Hmm. Funny that. Sounds to me like Common Law (Sherrifs) prevailing over statute (HCEOs). When a HCEO, bogus or otherwise, carries out his/her duties wearing an identification badge with the name of a private limited company, is he/she working for that private company or working for the Crown as a sworn officer? The Crown will have a fixed schedule of fees payable to their appointed enforcement officers. Those officers then carry out the work they have been paid to do by the Crown. Now bring in the private company paid by the creditor. An appointed HCEO is only a sworn officer of the Crown when he/she is working in that capacity. If he/she is now working for a private company as a private employee how do they transpose their HCEO status (and then confer it on others) over to the private company? Any implied potential to delegate sworn powers (please quote statute referred to) would necessitate the delegated officer behaving in exactly the same capacity as the original officer - as an officer of the Crown, paid for by the Crown (so no money to be made there) and not a private employee of a private, for-profit business paid by the creditor (huge profits to be made). BTW if something is wrong, it is wrong. If it is unlawful there is no safety in numbers though I do appreciate there would be a hell of a mess to unravel. Probably something akin to the wheelclampers backtrack would do it

I agree the LC will do everything possible to fudge the issue. I have done the best I can to pin him down in the way I framed the question but what is needed is a barrage of requests for clarification, via MPs, all directed at Mr Grayling. There is no one else to go to for clarity. It is true that an individual court case against a bogus HCEO "should" determine the issue but who would risk that with the court system the way it is? ☺. My view is that Mr Grayling needs to respond - that's his job. Then we go to court. This has got so completely out of hand and will only get worse. Groups of unlicenced and uncontrollable thugs terrorising the population, demanding money with menaces with absolutely no accountability. It brings to mind the wheel clamping scandal before the government finally had to rein it in only now people are not losing their cars, they're losing their homes. There is no provision in the original statute for re-delegation of power. The useful and interesting post (many thanks for posting in full) above is mostly talking about local government powers. Why would there be such stringent application requirements to become a HCEO if there were not an acknowledgment of the need for it? Why do High Court Writs specifically nominate the HCEO by name who is personally and specifically charged with execution of that Writ? If this continues will we next be looking at senior police officers forming private companies called "Police UK Ltd" and employing a bunch of thugs to go about impersonating the police and charging people for speeding? If we interpret the law this way then there is no barrier to this scenario. I have personally gone through every episode of the BBC series and there is not one single genuine HCEO anywhere. Nonetheless they all announce themselves at the door as HCEOs. This in itself is fraud (misrepresentation). The wheelclampers were stopped through legislation brought about by public pressure. Now we have to stop this. If we don't we are walking into a privately-run police state. Hello G4S.

Hi Bailiff Advice. I've found a quote of particular interest here: Where the exercise of the discretionary power is entrusted to a named officer – e.g. a chief officer of police, a medical officer of health or an inspector – another officer can not exercise powers in his stead unless express statutory provision is made in this regard [11] . Read more: The Delegation Of Discretionary Powers | Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essays/the-delegation-of-discretionary-powers-administrative-law-essay.php#ixzz3JyBbCRTh Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

Hi there. First a correction. My original typo "delegarum" should read "delegatus". I can't open the page you suggest here but would like to read what it says. US law, being based on English law, rarely differs much in principle in my experience. Case law differs obviously and statutes but not principles. Could someone from CAG please advise how to get this onto a better thread? One appears to have been opened but I don't know what has happened to my original post and if it has been "transferred" there. Not very savvy manoeuvring around the site I'm afraid and need a bit of help.

Hi there. I've been doing a lot of investigation into this area and have come up with some real surprises. Based on the law which I will quote below, a HCEO has no power to delegate his authority to anyone and must always be present at an enforcement. Under paragraph 2(1) of schedule 7 of the Courts Act 2003 "an enforcement officer is an individual who is authorised to act as such by the Lord Chancellor or a person acting on his behalf". As we know, ALL HCEOs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and there are only a few hundred of these across the country. A list of them can be found by googling. It is what these guys do with that power which has become corrupted. Realising the incredible potential for commercial activity which this power confers they have established private enforcement companies and unlawfully confer their powers to third parties who go out rampaging around the country kicking peoples doors in. There are two factors to look at here. Firstly the principle "delegarum non potest delegare" which is a Latin maxim, one of the highest principles in administrative law, which states that delegated power may not be further delegated. The Lord Chancellor delegates his power to an enforcement officer who, after extremely careful scrutiny, is appointed to act on his behalf in the matter of enforcement of Orders and Writs issued from the High Court. These officers then become SWORN Officers of the Court and not only have the power, but also the duty and obligation, to act in that capacity. It is entirely illogical and beyond any legal provision that these carefully appointed Officers of the Court could then delegate these enormous powers to any Tom, Dick and Harry of their choosing, simply for profit. A HCEO is an Officer of the Court and his power to act as such is restricted to his employment by the Crown. Once he steps outside that sphere of employment and into the private sector the powers conferred on him by the Lord Chancellor become defunct. A policeman is a sworn officer. He can no more "appoint" a bloke in the street to stand in for him one day if he doesn't feel like coming into work than he can use his position as a police officer whilst taking on other employment. He cannot take on a part time job as a bouncer and when he feels like it suddenly say he is a police officer and everyone's under arrest. You cannot serve two masters. The second issue with these bogus HCEOs is that they have taken this section of the law (schedule 7 etc above) and twisted it to their own end. It is quite clear from the provision that the phrase "or a person acting on his behalf" refers to a person acting on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, NOT to a person acting on behalf of the appointed enforcement officer. The structure of the sentence makes that clear and the phrase is used various times within the statute, each time meaning "on behalf of" the Lord Chancellor. Presumably Chris Grayling is too busy to deal with all appointments under his command and has a 2IC to deal with the overload. This in no way grants that authority to be further delegated at will by the appointed enforcement officer. There would have to be a special provision in the original delegation of authority to permit the further delegation of that authority and there is none. By twisting the meaning of this schedule to imply that "a person acting on his behalf" refers to the newly appointed enforcement officer, huge companies have been established and vast amounts of money have been taken from the public. This is a very lucrative business and one which is fast becoming accepted as "normal practice". The police will do nothing beyond Inspector level as they are in cahoots with the [problem] as are the courts who process the bogus "Writs" - but that is another matter for another thread. At the moment I am asking my MP to put a question to Chris Grayling on the floor of the house to elicit clarification as to whether HCEOs whom he has personally selected and appointed may use this authority whilst working in the private sector and whether his personal interpretation of schedule 7 allows his appointed, sworn officers to re-delegate their authority to anyone they choose. I would really welcome any opinions on this, especially legally trained ones, as I need to know if I have missed something here. It seems too huge for them to have got away with it but once a wrong practice becomes established it becomes very hard to get people to listen otherwise. As they say, if you make the lie big enough everyone will believe it. The law, however, is the law. Once this gets out the BBC are going to have to deal with a lot of egg on face and a lot of compensation claims.

Hi Isitme. Thank you for responding. The lender was Northern Rock, now NRAM. The first DJ responded very appropriately. We said exactly "in order for me to be able to defend myself I need to see what the claim is based on." The DJ looked briefly at what the claimant had brought to court, a Witness Statement by some trainee solicitor, the signed(only by me) deed amd 2 sets of "mortgage conditions" I had never seen before. I stated the truth, that I had never set eyes on the "mortgage conditions", that I had signed the deed against a document which they had not brought to court and that the terms on which they were basing their evidence (breach of contract) were not before the court. The DJ was very concerned by this. She ordered a PTR, by which time she indicated I should file a full defence (which I had not done) and that NRAM should have the opportunity to supply the missing documents. She reserved costs and said the matter was "serious". At the PTR a different DJ presided. By this time NRAM had got their act together and put forward an Offer of Loan (unsigned by anyone) which they now stated contained the terms of the loan hitherto missing. The DJ was intrigued by the fact that the evidence might be flawed, that the terms presented in evidence might not actually have been agreed and ordered this part (the "money" part) of the claim to go to trial. He then made the bizarre order for the possession, based on the very documents he had just adjudged should be the object of a future trial. Jo

Thanks Dodgeball. No, I don't have my own thread. As I said, I believe there are issues related to this thread which is why I was asking the OP if he agreed. This thread has covered many issues, all relating to the same theme - is the deed valid? - which is where I am at. I was not looking to divert attention. Just asking for some advice while we are all waiting. Anyway, hopefully IsItMe will let me know his thoughts. All the best Jo

Hi Apple/IsItMe. I've been staying quiet (dumbstruck) since it hit me a while back what you have actually put before the PC. The Crown v The Banks heh (with some of the highest judges in the land adjudicating). Only one way that can lawfully go IMHO. Though I might have a side bet on them dodging the issue for as long as they can - desperately picking at any possible flaws in the application rather than face the inevitibility of the argument. Is that what enabled them to throw out the one they did? As I said before I stand in awe. I was wondering, while we seem to be at a hiatus, if it would be ok to ask for your help? I have noticed recent posts touching on s.2 again. You may remember we had a PO granted based on t's and c's (unsigned by anyone and never seen before by us) which the same DJ, at the same hearing, allowed should be proven at a future trial. We have had appeal denied by the first DJ, an application to void the order (as prejudicial) dismissed or ignored by a CJ and a request to the CJ to leapfrog to Queens Bench deliberately misinterpreted as a request for leave to appeal to himself, and denied. So we now only have an oral hearing left (26th) before all doors are closed. We have submitted an application to the PC for the deed to be declared void on the grounds we have never seen, let alone signed any of the documents they are saying are incorporated to it. I want to go further and apply the thread here as well but I am firefighting at the moment and don't feel I can take enough of the details on board right now to present a watertight application. Would this be a good time, while we are all waiting for the decision, to ask you to have a look at this? There are just so many issues of bad, illogical decisions and judicial errors it is overwhelming. The issues are not specifically "on thread" but are clearly related and may have relevance here. I don't want to presume on IsItMe's platform. Or are you both taking a very well-earned break? Jo

Hi Timetogoram. Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. Our lender (NR) has secured a possession order with a signed (by us, not them) deed and nothing else. Neither the mortgage offer, nor the conditions nor any other document in existence has been signed either by us or them. We took the mortgage out in 2007. We were sent an offer of loan and having agreed the terms within were told just to sign the deed. At the first possession hearing they turned up with the deed and 2 sets of conditions which we had never seen before but not the offer with the terms in it. The DJ set a PTR to allowed us time to file a proper response, which we did, explaining how they had not produced any document signed by us which stated the terms of the mortgage. Seeing as how they were claiming possession based on alleged arrears we thought it would be necessary for them to at least produce a document showing what the arrears actually were. At the PTR they then turned up with an offer of loan (unsigned by anyone) containing terms different from those in the original (the missing, true offer). We protested and the DJ (a different one) believed us enough to allow that part to go to trial. But he then gave them the possession order based on the document he had just allowed to be challenged at a future trial. We have since applied to void the order because it was prejudicial, being based on the outcome of a future trial. That was refused. We appealed to the CJ using s.2, the registration gap, Helden (working for us in this case) and he has dismissed our appeal as wholly without merit. Again he said "section 2 does not apply to legal mortgages". We now have one final shot at it at an oral hearing in 2 weeks and then all doors are closed. We are putting it all in an application to the Property Chamber in the hopes they can do something but these lower court judges are something else. They will not listen to s2 however logically you apply it (and I totally agree with you that logically s2 has to apply to the t's and c's at the very least). I can logically make it apply to the deed too using the registration gap but fat chance with that in court. The terms in this bogus offer they have sworn into evidence don't even match the payments we were making for over 6 years! They still got the possession order and the appeal was thrown out. Such incredible, nonsensical and unintelligent abuse of judicial power has left us reeling. There is nothing left we can do. Except lend our experience to help anyone else in the same situation, which we are happy to do if it can be of any use. Jo

And, of course, this is what the Notice (UN1) is about. HM may have ownership but if you attach your bill of sale to the UN1 it gives you equitable interest. Apple, I stand in awe.

What is REGISTER? rights which a king has by virtue of his prerogative. Hence owners of counties palatine were formerly said to have “jura regalia” in their counties as fully as the king in his pal- ace. 1 Bl. Comm. 117. The term is sometimes used in the same sense In the Spanish law. See Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 506. Some writers divide the royal prerogative into majora and minora regalia, the former including the regal dignity and power, the latter the revenue or fiscal prerogatives of the crown. 1 Bl. Comm. 117. Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/register/#ixzz2s00xlepC

Thank you Apple. That is what logic told me but I just wanted to doublecheck in case I'd missed something. Btw I've finally got it! Your last post to Dodgeball flicked the switch. This is massive. There will be casualties by the roadside but it has to get out in the end. Of course you can't mortgage "registered" land. It isn't yours. Jo

Hi Apple. Do your proposals/arguments in this thread apply equally to BTL? Jo

Hi there. I'm not sure I understand your last question. In the situation I am in, facing eviction, I am naturally looking at every case where possession has been avoided. I came across one where the lender was asked if they had securitised the loan and they got a sacrificial young trainee to make the witness statement saying no they hadn't. When the lie was found out the case was thrown out. I remembered White Rabbit saying they need the PoA to securitise. My lender has said they haven't used mine. No way have they not securitised the debt. We are talking NR at the height of their game. As my case involves fraudulent documents I am looking for any extra, unconnected back up to discredit them. If White Rabbit is correct, I can show them to be liars. If he is not correct, I can't. That's all. It's not a strategy and has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. I just can't find the answer anywhere and thought I'd try Ben. Please don't anyone get distracted with any of this. It was just a one off question. It doesn't matter. I greatly value your advice re. revoking it though and will get on to it pronto. Thanks. And Ben, I know we all talk backwards about mortgages as in "I have a mortgage with...." instead of "I have granted a mortgage to..." but I don't think this is an issue really - just a habit they have instilled in us. It doesn't change reality, just designed to make us feel beholden. Jo

Enfircer. Thanks for that. As I said to Ben I just like to check everything out myself. I seem to have got myself some fatherly advice from him but no actual answer. I found about the PoA a while ago and have made note of your suggestion to revoke it. I was asking the question because my lender has stated they have not used my PoA. I am aware of another case where this lie cost them the outcome. I only asked Ben as he seemed to be especially knowledgeable on securitisation. Oh heck here I go off thread again. I do not want to go there and certainly don't want to start any debate at all. It was intended just as a simple one-off question. I am totally focussed on the deed now. It is going to take a while longer for me to get to application stage. As I said early on, I am aware how important this is for everyone concerned and am really worried I might do damage with an unmeritorious application. In the meantime though I've got an oral hearing end of Feb and a multi-track case to prepare for concerning the amount of the arrears. I don't think I can use the deed issue at the oral hearing, not even with a shoehorn, but the upcoming trial is open to anything (other than a s2 defence). Jo

I just like to check everything out myself but have struggled getting an answer on that particular question

Hi Ben. Can I just ask you an off subject question? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if they need your PoA to securitize your mortgage? Jo

Hi Apple. Me honing in on #77 just shows how fixated my brain has become on s.2 over the past months. It is accutely tuned to pick up anything that supports the argument and demonstrate "I knew I was right all along". I believe I have understood the theme of the thread from the off - hence my apologies in my first post about veering off track. I appear to still be doing it though. Apologies again. That's definitely it now on s.2. I have read the full thread more than once and each time something new comes into focus. I shall continue doing this until this stops happening. Then I will know I've finally got it. Void Mortgage sent me the registration gap analysis. Lamb I got from here - too late. I have only picked up this thread in the last week. I shall go back to Bibby for the assuming. Thanks again. Jo

Hi Apple. When I set up the £20 payments I was fighting this case on the fact that the offer document had been switched and so arrears could not legally be established. No arrears, no possession. I was using s2 to say the offer didn't comply therefore couldn't be used to establish the arrears. When I referred to your #77 post above I was picking up on where you said s.2 DID apply to the Offer. If that were the case I would need to go no further - I would be home and dry as mine doesn't comply. I needed to show that I was paying something or arrears would be automatically established. I was trying to hold them off on the unestablished amounts. How could they say I'm in arrears when they have nothing valid saying how much I should be paying. It was definitely a debateable tactic and I did make sure I referred to it in my defence as "erring on the side of honour even though they have not proven any enforceable contract with me". If I am now switching tacks to show the deed is invalid my previous arguments are going to haunt me for sure. Is it acceptable for me to say hey I've just found something new that shows the DJ's decision is wrong but not for the reasons I thought? I thought that was not allowed. Btw thank you so much for sketching out the argument again. It is sinking in - albeit slowly. Your last post really helped. I am amazed at your patience. I am stuck on the "assuming the deed" bit at the mo. Can't seem to find any references to what that is about. Is it that if there is no presumption of delivery then there must be proof of delivery like signing for a registered letter? I don't understand what assuming means in this context and who says it has to have happened? I also am getting conflicting views on who has to sign the speciality contract. Could you point me to the statute? Thanks again. Jo

Sorry Apple. I'm getting used to the posting system. I meant the last post "This is really confusing me..." to be attached to this one of yours.

Apple this is now really confusing me. This is all I have been arguing at court. That the supporting documents need to comply, not the deed. If this were the case I would have succeeded and thousands of others arguing s.2 as the lenders certainly never sign the offers. In my case no one did. Jo

Crapstone - In view of this do you think my Official Offer payments have any relevance? (in my above post to Apple). As I say they've been accepting them for 10 months now yet keep telling me they are "unacceptable". The intent was to do just what you mention - establish a new contract through acceptance. Jo

Many thanks for this Apple. I am now thinking perhaps the only point of going to the oral hearing would be to try and persuade the judge that granting the PO based on the outcome of a future trial is prejudicial. I will leave that issue for now as I don't want to clutter the thread. I don't think your points are incorrect - I am just having a few problems adjusting from all the research I absorbed leading up to possession hearing to the new prospect of challenging the deed. As the original judge who ordered the document trial has disallowed me to use s.2 I am now thinking perhaps he did me a favour. I shall now have to focus on this different approach and start from the beginning. They are going to want my arguments pretty soon. The big problem I still have is forcing myself to accept they can just switch documents with no repercussions. That is terrifying and seems just bonkers as it would leave it so open to abuse. Surely the courts would be full of people thrashing out unverifiable details of their loan offers. Everyone I know signed their offers. Just another aside - I set up a payment to them of £20 pm with an Official Offer letter saying this was in full satisfaction of all obligations on my account. They have been accepting this but writing me letters saying it is unacceptable. I have noticed they are nervous about this as well but the judge wasn't interested anyway. I am going to spend some time now delving into all the research and try to focus what is left of my brain on this new challenge. I totally take on board this has to be done right. Thanks to everyone. Jo

NRAM Jo

Hi. I have just been back and re-read Apple's post #77 where s/he says the Offer has to be signed at least by me under contract law under penalty of fraud This is what I have been trying to bring to the attention of the judges. The irony of it is the first one agreed with me in principle but would not agree it fell in the scope of s.2. He refused leave to appeal the possession order on the grounds that s.2 is irrelevant to legal mortgages and hamstrung me in the upcoming trial by disallowing me to argue my defence using s.2 on the basis that "the Offer of Loan is not a contract". It actually refers to itself as a contract! So this upcoming trial is just going to be a "yes it is" "no it isn't" match between me and their barrister in front of (the same) CJ. Who can possibly decide that one without a legal framework? If they can't prove the document is authentic and I can't prove it isn't (a negative) then what? Is the judge just going to make up a new contract and invite us both to agree it? Denning called this situation "a gap that cannot be filled". If it weren't so serious it would be comical. I would happily give Apple's argument (#77) a go at the European Court if I thought it would have a chance. All I know is that they are nervous about the upcoming trial where they are going to have to verify their evidence. They have sent me estimated costs of c.£16,000. They have sent a barrister down from London from the get go. He couldn't hide his shock when he got the order. He almost fell over in surprise and delight.. I was just too stunned by the illogicality to do anything useful at the time. Barrister 1 : LiP 0 I am nervous about posting the lender's name just because no one else seems to do it. No other reason. Suffice it to say we all own a big chunk of them. Do you have any thoughts on whether the Property Chamber might be a way to go? I am led to believe all appeal avenues in our court system are exhausted by the CJ's refusals. I have an oral hearing left at the end of Feb but after that its all over. Incidently, when I applied for permission to appeal I asked for (required) leave to appeal to QB Court of Record, not leave to appeal to him, the CJ. This is called leapfrogging I think and is quite valid. However, he just ignored it and stated he was taking it as leave to appeal to him and refused it. I have reported this to QB but have heard nothing back to date. This is so wrong on so many levels, just basic contract law to start with, never mind inducement, silent fraud, unfair terms etc.etc. How can they get a judge to give them my property based on a contract I haven't signed? In the meantime they have got their warrant. I shall fend off the eviction as long as I can. Of course the DJ never signed the order so I can use that for a while at least. Any suggestions from anyone gratefully received. Jo