My endless Quest again Northern Rock

[bhall]

Does a sale (or exchange of contracts) take priority over a 0S1 priority search?

 

http://www.phewconveyancing.co.uk/articles/conveyancing-faq-answers-for-your-conveyancing-questions#20

 

20. What is Priority Search (OS1)?

 

A priority search is carried out by a solicitor with the Land Registry against the title number revealed in the OCE. This gives a 30 day priority to register client’s interest before any other third party can. This is crucial because between completion of a house purchase and registration of the house purchase there is always a delay and there is a chance that if a priority search is not carried out before completion a third party may register an adverse entry (such as a charge) before the property is registered by the solicitor. A priority search will also reveal if anyone has already registered any adverse entries before the day of completion.

[bhall]

If a mortgage offer with full details of the loan, conditions etc is dated BEFORE the 31st October 2004, but the mortgage deed is after, what is it?

 

"The effect of the Regulated Activities Order is that mortgage contracts which are varied can fall into one of the following categories:

(1) a contract that was entered into before 31 October 2004, and that is subsequently varied on or after that date so that is satisfies the conditions set out in PERG 4.4.1 G (1) to PERG 4.4.1 G (3), will not be a regulated mortgage contract (because it was not a regulated mortgage contract at the time it was entered into);"

 

I found the above, but am guessing that its not a regulated mortgage contract?

 

Were the funds released before, on or after 31st October 2004 ?

[bhall]

I feel you need to do some more research on what you have posted. However, this might interest you and be of benefit to you

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2868617/Taxpayers-left-258m-bill-High-Court-orders-Northern-Rock-bad-bank-compensate-41-000-charged-customers.html

 

I have not had the opportunity to read the entire case but this might also be of interest to you

 

NRAM Plc v McAdam & Anor [2014] EWHC 4174 (Comm) (10 December 2014)

[bhall]

bhall, please can you elaborate.

 

I will give you the highlights that may interest you most (please bear in mind the date of your agreement when considering if the below is applicable to you)

 

11. It is not in issue that the documents produced in this case, relating to the Defendants, are in the same form as that used for all borrowers during the period from 31 May 2005 until the withdrawal of the Together Mortgage product in March 2008, whether borrowing an unsecured amount of less than £25,000 (the "under £25Ks") or of more than £25,000 (the "over £25Ks"). There were some differences in the statutory wording used in the documentation prior to 31 May 2005 but it was not suggested that these were material to the issues which I have to decide. S.2 of the 2006 Act in fact provided for the removal of the £25,000 limit, but did not come into effect until 6 April 2008, whereafter all these agreements, if then entered into, would have been regulated.

 

26. In the course of argument, I suggested that the construction being contended for by the Defendants was a whether or not contract rather than an as if contract, and I came to prefer that as a description. I conclude that, on the proper construction of the loan agreement, as contended by the Defendants, it was agreed, whether or not it was a regulated agreement, that it was to be treated as if it was one, such that the over £25Ks and the under £25Ks would all be treated the same. Like Bingham MR, I do not see insuperable difficulties in the fact that the paraphernalia of the regulated agreement would not entirely apply. Indeed in this case there are, as became clear in the light of an exchange of written submissions after the hearing, a number of respects in which, by referring to the legislation, terms are incorporated into the contract, which supplement the express provisions already made in the agreement. Although there is, as Mr Waters submitted (paragraph 17(iii) above), reference in the Agreement to issues such as cancellation and notice, there is no doubt that, by the incorporation or implication of provisions such as Sections 77 (giving of information to debtor), 83 (liability for misuse of credit facilities), 88 (contents and effect of default notice), 89 (compliance with default notice) and 97 (duty to give information in relation to early payment), much clearer and fuller protection is given to the borrower. I am satisfied that, on a proper construction of the Agreement, whether by reference to the concept of incorporation (so far as applicable), which I prefer, or implication, the Defendants were given the rights under and benefits of a regulated agreement whether or not it was a regulated agreement.

 

 

28. I am satisfied that the Defendants are entitled to recover, pursuant to contract, the Section 77A repayments.

 

 

This could also be of interest to others with agreements also worded similar with other lenders

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/77A

 

 

Part VI

Matters Arising During Currency of Credit or Hire Agreements

 

[F177AStatements to be provided in relation to fixed-sum credit agreements

[F2(1)The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit must give the debtor statements under this section.

(1A)The statements must relate to consecutive periods.

(1B)The first such period must begin with either—

(a)the day on which the agreement is made, or

(b)the day the first movement occurs on the debtor's account with the creditor relating to the agreement.

(1C)No such period may exceed a year.

(1D)For the purposes of subsection (1C), a period of a year which expires on a non-working day may be regarded as expiring on the next working day.

(1E)Each statement under this section must be given to the debtor before the end of the period of thirty days beginning with the day after the end of the period to which the statement relates.]

(2)Regulations may make provision about the form and content of statements under this section.

(3)The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of a statement under this section.

(4)The creditor is not required to give the debtor any statement under this section once the following conditions are satisfied—

(a)that there is no sum payable under the agreement by the debtor; and

(b)that there is no sum which will or may become so payable.

(5)Subsection (6) applies if at a time before the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied the creditor fails to give the debtor—

(a)a statement under this section within the period mentioned in subsection [F3(1E)] ; [F4or]

(b)

[F4such a statement within the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which such a statement was last given to him.]

(6)Where this subsection applies in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor—

(a)the creditor shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance;

(b)the debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum of interest to the extent calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance or to any part of it; and

©the debtor shall have no liability to pay any default sum which (apart from this paragraph)—

(i)would have become payable during the period of non-compliance; or

(ii)would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement which occurs during that period (whether or not the breach continues after the end of that period).

(7)In this section ‘the period of non-compliance’ means, in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor, the period which—

(a)begins immediately after the end of the period mentioned in F5. . . subsection (5); and

(b)ends at the end of the day on which the statement is given to the debtor or on which the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied, whichever is earlier.

(8)This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.

[F6(9)This section does not apply where the holder of a current account overdraws on the account without a pre-arranged overdraft or exceeds a pre-arranged overdraft limit.]]

[bhall]

so what can be reclaimed back on these loans?

 

and

 

what would happen if they got a charging order on these loans?

 

 

31. Goode, despite his reservation as to judicial conservatism in 23.9, "suggested that the principle to be applied is as follows: the creditor is estopped from resiling from all express statements as to the debtor's rights and immunities (whether expressed directly or by reference to the [1974 Act]) which could validly have been made terms of the agreement and which represent the common assumption of the parties. With regard to terms which are not expressly spelled out in the agreement, the position is more doubtful. If the estoppel principle were to be taken to its logical conclusion, the debtor might be entitled to avail himself of [and a number of provisions are set out]." It is not in my judgment necessary to deal with the minutiae of Goode's considerations there. I have already concluded that Section 77A is one of the provisions of which the Claimants can take advantage, and there are a number of others, set out in paragraph 26 above, including Sections 77, 83, 88, 89 and 97. It would in my judgment be sufficient to say that the representation by which the Claimant would be estopped would be that the Defendants were entitled to the rights and benefits endowed on a party to a regulated agreement, insofar as that party could take advantage of them.

 

 

Conclusion

 

33. With regard to the proposed declarations set out in paragraph 10 above, I shall hear further arguments from counsel in relation to the form of any order but:

(i) I am satisfied that the rights and remedies in relation to Section 77A were imported into the Agreement.

(ii) I conclude that the Claimant was in breach of its obligations under the Agreement by virtue of its failure to indemnify the Defendants in respect of its breach of Section 77A.

[bhall]

I have no idea why NRAM called it a mortgage. It is not, in law.

 

I dont understand the relevance of the other questions? Was there ever a mortgage, was it over 25k, did you borrow are immaterial.

 

the fact remains there is NO mortgage.

 

I dont understand your point. You seem to be suggesting that a 'mortgage' can be a mortage without following the statutory legislation??

 

That is obviously wrong, is it not?

 

I also find it "implausible" that 9.2 million people in the UK would just repay a mortgage without checking if it is in fact a 'mortgage' following statutory legislation.

 

I think the point is that you have asked a question and to enable someone to answer it, Caro has asked you both rational and sensible questions.

 

If you want an answer to a question, I am sorry you will have to provide further information.

[bhall]

Showing a little more courtesy to the people that post in response to your numerous posts about nram, would not go a miss either. You might get more people responding to you