Hello Molly The above is very good advice, as most of what is discussed in this thread, such as most of the legislation, only deals with the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Unless there is someone, who can post, that is actually familiar with the jurisdiction of N.I and the legislation that applies there. If you go onto the http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ and look up an act of parliament such as the law of property act 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/introduction you will see that it states "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to conveyancing and the law of property in England and Wales." The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/introduction?view=extent is another example If it is not clear by the introductory text, if legislation applies to N.I, if you look on the left hand side you will see an option to select "Show Geographical Extent(e.g. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)" if you select that, it will confirm to which jurisdictions the legislation applies. I am unable to offer any advice about N.I as I am not familiar enough with which legislation applies there, sorry

Both Barclays/Woolwich and Nationwide securitise mortgages http://www.nationwide.co.uk/investorrelations/fundingprogrammes/securitisation.htm http://group.barclays.com/prospectuses-and-documentation/secured-funding/securitisation Abbey National before it became Santander also securitised mortgages http://www.aboutsantander.co.uk/investors/debt-investors/holmes-master-trust/2000.aspx Halifax also securitise mortgages http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/investors/debt-investors/securitisation/ http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/21/hbosbusiness.banking I could go on but the point is virtually all lenders securitised mortgages. Signing or not signing the mortgage deed has nothing to do with securitisation Ben

(The below has been posted to keep this thread updated with events) I received the below response from the Property Chamber today. This is what the response said, I will leave it to everyone to make of it as they will "Dear, Thank you for your email of, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ): • The outcome of the two cases detailed in your response, due to be heard on 20 January 2014 – If possible could you provide a copy of the cases or provide a summary of the cases Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 1. Please note the cases have been heard on 20th January but the decision has been reserved by the Judge, therefore I am not in a position to inform you about the outcome of both cases. 2. If you would like to have a copy of the decision, please notify us. A copy of the decision can be sent to you once it has been issued by the Judge. 3. These cases are rectification cases, and do not have a summary of the cases. But the decision will refer to facts of the cases. It may be beneficial to have a copy of the decision which can provide you the further information about the cases. You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter. Disclosure Log You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-of-information-disclosure-log "

Good there we go, we can all now wait until the decision has been issued and either posted in this thread as an attachment or a link has been posted to it. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday BP (and everyone else) (the above is not an order or a demand - just a reasonable and sensible course of action)

We will find out either way when the decision is issued - how about waiting until then to see ?

Anyway - how about the above ? I am willing let's all wait until a decision is either issued or until Is It Me? stops playing secret squirrels

From a numbers perspective, I would agree However, ask yourself this question - if there was any real merit in the application, why would one be struck out on the basis that it is - "frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process" If there is any real merit and the chamber was really going to decide that the deed is void, how can the Property Chamber say it was frivolous and vexatious

Why don't we all mutually agree to wait until the decision is issued ? Sounds reasonable

With respect I have read it, I think there is one or two things that you missed or may have overlooked If I was on the side of the lenders, I would not bother posting in this thread, I would just sit back and watch people proceed and ultimately fail

Sorry I thought you said you had already won and that the lender now had 28 days to apply for that decision to be set aside - if the lender has 28 days to apply for it to be set aside you must be saying it is a decision in favour of the borrower and against the lender - sorry your conflicting posts confuse me May be you can post to clarify what actually happened - why are you so reluctant ?

Hello BP I have answered this exact question a number of times in this thread already but I will do so again As you know upon receipt of Is It Me?'s original application the Property Chamber was minded to strike it out and indeed wrote to his friend to confirm this. With Apple's assistance a submission was made and subsequently the Property Chamber decided to proceed to a hearing. It should be noted that Is It Me? has stated that the Property Chamber has said his was the first such application. Now the question is, did the Property Chamber decide to proceed to a hearing because of the subsequent submission made, which did not address or respond to the points raised by the Property Chamber or did it decide to proceed to a hearing because other similar applications had been made ? I lean towards it is because of other applications being made and that the chamber has not previously made a decision that could be applied to such applications. I say this because http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/23/made Lead cases 23. (1) This rule applies if— (a)two or more cases have been started before the Tribunal; (b)in each such case the Tribunal has not made a decision disposing of the proceedings; and ©the cases give rise to common or related issues. (2) The Tribunal may direct that one or more such cases be specified as a lead case, and stay the other cases (“the related cases”). This appears to be what has happened two cases were heard on 20 jan with the other related cases stayed. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/24/made Subsequent applications related to lead case 24. (1) This rule applies where a decision has been given in a lead case in accordance with rule 23 and a subsequent application is made which includes any of the common or related issues. (2) The Tribunal may send written notice to the parties to the subsequent application of— (a)the matters which it appears to the Tribunal are the common or related issues in the subsequent application and the previously decided lead case; (b)the decision recorded in respect of the common or related issues in the lead case; ©the Tribunal’s proposal to record its decision on the common or related issues in the subsequent application in materially identical terms to the decision in the lead case; (d)the date (being not less than 21 days after the date that the notice was sent) by which any objection to this proposal must be received by the Tribunal; and (e)a requirement that any objection must include the grounds on which it is made. If you read the responses Is It Me? and UNRAM both received from the Property Chamber, it would suggest this is what the Property Chamber is intending to do and why the two applications were heard on 20 jan *EDIT Sorry I forgot to say - the chamber has struck out one such application

I do agree and accept that my posts can be very intimidating and through expressions of frustration aggressive. I also also agree about what you say about further debate - but for unknown reasons isitme?, is not prepared or is unwilling to give an account - as I said before, I feel that is odd considering he started a thread on a public forum, with everything posted leading up to the hearing and suddenly when the hearing finally happens, nothing much is actually said about it

Hello Is It Me? I am not claiming the banks are angels or anything like that - I am talking about what the actual legal requirements are in regard to deeds In terms of the court saying no to costs, I hope for your friends benefit you are familiar with what your friend is required to do for that to occur - However, I am sure you do know, given the number of times you have helped people in Court. Ben This applies to courts Halsbury's Laws of England/mortgage (VOLUME 77 (2010) 5TH EDITION)/13. COSTS, CHARGES AND EXPENSES/(1) IN GENERAL/741. Assessment of costs. 741. Assessment of costs. The mortgagee does not need to apply for an order for those costs that he has a contractual right to recover out of the mortgage funds, and nor do those costs have to be assessed. The mortgagor may make an application for the court to direct that an account of the mortgagee's costs be taken, and may then dispute an amount in the mortgagee's account on the basis that it has been unreasonably incurred or is unreasonable in amount. Where a mortgagor disputes an amount, the court may make an order that the disputed costs be assessed; and where the court assesses costs payable under the terms of the mortgage, the costs payable are, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, to be presumed to be costs which have been reasonably incurred, and are reasonable in amount, and the court will assess them accordingly. The court may make an order that all or part of the costs payable under the contract be disallowed if it is satisfied by the paying party that costs have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount5. A mortgagor is also entitled to apply for an assessment of a bill of costs rendered to the mortgagee by his solicitor if the mortgagor is liable to pay it.

Hi BP With equal respect, I am not concerned about the lenders at all. The deed has not been signed by the lender, as it is not a legal requirement as per s.1 of the LP (MP) A 1989 The lullaby reference was relevant in the context in which it was used.

Sorry you are asking the wrong person, I leave translations for others:roll: Personally I feel that it is obvious why we post in this thread and it is clearly detailed in my previous post. If anyone for any reason, has an objection to reading our posts, they do have the option to put us on ignore (the instructions to do this have been posted in this thread) - this will allow them to read the thread without our continued interruptions

I know the question is directed to DB. However, it would be impossible for him to answer a question about why I do something. I do it because I am concerned that borrowers who have run into difficulties in paying their mortgage, will not consider the tried and tested methods as promoted by CAG, in favour of the untried, untested and potentially very expensive methods suggested by this thread - with the implied outcome that the mortgage will be void, the borrower will not have to pay their mortgage and even as suggested the borrower will refunded the mortgage payments they have already made. - This is a very attractive outcome Most mortgages include a term that the borrower will be held liable for all costs the lender incurs protecting its security. - Proof of this can be found in this thread - UNRAM was advised by his lender that costs were to be added to his mortgage even before the hearing, after he followed the suggestions of this thread. The potential dangers are that if someone choses to follow the suggestions of this thread because they are at a point in time where they are having trouble paying their mortgage, if they follow this route, the mortgage debt that they could not already afford will be increased - leaving them with little chance of saving their homes I would love for the ideas in this thread to be right, I would love not having to repay my mortgage each month (my deed also only has my signature). However, personally I think there is more chance of the man on the moon being real, flying down in the middle of the night and singing a lullaby, to each and everyone of us as we drift off to sleep

Hello BP I was referring to you and your post to me

That is an excellent idea and should help break through all the smoke and mirrors that have recently sprung up in this thread. I am using my phone at the moment, but when I go on my computer later, I will send you the details. Thanks, it is exactly what is needed to progress this thread. Ben

Hello BP Every single publicly available case that has been posted in this thread, including Eagle Star, Helden, Lamb and Fergus (which unlike Bibby and Garguilo) dealt with the specific issue of "is a mortgage deed void if it has not been signed by the lender" have all returned the exact same Judgement - No the deed is not void and it is enforceable - Garguilo and Bibby are unrelated to that precise topic. Neither case was about the topic of this thread or the subject of the application. It is not just me telling you that, if you read the thread, it is what the Property Chamber said. In my opinion the only reason that Bibby and Garguilo have been latched onto is because in both cases the deed was void and for no other reason. However, in both cases the reason the deed was found to be void, do not occur in regard to mortgage deeds. So no need to worry ;-)

I will be open and honest and post what I know - well at least what I have been told by the Property Chamber In an email shortly after the hearing, the Property Chamber said that decisions usually take 28 days. In a subsequent email, the Property Chamber said that the decision is with the Judge and should be issued after 20 Feb This was also confirmed during a subsequent telephone conversation After it has been issued it will take a few days to be added to their website, for people to view. So if what I have been told is accurate within the next two weeks the decision should be in this thread. They gave me this link to check for the decision http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/tribunal-decisions They also gave me the reference numbers for both applications and said that I should contact them again after the 20 Feb, by which time the decision should be issued and quote the reference numbers However, Is It Me? has said that it has been stayed for 28 days, so I don't know where that leaves things now. I have emailed the Property Chamber for clarification and await their response.

Why thank you Enfircer, I am glad someone appreciates my contribution You should be careful all of your recent posts either are directed to me or about me, people might start to talk - Sorry I am happily married

I guess that you must be looking forward to when the decision is issued by the Property Chamber then Just so that readers of this thread know (including myself), has a date been set for a second hearing, so that the lender can provide the unidentified documentation - that is if they can provide it. - or it is going straight to a decision - I only ask because as posted, the Property Chamber informed me via email and in a subsequent telephone conversation that it had gone to the judge for a decision. Just wondering, if what I have been informed was correct or not Just seems odd to have created a thread on a public forum and then at the most critical time, go silent on what happened and/or what is going to happen. - You have said virtually nothing of any detail about the hearing If you want to elaborate, what was actually said in the chamber about s.23 and a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' ? - It is ok, if you don't feel like you can say, the decision when issued should reveal all Anyway, respect to you, your dedication to this thread has been proven, as even on the day of the hearing you still found time to post here - So I take my hat off to you. As a side note, I like to think that I have done a good job over what has been nearly a year at answering questions that are relevant and ignoring the ones that were totally irrelevant, especially given the hostility to my continued contribution to this thread and the ever increasing bizarre claims about who I am and who I work for.

Pretty much yes

Would you prefer this one instead then ? http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/social-medias-mortgage-revolution-does-not-materialise Walker Morris it would appear, had no concerns representing the lender in the Lamb case It will be interesting to find out who the two Solicitors were that represented the two lenders on the 20 Jan, I guess for that we will have to wait for the decision to be issued

Hi Caro not wishing to speak on Apple's behalf, I think he/she might be referring to this post from Is It Me? I don't know the reasons that I supposedly know or why Is It Me? will say no more about it. I also don't have a clue what happened last time. However, I do admit I find his posts hard to understand and follow at times. I am still not 100% sure if he is referring to the property chamber hearing or one of the other cases he has been helping with. - As this response was posted in regard to a post I made, in which I intended to ask about the other case(s) he has helped with and not the application to the property chamber If he is talking about the property chamber application, it does paint a different picture from the information provided to me by the property chamber via email and during a subsequent telephone conversation. However, as I am not a named party or an appointed representative involved in proceedings, I could have been given the brush off. However, time will tell as 28 days is nearly up. As It Is Me? is being surprisingly reluctant to share any information about the hearing, I guess we will have to just wait and see. However, following his post, I did email the Property Chamber for clarification, once I receive the response I will post it in this thread.