Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me....

 

At last....I've highlighted my immediate thoughts in blue..... I will no doubt revisit after looking at what they have said in more detail......

HERE's what you posted up>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

' THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH THE HELP OF INTERNET FORUMS'

They go into the background of the application for a mortgage and what the amount was and other details which are incorrect but that is some thing I'll come to later.The Respondents objection

The respondents objects to the applications application. In accordance with rule 30(1) of the tribunal rules 2013 the respondents reasons are set out in this reply.

The respondent requires the applicants to prove their claim for rectification appear to be a precedent and or document completed with the help of the internet.

Entirely without prejudice to that requirement the respondent will say that the applicants application is entirely misconceived and or bound to fail for the reasons set out in this reply and therefore invites the tribunal to strike-out the application under rule 9(3)

 

The respondent admits that the nature of the mortgage deed is to create a first charge by way of legal mortgage.....

 

OK....so you admit that the nature of a mortgage is also totally obsolete???....because it is!!.... you cannot mortgage a registered estate mate....no such thing as a legal mortgage....we can talk 'legal sub-charge'...... but 'legal mortgage'???......Nah, them are definitely obsolete....

What they fail to admit here is that the Borrower has no power to charge the estate or registered charge by way of mortgage by demise or sub-demise or sub-mortgage by virtue of the LRA section 23

..and the respondent denies that the amendment to sec:1(3)(b) of the law of property act 1989 resulting from paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the regulatory reform order execution of deeds order 2005 have any relevance or changes the law in the way suggested by the applicants.

 

Eeeerrrm......wrong!!! the RRO article 10 (2) removed the presumption of delivery on sight of the Borrowers signature alone – that is a definite fact....

Analogous with the amendments to section 1 (5); 1 (6); and the LPA 1925 section 74/74A and the companies act 2006 section 46 and other pieces of legislation to do with their duty as a lender to validly execute a deed.

 

They again lose sight of the fact that the ‘draft written representation’ makes it clear that the Borrower had no statutory power to grant a mortgage here....so Gawd knows what they are on about here....I do believe they have not done their homework......the Borrower is ahead of them here.....AGAIN : )

 

The respondent will say and admits that by sec1(3) of the LPact 1989 the mortgage deed is validly executed as a deed if and only if it is signed by the applicants and witness and it is delivered as a deed in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989.

 

Eeeerrrrm.....GOOOD!!!!.....GOTCHA!!!!!.....ALMOST!!!.....they just need to admit to the 'amendments' made by the RRO too!!!! they are simply trying to be clever here....Article 10 (2) on its own defeats this feeble attempt to rely on the un-amended version of Section 1 (3)(b)......the amendment caused the presumption of delivery on sight of the Borrowers signature alone to provide no presumption of delivery for it removes the words ‘the person making it’.....so, the borrower as the ‘person making it’.....is not the person liable to deliver the document as a deed at all

Further, removal of the words ‘or a person authorised to do so on his behalf’ are also repealed........have they lost their focus or what???? (We did advise, that they remain focused didn’t we???....looks like they ignored us mere ‘simple’ ‘internet’ folks – Let me advise; they do so at their peril!!!!)

The respondent notes that the applicant admit that they signed the mortgage deed and that there signatures were witnessed in accordance with sec:1(3)a of the LP act 1989 but deny that the mortgage deed was delivered in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LPact 1989 and the respondent requires the applicants to prove that the mortgage deed was not delivered either as alleged or at all.

 

LOL....eeeerrm.....the RRO tells you that it has not been ‘delivered’!! by removing the presumption of delivery by repealing the words 'the person making it'.....doh!

 

But hey....if they want more....give them more...... There is no longer any right to assent to a ‘mortgage’....the right was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 to repeal section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.......so, if they are relying that the deed that meets lpa section 52 (a) (to do with ‘assents’) is going to help them....wellllllll.......they can think again!!!!....we are ahead of them there too..... : )

The respondent will say that by the applicants actions in signing the mortgage deed and having their signatures witnessed and sending the executed mortgage deed to the firm and or instructing them to proceed and complete the property's purchase amounted to the applicant unconditionally delivering the mortgage deed in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) LP1989.

 

Eeeerrrrm, the RRO removed the presumption of delivery...prey tell....why are they relying on this outdated means of trying to hold the Borrower to estoppel.....they need to look at ‘garguilo’....it clearly says in that decision.....you as a lender cannot rely on estoppel....THAT’s AN ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW MATE!!!! You can’t do that; not when we are FOCUSED!!!

 

Further the respondent will say that the applicants actions in instructing the firm to ask for the advance to be paid to it in readiness for completion, amounted to the applicants either delivering the mortgage deed unconditionally or alternatively in escrow with delivery taking place upon completion of the purchase in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 for the avoidance of doubt

How behind the times are they????.... I repeat ........Have they not seen Garguillo?? Bibby??...They do not understand what the RRO is actually telling them....or how it impacts on the way they have been taking the preverbial....(for want of a better word) in their ‘certain activities’.... oh well.....I admire this bold attempt by them......fact is.....there is no defence here...... : )

 

The mortgage deed took effect as a deed and was delivered as a deed upon the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively and at the very latest completion of the purchase.

 

This is where they are trying to ‘infer’ the right to ‘assent’ (LPA 1925 section 52 (2)(a).....very clever,.....but, like I said above.......they cannot claim any right to assent since the repeal of section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 schedule 2....hahahah.....They need to ‘think’ again..... : )

They are saying that when they paid off the last lender.....that as soon as the exiting loan company signed the DS1 form – they are ‘assuming’ that they effectively stepped into that lenders shoes...in right to mortgage the borrowers registered estate.....essentially trying to say to all Borrowers that because the exiting lender ‘fooled’ you into accepting a mortgage...they derived the right to do the same...... I think NOT!!!!

Because the mortgage deed was delivered either unconditionally or in escrow and subject to either (i) the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively (ii) completion of the purchase the mortgage deed was irrevicable and could not be withdrawn or recalled by the applicants.

 

You seem a wee bit confused...which is it??? 'escrow' or 'unconditionally'....come on get a grip!!.....your being ambiguous here.....This is also another attempt to be ‘clever’.....there is no power to grant a mortgage...full stop....the mortgage deed is void...they did not execute it....there is no protection for them by way of ‘assent’....(this refers to the LLR 2003 Rule 163 to say they are trying to step into the shoes of the exiting lender.....this was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 schedule 2)

There is NO power to grant a mortgage....no power to do so by demise, sub-demise Or ‘assent’......and no power to grant a legal sub mortgage.....NO DEFENCE so far...... : )

Further or alternatively the respondent will say for the reasons set out in this reply that the mortgage deed was delivered on or before the completion dated in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) 0f the LP 1989.

 

Eeeerrrrmmmm WRONG!!.....delivery is not in evidence until the lender validly executes the deed.......they forget.....no presumption of delivery without valid execution by them first!!!.....Section 1 (3)(b) does not assist them....until the deed complies with section 1 (2)......that's your client the 'lender'...they have to execute by at least 2 directors and attested BEFORE you can start to harp on about 'escrow' and 'conditional' delivery mate.......read this thread again....it should make sense to you....after all you are a firm of Lawyers...right??...we have laypeople who are understanding exactly what's going on .... how come you don't get it???

 

Also alternatively the respondents will say that the mortgage deed was delivered by the firm in accordance with sec:1(5) of the LP act 1989 or otherwise on or before the completion date in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989

 

YAAAAWWWWWNNNN!!!..... a notary power to deliver instruments was extended...that is true....but the authority to do so on behalf of a borrower was repealed by Article 10 (2).....and any presumption that the sight of a borrowers signature alone was repealed also.....oh...almost forgot.....the words ‘involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land’ were also removed by the legislator....so please...do tell...what do you think the purported deed relayed.......oh yes....that’s it...... NOTHING!!!

The respondents notes that the applicants maintain that the mortgage deed must be executed by the respondents in accordance with sec:74(5) of the law of property act 1925 and or sec: 74(a) of the 1925 act.

 

YEP....That’s correct...!!....it was made analogous with your duty to execute any document especially if you intend to create an interest to secure the money you ‘gifted’ to the exiting lender.....I’m sure the exiting lender truly appreciates the ‘gift’.. : )

The respondent will say that any reliance on sec: 74(5) and or Sec: 74(a) of the LP act 1925 is misconceived as those provisions do not require the respondent to execute the mortgage deed.

 

Eeeeermmmm.....yes it does..it's to do with your duty to execute a deed in relation to any transaction to do with land mate.....oh and if you are not happy at that....have a quick look at the LPMPA 1989 section 1.....then the CA 2006 section 46.....they are analogous mate.... you can't avoid the duty to execute the deed....... you know the DS1 signed by the exiting lender secured you nothing....not since the repeal of section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925....it was repealed in 1994 mate by Schedule 2 of the LPMPA 1994....Check it out.....How come you are not aware of this....you are Lawyers....surely you should have known????

 

further the respondents will say that it does not have to as a matter of law execute the mortgage deed,

eeeerrrrmmmm....see.... you’ve forgotten haven’t you....the AEA does not help you....section 36 (3) was .....I repeat ......repealed mate : )

 

the only person who needs to execute the mortgage deed were the applicants( and they did so) the mortgage deed was therefore validly executed and properly registered against the property by way of fierst legal charge.

 

WRONG!!!.....please see the RRO in it’s entirety....please see in particular section ‘h’ in the introductory text.... this will help you understand why you have NO DEFENCE - the legislator did not leave you with one.....: )

estoppel . if the mortgage deed did not comply with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 which is denied the respondents will say that the applicants are estopped from denying that the mortgage deed has been validly executed.

 

Crikey.....how many times do we need to refer you to the decision in ‘garguillo’.... Yaaawwnnnn!!! Estoppel is a means of circumventing the law mate.....surely, you do not dream of going to the Chamber with this lame defence....no, surely not??....oh, you are....ok then....bring it on : )

The respondents will also say that the applicants or the firm acting as the applicants agent represented to the respondent that the mortgage deed had been validly executed by the applicants.

 

No Borrower can deliver the deed to any Lender.....did you not take any notice of us posting up ‘bibby’....we did it to help you see the error of your ways....did you miss it???....oh well, never mind...we have sent a copy to the Chamber....they can talk to you about it when we get there.....perhaps you prefer to hear it from them rather than us ‘internet folk’...huh?? : )

 

In reliance of such a represention the respondents transferred the advance to the firm and would not have done so if no such representation had been made.

 

How foolish of you.....it was all in your clients control....aaaalllllll you had to do was execute the deed in accordance with your memorandum of association....and in case you missed that....then the statutory provisions of section 74A are there to guide you.....surely you are not trying to say the Borrower is a Director of your Company....nah, your kidding???

Further or alternatively if the mortgage deed should have been executed by the respondent but was not which is denied the respondent will say that the applicants are estopped from now arguing either by virtue of their agreement to complete the purchase and or payment of monies to the respondents in accordance with the mortgage deed and or conditions and or terms that the mortgage deed was not validly executed.

 

What are you on about??....who is paying you?....you should be sacked!! How much are they paying you??? Have you got any idea as to the level of indemnity you will cause your client to pay out due to your inability to understand the law? .... re-submit your response immediately....as it stands.....it is a clear attempt to circumvent the LAW!!!

The respondents relied on the applicants conduct and or custom and or standard conveyancing practice and or the firm undertaking to register the mortgage deed against the property and transferred the advance to the firm to allow the applicants to complete the purchase.

 

The Borrower was at all times instructed by your client....the RRO takes away any onus from the Borrower to be liable for anything that you instruct him/her to do.....you my dear friend are not defending against the Borrower....you are defending against the Legislator....I think you had best re-think your defence....oooooh sorry I forgot.....You do not have one....could that be why you are repeating yourself perhaps????

 

Further or alternatively the respondents are entitled in any event and for the reasons set out in this reply to a return or restitution of the advance together with interest and other sums payable under the mortgage deed

 

You need to speak to the exiting lender....he has got your money....and the legislator does not care that he has....you were of like minds....you knew what you were doing...the Borrower had no idea what you were up to......you are to ask the legislator for advise..... I think the Chamber will assist you there....you come on along to the hearing and let’s see what guidance he gives you to ensure the convention of the Human Rights Act under Article 1 and 8 are secured for which so ever party is most deserved of protection : )

 

Equitable mortgage

 

further or alternatively and subject to the tribunal deciding that the mortgage deed did not comply with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LP1989 which is denied and was not validly executed the respondents will say that the mortgage deed took effect as an equitable mortgage or charge

 

YAAAWWWNNN.....you cannot mortgage a registered estate my dear....any document that is intended to secure a mortgage in any guise is obsolete.....this was registered land mate.....you have NO CHANCE!!!......

 

 

Apple

 

ooohhh.....Yes..... this was my immediate response to the 'objection' made in Is It Me's friends case : )

 

All that 'Yawning'.......crikey....they ust have been boring me

 

As we moved forward - we amended s.74 to include reference to s.46 (1)....the lender was a limited company......see, we tweak as we go.....

 

After the Lender sent this objection....his clear intent to persuade the Chamber that on receipt of it.....they would strike out the application for lack of merit.............Regrettably......the Lender did NOT get his wish........ the Lenders objection did not assist him......the application was not struck out ..... it went to a hearing....

 

The Lender now has 28 days to respond to the application - no doubt far more merit than he gave it credit hey, hey???

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

There is no getting away from the fact that the company has an interest in the property and the performance of the contract was fulfilled. The monies enabled the property to be purchased and the borrower acknowledged that it was a mortgage agreement upon repayments being made.

 

As I've said before deeds count for nothing in compulsory purchases and you are not Lord of your Manor. If you seriously think a judge would exclude the rights of a lender terminally to their secured asset then you'd be deluded on that merit.

 

Is It Me has already said their 'friend' can pay! So I just don't get who this is helping here and why they are continuing to dig a deeper hole for themselves?

 

For sure I think any law regarding this would be complex but judges would not rule that it made the contract invalid or that there was no security involved. They would look at the intention and that seems clear that it was to be a mortgage in its entirety.

 

 

Or you could just divide it up amicably, 'I own half the doors, the kitchen walls..and you can have the roof, (because it leaks on the bit I own) but leave the patch in the garden that has my radishes in alone!'

 

Just because people aren't posting up pages and pages doesn't mean they aren't doing their own research and have to answer to anybody.

[Crapstone]

ooohhh.....Yes..... this was my immediate response to the 'objection' made in Is It Me's friends case : )

 

All that 'Yawning'.......crikey....they ust have been boring me

 

As we moved forward - we amended s.74 to include reference to s.46 (1)....the lender was a limited company......see, we tweak as we go.....

 

After the Lender sent this objection....his clear intent to persuade the Chamber that on receipt of it.....they would strike out the application for lack of merit.............Regrettably......the Lender did NOT get his wish........ the Lenders objection did not assist him......the application was not struck out ..... it went to a hearing....

 

The Lender now has 28 days to respond to the application - no doubt far more merit than he gave it credit hey, hey???

 

Apple

 

With respect Apple they are probably so baffled by BS that it would take them some time to respond and try to make any sense of it.

[Crapstone]

If you are so confident that you can do this then why not just leave it alone and wait for the outcome? If you KNOW you are right then you'll also KNOW that you don't need anyone else to approve or disprove it.

[applecart]

With respect Apple they are probably so baffled by BS that it would take them some time to respond and try to make any sense of it.

 

Nah, I don't buy that at all....sorry.

 

They get as much time as Borrowers - seems fair to me......don't forget the Lender will be represented.... Borrowers are not.

 

Not sure the Lords will take kindly to you making out that their work done to bring the LRA 02 into force is "BS" though?

 

Lenders have had years to understand what it is all about.... looks to me like they abused it......

 

Apple

[applecart]

If you are so confident that you can do this then why not just leave it alone and wait for the outcome? If you KNOW you are right then you'll also KNOW that you don't need anyone else to approve or disprove it.

 

What makes you think I am not waiting?

 

Trouble is.....I keep seeing posts that are not on point......I don't want Is It Me's friend losing focus..

 

You do remember this thread is about Is It Me's friend don't you?

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Lol..you know full well what I mean and someone else is also looking to abuse it! If there is anything at all to abuse. .And why a person would go into such detail here..for another person that is a 'friend'.. Like I said ..You'd wait ..You've already said everything Apple.

[applecart]

The link is here:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OL9GWXCVuFQJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP01-103.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

This is the Bill - LRA 2002

 

RESEARCH PAPER 01/103 21 NOVEMBER 2001 The Land Registration Bill[HL] Bill 48 of 2001/02 The Land Registration Bill was presented in the Houseof Lords on 21 st June 2001 and had its First Reading inthe Commons on 8 November 2001.

 

The stated purpose of the Bill is to create the necessaryframework in which registered conveyancing can beconducted electronically.

 

The Bill also contains profound changes to the substantive law that governs registered land.

 

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

 

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill provide further information on each of the clauses. The Bill extends only to England and Wales.

 

This paper focuses on issues raised during the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords.Wendy Wilson SOCIAL POLICY SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

 

Page 2

 

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

 

Page 3

 

Summary of main points Land registration is presently conducted under the Land Registration Act 1925 and more than 300 rules made under it. HM Land Registry and the Law Commission have been working together since 1994 to reform the law on land registration.

 

The recommendations of their first report, Transfer of Land: Land Registration (Law Com No 235) were implemented by the Land Registration Act 1997.

 

In September 1998 a consultative document, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century (Law Com No 254) was published. This document offered a blueprint for the development of conveyancing, and in particular, electronic conveyancing and land registration in England and Wales.

 

Three main reasons have been identified for the need to reform the land registration system:

 

1. The first is the need to create a legal environment in which it will be possible to conduct conveyancing in electronic form and which will reflect the possibilities that electronic conveyancing might offer.

 

2. The second is the unsatisfactory nature of the existing legislation governing land registration. The Land Registration Act 1925 is acknowledged to be badly drafted, lacking in clarity and unnecessarily complicated.

 

3. The third is the need to create principles that reflect the fact that registered land is different from unregistered land and rests on different principles

 

Can't see any "BS" there - can you?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Lol..you know full well what I mean and someone else is also looking to abuse it! If there is anything at all to abuse. .And why a person why go into such detail here..for another person that is a 'friend'.. Like I said ..You'd wait ..You've already said everything Apple.

 

Nope ..... I don't mind read....Haven't got a clue what you mean.... sorry

 

It certainly isn't me that looks to abuse the law.....

 

The detail is necessary........Borrowers need the info ....need to know where to access it too.......

 

Because there are posters who look to muddy the water - the posts are important to keep the FOCUS......can't afford to get distracted here : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

You can't beat that which comes straight from the 'horses' mouth now can you?

 

Here's the link again: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OL9GWXCVuFQJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP01-103.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Answer this Apple.. It is not your case, not your money and not your home. But you are insisting this is for Is It Me and their 'friend'? Do you have any authority or disclaimer? Come back when you are under threat and have something to lose as it's not fun and games then my dear. But like everyone has already said ..wait and see.

[applecart]

Answer this Apple.. It is not your case, not your money and not your home. But you are insisting this is for Is It Me and their 'friend'? Do you have any authority or disclaimer? Come back when you are under threat and have something to lose as it's not fun and games then my dear. But like everyone has already said ..wait and see.

 

Nope, it is not my case, not my money and not my home.

 

We discussed 'authority' earlier on.....others struggled to answer a simple question......perhaps you can answer it??

 

Here's the Question...

 

In 'bibby' and 'garguillo'......did the parties sign the deed?

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Well past the time for bed...and yes I can see you are just twisting the same things over and over without anything solid to back it up...Over and out until such time a ruling is made public.

[Crapstone]

You'll have to READ back as it's already been answered. Why should I answer you? It's not me that seeks a solution or assurance. You've taken that and placed it firmly upon your own shoulders and if you don't have faith in your own mind then don't shift it on others to back up your theories. You know what you are doing so just go with it.

[applecart]

Well past the time for bed...and yes I can see you are just twisting the same things over and over without anything solid to back it up...Over and out until such time a ruling is made public.

 

You do disappoint me.... you too have been un-able to answer the simple question.........maybe the question was too simple???

 

Ah well, maybe someone else will come along and look to avoid the question in due course.....

 

Can't quite understand why no one other than me of course is willing to say 'YES' of 'NO'......I say 'YES'......others - well......all I can say to the last person asked is.....

 

Good Night Crapstone ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

You'll have to READ back as it's already been answered. Why should I answer you? It's not me that seeks a solution or assurance. You've taken that and placed it firmly upon your own shoulders and if you don't have faith in your own mind then don't shift it on others to back up your theories. You know what you are doing so just go with it.

 

Why should others be allowed to come on and advise that 'garguillo' and 'bibby' are not authority???

 

When they can't even answer the simple question....the question that is fundamental to the topic of this thread?

 

I'm not going to sit back and wait when that's going on.....no way ; )

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

I am not unable to answer your question and others have answered. You simply do not listen and alteration of deeds is not the same. You fail to answer even the most simple question of what you hope to achieve and you are the one advancing this. So ditto.. Who cares? Apart from you? Come back when you have a ruling behind you..Oh except it won't be you will it!

[fletch70]

I think that crapstone was intending to ask do you have any training and or liability insurance?

 

Something I have noticed is that many many of your quotes are either from debates or discussions or reports on such. Really whatever these say has no meaning.

The commons regularly debate capital punishment and I am sure I could find a quite pro that stance. No matter we still have some sense in this country and do not use such a punishment

[Peterbard]

Least we lose the FOCUS here......Please see above : )

 

In particular see this titbit:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=391318&goto=newpost

 

 

Is that a reference to S.87 of the LPA 1925 I see.....No, surely not...No, it could not be?... I know I have a squint in my left eye (due to Ben's avatar bobbing about..) Hang on a bit - Yes - I can see it now......

 

It definitely definitely says;

 

Noble Lords opposite helpfully spotted that Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a mortgagee of a charge expressed to be by way of mortgage has the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgagee by demise or sub-demise. The amendment should make the intended effect abundantly clear. However, we respectfully suggest that it is necessary to retain the reference to the creation of mortgages by demise or sub-demise, as that will still be possible in relation to unregistered land. It is beyond the scope of the Bill to legislate in respect of such land.

 

 

Ah...Good... I had to look twice...but .. yep ...got it : )

 

Apple

.

As Usual apple you read something and then instead of actually seeing what it says you misinterpret it to mean something which fits you conception of what it should mean.

 

The remedies mentioned are the abilities for the lender to foreclose on property on default ( the lenders powers). For some reason you missed out thei bit in the brackets after the quote; (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits, or any of them).

 

The comment merely states that mortgages on charges will have the same powers of protection, it does not mean that they are the same, if that is what you are implying. It also say that these mortgages may be used on unregistered land, how does this help you, since all mortgages must be registered on there first mortgage.

[Peterbard]

I have just read your latest posts , and I see that they still contain no authority( i am sure you hate me keep reminding that your argument has no authority and you that hate word authority, it means by the way some respect qualified person who agrees or can support your points and is prepared to commit these thoughts to writing, this is the meaning of the word authority).

 

I can see that you are buoyed on by the fact that Ben has said he is no longer going to be around to torpedo your b++++t.

 

Well you can feel free about me also now as I will be logging off this thread until after the judgments appear. Bit of advice, I would start back peddling and working on some damage control if I were you

[bhall]

It was my honest intention not to post again until the written decision of the Property Chamber in response to the application drafted by Apple had been issued.

 

However, after reading the subsequent every growing bizarre and worrying posts, I honestly feel that I am left with no option other than to post.

 

It would appear that Apple has forgotten that the recently posted link to the Lords, has in fact been posted before in a different format (from Hansard) to actually disprove one of Apple’s fanciful ideas in regard to the claims that a borrower has no power to grant a legal charge (charge by deed, expressed to be by way of legal mortgage).

 

However, in the last 12 or so hours, amazingly Apple has posted this information in a bizarre claim that it actually supports Apples views. I can only assume as was recently shown in relation to both garguillo and bibby, Apple has not actually read or understood what the document Apple has linked too actually says – I think with respect we have to take into consideration that Apple may be dyslexic or that English is not Apple’s first language.( I honestly do not mean any disrespect or any offense, I just can't think of any other rational explanation), I only say this because, the link that Apple has recently posted numerous times actually disproves one of the fanciful ideas of this thread and states-

 

Please note the words in brackets and in blue are my own additions to the document.

 

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

 

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

 

Noble Lords opposite helpfully spotted that Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a mortgage has the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgagee by demise or sub-demise. The amendment should make the intended effect abundantly clear. (that is what they hoped for but as shown my Apples posts, it was not clear enough for Apple to understand)

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

 

We prefer our amendment to Amendment No. 26, as it inserts a new subsection directly into Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It would be more helpful to insert the new subsection directly into the section whose interpretation it is designed to assist

 

The Lords tried to make it ‘abundantly clear’ that a legal charge (charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage) is not effected by s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002, which had the effect of abolishing mortgages by demise or sub-demise. Leaving the legal charge, the only type of mortgage a borrower can grant in regard to a registered estate.

 

Personally I feel that they did a very good job of making it clear.

 

Look at the question - "the question of how a legal charge could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to can no longer be created."

 

In regard to the Lords link you said

 

You can't beat that which comes straight from the 'horses' mouth now can you?

 

Here's the link again: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OL9GWXCVuFQJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP01-103.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

Apple

 

Well it is straight from the 'horses' mouth that you are wrong and you are right (for once), you can't beat that

 

The answer to the question, provided by the Lord disproves your claims and yet you keep posting it over, over and over again.... very weird

Edited February 14, 2014 by citizenB

[bhall]

Three things we need to look at – s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration 2002, the explanatory note for s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration 2002 and lastly s.87 of the Law of Property Act 1925, including the above referenced amendment

 

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

 

Very clearly s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 only prevents the disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. Whilst there is no reference to a legal charge, this section does confirm that a disposition of any kind permitted by general law –

 

For information purposes

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27

 

section 27(2)(f) of the Land Registration Act 2002, confirms that in the case of a registered estate, the grant of a legal charge is a disposition that is completed by registration – thus confirming that a grant of a legal charge is a disposition that is permitted by the general law.

 

To understand what a section of legislation means, we are lucky that we do not have to have any magical or mysterious powers of interpretation to understand what it means. In the case of the Land Registration Act 2002, we can simply turn to the explanatory notes and for section 23, the explanatory notes state –

 

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

 

Section 23: Owner’s powers

 

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

 

The explanatory notes confirm that prior to the Land Registration Act 2002, there was a presumption that a registered charge would take effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, unless there was a provision to the contrary or it took effect as a mortgage by demise or sub-demise (which confirms that a charge by way of legal mortgage is something other than a mortgage by demise of sub-demise).

 

The explanatory note, also clearly confirms that a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, prior to the Land Registration Act 2002, were in practice already obsolete in favour of a ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ and therefore s.23(1)(a) abolishes them.

 

Before turning our attention to s.87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and more specifically the previously detailed amendment, referred to in the link repeatedly posted by Apple, we should look at where in the Land Registration Act 2002, this amendment can be found.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/11/paragraph/2#schedule-11-paragraph-2-8

 

SCHEDULE 11 Section 2

 

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

 

“(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).”

 

The much mentioned amendment confirms that s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 which abolished the mortgage by demise or sub-demise does not affect subsection (1) of section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

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

 

87 Charges by way of legal mortgage.

 

(1)Where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits, or any of them) as if—

I think it is clear for everyone to see that s.87 of the Law of Property Act 1925, relates to charges by way of legal mortgage, which is where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

It is also clear by the amendment, which can be found at s.87(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 that whilst mortgages by demise or sub-demise have been abolished, the legislation that abolished them (s.23(1)(a) of the LRA 2002) does not affect a legal mortgage of land which is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

Therefore, if it still remains unclear, the link recently posted by Apple, over and over again, actually serves to confirm that a borrower in regard to a registered estate, does in fact have the statutory power to grant a legal charge – being a charge by deed expressed to be way of legal mortgage. This of course, disproves Apples own claims and fanciful ideas to the contrary.

[bhall]

Now Apple is trying for some reason (I think just to post over and over again, in a futile attempt to bury Apple's previous admission that he/she was wrong, deep in the thread, so it might be forgotten about) to make a mountain out of a mole hill in regard to the deeds in the cases of both Bibby and Garguillo. Apple feels that it is significant that in both cases the deed was signed by both parties in both cases.

 

Why Apple finds this relevant to this thread or the application to the chamber, escapes me. Firstly, despite the deeds being signed by both parties in both cases, the deed in both cases was found to be void. Furthermore, as Apple has been repeatedly told, the Property Chamber has already told IS IT ME? that the cases the application relied upon –

 

“The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge.”

 

Remember he was also told

 

"Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only requires execution by the borrower".

 

 

There is nothing in the subsequent submission to the Property Chamber to amend the original application that responds to the conclusion of the Property Chamber that both Bibby and Garguillo have nothing to do with if a lender is required to execute the charge (being a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage).

 

There is also nothing in the subsequent submission that addresses the fact the Property Chamber, said that as a matter of law the lender does not always have to execute the charge, or that the charge generally only required execution by the borrower (with respect it is time to pull your head out of the sand)

 

Bibby and Garguillo are irrelevant to the application and the topic of this thread, it does not matter who or how many people signed them.

 

I like the fact that Apple still clings onto Garguillo even though, Apple recently appeared to accept that he/she had misunderstood the word “it” in that particular case, in a similar way as to how Apple misunderstood the use of the word “or” in section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925

[bhall]

.

As Usual apple you read something and then instead of actually seeing what it says you misinterpret it to mean something which fits you conception of what it should mean.

 

Sadly this is the biggest problem, it took me almost a year just for Apple to accept he/she was wrong about the word "it" - even thought it was obvious

[bhall]

 

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

 

The above mentioned report

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

There will be no practical difference between these two methods any more thanthere is now. This is because, on completion of the relevant registration requirements,a charge has effect “if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage”,with the concomitant powers. Those powers are, of course, those conferred on a legal mortgagee by the Law of Property Act 1925 (unless modified or excluded by the terms of the charge) together with any additional powers that may be conferred by the charge."

 

SUB-CHARGES AND THE POWERS OF THE SUB-CHARGEE

 

7.11 A sub-mortgage is a mortgage of a mortgage. The effect of Clause 23(2) and (3) of the Bill is that there is only one way in which a registered chargee can create a legal sub-charge, namely the method specified in Clause 23(2)(b).The chargee is thereby empowered “to charge at law with the payment of money indebtedness secured by the registered charge”. In other words, what is actually charged is the indebtedness secured by the registered charge. 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.A sub-chargee can, of course, further sub-charge the indebtedness which its sub-charge secures."

 

 

• The above confirms that the borrower as the registered proprietor of the estate can create a legal mortgage by a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.
   
  
• The above also confirms that the lender as the registered proprietor of the charge of the can create a legal sub-charge
   
  
• This confirms that s.23(1) are the powers of the borrower and s.23(2) are the powers of the lender and that a borrower can grant still grant a mortgage
  

 

so that is 3 points for the price of one

 

For the avoidance of doubt the registered chargee is the lender