Jump to content

bhall

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

bhall last won the day on February 10 2014

bhall had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

587 Excellent

About bhall

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Given the complaints, does or has Ofcom taken any action. Given what you see on the show.. I would hate to see what they get away with off camera....
  2. Hello This might help answer any questions you have https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/technicalmanual/
  3. You may wish to check decisions in more recent cases that follow the precedent set by this case. I have made you aware of it, what you now do is down to you. I wish you well in whatever you do
  4. Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005) 109. In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV.
  5. Showing a little more courtesy to the people that post in response to your numerous posts about nram, would not go a miss either. You might get more people responding to you
  6. I think the point is that you have asked a question and to enable someone to answer it, Caro has asked you both rational and sensible questions. If you want an answer to a question, I am sorry you will have to provide further information.
  7. I found this one that had already been posted on CAG Ben SPML MSA.pdf
  8. Hello Hannah Have you been able to make any progress ?
  9. If the interest rate they have at the moment is acceptable to them, they could just check with their current lender if there are any restrictions on making over payments to the mortgage loan account. If there aren't, they can just make higher monthly payments to the account (ensuring that they request, on a regular or at least on an annual basis that any prepayment balance is used to reduce the capital, some lenders will do this automatically some don't, it will also depend on your mortgage product). Some lenders only allow lump sum payments - if this applies to your friend's lender, your friend could open an ISA or other savings account and pay any additional amounts, they can afford to that account and then make a lump sum payment from that account to the mortgage. This will mean that the interest will be paid and additional sums paid will reduce the capital, in a similar way to a repayment mortgage. Personally, I would speak to the existing lender and sound them out a little. After all, your friend is not looking to apply for a new mortgage, they just want to convert their existing mortgage from an interest only to repayment - there is no additional risk to the lender as their exposure (the amount borrowed) remains the same Might be worth a read http://www.out-law.com/articles/2013/august/interest-only-mortgage-providers-must-treat-struggling-borrowers-fairly-warns-regulator/
  10. Thank you HB, very much appreciated Hanham, I have not had the chance to read all of the guidance yet but this may be of interest to you https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/whole-of-registered-title-assent-as1/completing-forms-ap1-and-as1-for-the-assent-of-a-registered-property#how-to-complete-form-ap1 When I get a few spare minutes over the weekend, I will read it properly and see if it useful
  11. EDITED Hello Hanham. I am really sorry for your loss, I can understand how hard it must be for you to deal with all of this whilst you are still grieving. Back in the 80's / 90's, when someone was sold an endowment mortgage, the lender would request that the endowment is assigned to them. This ensured that when the endowment matured, the funds were paid to the lender and not to the borrower. However, this has not happened for many years now. The funds from the endowment will now form part of the estate and as such the executor / administrator can request payment of the funds, which can then be paid to RBS. If the property is not in your name, there may be issues relating to inheretance tax (discussion for another day) Steampowered is correct about the title deed and the land registry. Going by the date of the mortgage, if it wasn't already the property would have been registered at the time of the mortgage. If you go on the land registry website you can download a copy of the title deed.
  12. 31. Goode, despite his reservation as to judicial conservatism in 23.9, "suggested that the principle to be applied is as follows: the creditor is estopped from resiling from all express statements as to the debtor's rights and immunities (whether expressed directly or by reference to the [1974 Act]) which could validly have been made terms of the agreement and which represent the common assumption of the parties. With regard to terms which are not expressly spelled out in the agreement, the position is more doubtful. If the estoppel principle were to be taken to its logical conclusion, the debtor might be entitled to avail himself of [and a number of provisions are set out]." It is not in my judgment necessary to deal with the minutiae of Goode's considerations there. I have already concluded that Section 77A is one of the provisions of which the Claimants can take advantage, and there are a number of others, set out in paragraph 26 above, including Sections 77, 83, 88, 89 and 97. It would in my judgment be sufficient to say that the representation by which the Claimant would be estopped would be that the Defendants were entitled to the rights and benefits endowed on a party to a regulated agreement, insofar as that party could take advantage of them. Conclusion 33. With regard to the proposed declarations set out in paragraph 10 above, I shall hear further arguments from counsel in relation to the form of any order but: (i) I am satisfied that the rights and remedies in relation to Section 77A were imported into the Agreement. (ii) I conclude that the Claimant was in breach of its obligations under the Agreement by virtue of its failure to indemnify the Defendants in respect of its breach of Section 77A.
×
×
  • Create New...