Enforcement

Mortgagor's obligations

In addition to an obligation to repay principal and interest, the mortgage will invariably:

  1. oblige the mortgagor to repair and insure the property, and

  2. contain restrictions on the mortgagor’s ability to let it

Mortgagee's rights

A mortgagee's remedies include sale and the appointment of a receiver. Taking possession and foreclosure will rarely be encountered in practice.

The mortgagee’s power of sale arises under section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) and is regulated by LPA 1925, s 103. This allows a mortgagee to instigate possession proceedings once:

  1. two current monthly instalments have fallen due and remain unpaid, or

  2. in the case of a repayable on demand mortgage, a notice requiring payment of the mortgage money has been served and payment has not been made three months after service

To provide a level of protection to defaulting homeowners, section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 provides that where the mortgagee is suing for possession and the mortgagor is likely to be able within a reasonable period

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents