Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

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?

 

You seem to be trying to run interference here, you wouldn't be trying to divert the impact of the inevitable judgment by doing a bit of mud slinging, no surely not

[bhall]

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?

 

Worry less about who I am and more about the fallout from the Property Chamber decision, when it does not agree with Apple.

 

However, for the record I do not work for any solicitors, not even the one posted by Enfircer.

 

I am also not Dodgeball or any member of the site team or anyone else I have been accused as being either.

 

Time, if you don't want to read my posts, change your settings to put me on ignore

[fletch70]

Yo know, and completely off topic

BUT , there has been lots of mud slinging about who is who and AE's. Maybe I should start making the allegations about BP being Apple and Time and who knows maybe IIM.

 

We all know that the site do not allow AE's particularly if they post on the same thread and i assume they use HWID and not just IP's

[bhall]

Yo know, and completely off topic

BUT , there has been lots of mud slinging about who is who and AE's. Maybe I should start making the allegations about BP being Apple and Time and who knows maybe IIM.

 

We all know that the site do not allow AE's particularly if they post on the same thread and i assume they use HWID and not just IP's

 

I wouldn't waste your time Fletch.

 

All that really matters is the decision of the Property Chamber. Nothing else is really that important.

 

As I have said before, I am really Elvis Presley and I work in Tesco (fruit & veg)

 

They can accuse me of being anyone and everyone. It won't change the decision of the Property Chamber.

[fletch70]

I am far more important that the decision of the property chamber. How very dare you:-)

[bhall]

I am far more important that the decision of the property chamber. How very dare you:-)

 

At the risk of being accused of beer garden posts

 

LMAO

[Crapstone]

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?

 

 

I wasn't aware this was a competition for who can show the most interest! I really should try harder. How very dare you appear to be more bothered than Dodgeball, Fletch, myself and the countless others that see through this charade bhall. Lmao!!!

 

Bhall can't be Dodgeball. How can they be when they are Crapstone or am I Fletch??? If bhall is a solicitor then can I be the banker? I'll stick with being a debt collector but then again I could work in a court?

 

RAM did I see you on James Turner Street as well? I'll have to look out for you next time I drive past it. So that'll be tomorrow then.

[bhall]

Just in case there is anyone that still holds the mistaken belief, as promoted by Apple that a Borrower grants a sub-charge to a lender - I would highly recommend that you read the article and case linked below

 

The article

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7808/0/

 

Background:

 

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

 

The case

 

Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks [2004] EWCA Civ 568 (13 May 2004) - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/568.html

 

The sub-charge

 

12. The sub-charge was executed on the same day as the legal charge, namely 5 August 2002. In it the "Borrower" is defined as the respondent and "the Bank" as the Bank of Scotland. We will refer to the Bank of Scotland as "the Bank" or as "the sub-chargee". The "Property" is defined as Home Farm and "the other assets under clause 3" and "Principal Charge" is defined as the legal charge between the respondent and the appellant "and the principal money secured by that charge and all interest due on it or to become due and the benefit of all securities for the payment of it". We shall refer to the charge between the appellant and the respondent as "the principal charge".

 

In the above case, the borrower - Feliciangela Marks, granted the lender - Credit & Mercantile Plc, a legal charge. The Lender Credit & Mercantile Plc, in turn borrowed funds from Bank of Scotland and granted it a sub-charge as security for that loan.

 

Returning to the above article

 

"The title to the property in Credit and Mercantile was registered and the provisions of the LRA 1925 applied. With effect from 13th October, 2003, the LRA 1925 was repealed and replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002 (the "LRA 2002").

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

As I remember IIM? asked for a case to prove that the lender and not the borrower, grants a sub-charge - well here you go - a case from the Court of Appeal.

[bhall]

IIM?

 

What was you saying about the lender being DUMBSTRUCK in relation to s.23(2) and (3) ?

 

Are you sure, you recall what was said correctly, as Apple is making a song and dance about the very little information you have posted about the hearing.

 

A look at the applicable law being s.23(2), the circumstances as detailed in the above case, combined with the details of the article in addition to the explanation as to what a sub-charge actually is, only concludes with the possibility that s.23(2) are indeed the powers of the lender and not the borrower, wouldn't you agree ?

 

Are you sure the lender was DUMBSTUCK ?

 

After all the Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks case, is quite well known and it is even referred to in the infamous Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005) case. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

 

95. In Marks there was a registered charge and a registered sub-charge. The mortgagor fell into arrears under the charge, and the mortgagee obtained an order for possession. The mortgagor appealed against the possession order on the ground that by granting the sub-charge the mortgagee had divested himself of his right to possession of the mortgaged property in favour of the submortgagee. The Court of Appeal held that the existence of the registered subcharge did not divest the mortgagee of his right to possession, neither did it have the effect of suspending it during the lifetime of the subcharge. Clarke LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said this (in paragraphs 49 to 54 of his judgment):

 

I guess it doesn't really matter, once the decision of the Property Chamber is posted, we will be able to see just how DUMBSTRUCK the lender was by s.23(2)

[Crapstone]

Anfield v Bank Of Scotland [2010] also interesting to see what happens when a charge is not registered.

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/11697/1136/

[bhall]

Anfield v Bank Of Scotland [2010] also interesting to see what happens when a charge is not registered.

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/11697/1136/

 

An interesting find Crapstone, or should I call you Ben

 

The practical conveyancing site is very useful

[Crapstone]

It is indeed!

 

 

You can call me anything you like Dodge - as long as it's not Apple or IIM!

[applecart]

Just in case there is anyone that still holds the mistaken belief, as promoted by Apple that a Borrower grants a sub-charge to a lender - I would highly recommend that you read the article and case linked below

 

The article

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7808/0/

 

Background:

 

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

 

The case

 

Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks [2004] EWCA Civ 568 (13 May 2004) - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/568.html

 

The sub-charge

 

12. The sub-charge was executed on the same day as the legal charge, namely 5 August 2002. In it the "Borrower" is defined as the respondent and "the Bank" as the Bank of Scotland. We will refer to the Bank of Scotland as "the Bank" or as "the sub-chargee". The "Property" is defined as Home Farm and "the other assets under clause 3" and "Principal Charge" is defined as the legal charge between the respondent and the appellant "and the principal money secured by that charge and all interest due on it or to become due and the benefit of all securities for the payment of it". We shall refer to the charge between the appellant and the respondent as "the principal charge".

 

In the above case, the borrower - Feliciangela Marks, granted the lender - Credit & Mercantile Plc, a legal charge. The Lender Credit & Mercantile Plc, in turn borrowed funds from Bank of Scotland and granted it a sub-charge as security for that loan.

 

Returning to the above article

 

"The title to the property in Credit and Mercantile was registered and the provisions of the LRA 1925 applied. With effect from 13th October, 2003, the LRA 1925 was repealed and replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002 (the "LRA 2002").

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

As I remember IIM? asked for a case to prove that the lender and not the borrower, grants a sub-charge - well here you go - a case from the Court of Appeal.

 

Did IIM ask you for a case to prove the lender grants a sub-charge? - Is the above your proof then??

 

Far as I can see the above more proves that the Borrower is the Owner of the Principle Charge and grants the Lender a Sub-charge to secure indebtedness...

 

Then I see that once the Lender is registered as the owner of the sub-charge - he then has the same power as the borrower - which is to secure indebtedness.....by virtue of being the 'proprietor of the Sub-Charge'.

 

I don't see where it says that the Lender can have more power than the Borrower has to give Ben?

 

It would appear that because of the above case you now say and admit that the Lender derives a sub-charge and is statutorily only entitled to a sub-charge and only the powers under it by virtue of s.53 - is that right?

 

BTW I noted that Avery say that the Lender can take possession under s.53 if he has made provision to do so as party to the sub-charge - are you saying that the Lender has made provision to take possession of the Borrowers property by including the words: 'charge by way of legal mortgage' and 'full title guarantee'?

 

Apple

[applecart]

An interesting find Crapstone, or should I call you Ben

 

The practical conveyancing site is very useful

 

This case is about 'sub-rogation' Crapstone

 

A battle between the Lenders only.

 

We are concerned here with the DEED - did either of these lenders execute the Deed?????

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

This case is about 'sub-rogation' Crapstone

 

A battle between the Lenders only.

 

We are concerned here with the DEED - did either of these lenders execute the Deed?????

 

Apple

 

If you care to read it you will see. It is not me that's confused on the meaning of a deed or a charge and its application.

[applecart]

IIM?

 

What was you saying about the lender being DUMBSTRUCK in relation to s.23(2) and (3) ?

 

Are you sure, you recall what was said correctly, as Apple is making a song and dance about the very little information you have posted about the hearing.

 

A look at the applicable law being s.23(2), the circumstances as detailed in the above case, combined with the details of the article in addition to the explanation as to what a sub-charge actually is, only concludes with the possibility that s.23(2) are indeed the powers of the lender and not the borrower, wouldn't you agree ?

 

No, I certainly don't agree and I encouraged IIM not to agree with you also; why? because the case you posted up makes it more than clear - The Lender derives the same power as the Borrower under s.23 (2) - he does not derive more power - the Lenders charge is a 'Sub-Charge' - see s.53 - after all the case you posted makes this abundantly clear.

 

Are you sure the lender was DUMBSTUCK ?

 

Yep, they were Dumbstruck Ben, that what Is It Me said - and based on the case you have posted - it makes sense why they were - you forget IIM's friends lender sold the debt - that was not a power that s.53 grants - a lender can only 'secure indebtedness' under s.53.....read it again for yourself...s.l.o.w.l.y.....The Lender clearly did - why don't you - the lender didn't dare rely on it.......Gawd knows why you are??...other than to prove what I have always said - which is the Lender gets a 'sub-charge'!

 

After all the Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks case, is quite well known and it is even referred to in the infamous Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005) case. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

 

95. In Marks there was a registered charge and a registered sub-charge. The mortgagor fell into arrears under the charge, and the mortgagee obtained an order for possession. The mortgagor appealed against the possession order on the ground that by granting the sub-charge the mortgagee had divested himself of his right to possession of the mortgaged property in favour of the submortgagee. The Court of Appeal held that the existence of the registered subcharge did not divest the mortgagee of his right to possession, neither did it have the effect of suspending it during the lifetime of the subcharge. Clarke LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said this (in paragraphs 49 to 54 of his judgment):

 

The case was heard under the LRA 1925 - Under the LRA 2002 Ben - the situation would not be the same - and s.53 does not grant a right to possession - it grants a right to secure indebtedness only over a registered estate.....there is no term of years under the LRA 2002 - the RRO removes presumption of delivery of a deed - s.2 invalidates the speciality contract if it is not signed by the lender and the borrower( you helped us with that point remember) etc, etc, etc......you also need to ask the question was the land 'registered' under LRA 2002 - you will find it was registered under LRA 1925

 

 

I guess it doesn't really matter, once the decision of the Property Chamber is posted, we will be able to see just how DUMBSTRUCK the lender was by s.23(2)

 

The Lender had no voice in the Chamber, It is a shame that the Lender does not come on here to put his point forward - unless that's what you are doing for them Ben? and if you are....then you are not helping him a great deal are you??

 

Apple

[applecart]

If you care to read it you will see. It is not me that's confused on the meaning of a deed or a charge and it's application.

 

Crapstone.....

 

You have posted a case to do with lenders who were caught up in proceedings looking to see who's charge had priority.

 

The case you posted does not have anything to do with the Deed signed by the Borrower - and there is nothing in the case to explore whether the Lender executed the DEED.

 

With respect, you would be hard pushed to look to confuse me Crapstone ; )

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Crapstone.....

 

You have posted a case to do with lenders who were caught up in proceedings looking to see who's charge had priority.

 

The case you posted does not have anything to do with the Deed signed by the Borrower - and there is nothing in the case to explore whether the Lender executed the DEED.

 

With respect, you would be hard pushed to look to confuse me Crapstone ; )

 

Apple

 

Now I know you really haven't read it or understood it! I suggest you read it again C A R E F U L L Y.

[applecart]

Now I know you really haven't read it or understood it! I suggest you read it again C A R E F U L L Y.

 

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear...

 

I do not need to read any more than the link you posted to get the general gist of the case. The case is to do with subrogation between priority interests between lenders.

 

It may be that you do not understand it yourself - especially given you are suggesting I waste time looking at it again.

 

Maybe you should read it again s.l.o.w.l.y - then post up the point you are looking to make - after all you appear to be relying that there is something of use, which it would appear you are hell bent on assisting me to find.

 

Apple

[applecart]

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.

 

Has any one EVER seen the Lenders name in the Proprietorship section on a title yet? - I think not!.......s.24 is wholly speaking of the Borrower only.

 

Ben has got this well twisted - yet again....

 

No wonder I have to keep protesting; He even recently reneged and said Lenders become the proprietor of the Borrowers Registered Charge under LRA s.53 - What on earth next??

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Now you are just making yourself look even more pathetic than what people already knew Apple.

 

Just another reason not to believe a word you say.

 

You would already have knowledge of these cases as part of your research. Isn't that what one does before embarking on preparing a legal case? Obviously not in your world!

 

To bring the thread back on track..Oh yes, that's right. You have nothing to lose and both you and IIM have spent more time in the 'sin bin' than providing anything that can be construed as truthful. Good luck with that because I have a feeling you'll need all the luck you can get.

[applecart]

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 !

 

LRA s.23 (1) is to secure 'money or money's worth' - did you miss that?

 

LRA s.23 (2) is to secure 'indebtedness' - perhaps you missed that?

 

LRA s.27 (3)(b) - deals with those registrable dispositions that must be registered to secure indebtedness (sub-charge)

 

Why you insist on confusing this beggars belief!!

 

Take the case you posted 'credit and mercantile' - do you think the lenders sub-charge will be registered under LRA s.27 (2)(f) then??

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/title_register_proprietor

 

I'm thinking of setting up a fund to buy more shovels to use on that hole you keep digging and for the brown stuff you'll need to move Apple.

 

It's not us that are confused, or putting the applecart before the horse.

[applecart]

Now you are just making yourself look even more pathetic than what people already knew Apple.

 

Just another reason not to believe a word you say.

 

You would already have knowledge of these cases as part of your research. Isn't that what one does before embarking on preparing a legal case? Obviously not in your world!

 

To bring the thread back on track..Oh yes, that's right. You have nothing to lose and both you and IIM have spent more time in the 'sin bin' than providing anything that can be construed as truthful. Good luck with that because I have a feeling you'll need all the luck you can get.

 

Crapstone

 

Instead of throwing obscenities at me, why not make a constructive POINT...that's all I asked of you?

 

You posted a case to do with competing interests between Lenders....the time you took to post your personal view of me, my posts etc would have been time much better spent making a 'point' to do with the question asked - don't you think?

 

It's best to Guard your emotions - I understand you do the 'night shift' and yes 'night shifts' can be arduous - I do empathise with you - however, be constructive - Constructive posts are more likely to be taken notice of over and above - well - let's say posts that are nothing short of pure 'obscenities'....

 

You forget Crapstone - I do not rely on 'luck' and I'm sure the Lender does not do so either; not when there is the LAW ; )

 

Now come on - be fair - put your hankie away and answer the question please - c.o.n.s.t.r.u.c.t.i.v.e.l.y

 

 

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Crapstone

 

Instead of throwingat me, why not make a constructive POINT...that's all I asked of you?

 

You posted a case to do with competing interests between Lenders....the time you took to post your personal view of me, my posts etc would have been time much better spent making a 'point' to do with the question asked - don't you think?

 

It's best to Guard your emotions - I understand you do the 'night shift' and yes 'night shifts' can be arduous - I do empathise with you - however, be constructive - Constructive posts are more likely to be taken notice of over and above - well - let's say posts that are nothing short of pure 'obscenities'....

 

You forget Crapstone - I do not rely on 'luck' and I'm sure the Lender does not do so either; not when there is the LAW ; )

 

Now come on - be fair - put your hankie away and answer the question please - c.o.n.s.t.r.u.c.t.i.v.e.l.y

 

 

 

Apple

 

I suggest you also look up the definition of obscenities as you don't seem to be on the same planet!

 

Why one earth should I spell it out for you as it has been clearly done over and over again but it still hadn't got through to you? It's all there just read it for yourself. It's not my fault. I didn't make the legislation that you so obviously have a problem with reading and that's pretty self-explainatory.

 

Read the points made in the cases for yourself as I'm not going sit here telling you a bedtime story. For heavens sake grow up! I've provided you with the means and I am not about copy and paste the text. I presume everyone else that looks at it will come to their own conclusions and they will also draw conclusions from the stance you are taking.