the end of this story (for now) is that the judge was obviously overwhelmed by the information presented and missed the glaringly obvious.

happy to lose thousands of pounds? how on earth have you come to that conclusion? am i correct to think you are also shutting this thread down? if so, please may i ask who gives you the authorisation to do so. i would like to communicate directly with the proprieters of this site. can you advise how i may contact them.

are you now going to shut down this thread despite the fact that the law clearly and unambiguously states that a lender's signature IS REQUIRED and that a full title guarantee is a bricks and mortar disposal?

why are you sorry i have lost thousands? you don't know me nor my situation? you don't know the details under which i was subjected to ongoing and extortion under very distressing circumstances. are you suggesting you actually authentically care about my situation? i do not have any space nor time for false sentiment. why is further discussion being shut down? are you (and others) not here simply to moderate discussions? proved to have no merit? nothing was proved... a glance over the assessment by lightfoot and co. demonstrates this very clearly. also: who is trying to encourange anything? is this not a discussion forum?

caro did you actually read what I wrote? the assessment? its a complete whitewash and you are insisting that there is no merit? whats the story here please? LRA2002 section 91 paragraph 4. hello?

On the securitisation point: why was there no reference made to the fact that lenders are selling properties to SPV's with full title guarantee? i.e. selling bricks and mortar not just beneficial (or whatever) interest?

http://www.lightfoots.co.uk/about-us/news-and-subscribe/item/196-a-charge-in-deed Here is the text in full just in case it disappears from the web. I couldn't see a copyright on in it so I see no harm in copying it in full for a public forum. I will be happy to remove it immediately upon request. "There has been a recent proliferation of claims made by borrowers to the effect that the charge upon their mortgaged property is defective. Many of the claims have been fuelled by internet forum sites which set out the alleged legal basis upon which it is argued that the charge is defective. A number of these cases have come before the Property Chamber First-tier Tribunal, Land Registration Division and on 20th January 2014 Judge Ann McAllister heard two co-joined cases, Mr & Mrs Sinclair v Accord Mortgages Limited and Mr & Mrs Overson v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd t/a London Mortgage Co, as test cases for the numerous other cases awaiting hearing. As stressed in the Judgment, both loans and mortgages were straightforward transactions, whereby the borrowers had made applications for loans to the two lenders, where offers were made, the borrowers signed standard form Deeds and the money was advanced to the borrowers' solicitors and ultimately on to the borrowers. In both instances, and using very similar terminology in both pleadings and skeleton arguments, the borrowers sought to argue that the charges, registered with the Land Registry against the borrowers Titles, were invalid. Judge McAllister, having stated that she found the arguments put forward by the borrowers difficult to follow, summarised them as follows:- "...firstly, it is said that the Applicants have no power to create mortgages 'by demise': secondly it is alleged that the charges are invalid for want of compliance with statutory formalities, including he assertions that the charges were no 'delivered, and thirdly it is said that the effect of securitisation of their loans somehow renders the charges invalid." The Demise Point A mortgage by demise is now an almost obsolete form of mortgage, whereby the property is actually conveyed to the lender, usually under a very long lease and is then conveyed back to the borrower upon redemption. Although not expressly stated in the judgment, it is probably correct that a mortgage by demise is no longer permissible, in that it is specifically excluded as a means of disposition under the Owners' powers as derived from s.23(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002. However, the effect of ss. 51 & 132 of the 2002 Act is that whether the mortgage is created by the usual method of executing a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage or by charging the estate with payment of money, on completion by registration the charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, albeit that it only takes effect when registered (s.27). Both the mortgage Deeds in this case are expressed to be charges by way of legal mortgages and they were not and did not purport to be mortgages by demise. The assertion that the charges were invalid because they were mortgages by demise was therefore held to be simply unsustainable. The Statutory Formalties Point The borrowers both sought to attack the validity of the charge by stating that the Deed which created it was not valid because it had not been signed by the lender, was not delivered and was in fact a contract for a Deed and not a Deed itself because of the 'gap' between execution and registration. Although many lenders use their own standard form of wording for a Deed or the Land Registry's form CH1, there is no statutory prescribed form for creating a charge. The statutory formalities for creating a charge are therefore limited to it being created by Deed and that for the Deed to be valid it must be signed, attested and delivered by the person creating the Deed. It is by its very nature a unilateral act and does not therefore need to be signed by the lender. Neither does delivery mean 'handing over' the document but rather that the transaction to which the Deed relates is irreversible, so that it is also a unilateral action by the creator of the Deed showing that he intends to be bound by it. The Judge held that in these two transactions, as in every other similar and unremarkable transaction, the borrowers plainly intended to be bound by their Deeds, in that they accepted mortgage offers conditional upon charges being granted over their Properties, handed the Deeds to their solicitors who in turn passed them to the lenders and accepted the loans. It was therefore held that the charges were properly executed as Deeds by the borrowers and that there was no merit whatsoever in the points taken. The Securitisation Point This point was dealt with very shortly. The fact that the equitable interest in the loan may have transferred to a securitisation company was found to be irrelevant. There was no evidence that the sale had been perfected by the transfer of the legal title and the lender remained the registered proprietor of the mortgage and as such entitled to enforce it. Although not referred to in the Judgment, this follows the findings of the Court of Appeal in Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760. In dismissing both applications (and presumably now the other applications pending in the First-tier Tribunal) the Judge ordered that the Applicants should pay the costs. Although this may not necessarily deter other borrowers from bringing specious and unmeritorious claims seeking to challenge the validity of their mortgages, it is hoped that it will be a salutary lesson that such applications do come at a cost. The real harm however would seem to be the proliferation of internet sites that propagate challenges based on legal 'jargon' that is difficult for even High Court Judges to follow and which beguile borrowers into believing that they can make these challenges. Lenders need to be robust in defending these challenges and protecting their security."

http://uk.practicallaw.com/8-107-6622?service=property Full title guarantee Resource type: Glossary item Status: Maintained Jurisdictions: England, Wales One of the two key phrases used to imply covenants for title under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 in an “instrument effecting or purporting to effect a disposition of property” (section 1(1)). The other key phrase is limited title guarantee. Full title guarantee implies that: The disposing party has the right to dispose of the property (section 2(1)(a)). The disposing party will do all it reasonably can to give the title it purports to give, at its own cost (section 2(1)(b) and (2)). If the property being disposed of is registered, there is a presumption that the whole of the property in the registered title is being disposed of (section 2(3)). If the property being disposed of is not registered, there is a presumption that the interest being disposed of is the freehold. If it is clear that the interest is leasehold, it is presumed that the interest is the unexpired residue of the term of the lease (section 2(3)).

I recently made and withdrew an application to the Property Chamber to challenge the validity mortgage deed based on in CAG and I was forced into a situation where I had to pay a lender thousands of pounds in arbitrary "legal charges" before a hearing and was threatened with more to come if I didn't withdraw my application and pay the charges. This all happened the day before their deadline to commit a response to my Chamber application and I ended up losing thousands of pounds with no hearing. The only online record of the hearing I can find is here: http://www.lightfoots.co.uk/about-us/news-and-subscribe/item/196-a-charge-in-deed by one of the solicitors representing a lender. I will include this in a post below in case it gets lost or removed. It appears that none of the points made in the original thread nor in the template application were actually considered in the judgement. On the issue of mortgage by demise I signed a charge by way of a legal mortgage deed with "Full Title Guarantee" which according to this definition http://uk.practicallaw.com/8-107-6622?service=property is a full disposal of the property (i.e. its bricks) not disposal just a certain set of rights. The judge said that there was no mortgage by demise but a legal mortgage with Full Title Guarantee IS A MORTGAGE BY DEMISE for all intents and purposes. On the issue of statutory formalities there was no mention by the judge of a lenders duty to sign a deed where there is an obligation for further advances and the fact that there is a requirement for a lenders signature on the land registries CH1 form in this instance. Why also was there no discussion of the very clear instruction of the LRA2002 section 91 para 4 which clearly states the requirement for a lenders signature on a deed? Here it is black and white: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/91. Is it simply the case the judge missed that little bit of legislation or that somehow the deed was not stored electronically? These hearing appeared to be a complete whitewash of the facts and statutes by a judge who seemingly did not understand the rules nor the statute and I understand that the CAG has been actively attempting to prevent all further discussion on the issue. I personally lost £thousands and I didn't even reach a hearing and I understand that others did too on an issue that is very clearly unresolved. I would value the objective opinions of experienced professionals on this issue...

Apple, With all due respect to Sequenci if (s)he has not read the thread content and the supporting statutory references then I don't think at this stage anyone should be trying to convince anyone of the "proof" for fear of going round in circles. This is not a one line answer... To avoid clogging the thread (as I have done in the past with my questions questions questions) is it best to avoid repeating the evidence and refer to historical information in the thread?

my mortgage deed does. it says "obligation". what's your view on this situation?

not in electronic form. now i think your making this up as you go along. is this intended to be a joke? does HMLR keep a big folder of official copies carefully ensuring of course they dont make it on to a hard drive at any point that they may be deemed electronic. or is the title register simply an entry in a database? Where was it registered in the first place - on some sort of shelf? Regarding your comment on 4(b) - i dont want to cause any upset but you clearly don't understand very simple boolean logic.

contents removed. CAG please remove post.

My lender actually did refer to Lamb vs Mortgage Business in its defense of assertions made in this thread... I was quite surprised... It seemed entirely inappropriate...

So their lawyer replied: "you'll pay for this" (essentially). I know you said don't "wax lyrical" but I couldnt help myself - the temptation got the better of me. However now I know I'm paying for my own emails I will take your good advice in the future and send them the short thank you...

It happened like this: they sent me an email saying "under the terms... blah blah blah... you have to pay... blah blah... do what we say... blah blah". Standard terms... So I said... In order that I may respond appropriately to your notice to deduct money from the proceeds of the sale of my estate I request presentation of a document pursuant to the Land Registration Act 2002 section 91. Your clients form of charge was only signed as a deed by the borrower before being filed at HM land registry ref MDxxxx. It would appear that there is no bilateral aspect to any part of my "mortgage agreement" with your client who appears to have completely avoided legally committing to any part of the contract (offer and deed) but nonetheless seeks to enforce it's purported terms and conditions. I have provided relevant extracts of land registration law for ease of reference. Please can you either accept or reject that this legislation applies to your clients form of charge before issuing any further demands for upfront payments. I would like to draw your attention in particular to section (4)(b). (1) This section applies to a document in electronic form where— (a)the document purports to effect a disposition which falls within subsection (2), and (b)the conditions in subsection (3) are met. (2) A disposition falls within this subsection if it is— (a) a disposition of a registered estate or charge, (b) a disposition of an interest which is the subject of a notice in the register, or © a disposition which triggers the requirement of registration, which is of a kind specified by rules. (3)The conditions referred to above are that— (a)the document makes provision for the time and date when it takes effect, (b)the document has the electronic signature of each person by whom it purports to be authenticated, ©each electronic signature is certified, and (d)such other conditions as rules may provide are met. (4)A document to which this section applies is to be regarded as— (a) in writing, and (b) signed by each individual, and sealed by each corporation, whose electronic signature it has. (5) A document to which this section applies is to be regarded for the purposes of any enactment as a deed. Please note that (4)(b) denotes a bilateral signature requirement ("and" - not "or") for the deed stated in (5) which you have correctly identified as a contract. Yours sincerely, UNRAM

No I am referring to their initial response to notice of my Chamber application. The nice little emails from their lawyers politely informing me that I am now racking up costs under the terms of the contract (YES - they called it a contract, not me) and their client is going to charge me for any future correspondence I send them. This is a public company with £45billion taxpayer backing. And because I am looking at this through novices eyes I have also noticed what others have failed to that their senior officers obviously have no idea of the law behind anything they are doing that they have to hand it off to a legal department and can't actually address ANYTHING themselves. The CEO clearly does not know his own business enough to answer "customer" queries. The Chairman has been silent the whole time. Truly Great Leaders... I politely requested that they please didn't send me extracts from terms and conditions from a form of charge that despite having obligation on the lender was clearly not executed. What did they send me? Yes, of course. A copy of an unexecuted deed with obligations on it - and actually said it was executed. Where did those terms and conditions come from? Oh yes, of course, they were agreed under a prior contract (not signed by the lender, mind) - the oxymoronic "mortgage agreement". I really don't think they actually read my emails properly.

just in case we lost sight of the CONTEXT here it is again. Apple I realise you are probably going to say "UNRAM you are repeating yourself AGAIN" but thats probably because there is a point being made that is not being addressed... my lender has used costs as a weapon in the first line of its defense to deter me... using terms and conditions in the CONTEXT presented here...

the wording is secondary to the context in which the wording exists... something along the lines of "blah blah blah you will pay us our legal costs and other costs blah blah whatever we determine you will ask no questions blah blah you will raise no issues we will charge you what we want and strap it your mortgage when we want blah blah blah you will do as we say blah blah blah etc blah blah blah" however i draw your attention back to the CONTEXT... a non-executed deed containing lender obligations... as stated i do not expect a coherent reply... ill post this back up in a couple of pages time...

no not if it had no chance of succeeding. they would only have to reply "it has no chance of succeeding" with reasons previously stated. surely that would be as effective...

standard lender T&C's agreed under terms of the "mortgage agreement" in advance of signing the deed referenced from a form of charge containing obligations for advances not executed by the lender. please note bhall i am not anticipating a reply to this post...

I was just asking the same question myself... surely they will be operating to Tribunal Rules Section 9... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/9/made why has it not been struck out?

bhall what my lender has actually said about costs is that they are going to ignore the jurisdiction of the court and force their legal costs from me (which can't amount to much if the last post is confirmed...) ahead of either responding to the application or attending the tribunal. Well played lender. After sending me 4 notices she then went on to deter me from replying by informing me that I had been and was being charged for my replies. Pleasant.

Is It Me. Did the Chamber ACTUALLY state that the lender must execute where there is a note for an obligation by the lender as stated above. If so I have just received a misrepresentation by my lenders solicitor who has sent me a deed which she states has been executed - but does not fulfil the above condition. If so, what on earth are they (well, me, actually, apparently) paying these people for?

Dear CAG can anyone offer advice how to present a case to obtain damages for being subject to extortion to pay a "subscription" to a lender under unenforceable terms of an unsigned unilateral mortgage "agreement" and a deed with lender obligations included left unsigned by the lender.