Mortgage Express appoint LPA Recievers Walker Singleton to scare tenants off!

[patrickq1]

email on its way Tony

[aptb74]

This is a notice I sent to Templeton LPA receiver yesterday. I was going to post it on a separate thread, but as so many people have contributed to this thread it is probably more useful to post it here. There is a lot of information in this notice, and it may be useful to different people in different ways.

 

My view is that once you have right on your side and you have the courage to stand up against those whose unethical and immoral behavior has no bounds you are a winner, and if you believe you WILL win you will be victorious. This is after a war of principalities:

 

Notice of Unlawful Appointment of Templeton and LSL by or on Behalf of Mortgage Express

From:

Please Reply to:

Date:

To: Davies, Templeton LPA, Argyle House, Castlebridge, Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff, CF11 9AB

For the avoidance of doubt: I do not consent to this appointment, as it is deemed unlawful

In response to you correspondence informing me that yourself and and Paul Jardine have been appointed as LPA receiver over my properties.

 

Mortgage Express claim to have the right to appoint you, but this is only a claim which I has been, and continues to dispute since October. The dispute has not been resolved and is on-going: complaint (H55/LM/CHARM121659). This complaint is currently being investigated by Paul Marshall – Please see attached letter dated 24 July 2012. The result of this complaint into whether Mortgage Express has the power to appoint an LPA receiver for historical arrears (i.e. arrears that has been cleared), would have affected your appointment. This is an issue on which you should have sought independent legal advice. My Complaint is also based on the fact that even if the terms enable Mortgage Express to appoint a receiver on the grounds of historical arrears, they are excluded from doing so based on a Promissory Estoppel, which has been in place from since 12 January 2009. I will forward you the email sent to me by John Jacobs and Mr Shelton, which is just one of the pieces of evidence to support Promissory Estoppel. As I said it is not my job to do your job, and you should request full disclosure from Mortgage Express in order that you could properly validate your appointment.

 

Your failure to carry out even the most rudimentary checks to validate you appointment is a failure to carry out the duty of care that you owe me and my tenants, and also indicates that you relationship with mortgage express is much too cosy to carry out you duty in an independent and professional manner.

 

It is clear to me that you have not examined the particular terms and conditions that the mortgagee is relying on to appoint you.

 

Or even looked at the arrears history to verify that the individual properties over which Mortgage has appointed you receiver have ever been in two or more month’s arrears (Calculated according to what the payments were at the time when arrears occurred – this is the way that the calculation should be made, as any attempt to do otherwise would not be in good faith. There is an assumption in contract law that each party of a contract will not seek to take advantage of a technicality within the contract to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the other party.

 

Likewise the concept of historical arrears is in bad faith, and it not referred to at all in any of the Mortgage Expresses terms.

 

The other main issue involving the validity of your appointment is that there appears to be no signed contract then there can be no valid Legal Charge if this requirement is not satisfied, at best there can only be a charge in equity.

 

Likewise in preforming your duty of care to me it is fundamental that you have seen a lawfully binding contract signed by both parties, which is referred to in s2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. I requested the same from Richard Banks – Chief Executive of UKAR (the company set up to manage the banks that have been taken over by the government with tax payers money) on the 11th April 2012, and have not received it.

 

s2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 "... THE document incorporating the terms ...", must be executed by the Mortgagee Company under section 2(3) of the 1989 LPMPA statute. Failure to do so renders a nullity, from the outset, the mortgage contract and nullifies the power of attorney/sale & associated registered charge.

 

Furthermore, Cousins Law of Mortgage (2010) 3rd Edition affirms: “… Where a purported contract for the grant of a mortgage on or after September 26, 1989 fails to comply with the requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, no mortgage will be created and, notwithstanding any oral agreement or deposit of title deeds, the creditor will have no interest in or rights over the debtor’s land ..." (see page 610-611).

 

In addition the Terms that Mortgage Express are relying upon, in the enforcement of its alleged claim, breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, “s.5 Unfair Terms” states:

 

“(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. […] (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

 

I also made a request to Richard Banks on 11th April 2012, for a copy of the document that satisfies the requirements of The Companies Acts 2006 s44, which states:

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company--(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or (b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions. (2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company-- (a) by two authorised signatories, or (b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. (4) A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed in whatever words, to be executed by the company, has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.”

 

Mortgage Express and Richard Banks failed to supply me with a copy of the requested document; It is therefore ironic that having shown complete disregard for the statutory obligation under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, and section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, which means that the charge is invalid, they are relying on the same Act for their authority to appoint you.

 

Mortgage Express do not have a valid legal charge, at best they have only a charge in equity.

 

Clearly Mortgage Express believe they can make the law up as they go along; I reject this presumption, if the Law of Property Act applies to me, then it must also apply to Mortgage Express.

There is also the issue that the notices served on me by Mortgage Express were not correctly drafted or served. You are reminded that the purpose of a notice is to give the individual who is being served the opportunity to take remedial action for the thing that he is being noticed, so if not correctly drafted or served the individual served is denied the opportunity to take any action and so the notice is void.

 

You are also advised that If you have deliberately misled me or my tenants as to the extent of you powers and authority, you will be committing an offence under the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 are engaged (Section 1 to 4).

 

If you in turn have been misled by Mortgage Express, then you need to take your own steps to rectify this.

 

We have had the Pensions scandal, Subprime scandal, the miss-selling of Loan Protection scandal, the miss-selling of complex financial products scandal, the Libor scandal, and now we have the Invalid Mortgages scandal. The common feature in all of these scandals is the trust that hard working people placed in the banks to represent their interest and act in an equitable manner, trust which turned out to be miss-guided.

 

For all of the reasons set out above, I do not accept your appointment, and am advising all of my tenant not to speak to you until such time they see a valid court order confirming that your appointment is lawful.

 

Additionally I am officially informing you that you do not have permission to enter any of my properties and that if you do so you will be entering as a trespasser.

 

I would also request that you take steps to rescind the notices that you have sent out to my tenants until such time as you have properly completed the validation process; and now you have been notified of the unresolved issues surrounding you appointment you will be held liable for alarm, distress, financial damages caused by your actions to myself and my tenants.

 

In Good Faith

 

 

 

 

- without prejudice

cc.

[caro]

Playing devil's advocate here, so don't shoot me down for these observations.

 

Your failure to carry out even the most rudimentary checks to validate you appointment is a failure to carry out the duty of care that you owe me and my tenants, and also indicates that you relationship with mortgage express is much too cosy to carry out you duty in an independent and professional manner

 

1. Does the receiver owe you a duty of care?

 

 

A mortgagee owes no duty of care in effecting the appointment of a receiver.

The mortgagee is contractually entitled to exercise its right to appoint a

receiver and, in deciding whether to do so, it owes no duty of care to the

mortgagor or guarantors. It has a right to appoint a receiver to protect its

interests and its decision to do so cannot be challenged except perhaps on the

grounds of bad faith (Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36).

 

A mortgagee owes no duty of care in effecting the appointment of a receiver. The mortgagee is contractually entitled to exercise its right to appoint a receiver and, in deciding whether to do so, it owes no duty of care to the mortgagor or guarantors. It has a right to appoint a receiver to protect its interests and its decision to do so cannot be challenged except perhaps on the grounds of bad faith (Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36).

 

2. Of course the relationship with MEx is cosy. They have engaged Templeton's to protect their interest. What makes you think they need to be independent?

[l.capo]

Hi I know this is not the correct place to post but I am having difficulty starting a new thread.

 

My problem is regarding mortgage express & lpa receivers. I have been in & out of arrears for some time. In December MEx appointed receivers instead of going through with a possession order. I was told once arrears clear i can get back full control of my property. Tenant moved out not to long after & I had no tenant for a few months. Any payment made to Mex since recovers instructed have came from me direct rather than through receivers. Receivers took my current tenant to court as trespassers because they have moved in after they were instructed. Possession was granted but the receivers solicitors stated that this would not affect me as it was against tenant for no contact but once tenant contacts them they can remain.

After the court case I called Mex to clarify what the arrears situation was & to confirm if I pay all arrears will this get rid of receivers. I was told that this was the case. They would need to know details about my current finances but yes property would be passed back to me.

Today I receive a call from Mex stating that regarding my last call the position is now that they will be trying to sell property & only way to stop this is to redeem mortgage.

 

I really need help. I would like to know if I pay arrears what will be the situation? Can I move into property & pay mortgage myself?

Any help much appreciated

[caro]

Hi I know this is not the correct place to post but I am having difficulty starting a new thread.

 

My problem is regarding mortgage express & lpa receivers. I have been in & out of arrears for some time. In December MEx appointed receivers instead of going through with a possession order. I was told once arrears clear i can get back full control of my property. Tenant moved out not to long after & I had no tenant for a few months. Any payment made to Mex since recovers instructed have came from me direct rather than through receivers. Receivers took my current tenant to court as trespassers because they have moved in after they were instructed. Possession was granted but the receivers solicitors stated that this would not affect me as it was against tenant for no contact but once tenant contacts them they can remain.

After the court case I called Mex to clarify what the arrears situation was & to confirm if I pay all arrears will this get rid of receivers. I was told that this was the case. They would need to know details about my current finances but yes property would be passed back to me.

Today I receive a call from Mex stating that regarding my last call the position is now that they will be trying to sell property & only way to stop this is to redeem mortgage.

 

I really need help. I would like to know if I pay arrears what will be the situation? Can I move into property & pay mortgage myself?

Any help much appreciated

 

I can only suggest that you contact WS and tell them you want to move in yourself and see what they say. I don't know how you stand legally.

[caro]

I thought that this thread may be of interest to some of the posters here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?352037-Yorkshire-Bank-posession-order-on-my-flat-urgent-help-needed&p=3938758&viewfull=1#post3938758

[patrickq1]

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2010/08/23/comment/property-matters/buy-to-let-loans-bite-back-MSAAc2QhE5Hes2Dh6DI89N/article.html

[patrickq1]

have a good read at the above Caro it puts a new spin on the governments stance as they are also trying to sue , but i have not heard anything since the snippet above , is it a case of they have made a settlement without informing anyone ? who knows just what the government are up to , but if as the article suggests that some buy to let investors were as we would put it co-erced into these buy to lets on B AND b recommendations or \mx recommendation then this is clearly a voidable contract

PatrickQ1

[aptb74]

Playing devil's advocate here, so don't shoot me down for these observations.

 

 

 

1. Does the receiver owe you a duty of care?

 

 

 

A mortgagee owes no duty of care in effecting the appointment of a receiver. The mortgagee is contractually entitled to exercise its right to appoint a receiver and, in deciding whether to do so, it owes no duty of care to the mortgagor or guarantors. It has a right to appoint a receiver to protect its interests and its decision to do so cannot be challenged except perhaps on the grounds of bad faith (Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36).

 

The Mortgagee may not owe a duty of care to the Mortgagor, but the LPA Receiver certainly does, and one of the first instances when he need to exercise this duty of care is in validating the appointment.

 

The duty of care requirement is explained in this clip:

Ben Gilroy Halts Receivers

 

 

2. Of course the relationship with MEx is cosy. They have engaged Templeton's to protect their interest. What makes you think they need to be independent?

 

If the relationship between the receiver and the mortgagee is to close and the receiver is not acting independently of the mortgagee, the receiver may be deemed to be the agent of the mortgagee.

[aptb74]

Hi I know this is not the correct place to post but I am having difficulty starting a new thread.

 

My problem is regarding mortgage express & lpa receivers. I have been in & out of arrears for some time. In December MEx appointed receivers instead of going through with a possession order. I was told once arrears clear i can get back full control of my property. Tenant moved out not to long after & I had no tenant for a few months. Any payment made to Mex since recovers instructed have came from me direct rather than through receivers. Receivers took my current tenant to court as trespassers because they have moved in after they were instructed. Possession was granted but the receivers solicitors stated that this would not affect me as it was against tenant for no contact but once tenant contacts them they can remain.

After the court case I called Mex to clarify what the arrears situation was & to confirm if I pay all arrears will this get rid of receivers. I was told that this was the case. They would need to know details about my current finances but yes property would be passed back to me.

Today I receive a call from Mex stating that regarding my last call the position is now that they will be trying to sell property & only way to stop this is to redeem mortgage.

 

I really need help. I would like to know if I pay arrears what will be the situation? Can I move into property & pay mortgage myself?

Any help much appreciated

 

If you move into the property and tell them you have done so, I understand they will need to get a possession order. Obviously you can not be a trespasser on your own property.

 

I would also check to see that the mortgage deed has been properly executed, by meeting the requirements as stated in paragraphs 7 to 10 of my "Notice of Unlawful Templeton and LSL Appointment 31 07 12". If you are satisfied that the deed has not been properly executed, then there is no legal charge, and therefore ANY appointment of LPA Receivers by the mortgagee is unlawful, and you can serve the LPA Receiver notice of this and take back over you property.

 

Please see the Ben Gilroy clip above.

[patrickq1]

hi stopmexx yes they are using the same tactics as they did in the last recession , only difference now is people are beginning to question the lawfulness of these acts, mortgage express have so many companies working in their name check these out see if any of them own Temple tons or other receivers ? ,Mortgage Express acts as administrative Agents for Mortgage Express (No2) Scotlife homeloans (No2) ltd ,Finance for Mortgages ltd ,silhouette mortgages ltd ,HSMS ,

[patrickq1]

B&B (in respect of the Aire Valley Notes) and NRAM (in respect of the Granite Notes and the Whinstone Notes) will also pay an Accrued Interest Payment in respect of relevant Notes accepted for purchase pursuant to the Offers.

The expected Settlement Date for the Offers is 9 July 2012.

Barclays Bank PLC and Citigroup Global Markets Limited are acting as Dealer Managers for the Offers and Citibank, N.A. London Branch is acting as Tender Agent.

SEE HERE Aire Valley who have made the offer

http://production.investis.com/bb_new/rns/rnsitem?id=20207341

[chillinlong]

Hi all,

Just caught up with the updates on this thread. It is a shame this is still ongoing.

 

As I understand I have tried to go down the route of the invalid legal charge and invalid power of attorney on the basis of securitisation. However very difficult to get a Judge to listen if MX are still showing on the land registry.

 

To date I still have litigation claim, now MX have tried a back door route on me serving me with moneyclaim. I am trying to request papers such as a valid signed contract etc, at the moment they are arguing it has no relevance and why should it be included in the disclosure etc.

 

They MX and Ws have tried every underhand tactic against me now I have nearly all witness statements from them and you can see they just planly lie and backtrack on evetyhing they have promised.

 

My case is on basis that properties will be returned once arrears are cleared. They now claim it was never an agreement or a binding contract, then what the hell do you say it for and what the hell have I repaired all the props and brought the accounts up to date means?

 

Just flabbergasting and exhausting! Been very hard but am keeping trying and have exhausted all legal funds...

[l.capo]

I thought that this thread may be of interest to some of the posters here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?352037-Yorkshire-Bank-posession-order-on-my-flat-urgent-help-needed&p=3938758&viewfull=1#post3938758

 

Thanks

[l.capo]

If you move into the property and tell them you have done so, I understand they will need to get a possession order. Obviously you can not be a trespasser on your own property.

 

I would also check to see that the mortgage deed has been properly executed, by meeting the requirements as stated in paragraphs 7 to 10 of my "Notice of Unlawful Templeton and LSL Appointment 31 07 12". If you are satisfied that the deed has not been properly executed, then there is no legal charge, and therefore ANY appointment of LPA Receivers by the mortgagee is unlawful, and you can serve the LPA Receiver notice of this and take back over you property.

 

Please see the Ben Gilroy clip above.

 

 

Hi thanks for advice. I'm a bit confused what your telling me to check.

 

The receivers applied for bailiffs to take possession from tenants but also persons unknown which would have been me. My tenants moved out & I moved in. I paid arrears but mortgage express still said they want me to redeem mortgage. I applied to get eviction set aside as I moved in & arrears now clear. The judge stayed it for 2 weeks for receivers to provide relevance in evicting me. They must provide skeleton argument 2 days prior to hearing. There are 2 claim numbers. 1 relating to claim against tenants & 1 relating to my suspended evictions in the past. The next hearing they will be brought together. The judge seemed to be on side in relation to saying the receivers technically had possession as tenants moved out & I have retaken possession. He was on the verge of cancelling order but then decided in th

[l.capo]

The 2 week stay.

 

I would like to know should I apply to get original suspended order set aside now as no arrears or wait until I go back to court? Can mortgage express force me to sell property now?

[chillinlong]

L.capo did you say MX promised to give you properties back when arrears clear etc? If so, did you get this in writing or oral agreement?

 

What order are you going to apply to stay? What legal action has been taken? If none, maybe consider applying for an injunction for them to stop sales of props. Hence the reason why I asking the question did they agree to give props back when arrears clear? Please tell us a bit more as to what had happened so then we can maybe help more.

[l.capo]

Chilling it was an oral agreement I'm afraid. I'm not applying to get any order stayed. I applied to get the eviction set aside as Mortgage express gave me impression that it was against tenants & myself rather than just tenants. The judge was siding with me but then stayed for 2 weeks. As they haven't got possession would I need an injuction right now?

[patrickq1]

yes chilli as usual their oral agreements mean nothing as we know , but saying this i am wondering if any of these calls are recorded , perhaps to say they made threats to do you harm physically ? now then maybe they will then say all calls are recorded BINGO you got them to admit they record all calls ....i think everyone needs a recorder in order to get these verbals clarified and using several witness statements , long shots and we seem to be beating round the bush because MX and WS are so conniving and such that it is difficult to prove ,also isnt their something coming up with the new FSA concerning mortgages being brought under their umbrella so they can monitor their activities ?

patrick

ps. nice to hear from you chilli

[chillinlong]

L.capo an oral agreement is a contract not a non binding agreement! Especially if you have acted upon this! You could potentially have a case for breach of contract and damages and this will allow you to place an injunction of them selling properties. Contact me via pm if you want to speak with me about it and I will help wherever I can.

 

Patrick, good to see you also!

 

Mx and wS got so much legal might against me but I'm still fighting them, we have to all get our heads together and take action to stop this nonsense. You have to be clear on what are you going to litigate them against.

[chillinlong]

Then when the action starts, in your request for disclosure for your evidence as part of the CPR, request all recorded calls helps if you tell them when and who. Say your case is based on this evidence and is detrimental to allow the courts to make a decision. Would look silly if mx claim they don't record their calls even though they say they do and I'm not sure whether FSA requires them to record their calls.

[patrickq1]

also you must ask for all emails in your request ..

[patrickq1]

some interesting facts for all to digest , regarding Third Party , liabilities etc

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=77341419-bd52-4767-ab0c-a0c42f549a98

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=085da44a-5c5a-4607-a692-884b91663e34

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=607f3f54-54e3-47f5-86b4-b9348fd3a60e

[patrickq1]

such as Walker Singleton assure you in letters at the initial stage that they are working for you or MX have assured you that they have appointed WS to work for and on your behalf , if this is the case then here is the legal decision ,(Arrrowhead Capital Finance Ltd v KPMG LLP (2012)) confirms the English courts’ reluctance to find that a professional owes a duty of care to anyone other than his client, unless a broader duty has been explicitly assumed in a letter or standard terms of engagement.... this comes under liability

[chillinlong]

Hi all, it seems to be the big players are getting this to work for them by having the legal might to bully you including the judges.

 

Whilst ongoing litigation with MX and WS, they have started a seperare money claim, I applied to the high courts consolidate the money claim to the main trial and to give me leave to amend my defence. I did not receive MX application notice till day before the hearing as MX deliberately delayed sending me a copy due to my solicitor not forwarding me the paperworks.

 

A high court judge dismissed my applications and awarded costs against me as MX recently got the same high court judge decision overturned and you could tell he was scared to rule on anything. But the obscene thing was as I am acting litigant in person I applied to the high courts because my trial is with them. Now the high court judge ruled he does not have jurisdiction to rule on these only a week before the money hearing. Left me in complete limbo as basically now MX can pursue judgement against me due to MX terms states that there is no set off To any claims made by them. I then tried to plead with judge on the CCA unfair relationship to which judge replied I have no chance. Then asked for permission to appeal which again was refused.

 

I cannot understand why the real justice system works in favour for the people who have money to throw at the legal team.

 

Oh well, back to the drawing board.