Jump to content

applecart

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    3,032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

applecart last won the day on December 9 2014

applecart had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

236 Excellent

About applecart

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. The OP needs to be aware that Cabot have not had an active FCA licence since the 28th February 2015. Link: http://fca-consumer-credit-interim.force.com/CS_RegisterSearchPageNew Apple
  2. I think the OP needs to be aware that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd have not had a FCA licence since 28th February 2015. Link: http://fca-consumer-credit-interim.force.com/CS_RegisterSearchPageNew Apple
  3. Don't be fobbed off.....SPML and Prefferred should know what the FCA say which assists them with the definition of a regulated mortgage contract... Which borrowers? PERG 4.4.2G 01/07/2005 The condition set out in PERG 4.4.1G (1) limits the range of borrowers to whom the protections of the mortgage regulation regime apply to individuals and trustees. If a company (which is not acting as a trustee) borrows money for the purpose of funding the company's business, and the loan is secured by a mortgage over the company's property, the mortgage contract is not a regulated mortgage contract. So a lender will not carry on a regulated activity by entering into that contract, nor will the lender carry on a regulated activity if it advises on, arranges or administers that contract. However, if the lender makes a loan for business purposes to an individual sole trader, or (in England and Wales) a partnership, and the loan is secured on the borrower's house or houses, the contract will be a regulated mortgage contract. so........, it would appear that the term "regulated mortgage" does apply to some buy to let 'mortgages' - that concern 'individual sole traders' - or ( in England and Wales) and 'Partnerships'; by virtue of which means it will be a "regulated" mortgage. This link may assist you move your contention forward: https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html#D319 Apple
  4. Hi All, Can I just say, as I understand it - Once a suspended possession order is issued, a bank does not have to apply to a Judge to get the warrant issued. Judges do not commit fraud, they are there to stop fraud - it's surely up to us to prove it though. I don't know if this helps you - but I saw the comment below added to the story in the Nottingham Post: Lots of progress is being made by homeowners. Good on those who have supported Tom so far. Not quite sure where harrystotie is coming from though? Courts don't sanction Fraud either! Tom, all you need do is check your bank statements. If B&B's name is not the recipient of your payments/showing on your banks statments, you may be able to prove 'fraud'. If some other firms name is showing as the recipient of your payments, the chances are it will be the firm who is showing on the bank statments that brought the proceedings against you in the name of B&B. If your bank statement shows a different firms name, get a copy of your title register and a copy of your deed, again, if the names on the register and deed do not match the name on your bank statements, you may have hit the fraud nail on the head!! If you can, then its simple, go on line and report what you find to Action Fraud, if they confirm you are a victim of crime, then you can use the letter they send you to help protect you and your home from being unlawful possession. You can also use this letter to set aside the warrant of possession and suspended possession order. (by the way Judges do not issue warrants, court staff do); Complete the N244 form, in the box where it asks what do you want the court to do and why? state: "I want the court to set aside the suspended order of possession and warrant of possession on grounds of irregularity, fraud and abuse of process"; then when your application is heard, make sure to include the letter from Action Fraud, your bank statements, title deed and register of title to help the Judge see how the names on the banks statement, deed and title differ. I simply can't see any Judge sanctioning abuse of court process, nevermind fraud. So this way, if the Bailiffs turn up before you have your day in court, you will be able to show them the letter from Action Fraud (essentially confirming this is now a Criminal issue) and when you get your day in court, I rather suspect, no Judge will permit the warrant to be enforced against you - no matter what those relying on B&B's name try to do to overcome your concrete evidence. Times are changing, loads of firms draw up mortgage statements using the name of the firm they bought the mortgage debt from to pursue you and even bring claims against you in the name of what was known to you as your original lender such as in your case, B&B. Tom just needs to get up to speed with how to deal with them. The way forward is to check the paperwork and report them to Action Fraud, Court, and the FCA. That's the only way you will keep your home Tom" Might be useful to know?? Apple
  5. Source: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/ge-money-home-lending-put-up-for-sale/2020383.article GE Money Home Lending put up for sale 13 April 2015 | By Paul Thomas Tweet inShare 2Print Email Comments (2) Money-Cash-20-Note-Currency-UK-700x450.jpg GE Capital has put its specialist lending subsidiary, GE Money Home Lending, up for sale. In a note to brokers, the firm said it plans to reduce its size and concentrate on its industrial and manufacturing businesses. The note says: “GE Money Home Lending is among the platforms targeted for disposition. We anticipate being able to sell to buyers who are fully committed to and invested in the financial services industry and can offer a good environment for growth. “Our sale process will begin immediately and continue over approximately 24 months.” Clayton Hulme partner Chris Hulme says: “GE have probably found their place in the market somewhat pressed with the new challenger banks coming in that are more geared up to engage with brokers and the industry as a whole.” He adds: “The way forward [for the new owner] is to talk to brokers and clients [to see what they want].” Apple
  6. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1376.html The above is a case where charges were transferred. There is information within that references the LPA 1925 section 136 and at Para 44 it says: "It is important to recall the effect of an assignment of a right whether or not it is a statutory legal assignment. The assignee becomes either the legal or beneficial owner of the thing in action and its benefits. He does not become a party to any contract or deed which contains or gives rise to the right. The assignee will only become a part to the contract (or deed) if there is a novation of the instrument containing or giving rise to the right" There was also info here too: http://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/novation-assignment "Transfer of a debt For example: You borrow from a lender and you later want to transfer the debt to someone else (maybe a friend, a business partner or a the buyer of your business) so that he becomes liable to repay the lender instead of you. In this situation you should novate using: Novation agreement: transfer debt to new debtor. This is a common situation when a business is sold, and outstanding debts of the business are transferred to the new owner (perhaps loans of money but maybe also loans of goods for sale). Alternatively, this agreement can be used to transfer who pays back a personal loan between individuals. Transfer of a right to receive the repayment of a debt For example: You make a loan to someone (it could be money or goods) and later you want to change who receives the repayment. In this situation you should novate using:Novation agreement:transfer debt to new creditor. Common uses for this agreement would be where a business is sold and the buyer takes on the assets of the seller (the loans to other parties), or when factoring debt." Applecart
  7. Really??? I should do a bit of swatting up... [link removed] Apple
  8. I've had a look into this firm..... I should take a look at the fact that GE's Auditors resigned here: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1 Whether 'Engage' - thus Pepper (UK) Ltd have actually derived any right to take any of your money is at best 'questionable'. I agree - It makes sense to wait for the 'experts' to come along long before you pay 'Engage' any money whatsoever....OR become an 'expert' yourself.... Apple
  9. SP Thanks for your 'comments' - much appreciated. Apple
  10. SP From the BOS case: 6 Claim for an equitable charge Points of Law It is again necessary to set out a number of points before turning to the facts of the case. Equitable Mortgage A document, which for some defect of form (but which is otherwise valid) fails to take effect as a legal mortgage will (subject to section 2 of the 1989 Act) be a good equitable mortgage. The basis of this is the court's power specifically to perform a contract to create a legal interest in land. See Fisher & Lightwood Law of Mortgage 13th Ed at par 3.6 and the cases cited at footnotes 1 and 2. Section 2 of the 1989 Act This section 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 contract 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. In this case the Charge was signed by both the Trustees and on behalf of the Bank. It expressly incorporated the Standard Terms. Discussion [85] It seems to me that the above principles apply directly to the Legal Charge. It was not executed as a Deed and thus did not take effect as a legal charge. However it was signed by the parties and did contain all the terms that had been agreed and thus took effect as an equitable mortgage. link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html Apple
  11. Thanks for your comments SP Crapstone - no problem CitizenB - Thank you. SP In relation to the BOS v Waugh case - A poster on another forum was of the opinion that: "It is like the guy that wrote the about the waugh case on the self realisation site hasn't read the actual case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html" I've commented there to say: Unlike 'shah v shah' - in BOS v Waugh the deed had not been witnessed at all In 'shah' the deed had been witnessed - their claim was that the witness was not present at the time the deed was executed - In BOS v Waugh - The Bank tried to rely on its - 'Terms of the Charge' at clause 15 and POA - distinctively different scenarios I think all can agree? The terms relied on by BOS were: 'Terms of the charge' [27] In the light of the Bank's fall back arguments it is necessary to set out some of the terms of the charge: [28] Under clause 2 the Trustees charged Asquorn House as security for the Secured Liabilities. [29] By clause 3 the charge incorporated the Standard Conditions. Those conditions define the secured liabilities as "all sums of money owed and all liabilities or obligations to be carried out by you as at any time and from time to time …" [30] Condition s 14 and 15 provide You shall take whatever steps and execute whatever documents we may require for: 14.1. The purpose of perfecting and giving effect to the Charge 15.1. You by way of security, irrevocably appoint us and any Receiver and each one severally to be your attorney (with full power to delegate) for you and in your name and as our act and deed: 15.1.1. To execute as a deed and perfect all deeds … which you ought to execute under the obligations and provisions contained in these Conditions … The Bank accepted that because the Waughs signature had not been witnessed - the charge was not a Deed - Reliance upon the POA was of no use. [86] - "In his oral submissions Mr Wilson suggested that the Bank could rely on clause 15 of the Standard Conditions to enable it to execute any necessary documents pursuant to the Power of Attorney created by that clause. Following the hearing he has written to the court drawing my attention to section 1(1) of the Power of Attorney Act 1971 and a passage from paragraph 15 in Halsbury Laws Vol 1 5th Ed on Agency to the effect that a power of attorney must be created by deed and that if power is to be given to an agent to execute a deed that power must be given by a deed. Thus he now accepts that the Bank cannot rely on clause 15. He submits that instead the Court should order the Trustees to execute any documents necessary for perfecting the Legal Charge. In the event that the Trustees fail to execute them the Court has inherent power to direct that an officer of the Court execute them on behalf of the Trustees." POA 1971 s.1: 1 Execution of powers of attorney. (1)An instrument creating a power of attorney shall be [F1executed as a deed by] the donor of the power. The signatures of the Waugh's were not witnessed - the document had not been 'executed as a deed' S 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 [59] Under this section all conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed. Question begs, if the document was accepted by the Bank as NOT being a 'deed' for POA purposes - how or why on earth did they believe it would miraculously become a 'Deed' for s.52 purposes - even though the Deed had IN FACT been signed by themselves and the Waugh's btw... As we ALL know - the Deed - had been signed by the Waugh's and the Bank in this case - had the Waugh's signatures been duly attested - then it would have been spot on - not only for s.1 of the POA 1971 but also for s. 52 of the LPA 1925 purposes. The LPA 1925 s.53 - which Banks have a tendency to rely on in the lower courts - (given the findings in the BOS v Waugh case) I'm afraid - remain an issue. IT WAS BY NOV 14 - the Waugh's say: "Twenty months after our application to have a void and illegal mortgage canceled and removed from the Charges Register by the Land Registrar at Durham Land Registry, Bank of Scotland has withdrawn its entirely bogus legal objection to its removal and requested that the Property Chamber [which replaced the Land Registry adjudicating service and has been sitting on the vigourously disputed application since the first day of July 2013], inform the Land Registry that the existing entries in the register pertaining to the bank’s purported legal mortgage over a commercial property [as well as the appointment of LPA Receivers], should be canceled as soon as possible." I don't see how HMLR could do anything other than remove the charge - the underlying deed was defective. The Waugh's were not estopped. a registered charge does not guarantee its validity under the LRA s.51 I'm afraid. What about those 'unilateral notices' that end up registered against folks titles? - what about LPMPA 1989 s.2 - given that s.40 LPA 1925 was superseded by this section. Here's a case that looked into Unilateral notices - it's worth a read. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/28.html So, I can't see any reason why the Waugh's would be untruthful or look to mislead anyone as to the outcome of their case really. It all seems to stack up. Apple link to the Waugh's self realisation thread: http://self-realisation.com/equity/banksterbusters/bos-drops-legal-objection-to-cancellation-of-void-mortgage/
  12. Not at all Crapstone - Not at all! Do you care to comment on the cases posted? Perhaps you followed my alleged 'fanciful' advice - these cases appear to be successful, where I am alleged to have failed. Comment on the cases - not what went before - that's the proposition. Do you find issue with these new cases Crapstone? - Where are they likely to fail consumers? That's what folk want to know - can you assist them?????? Apple
  13. Ben - I know you are passionate about what went before - I'd hoped that perhaps you'd be good enough to share more of your passion and provide comments on the case I posted to do with 'Unilateral contracts'. Particularly, I had hoped you might comment where the judge said: [31] -I would therefore dismiss the appeal. It is not, in these circumstances, necessary to deal with the Bank's alternative case based on its respondent's notice. I should, however, make it clear that I am far from persuaded that the Bank would be entitled to succeed regardless of the effectiveness of its unilateral notice. Link again: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/28.html However, I'm more than happy to accept you exercising your perogative not to comment on the Unilateral Contracts case at this time. Perhaps I can invite you to comment on this case instead: http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2013/%5B2013%5D%20NICh%2014/j_j_DEE8994Final.htm The Judge in this case considered Paragan v Pender - his final comments were: [9] In all those circumstances I conclude therefore that the appeal should succeed and I reverse the order of the Learned Master, making it clear that this is no reflection on him, and strike out the order for possession. This case dealt with a Bank's representative (Santander) misrepresenting the facts in a court of law - Of course, I will respect your decision if you decide not to comment on the case. Apple
  14. I've just seen this thread. I kept away from referencing anything to do with the FTT decision on the CaG out of respect for the CaG's decision to close the threads that related to it. However, it would seem the discussion continues - albeit under the guise of a case that recently reared its head (the comments herein do not reflect the end result by the way - for an update see here: http://self-realisation.com/equity/banksterbusters/bos-drops-legal-objection-to-cancellation-of-void-mortgage/) Conscious as I am that those on this thread led us to believe that Banks can rely on the fact that they do not sign the deed on the premise that it is a UNILATERAL DEED - may be interested to comment on this recent case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/28.html Comments appreciated as always. Apple
  15. AN UPDATE: The FCA Handbook is the 'Book of Rules' that all UK Banks and Financial Institutions have to abide by. The "FCA" - as many of you will or should know or get to know asap - is the "Financial Conduct Authority" The FCA is the "Regulatory Authority" - As the Authority - they can take action against any Bank/Financial institution that is not abiding by its rules. You will have seen Wonga recently - reprimanded by the FCA for failings - You will have seen 5 Big Banks reprimanded recently for not abiding by the FCA Rules. The FCA has jurisdiction and power to vary or cancel a firms 'permissions' What are 'permissions'? Permissions are the various "Activities" that the FCA "permits" firms (Banks/Financial Institutions/Law Firms etc) to carry on by way of business in the UK When it comes to "Mortgages" - take on board that the 'activity' falls under the umbrella of being a "specified kind of Activity" - a firm MUST have permission from the FCA to carry on a "Specified Kinds of Activity" here in the UK. Take on board also that FCA Rules and Regulations are based and derived from statute, and the FCA were set up by the UK Government to protect the interest of UK consumers. So, is the FCA doing it's job? YES!, I believe they are - for it was the FCA that dealt with Wonga and the 5 big banks recently. If a firm/Bank is not abiding by FCA Rules/Regulations the FCA is THE ONLY Authority that has power to either "Vary" or "Cancel" a firms "permissions". Recently the FCA invited consumers to give them 'feedback' - (I posted the link - the consultation is now closed) The FCA publish the details of each and every firm that is "regulated" and permitted to carry on various types of "activity". For Consumers - this means that you can quickly and easily view the FCA Register to check to see if the firm you are dealing with or the firm dealing with you - is doing so lawfully and within regulation. Link to FCA Register: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do The link above takes you to the section that helps search the permission of any Bank/financial firm. "Financial Services Firm Search By Firm reference number Firm reference number: By Name and Post code Firm name: Postcode: Match level: Currently authorised: More on The Financial Services Register Complaints and compensation How to use the Financial Services Register Interim Permission Consumer Credit Register If you are searching for a firm in relation to consumer credit business you may also need to refer to the Interim Permission Consumer Credit Register" The highlighted section above, is where you can search for any firm who should have or had a consumer credit licence. Once the details for the company you are searching for comes up - you need to check to see: Basic Details - does it say "Authorised" or does it say "Appointed Representative"? if it says "Authorised" - then it is a firm directly Authorised by the FCA if it says "Appointed Representative" - then it is a firm that is not directly Authorised by the FCA - these firms will have a "Principle" - the "Principle" MUST ALWAYS be a "Authorised" firm. If the "Authorised" firm has a "Appointed Representative" - then, you can look under that menu heading to check to see who the "Appointed Representative" is. Under the menu heading "Permissions" - you will see what activities the "Authorised" firm is permitted by the FCA to carry on in the UK by way of business. Below, is a list of the types of activities that you will see for those firms dealing in "regulated" mortgages - you will find these under the menu heading of "Permissions": "Administering a regulated mortgage contract" "Agreeing to carry on a regulated activity" "Arranging (bringing about) regulated mortgage contracts" "Entering into a regulated mortgage contract as lender" "Making arrangements with a view to regulated mortgage contracts" You will see other permissions too - but the above are the only ones that concern mortgagors with Regulated Mortgages. Where you find a firm is an "Appointed Representative" - then you can check under the menu of "Principal" to see who the "Authorised" firm will be. It is important to take on board that just because a "Principal" has an "Appointed Representative" - this does not mean that the "Appointed Representative" can carry on all the activities that the "Principal"/Authorised firm has FCA permission to carry on. E.G: Of the list I've posted above - the "Appointed Representative" should NOT be found by the FCA to be: "Administering a regulated mortgage contract" or "entering into a regulated mortgage contract as lender" If you find that a "Appointed Representative" is carrying on either of the above activities - then you MUST report them to the FCA here: http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/protect ... rised-firm How do you know if what the "Appointed Representative" is doing comes under the heading of: "Administering a regulated mortgage contract"? Its in the FCA Handbook here: http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/PERG/4/8 see in particular PERG 4.8.3 Under article 61(3)(b) of the Regulated Activities Order, administering a regulated mortgage contract is defined as either or both of: (1) notifying the borrower of changes in interest rates or payments due under the contract, or of other matters of which the contract requires him to be notified; and (2) taking any necessary steps for the purposes of collecting or recovering payments due under the contract from the borrower; but does not include merely having or exercising a right to take action to enforce the regulated mortgage contract, or to require that action is or is not taken. In layman's terms - this simply means - if you get letters from a "lender" - and you can clearly see a firm name that is not the exact name of the Lender - in terms of "on behalf of" or "on behalf of the mortgage owner" or anything such like - your mortgage is more than likely being "administered" to by an "Appointed Representatives". YOU MUST REPORT the firm to the FCA immediately. The reason you MUST report the firm ("Appointed Representative") is because in the FCA handbook it tells you that an "Appointed Representative" can NOT carry on these activities when the mortgage is a regulated mortgage contract - See - PERG 4.12.3: "Business for which an appointed representative is exempt PERG 4.12.3 01/07/2005 FCA An appointed representative can carry on only those regulated activities which are specified in the Appointed Representatives Regulations. As respects regulated mortgage contracts, these are arranging (bringing about), making arrangements with a view to and advising on regulated mortgage contracts (as well as agreeing to do so)." The same applies to law firms - they cannot act on behalf of the "Appointed Representative" or the "Authorised" firm unless they too have direct authority from the FCA to do so. The SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) set down that Law firms cannot: "Rule 3: Prohibited activities A firm must not carry on, or agree to carry on, any of the following activities: entering into a regulated mortgage contract as lender or administering a regulated mortgage contract (unless this is in the firm's capacity as a trustee or personal representative and the borrower is a beneficiary under the trust, will or intestacy);" see the full SRA prohibitions listed here: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbo ... ntent.page The FCA say the same thing here at PERG 4.10.7: For each of the regulated activities of entering into a regulated mortgage contract and administering a regulated mortgage contract , the exclusions apply if the trustee or personal representative is acting in that capacity and the borrower is a beneficiary under the trust, will or estate on behalf of which he is acting. see the full FCA explanation here: http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/PERG/4/10#D491 Other Exclusions PERG 4.8.8 01/04/2014 FCA The Regulated Activities Order contains an exclusion which has the effect of preventing certain activities of trustees, nominees and personal representatives from amounting to administering regulated mortgage contracts. There is also an exclusion for local authorities.22 These are2 referred to in PERG 4.10 (Exclusions applying to more than one regulated activity).2 In addition, there2 is2 an exclusion where both the administrator and borrower are overseas, which is referred to in PERG 4.11 (Link between activities and the United Kingdom). I could go on and on - but, the important thing right now is to know that - if the company shown on your Mortgage Deed and Register of Title is not the one administering the mortgage - then the FCA MUST BE INFORMED - Do NOT hesitate or PROCRASTINATE - it is in your interest to protect your interests - YOUR HOME MAY BE AT RISK IF YOU FAIL TO REPORT THE FIRMS CONCERNED - REPORT TO THE FCA Here: http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/protect ... rised-firm Check your Bank Statements - is the Direct Debit payment going into the Bank Account of any other firm than the Lender shown on the Deed??? IF SO report it to the FCA here: http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/protect ... rised-firm Check all communications you receive - Do they come from firms who act on behalf of your lender??? IF SO report it to the FCA here:http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/protect-yourself/report-an-unauthorised-firm Check Mortgage Statements - query who is sending them to you - if you are suspicious - REPORT IT TO THE FCA here:http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/protect-yourself/report-an-unauthorised-firm Will the FCA do anything?? - YES!! - but they will not and cannot act if they do not know or are not informed as to who the firms concerned may be. Most conveyancers asked consumers to return the deed 'signed' and 'witnessed' - you may have a letter on file that confirms that the Conveyancer asked you not to date it?? check to see if you can find it - then report it to the FCA Here is a link to a case fought out in the High Court recently - that may be of interest to you all: http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... igh-court/ I hope this FCA feedback is useful? Apple
×
×
  • Create New...