Home Page > Monthly Update > Mortgages.

Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team

Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Easements.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Mortgages.
Nuisance and trespass.
Planning.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.

Current page






Mortgages.

The editor of this section of the site is Nigel Clayton of Kings Chambers, Leeds and Manchester. Nigel also maintains the specialist website dealing with mortgages at www.legalmortgage.co.uk





There are two cases this mont:
  • An application to alter the register to remove a charge based on, inter alia, forgery was directed to be cancelled.
  • On an application for an order for possession the borrower’s defence of estoppel was dismissed.


Registered charge

Application to remove charge from register

Conte v National Westminster Bank Plc
(Unreported) First Tier Tribunal 15 Aug 2017

Summary

The First Tier Tribunal directed the cancellation of an application to alter the register to remove a charge based on forgery, non est factum or undue influence.

Facts

In 2005 the bank obtained a registered charge over residential property owned by C as security for a loan facility to C’s company which C guaranteed. In 2015, C applied to Land Registry for alteration of the register under Para 5, Sched 4, Land Registration Act 2002 to remove the charge on the following bases:
    (1) That he did not sign it (forgery); alternatively
    (2) He did sign it, but there was a radical difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing (non est factum); and/or
    (3) That he was tricked into signing it (misrepresentation/undue influence).

Decision

The Tribunal directed the registrar to cancel the application with an indication that costs should follow the event. The Tribunal clarified the position as follows:
  • If C succeeded on (1) or (2), the charge would be void and, and the register could be altered to correct a mistake.
  • If C succeeded on (3), the charge was voidable and remained valid until such time as it was set aside (NRAM Ltd v Evans [2017] EWCA Civ 1013)

The Tribunal gave C permission to treat his application as if it were made directly to the Tribunal under s 108(2) LRA 2 ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click => here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Options
Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)