Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

Excellent post Ben....I’m impressed

 

Initially, you were advising one and all that ‘Owners Powers’ belonged to Lenders....ummm??

 

Now, it would seem that you are at last happy to accept that the ‘Owners Powers’ actually belong to the Borrower after all.....................aaahhh progress ; )

 

If you keep going along this same route.....you will eventually.....just maybe.....get fully up to speed with the OP and others.

 

However, you must be careful NOT to confuse yourself......or others.....as you move forward in your understanding and interpretation of property law.

 

It may have escaped you.......But, let me advise ...... Here in the UK we have two different land concepts ....the first is ‘un-registered’ land...and the second is ‘registered land’

 

As you would expect the Law stipulates what dealings you can or cannot do in relation to un-registered land different from any dealing in registered land.

 

It’s quite simple to find out if you are dealing in registered land.....here’s how....in the “property” section “A” on all titles....Borrowers will see a date depicting when their land was first registered.......that date will show as a date well ahead of the date that a lenders charge will be entered on the title, when a borrower takes a loan from the lender....to secure that indebtedness a date will be entered in section “c” in the “charges” section along with the lenders name.....Notably you will find at section “B”......the Borrower will see his own name......section “B” denotes the borrower as the “proprietor”...........this means the Borrower retains his status – he will remain the happy owner of an existing Registered Estate......Section “A” and section “B” are intended to stay the same....the only change on a registered estate will be in section “c”

 

The Un-registered land owner...well, he owns the free hold....he owns his land...although there was a drive to get all land registered....not all land owners have done so.....however; they do borrow money of course from lenders.....

 

For these un-registered land owners – Lenders can and do ;mortgage the estate....each time they do, they do so by charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage....pursuant to LPA s.87 (1)

 

Where a registered estate owner has no such power to “charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage”.......sub-section 4 simply means the Lender can trot along and mortgage the un-registered estate owners land without concern of LRA s.23 (1)(a) that relates to owners of a registered estate.

 

So, yes you are right...do not speak or mention the words ‘mortgage by demise’ and do not mention that word ‘or’......when we are talking about a Registered Estate...

 

(apologies if this post is duplicated)

 

Apple

 

A little confused by your post so forgive me.

 

You do know that land must be registered anway after the first mortgae

 

When title must be registered

(1)The requirement of registration applies on the occurrence of any of the following events—

(a)the transfer of a qualifying estate—

(i)for valuable or other consideration, by way of gift or in pursuance of an order of any court, or

(ii)by means of an assent (including a vesting assent);

(b)the transfer of an unregistered legal estate in land in circumstances where section 171A of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) applies (disposal by landlord which leads to a person no longer being a secure tenant);

©the grant out of a qualifying estate of an estate in land—

(i)for a term of years absolute of more than seven years from the date of the grant, and

(ii)for valuable or other consideration, by way of gift or in pursuance of an order of any court;

(d)the grant out of a qualifying estate of an estate in land for a term of years absolute to take effect in possession after the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the grant;

(e)the grant of a lease in pursuance of Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (the right to buy) out of an unregistered legal estate in land;

(f)the grant of a lease out of an unregistered legal estate in land in such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (b);

(g)the creation of a protected first legal mortgage of a qualifying estate

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/4

 

So are you saying that any subsequent mortgages are void ? And if so why would that be ? The section quoted by you 23(1) does not apply for the reasons stated earlier, the pwsers for a charge under a mortgage deed lie elswhere http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87 ?.

 

This has been pointed out to you before.

 

I am unsure about the rest of your points or there relevance forgive me.

[applecart]

The judge did not even mention the void deed argument at all, I was so shocked at his attitude to everything I tried to say I am going to complain about him and am applying for a copy of the transaction of the case, He lied more than once saying there is no POA and the bank has never signed anything in my name. I am still dazed and confused as to what happened in court I do not know what to do about the void deed issue, how can it be dismissed when it was not even mentioned at all? It was over before I could bring it up myself,the judge would not let me get a word in. I told him I felt bullied for all the good it did, so again I ask can something be dismissed because it was completely ignored and I was not given a chance to bring it up myself? He went straight to my physical duress undue influence part of my claim and dismissed it because I did not tell the bank I was being made to apply for a remortgage against my will and in fear for my life and well being so it is not the banks fault. That is what completely and utterly threw me and stopped me even mentioning the void deed defence. It was an utter farce in that room and how the judge can sleep at night is beyond me.I do not know where I stand now all the judge has left active is the PPI issue so I do not know what to do anymore.Because I did not mention the void deed nor did the judge can it be dismissed along with my undue influence when he said he was dismissing everything?

 

Hi Marika41

 

Sounds like a typical day in the life of a deputy district judge......who was it that advised you to mention the undue influence issue??

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball

 

I'm sure Ben will appreciate your testimony and words of approval ; )

 

Apple

 

More nonsense.

 

I happen to agree with him as he quotes authority and gives reasoned logical analysis in his replies that is all.

[applecart]

A little confused by your post so forgive me.

 

Yupo do know that land must be registered anway after the first mortgae

 

When title must be registered

(1)The requirement of registration applies on the occurrence of any of the following events—

(a)the transfer of a qualifying estate—

(i)for valuable or other consideration, by way of gift or in pursuance of an order of any court, or

(ii)by means of an assent (including a vesting assent);

(b)the transfer of an unregistered legal estate in land in circumstances where section 171A of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) applies (disposal by landlord which leads to a person no longer being a secure tenant);

©the grant out of a qualifying estate of an estate in land—

(i)for a term of years absolute of more than seven years from the date of the grant, and

(ii)for valuable or other consideration, by way of gift or in pursuance of an order of any court;

(d)the grant out of a qualifying estate of an estate in land for a term of years absolute to take effect in possession after the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the grant;

(e)the grant of a lease in pursuance of Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (the right to buy) out of an unregistered legal estate in land;

(f)the grant of a lease out of an unregistered legal estate in land in such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (b);

(g)the creation of a protected first legal mortgage of a qualifying estate

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/4

 

So are you saying that any subsequent mortgages are void ? And if so why would that be ? The section quoted by you 23(1) does not apply for the reasons stated earlier, the pwsers for a charge under a mortgage deed lie elswhere http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87 ?.

 

This has been pointed out to you before.

 

I am unsure about the rest of your points or there relevance forgive me.

 

The legislators intent was clear.......to cause all land in the UK to be 'registered'. There is no statutory obligation for landowners to register their land. That does not mean that a landowner has no statutory power to 'mortgage' that land......the law as far as I can see clearly has not been changed to prevent him from doing so.

 

However, once it is 'registered'.....any subsequent loans against it......will be 'dealing in registered land'.....

 

The issue here in the UK is that Lenders have overlooked this FACT for years and more particularly since the majority of lenders are purely interested in the gains and financial benefits they can glean from "Mortgage Backed Securities' and the Money Markets......Borrowers have not been the priority for years......other than to provide the money to pay investors of course.....

 

It's time for change.....time to go' back to basics'.......John Major said that back in the day..... ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

More nonsense.

 

I happen to agree with him as he quotes authority and gives reasoned logical analysis in his replies that is all.

 

Great, there is no issue with you agreeing with him....and as you do.....then there is no issue in me pointing out that he will appreciate your testimony and words of approval.

 

However, to use words such as 'nonsense' in relation to my posts...well.....surely that's un-necessary.....surely it would be kinder for you to say "Apple, I'm sorry - I do not agree"....the word "nonsense" is a bit harsh don't you think?

 

Let's be polite....afterall......you do not have to agree with me...and neither I with you.....but, you know what......I will remain polite.....it would be kind of you to do conduct yourself in a like manner.... ; )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

I think most of the misunderstanding Apple is because you do not appear to understand this simple statement

 

These days most lawyers use the terms "mortgage" and "charge" interchangeably - usually to describe a loan or other indebtedness secured on land. Historically however, there was a fundamental difference. A mortgage involved a conveyance of land with what is known as a right of redemption - the effect of which was that upon full payment of the loan, the conveyance would become void or the land would be reconveyed. A charge on the other hand conveyed nothing but simply gave the chargee certain remedies by way of enforcement in the event of non-payment.

[applecart]

I think most of the misunderstanding Apple is because you do not appear to understand this simple statement

 

These days most lawyers use the terms "mortgage" and "charge" interchangeably - usually to describe a loan or other indebtedness secured on land. Historically however, there was a fundamental difference. A mortgage involved a conveyance of land with what is known as a right of redemption - the effect of which was that upon full payment of the loan, the conveyance would become void or the land would be reconveyed. A charge on the other hand conveyed nothing but simply gave the chargee certain remedies by way of enforcement in the event of non-payment.

 

Hi Dodgball

 

Perhaps its best if you enlighten us all......what does the above 'simple' statement mean? and who made the 'statement'?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgball

 

Perhaps its best if you enlighten us all......what does the above 'simple' statement mean? and who made the 'statement'?

 

Apple

 

Ah I thought not I think you mean, enlighten you.

 

See my earlier link.

[Peterbard]

Sorry(re above) it is the difference between a charge as prescribed by the LRA and a mortgage as prescribed under the LOPA, the former does not effect the latter it says as much in the LoPA.

[jotho]

Hi Apple. Do your proposals/arguments in this thread apply equally to BTL?

Jo

[Peterbard]

The legislators intent was clear.......to cause all land in the UK to be 'registered'. There is no statutory obligation for landowners to register their land. That does not mean that a landowner has no statutory power to 'mortgage' that land......the law as far as I can see clearly has not been changed to prevent him from doing so.

 

However, once it is 'registered'.....any subsequent loans against it......will be 'dealing in registered land'.....

 

The issue here in the UK is that Lenders have overlooked this FACT for years and more particularly since the majority of lenders are purely interested in the gains and financial benefits they can glean from "Mortgage Backed Securities' and the Money Markets......Borrowers have not been the priority for years......other than to provide the money to pay investors of course.....

 

It's time for change.....time to go' back to basics'.......John Major said that back in the day..... ; )

 

Apple

 

Sorry my point was that the land has to be registered on the first mortgage ?

 

More rhetoric, really OK if your into that kind of thing personally i like to stick to facts.

[Peterbard]

Great, there is no issue with you agreeing with him....and as you do.....then there is no issue in me pointing out that he will appreciate your testimony and words of approval.

 

However, to use words such as 'nonsense' in relation to my posts...well.....surely that's un-necessary.....surely it would be kinder for you to say "Apple, I'm sorry - I do not agree"....the word "nonsense" is a bit harsh don't you think?

 

Let's be polite....afterall......you do not have to agree with me...and neither I with you.....but, you know what......I will remain polite.....it would be kind of you to do conduct yourself in a like manner.... ; )

 

Apple

 

Yes lets be polite and stick to the subject in hand, look at the facts, not what we may think of other posters contributions, that would make no sense would it.

[applecart]

Hi Apple. Do your proposals/arguments in this thread apply equally to BTL?

Jo

 

Lenders speak of BTL not being regulated ....... I've yet to look into why they make this claim.......

 

Remember; this thread makes no distinction as to whether the loan was in relation to a BTL.... What we look to is the DEED.....

 

If the loan or any borrowings related to a BTL and was secured by 'mortgage' in what ever terms..... and that land was Registered..... then the detail in this thread applies.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Sorry(re above) it is the difference between a charge as prescribed by the LRA and a mortgage as prescribed under the LOPA, the former does not effect the latter it says as much in the LoPA.

 

It's difficult to ascertain whether you are 'asking' or 'telling' me this???

 

As I understand 'charge' and 'mortgage'...they have the same legal effect and legal presumption - regardless as to whether you look to the LRA or the LPA.....both are types of 'disposition' intended to be created by Deed.

 

Apple

[enfircer]

The judge did not even mention the void deed argument at all, I was so shocked at his attitude to everything I tried to say I am going to complain about him and am applying for a copy of the transaction of the case, He lied more than once saying there is no POA and the bank has never signed anything in my name. I am still dazed and confused as to what happened in court I do not know what to do about the void deed issue, how can it be dismissed when it was not even mentioned at all? It was over before I could bring it up myself,the judge would not let me get a word in. I told him I felt bullied for all the good it did, so again I ask can something be dismissed because it was completely ignored and I was not given a chance to bring it up myself? He went straight to my physical duress undue influence part of my claim and dismissed it because I did not tell the bank I was being made to apply for a remortgage against my will and in fear for my life and well being so it is not the banks fault. That is what completely and utterly threw me and stopped me even mentioning the void deed defence. It was an utter farce in that room and how the judge can sleep at night is beyond me.I do not know where I stand now all the judge has left active is the PPI issue so I do not know what to do anymore.Because I did not mention the void deed nor did the judge can it be dismissed along with my undue influence when he said he was dismissing everything?

 

Hi marika41 it is true the bank did not sign anything in your name.

What they actually do is use the POA that you gave them and do things under this not by signing your name.

[bhall]

Lenders speak of BTL not being regulated ....... I've yet to look into why they make this claim.......

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/544/part/II/chapter/XV/made

 

Interpret as you see fit.

[Peterbard]

It's difficult to ascertain whether you are 'asking' or 'telling' me this???

 

As I understand 'charge' and 'mortgage'...they have the same legal effect and legal presumption - regardless as to whether you look to the LRA or the LPA.....both are types of 'disposition' intended to be created by Deed.

 

Apple

 

I am telling you This is the root of your problem, you need to read up a bit. I cannot really say it any clearer tan I have already to quote again :

 

These days most lawyers use the terms "mortgageicon" and "charge" interchangeably - usually to describe a loan or other indebtedness secured on land. Historically however, there was a fundamental difference. A mortgageicon involved a conveyance of land with what is known as a right of redemption - the effect of which was that upon full payment of the loan, the conveyance would become void or the land would be re-conveyed. A charge on the other hand conveyed nothing but simply gave the charges certain remedies by way of enforcement in the event of non-payment.

 

You have started your theory with a misconception and tried to justify it by misinterpretation of the statute i am afraid, you have to go back and re examine your basic knowledge on the subject.

 

Sorry

[Peterbard]

Lenders speak of BTL not being regulated ....... I've yet to look into why they make this claim.......

 

 

I believe this refers to the loan agreement not being regulated either under the FCA or the Consumer credit act(exempt agreement).

[Peterbard]

Vacating this thread now. Au revoir

[jotho]

Lenders speak of BTL not being regulated ....... I've yet to look into why they make this claim.......

 

Remember; this thread makes no distinction as to whether the loan was in relation to a BTL.... What we look to is the DEED.....

 

If the loan or any borrowings related to a BTL and was secured by 'mortgage' in what ever terms..... and that land was Registered..... then the detail in this thread applies.

 

Apple

 

Thank you Apple. That is what logic told me but I just wanted to doublecheck in case I'd missed something. Btw I've finally got it! Your last post to Dodgeball flicked the switch. This is massive. There will be casualties by the roadside but it has to get out in the end. Of course you can't mortgage "registered" land. It isn't yours.

Jo

[jotho]

Thank you Apple. That is what logic told me but I just wanted to doublecheck in case I'd missed something. Btw I've finally got it! Your last post to Dodgeball flicked the switch. This is massive. There will be casualties by the roadside but it has to get out in the end. Of course you can't mortgage "registered" land. It isn't yours.

Jo

 

What is REGISTER?

rights which a king has by virtue of his prerogative. Hence owners of counties palatine were formerly said to have “jura regalia” in their counties as fully as the king in his pal- ace. 1 Bl. Comm. 117. The term is sometimes used in the same sense In the Spanish law. See Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 506. Some writers divide the royal prerogative into majora and minora regalia, the former including the regal dignity and power, the latter the revenue or fiscal prerogatives of the crown. 1 Bl. Comm. 117.

 

 

 

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/register/#ixzz2s00xlepC

[jotho]

And, of course, this is what the Notice (UN1) is about. HM may have ownership but if you attach your bill of sale to the UN1 it gives you equitable interest. Apple, I stand in awe.

[Crapstone]

Now I'm even more confused! Why are you avoiding saying the words freehold and leasehold in all of this?

 

BTL would not come under the regulations stated as it's not consumer - it's a business.

 

You seem to be focusing on one small part of the Act and haven't read it all and taken it into context. Sorry Apple I just don't buy it.

[applecart]

My point made with regard to BTL..is not to do with whether it is a regulated agreement or not....my point made looks to the DEED......that supports that BTL and nothing more.....

 

The underlying document for any loan in relation to property will include a DEED.....There HAS to be a DEED because the transaction relates to a dealing in property.

 

So...if it is a loan to buy a property that is going to be let out or even if it is a loan to buy a property to dwell in....or simply looking to raise funds in relation to a property that is an existing dwelling.....so long as the loan relates to a property...... and intends that the property is to secure that indebtedness.....THEN there MUST be a DEED.

 

This thread and its intent is to show that if the Deed has not been executed by the Lender then it is void.....There is NO DEFENCE....

 

THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT LAND CONCEPTS.....dealings in"REGISTERED LAND" or dealings in "UN-REGISTERED LAND" in the UK

 

This thread points to the Borrowers right to remain in possession of his "registered" estate.....section 87 has nothing to do with registered land....(subsection '4' is not to be misconstrued by Borrowers who own registered land - it is not intended to relate to a "registered" estate at all.....it merely points out that if the land is un-registered...then that land owner shoud understand that LRA s.23 should be disregarded.....that landowner and lender can enter into a mortgage by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage without breaching LRA s23)......it's sole purpose is for those land owners who borrow money against that land.....and it is being registered by HMLR for the first time.....(first registration and the 'triggers' that make it a must to register the land).....As Dodgeball pointed out.....On first registration....and on first registration only......the lender can 'mortgage' that estate pursuant to s.87............any subsequent loans on that property will be a dealing with "registered" land.....

 

The intent is that ALL land in the UK will at some point be 'registered' land.......the concept of 'mortgaging' registered land is intended at some point to be extinct.........however, the LPA retains provision for those that have not registered their land - so that any event that 'triggers' first registration.....then that land will be 'registered' from that point forward.

 

If a Lender has 'mistakenly' mis-interpreted the LAW in relation to Registered Land...then it is for them to get it right moving forward.... yes, it is no doubt a hard pill for them to swallow - given that it is 'internet folk' that have them on the 'back foot'.......but we are simply stating the LAW.......it is not a criminal offence to state the LAW.....

 

If the Lender has 'mortgaged' a Registered Estate....there is simply NO DEFENCE....

 

That's the fight...That's the position...and there is no avoiding the inevitable......

 

There are issues afoot of course....Lenders are not simply sitting back and allowing borrowers to shift the goal post......their stance is clear......they believe it is lawful to mortgage registered land and they believe it is lawful to do so off the back of a deed that meets HMLR's approved form of charge (signature of Borrowers only).......They are of course Wrong.....and we are letting them know the error of their ways.......

 

The Fight continues - there is a battle to be WON ; )

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

Excellent post Ben....I’m impressed

 

Initially, you were advising one and all that ‘Owners Powers’ belonged to Lenders....ummm??

 

Now, it would seem that you are at last happy to accept that the ‘Owners Powers’ actually belong to the Borrower after all.....................aaahhh progress ; )

 

If you are going to intentionally misinterpret my posts or intentionally attempt to mislead others about the content of my previous posts, it is unwise and some might even say foolish to do it in the same thread, in which those posts were originally made.

 

Indeed, I have never advised that all the owner powers belonged to the lenders. Infact, I have always insisted unlike your goodself that s.23(1) are the powers of the borrower, as the registered proprietor of the registered estate and s.23(2) are the powers of the lender, as chargee and the registered proprietor of the registered charge.

 

It is disappointing that you have made this additional attempt to mislead about the content of my posts. It is also disappointing that this is not the first time, I have had to pick you up on your intentional attempts to misinterpret my posts just as you misinterpret the law.

 

I would like to respectfully ask you not to intentionally misinterpret my posts or intentionally attempt to mislead others in regard to the content of my posts. Thank you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4312584&viewfull=1#post4312584

 

please see post 532 - 12 August 2013

 

To support my previous comments in relation to s.23 -

 

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.

 

(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.

 

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co....t/view/7808/0/

 

Background:

 

A sub-mortgage is a mortgage of a mortgage. For example, A borrows £10,000 from B and mortgages his house to B as security for the loan. B then needs to borrow £1,000. B borrows the money from C and then mortgages the asset he has i.e. the mortgage of A’s house, to C as security for the loan.......

 

........Under the LRA 2002, the owner of a registered estate cannot create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise (section 23(1)(a)). The only way to create a legal mortgage is by a charge by way of legal mortgage (pursuant to sections 85(1) and 86(1) of the LPA 1925) or by charging the estate at law with the payment of money (section 23(1)(b) of the LRA 2002). When registered, a charge has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage (section 51 - equivalent to section 27(1) of the LRA 1925).

 

The proprietor of a registered charge cannot create a "legal sub-mortgage" i.e. a transfer by way of mortgage, a sub-mortgage by sub-demise or a charge by way of legal mortgage (sections 23(2)(a) and 23(3)). The proprietor does have the power to "charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge" (section 23(2)(b)). The registered proprietor of a subcharge has, in relation to the property subject to the principal charge, the same powers as the principal chargee (section 53).

 

If the provisions of the LRA 2002 had applied in this case, it is submitted that the principal mortgagee would still have had the right to take possession of the property because a registered principal charge will continue to operate as if the mortgagee had a term of years (pursuant to section 51 of the LRA 2002 and section 87(1) of the LPA 1925). On the assumption that the sub-charge was created pursuant to section 23(2)(b) of the LRA 2002, the sub-chargee will not be deemed to have a term of years under the LPA 1925. However, the subchargee should nevertheless have a right to possession of the property under section 53 of the LRA 2002.

 

As confirmed by the Charges register the proprietor of the registered charge is the lender and not the borrower.

 

s.23 (1) applies to the powers of the borrower as the owner of the legal estate and

s.23 (2) apples to the powers of the lender as the owner of the charge

 

A borrower can by law grant a charge by legal mortgage

 

If Is It Me? does not appreciate or welcome the clarification provided above, please let me know and as before I will delete my post.

 

To further evidence that s.23 (2) of the LRA 2002, applies to the owner of the registered charge (the lender) - I refer to an extract from Lords Hansard. The following is a record of discussions in the Lords Chamber about amendments to the LRA 2002 before it became law

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo011030/text/11030-13.htm

 

"Amendment No. 27 deals with a related matter. Clause 23(2) lists the powers that an owner of a registered charge has to deal with that charge, which will no longer include the possibility of creating a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. The appropriate way of securing a mortgage over registered land is to create a charge. The Bill also simplifies the powers of the chargee to deal with his charge. After the Bill comes into force, the appropriate way to do that will be by way of sub-charge. The amendment would allow the chargee to create a charge by way of a legal mortgage over the charge as well by way of a sub-charge. That would add an unnecessary complication."

 

From the above:

 

23(2) lists the powers that an owner of a registered charge has to deal with that charge.

 

The Bill also simplifies the powers of the chargee to deal with his charge.

 

As can be shown by the land registry documentation the owner of the registered charge / the chargee is the lender.

 

 

 

Is It Me? Have you discussed possible defences to the lenders possession claim with Ell-en ? If not, it may be in your best interest too.

 

 

 

The above contains a link to amendments made to the Land Registration Act 2002, before it became law.

 

I guess I did not make it clear enough for you to understand, for that I do sincerely offer you my apologies.

 

As for the rest of your response, well the law is clearly written (thus does not need your mystical powers of translation or interpretation) and confirms that a owner of a registered estate does have the power to "charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage", you may want the applicable law to 'trot along' as you put it, but sadly for your arguments, the law is the law and it doesn't matter how much you interpret it, you can't change what it actually says.

 

This will shortly be confirmed in the written decisions to be issued by the Property Chamber (in the cases already heard), which will be posted in this thread in due course. Sadly, I doubt even when the Property Chamber confirms in writing that your interpretations and resulting 'fanciful ideas' are flawed, you will accept that you are wrong on virtually every point you have made in this thread about mortgages and land law.

 

Your dismissive comments about case law (aka common law) demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the law actually consists of. I recall reading a post made by Lea_th, in which she did have to explain what case law and its significance was to you but it would appear that you did not understand her simple explanation. Your comments given your claims of how many hearings you have been too (yes I read that post too) appear to be contradictory. Please google 'stare decisis' it will assist improving your knowledge.

 

I assume you are a 'layperson'with regard to this thread......it is fair to say that at this point you are potentially NOT up to speed with this thread......(with respect - evident from your posts so far) may I 'humbly' suggest you proceed with 'caution'.... given that the reliance for your ' assertions' are themselves driven by links to untested, unfounded opinions of the LAW from the WWW and un-amended quotes from the pMPA 1989?

 

Apple

 

"given that the reliance for your ' assertions' are themselves driven by links to untested, unfounded opinions of the LAW from the WWW"

 

Ignoring the irony of you posting "untested, unfounded opinions of the law" (pot, kettle, black springs to mind) - Did dodgeball link to some of your posts then ?

 

I have to admit, I did laugh when I read your post, I don't mean a little chuckle, I mean on of those really hard belly laughs - I thank you for at least the entertainment value of your posts and contribution to this thread.

 

More nonsense.

 

I happen to agree with him as he quotes authority and gives reasoned logical analysis in his replies that is all.

 

Whilst, some might argue that the use of the word 'nonsense' to describe Apple's posts, is unnecessary and hash, I am sure some might argue and quite rightly feel it is an accurate, if not an overly direct description.

 

Now it is time to pop to Sainsbury's before the rain starts again, wishing everyone a happy weekend

 

 

 

Ben