Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @BearLake1   I have a similar PCN from the same place. I've just received 'Letter Before Claim' today. I wonder if you are able to share your reply to CVS? Did you send your reply by email or mail?   Thanks!
    • Will this work?   I disupte this debt because, Firstly i only ever used my phone via wifi, there was never a notification regarding usage and data. The rules regarding roaming usage has changed,  the default was illegal and was disputed. This matter is between O2 and myself.   The debt purchaser has yet to provide any or all of the required documentation.
    • Hi all   Wow, do I have a situation to contend with now! I shall include as many important facts as needed.   I have received a solicitors letter today, by instruction of MY PARENTS claiming they are beneficially entitled to a property I purchased in 1999.   This property belonged to my Grandad who sadly passed away in 1993. He had hand written a will, not witnessed by anyone, leaving the property to my Mother and not his Son. Of course my Mothers Brother wasn’t happy with this and contested it which ended up in court. This dragged on for a long time, it could have been years? Until it was decided the house be sold and money divided equally. From memory I think the legal feels were around £30k ish.   At this time my parents didn’t have jobs and I was able to obtain a mortgage in 1999 and after going on the market purchased the house for £50k as it needed a lot of work. At the time I was very close to my parents and it felt a good thing to keep the house in the family circle as such (like cars sometimes) but was obviously in my name as the owner. I paid the mortgage and utilities on it and it sat empty for ten years whilst deciding what to do, more my Mother not wanting anyone to touch it and change memories.   The council kept writing to me until eventually said it would be a forced sale if nothing done with it. I then obtained additional borrowing to fund the complete renovation and then rented it out with the idea if it reducing the mortgage. Around the same time and during the crash I manged to buy another house needing work, by using equity on first as a deposit and a mortgage on the new house.   My parents would always refer to the 1999 as my house although this felt awkward. A few years along the way (2010/1/2) my Dad purchased their council house at a reduced rate.   I moved out of my parents home in 2014 and into the second house once it was all modernised, which since the relationship with parents has just deteriorated a lot. Arguing about lots and them saying I need to ‘sign the house back over to them’ on more than one occasion.   To fast forward, the tenants moved out of the property recently and my parents found because as creepy as it sounds, I think they used to drive by or watch them. The signing back over has been demanded recently to which I said was ridiculous etc…   Today I get this letter with 29 paragraphs and crux of which being to transfer to property, with vacant possession and mortgage free, to them and in addition any surplus rent from the previous ten years!   The letter is full of lies my parents have told the solicitor such as:   I lived with them rent free in lieu of paying the mortgage They paid all the utility bills and council tax They paid for and carried out most of the work back on the house in between purchase and 2008 when renovated My Father dealt with the letting agents recently and I ‘merely’ signed the tenancy agreement   There was a time, as my parents have always been high maintenance, I had written something for my Mum to say although I own the house, morally it belongs to her as probably thought it would help the relationship. A copy of this has been included, although I think looks slightly different to what I had printed and also says…about asking their permission to sell it and they could move in if they ever wanted, I really do not recall saying that! This piece of paper I refer to has no date or signature.   My goodness, this has completely knocked me for six. Its like history repeating itself!   I have checked with Eon, Council tax etc… so far and all have been in my name and paid for by me.   The letter also says ‘the facts of this case are familiar to you and you ought not to require any further enquiry’ which almost is like the solicitor knows this is all hearsay/BS and no proof? Also that I should respond to the claim within 28 days. The letter was also not recorded in case it makes a difference.   Another paragraph says advises my parents 'have a strong claim that I am holding the property on trust for them absolutely by way of constrictive trust and/or proprietary estoppel' I have no idea what this means!   One thing I should point out, I used to be very much in my parents bubble, asking them for advice, wanting their approval, very much lacking confidence in awareness of my own abilities. It is since I have started thinking for myself they don't have the hold on me their behavior  have become worse.   What are your thoughts please? I really have no idea what to think!   Many thanks in advance as always   E!
    • So I got a phone call on Saturday on my private mobile phone. This call was from Moriarty law ...I had sent my PAP docs back with no e mail address or phone number ...they said they had used a tracing company to find my details ....I have since called them and put in a complaint that they have breached GDPR regs ..they have now suspended any action pending a full investigation. The agent who called me was not very bright to say the least ..he wanted me to make an offer of payment even though as I told him it was only an allegation that I owed the money as ADCB had not sent the original paperwork back..... he then told me that they could take me to court even if I had not got a copy of my signed credit agreement ....I basically told him to jog on ...I'll let you all know the outcome of Moriartys GDPR breach investigation .
    • or should I sent a copy of Ericsbrother's template  ?    Please help!     Unfortunately for you, I was not born yesterday so I will not be paying the demand as there is no liability in this matter because the signage is prohibitive and not an offer of a contract so none has been breached and anyway the POFA limits any charge to the specified sum so your demand for £160.00 is nonsense. As VCS (Vehicle Control Services Ltd) has been spanked at court on this very same thing several times before I suggest that you discontinue this foolishness. Should VCS decide to continue then I shall be asking for a full costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour and then seek damages for the breach of the DPA/ GDPR as per VCS V Philip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016. Even Will and John, the parking world’s worst solicitors seem to have got fed up with Simple Simon’s stupidity and greed and presumably that it why you are wasting your ink on his behalf.
  • Our picks

IS IT ME?

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2092 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I have a friend who is with a sub prime lender and has a copy of his deed with is only signed by him and his solicitor as being a ture copy nothing else. So far I have been able to keep him in his home and have a court hearing with regard to who really owns his mortgage? and 2 the deed gives them no right to his home.

In so far as they will not give a statement of truth to say they really own the mortgage or that no one else does or a copy of the mortgage charge at companies house.

any help is this would be grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Is It Me ?

 

Your friend can obtain a copy of the charge at companies house, online via the Companies House website. It will only cost £1

 

It used to be a companies house form 395 but it now a MG01

 

All your friend need do is enter the details of the company involved and pay £1 and he/she will have a copy of the charge at companies house.

 

Hope the above helps


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of your request for a statement of truth, have you applied to the court to make an order that the lender "clarify any matter which is in dispute in the proceeding" or "give additional information in relation to any such matter, whether or not the matter is contained or referred to in a statement of case.", as per Part 18 of the CPR ?


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is it Me, Ben..

 

"I have a friend who is with a sub prime lender and has a copy of his deed with is only signed by him and his solicitor as being a ture copy nothing else. So far I have been able to keep him in his home and have a court hearing with regard to who really owns his mortgage? and 2 the deed gives them no right to his home.

In so far as they will not give a statement of truth to say they really own the mortgage or that no one else does or a copy of the mortgage charge at companies house.

any help is this would be grateful."

 

If the copy of the Deed has been obtained from HMLR - then it will be a true copy as you say, this is pursuant to LRA 2002 s.67 and can be used in a court of Law to confirm and show that it has not been 'executed' and therefore not 'delivered' by the Lender.

 

'Execution' and 'Delivery' are party to the legal formality of Deeds of Conveyance and are necessary for its validity on the pat of both the Borrower and Lender.

 

Contrary to the misguided belief that it is only the Borrower that must sign the Deed; it is in fact necessary for the Lender to at least 'execute' - for, it is only where a Lender has 'executed' the deed, that the presumption of delivery may hold good without a contrary intention being proven.....but that is clearly not the case presented here, and is therefore not at issue.

 

Confirming who 'owns the mortgage' is not a Borrowers true or main concern.... securitisation is tantamount to the Lender 'going off on a folly of its own volition'.... and has nothing to do with the main concern of the underlying Borrowers relationship with the Original Lender per se.......that's to say, if the Lender has entered into a third party relationship off the back of a purported legal interest in the Borrowers mortgage - his risk is that the Borrower finds out that the Deed is void.....in finding that the Lender was at no time bound.... if he is not... then....knowledge and evidence of the sale assists the Borrower prove; not only that the Deed is void... but that the Lender has benefited from the Deed that he did not execute.... Halsbury's Law says the Lender must make good his obligations to the Borrower in such an instant....this would of course be the 'obligations' implied by Statute at LPA s.85 (freeholds) s.86 (Leaseholds) and is to do with the Borrowers inherent legal right to redemption.... regardless of the Lenders conduct. (see the thread on Mortgage Deeds headed up by Ben)

 

There is no legal right to possession as relied upon by the Deed you speak of.

 

The 'right to possession' is based purely due to the 'operation of Law' - that's to say, HMLR registered the Deed without regard to its validity - and by virtue of LRA 2002 s.58 - the Deed took on 'legal' status 'by operation of Law'.

 

However, do remember, if the Deed itself has not conveyed a legal interest (LPA s.52)...(which it will not have done, due to not being 'executed' or 'delivered' by the Lender) then any 'legal status' as granted purely by 'operation of Law' is subject to the LPA s. 1 (7) - to confirm that the Lenders reliance on s.58 is misplaced for the legal effect of s. 1 (7) causes the 'conclusive' nature of s.58 to have no more than an equitable status.

 

In any event - sub-prime lending/ers is/are ruthless - I would guide that if there is a suspended possession order already in place - do not assume that because you are in court, that they will not simply wait patiently for you to slip up - when you do....they will pounce for the warrant of execution/possession.... best thing to do.. is to do whatever you are doing to keep the friend in their home until you put your case together and present it in a timely manner...

 

On the CPR 18 request.... an application to court must be made and is correct if it is a small claims hearing. Requesting the information without an order from the court will not have any effect as such requests have no effect without an order from the court in small claims.

 

On the Companies House info.... it does no harm to do this...more ammo,...extrinsic evidence.... especially when you find the Original Lender has no such charge registered for the year your friend took out the mortgage - or it shows the charge has been satisfied, yet your friend is still being pursued for the debt....(we know of course, it will not show any such charge as it will have been satisfied due to securitisation and the 'charge' will be found in the name of the SPV)...

 

If you need more specifics - just let me know : )

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great ideas and minds at work here...I think once you nail this for good then what follows will be justice..Keep going.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Applecart,

I would like to be able to send you some thing to look at first before posting as the other side are on this form and need to make sure it is water tiet if you know what I mean

 

Hi Is It Me.... I hear you.....

 

Site Team, could you please make this a possibility by giving me back the PM facility please?

 

 

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some great ideas and minds at work here...I think once you nail this for good then what follows will be justice..Keep going.....

 

The issue we face is that there are a number of difference scenerios, and stages at which Borrowers are at.....i.e - some are oblivious, some are aware and curious, some have had the initial claim for possession commenced, some have suspended possession orders in place, some have already been re-possessed......there are clearly going to be different considerations depending upon which stage of the Securitisation procedure one is at... and of course, what steps if any a Borrower has already taken to address the issue...

 

Clearly, without being able to be sure which stage a Borrower is at, its difficult to truly know what information to post ....the position is further frustrated because Borrowers are fearful of posting which stage they are up to....so, I can only be 'general' in the posts over and above being directly 'specific' - which is a bit of a shame really....

 

Hopefully the Site Team will give us some breathing space and allow the PM facility - or at least advise, why PM is not being made available at this crucial time - given that we now can prove and show that the balance is firmly in the Borrowers favor??

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime......

 

This may help with a the understanding as to why a Deed - that's the Deed that relates to the conveyance/transfer between the Original Lender and the Borrower.....must be signed by both the Lender and the Borrower....

 

http://www.lewissilkin.com/en/Knowledge/2012/October/~/media/Images/A%20little%20bit%20of%20law%20Back%20to%20Basics.ashx

 

....and of course..... why it is LPA 1925 s.52, LP(MP)Act s.1 (3) as amended by the 2005 Order has not been complied with to cause the many Deeds posted herein and elsewhere on the threads to lack compliance with statute....

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you apple your help on here has I fully believe kept some people in there homes, the lenders have to my knowledge lied and made statements which they know to be un true and the courts are un able or un willing to question because of what would happen.

Just look at what has happened in the PPI Lbioer rates charges etc etc and they still believe every thing these people say.

I think the only way to get any justice is to take a case to the European Courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is It Me

 

Is it just the Lenders that have 'lied'.... or is it the professional negligence of conveyancing solicitors.... remember a lot of these sub-prime mortgages were only available via brokers....who themselves were paid over and above the normal fee to promote the sub-prime lenders mortgage products....it begs the question, why were solicitors, who were entrusted by Borrowers to handle the conveyance in their interest failing to ensure that duly executed deeds were submitted to HMLR....and then.....why have HMLR registered deeds that evince no due execution (delivery) despite the 2005 Order amending the 1989 Act (from 'delivery by him' to 'it must be delivered'); without questioning any deed since the 2005 Order came into force? HMLR were party to the discussion process that preceded the coming into force of that Order....so, it would be difficult to presume that they were and are not aware of it.....(alarmingly it has been found that HMLR will insist they have made no mistake in registering the interest even on mortgages that were entered into after sept 2005).....we are at a stage where these sub-prime lenders have 'withdrawn' from the market....but prime high street lenders are possibly continuing where sub-prime lenders left off....the need for HMLR vigilance should be paramount (but, it isn't)...having said that....HMLR have no interest in the underlying validity of the deed....the issue is.....Courts appear wrongly to assume that they do....(alarmingly....it has been found that you can put a deed with only the Borrowers signature on under the nose of a Judge and he will ..... refer to HMLR's official title register... as though the execution of a deed means no more than the finding in 'Eagle Star'..a finding that sets no precedent and does not state or express that it intends to do so either, by the way....and yet prefer to rely on such decisions and the 'conclusive' nature of official copies of a title register...which is as you suggest....a damning issue for every Borrower.....negligence, ignorance, lack of keeping abreast with changes in the Law appears rife from all sides.....it's a terrible state of affairs....

 

Like you say, if the information posted enlightens and empowers more Borrowers to make enquiry, to ask more questions or at least get a better understanding of the UK mortgage market...then, it's all good...and yes, I'm hopeful that it leads to more Borrowers protecting their Homes : )

 

European Court is a last resort for most....some will have treaded as we have seen...the local courts, high court, court of appeal, supreme court routes to justice... .....when they could at any time (even if they have been re-possessed)... cut to the chase and get the Adjudicator to give a decision on the deed...if he decides in your favor....it should resolve the entire issue....he can order HMLR to remove the Lenders charge or order that it was at all times invalid ab initio....... it costs nothing, a Borrower does not have to approach HMLR first - applications seeking validity of the deed is different to disputes that relate to boundary disputes etc..that HMLR refer to the Adjudicator........google 'HMLR Adjudicator' for confirmation of how to go about going via the Adjudicator....(keep in mind the Adjudicators decision in 'garguillo')

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is It Me..

 

The issue remains as previous I'm afraid...... sorry : (

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
any ideas on what to state?

I've put that it is under LR23 etc so any thoughts?

 

Hi Is It Me,

 

LR23?? can you advise as to which piece of legislation you are referring to here please mate? (I hope you will agree that Land Law is complex enough without abbreviating legislation where ever it can be avoided).

 

Further, please accept that it is difficult to assist without more detail....(and, of course when one is talking the 'nitty gritty' - it would be priviledged info - not available to any touts that may want to get a look in - if you get my drift).

 

There is already a wealth of detail on the various forums that I have posted on. I don't think you would be giving too much away by confirming which piece of legislation you are referring to, or a general outline of what it is you are thinking of saying, I could possibly work with you from there...???

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you still unable to have PM as I am looking to send of a deed to the adjudicator

 

There is the 'Adjudicator to Her Majesty's Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 which should help you understand the role of the Adjudicator - look at 'Part 3' - Recitification Application to the Adjudicator to Rectify or Set Aside Documents: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2171/contents/made

There is the amended Order of 2008 to the above practices and procedures to consider also e.g: -

"Amendments to the Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003

11. In rule 16(1) (form and contents of a rectification application)—

(a)in sub-paragraph (b) for “signed by the applicant or the applicant’s duly authorised representative” substitute “verified by a statement of truth,”;

(b)omit sub-paragraph (d)(iv); and

©for sub-paragraph (e)(i) substitute—

(i)copies of any documents in the applicant’s possession or control which—

(aa)are central to the applicant’s case; or

(bb)the adjudicator or any other party to the proceedings will require in order properly to understand the rectification application; and.

Best to familiarise yourself with as many of the amendments here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/ahmlr/rules-and-legislation

Hope this helps for now?

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes sorry, to question the validly of the deed at the adjudicators office.

I think its the Sec 1 (3) Law of Property (miscellaneous provisions Act), I my be wrong which I usually am

 

In the first instance, any application to the Adjudicator will be pursuant to Part 3 as amended of the 'Adjudicator to Her Majesty's Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003'

 

BUT....before you make any application to the Adjudicator.........Is the Deed you speak of signed after September 2005?

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is it Me

 

The response is more detailed than you may expect...give me a while, I will come back to you asap : )

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is It Me,

 

As I interpret your friends position at the moment:

 

a) an official copy of the deed acquired from HMLR is in your possession;

b) proceedings have been instigated and there is potentially a suspended possession order in place;

c) your friend is making CMI payments by order of the court;

d) the official copy of the deed was signed by your friend after September 2005; (i.e the mortgage was entered into after sept 05)

 

Can you provide the following info please:

 

a) do you have evidence of the sale of the lenders charged interests in your friends mortgage to an SPV? (i.e conformed copy of the Lenders Mortgage Sale Agreement including the Power of Attorney)

b) was the possession order made by a judge in the county court?, High Court?

c) has there been any application made on your friends behalf to the Court of Appeal? has any application been made to the supreme court on his/her behalf at this point?

d) did you make any reference to the validity of the Deeds as party to your friends defence in previous proceedings?

e) has any application made by your friend to the registrar at HMLR for a UN1 (unilateral notice) or indeed any restriction you may have applied for to protect your friends proprietory status on the title against further dispositions by the Lender/SPV been refused or accepted?

f) have you at any point made an application to the Adjudicator prior to requesting assistance with 'what to state' in an application you wish to send off now?

g) have you at any point made an application for rectification or alteration of the title register to the Registrar at HMLR?

h) have you at all times conducted proceedings as a litigant in person/mckenzie friend on your friends behalf?

i) Did/does your friends relationship with the Lender consist of a mortgage agreement as well as a Deed, or a mortgage offer as well as a Deed?

 

The above questions will assist me provide a more specific response to your friends situation - the response is not to be construed as legal advise or guidance - in that regard it is to be taken as 'general' only, but will rely on the statutory and regulatory provisions that are publicly available.

 

Further, you may re-call that previously the CAG has removed posts that may cause issues for the CAG (and, despite having more than '11' posts herein, I do not have PM facility) - so, it will only be on approval by the site team that the response will be made available on the forum - the site team is accordingly invited to 'vet' the response to ensure it does not impede in any way on the CAG prior to releasing the response on the forum.

 

I look forward to your responses to the above....

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple,

Thank you for your time and help in this matter and I will asnwer as stated,

a) Only has the sale agreement and notice of the same between all four companies which clearly states they have sold their interest in the mortgages.

b) Only by a D/J at the county court.

c) No application to the court of appeal as yet.

d) Yes but us or the d/j did not push it, my friend was very ill at the time and I did not want to put any pressure on him.

)0 no and f) no g) only now and the deed is only signed by him and his solicitor as being a true copy.

h) as a friend

i) No only has the deed, no offer or agreement for the address which they are in now. as the offer and conditions are for another house

Hope this is what you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is It Me,

Just a bit more 'process of elimination' and 'info gathering' - before we can be sure of the way forward for your friend - ok?

Hi Apple,

 

Thank you for your time and help in this matter and I will asnwer as stated,

 

a) Only has the sale agreement and notice of the same between all four companies which clearly states they have sold their interest in the mortgages.

 

The 'notice' you speak of - was this notice to your friend of the new owner? Is the new owner now showing on the title register? Is the Original Deed you spoke of, in the old Lenders name? Has your friend had to sign another deed at all with the new lenders name on?

b) Only by a D/J at the county court.

 

That's fine, I just wanted to understand at what stage you were at and what level of Judge was involved and the amount of time your friend was afforded to make out his/her defence.

c) No application to the court of appeal as yet.

 

Let me clarify here, best not to speak of 'European Courts' when we have not fully explored the courts and alternatives available within our own jurisdiction first - plus, there's no point spending money without due cause...An application to the Adjudicator is free.....if we can first establish that your case will not be found to be 'groundless' then his decision will be binding on HMLR.....

d) Yes but us or the d/j did not push it, my friend was very ill at the time and I did not want to put any pressure on him.

 

Don't worry, you get the chance to 'push' the point via the Adjudicator for free (subject to us establishing the 'grounds')

 

)0 no and f) no g) only now and the deed is only signed by him and his solicitor as being a true copy.

h) as a friend

 

great, a fresh start - needed to establish that we are not speaking of appealing any decision made by HMLR Adjudicator...

Just a quickie, can you confirm for me - are the deeds in the original owners name or the new owners - and confirm for me, who's name is showing on the register at HMLR please? (Is it the Original Lender or the Lender who your friend has been given notice of?)

i) No only has the deed, no offer or agreement for the address which they are in now. as the offer and conditions are for another house

 

I hate to speculate - so please confirm - What do you mean here.... is the house that the Deeds relate to a BTL? Is your friend registered on the title of the property that we are looking into?....There must be an 'offer' even if there is no mortgage agreement - that's party to 'Key Financial Information' and is a regulatory requirement - have a word with your friend - he/she will need to establish how the Deed came into being......You will need to explain this better....

 

Hope this is what you need.

 

Don't be in a rush, we need to be sure/establish that the Adjudication application is the way forward and that the 'grounds' you intend to rely on are as you said 'water tight' .... but we will move as quickly as we can - ok?

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple,

Thanks once again for your time.

to answer the questions;

a) Its in the name of the Lender, who in turn have sold all there interest by the sale agreement to the Seller of the Bonds which is the Holding company of the two.

The deeds are in the lenders name only.

Yes he is the one on there as being title holder.

There was and as far as I can see no offer for this mortgage or agreement for this address, he was going to get another property but that fell though and got this one inset but there is not paperwork you speak of with it and none stated in the paperwork.

Also at the least hearing they were informed of this and did not question it only the d/j asked why so its on record as being wrong.

 

I ask why there are now 3 quests watching this????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is It Me

Thanks for the further detail... if I understand you correctly, you are saying:-

 

a) Its in the name of the Lender, who in turn have sold all there interest by the sale agreement to the Seller of the Bonds which is the Holding company of the two.

 

The Deed remains in the name of the original lender and your friend only, even after the sale, it has not been changed, or any new deed entered into...Is this correct.....Yes or No?

Your friend remains on the title register along with the original lender - even after the sale/and even after notice of the sale....is this correct....Yes or No?

The deeds are in the lenders name only.

 

You mean the Original Lender....is this correct...Yes or No?

Yes he is the one on there as being title holder.

 

You mean Your friends name remains on the title register at HMLR at this time...is this correct...Yes or No?

 

There was and as far as I can see no offer for this mortgage or agreement for this address, he was going to get another property but that fell though and got this one inset but there is not paperwork you speak of with it and none stated in the paperwork.

 

I need to establish... I apologise for pushing ....but I'm still unclear as to what you mean here....do you mind if we go back to the question of the Deed please, but framed slightly differently......

a) The Deed is in name of your friend - signed by him/her and witnessed...Yes or No?

b) The Deed has the name of the Original Lender only.... Yes or No?

c) The Deed quotes the address your friend resides at and pays mortgage for right now; and is the same address that is on the title at HMLR...and the title number on the Deed is the same as on the title register held at HMLR.....Yes or No?

 

Also at the least hearing they were informed of this and did not question it only the d/j asked why so its on record as being wrong.

 

OK, you should be able to get a transcript of the 'approved judgment' to confirm this in due course if you have not done so already - it will provide evidence that all parties including the Judge are/became aware that there was something re-miss in the proceedings - might be shrewed to get yourself a copy of the 'approved judgment' (that's the bit to do with the actual summing up/the DJ's reasoning for his decision - rather than a transcript of the whole hearing, if it is available - ask the court for details)

 

I ask why there are now 3 quests watching this????

 

We need to remember this is an open forum Is It Me...there is no avoiding 'guests' - it's the nature of the CAG... try not to worry about it....

Apple : )


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2092 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...