Have they sent you a letter stating they are demanding costs? Where in the t&c's does it state this? They are unbelievable. They believe they hold borrowers to ransom!

I have received my latest letter from my lender, who have said they are not upholding my 'complaint' (the non signing of the deed) and If I want to proceed further I must go to the financial ombudsmen service within 6 months. They have also said that they note I have made an application to the property chamber. Their response to this, is that if they have to defend this claim in court that it is written with my terms and conditions that all their costs would be added to my mortgage.... 1. The financial ombudsmen service have already stated that this particular issue would not be in their jurisdiction as this is a law issue.. So my lender are obviously directing me to a service that they know wouldn't do anything??! 2. How cheeky of them that they firstly believe that they can even unnerve me with this talk of adding costs to my mortgage and secondly as we all know if the deed is void - doesn't that make the t&c's attached to the deed void anyway?!

Mutt1, I have to agree with what you are saying, that PM's should be made available to not give the lender any clue of who is involved and what is going on... However I must admit the law is the law and is it quite conclusive really . If a lender has failed to sign a deed then this cannot be undone no matter how they are going to try and wriggle out of it. You cannot, since 2002 charge a mortgage to a registered estate and since 2005 you cannot expect the borrower to presume it has been delivered. A lender may say - "well it has been delivered blah blah blah" - yeh right! I'll be interested to know how many applications the property chamber have received in the past 3 months or so..... Maybe they need to think about recruiting to deal with the demand!

Ha no problem apple. I'm sure your post explains it better and in more detail than mine anyhow!

To answer some of your questions the best I can as I understand it The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 removed presumption of delivery from evidence of the borrowers signature alone on the deed as amendment to Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and also an amendment to LPA 1925 section 74A (1) and (2). This came in September 2005 and if you read the notes within this document this is plain and clear to see. In other words the lender not signing the deed is simply doing this "making the borrower presume it has been executed" I think that if you have a deed that hasn't been signed by the borrower since sept 05 you may be in a stronger position to state your case. As the legislator repealed various acts of LPMPA 89 and LPA 25 to deal with this issue. Nevertheless since 2002 a lender has no power to grant a charge in other words create a mortgage by demise on registered land. This is basically because in effect a borrower is the registered proprietor and has the conclusive title so a lender can not have more power than a borrower to grant a charge. If the deed was to be set aside the lender does not have a charge on your property, which means they do not have a security against it so in affect you have borrowed an unsecured loan. However.. The contract/agreements/mortgage offer are linked to the deed. In fact a deed may refer to the offer, therefore a void deed may mean a void agreement. The borrower would be due some restitution, but how much remains to be seen., especially if it was proved the lender has profiteered on the back of not signing or executing the deed. Who is your lender? Who is on your title on the deed?do u know if your mortgage has been sold on & to whom/when? When did u take the mortgage out? Have u made an app to the property chamber? What do HMLR say about unsigned deeds after 2005?

When did u send off your application pj? Is it me? Has your application been accepted despite your lender's attempt to strike it out?

That's good pj. Who is your lender again? When did u submit your application? Did the chamber give u any indication of a hearing?

Hi pj, providing that Apple is ok with you submitting a similar defence, if you have a look at the document you may need to omit points 15 16 19 20 & 21 unless any of these fit your circumstances. I for one would feel extremely confident with this defence document alisono. Especially with point 19! Just to let you know my application has gone into the chamber so look forward to updating you further with their response. Thanks to Apple, UNRAM and is it me for this thread!

You do right pj cos it's obvious lenders & their solicitors do view these sites so you don't want to give them an inch. It's alright for the lawyers to seek their 'advice' and 'information' off the 'internet' as they put it in is it me's case but we as 'lowly' borrowers can't do the same. We all need to remember for them it's their job, for us it's our livelihoods. I know which will prevail cos you automatically care more about your livelihood!

Had a few pages to catch up on here.. just wish p.j and alisono all the best with their next hearing. Just remember you have won round one. Any adjournment is a win in that round I'd say! The more you stall them, the more confident you will get because you will get the knowledge you need! I am about to send my application to the chamber and have seen a couple of drafts. Obviously I have adapted it to suit my case. Would you say the more information the better at this stage or should any defence be held back as ammunition if you get my reasoning?

Jabba the hut died in Return of the Jedi - killed by Princess Leia if I remember rightly!

Is it worth adding the point of this thread to the property chamber app at the moment? If so how should it be put?

Get ya! Best to keep them completely separate to ensure we don't end up getting tied up in knots and falling into the old trap.. Just think the lender chooses when to link them together and when not to. I understand why a lender would not sign/execute a deed for securitisation purposes. However why would a lender not sign or ask a borrower to sign the offer/agreement and risk this argument?

section 1 LPMPA 1989 -non execution of the deed Section 2 LPMPA 1989 - contract/mortgage offer Interesting because effectively Nram's defence is that section 2 does not apply to deeds. However what they have done is link the two together by not actually signing the mortgage offer contract and only requesting the borrower to sign the deed. Lender - section. 2 does not apply to deeds. It is the contract created for the future disposition. Borrower - ok so have you signed the mortgage offer then? Have I signed the mortgage offer? Lender - yes you have signed the mortgage deed which incorporates the t&c's for the contract. Borrower - I thought you said the deed does not apply to section. 2 (in other words the contract/offer)? Lender - it doesn't! Borrower - well can you show me where in the mortgage offer (in other words the contract or agreement) it is signed by the borrower or/and the lender? Lender - the deed is signed by you with a charge by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee. Borrower - the deed is nothing to do with the contract/agreement - it is separate. Or are you now saying it isn't? Lender - they are two separate contracts. There's the contact which satisfy section 2 and the deed which is a charge by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee. Borrower - ok well if they are separate then where's my signed mortgage agreement? I put it to you that section 2 (3) LPMPA 1989 The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. Lender - the mortgage deed has been signed by you and executed by us when this was sent to the conveyancer to release the funds. Borrower - Are you now saying that section. 2 does apply to the deed then? where's your signature on the deed? RRO 2005/s23 LRA 2002!!! Etc etc Correct me if I'm wrong but just thought I'd put together a possible lender - borrower argument. Any assistance to correct the possible conversation would be appreciated as this is a good way of getting to grips with the possible arguments ahead of us!

A judge's question will be - did your lender lend you the money to buy your house? Yes or no? Would you have been able to buy your home without your lender lending you this money? Yes or No? Paying the lender 'something' may satisfy a judge that it is a borrowers intention to pay something towards an unsecured debt. Does the borrower deserve compensation, restitution or quite simply nothing due to what has already been gained. It has to be argued how much, however, because effectively the borrower already has their restitution in the present value of their house minus what has already been paid plus interest. How this one could be worked out is an interesting one!

Apple, that helps a great deal thanks. Is there any chance this side of the argument can be added to the property chamber app as a draft? This strengthens our position even more!

I understand the difference between the contract and the deed and LPMPA section 1 & 2. In law terms. What I don't understand is how these two subsection's can be separated in my case because as I've already mentioned my mortgage offer has not been signed by anyone. It is only the deed that has been signed by me, so what I am saying is how can the difference be separated between the two with your argument as the deed is the only document signed. What you're essentially doing is voiding your agreement/offer/contract, which therefore voids the deed..... So you're back to square one!

No problem UNRAM. I don't know where you are going with this because this thread has gone over the fact that a borrower needs to concentrate on the unsigned deed. Borrowers have failed in court previously because they have gone back to LPMPA section 2. Forgive me if I'm wrong but are you falling into the same trap...? I believe we need to concentrate on the deed, but I would be grateful for your reasoning to get sidetracked because I believe I am in the same boat as you! i.e mortgage offer unsigned with attached t&c's and then a signed (by the borrower) mortgage deed which explains referral to t&c's from the offer and an explanation on the deed of a charge by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee.

I must say I am very confused with the LPMPA 1989 section 2 and the deed itself. There are some very contradicting posts within this thread that I can't get my head around? It has been previously mentioned that in making an application to the chamber that we must concentrate on the point of this thread, and that is the unsigned (by the lender) deed. Therefore we need to avoid the LPMPA section 2 as this has been the downfall of previous borrowers who have been taken to court. However, it has now been mentioned that in fact the unsigned deed is not relevant and in fact it is the mortgage offer that is void as it does not satisfy the LPMPA section 2? What I don't understand is that I have never signed a mortgage offer, only a mortgage deed, not signed by the lender. Unless I've interpreted wrong or read wrong between the lines.. Could someone please explain as I feel as though the recent posts have made me lose focus...

'Goodwill' is definitely something the lender you are talking about has absolutely none of...

Why do you need to pay the lender 'a small token amount' given that you do not owe the lender a cent?

That's a a very interesting way of interpreting that Jabba. I really don't understand how you've come to that... S23 1a A borrower can grant a legal mortgage on a registered estate (NO FULL STOP) OTHER than (a) transfer by way of mortgage, (b) sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and © charge by way of legal mortgage. There's not even any dispute here, the borrower doesn't have the power to create a b & c END OF!!

No idea. There's no justification for not signing the deed. None whatsoever! If there was no ulterior motive then just sign or seal the thing. Problem we've got is theres a mentality or culture that you should just get a mortgage and pay it for 25-35 yrs no questions asked so to 'go against the grain' is frowned upon. Anyone have a recent mortgage from a normal high street bank? What does that deed look like?

Apart from deliberately not sign a deed to ensure this isn't executed so thousands of charges can be sold on for securitisation purposes. This is fraud which is in fact a criminal offence not a mere civil offence.. "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities." Ps doesn't Leia kill Jabba in the end? :o)

Ha sorry Apple, I was in a very sarcastic and cynical mood earlier. I was simply stating that my lender have mentioned, (already I may add), that if my complaint is not upheld I will have the opportunity to go to the ombudsmen. I was merely being very cynical. I honestly now know (not suspect or believe) that the ombudsmen is no longer independent! Back to my initial letter, I used the main points from this thread and the non execution of the deed and stated to my lender that I have a buyer for my property, but there will be a shortfall. I have politely requested that this shortfall is waived and gave them 7 days to consider 'my proposal' (boots on the other foot now hey!) I have today (the 7 days expired today) have received a response from my lender stating that they are concerned (I bet they are) they want a further 3weeks. However time is up!