Judge dismisses attempt to remove banks’ charges from Land Registry
A High Court judge has thrown out a series of “vexatious” claims from mortgage borrowers who have been trying to force the Land Registry to remove a charge on their properties.
The group of five claimants all argue that the charge placed on their properties when they accepted mortgages is void because the documentation was not signed by the lender. The charge safeguards the lender if the borrower gets into arrears or defaults.
The claimants are interpreting section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1989 to make their case. However, in an extempore ruling last month that was published today, Judge Hodge QC, sitting as a High Court judge, said their case was “founded on a hopeless misunderstanding of the applicable law.”
A High Court judge has thrown out a series of “vexatious” claims from mortgage borrowers who have been trying to force the Land Registry to remove a charge on their properties.
The group of five claimants all argue that the charge placed on their properties when they accepted mortgages is void because the documentation was not signed by the lender. The charge safeguards the lender if the borrower gets into arrears or defaults.
The claimants are interpreting section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1989 to make their case. However, in an extempore ruling last month that was published today, Judge Hodge QC, sitting as a High Court judge, said their case was “founded on a hopeless misunderstanding of the applicable law.”
“How do the claimants seek to meet [their] point?” he said in the judgment.
“They say that all the mortgage deeds incorporate agreements to create legal mortgages by reference to the mortgage conditions. Therefore, the contracts are intended to be signed as deeds. The lenders, however, never signed any contracts and, in consequence, the mortgages are void by virtue of section 2(3) of the 1989 Act.”
This argument is “simply a nonsense”, he said.
“They confuse an agreement to create a mortgage, which does need to comply with section 2, with the actual creation of a mortgage itself, which merely requires compliance with the law regulating and governing the execution of a deed.”
Despite being “a nonsense” the litigation has a long history and some of the claimants have taken the argument to various courts and tribunals.
One of them started their case in the County Court and, in 2016, had his case dismissed. He sought appeal to a circuit judge, but had permission refused in writing. He then requested an oral hearing for permission to appeal, which was again refused.
After that, he asked the High Court for permission to bring a judicial review, which was refused in 2017 by Dinah Rose QC sitting as a deputy judge in the High Court. He tried to appeal that to the Court of Appeal, where Newey LJ refused, saying the complaint was based on a misunderstanding of the law.
Undeterred, he took the same argument to the First-tier Tribunal, which struck out the claim in 2019. He tried to bring the case again later that year, after RBS had started possession proceedings, and was told my Michael Green J that his arguments “had no merit then and they have no merit now.”
In the latest judgment, Judge Hodge dismissed all six claims and extended or imposed civil restraint orders on two of the claimants.
Shaun Leroy Cambpell v Chief Land Registrar
Selwyn Charles Campbell v Chief Land Registrar
Yolanda Blicharz-Szmid v Chief Land Registrar
Andrew Ian Graham v Chief Land Registrar
Gordon Southward v Chief Land Registrar
Floyd Wilson v Chief Land Registrar
Business and Property Courts (Judge Hodge) 20 January 2022
To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews
