Talk:Law of Property Act 1925: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:14, 25 January 2009

Hi

Many buy to let and commercial mortgages are written under Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA) legislation.

As a debt adviser I have encountered situations where people can lose their homes without a court process as a result of the mortgage on the property they occupy being LPA rather than Administration of Justice Act 1970(AJA)where repossession can only take place after a court hearing.

The position seems anomalous. In the case of a commercial lease, I understand that repossession of the premises that are used by the lessee as a residence as well for business (e.g. a pub) must include a court hearing.

My own view is that legislation is required to ensure that repossession of owner occupied premises must include a court hearing, even where the mortgage is LPA.

Does anyone have any views on this?

Jim

82.152.255.233 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the question to the Help Desk.

Revision as of 12:25, 25 January 2009 edit 82.152.255.233 (talk) ←Created page with 'Hi Many buy to let and commercial mortgages are written under Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA) legislation. As a debt adviser I have encountered situations where pe...'		Revision as of 19:14, 25 January 2009 edit undo AndyJones (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 12,499 edits WP:HD Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	[[Special:Contributions/82.152.255.233\|82.152.255.233]] ([[User talk:82.152.255.233\|talk]]) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/82.152.255.233\|82.152.255.233]] ([[User talk:82.152.255.233\|talk]]) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

			*I've copied the question to the Help Desk.