Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Hi Dodgeball, I must have missed it, can you let me know which post your referring to? Ta...BP

 

Apologies BP

 

I will leave Dodge to come back to you - Got to get on with other stuff now anyway ; )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Really??? Are they???

 

I disagree with you - FACT is LRA s.23 says borrowers cannot 'mortgage' the registered estate Dodge.....that's why.

 

Apple

 

You dissagree with many people Apple sadly many of them wear wigs and gowns

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball, I must have missed it, can you let me know which post your referring to? Ta...BP

 

It is just basically the legislation(section 23 and the LOPA) do you want me to re post it for you ?

[applecart]

You dissagree with many people Apple sadly many of them wear wigs and gowns

 

What on earth are you inferring here Dodge.

 

Yes, I agree with 'garguillo' and 'bibby' - do you take issue with that reliance - notably Is It Me's friends Lender did not even attempt to argue with them - did these Judge not wear wigs and gowns Dodge???????

 

I must go now Dodge - I have other important issues to address - I promise to pop by soon - answer BP properly if you can - your reference to the LRA and LOPA is not good enough Dodge.

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Anyway as Ben says all will become clear.

 

I look forward to the, "Yes buts"

 

TTFN

[Peterbard]

did these Judge not wear wigs and gowns Dodge???????

 

 

Apple

 

Come on, some poetic license

[bigphil61]

It is just basically the legislation(section 23 and the LOPA) do you want me to re post it for you ?

 

Hi Dodgeball, If you could that would be nice...Ta

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball, If you could that would be nice...Ta

 

Nope, find it yourself

 

Apple, law of the land "not good enough", bite your tongue

[bigphil61]

Nope, find it yourself

 

Apple, law of the land "not good enough", bite your tongue

 

Hi Dodgeball, Is there a need for you to be so rude, after all, you asked if I wanted you to re-post? Remember, Fletch70's comment: 'have lost count of the times questions have been asked or comments made that you just conveniently gloss over'

[fletch70]

Hi Fletch70, Perhaps you can answer the question put to Dodgeball by Apple: So, please do advise us how it is that the Lender is a 'mortgagee'??Ta...BP

 

Why on earth would I be the one to answer a question aimed at another poster ?

 

Oh ok - sorry Fletch - it was just that when I read your posts, you would start off giving the impression that you were asking a question ...but then .... concluded them yourself.....there was nothing I could say really Fletch...thought best to leave you with it to be honest. I meant no offence.

 

That being said... I hope you will appreciate that my finding was - there was no question to answer.

 

Apple

 

Maybe you feel that we are not worthy of an answer and I will be honest and sometimes they are rebuttals of points you made. If you had an answer I think most people would expect you to put it forward. I was not just talking about questions put by myself but by other posters or are you of the opinion that we are all the same person (in which case I suggest you ask IMS21 if we are)

Do you actually know what stage this case is at I will give you three options all of which you have claimed

 

1) A decision has been made but the lender has 28 days to put more evidence forward

2) A decision has been made and the lender has 28 days to appeal

3) No decision has yet been made or if it has no one apart from the adjudicator and their staff would know what it is

 

And then another question, two options both which you have claimed

1) S23 argument was allowed as it had some merit and needed arguing (doesn't give a conclusive result either way )

2) S23 has blown the lenders argument out of the water and therefore a win is inevitable

[Peterbard]

No thanks I prefer the ordinary sensible approach your last post commenced with, shame it descended into th usual nonsense really.

 

Anyway te provisions of section 23 are here

 

View outstanding changesstatus warnings

23 Owner’s powers

 

(1)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate consist of—

(a)power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, and

(b)power to charge the estate at law with the payment of money.

 

Does what it says on the tin, really there to get rid of mortgages by demise.

 

(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.

 

Similar although not the same powers bestowed on the owner of the charge.

 

Also as it says in the tin.

 

I have no reason to believe that the architects of this particular piece of legislature made an error, it simply does what it sets out to do.

 

Any question that needs "simplifying" only exists because you misinterpret both the content and intent.

 

 

There you go bp.

 

It was a rhetorical question, I thought you would be able to find it yourself

[bigphil61]

Why on earth would I be the one to answer a question aimed at another poster ?

 

 

 

Maybe you feel that we are not worthy of an answer and I will be honest and sometimes they are rebuttals of points you made. If you had an answer I think most people would expect you to put it forward. I was not just talking about questions put by myself but by other posters or are you of the opinion that we are all the same person (in which case I suggest you ask IMS21 if we are)

Do you actually know what stage this case is at I will give you three options all of which you have claimed

 

1) A decision has been made but the lender has 28 days to put more evidence forward

2) A decision has been made and the lender has 28 days to appeal

3) No decision has yet been made or if it has no one apart from the adjudicator and their staff would know what it is

 

And then another question, two options both which you have claimed

1) S23 argument was allowed as it had some merit and needed arguing (doesn't give a conclusive result either way )

2) S23 has blown the lenders argument out of the water and therefore a win is inevitable

 

Hi Fletch, Your comment: 'have lost count of the times questions have been asked or comments made that you just conveniently gloss over'. I thought you might have been able to respond on Dodgeball's behalf, looks like I got that wrong...BP

[fletch70]

What is one more thing to get wrong?

I suspect you have lost count by now

 

As I said, my comment was aimed at apple and no one else.

If Apple wants Dodge to answer a question why doesn't Apple ask, I am sure they are big enough and ugly enough to do it themselves .....or did they?

 

Of course I am sure you realise that when Apple is asked a direct question and they do not reply or give some cryptic half answer they do their credibility no good at all.

When someone cuts and pastes parts of judgements without reference to those judgements or the cases it does their credibility no good at all

 

To have a discussion is all about credibility, by all means have an opinion but be prepared to back it up

By all means take a stance but be prepared to be shot at

 

Did you know that the King carried a gun with him during the war so he could go into battle when the invasion came...now that is putting your money where your mouth is.

 

I do not pretend to understand the complexities of land registry law but I can see a fluff job a mile off.

 

The other question is, that i do not think has ever been answered is, what is the desired outcome

If I understand it correctly if Apple&Co win the argument the Deed will be void and I think the security of the property may also be void. The debt however will not be void and that could be recovered by BR or an order for sale

IIM says there are funds in place to pay off what is needed, now is that the whole amount owed or just the arrears?

If it is just the arrears but the loan is not secured anymore I would imagine they will call in the debt

 

End result will be the same

 

I trust I am wrong

[bhall]

Glad to see peace has broken out.

 

I can't be bothered to reply or respond to everything posted today (just repetition of the same baseless fanciful ideas and mysterious and magical interpretations) , so I will keep it short. - the following is directed towards Apple contributions to the thread today (so was my previous comment in brackets)

 

No, that is not what I said, can you please read my posts and stop interpreting them (6th time I have asked)- Dodge is more than capable to answer - anything he wants too, you need to come of your self assumed superior high ground, you are more than an expert when it comes to ducking and diving questions. - which has again been highlighted in the thread today.

 

I am surprised that you didn't hear on the 'grapevine' that according to the Property Chamber a written decision normally takes 28 days - nothing special about this decision taking this long. - call the property chamber, they will answer it is standard practice. - sorry did I forget to post that email ? Oops sorry, I better check what other emails I have received that I have not posted

 

As far as listening to things on the grapevine, I would stick to Marvin Gaye, if I was you.

 

S.23(1) details the borrowers power as owner of the registered estate to grant a legal charge (as per s.27(2)(f) of the LRA 2002) being a charge by deed expressed by way of legal mortgage - Are you still seriously stuck on the meaning of "or" in s.205 of the LPA 205 ?

 

This is confirmed in one of Land Registry Adjudicator cases posted in this thread and detailed within lamb and one the cases referred to in lamb.

 

The decision when issued will, if this point was raised during the hearing reveal what the Property Chamber considers correct on this point. - That will then confirm for everybody, who is full of the brown smelly stuff and who is not.

 

 

 

 

As 28 days is up today, we don't have long to find out - what is going on.

 

 

I have emailed the Property Chamber (my email was read by the property chamber this morning) and requested a copy of the decision or confirmation of the reason why there is a delay, if it is not ready to be issued. As soon as I hear anything, as IIM refuses to post about what happened (for reasons we can only speculate about), I will post it in this thread, as and when I can (unless someone else is able to do it)

 

Enjoy the rest of your day !

[TimetogoRAM]

Ben you seem more bothered about the chamber result than the people that have actually put in an application , is it me, Apple and the judge. What is in it for you and why are you so intent on bringing this whole thread down? 28 days from the day of the hearing was 17th. You got that wrong as well mate!

[Peterbard]

Ben you seem more bothered about the chamber result than the people that have actually put in an application , is it me, Apple and the judge. What is in it for you and why are you so intent on bringing this whole thread down? 28 days from the day of the hearing was 17th. You got that wrong as well mate!

 

Not sure what you mean about bring the thread down. would your rather it stayed up and continued to give people false and dangerous advice. (if that is the case)

I know of forums which encourage this kind of thing, not here I would like to think.

This thread was started presumably to make public this case, if not , then pardon me but starting a thread in a public forum was a silly thing to do.

[bhall]

Ben you seem more bothered about the chamber result than the people that have actually put in an application , is it me, Apple and the judge. What is in it for you and why are you so intent on bringing this whole thread down? 28 days from the day of the hearing was 17th. You got that wrong as well mate!

 

Hello Time

 

Firstly you are mistaken, Apple has not made an application to the Property Chamber. Apple has nothing to lose, if Apples fanciful ideas are proven by the Chamber to be little more than a pipe dream based upon a misunderstanding of the law.

 

Secondly, reread the thread, I have answered and explained why I am so interested enough times in this thread. If you reread it, you will see why I am so interested in the result. If you can't find it, let me know and I will post a link for you.

 

Thirdly, I have made it clear that I don't want to bring the thread down. I want it to stay open so that the truth can be posted once the decision has been issued.

 

and finally as you appear to have missed it, it was the Property Chamber that confirmed in an email that the decision would be issued after today.

 

Hope that clarifies things for you mate

 

Ben

[fletch70]

Ben you seem more bothered about the chamber result than the people that have actually put in an application , is it me, Apple and the judge. What is in it for you and why are you so intent on bringing this whole thread down? 28 days from the day of the hearing was 17th. You got that wrong as well mate!

 

Surely the decision is what matters because without that nothing can move forward

IIM and Apple have vowed to fight on if the decision goes against them which worries me as it is not their fight or their home. Whichever way it goes the next stage will be interesting and I am sure it is far from over so we could have another year and 6000 posts who knows

[bigphil61]

There you go bp.

 

It was a rhetorical question, I thought you would be able to find it yourself

 

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Whom is s24 of the LRA 2002 referring to?

 

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

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

[GiveHimaMask]

Blast it, you saw straight through my cunning plan. I thought by providing a link to the case, so that everyone could read it for themselves I could hide what was said in the judgement.

 

I would have got away with it, if it was not for that pesky Gham.

 

As for what you have said about the case. As with Is It Me?, I would direct you to what was actually said in the case and especially the part Is It Me? and it now would also appear you like to skip over what was said in regard to Pender.

 

Also you might be interested to know that there are cases where when the transfer has been completed by registration, a spv has taken borrowers to Court.

Hi Ben,

Yes when I originaly posted this case here I thought it very interesting, on the one hand there was the LIE, I knew that would help IS IT ME and on the other there was Pender and that would help you, so who would have thought there would have ever been common ground here on this thread between IS IT ME and Ben.

But a word of caution, as you know there are constants and variables in life, in this case, the constant is the Lie, that will never change and the variable, well that is the Authority the Judge used in Pender, who knows some time in the near future the Judge might use ' In Is IT ME Fiends and PretenderLender...' now, would that not be really something. Just food for thought.

However Ben, many thanks for letting me know that SPV's have stuck their heads above the parapet but the important part of that question was, ' would they do it here in NI given what the law says in relation to registered land'. Give it some thought.

 

gham

[bhall]

However Ben, many thanks for letting me know that SPV's have stuck their heads above the parapet but the important part of that question was, ' would they do it here in NI given what the law says in relation to registered land'. Give it some thought.

 

gham

 

 

 

Yes

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Whom is s24 of the LRA 2002 referring to?

 

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

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

Hello BP

 

I can help you answer your own question, if you don't mind.

 

If you look at the title register for your own home, who is the registered proprietor of the registered charge ? - I will save you the time in looking... It will be the lender.

 

There is also

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/2

 

 

Creation of legal charge

8In the case of the creation of a charge, the chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the charge.

 

As above the registered proprietor of the charge (s.24) is the lender and has the powers as such

 

Where as the borrower is the registered proprietor of the registered estate (s.24) and has the powers of such.

 

Which means as much as Apple may protest otherwise

 

s.23(1) are the borrowers powers and s.23(2) are the lenders powers.

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Whom is s24 of the LRA 2002 referring to?

 

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

(b)entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

The proprietor of the estate(normally the borrower ) or the proprietor of the charge(normally the lender)

 

Using the powers assigned to them by section 23(1) or(2) in order

[Peterbard]

oops sorry ben crossed posts

[TimetogoRAM]

Hello Time

 

Firstly you are mistaken, Apple has not made an application to the Property Chamber. Apple has nothing to lose, if Apples fanciful ideas are proven by the Chamber to be little more than a pipe dream based upon a misunderstanding of the law.

 

Secondly, reread the thread, I have answered and explained why I am so interested enough times in this thread. If you reread it, you will see why I am so interested in the result. If you can't find it, let me know and I will post a link for you.

 

Thirdly, I have made it clear that I don't want to bring the thread down. I want it to stay open so that the truth can be posted once the decision has been issued.

 

and finally as you appear to have missed it, it was the Property Chamber that confirmed in an email that the decision would be issued after today.

 

Hope that clarifies things for you mate

 

Ben

 

I'm not sure the judge has put an application into the chamber either. Although if I was them after all this and if I had a mortgage with an unsigned deed I would! I was merely stating that you seem a lot more bothered than everyone else? Which sols do you work for? Are you dodgeball as well mate?

 

That said, I do appreciate you clearing that up. I don't believe any thing in this thread is really important since probably half way through it. I do believe all we have got now are pointless posts like my few posts tonight, total repetition from you and dodgeball and complete speculation about the chamber result. Completely pointless until the judgment I'd say!