Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Furthermore, if we look to Part 55 Possession Claims - of the Civil Procedure Rules we find

 

55.1

 

© ‘mortgage’ includes a legal or equitable mortgage and a legal or equitable charge and ‘mortgagee’ is to be interpreted accordingly;

 

55.2

 

(1) The procedure set out in this Section of this Part must be used where the claim includes –

(a) a possession claim brought by a –

(i) landlord (or former landlord);

(ii) mortgagee; or

 

I hope Apple this helps you with your focus ;-)

[bhall]

Good Morning Apple

 

I think you deserve to be congratulated. It must take a lot of effort to be so wrong about so many different things.

 

You are wrong about the effect of the POA, you are wrong about the meaning of Full Title Guarantee, You are wrong about a mortgage by demise being the same as a mortgage by legal charge, you were wrong about paragon v pender, you are wrong about securitisation, you are wrong about a borrower being unable to grant a legal mortgage, you are wrong about mortgage deeds , you are wrong about the RRO 2005, the list goes on and on.

 

Even on the balance of probabilities, you should have at least got one thing right in the months you have been posting about Property Law.

 

Reading your posts, I think I have realised your problem. You decide on a point of view first and then fit (interpret) facts to support your point of view, when you should really use what the facts actually say to reach a point if view.

 

As a result you have become blind to anything and everything that shows that you are wrong, to accept one thing, your fanciful ideas would come crashing down like a house of cards.

 

No wonder you are so insistent that you are right about anything and everything ;-)

 

For the effort you have put in to get so many things wrong, I salute you for the sheer effort it must have taken

[bhall]

Always remember Apple, the law is what it is, not what you say it is.

 

If you remember that you will go far.

 

Stay focused Apple, you stay focused.

[bhall]

Lol your posts do make me laugh Apple

 

A mortgage by demise / sub-demise is not the same as a mortgage by legal charge. As you have posted the law only made one change and that was to abolish mortgages by demise / demise.

 

Mortgages by legal charge were not abolished.

 

;-) Keeping trying at the very least you get 10/10 for effort and imagination.

Edited October 22, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Lol Is It Me?

 

You keep saying that I don't answer questions. Is that really the best you can do to try to discredit me or the information I post ?

 

Sadly, you don't get 10/10 for effort.

 

Clearly I have a life and I do try to answer as many questions as I can as my spare time allows.

 

As for what you keep under your hat..

 

Even on the debt avoidance websites, people are saying that this won't work.

 

If this stood any real chance, Claim Management Companies would be jumping all over it and we would be getting texts and phones calls from them about it. Even Claim Management Companies who will put a claim in for anything won't touch this with a barge pole.

Edited October 22, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

The same effect does not mean they are the same thing Apple

 

A charge by legal mortgage has the same effect as a mortgage by demise as it grants the mortgagee the powers as stipulated by the LPA 1925

 

Apple as you know s.205 of the LPA 1925

 

"Legal mortgage means a mortgage by demise or subdemise or a charge by way of legal mortgage"

 

The lra 2002 as you have posted in the explanatory note confirms that only a mortgage by demise or sub demise was abolished. A charge by way of legal mortgage has not been abolished.

 

S.87(4) of the LPA 1925 even states that a legal mortgage created by a charge by deed expressed by way of legal mortgage is not affected by s.23 of the LRA 2002 - (under which owner's powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise)

Edited October 22, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Apple seriously do some more research and stop misleading people about things you know very little about.

 

I am starting to feel embarrassed for you now.

[bhall]

Apple, if you can't even grasp something as straight forward as what is a legal mortgage, you have no business giving advice to anyone on the topic.

 

If you can't even understand the law, what hope is there really for your "fanciful" ideas.

 

Now, even if you told me it was raining, I would have to look out the window myself.

 

A borrower can't grant a legal mortgage lmfao now that is a good one. Have you thought about writing the jokes for Christmas crackers. ? You would be a natural

[bhall]

Hi pj

I don't think the PM is working but you could try it.

See apple's working hard again those tea bags must be tea-less now lol

 

I think Apple needs to lay off the tea, it must be too strong for Apple and Apple can't handle it. Apple you better start drinking water instead. Deed of Variation lol ;-)

 

Marika41 - Cheltenham & Gloucester became a bank 1995 and agreed to be taken over by Lloyd's in 1997.

 

As usual Apple has the best intentions but the information posted is very wide off the mark.

 

Deed of Variation isn't relevant

 

Do yourself a favour and call the Land Registry and ask them if a TR4 form or even possibly a TR3 form has ever been submitted transferring the charge from C&G to Lloyd's. Neither form requires your signature.

 

This is an example of a TR4 form

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/_media/downloads/forms/TR4.pdf

[bhall]

Cheltenham & Gloucester became a bank 1995 and agreed to be taken over by Lloyd's in 1997. NEVER BEEN A BANK

Lender have not used the TR forms for years and that's why it is as it is. lol

 

Is It Me?

 

In regard to the TR forms, the Land Registry stopped using the TR3 form in 2008. However, if you read Marika's posts instead of jumping the gun in an attempt to show that I am wrong, you will see the dates she has mentioned .

 

The TR4 form, is still used today. To help you with your knowledge ;-)

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-32

 

The above practice guide was updated in October 2013. Please read the section about which forms to use (section 5) and for the benefit of others please can you confirm which form it says to use

[bhall]

In terms of C&G never being a bank, again you have jumped the gun in an attempt to prove me wrong instead of checking your facts

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2009/06/09/cheltenham_gloucester_feature.shtml

 

"Building societies also were given the right to convert full bank status - triggering a wave of demutualisations in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

 

C&G converted in 1995 and became part of Lloyds, just months before Lloyds bought the TSB group."

 

My only mistake was to say that C&G agreed to be taken over in 1997 instead of 1995. However typo's do happen and unlike some here, I am not to big to admit when I made a mistake ;-)

[bhall]

Markia

 

Is It Me?'s poor attempt to prove me wrong has made me consider something.

 

Depending upon when the transfer took place, the transfer may have been made by the forerunner to the TR forms. To be better safe than sorry, call the Land Registry and ask them if there is any record of any transfer request being received. Either way, forget about Deed of Variations, they are used mostly for varying the terms of the deed and not the parties to the deed.

[bhall]

Marika

 

I am not sure of exactly when in 1995 you remortgaged but according to the Building Society Association

 

http://www.bsa.org.uk/consumer/factsheets/100010.htm

 

 

C&G was taken over by Lloyd's on 1 August 1995. So might be an idea to check the date of your mortgage

 

It looks like according to companies house, C&G became a PLC on 17 July 1995, just a matter of a couple of weeks before becoming part of Lloyd's

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Is It Me?

 

In regard to the TR forms, the Land Registry stopped using the TR3 form in 2008. However, if you read Marika's posts instead of jumping the gun in an attempt to show that I am wrong, you will see the dates she has mentioned .

 

The TR4 form, is still used today. To help you with your knowledge ;-)

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-32

 

The above practice guide was updated in October 2013. Please read the section about which forms to use (section 5) and for the benefit of others please can you confirm which form it says to use

 

 

As I know you have a hang up about questions not being answered Is It Me?, I will answer this one myself

 

5 What forms should I use?

 

It depends on the nature of the transaction.

 

Where the land is wholly registered, use either:

 

form TR4 – for a transfer of a portfolio of registered charges, or

 

The above was updated in October 2013 (that would this month)

[bhall]

Hi Apple It is c&g on the deed but on the title register it is lloyds bank plc dated 30/10/2007It actually says1. a conveyance dated 21 march 1895 made between john coulston james cardwell and william george hardman contains restricted covenents but neither the original deed nor a certified copy or examined abstract thereof was produced on first registration.2. 05.09.1995 REGISTERED CHARGE dated 11 august 1995 to secure the moneys including the further advances therin mentioned.3. (30.10.2007) Proprietor llyods bank plc (co.Regn.No. 2065) of registrations,secured assets,barnett way,gloucester GL4 3RL which by the way is the address of c&g. I think lloyds have taken them overI do not know if c& g are still around, they stopped being a building society 31 july 1995 according to the deed

 

 

Ok just found the info in this post the charge is dated 11 August 1995.

 

".2. 05.09.1995 REGISTERED CHARGE dated 11 august 1995 to secure the moneys including the further advances therin mentioned."

 

However, according to the above the proprietor is dated 30.10.2007.

 

3. (30.10.2007) Proprietor lloyds bank plc (co.Regn.No. 2065) of registrations,secured assets,barnett way,gloucester GL4 3RL

 

It is hard to say without looking at the actual documentation, but you might find that the charge was transferred from C&G to Lloyd's in October 2007. So going back to what I have previously posted, call the Land Registry and ask about any tr3/tr4 form received.

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

So

 

C&G would have been the proprietor of the charge originally and named as such on your deeds, until 2007 at which point the charge was transferred to Lloyd's.

 

As Lloyd's is the registered owner of the registered charge, it is in Lloyd's name that any action must be in.

[bhall]

As for the deed not being signed by the lender, my feelings on the matter are very clear. At best it will get you an adjournment, giving you time to consider your situation.

 

However, once the chamber has confirmed the deed is valid, after the hearing and applies that decision to all similar such applications, the lender will recommence proceedings, you have to be prepared for that eventuality

[bhall]

Sorry by the way FULL TITLE GUARANTEE is the whole lot sold not just a bit here and there or any thing like BEN states.

 

I am not sure if you are referring to the mortgage deed or to securitisation, as I know you like to jump from one to the other .

 

In terms of the mortgage deed , if what you say was in anyway true , why are you registered as the proprietor of the legal estate and not the Lender ?

 

You need to look at the amended application as, I pointed out previously, it contradicts itself on this point too.

 

In terms of securitisation, as you are fully aware the Mortgage Sale Agreement, clearly confirms so that there can be no doubt that the transfer is left uncompleted and as confirmed by Pender an uncompleted transfer does not divest the Lender as the registered owner of the registered charge of its right to possession.

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

The reason an uncompleted transfer does not divest the Lender of its right of possession is that as confirmed by s.27 of the LRA 2002, a transfer of a legal charge is a disposition that is required to be completed by registration. s.27 also confirms that if a disposition is required to be completed by registration, it does not operate at law until the relevant registration requirements have been met.

 

A transfer that does not operate at law can still operate in equity but it can only transfer an equitable interest.

 

Look at what the judge actually said in the Irish case you posted.

 

Santander (UK) Plc v Carlin & Anor [2013] NICh 14 (19 September 2013)

 

http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2013/14.html

 

 

"[2] It is clear law, as has been recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in England in Paragon Finance v Pender and Another [2005] 1 W L R 3412 that a legal owner of a charge can part with the equitable interest in it without losing their right to enforce the charge. "

 

And as you know in Pender

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

 

109.In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV.

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

my mortgage with c & g was started 11.8.95 I am totally confused as to what is going on even more than I was before now, thank you bhall for the advice but I do not have enough time to start chasing down requests etc as the legal defence time I have left is running out. I do not want to be rude but I trust the people on here and am going with their advice and am grateful for their time and help. Please do not think I am being rude I am not

 

Hello Marika

 

Of course I do not feel you are being rude. You are not being rude at all.

 

In fact I can admit that I do see the attraction of following Apple's "fanciful ideas" - after all they do promise so so much.

 

By the sheer fact that the Land Registry updated your Title Deed's to show that the charge has been transferred from C&G to Lloyd's is evidence that the Land Registry received the request in a form that it considered to be acceptable.

 

Contrary to Apple's "fanciful ideas" a transfer of a legal charge is not made via a deed of variation, it is made by either using a TR3/4 form. The biggest giveaway is of course the name of each form. For me this only further serves to strengthen my belief that Apple has very little knowledge of property law. Don't get me wrong Apple tells a good story but that's all it is.

 

As you may be aware before your hearing a copy of your defence must be served on the claimant. So don't be surprised if they turn up with a copy of the form to wave in front of the Judge.

 

It is a pity as just one more phone call to the Land Registry would have at least prepared you for that possibility so that it would not come as a surprise to you, during your hearing.

 

However, as I said I see the attraction of the hope offered by Apple's fanciful ideas. It is just a shame it is false hope.

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Apple,

I once again (DARN) have to agree Ben is one of what well I leave that to you lol

For you Ben this is what is says;

 

The roots of the C&G can be traced back to 1850 and the Cheltenham & Gloucestershire Permanent Mutual Benefit Building and Investment Association.

Originally founded in Cheltenham, it gradually expanded through the early years of its life, opening its first Gloucester branch in 1896.

 

C&G converted in 1995 and became part of Lloyds, just months before Lloyds bought the TSB group. This was done because they were in trouble and were being taken over by Llods well before this date and it would be easier to do.

I used to have shares in C&G so I have some ' KNOWLEDGE' of this one thank you and we where conned then the same as we are being now.

 

Thank you Is It Me?

 

As you had shares and taking into account you can't have shares in a building society, seems strange that you previously stated that C&G was never a bank, when that was the reason you had shares.

 

Anyway, thank you for confirming what I had previously posted was correct, it is appreciated

[bhall]

This is a link to a TR4 form

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/_media/downloads/forms/TR4.pdf

 

As you can see it is entitled

 

"transfer of a charge or a portfolio of charges"

 

The above is the big give away, as the form 'does exactly what it says on the tin' ;-)

[bhall]

Ben, Ben,

why oh why

Contrary to Apple's "fanciful ideas" a transfer of a legal charge is not made via a deed of variation, it is made by either using a TR3/4 form. The biggest giveaway is of course the name of each form. For me this only further serves to strengthen my belief that Apple has very little knowledge of property law. Don't get me wrong Apple tells a good story but that's all it is.

Can you post up ANY of the mortgages so far in this thread that have used a TR3 or TR4 form NO YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO OR SHOW ANY

Because these companies have NOT USED THEM for years.

I have THREE of them and NONE are TR3 or TR4 forms as used by the LR!

 

A TR3/TR4 form is only used when a charge is transferred. So unless your charge has been transferred of course there won't be a TR3/TR4 form. When you remortgage, the charge is not transferred. The original charge is discharged at redemption of the loan and you grant a brand spanking new charge to your new lender.

 

 

They still use them now, I posted a link for you to read - being a practice guide published by the Land Registry which was updated this month to prove to you that they still use the TR4 form. Please go back and read it.

 

I hope the above answers your question, as I would hate to think that I have not answered your question Is It Me?

[bhall]

BEN

You will also note what box 8 States.

 

Yes and I have already answered your point on this, at least twice before.

 

Do yourself a favour and read the practice guide published by the Land Registry as I have posted, it will prove that the TR4 is still being used today

[bhall]

Ben,

Sorry but doing some thing else as well,

You will note that it is NAMED as a CHARGE ??????

NOT DEED

 

Yes because the property being transferred is a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, that you granted your lender as security for a loan