Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Anyway as I posted, the decision of the Property Chamber will show to everyone, who is full of the brown smelly stuff and who is not.

 

Time for me to be hitting the road for work.

 

Peace and love to everyone (well almost everyone)

 

Ben ;-)

[applecart]

Why would you want to give the Lender a voice here Ben?

 

The Lender needed you on the 20th January - mind you - I suppose it's not too late - there will be other lenders who will be brought before the Chamber in due course - They may need or worst still actually look to rely on your help?

 

How much do you charge then?

 

Apple

 

Hey, I see your post has been edited - along with my response to you - to make out that you Are NOT giving Lenders a voice after all - no problem ; )

 

I accept you are NOT giving the Lender a voice - you are simply giving 'common sense' a voice ; )

 

Phew, thought for a moment then we might have been being invaded by Lenders here on a consumer thread....

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

When you confess to working on behalf of Lenders - I rather think the question begs - why would anyone take YOU seriously - even where they may have been fooled into doing so prior to your confession

 

Was that why you reneged on sectiion 2??

 

Apple

 

People take ben seriously Apple because he reads and understands the law, in the way it was meant to be read and understood. Not in the way he thinks it should be understood.

Resorting to mud slinging is not going to help you, there are people viewing this who have little interest in the legalities and therefore do not understand what is being discussed here. They may well be taken in by you, however there are many more who do understand and they see you for what you are.

 

Personally I agree with Ben and Crapstone, not because we are all lenders or anything else but because we all understand what we read. The problem with people with an a agenda, is that they presume that everyone else must have one, it cannot be that the other person is just seeking the truth of the matter.

 

As for me I have been working in the voluntary sector helping people in debt for the best part of 40 years(you may believe that or not, up to you)

[Crapstone]

Once you have set up a just giving page, please post a link, I think we would all donate

 

Saying that I think Apple has dug a deep enough hole for the people that have made applications to the Property Chamber already.

 

Lol..

 

I think I may need to share your avatar after all that! How can Apple not even understand the basics and still continue to talk such drivel that people actually listen to?

[bhall]

When you confess to working on behalf of Lenders - I rather think the question begs - why would anyone take YOU seriously - even where they may have been fooled into doing so prior to your confession

 

Was that why you reneged on sectiion 2??

 

Apple

 

?

 

Apple, now you are really clutching at straws - I will have to see if I can find you an avatar for that

 

 

Firstly, I do not work for any lender - let me spell it out for you so that even you can understand ( I doubt any lender is the least bit bothered or concerned about this thread - if anything it would be merely a source of amusement, seeing what whacky interpretation comes next)

 

I d o n o t w o r k f o r a n y l e n d e r

 

There you go one letter at a time, even you can understand that

 

For the 8th time of asking stop interpreting my posts, if you read my post you will see that I have said s.2 does not apply to deeds - this is not just my personal opinion

 

 

Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1389 (8 August 2001)

 

 

13.Mr Green referred to some passages in the report of the Law Commission which led to the bill enacted in the 1989 Act. He referred to passages in the Law Commission Paper No.164, in particular 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8. He also referred to a number of authorities. I think the most important of these (because it was concerned with a mortgage, while the other cases he referred to concerned contracts for the sale of land) was United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib [1997] Ch at 107. I have been supplied with a copy in [1996] 3 All ER 251. That is an important case. It decided that the requirements contained in section 2 of the 1989 Act to the effect that a contract for the sale or other disposition in land must be in writing in a single document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties, abolished the rule that a mere deposit of title deeds relating to property by way of security created a mortgage or charge. Following the 1989 Act the rule had changed. There had to be a written document, not merely a deposit of title deeds by way of security in order to create a mortgage or charge.

 

14.Mr Green relied on that for the proposition that the same should apply to this case because there was, in this case, within the mortgage deed a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star. So, he said, if the mortgage in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib was governed by section 2 of the 1989 Act, so should this mortgage with similar results for its enforceability.

 

15.In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts. Section 1 makes alterations to the law about the execution of deeds. For example, they are no longer required to be written on any particular kind of substance and a seal is not required for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual. There are a number of detailed provisions in section 1 relating to deeds. Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land, one other kind of disposition being a transfer by way of security over what is commonly called a mortgage or charge.

 

 

 

"I have been supplied with a copy in [1996] 3 All ER 251. That is an important case. It decided that the requirements contained in section 2 of the 1989 Act to the effect that a contract for the sale or other disposition in land must be in writing in a single document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties"

 

"In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. [/b]"

 

"Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. "

 

I hope all of the above is written in a way you can understand

 

Does not stand any real prospect of success... sounds like your own arguments

[bhall]

Lol..

 

I think I may need to share your avatar after all that! How can Apple not even understand the basics and still continue to talk such drivel that people actually listen to?

 

Your asking me ?

 

I have been dealing with this for nearly a year and I still can't don't understand how Apple can

 

However, I am now running late again, so catch up with you all later

[Crapstone]

Hey Ben, Dodge

 

Does Crapstone work for the Lenders too do you know?

 

Apple

 

Of course I do! After all - anything is possible in your world. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and circulate the devastating news that an unknown person was 'DUMBSTRUCK'. Strange that such a 'high profile' case has not so much had a mention or a sniff in any news anywhere and by anyone other than here.

[applecart]

People take ben seriously Apple because he reads and understands the law, in the way it was meant to be read and understood. Not in the way he thinks it should be understood.

Resorting to mud slinging is not going to help you, there are people viewing this who have little interest in the legalities and therefore do not understand what is being discussed here. They may well be taken in by you, however there are many more who do understand and they see you for what you are.

 

Personally I agree with Ben and Crapstone, not because we are all lenders or anything else but because we all understand what we read. The problem with people with an a agenda, is that they presume that everyone else must have one, it cannot be that the other person is just seeking the truth of the matter.

 

As for me I have been working in the voluntary sector helping people in debt for the best part of 40 years(you may believe that or not, up to you)

 

Dodge,

 

There is no issue with your agreeing with whomsoever you wish - however, I have read the case posted by Ben, it is a case heard under the LRA 1925 NOT the LRA 2002 - did you miss that? Here it is for you:

 

Para 45......" The relevant statutes for present purposes are the Law of Property Act 1925 ("LPA") and the Land Registration Act 1925 ("LRA 1925"). It is common ground that the LRA 1925 applies for present purposes because, although it has been repealed by the Land Registration Act 2002 ("LRA 2002") as from 13 October 2003, these proceedings were commenced before that date."

 

Is It Me's friends case is brought under the LRA 2002 Dodge.

 

Para 12...The sub-charge

 

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".

 

The "Respondent" is the Borrower's Lender

 

The Borrower granted the "Respondent" a "sub-charge" from his "Principle Charge"

 

The "Respondent" granted a sub-charge from his 'sub-charge' to the 'Bank'

 

It was a 'mortgage' - a complete disposition of the whole estate.

 

The case clearly speaks of the Borrower granting the Respondent a 'legal charge'.....it was a 'mortgage'... a complete disposition of the Legal estate.... the case leads on that premise.

 

Under the LRA s.23 which is Now in force - no Borrower can grant a 'legal charge'..or mortgage in any guise....never mind any lender even thinking that he can go into possession as soon as the ink is dry of any registered estate (Harman J in Four-Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd [1957] 1 Ch 317 at 320)

 

Did any of you understand the paragraphs above then??

 

Did any of you understand that we are talking LRA 2002 NOT LRA 1925??

 

Or, maybe my fanciful interpretation has got in the way again - couldn't possibly be any of you hey.... (doh???)

 

Apple

[applecart]

Lol..

 

I think I may need to share your avatar after all that! How can Apple not even understand the basics and still continue to talk such drivel that people actually listen to?

 

I think you need to ask yourself this question Crapstone.

 

The basics in the case posted are that they are talking and relying on LRA 1925 NOT LRA 2002.

 

How much more basic do you need it to get before you spot the difference?

 

Apple

[applecart]

?

 

Apple, now you are really clutching at straws - I will have to see if I can find you an avatar for that

 

 

Firstly, I do not work for any lender - let me spell it out for you so that even you can understand ( I doubt any lender is the least bit bothered or concerned about this thread - if anything it would be merely a source of amusement, seeing what whacky interpretation comes next)

 

I d o n o t w o r k f o r a n y l e n d e r

 

There you go one letter at a time, even you can understand that

 

For the 8th time of asking stop interpreting my posts, if you read my post you will see that I have said s.2 does not apply to deeds - this is not just my personal opinion

 

 

Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1389 (8 August 2001)

 

 

13.Mr Green referred to some passages in the report of the Law Commission which led to the bill enacted in the 1989 Act. He referred to passages in the Law Commission Paper No.164, in particular 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8. He also referred to a number of authorities. I think the most important of these (because it was concerned with a mortgage, while the other cases he referred to concerned contracts for the sale of land) was United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib [1997] Ch at 107. I have been supplied with a copy in [1996] 3 All ER 251. That is an important case. It decided that the requirements contained in section 2 of the 1989 Act to the effect that a contract for the sale or other disposition in land must be in writing in a single document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties, abolished the rule that a mere deposit of title deeds relating to property by way of security created a mortgage or charge. Following the 1989 Act the rule had changed. There had to be a written document, not merely a deposit of title deeds by way of security in order to create a mortgage or charge.

 

14.Mr Green relied on that for the proposition that the same should apply to this case because there was, in this case, within the mortgage deed a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star. So, he said, if the mortgage in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib was governed by section 2 of the 1989 Act, so should this mortgage with similar results for its enforceability.

 

15.In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts. Section 1 makes alterations to the law about the execution of deeds. For example, they are no longer required to be written on any particular kind of substance and a seal is not required for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual. There are a number of detailed provisions in section 1 relating to deeds. Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land, one other kind of disposition being a transfer by way of security over what is commonly called a mortgage or charge.

 

 

 

"I have been supplied with a copy in [1996] 3 All ER 251. That is an important case. It decided that the requirements contained in section 2 of the 1989 Act to the effect that a contract for the sale or other disposition in land must be in writing in a single document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties"

 

"In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. [/b]"

 

"Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. "

 

I hope all of the above is written in a way you can understand

 

Does not stand any real prospect of success... sounds like your own arguments

 

LOL - The application did not rely on section 2 in its application to a Deed - We did mention that the Deed is a specialty contract though - let's hope the chamber pick up on that to see that as a specialty contract it is invalid....

 

After all - as posted and pointed out to you before as a specilty contract - section 2 is wholly applicable - here's what the Judge in the above case says (you posted it):

 

"If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right."

 

""Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. "

I hope the above is written in a way that you understand too.....

 

The application has every prospect of success - you forget (conveniently) it was not struck out ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Of course I do! After all - anything is possible in your world. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and circulate the devastating news that an unknown person was 'DUMBSTRUCK'. Strange that such a 'high profile' case has not so much had a mention or a sniff in any news anywhere and by anyone other than here.

 

Yes, do hurry - go via James Turner St - The press might still be there ; )

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

I think you need to ask yourself this question Crapstone.

 

The basics in the case posted are that they are talking and relying on LRA 1925 NOT LRA 2002.

 

How much more basic do you need it to get before you spot the difference?

 

Apple

 

Yes but you left out the remedy that is attached and how that would be applied now.

 

You have also missed in the Anfield case that regardless of the charge not being executed, it was still valid as the intention to create a security was there from the outset. The other lender has no meaning in it and the same remedy would apply if there had not been another lender.

[sequenci]

Yes, do hurry - go via James Turner St - The press might still be there ; )

 

Apple

 

Last I heard they were all off to Erdington.

[Peterbard]

Dodge,

 

There is no issue with your agreeing with whomsoever you wish - however, I have read the case posted by Ben, it is a case heard under the LRA 1925 NOT the LRA 2002 - did you miss that? Here it is for you:

 

Para 45......" The relevant statutes for present purposes are the Law of Property Act 1925 ("LPA") and the Land Registration Act 1925 ("LRA 1925"). It is common ground that the LRA 1925 applies for present purposes because, although it has been repealed by the Land Registration Act 2002 ("LRA 2002") as from 13 October 2003, these proceedings were commenced before that date."

 

Is It Me's friends case is brought under the LRA 2002 Dodge.

 

Para 12...The sub-charge

 

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".

 

The "Respondent" is the Borrower's Lender

 

The Borrower granted the "Respondent" a "sub-charge" from his "Principle Charge"

 

The "Respondent" granted a sub-charge from his 'sub-charge' to the 'Bank'

 

It was a 'mortgage' - a complete disposition of the whole estate.

 

The case clearly speaks of the Borrower granting the Respondent a 'legal charge'.....it was a 'mortgage'... a complete disposition of the Legal estate.... the case leads on that premise.

 

Under the LRA s.23 which is Now in force - no Borrower can grant a 'legal charge'..or mortgage in any guise....never mind any lender even thinking that he can go into possession as soon as the ink is dry of any registered estate (Harman J in Four-Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd [1957] 1 Ch 317 at 320)

 

Did any of you understand the paragraphs above then??

 

Did any of you understand that we are talking LRA 2002 NOT LRA 1925??

 

Or, maybe my fanciful interpretation has got in the way again - couldn't possibly be any of you hey.... (doh???)

 

Apple

 

Strangely I do understand all of the above, and until you digressed into your usual silly abuse at the end it was fairly intelligent.

 

However, you again seek to divert attention from your basic fundamental flaw in understanding. The sub-charge was a charge on the lenders security, not another charge raised on the borrowers, that would be a second charge, a completely different thing.

 

The requirements introduced by the LRA do not prevent the issuance of a mortgage, just a mortgage by demise, the kind of mortgage(if you like) may be different than th which was used years ago(out of use a long time before the inception of the LRA in practice by the way) but it is nevertheless a legal mortgage by way of charge of the property.

 

All this is used as the basic battleground for the case you mentioned if you do not understand this basic stuff you have no hope in hell of understanding what the case or anything else was about to be honest.

[applecart]

Yes but you left out the remedy that is attached and how that would be applied now.

 

You have also missed in the Anfield case that regardless of the charge not being executed, it was still valid as the intention to create a security was there from the outset. The other lender has no meaning in it and the same remedy would apply if there had not been another lender.

 

That would be a circumvention of the LAW Crapstone.

 

"Garguillo" tells you - the signature is fundamental - these lenders we are speaking of have not executed the Deed. We have the RRO today and the LRA 2002....

 

s.40 of the LPA 1925 was repealed since s.2 came into force - pity that was not mentioned in credit & mercantile.

 

There is no reliance today on 'part performance' - i.e 1 signature is not enough today I'm afraid.

 

"Bibby" tells you - the Borrower cannot both grant, assume and deliver the Deed.

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Last I heard they were all off to Erdington.

 

Where's that?? hope it's somewhere posh?

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

That would be a circumvention of the LAW Crapstone.

 

"Garguillo" tells you - the signature is fundamental - these lenders we are speaking of have not executed the Deed. We have the RRO today and the LRA 2002....

 

s.40 of the LPA 1925 was repealed since s.2 came into force - pity that was not mentioned in credit & mercantile.

 

There is no reliance today on 'part performance' - i.e 1 signature is not enough today I'm afraid.

 

"Bibby" tells you - the Borrower cannot both grant, assume and deliver the Deed.

 

 

Apple

 

Well as you haven't read the case then you wouldn't know. Come back when you have.

[applecart]

Strangely I do understand all of the above, and until you digressed into your usual silly abuse at the end it was fairly intelligent.

 

However, you again seek to divert attention from your basic fundamental flaw in understanding. The sub-charge was a charge on the lenders security, not another charge raised on the borrowers, that would be a second charge, a completely different thing.

 

The requirements introduced by the LRA do not prevent the issuance of a mortgage, just a mortgage by demise, the kind of mortgage(if you like) may be different than th which was used years ago(out of use a long time before the inception of the LRA in practice by the way) but it is nevertheless a legal mortgage by way of charge of the property.

 

All this is used as the basic battleground for the case you mentioned if you do not understand this basic stuff you have no hope in hell of understanding what the case or anything else was about to be honest.

 

How very condescending of you Dodge. LOL

 

Are you using that 'poetic licence' of yours again?

 

A mortgage is a mortgage - mortgages are not permitted in relation to a registered estate. End of. see LRA s.23 (you've posted enough yourself - you should know it off by heart by now) - Legal Sub-mortgages are not permitted over a principle charge - End of - in particular go see LRA s.23 (3) © - there you will see that a Charge by way of legal mortgage is a 'legal -sub-mortgage'.

 

Those are the 'basics' - it's in black and white, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not Dodge.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Well as you haven't read the case then you wouldn't know. Come back when you have.

 

What are you on about now?

 

Is there something in s.40 being repealed or the RRO coming into force that you find hard to swallow Crapstone?

 

They are just 2 of the 'basics' that apply today - when you start talking present day - then I might take you more seriously - as it stands - you don't even want to acknowledge 'garguillo' when it speaks of how 'fundamental' the signature is today......crikey - what is wrong with you......you want me to understand the basics of years gone by - but you take issue with the 'basics' that actually apply today....weird or what??? (no offence - but very wierd non the less)

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

LOL - The application did not rely on section 2 in its application to a Deed - We did mention that the Deed is a specialty contract though - let's hope the chamber pick up on that to see that as a specialty contract it is invalid....

 

After all - as posted and pointed out to you before as a specilty contract - section 2 is wholly applicable - here's what the Judge in the above case says (you posted it):

 

"If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right."

 

""Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. "

I hope the above is written in a way that you understand too.....

 

The application has every prospect of success - you forget (conveniently) it was not struck out ; )

 

Apple

 

Here again you betray you basic lack of understanding. The section you quote says that contracts must be made in writing. It does not say that the deed is void if contracts are not made in writing. Or does it say that a deed for the transference of interests is void if there is no contract.

 

The signing of the contract enables either party to be bound by the promise that a charge will take place on the property.

 

The deed is a unilateral agreement(despite what you may believe, look it up), the borrower gives the charge to the lender, there is no reciprocation in this, the lender is not going to sue for someone giving him the charge on his property.

 

Look at the cases which you are fond of quoting, the few which mention section 2 are about the formation of a contract and its compliance, it is not about the delivery of the security.

 

I know that i am doing the same thing as bens avatar here, but there you are. Anyway it would seem the judges understanding in the case mentioned is the same as mine, or he would have ruled for the borrower, which is good enough for me.

[Crapstone]

Last I heard they were all off to Erdington.

 

I should stop by there then as I'm just heading out to Bournville now.

 

Bye!

[Peterbard]

What are you on about now?

 

Is there something in s.40 being repealed or the RRO coming into force that you find hard to swallow Crapstone?

 

They are just 2 of the 'basics' that apply today - when you start talking present day - then I might take you more seriously - as it stands - you don't even want to acknowledge 'garguillo' when it speaks of how 'fundamental' the signature is today......crikey - what is wrong with you......you want me to understand the basics of years gone by - but you take issue with the 'basics' that actually apply today....weird or what??? (no offence - but very wierd non the less)

 

Apple

 

Personally I think it wold be nice if you understood any basics

[Crapstone]

 

I know that i am doing the same thing as bens avatar here, but there you are. Anyway it would seem the judges understanding in the case mentioned is the same as mine, or he would have ruled for the borrower, which is good enough for me.

 

And where is your proof of that?

[Peterbard]

How very condescending of you Dodge. LOL

 

Are you using that 'poetic licence' of yours again?

 

A mortgage is a mortgage - mortgages are not permitted in relation to a registered estate. End of. see LRA s.23 (you've posted enough yourself - you should know it off by heart by now) - Legal Sub-mortgages are not permitted over a principle charge - End of - in particular go see LRA s.23 (3) © - there you will see that a Charge by way of legal mortgage is a 'legal -sub-mortgage'.

 

Those are the 'basics' - it's in black and white, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not Dodge.

 

Apple

 

LOL

 

You must be reading a different version of the LRA to me, the one I have says that sub mortgages are not allowed on a charge(23)2. This is the lenders charge(owned by the lender), he can however make a charge on this(a sub charge)mot a mortgage, understand ?

 

This does not prevent the borrower section 23(1) creating a charge bay way of mortgage, this is a different section , a different requirement and a different party to the transaction, other than that you are , well wrong.

[applecart]

Here again you betray you basic lack of understanding. The section you quote says that contracts must be made in writing. It does not say that the deed is void if contracts are not made in writing. Or does it say that a deed for the transference of interests is void if there is no contract.

 

The signing of the contract enables either party to be bound by the promise that a charge will take place on the property.

 

The deed is a unilateral agreement(despite what you may believe, look it up), the borrower gives the charge to the lender, there is no reciprocation in this, the lender is not going to sue for someone giving him the charge on his property.

 

Look at the cases which you are fond of quoting, the few which mention section 2 are about the formation of a contract and its compliance, it is not about the delivery of the security.

 

I know that i am doing the same thing as bens avatar here, but there you are. Anyway it would seem the judges understanding in the case mentioned is the same as mine, or he would have ruled for the borrower, which is good enough for me.

 

Unilateral?? you've been reading Ben's thread haven't you?

 

Do you know what Dodge - if your understanding is as you say 'good enough' for you - then it is not my place or my intent to suggest otherwise and neither do I.

 

When it comes to those who think differently from you - whether you like it or not - they have the right to differ.

 

This thread asserts - the Lender has not executed the Deed - it is VOID

 

This thread asserts - the Lender has a 'mortgage' of a registered estate - it is VOID

 

The Charge will be removed - the Lender has NO DEFENCE.

 

Now, whilst these assertions do not suit your view - it is the view presented as party to the application made to the Chamber.

 

There are more than 10 applications made.

 

If the first does not get through - then the intent is to keep going - we intend to tweak, and tweak again until we frame the contention 100% right ; )

 

Apple