Talk:Law of Property Act 1925

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)