Be careful with them! When we were with them I rang and paid all arrears and they stated £0.00 owed. Going forward paid DD on time. Called after payment and asked if we were up to date NO! We owed 92p as they had mis calculated! So I paid it and asked if our credit would be marked in default. No as it is under £1.00. I went mad, they admitted they wouldn't have told me so the next month they would have marked our credit and before we knew it we would owe hundreds. He eventually agreed with me. How many people have they done this to? Scumbags LL X

Northview have owned them since 2016 pos before? Theresa May opened their new offices https://www.businessmag.co.uk/maidenhead-theresa-may-opens-northview-groups-new-headquarters/ Looks to me that they have changed account number as they are trying to hide what went on before. LL

The only way they will send the history notes is if the court order them too and they will heavily redact them "privileged information". ICO will do nothing.....been there done that there..... the ICO are USLESS. LL

Thats right

Couldn't agree with you more. Why do we have such stringent rules on slaughter in this country but allow Halal meat? if you live in this country ALL should abide by one law? Totally agree also about laboratories. Thease links disgust me, I have never been a lover of R***A (reading links I have to put that or risk being sued). I donate always have but to sanctuaries, they really need the money and are in it for their love of animals....END off! I am shocked! angry and saddened their behavior needs stopping. I could go on about this all night......the thing that has always made me dislike them, they put animals down! I think it's 14 days correct me if I'm wrong? if they were animal lovers they would save as many as they could. 40 -50 thousand animals destroyed each year? WHY!!!! they would rather spend more wages, false titles, board meetings, litigating the wrong people ect ect anything but spending the money on the animals. The article from the links they raised a baby fawn, took back in to the wild, then realized it would not survive and shot it!!!!! says it all along with their 6 weeks training. There is no training.....you've got it or you've not. It's a natural thing. You love animals and want to care for them. They make me sick.....literally! LL:mad2:

So pleased you had a good outcome. But most councils and bailiffs don't act this way. Which council was this and bailiffs? I have been in the same situation several times and if anything my council and drosendales are getting worse. Pleased for you.....but this is not the norm. LL:???:

Sorry if this has already been posted or not relevant....I have been looking at this thread but due to work commitments not followed thoroughly. UBK v Sahib & others LL:-)

I can't see how that's legal!!! who is your 1st mortgage with? and have they got a suspended order? It's not been to court yet, he can't tell you what the judge is going to do. I smell a [problem] with the estate agents and the mortgage company. Hang in there doc.....it's not over, we will help all we can. I cannot see how they can do that, it has to go to court 1st. LL

Yes

Sorry I thought the support would be quicker..... nice to see Ben supporting the petition.

I have contributed on this thread where I can.....admittedly alot of this thread is over my head. What I am really surprised at the amount of views and watchers have been massive so far, BUT only 5 people have signed the e petition????? Following those statistics there is little faith in the arguments put forward.....and that shocks me! I thought there would be more support. ????? LL

Irish property law is different to English. A1 knows more on this than me, maybe he will expand on it? LL

Hi Apple, That's the difference Swift don't securitise and no their not on the Irish stock exchange. LL

Yes but they operate different to they rest of the sub prime.

Can you expand on that IS IT ME? LL

The longer you have been on CAG the easier it is to suss the trolls....they don't get very far:madgrin: LL

Sorry also found this http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Financial_institutions/financial_institutions_harrison_131011

Take a look at this, Nemo lost. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/unfair-relationships/yates-lorenzelli-nemo.pdf LL

Not sure what is happening, opens every time for me:???:

Here we go http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/

Glad it was of help Apple, I have just been on the OFT register and it's fine now, LL

ditto:-)

Hi Apple, Loans are not regulated yet by the FCA only mortgages. The way I see it there is an INTERIM period where they are all owed to carry on activities, they have to be registered with FCA by September. Then in April they all have to re apply with stricter rules and a case officer is assigned to every company that wants a license. Here is more. http://www.fca.org.uk/consumer-credi...FYPHtAodiwIAvw What you will need to do from September Register for 'interim permission' From September, you will need to register with us for ‘interim permission’ if you wish to continue the activities you are currently licensed for after 1 April 2014. It is essential for you to do this if you want to continue these activities: if you do not do this, you are likely to be operating illegally. You will be able to register online from September and you will be asked to pay a fee – proposed at £150 for sole traders and £350 for the majority of other firms, with some exemptions. We will write to you again when the ‘interim permission’ system opens, to explain exactly what you need to do to help ensure you remain compliant. You can also sign up to receive email updates from us. Getting authorised from 1April 2014 After 1 April 2014, your firm or organisation will need to complete a more detailed application process for authorisation by us. We will confirm when this will be in due course and will publish details here about what this will involve. Our aim is to use a proportionate approach to authorisation depending on size and type of firm and activity conducted. Authorisation is our equivalent of the OFT’s licensing system. There will be a phased approach to authorisation, where we will ask different types of firms to apply by different deadlines. The application form will request information about your business, the structure of your business and your financial resources. To become authorised, licence holders will need to demonstrate that they satisfy the FCA’s minimum standards and will continue to satisfy them as long as they are authorised. These standards are known as ‘threshold conditions’. This requires consideration of your firm’s business model, the experience and integrity of the key personnel, the ownership of your firm and its financial position. When we receive your completed application form, we will allocate a case officer. They will review the application and may ask additional questions or seek further clarification. You will still be able to carry on regulated credit activities using your interim permission while you are waiting for the outcome of your application for authorisation. If your application for authorisation is successful, we will send you a confirmation letter with a unique reference number – this will be used in all your dealings with us. Some firms, such as banks and insurance brokers, that are already authorised by the FCA, will need to have their ‘permission’ amended. More detail on the changes The transfer of regulation from the OFT to the FCA is part of the Government’s programme of regulatory changes for financial services. This brings conduct of business regulation under a single financial services regulator. We will take a different approach to regulation from the OFT. We and the Government have published our initial proposals for how this new approach will work. Read more about this and the background to our approach. LL

Not sure if this is any help? https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/ Publications Warning for secured lenders – do you sign mortgage deeds? 22 August 2013 | in Property by Dan Marland, Professional Support Lawyer Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it. Usual practice is that lenders do not sign mortgage deeds. If these claims were to succeed, they would have an enormous impact on the entire secured lending industry. The argument The claims stem from section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (“LP(MP)A”), which provides: “(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each. (2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document. (3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.” Subsection (6) states that a “disposition” has the same meaning as in section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which confirms that a mortgage or charge is a disposition. Consequently, borrowers have argued that a mortgage is a contract for the disposition of an interest in land and, therefore, requires the signature of all the parties in accordance with section 2 of the LP(MP)A. The correct position This argument is wrong, and misunderstands the nature of a mortgage. A mortgage is an actual disposition and not an agreement for a disposition. Section 2 of the LP(MP)A clearly applies to a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. It does not apply to the actual disposition itself. Section 2 applies to contracts but not to deeds. The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties. However, the mortgage deed itself is simply the granting of the security by the borrower to the lender. This is the disposition of the interest in the property. It is a unilateral set of obligations entered into by the borrower, executed as a deed, not a contract. As a result, section 2 does not apply. As long as the mortgage deed was validly executed by the borrower the lender can enforce the obligations it contains, including any mortgage conditions incorporated by reference. What have the courts said? The relationship between a deed and section 2 of the LP(MA)A was considered by Lord Justice Mummery in the Court of Appeal, in an application for permission to appeal. The case was Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Challis [2001] EWCA Civ 1389. Mr Green stated that, in accordance with section 2 of the LP(MA)A, the mortgage required the signature of all parties to it as it was a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. Mummery LJ stated: “This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed…a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of the deed and the formal requirements governing contracts.” He went on to confirm that: “Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land… A deed is a different kind of instrument from an ordinary contract; and it is not a requirement of the execution of a deed that it should comply with the requirements of section 2 of the LP(MA)A. That is clear. Section 1 refers throughout to deeds, section 2 refers throughout to contracts, clearly recognising that they are two different legal concepts.” Mr Green relied upon the case of United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib [1996] 3 All ER 251, which confirmed that there had to be a single written document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties and not merely a deposit of title deeds by way of security in order to create a mortgage or charge. Mr Green claimed that if the mortgage in the United Bank of Kuwait case was governed by section 2 of the LP(MA)A, so should his mortgage. The United Bank of Kuwait case was relied upon because Mr Green claimed that within the mortgage deed, there was a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star. Mummery LJ did not believe that the United Bank of Kuwait case assisted Mr Green because it was a case where there was no deed. It was a case of a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds. Formalities for deeds In accordance with sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a legal mortgage or charge by way of legal mortgage over land can only be created by deed. Therefore, section 2 of the LP(MA)A cannot apply to the legal mortgage itself, as it must always have been created by deed. For the deed to be valid it must be executed in accordance with section 1 of the LP(MA)A, which states: “(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: (i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or (ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal. (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.” Conclusion There is no requirement for the deed to be executed by the lender. Unlike a contract, a deed is generally enforceable despite a lack of consideration; therefore, as the lender is not entering into any obligations, it is not necessary for it to execute the deed. The deed operates to grant security for the mortgage loan provided by the lender by way of legal charge against the property. That security is and can only be given by the borrower. As the only party having obligations under the deed is the borrower, it is not necessary for the lender to sign the deed. LL

Glad to be of help:madgrin: