Your guess appears to be correct At paragraph 13 http://www.scribd.com/doc/144639277/1PB48636-c-THU-09-MAY-2013-1423a-at-BLACKPOOL-County-Court-HHJ-BUTLER-Judgment-PDF-TUE-15-JAN-2013-TMB-LAMB-Void-Mortgage-Orders " In simple terms, as I understand it now, the argument goes that the mortgage deed upon which the respondent relies, which is the document signed by Mr Hellak and Mrs Lamb, the document dated 10th August 2007 by the respondents, the deed undoubtedly that they executed in the presence of a witness, which on traditional analysis is the mortgage deed - it describes it self as “This mortgage deed”and which asserts that thereby the borrower charges the relevant property and which includes a request for an entry on the Register, is not in fact the mortgage. That, having regard to the provisions of section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002, perhaps inadvertently and unintentionally, Parliament has introduced a provision which makes this document of itself no longer the mortgage. The argument carefully put by Mr Fergus, and I hope I understand it in substance, is that the reality is that a mortgage is only now created and enforceable at law once it is properly and duly registered and that which must be properly and duly registered is a contract to create a mortgage contract, and the contract by reason of section 2 of the 1989 Act should be signed not only by the borrowers, but by the lender. It is not a deed of course: it is a contract, so it has to have both parties as signatories to it." Jerry

This is excellent advice, please look into this and keep us updated Jerry

The Judge referred to the following case Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch) (20 May 2009) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1076.html#para144 121. Mr Wood argued that the time at which a registrable disposition takes place is the time at which it is registered. That, he said, follows from the rule in section 27 (1) that such a disposition only operates in law from the date of registration. Accordingly, on the facts of the present case the only relevant date for deciding whether Mrs Thompson's right to set aside the transaction was protected is 10 April 2007. I reject this submission. First, section 27 (2) (f) identifies the disposition as the grant of a legal charge, not its completion by registration. Second, the language of section 29 (1) contemplates that the time of the disposition and the time of registration may be different (even though this may change, for practical purposes, once e-conveyancing comes into being). The relevant interest must be one which affects the charge at the date of the disposition. Third, Schedule 3 paragraph 2 © contemplates an inspection at the time of the disposition. Thus must mean an inspection at the date when the legal documents are executed and the money is released. In my judgment, on the facts of this case the date of the disposition was 5 April 2007. Accordingly, if actual occupation must exist at one date only, then in my judgment the date of the disposition (5 April) is the relevant date. Jerry

The point to which I attempted to raise was that the agreement is a contract for a disposition whereas, a deed is the actual disposition Jerry

I was referring to the comments made by is it me? both of which relied upon United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib, a case about the deposit of title deeds Jerry

You would need to read the terms and conditions of your agreement to be sure. I have looked at their website, it does not appear to be an issue providing they will be repaid but please check your agreement to be sure http://www.firstbuyscheme.org.uk/firstbuy.php "If you decide to sell your home, you will repay FirstBuy from the the required percentage share of the sale proceeds of the property. For example, if your FirstBuy equity loan was originally for 30% of the full market value of your home and you had not stair cased at any point; you would repay 30% of the full market value when it came to selling." Jerry

In my case my heart tells me to keep playing but my body tells me to stop - age related in my case lol

Is this a first charge or a second charge mortgage/loan

Have you given any consideration to reclaiming the charges ?

If during your hearing it is your intention to rely on the above and and references to United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib , I feel compelled to ensure you are aware that in that case there was no mortgage deed.

The link to an earlier hearing at paragraph 24 may clarify this for you Jerry

I would answer your question in the negative. The case was not posted by someone with another name before. Whilst I can understand your attitude towards anyone that posts something that disagrees with your beliefs, I would ask you to show and demonstrate at the very least mutual respect. I was mistaken and believed that you and others would want to be made aware of such a case. It is not a mistake I intend to repeat. Jerry

Hello Jabloom A default will stay on your credit file for six years after the date of the actual default. The credit scores provided by credit reference agencies are really only for information purposes and only give a general idea of your credit score. Each bank has its own lending criteria and some bank will accept one person whilst there are other banks that would reject the same people. If you have a good history with whichever bank you hold your current account with or who you have the longest and best history with, it may increase your chances if you apply with that lender. It would do no harm to make an appointment with an adviser and sound them out, without submitting an actual application. The size of the deposit that you are able to pay may also be an important factor in any lending decision. Jerry

I only posted the case for information purposes. I did not post it to get into a lengthy debate about this topic. However three things do strike me immediately from your post - The word mortgage is used incorrectly on a daily basis. People say that they are applying for a mortgage or they have a mortgage with bank x or bank y. A mortgage is actually something that we give to the banks, as security for a loan to buy our homes. The mortgage agreement is really nothing more than a loan agreement, the charge is the mortgage and the charge is granted using a deed. I am sure you know all this already and by no means do I wish to teach anyone to suck eggs. I appreciate that my word or explanation may not be sufficient to satisfy you.The below is a transcript of a hearing held in January, before the judgement made as previously detailed. Paragraph 8 confirms that it is the mortgage deed that has not been signed by the lender. http://www.scribd.com/doc/144639277/1PB48636-c-THU-09-MAY-2013-1423a-at-BLACKPOOL-County-Court-HHJ-BUTLER-Judgment-PDF-TUE-15-JAN-2013-TMB-LAMB-Void-Mortgage-Orders - "signed by each individual, and sealed by each corporation whose electronic signature it has" If my memory serves me correctly, you have a copy of your mortgage deed, does it have any electronic signatures ? If not, is section 91 relevant ? - "However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all" The last few words or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all, do stand out to clarify that section 2 does not apply to an actual mortgage. The reference to Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 and section 27 may provide you with the answer to your question Jerry

I appreciate your change of tone I have no interest in getting into a urinating contest with you. I simply posted a case relevant to this thread. I did not tell you to stop following the course, you have decided to follow. Nor would I ever do so. What you do, is up to you. I have explained my reasons for posting details of the case and I have explained that the case did not set a precedent and may not have a bearing on any future hearing. For some reason, you have taken my post of information as some form of challenge against your beliefs. That was never my intention. As far as I am concerned you can believe what you wish. In reply to your post you might be surprised to learn just how very little of the Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed by the Land Registration Act 2002. If you look at the repealed section of the Land Registration Act 2002, you can see that it hardly repealed anything, in the Law of Property Act 1925,your use of the term 'a lot' is an exaggeration. Take a look for yourself http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/13 My only intention was to make people aware of the case and of the negative outcome of The Mortgage Business v Lamb as it was related to this thread but never mentioned or discussed. In that case the borrower unsuccessfully challenged possession on the basis the deed was not signed by the lender. It was my mistake to think that such a case or such an outcome might be something you would want to know about, especially given the course you are following. It is no wonder why with such a warm welcome, so few people have posted in this thread. Jerry

I am somewhat taken a back and disappointed with the hostility that I sense in your posts. I have posted details of a very recent court case, which was about the same topic as this thread. After reading the thread, I was aware that there had been no prior reference to or discussion of that actual case and felt that it would be something that should be added, if for no other reason than to make people aware of it. The changes in 2002, to which you have mentioned, were actually changes in 2003 when both the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003 both became law. The Land Registration Act 2002, repealed The Land Registration Act 1925 and not the Law of Property Act 1925, which is still very much in force today. His Honour Judge Butler did take into account the Land Registration 2002, when reaching his decision as specified in my post. It is unfortunate that my posting of his judgement has resulted in this reaction from you. Jerry

You are welcome Fielder Please keep us updated on your progress Jerry

Please keep us updated on your progress Jerry

A most unexpected response, I am not sure if you are being serious or facetious ? The 1925, would be the Law of Property Act 1925. It was an act that laid down and reiterated many of the foundations of Property Law as it stands today. The title of this thread is Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed is it not ? The Mortgage Business Plc v Lamb was about repossession being unsuccessfully questioned as the lender had not signed the deed. Surely the relevancy of that case to this thread is beyond question. Rather than having nothing to do with this thread, this case has a great deal to do with the subject of this thread. You will see that I do have other posts, albeit not in this thread. Jerry

Hello Remember that the Consumer Credit Act 2006 removed the £25,000 limit on 6 April 2008. So the date your application was completed is very important in determining if it was CCA regulated or not. Also please remember that as this sounds like a second charge loan, it will not be FCA (previously FSA) regulated. Jerry

I have finally finished reading this thread in its entirety. Whilst I am all for giving anything a try, where you have nothing more to lose and potentially everything to gain, I was wondering if any of the contributors of this thread were aware of the recent case - The 'Mortgage Business Plc v Lamb' - 12 July 2013, In the Preston County Court on appeal from the Burnley County Court (Unreported) ? It was argued on a different basis (mostly in relation to s.2 of the LPA 1989 MP) to that asserted by this thread that a mortgage deed had to be signed by the Lender. Whilst the arguments used were different, the outcome I fear may be the same and thus may be of interest - "Lamb's appeal argument, put as simply as possible, was that her mortgage was null and void for want of statutory formality because it was signed by the borrower only and not the lender (as is the case with the vast majority of mortgage deeds) and as such it did not comply with LP(MP)A; therefore the mortgage did not exist at law and so could not be completed by registration as required by LRA; and thus it was not binding on the borrower. Following this line of reasoning, borrowers could feasibly believe that having fallen into arrears they need not clear their debt, or that they could cease to pay their mortgage altogether, without in either scenario risking losing their homes. It is clear why this argument has been seen as potentially 'revolutionary' and has been expounded by borrower-friendly forums. If found to be correct, the argument would obviously be of major concern to mortgage lenders and would require an urgent and whole-scale review of existing and future residential property mortgage investments. If found to be wrong, however, belief and reliance upon this contention would potentially expose borrowers to the real and serious risk of losing their homes, adding to the problems of those already in financial difficulties." Outcome "In his judgment of 12 July 2013, His Honour Judge Butler held that Lamb's argument was "illusory" and "false". He was clearly concerned that it could mislead borrowers into wrongly thinking that their mortgage was not binding upon them, and that they could therefore default on payment without jeopardising their home. Conscious that the case was trying an argument that was the subject of much discussion on social media, as well as the focus of other residential possession proceedings, the judge delivered a careful, thorough and clear judgment, dismissing Lamb's appeal and lifting the stay of execution on the lender's recovery of possession. In short, His Honour Judge Butler's reasoning was that mortgages are not within the scope of section 2 LP(MP)A at all. That section is concerned with contracts for the creation of a disposition in land, whereas a mortgage is itself actually a disposition in land [2]. The relevant statutory provision for a mortgage, being section 53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA), does not require every term to be included in a document signed by both parties, rather the document just needs to be signed by "the person creating or disposing of the interest" (i.e. the mortgagor/borrower). The judge also explained that section 27 LRA does not go so far as to say that a disposition required to be completed by registration (such as a mortgage) is created by registration and that it does not therefore exist or operate in equity before registration [3]. [1] 12 July 2013, In the Preston County Court on appeal from the Burnley County Court (Unreported) [2] Helden v Strathmore [2011] EWCA Civ 542 followed [3] Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch) followed His Honour Judge Butler referred to s.53 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which may come into play as part of Lenders replys' to the assertions made in this thread at any future hearing. 53 Instruments required to be in writing. (1)Subject to the provision hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol— (a)no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law; In response to the above I would stress and ask that it is remembered that it did not set a precedent so may not have a bearing on any future hearings. However, the judgement in Helden v Strathmore deserves consideration as it did set a precedent as per the above Once I am able to, I will provide a link to the above for discussion. Jerry EDIT I am now able to post links http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/social-medias-mortgage-revolution-does-not-materialise

Good luck, don't let them wear you down. Please keep us updated on your progress Jerry

Hello Fielder You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by contacting Allianz. It may cost you some of your time and the price of a stamp but it could result in either a full or partial refund. The worst that can happen is that they say no. However, at least you tried. Jerry

Firstly I am sorry to hear of your loss, dealing with both the loss and the resulting formalities is very stressful. Secondly, it may be time for you to escalate your complaint further within the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. In your situation, I would write directly to the members of the board (via their head office address), the details of the members of the board and the head office address are both available via the rbs website. Whilst given the circumstances this should not be necessary, it is clear that no progress has been made by the mortgage team. Jerry

Hello Fielder You could write back to the person that processed your request and explain that it would appear a copy of the Redemption Statement has not been supplied and ask them to either provide you with a copy or to provide you with specific details of the early repayment charge. Whilst SAR's should result in a lender providing you with details of all the information they hold about you, it is often the case that they don't. I would advise, when making any subject access request, if there is something specific you are looking for, make it clear when making the request that you want that specific information. Jerry