Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[ims21]

Thread is temporarily closed for maintenance

[ims21]

Thread tidied.

 

No more personal insults or off topic stuff please.

 

Only sensible discussion of the topic in hand.

 

Thread is now open again.

[fletch70]

Hi Fletch70, I really hope Apple does not mind me answering on there behalf! IsItMe has asked for Apples 'Interest' and Apple has on many occasions stated that there interest is in ensuring 'Borrowers' are aware of their rights regarding deeds, you will find that back on the first few pages of this thread, so what's your interest in this? Oh and before you ask, I'm a interested borrower too...BP

 

The only reason I asked was that on many occasions questions were deflected claiming no knowledge although at other times Apple claimed intimate knowledge of what was going on and then gave the impression that they were part of the decision making process.

My interest is just that I am interested.

 

I find it also quite concerning that now there is a claim that what has been discussed here really isn't relevant as they have something else up their sleeve nudge nudge wink wink. If this is the case it kind of makes the whole thread academic

[Peterbard]

Can you tell me dodgeball which court and judge made the ruling you qutoe?

What does it say under LP 23 please answer ALL the sec: therein, namely 3!

And by the way the chamber have confirmed the word OWNER is the borrower he who owns the house!

 

Not sure which ruling you refer to IIM

 

The court would be right the owner of the estate would be the borrower, the owner of the charge would be the lender, they would also hold entitlement to the legal "tilte" under the mortgage agreement. If the borrower owned the charge as well as the estate of course the lender would have no security, and none of the case law and legislation or indeed any secured loan agreement anywhere would make any sense.

 

(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.

 

This you mean ? this refers to a sub charge, this is when the lender decides to use his equity in the borrowers property in order to procure finance from a third party. Lots of case law for this, including some where the lenders right to enforce was challenged because of an outstanding sub charge , but I am sure you have already read it.

 

Any way it seems that Apples secret weapon is dong the rounds Via PM, and since there is nothing new on here I will leave you to it until the hearing.

 

As a final note I do wish well in this despite being doubtful(to say the least ) of the methods you are using, and hope that this secret weapon is something that none of us have thought of and saves the day for you.

[bhall]

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

 

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

 

You can consider this a friendly suggestion, or you can dismiss it -

 

You might want to think about what you have said and the conclusions you have reached

 

A registered proprietor of unregistered land

 

Think about it, how can someone be registered as the proprietor of something unregistered

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/132

 

“registered” means entered in the register;

 

You appear to be stating that the borrower has been entered in the register as the proprietor of something that isn't itself registered - I must be misunderstanding what it is you have said, as that isn't possible

 

Something to think about

[bhall]

The amendment also refers to the owners powers of a registered estate - not owners powers of an unregistered estate - something else you can either accept as a friendly suggestion that you should think about, or you can simply dismiss it

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...-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).”

 

 

“On Report the Government and the Opposition moved amendments to clause 23 to deal with the question of how a legal charge could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to 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 amendmenticon.

 

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 . 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.

 

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.

 

Can it really be refuted that s.23(1)(a) being the powers of the registered proprietor of the registered estate - preventing them from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise - as a result of the amendment has not effect on s.87(1) of the LPA 1925 being where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

To a simpleton such as myself it would read to say

 

s.23(1) which prevents a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, does not have an affect on a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. - Afterall, s.23(1) only relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate

 

 

Whilst you can still mortgage by demise or sub-demise a unregistered estate, you can only mortgage a registered estate by legal charge - as a result of s.23(1) of the LRA 2002 and because of the amendment by the LRA 2002 to s.87 of the LPA 1925, as detailed above

[applecart]

The amendment also refers to the owners powers of a registered estate - not owners powers of an unregistered estate - something else you can either accept as a friendly suggestion that you should think about, or you can simply dismiss it

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...-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).”

 

 

“On Report the Government and the Opposition moved amendments to clause 23 to deal with the question of how a legal charge could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to 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 amendmenticon.

 

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 . 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.

 

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.

 

Can it really be refuted that s.23(1)(a) being the powers of the registered proprietor of the registered estate - preventing them from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise - as a result of the amendment has not effect on s.87(1) of the LPA 1925 being where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

To a simpleton such as myself it would read to say

 

s.23(1) which prevents a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, does not have an affect on a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. - Afterall, s.23(1) only relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate

 

Read what you have said here back again.......notice how you have managed to exclude the very word that the amendment refers to - you have left the word 'unregisteresd' out of your analysis. I've inserted it for you to help you see where we differ on the point.

 

s.23(1) which prevents a registered proprietor of a registered estate from making a disposition of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, does not have an affect on a [uN registered proprietor] of a registered estate from making a disposition where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage. - Afterall, s.23(1) only relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate

 

 

Whilst you can still mortgage by demise or sub-demise a unregistered estate, you can only mortgage a registered estate by legal charge - as a result of s.23(1) of the LRA 2002 and because of the amendment by the LRA 2002 to s.87 of the LPA 1925, as detailed above

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can you tell me dodgeball which court and judge made the ruling you qutoe?

What does it say under LP 23 please answer ALL the sec: therein, namely 3!

And by the way the chamber have confirmed the word OWNER is the borrower he who owns the house!

 

Hi Is It Me

 

This is the very point raised by you at the very beginning of your thread.

 

Unregistered proprietors are owners - and will remain the owner of that pre-unregistered estate when the notice is entered on the register to secure money or money's worth to the lender..and a borrower who purchases or resides in a registered estate - remains the owner of that registered estate - regardless of whether either type of owner looks to secure any loan against it.

 

Therein lays just 1 of the issues that the Lender has been DUMBSTRUCK over ; )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Is It Me

 

This is the very point raised by you at the very beginning of your thread.

 

Unregistered proprietors are owners - and will remain the owner of that pre-unregistered estate when the notice is entered on the register to secure money or money's worth to the lender..and a borrower who purchases or resides in a registered estate - remains the owner of that registered estate - regardless of whether either type of owner looks to secure any loan against it.

 

Therein lays just 1 of the issues that the Lender has been DUMBSTRUCK over ; )

 

Apple

 

BINGO!!!

I wish others could see the error of their ways, lol

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[Crapstone]

Hi Is It Me

 

This is the very point raised by you at the very beginning of your thread.

 

Unregistered proprietors are owners - and will remain the owner of that pre-unregistered estate when the notice is entered on the register to secure money or money's worth to the lender..and a borrower who purchases or resides in a registered estate - remains the owner of that registered estate - regardless of whether either type of owner looks to secure any loan against it.

 

Therein lays just 1 of the issues that the Lender has been DUMBSTRUCK over ; )

 

Apple

 

 

Except in the case of Barclays Plc v Guy. The charge stood, regardless of title, in favour of Barclays.

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

There is also another issue that is about to arise BTW.

 

It is this: A friend of mine and I were talking last night and asked me to look at some paperwork he had received from his lender. The paperwork was a 'deed of variation' and the letter advised that they had sold the loan (yet again) on to another company. He asked me what I thought.

 

I was absolutely dumbfounded to say the least.

 

Here's why: He had taken a loan from Company A - Company A was entered on the title of register (albeit with the issues raised in this thread)...He is paying Company A.

 

Company A sold out to Company B.

 

Company A has Part IV Permission and Authority from the FCA to 'hold and control client money'........ Company B does not have Authority or Part IV Permission to hold client money.

 

The letter advised him that although Company B now owned the loan; that he was to continue making payments to Company A.

 

Here's the issue:

 

Company B did not lend the money to Him; but looks to say that if he defaults on his payments to Company A; then Company B is by way of His consent (signing the deed of variation is the consent) to repossess his property...even though it was not Company B that loaned him the Money.

 

The Fact is; if Company B should not be allowed to take security over the Borrowers home when he did not loan the money to him and certainly not when Company B has no Part IV Permission or authority to hold client money.

 

It should be upto Company B to acquire the permissions from the FCA before he looks to secure his dealings with Company A against the Borrowers home.....Part IV Permission is integral to the protection of a retail clients money and asset.

 

It was a very interesting conversation that we had. I've assisted him to present the issue to the Chamber for determination of course ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

 

Whilst you can still mortgage by demise or sub-demise a unregistered estate, you can only mortgage a registered estate by legal charge - as a result of s.23(1) of the LRA 2002 and because of the amendment by the LRA 2002 to s.87 of the LPA 1925, as detailed above

 

Apologies for the break, Eastenders was on.

 

To continue from my last post

 

Something else that I will put out there to be considered or dismissed

 

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

 

The owner (the registered proprietor) of a registered estate can make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

The Law Commission said "there are two ways of creating a legal mortgage: the mortgage must either execute a demise for a term of years absolute ("a mortgage by demise") or must execute a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage ("a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage")

 

Question - Has anyone executed a demise for a term of years absolute or have they executed a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage

 

 

So if we accept what the Law Commission states that there are indeed two ways to create a legal mortgage

 

1) Mortgage by demise (or sub-demise)

2) A charge

 

Clearly s.23(1) abolishes a mortgage by demise but would appear to remain silent on a mortgage by legal charge. The amendment however, would appear to state that s.23(1) does not apply to mortgages by legal charge.

 

However, s.23(1) is not silent on a mortgage by legal charge. It confirms that a owner (registered proprietor) of a registered estate can make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law.

 

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

 

27 Dispositions required to be registered

 

(2) In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

 

(f) the grant of a legal charge.

 

The above being s.27(2)(f) of the LRA 2002, confirms that in the case of a registered estate, the grant of a legal charge is a disposition that is required to be completed by registration

 

s.23(1) confirms the registered proprietor of a registered estate can make a disposition permitted by general law and s.27(2)(f) confirms that the grant of a legal charge is such a disposition. The amendment to s.87 of the LPA 1925 also confirms that s.23(1) does not apply where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

[applecart]

Except in the case of Barclays Plc v Guy. The charge stood, regardless of title, in favour of Barclays.

 

Was LRA s.23 mentioned in that case?

 

Post it up, let me have a look at it if you have it??

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/452.html

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1396.html

[applecart]

Apologies for the break, Eastenders was on.

 

To continue from my last post

 

Something else that I will put out there to be considered or dismissed

 

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

 

The owner (the registered proprietor) of a registered estate can make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

The Law Commission said "there are two ways of creating a legal mortgage: the mortgage must either execute a demise for a term of years absolute ("a mortgage by demise") or must execute a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage ("a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage")

 

Question - Has anyone executed a demise for a term of years absolute or have they executed a charge which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage

 

 

So if we accept what the Law Commission states that there are indeed two ways to create a legal mortgage

 

1) Mortgage by demise (or sub-demise)

2) A charge

 

Clearly s.23(1) abolishes a mortgage by demise but would appear to remain silent on a mortgage by legal charge. The amendment however, would appear to state that s.23(1) does not apply to mortgages by legal charge.

 

However, s.23(1) is not silent on a mortgage by legal charge. It confirms that a owner (registered proprietor) of a registered estate can make a disposition of any kind permitted by general law.

 

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

 

27 Dispositions required to be registered

 

(2) In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

 

(f) the grant of a legal charge.

 

The above being s.27(2)(f) of the LRA 2002, confirms that in the case of a registered estate, the grant of a legal charge is a disposition that is required to be completed by registration

 

s.23(1) confirms the registered proprietor of a registered estate can make a disposition permitted by general law and s.27(2)(f) confirms that the grant of a legal charge is such a disposition. The amendment to s.87 of the LPA 1925 also confirms that s.23(1) does not apply where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

Here's where we differ on the point, you have again omitted the word UNREGISTERED:

 

s.23(1) confirms the registered proprietor of a [uN-registered estate] can make a disposition permitted by general law and s.27(2)(f) confirms that the grant of a legal charge is such a disposition. The amendment to s.87 of the LPA 1925 also confirms that s.23(1) does not apply where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage over UN-REGISTERED Land for the FIRST time

 

 

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

The only reason I asked was that on many occasions questions were deflected claiming no knowledge although at other times Apple claimed intimate knowledge of what was going on and then gave the impression that they were part of the decision making process.

My interest is just that I am interested.

 

I find it also quite concerning that now there is a claim that what has been discussed here really isn't relevant as they have something else up their sleeve nudge nudge wink wink. If this is the case it kind of makes the whole thread academic

 

Hi Fletch

 

I would not be so concerned, it is not the first time such a claim has been made

 

Any more news about apple coming back?

As i have questions because I have had great news back which will more than stop the lenders dead in their tacks before this goes to the property chamber

 

As we know, despite this "great news" the lenders were not stopped dead in their tracks and this matter did proceed to be heard by the Property Chamber

 

I am sure for the benefit of the other applications, not being Lamb, Is it Me?'s friend or the person that made the other application that was heard on 20 Jan 2014 - this yet unrevealed revelation will be made public at some stage. - If there is something that could help those other people, I am sure Apple and Is It Me? after encouraging people to make applications, would not abandon them now in their hour of need and keep such important information to themselves.

[applecart]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/452.html

 

Thanks Crspstone. I'll have a look at it.

 

Apple

[bhall]

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.

 

Not wishing to reignite the unsubstantiated allegations made in this thread, if anyone is in the least bit intrigued, at the end of the FOI request response it said -

 

Disclosure Log

 

You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-of-information-disclosure-log

 

I have checked and at the moment it has only been updated until December 2013. The date of the response to my FOI request was 9 January 2014. Hopefully, the Disclosure Log will soon be updated confirming the response from the Ministry of Justice, as I have previously posted.

[applecart]

Hi Fletch

 

I would not be so concerned, it is not the first time such a claim has been made

 

 

 

As we know, despite this "great news" the lenders were not stopped dead in their tracks and this matter did proceed to be heard by the Property Chamber

 

I am sure for the benefit of the other applications, not being Lamb, Is it Me?'s friend or the person that made the other application that was heard on 20 Jan 2014 - this yet unrevealed revelation will be made public at some stage. - If there is something that could help those other people, I am sure Apple and Is It Me? after encouraging people to make applications, would not abandon them now in their hour of need and keep such important information to themselves.

 

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit BTW.

 

Albeit I do not miss the serious point you make.

 

We are guided by the Site Team of the concern that Borrowers may look to move applications forward and risk their homes having read snippets from this thread - we saw one such Borrower who had taken a snippet from here - a snippet from somewhere else and combined the two to defend a claim for possession....that led him down the appeal route'.....on statute that may not assist him move forward.

 

I am not advocating that any Borrower do the same thing.

 

Borrowers who are making applications will find that their applications are stayed pending the outcome of the cases that are being heard.

 

Is It Me's friends application is one of the front runners....that application is making good progress......It will and should work to set the perimeter upon which other applications will be heard.

 

The LRA s.23 point is WON.

 

We are being diligent to ensure that other issues raised are WON also.

 

It is against this backdrop that Is It Me promotes that others should make their applications too. However; the fight goes on......

 

I do not encourage Is It Me to divulge the detail....we are happy to wait for the decision..... we are waiting to see if we need to do more....but one thing for sure is most applications will be stayed pending Is It Me's friends outcome as I understand it.

 

Apple

[bhall]

Here's where we differ on the point, you have again omitted the word UNREGISTERED:

 

s.23(1) confirms the registered proprietor of a [uN-registered estate] can make a disposition permitted by general law and s.27(2)(f) confirms that the grant of a legal charge is such a disposition. The amendment to s.87 of the LPA 1925 also confirms that s.23(1) does not apply where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage over UN-REGISTERED Land for the FIRST time

 

 

Apple

 

Hello Apple

 

I have not omitted the word UNREGISTERED.

 

With the upmost respect I think you will find that s.23(1) relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate - However, I will refrain from disputing this further with you, as that is what it says

 

 

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/24

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

 

*Edit

 

I have amended the above post after it was subsequently quoted

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

There is also another issue that is about to arise BTW.

 

It is this: A friend of mine and I were talking last night and asked me to look at some paperwork he had received from his lender. The paperwork was a 'deed of variation' and the letter advised that they had sold the loan (yet again) on to another company. He asked me what I thought.

 

I was absolutely dumbfounded to say the least.

 

Here's why: He had taken a loan from Company A - Company A was entered on the title of register (albeit with the issues raised in this thread)...He is paying Company A.

 

Company A sold out to Company B.

 

Company A has Part IV Permission and Authority from the FCA to 'hold and control client money'........ Company B does not have Authority or Part IV Permission to hold client money.

 

The letter advised him that although Company B now owned the loan; that he was to continue making payments to Company A.

 

Here's the issue:

 

Company B did not lend the money to Him; but looks to say that if he defaults on his payments to Company A; then Company B is by way of His consent (signing the deed of variation is the consent) to repossess his property...even though it was not Company B that loaned him the Money.

 

The Fact is; if Company B should not be allowed to take security over the Borrowers home when he did not loan the money to him and certainly not when Company B has no Part IV Permission or authority to hold client money.

 

It should be upto Company B to acquire the permissions from the FCA before he looks to secure his dealings with Company A against the Borrowers home.....Part IV Permission is integral to the protection of a retail clients money and asset.

 

It was a very interesting conversation that we had. I've assisted him to present the issue to the Chamber for determination of course ; )

 

Apple

 

Is It Me - come back to me with your comments on the above please Mate as and when you get chance.

 

Cheers.

 

Apple

[applecart]

With the upmost respect I think you will find that s.23(1) relates to the powers of the registered owner of the registered estate - However, I will refrain from disputing this further with you, as that is what it says

 

 

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/24

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

 

There is no dispute. The registered proprietor is the Owner of the registered estate Ben.

 

Apple

[bhall]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/452.html

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1396.html

 

I note the 2010 case states

 

2. The basic facts are as follows. By 2003, Mr Guy had acquired the freehold title to some 19 hectares of land in Manchester ("the Land"), which was registered at HM Land Registry ("the Registry") under four titles, and he accordingly became the registered proprietor under all four titles. Pursuant to a transfer ("the Transfer") dated 22 June 2004, the Land was purportedly transferred to Ten Acre Ltd ("TAL"), who were duly registered as proprietors in place of Mr Guy on 30 July 2004.

 

3. On 8 March 2005, TAL executed a charge ("the Charge") over the Land in favour of the Bank to secure all moneys owing to the Bank by Lexi Holdings plc ("Lexi"), a company effectively owned and run by a Mr Shaid Luqman, who, it subsequently transpired, was dishonest in a major way. The Bank was registered as proprietor of the Charge on 23 March 2005.

 

 

The Bank was registered as proprietor of the Charge on 23 March 2005. - That sounds familiar, I am sure someone has said that in this thread

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23

 

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.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/24

 

24 Right to exercise owner’s powers

 

A person is entitled to exercise owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate or charge if he is—

 

(a)the registered proprietor, or

[Crapstone]

http://www.wragge.com/analysis_2775.asp . There is also a full seminar somewhere on the net debating the whole merit of the case in pdf form and some 56 pages long.

[bhall]

There is no dispute. The registered proprietor is the Owner of the registered estate Ben.

 

Apple

 

you could not be more right, the borrower is the registered proprietor of the registered estate. However, as previously pointed out, you overlook that a registered estate does not include the registered charge.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/132

 

“registered estate” means a legal estate the title to which is entered in the register, other than a registered charge;

 

Therefore, I agree there is no dispute - Glad that is settled