Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

jan 2006.

 

ah ah......

 

so, why on earth is your lender trying to make out that the un-amended version of the LPMPA 1989 section 1 (3)(b) applies in your case???

 

I made some notes earlier on the response you received... this is what they said:

 

"Section 2 of the LPMPA 89 applies to a contract for sale or deposition of aninterest in land. A contract for sale or other deposition of land requires both parties to sign the contract. In terms of the Law of Property Act 1925 a deposition includes a mortgage . However a mortgage is an actual deposition and not an agreement for a deposition, therefore section 2 of the LPMPA 89 does not apply.

This position was recently confirmed in the case of the mortgage vs lamb where judge butler confirmed that mortgages are not within the scope of section 2 of the LPMPA.

 

A transaction creating an interest in land for example a mortgage must be made by a deed (section 85-87 of the LPA 25)

 

Section 1 (2) and (3) of the LPMPA 89 sets out the requirement for a valid

 

For your ease of reference I have enclosed a copy of your mortgage deed. It is clear that from the mortgage deed that the document was intended to be a deed and the execution clause expressly referred to the fact that the document was executed as a deed. I am confident that the mortgage deed was duly executed in favour of Northern Rock PLC now known as NRAM and therefore the deed is enforceable. The mortgage terms and conditions 2001 set the terms of the agreement..

 

This is so untrue in relation to document signed by Borrowers AFTER 2002/3….when a document is signed by a borrower AFTER 2002/3 your lender has to factor in Article 7 (3) of the RRO 2005….Article 7 (3) amends section 1 (2) of the LPMPA 1989 to find that the words in relation to ‘sign’ and ‘the person making it’ have been wholly omitted from the section…..so that they can no longer rely that because you signed it means that you are liable to have created any interest or entered into any disposition of you estate in their favor at all. How naughty of them to suggest otherwise.

 

The RRO Article 7 was an issue posted up by UNRAM as well.... you both need to start to get to grips with it so that you can quickly start to see why your Lender is soooo off the mark with that letter....

 

Apple

[Adam Weishaupt]

"Section 2 of the LPMPA 89 applies to a contract for sale or deposition of aninterest in land. A contract for sale or other deposition of land requires both parties to sign the contract. In terms of the Law of Property Act 1925 a deposition includes a mortgage . However a mortgage is an actual deposition and not an agreement for a deposition, therefore section 2 of the LPMPA 89 does not apply.

This position was recently confirmed in the case of the mortgage vs lamb where judge butler confirmed that mortgages are not within the scope of section 2 of the LPMPA.

 

A transaction creating an interest in land for example a mortgage must be made by a deed (section 85-87 of the LPA 25)

 

Section 1 (2) and (3) of the LPMPA 89 sets out the requirement for a valid

 

For your ease of reference I have enclosed a copy of your mortgage deed. It is clear that from the mortgage deed that the document was intended to be a deed and the execution clause expressly referred to the fact that the document was executed as a deed. I am confident that the mortgage deed was duly executed in favour of Northern Rock PLC now known as NRAM and therefore the deed is enforceable. The mortgage terms and conditions 2001 set the terms of the agreement..

 

Do Optima Legal represent NRAM ?

 

Very similar to what is posted on their site

 

Warning for secured lenders – do you sign mortgage deeds?

22 August 2013 | in Property

by Dan Marland, Professional Support Lawyer

 

Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it.

 

Usual practice is that lenders do not sign mortgage deeds. If these claims were to succeed, they would have an enormous impact on the entire secured lending industry.

 

The argument

 

The claims stem from section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (“LP(MP)A”), which provides:

 

“(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.

 

(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.

 

(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.”

 

Subsection (6) states that a “disposition” has the same meaning as in section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which confirms that a mortgage or charge is a disposition. Consequently, borrowers have argued that a mortgage is a contract for the disposition of an interest in land and, therefore, requires the signature of all the parties in accordance with section 2 of the LP(MP)A.

 

The correct position

This argument is wrong, and misunderstands the nature of a mortgage. A mortgage is an actual disposition and not an agreement for a disposition. Section 2 of the LP(MP)A clearly applies to a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. It does not apply to the actual disposition itself. Section 2 applies to contracts but not to deeds.

 

The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties.

 

However, the mortgage deed itself is simply the granting of the security by the borrower to the lender. This is the disposition of the interest in the property. It is a unilateral set of obligations entered into by the borrower, executed as a deed, not a contract. As a result, section 2 does not apply. As long as the mortgage deed was validly executed by the borrower the lender can enforce the obligations it contains, including any mortgage conditions incorporated by reference.

 

What have the courts said?

 

The relationship between a deed and section 2 of the LP(MA)A was considered by Lord Justice Mummery in the Court of Appeal, in an application for permission to appeal. The case was Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Challis [2001] EWCA Civ 1389.

 

Mr Green stated that, in accordance with section 2 of the LP(MA)A, the mortgage required the signature of all parties to it as it was a contract for the disposition of an interest in land.

 

Mummery LJ stated:

 

“This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed…a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of the deed and the formal requirements governing contracts.”

 

He went on to confirm that:

 

“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… A deed is a different kind of instrument from an ordinary contract; and it is not a requirement of the execution of a deed that it should comply with the requirements of section 2 of the LP(MA)A. That is clear. Section 1 refers throughout to deeds, section 2 refers throughout to contracts, clearly recognising that they are two different legal concepts.”

 

Mr Green relied upon the case of United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib [1996] 3 All ER 251, which confirmed that there had to be a single written document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties and not merely a deposit of title deeds by way of security in order to create a mortgage or charge. Mr Green claimed that if the mortgage in the United Bank of Kuwait case was governed by section 2 of the LP(MA)A, so should his mortgage. The United Bank of Kuwait case was relied upon because Mr Green claimed that within the mortgage deed, there was a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star.

 

Mummery LJ did not believe that the United Bank of Kuwait case assisted Mr Green because it was a case where there was no deed. It was a case of a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds.

 

Formalities for deeds

 

In accordance with sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a legal mortgage or charge by way of legal mortgage over land can only be created by deed. Therefore, section 2 of the LP(MA)A cannot apply to the legal mortgage itself, as it must always have been created by deed.

 

For the deed to be valid it must be executed in accordance with section 1 of the LP(MA)A, which states:

 

“(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless:

 

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

 

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

 

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

 

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

 

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.”

 

Conclusion

 

There is no requirement for the deed to be executed by the lender. Unlike a contract, a deed is generally enforceable despite a lack of consideration; therefore, as the lender is not entering into any obligations, it is not necessary for it to execute the deed.

 

The deed operates to grant security for the mortgage loan provided by the lender by way of legal charge against the property. That security is and can only be given by the borrower. As the only party having obligations under the deed is the borrower, it is not necessary for the lender to sign the deed.

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

 

I would need more time to sit and put together such a 'template'....and more time to break down all that you want to say in relation to the RRO....

 

Do you definitely have to submit your application in the morning? or do you have more time???

 

Apple

 

I will postpone sending anything until we have completed a full review of the application.

Edited September 4, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Your mention of the creation of 'future dispositions' still fails to make any point to me....I accept that just may be me of course....But, sure, if you deem that it is a point worth making ... and you can validate the point within the provision of the applicable prevailing law then include it...

 

My personal opinion is to stray away from the mortgage offer if you can.... because even if it is intended that it should create some 'future disposition' or whatever, the fact is yours is not signed by your lender in any case..... any contract.,... whether it be a simple contract or a speciality has not legal effect if it is not duly executed by the parties to it.....

 

Also, if you start talking about 'agreements'.... we already know the mind set is to jump straight to section 2 of the LPMPA.... I think its best to avoid drawing any attention to any possibility that section 2 may come into the equation other than to point out that it does not apply to the creation of mortgage....

 

Apple

 

I think it is very clear from the application that we are not submitting that a deed needs to be signed due to LPMPA89 s2. The question I have raised is: is a mortgage offer a contract for a mortgage in the future? hint: it even includes a reference to the deed's terms and conditions. NRAM's standard reply (asserting that the deed is for the actual disposition) does not address the legal requirements for the mortgage offer (the 'contract').

 

Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] 2 EGLR 39. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/542.html [27] "Section 2 is concerned with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land, not with documents which actually create or transfer such estates or interests. A contract to transfer a freehold or a lease in the future, a contract to grant a lease in the future or a contract for a mortgage in the future are all within the reach of the section, provided of course that the ultimate subject matter is land. However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all".

Edited September 4, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Yes, I was UNRAM... because I felt that it presented an improvement on the 'draft written representation'

Apple

 

I will make the amendment. Please can you quote original text alongside any other proposed amendments to assist this communication...

Edited September 4, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

Thanks for posting up the info posted by Optima Legal..... I must say, the only interesting thing in the entire garble was when he said;

 

"Usual practice is that lenders do not sign mortgage deeds. If these claims were to succeed, they would have an enormous impact on the entire secured lending industry".

 

and....

 

"Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it."

 

The latter is no doubt a means of 'assuring' his client base that they have nothing to worry about....

 

As you rightly point out....there will be no one who visits this thread that would be fool enough to raise an issue to do with the deed seeking support on section 2.....so, he totally lost me there......

 

All viewers of this thread are privvy to the RRO......and the intent of the legislator when he caused the RRO to come into force......to directly impact on the lenders practice of avoiding execution of the Deeds.....

 

To save others having to dig up the Optima comments, here is the link:

 

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

 

Thanks Again UNRAM : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

 

I would need more time to sit and put together such a 'template'....and more time to break down all that you want to say in relation to the RRO....

 

Do you definitely have to submit your application in the morning? or do you have more time???

 

Apple

 

I am happy to wait a few days to work on this and get it complete and error free as we can...

Edited September 4, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

thanks for the comments though I believe we are correcting your earlier errors and this is why a review is a good thing...

 

your suggestions...

 

xvi. should be section 51 (1) because the notice on your registered Principle charge conveys rights to your lender by virtue of that section....it is only YOUR Registered Estate and Principle Registered Charge that is 'conclusive' within the provisions of section 58 (1)

 

xvii reference made to the LPA 1925 section 1 (7) only come into play when you are making reference to section 53 of the LPA 1925.....so, I could ndot understand why you made reference to section 58 in your submission.....it was wholly misplaced to do so....

Apple

 

I believe these were errors in your original post. reviews are always a good thing...

 

my completed amendments

 

xvi. It is submitted that it is by mistake that the lenders registered charge currently operates at law by virtue of the LRA 2002 section 51 (1) because the notice on the applicants registered charge conveys rights to the lender by virtue of that section and stands to mistakenly portray to the world at large that the RRO 2005 was either not in force or did not act to remove the presumption of delivery in relation to the applicants signature and a further mistaken belief that a written document which on its face is by deed, signed by the borrower without due execution by the lender confers a legal interest when in fact by virtue of the substantiating law in these circumstances; no more than an equitable interest is in actual evidence.

 

xvii. It is submitted that given the substantiating applicable law as stated herein, the registered charge stands to prejudicially affect the applicants rights to the legal estate. In the circumstances given that the lenders legal rights are due to statute alone, it is within the LRA 1925 section 1 (7) to find that the interpretation of the LRA 2002 section 53 (1) is to have no more effect than that of an owner of an equitable interest.

Edited September 4, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Originally Posted by applecart

 

1. explain how and why a mortgage by demise is no longer lawful.....i.e you have to explain that the Land Registration Act 1925 was repealed by the LRA 2002.... and go on to explain how the repeal removed any intent of the Borrower to create mortgages by demise...

 

2. explain how sub-charges are no longer lawful since the coming into force of the LRA 2002

 

3. Establish the case for why it is that Section 53 and documents that fall within that provision no longer apply by making reference to Article 7 (3) of the RRO.

 

Apple

 

I thought it best to post this again so we don't miss it...

 

Please can you assist me with templates for submissions for the above 3 points...

 

my comments

 

1. I think this is already very clear from the application. Section 23 makes the point very clearly. Please can you add supplementary information if you think it will clarify further.

 

2. Again I refer you back to section 23. What have I missed?

 

3. Please can you provide a submission here as you will surely articulate this better than I...

 

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

Execution on behalf of another person7.—(1) After section 74(1) of the 1925 Act insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) of this section applies in the case of an instrument purporting to have been executed by a corporation aggregate in the name or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a corporation aggregate.”.

(2) After section 36A(6) of the 1985 Act insert—

“(7) This section applies in the case of a document which is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.”.

(3) In section 1(2)(b) of the 1989 Act (requirements for valid execution as a deed), for the words from “by” to the end substitute—

“(i)by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

(ii)by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties.”.

(4) After section 1(4) of the 1989 Act insert—

“(4A) Subsection (3) above applies in the case of an instrument executed by an individual in the name or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also an individual.”.

Edited September 4, 2013 by UNRAM

[TimetogoRAM]

Do Optima Legal represent NRAM ?

 

Very similar to what is posted on their site

 

Warning for secured lenders – do you sign mortgage deeds?

22 August 2013 | in Property

by Dan Marland, Professional Support Lawyer

 

 

Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it.

 

Usual practice is that lenders do not sign mortgage deeds. If these claims were to succeed, they would have an enormous impact on the entire secured lending industry.

 

The argument

 

The claims stem from section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (“LP(MP)A”), which provides:

 

“(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.

 

(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.

 

(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.”

 

Subsection (6) states that a “disposition” has the same meaning as in section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which confirms that a mortgage or charge is a disposition. Consequently, borrowers have argued that a mortgage is a contract for the disposition of an interest in land and, therefore, requires the signature of all the parties in accordance with section 2 of the LP(MP)A.

 

The correct position

This argument is wrong, and misunderstands the nature of a mortgage. A mortgage is an actual disposition and not an agreement for a disposition. Section 2 of the LP(MP)A clearly applies to a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. It does not apply to the actual disposition itself. Section 2 applies to contracts but not to deeds.

 

The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties.

 

However, the mortgage deed itself is simply the granting of the security by the borrower to the lender. This is the disposition of the interest in the property. It is a unilateral set of obligations entered into by the borrower, executed as a deed, not a contract. As a result, section 2 does not apply. As long as the mortgage deed was validly executed by the borrower the lender can enforce the obligations it contains, including any mortgage conditions incorporated by reference.

 

What have the courts said?

 

The relationship between a deed and section 2 of the LP(MA)A was considered by Lord Justice Mummery in the Court of Appeal, in an application for permission to appeal. The case was Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Challis [2001] EWCA Civ 1389.

 

Mr Green stated that, in accordance with section 2 of the LP(MA)A, the mortgage required the signature of all parties to it as it was a contract for the disposition of an interest in land.

 

Mummery LJ stated:

 

“This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed…a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of the deed and the formal requirements governing contracts.”

 

He went on to confirm that:

 

“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… A deed is a different kind of instrument from an ordinary contract; and it is not a requirement of the execution of a deed that it should comply with the requirements of section 2 of the LP(MA)A. That is clear. Section 1 refers throughout to deeds, section 2 refers throughout to contracts, clearly recognising that they are two different legal concepts.”

 

Mr Green relied upon the case of United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib [1996] 3 All ER 251, which confirmed that there had to be a single written document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties and not merely a deposit of title deeds by way of security in order to create a mortgage or charge. Mr Green claimed that if the mortgage in the United Bank of Kuwait case was governed by section 2 of the LP(MA)A, so should his mortgage. The United Bank of Kuwait case was relied upon because Mr Green claimed that within the mortgage deed, there was a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star.

 

Mummery LJ did not believe that the United Bank of Kuwait case assisted Mr Green because it was a case where there was no deed. It was a case of a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds.

 

Formalities for deeds

 

In accordance with sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a legal mortgage or charge by way of legal mortgage over land can only be created by deed. Therefore, section 2 of the LP(MA)A cannot apply to the legal mortgage itself, as it must always have been created by deed.

 

For the deed to be valid it must be executed in accordance with section 1 of the LP(MA)A, which states:

 

“(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless:

 

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

 

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

 

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

 

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

 

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.”

 

Conclusion

 

There is no requirement for the deed to be executed by the lender. Unlike a contract, a deed is generally enforceable despite a lack of consideration; therefore, as the lender is not entering into any obligations, it is not necessary for it to execute the deed.

 

The deed operates to grant security for the mortgage loan provided by the lender by way of legal charge against the property. That security is and can only be given by the borrower. As the only party having obligations under the deed is the borrower, it is not necessary for the lender to sign the deed.

 

Many thanks for your UNtimely intervention. One question...why are lenders, courts, judges and the world failing to acknowledge the RRO 2005? The RRO hasn't been mentioned once within this post and many of the deeds were signed post the reform...

- the answer's in this post.... "Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it."

The above post has made me feel as though I am reading my reply from my lender... Made me laugh that!

 

I'm just compiling my response to my lender.... And incorporating my terms in going forward...

 

Just one tip for anyone dealing with an awkward lender like me, who feels as though the smallest of issues are not worth complaining about because of this large issue surrounding the deed.....

You should still submit a complaint, simply because their robotic policies and procedures make you have no other choice. There is just no flexibility whatsoever with them and the more complaints they get, the more they will begin to deservedly crack under pressure. The cracks are already appearing and soon they will cave in!

Edited September 4, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[UNRAM]

I'm also conscious that you do pick up on stuff that I post up and you are quick to understand individual points made, what you now need to do is still work on putting the points together so that they make better sense ....

Apple

 

i hope that we can regard this as a collaboration. there is simply no way that i will have your fluency and and articulation regarding the subject matter before making an application but I am very happy to express these ideas to the Property Chamber... We can review as many times as necessary (within reasonable time limits) until we are satisfied it is a complete document requiring no external references... I am limited on time but can spare a few more days if that's what it takes...

Edited September 5, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

I am still waiting, still waiting lol

No paperwork as of yet.

[UNRAM]

Is it Me

 

Please can you restate what you are waiting for from the lender?

Edited September 5, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

Still waiting

no paperwork as yet

still noting lol

time is nearly up

waitingggg

ggg

ggg

sorry fell asleep there After keeping up with this post I can not see how there is a defense to this, the only way is that because of the fall out the property chamber will not do any thing but hold talks behind closed doors if you know what I mean and hows to say this has not already happened?

[UNRAM]

Still waiting

no paperwork as yet

still noting lol

time is nearly up

waitingggg

ggg

ggg

sorry fell asleep there After keeping up with this post I can not see how there is a defense to this, the only way is that because of the fall out the property chamber will not do any thing but hold talks behind closed doors if you know what I mean and hows to say this has not already happened?

 

What did you/the judge ask for exactly?

Was it by order of court?

When were they supposed to respond by?

Do you have any way to force a response? i.e. via a judge?

[IS IT ME?]

statement to be signed by a director of the company

by the 18th July

Have informed the judge already.

Just waiting for it to go to the property chamber now and still no reply or defense filed which has now gone passed the filing date.

[UNRAM]

Statement of what please? Are you suggesting that the judge has also gone quiet... I was under the impression that you had already made an application to the Property Chamber. That you had sent Applecart's first draft... Is this not the case?

[IS IT ME?]

yep done that and awaiting to hear from them, no this is for the court action already going on.

[UNRAM]

are you suggesting that both the court and the property chamber are in receipt of the application and you have not yet received a response from either?

 

What is the Property Chamber's response time - according to their own guidelines?

Edited September 5, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

d the court reply and awaiting the property chamber to deal with it.

[UNRAM]

Here is what to expect after filling out the Property Chamber application: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/30/made

 

The response

 

30.—(1) In circumstances to which rule 28(1)(b) or 29(8) (certain land registration cases) apply, the respondent’s response must—

(a)state the respondent’s reasons for supporting or objecting to the original application or for objecting to the rectification application (as the case may be);

(b)be accompanied by copies of any documents available to the respondent which—

(i)are important to the respondent’s case; or

(ii)the Tribunal or any other party to the proceedings will require in order properly to understand the respondent’s case; and

©in circumstances to which rule 28(1)(b) applies, be the respondent’s statement of case and sent or delivered to the Tribunal within such time as the Tribunal may direct.

(2) In an appeal, paragraphs (3) to (6) apply.

(3) The respondent must, unless a practice direction or direction makes different relevant provision, within 28 days after the date on which the respondent was provided with a copy of the notice of application, send or deliver to the Tribunal a response.

(4) The response must state—

(a)the name and address of the respondent;

(b)the name and address of the respondent’s representative (if any);

©an address where documents for the respondent may be sent or delivered;

(d)where not included in the application, the name and address of every person who appears to the respondent to be an interested person, with reasons for that person’s interest;

(e)whether the respondent opposes the application and, if so, any grounds for such opposition which are not contained in another document provided with the response;

(f)whether the respondent would be content for the case to be dealt with without a hearing if the Tribunal considers it appropriate; and

(g)any further information or documents required by a practice direction or direction.

(5) The respondent must provide with the response a copy of any written record of the decision appealed and any statement of reasons for that decision that the applicant did not provide and the respondent has or can reasonably obtain.

(6) The respondent must send or deliver a copy of the response and any accompanying documents to each other party at the same time as it provides the response to the Tribunal.

[UNRAM]

Applecart,

 

I have given a great deal of thought to sending the application and I would like to send it after the next iteration of amendments within 48 hours from the timestamp on this post - if this is possible... as a "Draft B"....

 

Waiting until it is 100% complete may be a long time off and I need an early decision or at least receive acknowledgement of the submission as soon as possible.

 

I hope by adding in one more iteration of amendments including all those raised in recent discussion we will have a very solid foundation on which to base any oral presentation during a hearing - if it reaches that stage...

Edited September 5, 2013 by UNRAM

[TimetogoRAM]

Here, UNRAM...try this, amend to suit as you prefer:- I’ve simply re-drafted your letter.....let me know what you think?

 

Dear Mr Banks

 

I write to acknowledge receipt of your recent communication, the contents of which are noted. [can delete if not relevant]

 

As you know, I am the Absolute Owner of the Legal Estate and Registered Charge with rights to protect and defend my legal right to my estate; as conclusive pursuant to the LRA 2002 section 58 (1).

 

Whilst I was led by you to believe that I granted a charge in your favour to be noted on my registered charge held at HMLR to secure indebtedness, it is becoming abundantly clear that the register does not evince such intent.

 

The official copy of the document that purports to be a deed; confirms that you failed to execute the document, the consequence being that; you failed to secure any right to possession of my property. Further, the document includes charging clauses that have not been valid since 2002.

 

As you should be aware, pursuant to the LRA 2002 section 23, I had no power to charge my property by way of legal mortgage, and as such had no power to grant you a charge with right to purport to be or to be seen to be in possession of my legal estate; in fact, to do so, would be tantamount to you having secured more power than I had to give and more power than statute intended.

 

I am conscious that despite this, your charge is noted on the register and is said to be considered protected within the provision of the LRA section 51.

 

Therefore, my application to the Chamber is made pursuant to the LPA 1925 section 98 (1) and seeks determination of your reliance upon the LRA s.51 to possession of the property subject to the provisions of the LRA section 32 and the LPA 1925 section 1(7) as against the evidence of the official copy of the unexecuted document.

 

In the meantime, given the circumstances, I feel justified in advising you that the subscription payments said to be secured by you are being held in an escrow account until the matter is determined.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

UNRAM - have you forwarded this draft yet. if so what was their response?

[UNRAM]

Here, UNRAM...try this, amend to suit as you prefer:- I’ve simply re-drafted your letter.....let me know what you think?

 

Dear Mr Banks

 

I write to acknowledge receipt of your recent communication, the contents of which are noted. [can delete if not relevant]

 

As you know, I am the Absolute Owner of the Legal Estate and Registered Charge with rights to protect and defend my legal right to my estate; as conclusive pursuant to the LRA 2002 section 58 (1).

 

Whilst I was led by you to believe that I granted a charge in your favour to be noted on my registered charge held at HMLR to secure indebtedness, it is becoming abundantly clear that the register does not evince such intent.

 

The official copy of the document that purports to be a deed; confirms that you failed to execute the document, the consequence being that; you failed to secure any right to possession of my property. Further, the document includes charging clauses that have not been valid since 2002.

 

As you should be aware, pursuant to the LRA 2002 section 23, I had no power to charge my property by way of legal mortgage, and as such had no power to grant you a charge with right to purport to be or to be seen to be in possession of my legal estate; in fact, to do so, would be tantamount to you having secured more power than I had to give and more power than statute intended.

 

I am conscious that despite this, your charge is noted on the register and is said to be considered protected within the provision of the LRA section 51.

 

Therefore, my application to the Chamber is made pursuant to the LPA 1925 section 98 (1) and seeks determination of your reliance upon the LRA s.51 to possession of the property subject to the provisions of the LRA section 32 and the LPA 1925 section 1(7) as against the evidence of the official copy of the unexecuted document.

 

In the meantime, given the circumstances, I feel justified in advising you that the subscription payments said to be secured by you are being held in an escrow account until the matter is determined.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

UNRAM - have you forwarded this draft yet. if so what was their response?

 

Affirmative sent 22/08... No reply....

[TimetogoRAM]

Not surprised.. I am now looking to do the same. I''m very interested to see the progress of is it me's friend application and their apparent silence. Don't they have timescales etc...? Surely if they've missed any deadlines then its game over!