UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[Comrade Sharik]

It seems to me that there must be some similar process in the UK, to protect the lenders' interests.

A charge against the property is recorded at the Land Registry.

http://www.land-registry-documents.co.u ... -register/

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It seems to me that there must be some similar process in the UK, to protect the lenders' interests. When someone in the UK takes out a mortgage, is the house itself not considered security for the loan? It seems that there should be some way for the lender to protect their interest, by preventing the owner from selling the house without paying off the mortgage.

It's similar, but without doing too much research, I can only go on my own experience. When I bought a property the deeds were "held" by my mortgage company. Mortgage companies have first dibs on any property which trumps other charges and yes this interest in the property is recorded at the Land Registry. As has been mentioned, other charges against the property have to go though some sort of legal process or written contract.

From my understanding of Fogbow horror stories, in the US, any disgruntled idiot, if they can convince an asleep at the wheel county clerk to record their claim, can lodge a lien against an asset.

[Pottapaug1938]

It seems to me that there must be some similar process in the UK, to protect the lenders' interests. When someone in the UK takes out a mortgage, is the house itself not considered security for the loan? It seems that there should be some way for the lender to protect their interest, by preventing the owner from selling the house without paying off the mortgage.

It's similar, but without doing too much research, I can only go on my own experience. When I bought a property the deeds were "held" by my mortgage company. Mortgage companies have first dibs on any property which trumps other charges and yes this interest in the property is recorded at the Land Registry. As has been mentioned, other charges against the property have to go though some sort of legal process or written contract.

From my understanding of Fogbow horror stories, in the US, any disgruntled idiot, if they can convince an asleep at the wheel county clerk to record their claim, can lodge a lien against an asset.

That's been my experience. When I was practicing real estate law, the recording clerks would, at best, scan my document(s) to make sure that my document seemed to be in the proper legal form.

[longdog]

Effectively The Land Registry keeps details of a property like who owns it, what mortgages exist, what other charges their are against the property.

Things involved with the buying, mortgaging and so on are entered as long as the appropriate paperwork has been signed where necessary. A charge against the property for a bad debt, division on divorce and such like requires a court judgement of the appropriate type.

Unlike the US aggrieved nutters cannot just file a charge and have it accepted. No court order, no charge.

It's laughable that people in the UK will seriously claim you can draw up a lien and magically it will have effect. There's no mechanism by which it can possibly work so they just skip that stage. Some experts will actually claim they have 'deposited' their lien at the local court... They haven't as the clerk will just say "What's this shit? Fuck off!" or polite words to that effect.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Can I add to this? The "charge" is almost always requested and detailed by a lawyer or a court order. I don't think you could register one any other way. Also, they have priority in order of creation or as instructed by a court. So a mortgage lender could be first charge and a secured loan second charge. However the second charge has to IIRC ask the first charge for permission and tell them if they are taking action to recover their secured amount. Consequently you hardly ever get to 3 or 4 secured loans against a property. The other charges against property are likely to be from court orders for debts. Any SovCit who tries turning up with paperwork attempting to register a charge is likely to be asked for the court order.

[aesmith]

The charge in a normal UK mortgage is the famous "deed" that various whackos have tried to claim is invalid. It's authority comes from borrower of their own accord executing the deed by signing it, and by registering it with the Land Registry (delivery). In turn the original mortgage contract includes a condition that the borrower execute and deliver a deed in their required format.

Edit - should have said England and Wales, not UK. Scotland the terminology is different, although the principle is the same regarding the charge which is functionally a deed although called a "security".

[Footloose52]

A couple of working lives ago I used to draw up and register charges on land at the Land Registry.

For a house purchase (mortgage) it was usual to send the documents to the purchasers solicitor and get them to deal with all the formalities. For a second mortgage to secure a loan or other debt we used to do it in house. The 'deed' was always dated in front of the borrower in those cases. We always had to give notice to any prior mortgagor as well otherwise it meant our charge was not correctly executed.

All charges have to be signed or executed by the landowner if it is a charge over land. Charges can also be taken over stocks and shares, life policies (endowment policies normally) and also, in the case of a company, the entirety of the company assets. In the latter case this is known as a Debenture. A company can, of course, offer specific assets for security should they so wish, this would be dealt with in the same way as a mortgage deed.

[Dr. Caligari]

There are some other kind of "liens", not real-estate related, which exist in the U.S. In most states, these exist as a result of common law, not statutory law, which makes me suspect that they exist, or once existed, in England. I'm thinking of things like mechanic's liens (a worker who repairs your car [or shoes, or anything tangible] can keep [but not sell] the repaired property until he's paid for his work); atttorney's liens (a lawyer who files a lawsuit and wins can hold onto the proceeds until her legal fees are paid); etc.

[notorial dissent]

In the US they don't file a lien they file either a mortgage or a trust deed, not really the same thing at all.

[grixit]

In the US, when I buy a house and take out a mortgage to pay for it, the lender files a lien with the county registrar, who I believe is more or less the equivalent of the land registry in the UK. This lien prevents me from selling the house without paying off the mortgage holder. The lien itself is not the debt. The mortgage is. The lien is there simply to protect the interests of the lender.

It seems to me that there must be some similar process in the UK, to protect the lenders' interests. When someone in the UK takes out a mortgage, is the house itself not considered security for the loan? It seems that there should be some way for the lender to protect their interest, by preventing the owner from selling the house without paying off the mortgage.

Also, in the US, the builder of a house place what's called a "mechanic's lien" on it, using "mechanic" in a really old sense of the word. Very often there will be several such liens as there will be different contractors firms for the frame, the plumbing, the electricity, the roof, etc. This is to ensure that the developer pays them. I did a little accounting programming for some contracters years ago, and it seems to be an industry that thrives on mutual distrust.

[longdog]

There are some other kind of "liens", not real-estate related, which exist in the U.S. In most states, these exist as a result of common law, not statutory law, which makes me suspect that they exist, or once existed, in England. I'm thinking of things like mechanic's liens (a worker who repairs your car [or shoes, or anything tangible] can keep [but not sell] the repaired property until he's paid for his work); atttorney's liens (a lawyer who files a lawsuit and wins can hold onto the proceeds until her legal fees are paid); etc.

The mechanic's lien is definitely still a thing in the UK but the type of lien the FMOTL love so much isn't a thing at all. It's completely unrecognised in UK law.

IANAL and all that but it's my understanding that a lien in the UK is arises in the normal course of things where you hold an item of property and the person who owns that property owes you money in connection with it. There's no requirement for anything to be written down and the lien exists through circumstance. You cannot as far as I know create a debt with a lien as would happen with the kook's 'commercial liens'. The debt must already exist.

[HardyW]

IANAL and all that but it's my understanding that a lien in the UK is arises in the normal course of things where you hold an item of property and the person who owns that property owes you money in connection with it. There's no requirement for anything to be written down and the lien exists through circumstance. You cannot as far as I know create a debt with a lien as would happen with the kook's 'commercial liens'. The debt must already exist.

But isn't that really the case with the American version? You can't create a debt by filing a UCC-1 as the idiots claim to do. As I understand it the UCC "filing" is a statement by the creditor that an agreement exists which names the given property (land/machinery etc) as collateral, which then works (in the same way as a Land Registry "charge") as a warning to a potential purchaser that there is not clear title.

[morrand]

IANAL and all that but it's my understanding that a lien in the UK is arises in the normal course of things where you hold an item of property and the person who owns that property owes you money in connection with it. There's no requirement for anything to be written down and the lien exists through circumstance. You cannot as far as I know create a debt with a lien as would happen with the kook's 'commercial liens'. The debt must already exist.

But isn't that really the case with the American version? You can't create a debt by filing a UCC-1 as the idiots claim to do. As I understand it the UCC "filing" is a statement by the creditor that an agreement exists which names the given property (land/machinery etc) as collateral, which then works (in the same way as a Land Registry "charge") as a warning to a potential purchaser that there is not clear title.

That is my understanding of it. Hypothetically, you could collect on those spurious liens, but it would really depend on them being of such low value that paying for a release is cheaper than fighting it. As do most other forms of extortion.

But I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where you can collect on a lien by itself. All the lien really does is reserve some chunk of the property's value, out of which your claim can be paid if things go badly for your debtor. Whether you've got a claim to that whole chunk is a totally different question.

[The Seventh String]

But isn't that really the case with the American version? You can't create a debt by filing a UCC-1 as the idiots claim to do. As I understand it the UCC "filing" is a statement by the creditor that an agreement exists which names the given property (land/machinery etc) as collateral, which then works (in the same way as a Land Registry "charge") as a warning to a potential purchaser that there is not clear title.

As I understant things, and if I’m wrong please correct me, the sovcit “lien” is intended to not only put off a potential purchaser but to also absolutely wreck someone’s credit rating, because on the face of things the recipient of the lien apparently already owes someone, somewhere, an enormous amount of money.

Though doubtless some of the dumber sovs really do think that slapping a $100,000,000 lien on a judge’s car or house means they can collect on the “debt” whenever they feel they need the cash. Hence the “three letter process” coming into play where it’s unilaterally asserted a contract exists even though one prospective party has not indicated their agreement to enter into a contract at all.

[SteveUK]

The bank being entirely reasonable



But of course, its just part of the wider conspiracy

I have finally got an admission from Britannia Building Society that it was the Co-operative Bank which sent agents to force entry into my home without court papers, notice or opportunity to remedy the Benefit Denial Frauds at 6am on 20th July 2018. The bank claims that it cannot communicate with me on the telephone because I put details of the crimes it has committed against me on the internet under section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967- yet the bank does not explain what authority the 22 Police officers and Bailiffs have to force entry in a civil matter
Notice the Letter is unsigned from "The Collections Department" of Britannia which ceased trading. Notice the Collections Department does not refer to the Court documents I served on it from the High Court in person, nor my previous notifications in person of an address for correspondence. The bank also does not explain why it has refused all access to myself, my friends and family to recover their belongings to date, nor refer to several previous requests in person for the redemption statement. Also no reference to the secret auction for 17 Sept 2018...
any further thoughts, please let me know....
My suspicions are, UK Parliament is embarrassed by the daily criminal activities by the UK State, Law Courts and Parliament of State Terrorism against its own people being in focus to the entire planet - whilst it pretends the Monkey Media is selling it as an advanced country when in reality it is run by 1% of its worst thugs under the banks and vatican....

[exiledscouser]

NB has posted a letter she’s received from the Britannia BS.

It’s quite revealing and is possibly instructive to other institutions who have to suffer contact with her. Recognising that all communication is immediately placed on social media (including, ironically this letter) they will no longer deal with phone calls and have reduced all contact to letter.

Want something from us? Put it in writing.

Want your stuff back? No problem but put it in writing.

About time we saw some robust approaches being employed but Britannia very much have the whip hand here having both possession of Peel Close and her stuff, the latter conservatively valued by Nelly at £1m+. No amount of chuntering on FB is going to assist her, she typically sees this letter as more proof that the child porn industry is involved with the Vatican in a ruin fraud....(cont. page 94)....

**breaking**

The Go Fund NB begging bowl has tripled in value from yesterday’s total and stands at...erm...£0.00.

Edit. Thanks to Steve for the actual letter and post accompanying.

[SteveUK]

Edit. Thanks to Steve for the actual letter and post accompanying.

Welcome.

I must say, her latest rant is quite insightful into the workings of her mind vacuum between her ears. Its quite a polite letter from the bank offering her even more time to collect her worthless shit, and explain things. She really is 100% deluded.

s4 of the Criminal Law Act deals mainly with penalties for assisting offenders. I wonder if this is going to be her next vexatious action that the judge will toss in the bin?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Its quite a polite letter from the bank offering her even more time to collect her worthless shit, and explain things.

It's more than that. It looks like the Coop, even at this stage, are prepared to give back possession if she can prove she has the funds to pay off what she owes them. That she has asked for the redemption statement so she can "prove" fraud to her sycophants is a neither here nor there.

[SteveUK]

Its quite a polite letter from the bank offering her even more time to collect her worthless shit, and explain things.

It's more than that. It looks like the Coop, even at this stage, are prepared to give back possession if she can prove she has the funds to pay off what she owes them. That she has asked for the redemption statement so she can "prove" fraud to her sycophants is a neither here nor there.

Maybe she's confusing redeeming the mortgage to paying off the arrears, and everyone is happy again? Couldn't see the bank doing that, as she's proven herself not credit worthy.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Maybe she's confusing redeeming the mortgage to paying off the arrears, and everyone is happy again? Couldn't see the bank doing that, as she's proven herself not credit worthy.

Who knows what's going on between her ears, but…

If it is your intention to redeem the mortgage then please also provide evidence of where the funds are coming from to enable you to do this.

…seems to be an indicator that the bank are prepared to settle, but they don't believe she has any money and they are not prepared to accept Swissindos.