Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[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

[marika41]

Thank you givehimamask, much appreciated, Apple when you say make sure the presentation is correct what do you mean? do i number each paragraph? Thank you so much I will make sure I know this for when I am in court so I can explain myself, thanks for the overview of the main points I have copied and saved it. I have another cause of action I want to raise about my mortgage that has nothing to do with this topic which is personal to me and I really want it on the courts record, will it be ok to add it onto my defence form under a seperate heading? I am so grateful for all the help and advice from all you lovely people I really am

[bhall]

AND BEN

The transferor has received from the transferee for the

property the following sum (in words and figures):

Under 7 will you see that this is for a transfer of the house or flat for the amount you have paid???

 

 

No Is It Me?

 

Please read the guide previously posted. It will help you with your knowledge

 

It is not the house or flat it is the charge

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Ben

SO WHERE IS THE DEED THAT YOU KEEP ON ABOUT ANY WAY IN A FORM OR HOW TO MAKE IT UP BY A LENDER?

The LR has shown what it would like(?) and the lenders have put in what suits them.

So please paste up a copy of any form you have as a deed by the lender which is the SAME as the TR3/$ form you say.

[bhall]

Hi Ben

SO WHERE IS THE DEED THAT YOU KEEP ON ABOUT ANY WAY IN A FORM OR HOW TO MAKE IT UP BY A LENDER?

The LR has shown what it would like(?) and the lenders have put in what suits them.

So please paste up a copy of any form you have as a deed by the lender which is the SAME as the TR3/$ form you say.

 

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying

[bhall]

Is It Me?

 

To save us both anymore time going around in circles,

 

Please read the Land Registry practice guide previously posted and the applicable legislation relating to which forms must be used as a matter of law.

 

Thank you

[bhall]

Is It Me?

 

I will save you the trouble of looking it up and this will be for Apples benefit too

 

The Land Registration Rules 2003 (as originally enacted)

 

Rule 116 Transfer of a registered charge

 

A transfer of a registered charge must be in form TR3, TR4 or AS2, as appropriate

 

The above rule was amended by schedule 1, paragraph 42 of the Land Registration (Amendment) Rules 2008 to

 

Transfer of a registered charge

 

116. A transfer of a registered charge must be in Form TR4 or AS2, as appropriate

 

You will note as originally enacted and as amended the law says it must be in the forms mentioned above - nothing about a deed of variation

 

 

If you look at the title deed for your home you will find details or any and all registered charges, being the security you granted the lender with a mortgage deed.

 

The above Information is only relevant if at anytime the registered legal charge has been transferred from one lender to another. If it has not been transferred, there will be no TR3/4 form

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

I hope the above answers your questions on this matter ;-)

[bhall]

If you look at the Mortgage Sale Agreement for Accord, Is It Me?, you will see references to the TR4 - pages 33 and 34, I believe

[bhall]

Apple and Is It Me?

 

Seriously now, why do you want Marika to use a defence that includes mistakes about a deed if variation ? (Not to mention about the mortgage deed)

 

Why not encourage Marika to correct those mistakes ?

[bhall]

Land Registration Rules 2003..............................

 

Variation of the terms of a registered charge

 

113. (1) An application to register an instrument varying the terms of a registered charge must be made—

 

(a)by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the registered charge and the proprietor of the estate charged, and

(b)with the consent of the proprietor, or a person entitled to be registered as proprietor, of every other registered charge of equal or inferior priority that is prejudicially affected by the variation,

but no such consent is required from a person who has executed the instrument.

 

(2) The registrar may accept a conveyancer’s certificate confirming that the conveyancer holds any necessary consents.

 

(3) If the registrar is satisfied that the proprietor of any other registered charge of equal or inferior priority to the varied charge that is prejudicially affected by the variation is bound by it, he shall make a note of the variation in the register.

 

(4) If the registrar is not so satisfied, he may make an entry in the register that an instrument which is expressed to vary the terms of the registered charge has been entered into.

 

The above acts as your guide...... you were not the Lender selling on the loan or transferring the loan....YOU are the Defendant letting the court know as part of your DEFENCE that you did not sign a Deed of Variation.......

 

For C & G to cause you to become liable to Lloyds....they should have asked you to sign a Deed of Variation..... YOU are the PROPRIETOR of the REGISTERED CHARGE....AND the REGISTERED ESTATE...you are the only person with OWNERS POWERS.....

 

I know Ben must mean well....but on this occasion....as on previous occasions, he remains of the misguided belief that the Lender is the proprietor of your registered estate and registered charge - when this is not and has never been the intent of the legislator in regard to any registered land.

 

.....The TR forms that may have been scurried to HMLR between C & G and Lloyds are of NO relevance to your DEFENCE.....if Lloyds wish to contend that it does....let them put it in their 'Reply to Defence'.....that's of course if they too are misguided enough to believe that it will assist them in any way.....

 

 

Apple

 

Contrary to the above -

 

"You are the PROPRIETOR of the REGISTERED CHARGE"

 

I would ask everyone to look at their Title Deeds.

 

Marika has already posted that their Title Deeds state-

 

2. 05.09.1995 REGISTERED CHARGE dated 11 August 1995 to secure the money's including the further advance therein mentioned.

3. (30.10.2007) PROPRIETOR Lloyd's Bank Plc etc

 

The lender as confirmed by all of your title deeds is the proprietor of the registered charge.

 

The borrower being the proprietor of the registered charge is just another one of Apple's fanciful ideas based on their misunderstanding of property law.

 

You grant the charge to the lender, when you give the charge to the lender, the lender owns the charge

 

Apple please stop ignoring the law. It doesn't help anyone

 

 

Land Registration Act 2002

 

Schedule 2 - Registrable Dispositions: Registration Requirements

Part 1 Registered Estates

 

Creation of a Legal Charge

 

8. In 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.

 

The law confirms that the chargee (the lender) must be registered as the proprietor of the charge.

 

 

The borrower is the grantor as he grants the charge to the lender, making the lender the chargee.

 

 

And to set the record straight, I have never said that the lender was the proprietor of the legal estate. That is a claim incorrectly made by you with your fanciful ideas about mortgage by demise - when the mortgage deeds posted are for a mortgage by legal charge which is a different type of mortgage

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

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

 

I spotted this..... I giggled to be honest....LOL

 

Ben is giving his age away here......he certainly isn't of our generation is he Is It Me???....LOL

 

Oh Ben is a one.... : )

 

He clearly wasn't around when the shares were being 'given' out..... I traded mine in for quite a healthy sum at the time.....oh and yes, it was a 'Building Society' that I was with at the time.........

 

Like C & G...once they had given us all shares...swiftly became a 'bank'.....it all went downhill from there....and clearly continues to be the case....!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

Thank you, do I change every LPA to LRA or just this bit?

 

Hi Ya, apologies for the delay in coming back to you..... I couldn't find you in between ALL of Ben's posts......

 

Yes, it is the LRA 1925 in your case hun : )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Apple do a favour for the people that for some reason are taking what you post seriously and stick to what the law actually says and not what you interpret to mean or what you think it means.

 

Thank you

 

Ben

[bhall]

I spotted this..... I giggled to be honest....LOL

 

Ben is giving his age away here......he certainly isn't of our generation is he Is It Me???....LOL

 

Oh Ben is a one.... : )

 

He clearly wasn't around when the shares were being 'given' out..... I traded mine in for quite a healthy sum at the time.....oh and yes, it was a 'Building Society' that I was with at the time.........

 

Like C & G...once they had given us all shares...swiftly became a 'bank'.....it all went downhill from there....and clearly continues to be the case....!!

 

Apple

 

Again something else you are wrong about.

 

I was around then. Unfortunately I had to wait a few years more for shares as I had an account with the Woolwich.

 

Can you post anything that isn't wrong ?

 

Give it a try, it will make a welcome change

[bhall]

Making things up Apple isn't going to help anyone

[applecart]

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.

 

HERE IS BEN'S "F" in a further attempt to make out that LAW is intended to be interpreted as 'F'LAW....a Deed of Variation would be necessary for the Borrower to sign.....it wasn't.....as it is.....LR sent an official copy of the C & G Deed......there is NO official copy of a deed of variation in this case......nothing upon which Lloyd's can rely for a cause of action.....nothing to say that there is any relationship between 'Marika41' and 'Lloyds'........

 

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.

 

Ben, contrary to your 'fanciful ideas'.....if a lender is looking to 'step' into the shoes (subrogation) into the shoes of another lender as was intended in Marika41's case .....Marika41, should have signed a 'deed of variation.....see LRR 113......contrary to your 'fanciful ideas'......Marika41 is the proprietor of the Estate and Charge.....both LLoyds and C&G had a fiduciary duty to act WITHIN THE LAW....They didn't...There is NO Deed of Variation......Lloyd's will now pay the price for circumventing the LAW....

 

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.

 

hahahaha......Ben, ALL the TR form will do is prove that the LAW was circumvented....it will prove that Lloyds agreed between themselves and C & G to divest Marika41 of her title.....That is known in the trade as TORT......WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE.......they had no right to do as they did.....Their name is due to be put before the Chamber along with a number of other 'Lenders'...who have all CIRCUMVENTED THE LAW....NON of them have a DEFENCE to this ....They can deploy whichsoever firm of solicitor/Barrister they wish....non of them will surpass the might of the legislator....it is the legislator that makes our LAW in the UK ...... not Lawyers/Barristers......or YOU.....sorry mate : (

 

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.

 

Why don't you call them.....why don't you ask them, why it is that the TR forms are now obsolete?....why don't you ask them why certificates are obsolete?.....you should find that it will be because the LEGISLATOR......sought to STOP the 'CERTAIN ACTIVITIES' that blight our Legal system!!!

 

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.

 

Ben, Ben, Ben......Do Marika a favor....leave her alone mate...she's got stuff to sort out......she really doesn't need your input right now.......let her get on with the Civil right to DEFEND her home....YOU go Defend Yours!!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

Again something else you are wrong about.

 

I was around then. Unfortunately I had to wait a few years more for shares as I had an account with the Woolwich.

 

Can you post anything that isn't wrong ?

 

Give it a try, it will make a welcome change

 

Ben, WHATEVER!!!!

 

Funny, I was with the Woolwich....Barclays took them over.... I didn't wait for mine....You sure we are talking about the same building society mate??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Making things up Apple isn't going to help anyone

 

Ben.....like Jabba.....Please be quiet!!

 

Apple

[marika41]

Thank you Apple, all changed from LPA to LRA X

[bhall]

Ben.....like Jabba.....Please be quiet!!

 

Apple

 

Lol not hitting a raw nerve am I.

 

I won't be quiet until either you stop posting your fanciful ideas or the Property Chambers reaches a judgement.

 

So sit back, relax and enjoy, Ben is here to stay ;-)

[ims21]

Ben.....like Jabba.....Please be quiet!!

 

Apple

 

Applecart, you are very close to overstepping the mark.

 

behave.

[bhall]

Ben, WHATEVER!!!!

 

Funny, I was with the Woolwich....Barclays took them over.... I didn't wait for mine....You sure we are talking about the same building society mate??

 

Apple

 

Then you will recall that C&G demutualised in 1995 - when it issued shares and the Woolwich demutualised a couple of years later in 1997 when it issued shares, three years before it was taken over by Barclays.

 

So as I said before compared to C&G, as a Woolwich customer/member I did have to wait a few more years

[bhall]

Ben, Ben, Ben......Do Marika a favor....leave her alone mate...she's got stuff to sort out......she really doesn't need your input right now.......let her get on with the Civil right to DEFEND her home....YOU go Defend Yours!!!

 

Apple

 

How is telling Marika to rely on a defence which includes 'deed of variation' going to help ?

 

What happens when they show the judge the tr3/4 form ?

 

You will dropping Marika in it from a great height but don't worry it is not your home on the line

[IS IT ME?]

ism21

Please do the same to Ben bhall as his posts are not helping any one and by the others posters on here is not welcome.

NO ONE here is forcing any one to take any action or do any thing people do what they want.

Apple has opened up this thread to the LAW which will help people.

I asked is Bankfolder still the head of cag??