Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

I have agreed to pay NRAM (formerly Northern Rock) £50.00 pcm until such time that they explain the terms of my "Contractual Monthly Subscription" and explain why I don't have a mortgage contract only deed stating an obligation for further advances and no signatures from neither (the former) Northern Rock, its representative nor broker. NRAM (Northern Rock Asset Management) is the same company number as Northern Rock (not a new company just a name change).

 

I will be happy to fill you in on the full details via email. Early requests are a bit "freeman" but its starting to come together (with the help of threads like this). I have prepared a complete audit in pdf format dating back to September 2012. As CAG members are aware this is a complex problem so I thought it best to create a token (yes... I am a software engineer) to enable others to comprehend the situation in a more tangible format than reams of legalese. As I am involved in an involuntary subscription scheme I thought it only fair to subscribe my MP as (i) I believe it is duty to represent my interests, and (ii) he is ignoring me. I have also subscribed Directors of the FCA, FOS and OFT. I did approach the MP responsible for the UKFI/UKAR/NRAM chain (and the Economic Secretary of the HM Treasury) but alas he replied saying he was unable intervene to preserve a "principal of independence" between government and NRAM to avoid any "distortion of the market. For some reason overlooked to mention that UKAR/NRAM is employing an HM Treasury Director as Head of Debt Management (collection) for 722,000 customer and £75 billion in mortgage contracts to pay off a £45 billion taxpayer "loan" and the rest in wholesale funding. This is not a bank (no licence) it is a 100% publicly owned government debt collector, and its debt is classified as national debt. The Directors are granted indemnity against all proceedings "whilst in service of the government" and it has complete exemption from FOIA requests (I confirmed this with the ICO).

 

Hi UNRAM.... I'm truly humbled by your approach in dealing with your lender......

 

I also hear you loud and clear.... ; )

 

I would like to see the document you have prepared...would you state on the thread that you are happy for me to see it, we can then ask CitizenB or a siteteam member to forward it to me by email....you must exclude all personal details from the document...

 

I'm pleased that detail from this thread is proving to be of use to you in adding to your knowledge, but I have a sneaky suspicion that what you have done and have put together on your own... will assist Caggers too....

 

Are you happy to proceed with my suggestion above as a first step?

 

Apple

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[applecart]

I will be happy to fill you in on the full details via email. Early requests are a bit "freeman" but its starting to come together (with the help of threads like this)./QUOTE]

 

This is one of many reasons that cag likes to keep everything on the open forum so that everyone can share the information and give their input for the benefit of all.

 

Please read the site rules about sharing information privately and share your experience on the thread, without identifying info removed.

 

If you wish to change your cag name to protect your privacy, please hit the black triangle shown on every post and advise what name you'd like to use so that admin can change it for you.

 

Thanks Caro,

 

I thought Caggers had to have acheived a certain number of posts before a PM facility became available?; the Cagger has not achieved that yet.....I'm hopeful the remedy suggested in my response to UNRAM is within the rules and that the Siteteam will assist to get the info to me...

 

The Cagger will also need of course to accept that the document will/may be posted on the open forum I presume?

 

Apple

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[UNRAM]

Great. Please give me a couple of days to prepare documentation. I will also post some of the more recent notices here for general publication.

 

I intend to remove NRAM from the property title register and I will likely require assistance and intelligence support to achieve this aim. I neglected to mention I am not an arrears case: I have had a lump sum payment available since mid 2012 to significantly reduce mortgage payments and I sought to check that all paperwork was in order before disposing of hundreds of thousands of pounds of real money. NRAM have ignored all attempts to negotiate a settlement as an alternative to dispute, and their officer's deliberate obstruction of my inquiry and has cost me thousands in overpayments, and would have continued to do so has I not taken direct action. They have even lied about references to their purported Contractual Monthly Subscription in earlier documentation and are trying to treat me like a fool. I have notified them of my intention to recoup losses and I am at present digging deep into the CPR to formalise these intentions.

Edited July 18, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

It sounds like you are in an ideal position to remove NRAM without threat of actual possession of your home whilst pursuing your goal....regrettably, this is not so for Is It Me's friend : (

 

Everyone's circumstances are different...but what is becoming glaringly obvious is that most every Borrowers Deed is signed by the Borrower...but not the Lender...and it is here that the common ground lies....so, yes... I can see why this thread is of interest to you..

 

Like I said....0000's of Borrowers are paying CMI at the contractually agreed amount - so, if you can assist to show how you managed to negotiate a payment of just £50 each month without them charging you into court.....then....that will help a lot of Caggers reduce what they are currently paying too....on similar grounds possibly...whilst they pursue the validity of the Deed...

 

So your input will be very useful...I'm pleased you have joined in...we need more just like you to share their experiences...it is all of use... Thank you in advance : )

 

Apple

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[bhall]

If you look at what is a mortgage by demise, it is undeniable that the disputed deed does not grant a demise.

 

A mortgage by demise is when the borrower grants a term (lease) to the Lender. In a deed that grants a demise it will of course detail the lease (with no reference to a granting a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage).

 

A deed granting a demise will also contain specific reference to cesser on redemption - The automatic ending of the lease upon the repayment of the debt.

 

Whereas a deed by legal charge will contain content similar to that posted previously and it will grant a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

If it was a mortgage by demise - where in the deed does it say that it grants a term and not a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.

 

The content of the deed and what it specifies is granted by the borrower to the lender defines the difference between a deed by demise and a deed by legal charge.

 

To be clear it is impossible for a deed that grants a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage to grant a mortgage by demise.

 

Furthermore the document confirms that a charge has been registered and s.51 of LRA 2002 confirms that " a charge created by means of a registrable disposition of a registered estate has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage" - Further confirming the deed grants a legal charge and not a demise.

 

For those that do not have access to law books, simply use google and look up both mortgage by demise and cesser on redemption - The search results will include various law books, you can see for yourselves what is granted by the borrower to the lender. There can't be any confusion between a mortgage by demise and a mortgage by legal charge.

 

Even one of Apples most trusted resources for information, Wikipedia explains the difference between the two. Note the requirement that a lender as argued by Apple must sign the deed by legal charge, is not mentioned at all (for obvious reasons)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_law

 

Ben

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[UNRAM]

Like I said....0000's of Borrowers are paying CMI at the contractually agreed amount - so, if you can assist to show how you managed to negotiate a payment of just £50 each month without them charging you into court.....then....that will help a lot of Caggers reduce what they are currently paying too....on similar grounds possibly...whilst they pursue the validity of the Deed...

Apple

 

contractually agreed amount? I'm not paying an installment I am servicing a subscription and I am (reasonably) requesting further clarification. This term only appeared six years after making my first payment and they forced me to review all correspondence and statements to negate their claim that this had been a term in use since the start of the purported mortgage.

 

As a result of my action both UKAR and NRAM have expressed their concern, thanked me for my patience and raised internal investigations despite my "complaint" having been previously closed by the FOS and NRAM.

[IS IT ME?]

bhall

Is that why the mortgage term has a time preriod as well and the terms and conditions which are also on the deed??? which also form part of that deed

[IS IT ME?]

welcome UNRAM

some one in the same boat lol

I think you'll find that 'they will be looking for ways out and how to find a let out of jail card as this is some thing that could and would bring the whole house down so to speak.

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[caro]

 

Thanks Caro,

 

I thought Caggers had to have acheived a certain number of posts before a PM facility became available?; the Cagger has not achieved that yet.....I'm hopeful the remedy suggested in my response to UNRAM is within the rules and that the Siteteam will assist to get the info to me...

 

The Cagger will also need of course to accept that the document will/may be posted on the open forum I presume?

 

Apple

 

Yes posters are not able to pm without a certain number of posts, but as you will see, I have advised Laurence to share his information on the thread. If he wants it posting as an attachment then I'm sure the site team would be happy to post it up, as newbies can't post links either.

 

The site team are not here to facilitate exchanges of private documents for those who do not have the privilege of being able to use the private message facility.

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[UNRAM]

welcome UNRAM

some one in the same boat lol

I think you'll find that 'they will be looking for ways out and how to find a let out of jail card as this is some thing that could and would bring the whole house down so to speak.

 

please can you elaborate i do not understand your analogy.

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[IS IT ME?]

uniram,

 

1 The whole sub prime market and all the bond holders notes would be worthless er just one is worth £170 million what would that do to the money markets?

2 If this goes well then there are hundreds no thousands of borrowers who would have a claim against the lenders who reprocessed their homes

Now do you understand?

[applecart]

contractually agreed amount? I'm not paying an installment I am servicing a subscription and I am (reasonably) requesting further clarification. This term only appeared six years after making my first payment and they forced me to review all correspondence and statements to negate their claim that this had been a term in use since the start of the purported mortgage.

 

As a result of my action both UKAR and NRAM have expressed their concern, thanked me for my patience and raised internal investigations despite my "complaint" having been previously closed by the FOS and NRAM.

 

Hi UNRAM

 

As I understand it, when you first took out the mortgage, you will have been adhering to the terms and conditions of that mortgage which will have been to pay by installments each month the Contractual Mortgage Installments (CMI)

 

You found 6 years later, that the 'term' used to explain those payments were changed to say that you are servicing a subscription (a term, I must admit I have never ever come across and so is worthy of investigation in itself - as you are doing).

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that the terms used to describe the payments you are to make were changed because either the mortgage was sold, and as NRAM were bought out by the government.... a term to suit the implication was used to best describe the position....just my take on it...without more....this is my thoughts only.

 

The fact that NRAM are looking into the matter is a good thing....it will be interesting to know the outcome...

 

Would you say I have made some sense of your position?.....If not, please divulge more info to assist me further.

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

As a statement of truth I did not fully understand all aspects of the the terms and conditions at the time nor had any insight into the legal and regulatory framework that they referenced that IMO contributed significantly to the product's perceived value. I agreed in good faith to borrow and return what I believed to be a reserved sum of sum of money to the lender plus additional interest which I assumed was to cover administration expenses. I did so under full trust that the Northern Rock's offer statements of compliance with UK law and assertions that their product and their conduct were regulated by the FSA were true statements. In light of no evidence, authentication nor certification to suggest otherwise it would appear that both statements were false.

 

Each case is different so I'll pose some case specific questions:

 

 

1. What is the significance of no deed (lender) signature AND no mortgage/offer (lender) signature?
   
2. What is the significance of an obligation for further advances? does this make the deed a contract? is there a general consensus from opposing corners that a (lender) signature is required in this instance? if so where and how do I obtain it? Is this done via CH2 signed by the lender? Does the deed obligation CH2 fulfil legal requirements.
   
3. How do I find out if the mortgage was sold and if so, who holds title?
   

Edited July 18, 2013 by UNRAM

[citizenB]

 

Does this help CitizenB?

 

 

Apple

 

I think I am getting there..

[applecart]

I think I am getting there..

 

Great...it's always handy and helpful when we all get to grips with what we are talking about : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

 

Each case is different so I'll pose some case specific questions:

 

1. What is the significance of no deed (lender) signature AND no mortgage/offer (lender) signature?
   
2. What is the significance of an obligation for further advances? does this make the deed a contract? is there a general consensus from opposing corners that a (lender) signature is required in this instance? if so where and how do I obtain it? Is this done via CH2 signed by the lender? Does the deed obligation CH2 fulfil legal requirements.
   
3. How do I find out if the mortgage was sold and if so, who holds title?
   

 

What is the significance of no deed (lender) signature AND no mortgage/offer (lender) signature?

 

This thread asserts that where the Deed is not signed/executed by the Lender – then the Deed is void and is apt to be struck out…and as a consequence the charge at HMLR must be removed.

 

If there is ‘no mortgage offer’ as you say, then you need to consider the grounds upon which you agreed to charge your estate to the lender…..this thread asserts that there must be some agreement that underpins the granting of the charge.

 

What is the significance of an obligation for further advances?

 

This thread asserts that the obligation for ‘further advances’ has nothing to do with the formalities in relation to the creation of the underlying Deed or it’s validity.

 

The underlying Deed is the one that conveys (makes the granting of an interest from the Borrower to the Lender visible to the world at large)

 

The Lenders referred to in this thread have used ‘approved’ forms of charge…which is by Deed …expressed to be by way of Legal Mortgage….if they intend to offer the Borrower any ‘further advance’…they would also submit a form CH2 to HMLR with the Deed.

 

This thread asserts that the concept behind a ‘further advance’ is to do with HMLR for registration purposes and has nothing to do with the validity of the underlying Deed necessary to meet LPA 1925 section 52.

 

does this make the deed a contract?

 

A deed is a specialty contract…it’s purpose is to convey a legal interest expressed to be by way of legal mortgage in favor of the Lender. There are necessary obligation implied into a deed of conveyance by statute…specialty contracts (Deeds) must be signed by the Lender and Borrower

 

This thread asserts that if the Deed is void, then there will be no interest conveyed to the Lender

This thread asserts that the Deed is VOID and the Lender has no security for the debt.

 

is there a general consensus from opposing corners that a (lender) signature is required in this instance?

 

This thread asserts that the Deed must be signed/executed by the Lender for it’s validity and if it is not..then it is void.

 

There is an opposing view on this thread and another thread dedicated to the subject of Deeds that a Deed for LPA 1952 section 52 purposes need only meet LPA 1952 section 53…and as they all meet section 53…they are all valid and therefore do not need to be signed by the Lender.

 

if so where and how do I obtain it?

 

If you mean, how do you obtain a copy of the CH1/CH2 form?...then apply to the HMLR office that registered your lenders charge for a copy, there will be a charge to pay.

 

IF you mean, how do you obtain a copy of the Deed?...Again, HMLR will send you a copy for a fee..

 

Is this done via CH2 signed by the lender?

 

A CH2 document is only used when a lender has submitted to HMLR an HMLR ‘approved form’ of charge instrument...(namely; a Deed) it simply lets HMLR know that the Lender has obligated to offer you a ‘further advance’ – for that, HMLR require that the Lender sign the CH2 document.

 

Interests in relation to land are not conveyed from the Borrower to the Lender by way of a CH2 form…..if the Lender does not have his own ‘approved form’ of charge…then he can use a CH1 form….that does not need to be signed by the Lender…..and therefore can not be said to be the type of Deed required to meet LPA 1925 section 52 in any event – that document will not contain any terms or conditions.

 

Does the deed obligation CH2 fulfil legal requirements.

 

No, and this thread asserts that a CH2 is nothing to do with the formalities necessary to create an interest in favor of a lender from the Borrowers estate. The Law says a conveyance must be by DEED not CH1 or CH2….

 

 

How do I find out if the mortgage was sold and if so, who holds title?

 

For that, you will need to search around the other threads for info to do with NRAM specifically….

 

Having said that, it’s best to find out what the relationship between you and your immediate lender is, before trying to find out what NRAM’s relationship with third party SPV’s is all about….

 

For if, you can show that your Deed is void….the other relationship will fall away as a matter of course…for it relies on the debt being secured against your home.

 

 

I'm hopeful this answers your questions...if not fully - then just shout out...ok?

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

uniram,

 

1 The whole sub prime market and all the bond holders notes would be worthless er just one is worth £170 million what would that do to the money markets?

2 If this goes well then there are hundreds no thousands of borrowers who would have a claim against the lenders who reprocessed their homes

Now do you understand?

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Not all Caggers will be up to speed with your superior knowledge to do with Securitised mortgages... : )

 

But, you are totally correct...but, it's step by step right now...ok?

 

So....agreed, yes; We know its wrong.... BUT.....we have yet to prove it....

 

Apple

[applecart]

bhall

Is that why the mortgage term has a time preriod as well and the terms and conditions which are also on the deed??? which also form part of that deed

 

Well said Is It Me...no need for me to add any more than what I stated previously - Thank you : )

 

Apple

[bhall]

bhall

Is that why the mortgage term has a time preriod as well and the terms and conditions which are also on the deed??? which also form part of that deed

 

No

 

You are confusing 'term' in relation to the repayment period specified in the mortgage agreement, usually 25 years with the term of the lease that would be specified in a deed for a mortgage by demise of usually 3000 years

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7ZcTb0Z_OHQC&pg=RA6-PA686&lpg=RA6-PA686&dq=mortgage+by+demise+3000+years&source=bl&ots=Hm_Hng8yvI&sig=jjgXH2Hd0JngUezpu14BSdIQZzY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3hvoUf7JMsPm4QSeooEg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Might be an idea to also read the following

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=43ZTV0ClTBEC&pg=PA387&lpg=PA387&dq=mortgage+by+demise&source=bl&ots=uzlFaLciKy&sig=Yh7dNqvAcC95gOauckk3Crq9wC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cxvoUfyAF4mB4ASjpoHYCg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false - Explains the difference between a mortgage by demise and a mortgage by legal charge

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

bhall

Is that why the mortgage term has a time preriod as well and the terms and conditions which are also on the deed??? which also form part of that deed

 

Well said Is It Me...no need for me to add any more than what I stated previously - Thank you : )

 

Apple

 

I am surprised with your 'knowledge' you are not aware of the difference (I am sure despite your above response you will say you are)

 

Law of Property Act 1925

 

85 Mode of mortgaging freeholds.

 

(2)Any purported conveyance of an estate in fee simple by way of mortgage made after the commencement of this Act shall (to the extent of the estate of the mortgagor) operate as a demise of the land to the mortgagee for a term of years absolute, without impeachment for waste, but subject to cesser on redemption, in manner following, namely:—

 

(a)A first or only mortgagee shall take a term of three thousand years from the date of the mortgage:

 

 

Anyone with a mortgage agreement with a term of 3000 years ? Nope.

 

s.87 of course relates to charges by way of legal mortgage

 

I should stress that the content of a deed granting a mortgage by demise, is different to that of a deed granting a mortgage by legal charge. It is not possible to confuse the two as each will be clear as to what has been granted. Look at any mortgage deed since 1925 and it will take about 5 seconds to see if it is granting a mortgage by demise of a mortgage by legal charge.

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

Hi Ben,

 

First you touted 'Eagle Star'....we are waiting for you to re-address the contentions posed to you???

 

Second you fail to advise your interpretation of 'specialty contracts'....we are still waiting for that??

 

Third you opposed the draft written representation....Those concerns have been addressed herein...

 

Ben, perhaps you should consider starting a thread on 'mortgages by demise'?...that may help us all......

 

This thread asserts that 'mortgages by demise' are illegal, and that they can be created by 'devise' as defined within the LPA 1925 section 205....END OF

 

so, yes with my knowledge, I am as you rightly say...'aware of the difference' : )

 

Apple

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

The Law says a conveyance must be by DEED not CH1 or CH2….

 

s.205 of the Law Of Property Act 1925

 

205 General definitions.

 

“Conveyance” includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will; “convey” has a corresponding meaning; and “disposition” includes a conveyance and also a devise, bequest, or an appointment of property contained in a will; and “dispose of” has a corresponding meaning;

 

s.103 of the Land Registration Rules 2003

 

Form of charge of registered estate

103. A legal charge of a registered estate may be made in Form CH1.

 

 

Contrary to Apples assertion the law as shown above actually confirms that a conveyance (granting a charge) can be made by a CH1 form.

 

I think the biggest clue is that the heading of the CH1 form is 'Legal charge of a registered estate'

[bhall]

so, yes with my knowledge, I am as you rightly say...'aware of the difference' : )

 

Apple

 

 

Apple

 

Strange then that you would say what you did in response to Is It Me?

 

Strange also that as you are aware of the difference, you continue to insist that a deed that grants a mortgage by legal charge, can grant a mortgage by demise - Where in the disputed deed, does it refer to granting of a lease etc

 

If we refer to the latest Accord Deed as an example - How can it be a deed for a mortgage by demise ?

 

http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002MR.pdf

 

It even states very clearly "charges the Property by way of legal mortgage"

[applecart]

s.205 of the Law Of Property Act 1925

 

205 General definitions.

 

“Conveyance” includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will; “convey” has a corresponding meaning; and “disposition” includes a conveyance and also a devise, bequest, or an appointment of property contained in a will; and “dispose of” has a corresponding meaning;

 

s.103 of the Land Registration Rules 2003

 

Form of charge of registered estate

103. A legal charge of a registered estate may be made in Form CH1.

 

 

Contrary to Apples assertion the law as shown above actually confirms that a conveyance (granting a charge) can be made by a CH1 form.

 

I think the biggest clue is that the heading of the CH1 form is 'Legal charge of a registered estate'

 

Ben,

 

There is 'conveynace' within the meaning of section 52.....and there is 'disposition' within the meaning of section 53

 

section 53 merely requires that a deed is signed by the Borrower....to cre'ate' an interest...that interest is 'equitable' mate..END OF

 

This is section 52 Ben: -

 

(1) All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.

 

so, let's assume that section 53 is taken as a conveyance because it is by 'deed'.....but, what about the fact that it is not signed by the Lender...this is a specialty deed Ben...it must be executed by the lender meet section 52 Ben....you know...all that in LPA 1925 section 74...and you remember that LP(MP)Act ...ooops nearly forgot the RRO 2005......

 

On the other hand lets say section 53 and the fact that the Lender says he will not sign until all the money is paid...Ben, if the lender does this...are we to take for granted that the lender has a valid deed?.

 

The Lender has 'devised' a means of securing his commercial intent Ben...unbeknown to the Borrower Ben....to sell the Estate to an SPV Ben....and take the Borrowers money Ben, after he has already secured the amount due from the underlying Debtor Ben...so that the Debtors money can be used to secure profits on the stock market Ben.....

 

I'm not saying I wholeheartedly disagree with you per se Ben......Afterall in your case, all that you post I assume youhave found to apply to your own circumstances

 

However, we are dealing here with circumstances of Is It Me's Friend....the representations made are particular to this case only...if there is info that others find of use; then they are welcome to it..... : )

 

Have you started a thread on 'mortgages by demise yet' Ben?

 

Oh - any luck with a definition of 'specialty contract' yet?....No......??? OK, we'll wait until you have one....along with answers to all the other issues presented to you..that you have yet to deal with : )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Hi Ben,

 

First you touted 'Eagle Star'....we are waiting for you to re-address the contentions posed to you???

 

Second you fail to advise your interpretation of 'specialty contracts'....we are still waiting for that??

 

Third you opposed the draft written representation....Those concerns have been addressed herein...

 

Ben, perhaps you should consider starting a thread on 'mortgages by demise'?...that may help us all......

 

This thread asserts that 'mortgages by demise' are illegal, and that they can be created by 'devise' as defined within the LPA 1925 section 205....END OF

 

so, yes with my knowledge, I am as you rightly say...'aware of the difference' : )

 

Apple

 

 

Apple

 

Hello Apple

 

With respect you say that Eagle Star (a judgement from only 11 years ago) is out of date but yet refer to matters dating 400 hundreds of years in your document. Some people might say that is hypocritical but I wouldn't.

 

In response to your assertions, I disagree, I say this because there is nothing within the subsequent amendments to the applicable legislation that states or even implies that a lender must sign the deed.

 

Remember Is It Me? has already been informed by the Property Chamber that

• Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower.
  
• The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution by the borrower is needed.
  

In your document you say

 

"For the benefit of doubt, it is submitted that a deed in relation to the conveyance of land is a specialty contract and as such; it must be signed by both parties, in this case, those parties are [enter lenders name] and the applicant. It is understood that this is necessary to avoid the statute of frauds Act 1677 part IV."

 

However you also say

 

"It is understood that the creation of a mortgage by demise is evinced when a deed of conveyance, is signed by the Borrower alone"

 

One minute you say the deed of conveyance is signed by the borrower alone and then you say it must be signed by both the lender and the borrower ?????

 

we shall await the next response from the Property Chamber, as it will demonstrate (if it is posted in this thread) how much you have misunderstood the applicable law

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall