative who is already so registered, or

©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,

must be accompanied by the evidence specified in paragraph (2).

Like you I thought ‘that’s strange, how does that work…..but this is where the Law Commission says you should look……so, that’s how the ‘personal representative’ comes into the mix….....

 

I have a habit of checking the ‘repeals’ of any enactment that I look at….when I looked at LPMPA 1994 schedule 2….Bingo…….there was the repeal of Section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 …… so not only does it give you the understanding of how a ‘personal representative’ assent to a deceased estate….but the Law commission explained the Acts correlation with the LPA 1925 section 52 for you to find that it is the incoming lender that takes on the guise of the personal representative when the old lenders charge is 'dead' 'discharged' …. Double Bingo : )

 

So, whilst the AEA 1925 is said to apply only to the estate of those that are deceased....the statutory magic which is all things Law of Property enables your mortgage lender to 'assent' to your exiting lenders mortgage by virtue of LPA 1925 section 52 (2)...

 

This is why you will find that schedule 2 of the LPMPA 1994 includes the repeal of section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925....

 

Just to make sure that the 'little' loop hole was not relied upon by Lenders ......

 

So, again......all done in the public interest ..... to make sure that the public interest is foremost in the mind of the Property Chamber when they see applications being sent in......

 

Hope this helps you?

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

If you re-read the 'white papers' you will see where you have made the above the mistake.

[Jabba the hut]

The first place to look to see where Apple went wrong is to look at the law Commission report, previously posted by Apple

 

It would seem that we are to accept that there is a 'grey' area in relation to lawful dispositions in relation to registered land.....I think it is timely to not only mention law com 271...but to provide for Borrowers the link to the document to help Borrowers better understand that the Lender has mortgaged registered land when all that was intended was a 'sub-charge'... Here's the link to Law Comm 271 report:

 

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc271_land_registration_for_the_twenty-first_century.pdf

 

Apple

 

On the first page, it states -

 

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2001

 

Immediately the date, it is to be printed gives an indication of the mistake Apple made in connecting the Administration of Estates Act 1925 with what is being discussed.

[Jabba the hut]

Apple said -

 

page 124… in the sub notes at the bottom you will see where it refers you to

“46 See r 163(1) which provides that “The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the

proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as

sub-charges”. This does of course echo the power of a proprietor of a registered estate to

charge that estate with the payment of money at law which is, again, unique to registered

 

land: see above, para 7.2.”

 

(not sure why the above quote is broken in two but it won't let me change it)

 

If you look at page 124 the sub notes do say what Apple has said.

 

If you read what sub note 46 is made in reference too, you will see the report says -

 

"This power, which is unique to registered land, is derived from the present provisions of the Land Registration Rules 1925 as to the creation of sub-charges 46"

 

What Apple has overlooked is the above reference to the Land Registration Rules 1925.

[Jabba the hut]

Apple said

 

When you follow through to Rule 163 (1) it says this:

 

 

Registration of a personal representative

 

163.—(1) An application by a personal representative to become registered as proprietor of a registered estate or registered charge—

 

 

(a)in place of a deceased sole proprietor or the last surviving joint proprietor, or

 

(b)jointly with another personal representative who is already so registered, or

 

©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,

 

must be accompanied by the evidence specified in paragraph (2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like you I thought ‘that’s strange, how does that work…..but this is where the Law Commission says you should look……so, that’s how the ‘personal representative’ comes into the mix….....

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem being that the above is not where the Law Commission says you should look.

 

The Law Commission says you should look at r 163(1) of the Land Registration Rules 1925, it even tells you what r 163(1) of the Land Registration Rules 1925 states -

 

 

“ The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as sub-charges”.

 

 

Ignoring that the report was printed in 2001, ignoring that the report states 'the Land Registration Rules 1925' and ignoring that the report even went so far as to confirm what rule 163 (1) of the Land Registration Rules 1925 states, Apple elected to refer to a piece of legislation that was not even in force at the time the report was printed.

 

 

When you follow through to Rule 163 (1) it says this:

 

Registration of a personal representative

 

163.—(1) An application by a personal representative to become registered as proprietor of a registered estate or registered charge.

 

(a)in place of a deceased sole proprietor or the last surviving joint proprietor, or

 

(b)jointly with another personal representative who is already so registered, or

 

©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,

 

must be accompanied by the evidence specified in paragraph (2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above is not rule 163 (1) of the Land Registration Rules 1925. The above is actually rule 163 (1) of the Land Registration Rules 2003

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/163/made

 

 

Under the part relating to the 'Death of the Proprietor'

[Jabba the hut]

The connection made by Apple to the Administration of Estates Act 1925 is wrong. It is an Act to consolidate enactments relating to the Administration of the Estates of Deceased Persons and not to do with the Lender being the proprietor of the legal charge etc.

[UNRAM]

contents removed. please remove post.

[IS IT ME?]

Jabba,

What the hell has the deceased persons got to do with this thread Iam NOT dead and I don't think any one else on here is.

I have asked very nicely for you to stop posting ben so I ask again.

YOU WILL NOT PUT PEOPLE OFF BY THIS.

[IS IT ME?]

Jabba

 

IF THERE WAS OR IS NO MERIT IN THESE CASE WHICH BY THE WAY THERE ARE NOW A FEW BEFORE THE PROPERTY CHAMBER DO THEY NOT JUST SAY GO AWAY, YOU HAVE NO CLAIM AGAINST THE NICE LENDER?

I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND WILL SAY AGAIN PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WORK FOR THE LENDER OR THERE SOLICITORS WHO TRY REALLY REALLY HARD TO PUT PEOPLE OFF HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT??:-x

Edited October 2, 2013 by IS IT ME?
COL

[applecart]

Jabba

 

IF THERE WAS OR IS NO MERIT IN THESE CASE WHICH BY THE WAY THERE ARE NOW A FEW BEFORE THE PROPERTY CHAMBER DO THEY NOT JUST SAY GO AWAY, YOU HAVE NO CLAIM AGAINST THE NICE LENDER?

I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND WILL SAY AGAIN PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WORK FOR THE LENDER OR THERE SOLICITORS WHO TRY REALLY REALLY HARD TO PUT PEOPLE OFF HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT??:-x

 

LOL.....he is a one isn't he ......

 

I think he intends that I should quote chapter and verse.... I'm more than sure that Caggers will pick up on what is being said by me without Jabba's analysis.....

 

Jabba is simply reading what I have posted out of context....intending to further confuse one and all....

 

Law Com 271 is here on the CaG....Caggers can read it at their leisure......and will - without me having to quote chapter and verse from it.....pick up that a legal sub-mortgage is created by 'assent' under the old LRR 1925 - as re-enacted in the new LRR 2003 at rule 163 ©

 

So, Jabba can Jabba jabba on all he/she likes......

 

Mortgages by assent as a means of creating a legal sub-mortgage are repealed.....the loophole is closed by virtue of the AEA 1925 section 36 (3) being repealed by Schedule 2 of the LPMPA 1994.....

 

Caggers need not fear Jabba.....Jabba will have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch up with me : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Jabba,

What the hell has the deceased persons got to do with this thread Iam NOT dead and I don't think any one else on here is.

I have asked very nicely for you to stop posting ben so I ask again.

YOU WILL NOT PUT PEOPLE OFF BY THIS.

 

Hi Is It Me…

 

You are correct again….no one on this thread is ‘dead’….. we are alive and kicking…

 

It is the outgoing Lender that we were talking about and explaining how it is that the new lender derives the out-going lenders ‘mortgage’……by means of ‘assent’……or shall we say…….Legal sub-mortgage…

 

Looks like HMLR encourage it all day long……have a look at:

 

HMLR Practice Guide 6 – “Devolution on the death of a registered proprietor”

 

3.3 Discharge of a charge or mortgage of which the deceased was the sole proprietor

The personal representatives of a deceased sole proprietor of a charge or mortgage may, without first being registered themselves in that capacity, wish to apply to cancel the registration of the charge or mortgage after it has been discharged. To make an application to us you will need to send us the following.

• Form AP1 or form DS2.

• Form DS1 (where all the registered estate is released from the charge or mortgage).

• Form DS3 (where the charge or mortgage is discharged as to only part of the registered estate).

• The original grant of probate or letters of administration (we will return this to you), or a certificate given by the conveyancer that they hold the original or an official copy of such grant of probate or letters of administration.

No fee is payable.

 

Correct me....but I'm sure this section relates to a LENDER.... not a 'dead' persion per se..... : )

 

So, if LRR 1925 was repealed how is it that HMLR are able to assist their chums...(sub-prime lenders)...effect so many mortgages on the registered estates of borrowers huh???

 

LRR 2003 section 163.......that's how!!

 

Totally free as well....crikey....bend over backwards why don't you.......LOL

 

Government should not have left HMLR to their own devices.....HMLR are not funded by the Treasury......could this be why they have been 'bending over backwards' ............... ummmmmm ????

 

Eeeerrrrmmm……looks to me that someone died after all…..the old mortgage lender died….the new one takes over submitting to HMLR that they are the ‘personal representative’………and HMLR...... well...... they turn a 'blind' eye......

 

Apple

[applecart]

oh..... and before Jabba jumps on here to analyse pracrtice guide 6....let me assure him/her......the scope of the Guide is stated as:

 

Scope of this guide

 

This guide deals with applications associated with the death of a joint, sole or last surviving proprietor of a registered estate, or of a charge or mortgage. It is aimed at conveyancers, and you should interpret references to ‘you’ accordingly.

 

Apple

[applecart]

oooohhhh.... forgot to say......."jeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz"

 

Apple

[applecart]

From Practice Guide 6 .......bet you can work out who this titbit relates to different from that posted earlier for yourselves:

 

3 Death of a sole proprietor (or sole surviving proprietor) of a registered estate or of a charge or mortgage

 

3.1 Registration of the personal representatives

 

To make an application to Land Registry to register the personal representatives of a sole registered proprietor of a registered estate or of a charge or mortgage, you will need to send us the following.

 

Application form AP1.

 

Evidence of the grant of representation, which should be either the original or official copy of the grant of probate or letters of administration (we will return this to you) or a certificate confirming that you hold the original or an official copy of the same.

 

The fee payable under the current Land Registration Fee Order.

 

Once they are registered as proprietors, the personal representatives can later transfer or assent the estate, or the charge or mortgage. See section 3.2 Registration of a disposition by the personal representatives.

 

 

Apple