Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Hello Fletch

 

It is one of Apple's tactics recently to accuse me of being a liar and now it would appear to accuse me of committing fraud.

 

The first time Apple accused me of being a liar was after I posted a number if extracts from Halsbury's Laws of England. Whilst Apple confirmed he/ she had not read Halsbury's, Apple accused me of shoehorning additional information into those extracts.

 

The only basis of that accusation was that the extracts from Halsbury's disproved a number of Apples fanciful ideas. So in Apples mind it must be made up - This was the first unsubstantiated accusation made by Apple about me being a liar.

 

Is It Me? ordered Halsbury's for £29.99 in an attempt to substantiate the accusation made by Apple. To date, no evidence to support Apples accusation has been presented.

 

You may recall that recently Apple challenged the accuracy of an email, I recently posted from the Property Chamber. Again it was implied that the content was not accurate. Again this claim was unsubstantiated and based upon nothing other than it was information Apple was not aware of. Unbeknown to Apple to pre-empt such an accusation, before posting about the email, I took the liberty of sending an unedited copy to a member of the site team.

 

Apple now accuses me of being a liar and by changing the number of applications made, Apple accuses me of committing fraud. Unbeknown to Apple again, the Ministry of Justice maintains a public record of Freedom of Information Act requests it has complied with and it is available to view on its website. Currently the log of completed requests is only up to Dec 2013, no doubt it will shortly be updated to include Jan 2014.

 

At that time, everyone will be able to see on the Ministry of Justice website a copy of the response to my FOI request, confirming that as of the date of that response only 10 applications had been made.

 

I am sure Apple will then apologise for the accusations that I have lied and committed fraud.

 

Ben.....are you getting paranoid?

 

I'm not paranoid when you accuse me of the same thing...grow up hun....all's fair here....surely we must each 'expect' to get what you give .... deal with it - I have to ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Ben.....are you getting paranoid?

 

I'm not paranoid when you accuse me of the same thing...grow up hun....all's fair here....surely we must each 'expect' to get what you give .... deal with it - I have to ; )

 

Apple

 

Not paranoid at all, your unsubstantiated claims about me are a matter of record in this thread ;-)

 

You have accused me of being a liar on more than one occasion and now you imply fraud. - Those are quite serious and unsubstantiated allegations you have made.

 

I accuse you of knowing nothing about property law - a claim I regularly substantiate on an almost daily basis.

 

I am also able to substantiate my other claims about you, to satisfy a balance of probabilities threshold.

[bhall]

 

I'm conscious that Ben's view will remain different to mine....if i say it is yellow and blue that makes green - Ben will say 'no...it's blue and yellow that makes green....but not the green you think Apple.... this green has a "hint" of "green"..... see..... you've got it the wrong way round - what with all your fanciful illussionary interpretations...you missed out the word "of"...you haven't spotted the difference ....and my good mate Dodge will ALWAYS agree with him.......LOL

 

The number of applications are actually increasing so I've heard on the grapevine......and there are definitely more than "10" applications made - contrary to what Bhall purports to be the case.... wonder why the Chamber would even reply to such a request and in accepting that they did - cuz Ben said so and he posted the evidence (albeit I noticed he's a dab hand at drawing up posters and plastering them on here....not sure he bothered to put it on his own thread) - why did they suppress the truth from him???

 

Yes, there is every effort here on the thread to submit the 'alternative view'..... which is to be absolutely applauded......however at the hearing ..... they were not so vocall.... in fact .... it has to be said..... they were 'DUMBSTRUCK'........strange that......very strange

 

Ah well...... 'dumbstruck' is NO DEFENCE.......that's possibly why they have been allowed 28 days to find their voice....... let's see what they manage to say....they didn't rely on anything posted by Ben here.....maybe..... they should or will......oh forgot.... they did!!.......that reliance fell short it would seem......ooooopppppsssss!!!

 

 

 

so, onwards and upwards

 

Apple

 

"The number of applications are actually increasing so I've heard on the grapevine......and there are definitely more than "10" applications made - contrary to what Bhall purports to be the case.... wonder why the Chamber would even reply to such a request and in accepting that they did - cuz Ben said so and he posted the evidence (albeit I noticed he's a dab hand at drawing up posters and plastering them on here....not sure he bothered to put it on his own thread) - why did they suppress the truth from him???"

 

 

FYI

 

The Property Chamber replied to such a request, as they are required to respond by law. You might have heard of it, it is called the Freedom of Information Act.

 

You imply that they would not provide this information as a result of a FOI request but you subsequently state you was provided with the same information (in terms of number of applications, just a different number implied ) I had requested, freely during a telephone conversation.

 

"It's like this Fletch.....you press some digits on your mobile phone....you call the Chamber......and when your call is answered - you ask politely "can you tell me, rumour has it that you have only received 10 applications.....is that true?"

 

You then wait for the person to answer you and take a note of what is said - then post it up for one and all to see.....I did not need to ask or infer who had been heard or not..... I simply asked - the 'rumour has it'.....'is that true'?

 

the "grapevine" is - I'm not willing to divulge to you who I spoke to at the Chamber.....because - with respect - it's non of your business....."

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

"The number of applications are actually increasing so I've heard on the grapevine......and there are definitely more than "10" applications made - contrary to what Bhall purports to be the case.... wonder why the Chamber would even reply to such a request and in accepting that they did - cuz Ben said so and he posted the evidence (albeit I noticed he's a dab hand at drawing up posters and plastering them on here....not sure he bothered to put it on his own thread) - why did they suppress the truth from him???"

 

 

FYI

 

The Property Chamber replied to such a request, as they are required to respond by law. You might have heard of it, it is called the Freedom of Information Act.

 

You imply that they would not provide this information as a result of a FOI request but you subsequently state you was provided with the same information (in terms of number of applications, just a different number implied ) I had requested, freely during a telephone conversation.

 

"It's like this Fletch.....you press some digits on your mobile phone....you call the Chamber......and when your call is answered - you ask politely "can you tell me, rumour has it that you have only received 10 applications.....is that true?"

 

You then wait for the person to answer you and take a note of what is said - then post it up for one and all to see.....I did not need to ask or infer who had been heard or not..... I simply asked - the 'rumour has it'.....'is that true'?

 

the "grapevine" is - I'm not willing to divulge to you who I spoke to at the Chamber.....because - with respect - it's non of your business....."

 

 

 

Now - that question - you answered it didn't you - did you or did you not infer that both parties signed the deed?....I just want to be sure.......can you give a definitive 'yes' or 'no'?

 

 

Apple

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

Oh Ben, Ben....

 

Look, it’s like this .....

 

As I have said to you time and again...... No Borrower has statutory power to grant a legal charge or mortgage by demise or sub-demise of a registered estate.

 

As I have said to you time and again.....It is only ‘Un-Registered’ land that can be mortgaged by way of legal mortgage by ‘mortgage by demise or sub-demise’

 

A Legal Charge has the same effect as a mortgage by demise or sub-demise...see LPA 1925 s.205

 

The Lords clearly explain to you how and why s.87 applies and why sub-section (4) was inserted into it to allow that a ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ can and still does apply when the land is un-registered........

 

In relation to a registered estate....there should be no ‘legal charge’ – a ‘legal charge’ of a registered estate would give the lender the same effect as if the land was un-registered.....that’s not what the legislator intended.......the Borrower has no statutory power when the land is 'registered land' as is distinctly set down under LRA s.23 (1)(a)

 

s.87 applies ONLY to Un-registered land and powers in relation to it. S.87 does NOT apply to registered land.

 

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.

 

It does not say 'registered land'........That is "WHAT SHOULD MAKE THE INTENDED EFFECT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR" .....not your interpretation I'm afraid to say.....sorry

 

There is NO ambiguity in the above Ben ........ the Lords kept s.87 - “Charges by way of Legal Mortgage”....in relation to mortgages by demise or sub-demise because “that will still be possible in relation to UNREGISTERED LAND’

 

How on earth anyone would misconstrue what it says – beggars belief – it’s there – in black and white – as distinct as an Orange from an Apple.......

 

Crikey Ben – it’s only your Avatar that’s banging its head against a stick wall – How come your head appears to be so bruised......???

 

Here’s a tip I spotted ...I thought it might help you and others right now as and where applicable:

 

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”

― Isaac Asimov

 

Apple

[applecart]

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

 

Please do not think I am 'having a go'.....but I did make it clear...wherever there are posts that guide away from the FOCUS, I will address them.

 

How many times do you have to be reminded .....

 

The original application was amended Ben......the original application referred to garguillo and bibby and requested that the charge be removed..... the Chamber guided that the 'authorities' relate to the setting aside of the DEED.....NOT the Charge......

 

The application was amended ... re-submitted.....boosted with an additional skeleton argument..... and was party to the hearing.......

 

Did you miss those threads?? and did you do so in reliance that the authorities no longer apply even though the issue was overcome more than 4000 posts ago......Is this your way of looking to push your misguided fanciful ideas and interpretations over and above the FACTS?

 

Only asking...

 

The 'it' was also an issue that was overcome.... you agreed that the DEED is the speciality contract that must meet s.2..... you then reneged when it dawned on you that you had been caught out......you did not want to admit it did you......you cannot be seen to go back on your own words can you?

 

oh and just in case you remain ignorant ....... my interpretation of the English language is more than sufficient for me to know that ......'or' is not 'and'........ ; )

 

just saying

 

Apple

[applecart]

Not paranoid at all, your unsubstantiated claims about me are a matter of record in this thread ;-)

 

You have accused me of being a liar on more than one occasion and now you imply fraud. - Those are quite serious and unsubstantiated allegations you have made.

 

I accuse you of knowing nothing about property law - a claim I regularly substantiate on an almost daily basis.

 

I am also able to substantiate my other claims about you, to satisfy a balance of probabilities threshold.

 

Please do not take things so personally..... I do not know you, and vice versa.....it is only the words in your posts that are challenged - NOT YOU : )

 

This thread is progressive.....

 

Here's how it goes..... you post words to say what you want to say.......and I do the same....

 

We each post words that will assist our points made ......as supported by statute and/or authority.......... that's it....

 

My posts are relevant to assist the only application that I am conscious of - your posts will neither assist nor stop what or where that application is up to or how it will conclude.....What your posts are doing.... in case you have not yet realised ......is assisting me to establish and thrust home the reason why the application has not been struck out......

 

Surely, that's a good thing.....when we look to 'balance of probability'.......right?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Taken from the famous 'link' to do with how the LRA 2002 came into being:

"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"

 

No ambiguity there hey?

 

Different principles relate to Unregistered land as distinct from registered land ; )

 

LPA 1925 s.87 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of unregistered land

 

 

LRA 2002 s.23 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of registered land

 

sub-section (4) to LPA s.87 done to say purely that in relation to unregistered land lra s.23 does not apply.

 

Simple really ; )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Dodgeball,

Thank you for your post however it think you are just here to wind people up!

I have a letter confirming that paperwork never existed and was not ever done , not once but and you know what when it was given out at the hearing what do you think happened????

These people lie and lie again to try and win cases and you are too silly or blind to see it!

Ben only posts long long posts on here to try and lose the thread, nothing new then

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[Peterbard]

Really???

 

Are you trying to infer that because a firm of solicitors are involved that they will win?........Are you even trying to suggest that Borrowers should shy away because of this????

 

What about a situation - such as in Is It Me's friends case where 3 or 4 firms of solicitors - including Optima Legal Services declined to take the application on ......

 

IMO - that tells me that the firm who has taken the case on - is soooooo desperate (or more likely - lenders "last port in a storm").... who for an enhanced fee.....has been foolish enough to even attempt to take on a case that it's own peer group have declined (clearly they are willing to put their reputation on the line - where those above him would not do so - not even for all the money in the world) - and what for????? the 'chance' or better put the 'hope' that they will win a 'new' client over it's peer group ........looks like they are about to pay the price huh : )

 

They are stuck with 28 days - their Barrister was 'DUMBSTRUCK' at the Hearing Dodge......

 

I think you'll find it's ore a case of........How do they repair the reputation of the barrister who's name will be plastered in the final decision (won't look good on his/her CV will it)....and also their own reputation when they have to concede that they were beaten in the Chamber by an un-represented layperson.....

 

Ooooooops???

 

28 days and counting s all the Chamber has given them....that's the time they have left to repair their reputations .....ladeedah ladeedah ; )

 

Apple

 

I will answer one at a itme.

 

"Are you trying to infer that because a firm of solicitors are involved that they will win?........Are you even trying to suggest that Borrowers should shy away because of this????"

 

NO I am saying tht people with mortgages should avoid using this argument like the plague, and that it will only make their stiuations like worse. The fact that most solicitors think the same way shows that their is no legal basis for these claims.

 

"IMO - that tells me that the firm who has taken the case on - is soooooo desperate (or more likely - lenders "last port in a storm").... who for an enhanced fee.....has been foolish enough to even attempt to take on a case that it's own peer group have declined (clearly they are willing to put their reputation on the line - where those above him would not do so - not even for all the money in the world) - and what for????? the 'chance' or better put the 'hope' that they will win a 'new' client over it's peer group ........looks like they are about to pay the price huh : )"

 

Into your opinion territory again I see, just for the record a few posts back i posted actual solicitor views of this , perhaps your solicitors could post their views if they differ. I suspect although the rest of the paragraph is meant to be sarcastic, it is prob ably fairly accurate.

 

"They are stuck with 28 days - their Barrister was 'DUMBSTRUCK' at the Hearing Dodge"

 

I think the earlier poster has it right, they probably want to comprehensively demolish the bull you present to prevent future claims, the same thing happened in other cases of this kind where a damaging precedent on foolish misunderstandings of the law are threatened.

 

I think you'll find it's ore a case of........How do they repair the reputation of the barrister who's name will be plastered in the final decision (won't look good on his/her CV will it)....and also their own reputation when they have to concede that they were beaten in the Chamber by an un-represented layperson.....

 

Ooooooops???

 

28 days and counting s all the Chamber has given them....that's the time they have left to repair their reputations .....ladeedah ladeedah ;

 

Didn't................ seem to do the................ reputation of the judiciary concerned................in lamb,.......... when the judge said the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, argument was.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."illusionary"

[applecart]

I will answer one at a itme.

 

"Are you trying to infer that because a firm of solicitors are involved that they will win?........Are you even trying to suggest that Borrowers should shy away because of this????"

 

NO I am saying tht people with mortgages should avoid using this argument like the plague, and that it will only make their stiuations like worse. The fact that most solicitors think the same way shows that their is no legal basis for these claims.

 

"IMO - that tells me that the firm who has taken the case on - is soooooo desperate (or more likely - lenders "last port in a storm").... who for an enhanced fee.....has been foolish enough to even attempt to take on a case that it's own peer group have declined (clearly they are willing to put their reputation on the line - where those above him would not do so - not even for all the money in the world) - and what for????? the 'chance' or better put the 'hope' that they will win a 'new' client over it's peer group ........looks like they are about to pay the price huh : )"

 

Into your opinion territory again I see, just for the record a few posts back i posted actual solicitor views of this , perhaps your solicitors could post their views if they differ. I suspect although the rest of the paragraph is meant to be sarcastic, it is prob ably fairly accurate.

 

"They are stuck with 28 days - their Barrister was 'DUMBSTRUCK' at the Hearing Dodge"

 

I think the earlier poster has it right, they probably want to comprehensively demolish the bull you present to prevent future claims, the same thing happened in other cases of this kind where a damaging precedent on foolish misunderstandings of the law are threatened.

 

I think you'll find it's ore a case of........How do they repair the reputation of the barrister who's name will be plastered in the final decision (won't look good on his/her CV will it)....and also their own reputation when they have to concede that they were beaten in the Chamber by an un-represented layperson.....

 

Ooooooops???

 

28 days and counting s all the Chamber has given them....that's the time they have left to repair their reputations .....ladeedah ladeedah ;

 

Didn't................ seem to do the................ reputation of the judiciary concerned................in lamb,.......... when the judge said the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, argument was.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."illusionary"

 

 

 

don't confuse the powers of a Judge with those of a solicitor .....and remember Butler was dealing with the issue of the s.2 applied to the Deed - ignoring its speciality function......and the Chamber is alleged to have struck it out for an abuse of process.... difference is ..... the application has different grounds Dodge....no s.2 in sight....no mention of an abuse of process.....

 

 

 

Apple

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[Peterbard]

Yes unfortunately this thread gets more hits , so can consequentially do more damage to the Googling public.

 

Personally I think Ben should be applauded for continuing to post his informative and factual information on here, it at least punctuates your nonsense with some factual reality.

 

I still think that anyone who wants to see the real law and issues discussed here should go to bens thread as most the information and links to the real authority are on there and you only have to read the first few pages.

[bigphil61]

I think you will find that it was I who initially answered the query, also I don't not seek to make any ones mind up for them , this is why I prefaced my answer with"something to be borne in mind" and ended it with IMO.

 

Also I don't need your permission to comment on this thread.

 

Hi Dodgebhall, If I have offended you, by pointing out that we all have our own level of ability to interperet information presented to us, please accept my apologies. Oh and your right, you don't need my permission to post on this thread or any other thread...BP

[applecart]

Hi Dodgebhall, If I have offended you, by pointing out that we all have our own level of ability to interperet information presented to us, please accept my apologies. Oh and your right, you don't need my permission to post on this thread or any other thread...BP

 

Yes, for what it's worth - I second this BP.......

 

 

Everyone should be allowed their opinions and the only 'permissions' we need are those of the site team and to stay within the rules

 

Apple

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[Peterbard]

I have nothing against you personally Aplle, I even put you in pink as you say. And I do not even know ben. I came on here because there was a CCA issue mentioned and this is really my area. However i needed to get it into cpontext so looked for authority as i could see there was a row going on, and I didnt want "opinion".

 

After a while I found that bens posts contained more informed opinion from accepted sources, (like the legislation and case law, solicitors etc, so i tended to see these posts more. I have been reading statue for nearly 50 years so I tend to whip thorough it quite quickly and more importantly understand what it says(quite important that, and not as easy as it sounds, as you know).

 

After getting more accustomed to the facts of the subject I found that Bens posts reflected the facts as portrayed in the authority this is why it seems we are reading form the same page, basically because we are.(the law)

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

Yes unfortunately this thread gets more hits , so can consequentially do more damage to the Googling public.

 

Personally I think Ben should be applauded for continuing to post his informative and factual information on here, it at least punctuates your nonsense with some factual reality.

 

I still think that anyone who wants to see the real law and issues discussed here should go to bens thread as most the information and links to the real authority are on there and you only have to read the first few pages.

 

Should we be applauding Ben for the finding that he doesn't understand that charges by way of legal mortgage... legal mortgage or legal charge do not apply to borrowers powers in relation to a registered estate...

 

Should we applaud Ben when he doesn't understand the FACT below:

 

 

"Taken from the famous 'link' to do with how the LRA 2002 came into being:

 

"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"

 

Different principles relate to Unregistered land as distinct from registered land ; )

 

LPA 1925 s.87 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of unregistered land

 

 

LRA 2002 s.23 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of registered land

 

sub-section (4) to LPA s.87 done to say purely that in relation to unregistered land lra s.23 does not apply.

 

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Yes unfortunately this thread gets more hits , so can consequentially do more damage to the Googling public.

 

Personally I think Ben should be applauded for continuing to post his informative and factual information on here, it at least punctuates your nonsense with some factual reality.

 

I still think that anyone who wants to see the real law and issues discussed here should go to bens thread as most the information and links to the real authority are on there and you only have to read the first few pages.

 

Hi Dodgebhall, In the spirit of 'not needing any other posters permission to post on this thread', just wondering about your statement above. It was my understanding that this is a debate, a debate on the subject of 'deeds' and in debating this subject, for the benefit of borrowers, trying to access the Lenders view. You and others, have for the benefit of borrowers taken up the lenders position and have argued every single point made by the OP's! Having said that, what I find most worrying is, your apparent need to be so rude in your responses! Its almost as if you have forgotton that this is a discussion based on the borrowers plight and the borrowers rights surrounding the subject of 'deeds'. Please tell me you have not lost sight of what this debate is about?..BP

[applecart]

I have nothing against you personally Aplle, I even put you in pink as you say. And I do not even know ben. I came on here because there was a CCA issue mentioned and this is really my area. However i needed to get it into cpontext so looked for authority as i could see there was a row going on, and I didnt want "opinion".

 

After a while I found that bens posts contained more informed opinion from accepted sources, (like the legislation and case law, solicitors etc, so i tended to see these posts more. I have been reading statue for nearly 50 years so I tend to whip thorough it quite quickly and more importantly understand what it says(quite important that, and not as easy as it sounds, as you know).

 

After getting more accustomed to the facts of the subject I found that Bens posts reflected the facts as portrayed in the authority this is why it seems we are reading form the same page, basically because we are.(the law)

 

I too have nothing against you or anyone else Dodge : )

 

There is no doubt that this thread does not rely on common practice.....the fact that one can point to 'this is the way we have always done it so it must be right'....does not mean the practice should remain 'ratified into law'......if it is wrong....... and not if.......if it can be shown that the practice is outdated and not keeping abreast of the prevailing LAW

 

When that happens.... we find as we have done here and pointed out in this thread....a bunch of lenders who have either purposely or inadvertently avoided the LAW....

 

50 years is a long time to be doing something and understanding something under the guise of 'common practice' and 'common understanding'.

 

This thread and the application takes the blinkers off if you will..... leopards will have to change their spots....

 

There is no template....we are carving out new ground.....the law of property is convoluted......CCA is a doodle in comparison.....one statute against the lpmpa 1994 & 1989....take into account the amendments to those by virtue of the RRO; add the RRO itself..the ca 2006, lpa 1925, lra 2002, TDA 1999, and so on.....not to mention... the law commission reports; the lra bill etc, etc...I think you get my drift.....all of which are substantial alone...

 

Not to mention getting to understand the new Tribunal and its rules.....it's processes etc,...

 

all of which is being done by consumers without representation.....so, forgive me when I applaud Is It Me for taking that which has been all along said to be fanciful ideas forward.....and getting this far................ ; )

 

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Be more specific here Dodge please?

 

Apple

 

Can't really be more specific Apple my last line was my question "Are you no longer relying on the deed not being signed by the lender as per the title of this thread?"

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgebhall, In the spirit of 'not needing any other posters permission to post on this thread', just wondering about your statement above. It was my understanding that this is a debate, a debate on the subject of 'deeds' and in debating this subject, for the benefit of borrowers, trying to access the Lenders view. You and others, have for the benefit of borrowers taken up the lenders position and have argued every single point made by the OP's! Having said that, what I find most worrying is, your apparent need to be so rude in your responses! Its almost as if you have forgotton that this is a discussion based on the borrowers plight and the borrowers rights surrounding the subject of 'deeds'. Please tell me you have not lost sight of what this debate is about?..BP

 

I merely mirror my responses to the tone of the question. I have little time I must admit for discussion which can potentially cause harm to people because it is presented as fact and unsupported though.

[Peterbard]

Should we be applauding Ben for the finding that he doesn't understand that charges by way of legal mortgage... legal mortgage or legal charge do not apply to borrowers powers in relation to a registered estate...

 

Should we applaud Ben when he doesn't understand the FACT below:

 

 

"Taken from the famous 'link' to do with how the LRA 2002 came into being:

 

"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"

 

Different principles relate to Unregistered land as distinct from registered land ; )

 

LPA 1925 s.87 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of unregistered land

 

 

LRA 2002 s.23 = Borrowers powers of disposition for registered proprietors of registered land

 

sub-section (4) to LPA s.87 done to say purely that in relation to unregistered land lra s.23 does not apply.

 

 

Apple

 

These quotes do not mean what you think. the reasons have been explained to you many times, I am not going to do the same again and feed your need to spout nonsense, if anyone else does not understand why this is nonsense seek the authority either already in this thread or elsewhere.

[applecart]

Can't really be more specific Apple my last line was my question "Are you no longer relying on the deed not being signed by the lender as per the title of this thread?"

 

 

Sorry Dodge.... missed that....silly me ; )

 

The thrust of the thread and the application is that the deed is not signed by the Lender...that remains the same......

 

Apple

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

These quotes do not mean what you think. the reasons have been explained to you many times, I am not going to do the same again and feed your need to spout nonsense, if anyone else does not understand why this is nonsense seek the authority either already in this thread or elsewhere.

 

Really?? .... was there something in the CCA that I missed out?

 

There was Ben's post to contradict my post, but his post was taken from the Law comm report...... I was taking my information from the LRA 2002 Bill.....that actually came into LAW - being the LRA 2002 ACT.

 

It's like this Dodge; which is first.... the 'report' or the Bill?

 

You'll find the 'Report' did. Then the Bill followed that....which was ratified into LAW in the LRA 2002.

 

I'm not taking away from what Ben has had to say....but he has not understood the connection at all........and as a consequence; neither have you (no offence).

 

Don't assume because I said we are laypersons, that is to be misconstrued to mean - we are stupid here : )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

These quotes do not mean what you think. the reasons have been explained to you many times, I am not going to do the same again and feed your need to spout nonsense, if anyone else does not understand why this is nonsense seek the authority either already in this thread or elsewhere.

 

Oh OK will do the last one again.

you say

"sub-section (4) to LPA s.87 done to say purely that in relation to unregistered land lra s.23 does not apply."

 

The act actually says

[F1(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).F1]

 

You see what i mean about being able to understand what you read, it is not about "interpretation" in you case it is basic comprehension. "shall not be taken to be" not does not apply.

 

Section 87 is not effected by section 23, unless it regards making a mortgage under demise etc, then it is forbidden. This does not prevent mortgage by way of charge because sub section says "shall not be be taken to be affected by" subsection 23(1((a) and this says ;

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

 

It forbids mortgages by demise that is all, if you do not belive me read the buckets of confirmation in court cases and other authorities already on here but really it is quit plain to me from the text.

[Peterbard]

Really?? .... was there something in the CCA that I missed out?

 

There was Ben's post to contradict my post, but his post was taken from the Law comm report...... I was taking my information from the LRA 2002 Bill.....that actually came into LAW - being the LRA 2002 ACT.

 

It's like this Dodge; which is first.... the 'report' or the Bill?

 

You'll find the 'Report' did. Then the Bill followed that....which was ratified into LAW in the LRA 2002.

 

I'm not taking away from what Ben has had to say....but he has not understood the connection at all........and as a consequence; neither have you (no offence).

 

Don't assume because I said we are laypersons, that is to be misconstrued to mean - we are stupid here : )

 

Apple

 

i am not saying anyone is stupid nor do I infer it, I do think you have a problem in the way you assimilate facts, if that is what you are asking. You seem to start off with a conception and the try and interpret everything you read to support it if it doesn't fit you ignore it, this is not the way to acquire knowledge.