Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

I think I need to spell out the obvious here, a deed that grants a mortgage by legal charge cannot grant a mortgage by demise

 

A Deed can only grant what it states that it grants, it can't grant anything else, no matter how much you want it too

[UNRAM]

I have seen repeated references to Eagle Star in this thread. Are you all referring to this case: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1389.html.

 

The judges verdict? "...in this case there was no contract for the mortgage, there was simply the execution of the mortgage deed. That mortgage deed is a mortgage deed. It is not a contract to create a mortgage. I need really say no more than that about it."

 

Was the judge wrong to refuse the application? Did he disregard the law? Would the exact same application be refused today, and on what basis?

 

I have seen it stated here (and only here) that a deed is a specialty contract. Where do I find a definition of this that states it requires signatures from the lender?

[bhall]

Hello URAM

 

Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1389 (8 August 2001)

 

This is my view

 

12. So, says Mr Green, section 2 requires the signature of all the parties to a mortgage, being a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. He says that if you look at this mortgage at the end where the signatures appear it will be seen (on page 50 of Volume 1 of the bundles of documents) that there are the signatures of himself and Miss Challis, but there is no signature on behalf of Eagle Star. So, he submits, the mortgage of 8th November 1989 does not comply with the requirements of section 2 of the 1989 Act, which by then had come into force. He made it clear that it is not disputed that he owes money to Eagle Star, but there is a dispute about the precise amount. He emphasised that he has been regularly paying monthly payments to Eagle Star, though he accepts there are arrears. He says that the effect of applying section 2 to the mortgage of 8th November 1988 is that it is unenforceable. That means that the Eagle Star company are not entitled to obtain the order for possession which it obtained from His Honour Judge Jones. He emphasised a number of times during his submissions that without the signature of someone on behalf of Eagle Star the mortgage is not a full and complete legal document and so they are not entitled to enforce the charging provisions in it against him.

 

13.Mr Green referred to some passages in the report of the Law Commission which led to the bill enacted in the 1989 Act. He referred to passages in the Law Commission Paper No.164, in particular 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8. He also referred to a number of authorities. I think the most important of these (because it was concerned with a mortgage, while the other cases he referred to concerned contracts for the sale of land) was United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib [1997] Ch at 107. I have been supplied with a copy in [1996] 3 All ER 251. That is an important case. It decided that the requirements contained in section 2 of the 1989 Act to the effect that a contract for the sale or other disposition in land must be in writing in a single document incorporating all the terms and signed by the parties, abolished the rule that a mere deposit of title deeds relating to property by way of security created a mortgage or charge. Following the 1989 Act the rule had changed. There had to be a written document, not merely a deposit of title deeds by way of security in order to create a mortgage or charge.

 

14.Mr Green relied on that for the proposition that the same should apply to this case because there was, in this case, within the mortgage deed a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star. So, he said, if the mortgage in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib was governed by section 2 of the 1989 Act, so should this mortgage with similar results for its enforceability.

 

15.In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts. Section 1 makes alterations to the law about the execution of deeds. For example, they are no longer required to be written on any particular kind of substance and a seal is not required for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual. There are a number of detailed provisions in section 1 relating to deeds. Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land, one other kind of disposition being a transfer by way of security over what is commonly called a mortgage or charge.

 

From the above

 

1) The Appllant claimed that the signature of all the parties to a mortgage, being a contract for the disposition of an interest in land was required.

 

2)However,there are the signatures of himself and Miss Challis, but there is no signature on behalf of Eagle Star.

 

3) He emphasised a number of times during his submissions that without the signature of someone on behalf of Eagle Star the mortgage is not a full and complete legal document and so they are not entitled to enforce the charging provisions in it against him.

 

4)In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts.

 

I personally feel that the subsequent amendments as a result of the RRO 2005 would have no effect on the outcome of this case, if it was to be reheard today. From what I have read, Apple has merely confused the requirements of what the legislation stipulates what a company must do when it grants a deed, with Apples need to prove that a company must also execute a deed that has been granted by an individual.

 

If legislation required both parties to sign the deed, it would do so very clearly as it does for for contracts for the sale of land (LPA 1989 s.2)

 

"The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract."

 

and for consumer credit agreements (CCA 1974 s.51)

 

"a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and"

 

The legislation, simply does not include any such requirement in relation to deeds

 

Ben

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

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.

 

Are you inferring that its content has application in this case Ben?....Ben, Eagle Star was a case...cases are tried every day in our courts Ben.....the formalities in regard to Deeds Ben....go back over 400 years Ben...keep it in context...

 

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.

 

No......., what you mean is there is nothing that HMLR concern themselves with to do with the validity of the underlying 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.
  

 

Oh Yes I do remember Ben, yes, the one where you posted all over the thread asserting Is It Me's friends application had been struck out ..... was it section 9 and 10 your asserted was relied upon to strike out the application....ah yes... that's it... I do recall....but we found that this was untrue didn't we Ben?

 

In your document you say

 

Hang on a bit Ben....I didn't notice you coming forward with a Draft document to assist....are you knocking my gallant efforts to assist a fellow Cagger ....and as a consequence.....because you are privy to the detail of the written representation....you want to nit pick......now that's a wee bit unkind Ben.....imagine that you hadn't seen it...what would you be saying then hey???? hey?? : )

 

I'm sure if you had posted up a draft...if I had issue or concern...that I could substantiate...rather than 'nit pick'....I would have posted up a version as an alternative.....not up to that are you Ben, hey????

 

"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."

 

There is nothing wrong with the statement...it is all true...

 

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"

 

The Property Chamber are at liberty to say differently as you do, that does not mean the Deed is Valid Ben.....don't you think it would be unfair for the Property Chamber to strike out the application because of this statement alone Ben???? might end up as an Appeal.....best to avoid that hey?.....best to allow the application on those points that are going to assist the consumer...hey??...hey???

 

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 ?????

 

Yes Ben, a section 53 one is signed by the Borrower alone Ben....and the section 52 one is signed by both lender and Borrower Ben...... : )

 

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

 

Yes Ben, let's do that....I'm prepared for either eventuality...but I think we have not assisted Is It Me by posting the detail on the thread in the way we have done to date....it has not afforded any constructive assistance at all.....so, I will be asking the site team to avoid compromising Is It Me's friend in this way appears to be no more than a merry go round in a circus....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Site Team

 

Can you assist please..... this thread is becoming no more than a playing field for Ben....not one that was intended to assist a fellow Cagger....Can you please remove Ben's repetitive posts to do with Eagle Star.....they take up loads of space....detract from the main issues by causing unnecessary additional pages. Violating and compromising the information for Is It Me and others in that they are distracting....when they are available on Ben's own thread....

 

Thanks in Advance

 

Apple

[bhall]

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'

 

[*]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?

 

Hello Uram

 

Further to the above, as confirmed by the Property Chamber in this thread by Is It Me?

 

"The LR form CH1 does not require execution by a lender except where a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for."

 

The Property Chamber has confirmed that a CH1 can be signed by the borrower as a deed to grant a legal charge (A charge by way of legal mortgage) - does not have to be signed by the lender unless there is an obligation to make a further advance.

 

The CH1 form is the Land Registry's own form of charge. It would not be rational to conclude that whilst the Land Registry's own form of charge does not need to be signed by the lender, the lenders own form of charge, which has been approved by the Land Registry must be signed by the lender. - A Lender can either use a CH1 form or its own form - either form can be used, when signed by the borrower to grant a legal charge.

How can anyone say that two forms that both perform exactly the same function and are both subject to exactly the same legislation - one must be signed by the lender and the other doesn't have to be ? Why doesn't the arguments used by Apple apply to the CH1 form ? - In exactly the same way as the charge forms used by lenders the CH1 for the same reasons is "a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage" - The logic in Apple's arguments even from a common sense perspective is more than questionable.

 

 

If you compare a charge form used by a lender - http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002MR.pdf

 

it states -

 

"The Borrower with full title guarantee charges the Property by way of legal mortgage with the payment of all monies which are or may become payable to the Lender by the Borrow"

 

and

 

"Signed as a deed by the Borrower"

 

Whereas a CH1 http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002MR.pdf

 

States -

 

The borrower with

full title guarantee limited title guarantee

charges the property by way of legal mortgage as security for the payment of the sums detailed in panel 9

 

The CH1 form also states

 

The borrower must execute this charge as a deed using the space opposite.

 

Apple will go on to say Apple is right in all things related to Property Law - We will see if this is the case, when and if the response from the Property Chamber to Apples document is posted in this thread.

Ben

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

I thought Caggers were banned for creating alias's....????

[bhall]

I thought Caggers were banned for creating alias's....????

 

if that snide comment is directed at me

 

CAG Rules

 

7 ACCOUNT RESTRICTIONS

 

7.4 Whilst we do not forbid the use of second accounts, we will restrict site access to users who create multiple usernames in order to abuse the process of forum postings - for instance when one account is used to give an apparent weight of opinion or to validate the statement of their other accounts. In such circumstances, both (or all) usernames may face restrictions.

 

As I am the only person that is disagreeing with you, what other poster is posting to 'give apparent weight of opinion or to validate' to the statements I make, when I am the only saying them ?

 

However, under the same rules

 

7.1 There are various options available to the Site Team when dealing with users who have broken site rules. These include (but are not restricted to) the removal of individual posts, restriction or removal of the site’s Private Messaging facility, moderation (meaning a user’s posts will be subject to checking prior to them appearing on the forum), and in more serious instances, a user may be banned.

 

My Private Messaging facility is working fine, just in case you are wondering, I would send you a PM to prove it but as I understand it yours isn't

 

I have reported your accusation to the Site Team to consider. - If I am able to continue to post, it will prove that your accusation is baseless, without foundation and is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the information I have posted.

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[UNRAM]

Q&A request:

I seek further clarity on some quotes from previous postings which I have identified in blue italic.

My responses are in bold...

 

==

 

"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".

I signed a mortgage offer and a mortgage deed. The mortgage offer contained its own terms and conditions relevant to the offer not the mortgage. There was no other signed agreement - not even signed by myself.

"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"

Please can you point me to the statute that defines a deed as a specialty contract and show a clearly defined obligation for bilateral signatures as asserted here.

"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."

Where has this quote originated from?

[bhall]

Apple

 

It is disappointing that you have attempted to make this personal. However, this just reinforces the weakness in your arguments.

Edited July 18, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

"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."

Where has this quote originated from?

 

Hello Unram

 

I don't know where the quote came from but at a guess with Apple it will either be from wikipedia or one of the free planet / void mortgage sites.

 

However, this is a link to the legislation referred to by Apple -

 

Statute of Frauds (1677)

 

IV No Action against Executors, &c. upon a special Promise, or upon any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lands, &c. unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and signed.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

 

The provisions of s. 4 of the 1677 Act were re-enacted in s. 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

40 Contracts for sale, &c, of land to be in writing

 

(1)No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.

 

(2)This section applies to contracts whether made before or after the commencement of this Act and does not affect the law relating to part performance, or sales by the court.

 

which remained the law until the Law of Property Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/schedule/2

 

As usual Apple has referred to legislation, which doesn't support Apples argument.

 

Re: statute of frauds Act 1677 part IV

 

" signed by partie to be charged"

 

Re: Law of Property Act 1925

 

"signed by the party to be charged"

 

The party to be charged is the party against whom enforcement of the agreement is sought.

 

This is confirmed by Blacks Law Dictionary

 

http://thelawdictionary.org/party-to-be-charged/

 

What is PARTY TO BE CHARGED?

 

"a term that is applied to the person who an accusation is brought against them in court or a person who is forced to fulfill an agreement."

 

In the document prepared by Apple it is confirmed that the borrower (party to be charged) signed the deed.

 

In otherwords action is being brought upon the deed that has been signed by the party charged - being the borrower.

Edited July 19, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

Ben

 

I thought best to leave you to ‘ramble’ on and on.....I recognise that from time to time you need space to do so.......this being despite having a thread all of your own, created by you, dedicated to you, for you, to ramble as much as you like..................yyyyaaaaawwwwnnnnn .... : )

 

Someone said once...that if you chat enough codswallop...often enough....you may end up believing it yourself......the issue is of course....is that you truly expect me to accept your interpretation over and above my own.....??

 

Ben

 

This reliance you place on the CH1 form....telling all and sundry that this CH1 form is all singing, all dancing...and does not require a Lenders signature...and therefore it’s official....the Lenders signature is not required on a Deed.....

 

Humour Me, Us even further why don’t you.....

 

You know HMLR Practice guide 39....clause 2.2 in particular...I’ve popped it’s content here for you for ready reference:

 

"2.2 What is rectification?

 

This is the correction of a mistake that prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor....

 

....It should be borne in mind that there is a distinction between a mistake in the register and a mistake in a deed submitted to Land Registry for registration. This guide relates only to altering mistakes in the register. The provisions of Schedule 4, LRA 2002 relate to alterations to correct a mistake in the register. They do not relate to correcting a mistake in a deed. This means there is no mistake in the register if it correctly reflects the provisions contained in a deed submitted for registration, even though there may be a mistake in the deed because, for instance, it does not reflect the agreement reached between the parties to the deed. The registrar has no ability under Schedule 4, LRA 2002 to correct a mistake in a deed. Only the court, or the tribunal under s.108(2), LRA 2002, has such power but you should note that the tribunal’s powers relate to a more limited range of documents than the court."

 

When you have read the above Ben......

 

Perhaps you would be good enough to explain why even when HMLR recognise that the signing of the CH1 form by a borrower does not ‘reflect the agreement reached between the parties to the deed; that you insist it does??

 

This thread asserts that there is a mistake in the register on the basis that it does not ‘reflect the agreement reached between the parties to the deed’...it asserts that the deed is not signed by the lender and therefore does not meet the formalities required for the validity of the Deed as required within the provisions of the substantiating Law as it prevailed at the time Is It Me's friend signed the Deed...

 

Meeting the ‘requirements’ for registration purposes is only one aspect Ben ..for that..HMLR make it clear...they only need to see the Borrowers signature...they are not perturbed whether the deed is validly executed to meet statutory requirements......HMLR are deliriously oblivious...as to whether the Borrower intended to dispose of his entire estate or not Ben...

 

Statutes concern....and the Borrowers concern ....and as a consequence...this threads concern....is... is the deed valid?...does it reflect statutory requirements for its formality?..that is so that it creates a bilateral agreement between the Lender and Borrower for which signature by the Borrower is necessary and 'execution' for the Lender is necessary to meet the strict application of the Law for the presumption of Delivery to be evident....

 

You say ‘yes’...CH1 is the be all and end all...borrower has signed..that’s it...it’s legal...section 51 applies....oh...and ‘Eagle Star’

 

This thread says ‘NO’...Lender must sign. Eagle Star is outdated. CH1 form applies to registration only..not to validity of the Deed to reflect the intent of the Borrower as protected by statute : )

 

We are waiting for a decision from the property chamber Ben....let’s not speculate...you were wrong before....don’t let it happen to you again...be patient....you may yet be proven correct and I totally wrong....but you know what Ben....the challenges are at last being made... : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hello Unram

 

I don't know where the quote came from but at a guess with Apple it will either be from wikipedia or one of the free planet / void mortgage sites.

 

However, this is a link to the legislation referred to by Apple -

 

Statute of Frauds (1677)

 

IV No Action against Executors, &c. upon a special Promise, or upon any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lands, &c. unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and signed.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

 

The provisions of s. 4 of the 1677 Act were re-enacted in s. 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

40 Contracts for sale, &c, of land to be in writing

 

(1)No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.

 

(2)This section applies to contracts whether made before or after the commencement of this Act and does not affect the law relating to part performance, or sales by the court.

 

which remained the law until the Law of Property Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/schedule/2

 

As usual Apple has referred to legislation, which doesn't support Apples argument.

 

Re: statute of frauds Act 1677 part IV

 

" signed by partie to be charged"

 

Re: Law of Property Act 1925

 

"signed by the party to be charged"

 

The party to be charged is the party against whom enforcement of the agreement is sought.

 

This is confirmed by Blacks Law Dictionary

 

http://thelawdictionary.org/party-to-be-charged/

 

What is PARTY TO BE CHARGED?

 

"a term that is applied to the person who an accusation is brought against them in court or a person who is forced to fulfill an agreement."

 

In the document prepared by Apple it is confirmed that the borrower (party to be charged) signed the deed.

 

In otherwords action is being brought upon the deed that has been signed by the party charged - being the borrower.

 

Ben

 

Statute of Frauds Part iv - was that repealed??

 

"The party charged"....in this case it is the Borrower who claims the Lender has not signed the Deed....would it not be for the Lender as the 'party charged' to show that he has signed the Deed as a defence within the Statute of Frauds Ben??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple

 

It is disappointing that you have attempted to make this personal. However, this just reinforces the weakness in your arguments.

 

OOOOHHHHH Please..... : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Q&A request:

I seek further clarity on some quotes from previous postings which I have identified in blue italic.

My responses are in bold...

 

==

 

"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".

I signed a mortgage offer and a mortgage deed. The mortgage offer contained its own terms and conditions relevant to the offer not the mortgage. There was no other signed agreement - not even signed by myself.

Has the Lender signed the Mortgage offer?, Has the Lender signed the mortgage Deed? What Year did you take out the mortgage? Was your home registered prior to the mortgage?

 

"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"

Please can you point me to the statute that defines a deed as a specialty contract and show a clearly defined obligation for bilateral signatures as asserted here.

 

There is no question as to whether a Deed is not intended to be a 'speciality contract'....you will note the written representation asserts this to be the case, with respect it will be for the Lender to defend that it is not. A speciality contract is 'bilateral' by nature....and relates to land transactions....if it is not...then it is again for the Lender to defend that it is not...

 

"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."

Where has this quote originated from?

 

It appears that you think each and every quote must be taken from some piece of legislation or some case law..? that would almost suggest that we are all devoid of intelligence.....the quote is borne from indepth research, across a minion of different resources (not just wiki as proposed by Ben)....reference made to the Statute of Frauds..is to place an onus on the Lender to defend that he was not intending to mislead or misguide the Borrower into entering into a Deed that when registered reflects the intent of the Borrower and statute as registered on the title....With respect, you are fortunate enough to come on a forum, and ask these questions...for me and others....we have been looking into this for years..to hopefully benefit others find an alternative route to protect the roof over their heads from unlawful possession...

 

Sad that Ben was unable to answer your questions directly, but then...he only has a couple hundred posts.....hardly an Einstein on the topic : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

if that snide comment is directed at me

 

CAG Rules

 

7 ACCOUNT RESTRICTIONS

 

7.4 Whilst we do not forbid the use of second accounts, we will restrict site access to users who create multiple usernames in order to abuse the process of forum postings - for instance when one account is used to give an apparent weight of opinion or to validate the statement of their other accounts. In such circumstances, both (or all) usernames may face restrictions.

 

As I am the only person that is disagreeing with you, what other poster is posting to 'give apparent weight of opinion or to validate' to the statements I make, when I am the only saying them ?

 

However, under the same rules

 

7.1 There are various options available to the Site Team when dealing with users who have broken site rules. These include (but are not restricted to) the removal of individual posts, restriction or removal of the site’s Private Messaging facility, moderation (meaning a user’s posts will be subject to checking prior to them appearing on the forum), and in more serious instances, a user may be banned.

 

My Private Messaging facility is working fine, just in case you are wondering, I would send you a PM to prove it but as I understand it yours isn't

 

I have reported your accusation to the Site Team to consider. - If I am able to continue to post, it will prove that your accusation is baseless, without foundation and is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the information I have posted.

 

Ben

 

I'm, offended by this post.

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Please accept my apologies in advance if my questions are simplistic. I do not yet share the detailed understanding that is available in this thread but I am engaged in a real dispute with a government debt collector that is obviously lying to me and I seek concrete answers that I myself am 100% sure of before I can proceed. Thank you.

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Apple,

 

I appreciate what you are saying about your research and I cannot express enough gratitude for the time and effort you (and others) have put into this. I have also spent years reading and researching every possible angle which is why I can see that you are on to something. I also wish to thank Ben here for providing necessary rigour and challenge to this thread for it is all too easy to get caught in a one track argument because we want or need a particular outcome and it is best that all arguments are made water tight here. Both NRAM and UKAR now appear to be listening and I need to get my story straight if I am to make best use of my present circumstances. I seem to have waded into a bit of grey zone in NRAM's administrative process... I will keep reading, listening and asking questions...

 

I have some answers to some of your questions:

Has the Lender signed the Mortgage offer?

no

 

Has the Lender signed the mortgage Deed?

no

 

What Year did you take out the mortgage?

2007

 

Was your home registered prior to the mortgage?

yes - victorian build possibly 150 years old.

 

===

There is no question as to whether a Deed is not intended to be a 'speciality contract'....

no question by whom? you? an adjudicator? please provide evidence...

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Apple,

 

There is no question as to whether a Deed is not intended to be a 'speciality contract'....

 

Are you suggesting that all deeds are specialty contracts? If so this contradicts everything I have read and understood about a deed as a unilateral declaration and quite distinct from a bilateral contract. Are you referring to a specific type of deed relevant to this context? If so, again where is the reference definition? I think Ben has a point insofar as there does not seem to be any legislation that actually states "a mortgage deed requires the signature of the lender". I appreciate in my own situation it may be required for the deed to act as a contract but I also wish to address the general case. Please know I am not taking sides it is in my interests to remain neutral.

[IS IT ME?]

Ben

This is what you posted???

You15.In my judgement this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting tr post does not make any sense .

READ your own post

What the hell is a mortgage deed??? you CREATE a mortgage with it

I know you would like to put people off or that is your job but this is NOT going away nor are you going to win.

[bhall]

Ben

This is what you posted???

You15.In my judgement this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting tr post does not make any sense .

READ your own post

What the hell is a mortgage deed??? you CREATE a mortgage with it

I know you would like to put people off or that is your job but this is NOT going away nor are you going to win.

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

Just to be clear the extract you have posted is from a Court case and not my own words.

 

However, in response to your question - A mortgage deed is the document that grants the lender a mortgage by legal charge or prior to the LRA 2002 - if the content if that deed refers to the lease - the mortgage deed grants the lender a mortgage by demise.

 

 

It is not a matter of putting people off or winning. I have no interest in putting people off.

 

My sole interest in this matter is correcting the incorrect interpretations posted on this subject which I feel do not provide or offer any real help to Caggers.

 

Incorrect information, causes more harm than good

[bhall]

Apple,

 

There is no question as to whether a Deed is not intended to be a 'speciality contract'....

 

Are you suggesting that all deeds are specialty contracts? If so this contradicts everything I have read and understood about a deed as a unilateral declaration and quite distinct from a bilateral contract. Are you referring to a specific type of deed relevant to this context? If so, again where is the reference definition? I think Ben has a point insofar as there does not seem to be any legislation that actually states "a mortgage deed requires the signature of the lender". I appreciate in my own situation it may be required for the deed to act as a contract but I also wish to address the general case. Please know I am not taking sides it is in my interests to remain neutral.

 

Hello

 

Becareful it will be suggested that you are my alias. As per Apples previous post.

 

Deeds can be either unilateral or bilateral depending upon its content. (For Apples benefit, even Wikipedia confirms this to be true)

 

If all of the stated obligations are to be performed by one party it is unilateral - whereas as if the deed contains obligations for both parties it is bilateral - In the case of a mortgage deed this would be an obligation to provide a further advance.

 

If the deed is unilateral - only the obligated party needs to sign the deed. This is because it is only that party that is stating it will perform the specific actions stated in the deed.

 

If the deed is bilateral - as an example when the lender is obligated to provide a further advance - Both the lender and borrower sign the deed to confirm they agree to the actions detailed within the deed.

 

Ben

 

Looks like I can still post ;-)

Edited July 19, 2013 by bhall

[IS IT ME?]

ben

As I say you make no sense nor any contribution to this matter other than put people off I shall ask that you are ban from this thread as you do not answer any of the questions when put to you by apple or me, Apple has and I HAVE checked written correctly so far you on the other hand have as I have just proved again posted some thing which is not correct.

If your posts are here to put me for one off be VERY VERY clear I am NOT put off nor will I go away and I will with the agreement of my friend take this all the way.

YOU said it ben!

[bhall]

ben

As I say you make no sense nor any contribution to this matter other than put people off I shall ask that you are ban from this thread as you do not answer any of the questions when put to you by apple or me, Apple has and I HAVE checked written correctly so far you on the other hand have as I have just proved again posted some thing which is not correct.

If your posts are here to put me for one off be VERY VERY clear I am NOT put off nor will I go away and I will with the agreement of my friend take this all the way.

YOU said it ben!

 

Hello Is It Me ?

 

From your post, it appeared your question was 'what is a mortgage deed?"

 

In response to your question I said -

 

"However, in response to your question - A mortgage deed is the document that grants the lender a mortgage by legal charge or prior to the LRA 2002 - if the content if that deed refers to the lease - the mortgage deed grants the lender a mortgage by demise."

 

You asked a question and I did answer it.

 

I must apologise for my attempts to provide you and your friend with correct information. I also apologise for repeatedly correcting Apples incorrect interpretations of the law.

 

It would appear that I was wrong to think that the posting of correct information would be more beneficial than the posting of incorrect information. That was my mistake for which I apologise.

 

As you have made an application to the Property Chamber any decision made as a result of a hearing will be a matter of public record and freely obtainable by anyone. So if your application proceeds to a hearing the outcome will more than likely at some point be posted on CAG. In a similar way to other court cases and Adjudicator decisions have been

 

However, it is clear that you only want 'yes men' to contribute to this topic. Therefore, I will await the outcome of the review of Apples document by the Property Chamber.

 

*Disclaimer - If I cease and desist from posting in this thread / topic, it should not be interpreted as giving weight too or validating Apples argument. Indeed, to be clear I consider Apples argument to be legally flawed and will await confirmation of that from the Property Chamber in due course.

Edited July 19, 2013 by bhall

[UNRAM]

I confirm I am not Ben's alias and my initial posts are true statements and the name I introduced myself with is my true name.