Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by bhall

  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.
  13. I will give you the highlights that may interest you most (please bear in mind the date of your agreement when considering if the below is applicable to you) 11. It is not in issue that the documents produced in this case, relating to the Defendants, are in the same form as that used for all borrowers during the period from 31 May 2005 until the withdrawal of the Together Mortgage product in March 2008, whether borrowing an unsecured amount of less than £25,000 (the "under £25Ks") or of more than £25,000 (the "over £25Ks"). There were some differences in the statutory wording used in the documentation prior to 31 May 2005 but it was not suggested that these were material to the issues which I have to decide. S.2 of the 2006 Act in fact provided for the removal of the £25,000 limit, but did not come into effect until 6 April 2008, whereafter all these agreements, if then entered into, would have been regulated. 26. In the course of argument, I suggested that the construction being contended for by the Defendants was a whether or not contract rather than an as if contract, and I came to prefer that as a description. I conclude that, on the proper construction of the loan agreement, as contended by the Defendants, it was agreed, whether or not it was a regulated agreement, that it was to be treated as if it was one, such that the over £25Ks and the under £25Ks would all be treated the same. Like Bingham MR, I do not see insuperable difficulties in the fact that the paraphernalia of the regulated agreement would not entirely apply. Indeed in this case there are, as became clear in the light of an exchange of written submissions after the hearing, a number of respects in which, by referring to the legislation, terms are incorporated into the contract, which supplement the express provisions already made in the agreement. Although there is, as Mr Waters submitted (paragraph 17(iii) above), reference in the Agreement to issues such as cancellation and notice, there is no doubt that, by the incorporation or implication of provisions such as Sections 77 (giving of information to debtor), 83 (liability for misuse of credit facilities), 88 (contents and effect of default notice), 89 (compliance with default notice) and 97 (duty to give information in relation to early payment), much clearer and fuller protection is given to the borrower. I am satisfied that, on a proper construction of the Agreement, whether by reference to the concept of incorporation (so far as applicable), which I prefer, or implication, the Defendants were given the rights under and benefits of a regulated agreement whether or not it was a regulated agreement. 28. I am satisfied that the Defendants are entitled to recover, pursuant to contract, the Section 77A repayments. This could also be of interest to others with agreements also worded similar with other lenders http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/77A Part VI Matters Arising During Currency of Credit or Hire Agreements [F177AStatements to be provided in relation to fixed-sum credit agreements [F2(1)The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit must give the debtor statements under this section. (1A)The statements must relate to consecutive periods. (1B)The first such period must begin with either— (a)the day on which the agreement is made, or (b)the day the first movement occurs on the debtor's account with the creditor relating to the agreement. (1C)No such period may exceed a year. (1D)For the purposes of subsection (1C), a period of a year which expires on a non-working day may be regarded as expiring on the next working day. (1E)Each statement under this section must be given to the debtor before the end of the period of thirty days beginning with the day after the end of the period to which the statement relates.] (2)Regulations may make provision about the form and content of statements under this section. (3)The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of a statement under this section. (4)The creditor is not required to give the debtor any statement under this section once the following conditions are satisfied— (a)that there is no sum payable under the agreement by the debtor; and (b)that there is no sum which will or may become so payable. (5)Subsection (6) applies if at a time before the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied the creditor fails to give the debtor— (a)a statement under this section within the period mentioned in subsection [F3(1E)] ; [F4or] (b) [F4such a statement within the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which such a statement was last given to him.] (6)Where this subsection applies in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor— (a)the creditor shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance; (b)the debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum of interest to the extent calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance or to any part of it; and ©the debtor shall have no liability to pay any default sum which (apart from this paragraph)— (i)would have become payable during the period of non-compliance; or (ii)would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement which occurs during that period (whether or not the breach continues after the end of that period). (7)In this section ‘the period of non-compliance’ means, in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor, the period which— (a)begins immediately after the end of the period mentioned in F5. . . subsection (5); and (b)ends at the end of the day on which the statement is given to the debtor or on which the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied, whichever is earlier. (8)This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement. [F6(9)This section does not apply where the holder of a current account overdraws on the account without a pre-arranged overdraft or exceeds a pre-arranged overdraft limit.]]
  14. I feel you need to do some more research on what you have posted. However, this might interest you and be of benefit to you http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2868617/Taxpayers-left-258m-bill-High-Court-orders-Northern-Rock-bad-bank-compensate-41-000-charged-customers.html I have not had the opportunity to read the entire case but this might also be of interest to you NRAM Plc v McAdam & Anor [2014] EWHC 4174 (Comm) (10 December 2014)
  15. Personally, I think you should have kept away out of respect for people such as alisono, is it me?, UNRAM and co that lost financially as a result of your previous posts, rather than out of respect to CAG. However, you do not appear to be concerned about them. Isn't it odd that the poster on the self realisation site has made no reference to the (no.2) hearing as detailed in post four of this thread and the details that they have posted on the self realisation site bear such little resemblance to the official record as posted above of the no.1 case. Caggers can read about both cases via the below links Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014) Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch) Caggers can read into that what they will I think I have commented enough on this subject in the below thread (and feel little need to comment further, as my view is the same as the outcome of the hearing at the property chamber) Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed So I will just leave it for the Judge (being the same person who you previously championed in your posts about Garguilo) to comment Sinclair v Accord Mortgages Ltd (Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents : Grounds for setting aside) [2014] EWLandRA 2013_0031 (21 February 2014) 2.The grounds relied on by Mr Sinclair and Mr and Mrs Overson are substantially the same. The Tribunal has received a number of similar applications by mortgagors, and the same, or substantially the same, arguments have been run in the County Court in other cases, some of which are referred to below. At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is, however, an argument wholly without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security for a loan. 34. It is important to emphasise that the execution of a deed is the method by which a person transfers or creates a legal estate or interest in his property. It is, by its very nature, a unilateral act. There is no requirement for the mortgagee (or, for example, for the transferee in the event of a sale of land) to sign or execute the deed. The deed is itself the actual disposition. It is to be distinguished from a contract to sell or grant a charge, which, by definition, requires the agreement of two or more parties. 38. In the present cases, the charges were properly executed as deeds by the Applicants. There is no merit whatsoever in any of the points taken by or on behalf of the Applicants to seek to impugn the validity of the two charges. Out of respect to the caggers that listened to you last time, don't you think you should just let this one drop. Don't you feel that you have done enough damage already ? I know the outcome of the incorrect information you previously posted had little impact upon you personally, with the exception of bruising your ego, it did however have serious financial implications for the caggers that took you seriously I know I do No doubt you will continue to post on this topic clutching at each and every straw, never mind how strenuous the link in an attempt to support your flawed, disproved and fanciful ideas. Thats your prerogative as it is mine to choose not to engage in pointless debate with someone that is unable to accept that they were wrong. The sheer fact so few signed your petition should serve as an indication of how little faith there is in your claims. Ben
  16. Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh No. 2 [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch) http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/aug-14/4586333349 Case summary Despite having handed down judgment, the judge acceded to an application by a litigant in person to reconsider the contents, but then dismissed the application. The court went on to grant relief on the bank’s application. Facts In Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (reported in the July 2014 update) it was held that a registered charge which did not contain an attestation clause could not take effect as a legal charge by estoppel and would be rectified, but it could still take effect as an equitable charge. On handing down judgment , W asked the judge to effectively reconsider his judgment, and BoS applied for an order requiring the bank’s charge to be perfected under the mortgage conditions by the execution of a legal charge. Held Since W’s application was before the judge before he had handed down judgment, it was felt appropriate to consider the points he raised. The main point was that the legal charge was not enforceable as a contract to create a legal charge or as an equitable mortgage however the legal charge had been signed by both parties and complied with s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. W also challenged the account balance but the mortgage conditions provided that in the absence of manifest error any determination by the bank was conclusive and binding. There was no realistic prospect of challenge. Next W wanted to rely on a letter which suggested that [W] may not be personally liable for the debt, but this was insufficient to give rise to en estoppel. Accordingly the judge was unwilling to reconsider his judgment. On the bank’s application, the court made an order under s 39(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 that in default of execution of the charge by W, it shall be executed by a District Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division.
  17. Hello Alisono As you know the deed in the case of BOS v Waugh was not found to be void for any of the reasons discussed in the "void deed" thread. The main reason discussed in that thread was if a deed was void if it had not been signed by the lender. As we now know, following the Property Chamber decision a mortgage deed is not void if it has not been signed by the lender. The reason the deed was found to be void in BOS v Waugh was simple - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html 63. It is not in dispute that the Trustees were individuals and that the Charge was not attested in accordance with the section. The lack of attestation appears on the face of the charge itself. 64. It follows that the Charge was not validly executed as a Deed. It also follows that it was void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate. As said, nothing to do with any of the fanciful ideas posted in the other thread that the Property Chamber concluded were "wholly without merit and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge" However, going back to the case of Bank of Scotland v Waugh, a chapter of that story has been overlooked in the link you have posted http://www.burges-salmon.com/practices/disputes_and_litigation/publications/property_litigation_caselaw_update.pdf Incomplete execution of security A development loan was provided to a trust and secured by a charge. The charge was signed by the individual trustees but not witnessed. Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires charges to be completed as a deed which, under section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions), required that the trustees signatures were witnessed. Without the witness attestations, the document was not properly signed as a deed and therefore failed to create a legal charge. The document did however create an equitable charge because it was in writing, contained all of the terms and was signed by all the parties (in compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989). In a subsequent action (No. 2), the bank obtained an order to perfect the equitable charge into a legal charge. However, this case is more notable for the arguments on estoppel. The bank argued that the trustees were estopped from denying the validity of the charge. This argument failed because there was no witness attestation at all, whereas the authorities on estoppel require some form of witness attestation, albeit incorrect - shah v Shah [2001] EWCA Civ 527 distinguished from Briggs v Gleeds [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch). Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) and No. 2 [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch)
  18. Were the funds released before, on or after 31st October 2004 ?
  19. http://www.phewconveyancing.co.uk/articles/conveyancing-faq-answers-for-your-conveyancing-questions#20 20. What is Priority Search (OS1)? A priority search is carried out by a solicitor with the Land Registry against the title number revealed in the OCE. This gives a 30 day priority to register client’s interest before any other third party can. This is crucial because between completion of a house purchase and registration of the house purchase there is always a delay and there is a chance that if a priority search is not carried out before completion a third party may register an adverse entry (such as a charge) before the property is registered by the solicitor. A priority search will also reveal if anyone has already registered any adverse entries before the day of completion.
  20. Hello Robin I suggested making a subject access request to the broker, in case you was considering a complaint about or if you was looking for some form of recourse (if possible) as a result of the sale of your mortgage to you. Is this a regulated mortgage (first charge residential mortgage post 31 October 2004) ? Did no conversation take place between you and the broker about the difference between an interest only and a repayment mortgage (or even part and part for that matter) ? I don't just mean in terms of lower repayments for an interest only but also about what would happen at the end of the mortgage term ? Was nothing mentioned by the broker at all ? In terms of moving this forward, do you have anything to suggest or indicate that you wanted and/or applied for a repayment mortgage and not an interest only mortgage ? Personally, I would not waste your time with points about Securitisation and Power's of Attorney's.
  21. I must apologise I am a little confused. If neither you or wife knew anything about the mortgage between 2005 and 2013, who was paying the monthly payment month after month for 8 years ? Can you also please clarify what it is your lender has done wrong - it doesn't sound like they have tried to repossess you, applied charges to your account or done anything except been unable to provide records, which they should be able to reconstruct by what is sometimes called a 'manual calculation' or you could verify for yourself using a calculator or excel (free versions of similar software is available). As it is an interest only mortgage, it is straight forward to work out as you don't have to take into consideration any capital reduction, resulting from monthly payments. Where is it your going with this ? What is the end game you are looking for ? What help are you looking for ? Have you considered (sorry if you have done this already) making a Subject Access Request to the Broker ?
  22. Hello RobinHood As this is an interest only mortgage, the balance ( depending on how the interest is calculated (daily, monthly or annually) and when it is applied (monthly or annually) ) should only fluctuate. Is there any significant difference in the balance of the mortgage before the unexplained period of time and after ? If you have not been in arrears and have not incurred any additional charges, the balance should be almost the same. You have a raised a number of concerns but it would look like as a borrower there is only one real concern and that is your mortgage is due to be repaid in a few years time. Do you have a repayment vehicle in place to repay your mortgage ? If you don't, was you asked about a repayment vehicle when you applied for the mortgage ?
  • Create New...