In part 5 of this chapter we have noted that the operation of overreaching is not contentious when applied to investment property. In that context, the shifting of beneficial interests from the land into the money is consistent with the purposes of the trust; the beneficiaries’ key concern is with the maintenance of a trust fund, rather than any particular item of property. The operation of the mechanism can be more problematic when applied to land bought as a home. The assumption underlying overreaching, that an interest in the fund is as good as an interest in the land, clashes with the purpose of the trust in cases typified by City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54 where legal owners mortgage the land without the knowledge or consent of all the beneficiaries. The disjunction between the ethos underlying the overreaching mechanism and the ethos of TOLATA that regulates trusts of land is discussed by Hopkins “Regulating Trusts of the Home: Private Law and Social Policy” (2009) 125 LQR 310 in the context of an analysis of the courts’ different approaches to regulation of the home. Hopkins highlights that the continued application of overreaching irrespective of the purpose for which property is acquired (as an investment or a home) is inconsistent with the policy adopted by TOLATA of providing a scheme of regulation consistent with the use of land as a home. As is noted in part 5 of the chapter, this inconsistency would have been removed by the implementation of the Law Commission’s proposals concerning overreaching and beneficiaries in occupation, which are extracted in that part. Hopkins’ article is relevant to chapters 18-21 and is further discussed in the online materials that accompany chapter 18.