THE Title Deed Transfers 1995 ,2005

No attesting witness

1995 possible problem with 12 year rule?

Two title Deed transfers as a gift deed for in consideration N L A as joint tenants. same property

First transfer Invalid Title Deed No attesting witness: no signature to attest to the signatures.

Second transfer as a gift deed for no consideration as joint tenant

the solicitor that oversaw the transfer acted as the attesting witness.

Briefly: R an elderly widow 81yrs, the sole owner of the property was taken by (HS) 250 mls to the transferee's (HS) solicitors MG, the sister of H.S was entered as the witness who failed to sign to attest the signatures.

The second transfer : The wife of the transferee (H.S.S) of the first transfer was added to the title deeds as a gift deed for no consideration as third joint tenant, again the the elderly widow 91yrs was transported 250 mls to the solicitors MG for the signing ,the solicitors MG prepared the transfer and acted as the attesting witness.

In my opinion both the 1995 and the 2005 transfers were invalid :

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989



Deeds and their execution.

(1)Any rule of law which—

(a)restricts the substances on which a deed may be written;

(b)requires a seal for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual; or

(c)requires authority by one person to another to deliver an instrument as a deed on his behalf to be given by deed,

is abolished.

(2)An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

(a)it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

(b) it is validly executed as a deed by that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

(3)An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if :—

(a)it is signed—

(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

(4)In subsections (2) and (3) above “sign”, in relation to an instrument, includes making one’s mark on the instrument and “signature” is to be construed accordingly.

THE LAND REGISTRY HAVE FAILD TO RECONIZE THEIR MISTAKE IN REGISTERING THE TRANSFER IN 1995 IN FACT BEFORE THE 1st AUGUST 1995 THE TRANSFER REQUIRED TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES WITHOUT WHICH THE TRANSFER IS VOID IN THIS CASE THERE WASN'T EVEN ONE WITNESS PRESENT TO ATTEST SO IT WAS A FRAUD he and his soliciror used Sagar's sister printed  name!!!

SO WHAT IS GOING ON ? IN MY OPINION IF THE FIRST TRANSFER WAS VOID CONSEQUENTLY THE SECOND TRANSFER WAS ALSO VOID THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD AND A COVER UP OF LAND REGISTRY'S LACK OF CARE AND COMPETENCE
 AND NOW THEY ARE BEHAVING LIKE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES AND ARE AT THE PRESENT TIME DESTROYING ALL HARD COPY THEY HAVE MOVED THEIR LOCAL OFFICES SO THEY ARE OUT OF REACH OF PERSONAL CONFRONTATION AND ARE SO HIDING BEHIND ELECTRONIC WALLS
 





               THIS IS THE THIRD LETTER    TO THE REGISTRA OF THE COVENTRY LAND REGISTRY                                                  

Dear Ms A.Patel,

In reference to your reply letter dated 28/06/11 in response to my query as to the validity of the transfer of property ESX**** dated 14 of March 1995 for no consideration.

The transference of the property ESX***** by the transferrer Mrs.R to The Transferee Mr H.S.S ,as Joint Tenant .Was invalid for the following reason : There was no Attesting witness signature upon the said document .to attest to the transferrer and Transferee signatures. I refer you to the

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 taken from The LAND REGISTRY PRATICE GUIDE 8 . Execution of deeds

3 Execution of deeds by individuals

3.1 The three elements: signature, attestation and delivery

May I draw your attension to (3) (1)

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (Deeds and their execution.)

(1) Any rule of law which—

(a) restricts the substances on which a deed may be written;

(b) requires a seal for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual; or

(c) requires authority by one person to another to deliver an instrument as a deed on his behalf to be given by deed, is abolished.

(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

(b)it is validly executed as a deed by that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—

(a) it is signed—

(1) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

(4)In subsections (2) and (3) above “sign”, in relation to an instrument, includes making one’s mark on the instrument and “signature” is to be construed accordingly.

Consequently due to the invalidity of the Deed transfer on the 30/03/95 the transferrer H,S.S had no legal ownership of the property ESX****** therefore had no legal right in Law to transfer the property ESX***** to the transferee Ha K S on the 08/06/2005.

Yours sincerely

A.B.G

Examination of title

3.22 Authentication - Introduction

Execution or attestation is the term used in relation to the signing and witnessing of a deed. Until 1995 the rules for execution had changed little since the 16^th century. A report by the Scottish Law Commission, published in 1988, subsequently led to the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, which made major changes in the law of execution of deeds and the legal requirements for writing.

The 1995 Act received Royal Assent on 1 May 1995 and came into force on 1 August 1995. It applies to all documents executed on or after 1 August 1995. For the Agency, the single most important change is that in a document executed on or after 1 August 1995 the signature of a granter (being a person) requires only one witness instead of two.

 So the fact is, at the time of the transfer March 1995 the law states that two attesting witness  SIGNETURES were required for a transfer to be VALID 

           The Land Registry have refused to reconise their                             mistake in acepting this VOID TRANSFER

Their reasoning is, THEY PRESUME THE ATTESTING  WITNESS

WAS PRESENT, (a f in joke) one can only presume that a witness

was present if there was a signature on the document, if No

signeture then the presumpsion must in all logic be that the

attesting witness was not in attendence at the signing, there can

be no reasoning for such a statment made by

 Mz A. Patel, an employee of the Land REGISTRY

Now let's play Detective

The  characters  to the plot

Mrs  Rawlinson  (my Mother an uneducated widow in her 80's) White British.

H.S.Sagar a Pakistani businessmen, a property collector six

properties director of  at least three companies TWO registered but

dormant for 19 years. the other not registered doing business of A MIDDLE MAN

exporting   he's a  moral cretin who's business IS FRAUD AND

BULLYING OLD LADIES TO STEAL THEIR SAVINGS



M G Solicitor  (a Conveyancing Solicitor hired by H.S.Sagar

 MRS  R being the sole proprietor of the property ESX******

in East Sussex a freehold property without mortgage valued

.It had a sitting Tenant of 20 years aged 80 .

.In 1991 Mrs  R found herself in debt to the Council to the sum

of £3.400 for works carried out to   her tenants flat

H.S.S drafted all correspondence to the council for Mrs R,

pleading her poverty over a period of two years ,he became

her financial adviser ,Mrs R was warned by several agency's

that she was in great danger of forfeiting her home as the

council were threatening her with Bankruptcy ,at the time Mrs R had at least £30.000 in the bank and  H.S.S. Had knowledge of this as he had a joint account with her he had NO monies of his own in the account, this account was set-up purely to hide her finances from her creditors and social services ,M G , H S S's solicitors became involved and began communicating to the council informing them of Mrs  R's poverty and her being a poor venerable elderly widow and that they (the council) were taken advantage of her by threatening her with the insolvency court and the possibility of bankruptcy it transpired that an insolvency notice was issued on Mrs R .Five weeks prior to the court hearing the Solicitors M,G oversaw the land transfer of Mrs .Rawlinson's property to their client Mr H.S.S as a joint tenant for no consideration.no monies paid Did Mrs R understand the meaning of the phrase Joint Tenent and it's implications ?

Did she have independent advice? How was it possible the solicitor M.G were enployed by the fraudster H.S.S 

The factual history of this Mr H.S.S in connection with Mrs R's affairs

Between 1991 1994, he illegally and by fraud took control of Mrs R's property ESX***** unbeknown to her

The sequence of events

In 1991 he wrote to the Fair Rent Registry informing them that he was planning to purchase Mrs R's property 3* *********** ESX***** and that he would keep Mrs R on as his caretaker..

In 1993 18 months later he again writes to the Fair Rent Registry informing them that he wished to apply for a rent increase and stated that he was the Landlord (of Mrs R's Property) and signed the RR1 Form to this fact, although Mrs R was still the sole owner. The Fair Rent Registry accept him as the landlord and grants a rent increase.

In 1994 he tried to obtain the Title Deeds of Mrs R' property for the sum of £5.000 the true value being approximately £75.000 .This was by way of a letter he drafted and sent to MRS R for her to sign ,it was  address to his solicitors M G but to be sent to him ? It was composed in such a way  the reciever would believe that it was written by Mrs R . but it was writen by him which was an atempt  to defraud THE ELDERLY WIDOW SO WAS  elder abuse AND FRAUD

In 1994 posing as the landlord  he writes a harassment letter to the Mrs R's  80 year old tenant threatening her with eviction, which was successful as the tenant vacated the flat within two months Sagar's unlawful harrisment she was a tenant there for over 20 years. TO BE CONTINUED





                         THE Title Deed Transfers 1995 ,2005

No attesting witness

1995 possible problem with 12 year rule?

Two title Deed transfers as a gift deed for in consideration N L A as joint tenants. same property

First transfer Invalid Title Deed No attesting witness: no signature to attest to the signatures.

Second transfer as a gift deed for no consideration as joint tenant

the solicitor that oversaw the transfer acted as the attesting witness.

Briefly: R an elderly widow 81yrs, the sole owner of the property was taken by (HS) 250 mls to the transferee's (HS) solicitors MG, the sister of H.S was entered as the witness who failed to sign to attest the signatures.

The second transfer : The wife of the transferee (H.S.S) of the first transfer was added to the title deeds as a gift deed for no consideration as third joint tenant, again the the elderly widow 91yrs was transported 250 mls to the solicitors MG for the signing ,the solicitors MG prepared the transfer and acted as the attesting witness.

In my opinion both the 1995 and the 2005 transfers were invalid :

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989



Deeds and their execution.

(1)Any rule of law which—

(a)restricts the substances on which a deed may be written;

(b)requires a seal for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual; or

(c)requires authority by one person to another to deliver an instrument as a deed on his behalf to be given by deed,

is abolished.

(2)An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

(a)it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

(b) it is validly executed as a deed by that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

(3)An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if :—

(a)it is signed—

(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

(4)In subsections (2) and (3) above “sign”, in relation to an instrument, includes making one’s mark on the instrument and “signature” is to be construed accordingly.

THE LAND REGISTRY HAVE FAILD TO RECONIZE THEIR MISTAKE IN

REGISTERING THE TRANSFER IN 1995 IN FACT BEFORE THE 1st

AUGUST 1995 THE TRANSFER REQUIRED TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES

WITHOUT WHICH THE TRANSFER IS VOID IN THIS CASE THERE

WASN'T EVEN ONE WITNESS PRESENT TO ATTEST SO IT WAS A

FRAUD he and his soliciror used Sagar's sister printed  name!!!

SO WHAT IS GOING ON ? IN MY OPINION IF THE FIRST TRANSFER

WAS VOID CONSEQUENTLY THE SECOND TRANSFER WAS ALSO VOID

THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD AND A COVER UP OF LAND

REGISTRY'S LACK OF CARE AND COMPETENCE

 AND NOW THEY ARE BEHAVING LIKE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES AND

ARE AT THE PRESENT TIME DESTROYING ALL HARD COPY THEY HAVE

MOVED THEIR LOCAL OFFICES SO THEY ARE OUT OF REACH OF

PERSONAL CONFRONTATION AND ARE SO HIDING BEHIND

ELECTRONIC WALLS