Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The 3 pieces of mortar that fell on the same day, at the same time, were approx. 25-30cm long and weighed around ½-1 kilo each from a roof that is above the 2nd floor; they were by no means tiny pieces of mortar but large chunks falling from a rather great height. I believe the size and weight is enough to cause serious injury and if it falls on your head, I assume it could potentially be lethal if unlucky, but we don't wish to put that theory to test... We can't in good conscience let a contractor install a patio and a gazebo as it is in the exact spot where the mortar fell, nor do I think anyone would be willing to take the chance. Looking at the roof, there are multiple other remaining pieces from the same 'line' or 'row' of mortar that can potentially fall. The mortar is right underneath the slate tiles on the neighbour's roof and I don't know whether the tiles are also (becoming) lose due to the loss of the mortar. I was trying to upload a photo but it seems it's not allowed. The first contractor to work in our garden in preparation for the patio and gazebo is scheduled to start on 10th June, that leaves the neighbour 5 workdays to sort their roof which is unlikely, so it seems we will have to postpone our patio contractor without knowing when they can come back. We have already had extensive work done in the garden in preparation for the wedding reception and it will become very costly for us if we have to move the wedding reception to a venue (if we can even get one at this short notice) rather than have it at home which was our dream.
    • Is this sufficiant for a letter of claim  ? Letter Of Claim       Reference: Techzone Mobile Phones Samsung A71 Mobile Phone £140 Purchase date 29. 5. 24     I the claimant purchased a 2nd hand Samsung A71 mobile from Techzone Mobile Phone unit 10 of the indoor market at the Potteries shopping centre. Initially the phone worked well until I used the camera and found debris in the camera lens spoiling pictures making it not fit for purpose. I contacted the seller who offered a replacement which I initially accepted but later rejected and wanted a refund in full which the seller refused saying they Do Not give refund is unlawful and goes against the Consumer rights act 2015. Therefore I intend to issue proceedings against you in a county court without further notice unless you reimburse me the above amount in Full within 7 days from the date of this Letter     ------------------------------------------    I think its best if i hand him the letter as posting it might not get through so can claim expenses traveling up there ?   or would it be best to just post and get 'Signed for'  ?   Should i also put in the letter of claim interest added or leave that till the Particulars letter ?
    • Ok thanks, I really need help with my mental health over this I’ve called 111 Hi sorry just one more thing can they contact my workplace?
    • Sorry to shatter your leftie dreams 🤣😂🤣😂     Donald Trump gets a SIX-POINT bump in approval after being found guilty on 34 counts according to snap Daily Mail poll: 'I think it was a waste of taxpayer money' WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK Teflon Don rides again, according to an exclusive poll for DailyMail.com which found that the guilty verdict in Manhattan... James Johnson, who conducted the poll, said Trump might be waking up as convicted felon but he was winning over the voters who matter.   Our snap poll of a representative sample of likely voters shows that for most Americans the trial has not changed their deep-set views of Trump,' he said.  'But amongst those who are open to changing their mind, people feel more positive by a margin of 6 points. That is outside of the margin of the error of the poll and we are saying that is significant. 'It extends to Independent voters too. Look at the explanations and it is clear why: people feel it was a politically motivated trial and view Trump as a "fighter" against what they see as injustice.     
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ?  Civil National Business Centre Northampton NN1 2LH Name of the Claimant ?  PRA Group UK Portfolios LTD   How many defendant's  joint or self ?  Just my self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.    24th May 2024   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total   Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = XX + 14 days to submit defence = XX (33 days in total)  if your defence filing date falls on a W/End, you must file by friday @4PM     Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claimant claims the sum of £22,000 for an outstanding debt owed. On 30/1/18 the defendant entered into n agreement with Lloyds Bank Plc for a bank loan under the reference 10017#######. On 4/1/19 the defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £22,000. On 30/11/22 the debt of £22,000 assigned to PRA Group (UK) Limited, who itself assigned the debt to PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd on 30/12/23. Notices of assignment were sent to the defendant in accordance with S136 Law of property act 1925. The claimant has instructed PRA Group (UK) Limited to act on its behalf in the recovery of the outstanding debt and to pursue litigation on its behalf. AND the claimant claims 1. The sum of £22,000. What is the total value of the claim?  £23,500 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?  Yes Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Did you inform the claimant of your change of address?  No - N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account?  Bank loan When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  I believe it was done online on their app Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?  Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim.  Debt was with halifax, whom passed the debt to PRA Group. Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Yes Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?  I'm not completely sure at it was nearly 6 years ago, I have done a CCA request and they have sent a screenshot of their system showing it was sent. Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  Yes Why did you cease payments?  Couldn't afford to make payments. What was the date of your last payment?  August 2018 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?  No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan?  No
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3747 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

BHALL,

 

I now KNOW that you work for the LENDER and by the post that you have done now confirms it.

I have asked that you do not try and deter people from using this information on this thread if they wish nor to put people right as you put it by only doing your job!

Why do you not stay on your own thread for your thoughts?

 

Apple please do not be mislead by his or her postings as it is a waste of time and ener

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment: Does this only apply when the company granting a deed? Does this apply when a company is a grantee?

 

It appears from statute that deed and delivery and execution occur together, unless a contrary intention is proved.

Deeds and signatories: Companies Act 2006

46 Execution of deeds (1) A document is validly executed by a company as a deed for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 34) and for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland if, and only if—

(a) it is duly executed by the company, and

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a document is presumed to be delivered upon its being executed, unless a contrary intention is proved.

 

Duly executed?

44 Execution of documents (1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) every director of the company, and

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

Edited by UNRAM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment: Does this only apply when the company granting a deed? Does this apply when a company is a grantee?

What of the common seal, which acts as a signature?

45 Common seal

(1) A company may have a common seal, but need not have one [if it doesnt it needs the signature to satisfy section 44]

(2) A company which has a common seal shall have its name engraved in legible characters on the seal.

(3) If a company fails to comply with subsection (2) an offence is committed by—

(a) the company, and

(b) every officer of the company who is in default.

(4) An officer of a company, or a person acting on behalf of a company, commits an offence if he uses, or authorises the use of, a seal purporting to be a seal of the company on which its name is not engraved as required by subsection (2).

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Edited by UNRAM
Link to post
Share on other sites

If above law applies to company as a grantee: I am guessing if signature-by-seal is used the seal/signature will need to be applied after the borrower has signed. Either way, the mortgage deed for my property has no signature and no seal.

Edited by UNRAM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me.

 

Not quite there yet. I need to establish if there is a duty for a grantee to execute/deliver a deed or whether this law only applies to company-as-grantor.

 

Is the requirement for a mortgage deed to be executed only by the grantee or by both parties?

 

I don't wish to sound petty but my selected moniker is UNRAM (Union Of Northern Rock's Asset: Mortgagors) not Uniram or uunram or uram or weram for that matter...

 

I apologise if I am missing the point of the thread with my posts I need to eliminate all possible mistakes...

Edited by UNRAM
Link to post
Share on other sites

BHALL,

 

I now KNOW that you work for the LENDER and by the post that you have done now confirms it.

I have asked that you do not try and deter people from using this information on this thread if they wish nor to put people right as you put it by only doing your job!

Why do you not stay on your own thread for your thoughts?

 

Apple please do not be mislead by his or her postings as it is a waste of time and ener

 

Hi Is It Me

 

You will recall, the LBL threads were 'plagued' in the same way.

 

I quite enjoyed my stay in one of the top hotels in London paid for by the OFT......(that Lender was swiftly moved from market) I simply can't help thinking - if the OFT had been allowed to regulate the sub-prime market instead of the FSA...potentially .unscrupulous mortgage lenders would have been brought to heel years ago.....

 

But, it is what it is...at least the FSA have been disbanded (my terms)....oh and for that matter - the 'independent' Adjudicator; (they were paid for and shared offices with HMLR I believe, but don't quote me)....The BBA went too didn't it.....looks like the whole mortgage market is getting a wee bit of an overhaul recently....

 

No, don't fear Is It Me....I'm here for the long haul .....got a whole 12 years to get this sorted ...afterall, we are dealing with a Deed...not a simple contract :-)

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I was there for that and was it good, LBL had 5 members of there legal team all having a go!

Stayed in Hotel what next lol

Its about time the mortgage market got into gear my only thoughts are will the people making the law now be looking for jobs at the end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me.

 

Not quite there yet. We need to establish if there is a duty for a grantee to execute/deliver a deed or whether this law only applies to company-as-grantor.

 

Is the requirement for a mortgage deed to be executed only by the grantee or by both parties?

 

I don't wish to sound petty but my selected moniker is UNRAM (Union Of Northern Rock's Asset: Mortgagors) not Uniram or uunram or uram or weram for that matter...

 

I apologise if I am missing the point of the thread with my posts I need to eliminate all possible mistakes...

 

 

Hi UNRAM

 

It would appear that all legislation only applies to inter company land transactions by Deed...but, as you know; Companies also enter into land transactions with consumers by Deed....All Land Transactions must be entered into by Deed....it cannot be done by simple agreement alone....the 'agreement' must meet LP(MP)Act 1989 section 2.....and the Deed must meet the Acts you mention in relation to the Companies duty to execute the document and LP(MP)Act 1989 when the other party is an 'individual'....that means people like you and I...or indeed sole traders...

 

It is the LPA 1925 section 74 that relates to the mode of execution by a Company in land transactions...and section 74 (5) that is specific to Deeds.....and the presumption of delivery is provided for within the provision of section 74A (1) (2).....

 

Land acts as a security...

 

So, when Company A enters into a Land transaction with Company B...and Company A is the 'grantor'.....Company B will be the 'grantee'....the Law says that both Company A and B must sign/execute the Deed for it's validity...(the Company Acts you refer to provide the statutory requirements to protect each company in the event there is a dispute as to the validity of the Deed) ......therefore, whilst it is Company A (as 'grantor')....that expresses an 'intent to convey' to Company B (as 'grantee')......Company A...cannot cause Company B to be 'bound' to accept the Deed...only Company B, can bind himself to be 'bound'...Company A.can rely on the rebuttal presumption in relation to 'delivery' if Company B has not executed the Deed ..... Company B will be left with no security in land for the debt...... (and there can be a good argument even in the event it is signed by both companies ...if 'technically' (as seen in 'Bibby').... Company A can evidence that there was no intent to be bound).

 

Now, apply the same analogy to when Borrower A enters into a land transaction with Company C..... Borrower A, is the 'grantor' and Company C is the 'grantee'....and you will find, the only difference is that in relation to Borrower A signature...the applicable Law is the LP(MP)Act section 1 (3) with the added benefit...that Borrower A's signature can never be 'technically' found to cause any presumption of Delivery to be inferred since the coming into force of the RRO 2005.

 

Hope this helps?

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I was there for that and was it good, LBL had 5 members of there legal team all having a go!

Stayed in Hotel what next lol

Its about time the mortgage market got into gear my only thoughts are will the people making the law now be looking for jobs at the end?

 

I knew other Caggers had been invited...I've kept a copy of the email they sent too....just so as I know who we all are......Thanking us for our assistance : )

 

I have much respect for the OFT - imagine, us - mere 'pimples' on the landscape of the financial industry involved to that level.....butiful, absolutely butiful - totally loved it!!

 

Ah Well, here we are again, yet anther lending institution...just a different brief..and legislation to boot!!....and, yes another fight to the bitter end......

 

Their jobs??...all I know is that folk on the Titanic had to stay on ship until they either sank or swam...

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to become better acquainted with RRO 2005. If you can quote relevant section in correct context it will help a great deal.

 

I am still not clear on a key point "Is there a legal requirement for a mortgage deed to be executed/delivered only by the grantee or must the lender-grantor also execute/deliver?"

 

This is not clear from the statute I have presented nor your reply...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi UNRAM

 

I do appreciate where you are coming from here.....you will need to familiarise yourself with the RRO 2005

 

In the meantime acquaint yourself with Blackstones Law Dictionary here:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36602123/B...Law-Dictionary

 

It confirms what a 'Specialty Contract' is - I've quoted from it for you below:

 

"Record, Specialty, Simple

 

Contracts of record are such as are declared and adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdic-tion, or entered on their records, including judgments, recognizances, and statutes staple. Harde-

man v. Downer, 39 Ga. 425. These are not properly speaking contracts at all, though they may

be enforced by action like contracts. Specialties, or special contracts, are contracts under seal, such as deeds and bonds. Ludwig v. Bungart, 26 Misc.Rep. 247, 56 N.Y.S. 51. All others are included in the description "simple" contracts; that is, a simple contract is one that is not a contract of record and not under seal; it may be either written or oral, in either case, it is called a "parol"

contract, the distinguishing feature being the lackof a seal. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 30, 6 Am.Dec. 150; 4 B. & Ald. 588; 2 Bla.Comm. 472.

 

Special Contract

A contract under seal; a specialty; as distin-guished from one merely oral or in writing not

sealed. But in common usage this term is often used to denote an express or explicit contract, one which clearly defines and settles the reciprocalrights and obligations of the parties, as distin-

guished from one which must be made out, and its terms ascertained, by the inference of the law

from the nature and circumstances of the transaction.

 

A special contract may rest in parol, and does not mean a contract by specialty; it is defined as one with peculiar provisions not found in the ordinary contracts relating to the same subject-matter. Midland Roofing Mfg. Co"

 

Hope this helps further?

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi UNRAM

 

The importance of the RRO 2005 from a Borrowers point of view is found at Schedule 2. Article 10 (2) of the RRO 2005...there you will find that it repeals the presumption of delivery in relation to a Borrowers signed deed by repealing words from section 1 (3) of the LP(MP)Act 1989...

 

This is so important for you to get to grips with....otherwise, other posters may lead you to believe it has no relevance whatsoever....when it's relevance is sooo significant for you and every other Borrower....

 

Read the RRO 2005 again, and again and again....until it becomes like a second skin....and know it back to front...especially Article 10 (2) stated above found in the schedule 2.

 

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain further.....

 

Right now if you look at section 1 (3) of the LP(MP)Act 1989....you will not see any or very few of the amendments that the RRO 2005 enforced in September 2005 make to it....however to find them I had to dig deep....they are there - but not on the face of the legislation...they are posted on the various threads now though...if you need to see them or go to the Act itself.

 

The RRO 2005 is just one of those pieces of regulation that have been Well hidden, mis-understood; never quoted or relied upon by Borrowers unless you know of it and know how to cross reference it with the legislation that it affects....and more importantly...you also need to know the implications and how it works to protect your rights as a Borrower...

 

One of the very important rights it protects is your civil right to rely that you did not 'deliver' the Deed....previously this was not the case....it is now

 

When a deed is not 'delivered'...it is simply not a Deed...for mortgage purposes (keeping it simple) the LPA 1925 section 52...says the Deed will be void : )

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you also offer me your opinion on my own situation: (i) no deed signature/seal (ii) no mortgage offer signature/seal. (iii) no formal mortgage agreement/contract supplement to (ii).

 

No Problem...

 

(i) Lender needs to prove 'execution' and 'delivery' for validity of the Deed to be in evidence - no execution = presumption of delivery is rebuttal on sight of your signature alone because of the protection for you as an individual within the provisions of the RR0 2005 and its effect on section 1 (3) of the LP(MP Act 1989 in regard to your signature

 

(ii) Lender needs to prove there was an 'agreement' to enter into the Deed....i.e it is the 'agreement' that must meet LP(MP) Act 1989 section 2 - both signatures and all content to be attached to it...your signature alone does not meet section 2...lender cannot rely on 'estoppal' because part performance under the provision of section 40 of the LPA was repealed by the said section 2 LP(MP)Act 1989

 

(iii) No 'agreement'....No Valid Deed.... line of contention is in sight in your 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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not seeing it I'm afraid. I hope you can be patient with this as I am sure you're understanding is more mature than my own. I have the RRO2005 and the LPMPA1989 side by side:

 

According to the repeal you have referenced, LPMPA1989 1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

becomes

 

LPMPA1989 1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

How does this assert that the lenders signature is now required?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Problem...

 

(i) Lender needs to prove 'execution' and 'delivery' for validity of the Deed to be in evidence - no execution = presumption of delivery is rebuttal on sight of your signature alone because of the protection for you as an individual within the provisions of the RR0 2005 and its effect on section 1 (3) of the LP(MP Act 1989 in regard to your signature

 

(ii) Lender needs to prove there was an 'agreement' to enter into the Deed....i.e it is the 'agreement' that must meet LP(MP) Act 1989 section 2 - both signatures and all content to be attached to it...your signature alone does not meet section 2...lender cannot rely on 'estoppal' because part performance under the provision of section 40 of the LPA was repealed by the said section 2 LP(MP)Act 1989

 

(iii) No 'agreement'....No Valid Deed.... line of contention is in sight in your favor.....

 

Apple

 

1. According to other cases of which you are aware what are the chances of having NRAM removed from the registry based on the facts I have presented to you? Is 'removed' the correct term? (I've heard other terms such as set aside). Basically I am seeking a permanent and complete removal.

 

2. Given that I do not have a signed/sealed mortgage offer/contract what happens to the purported debt? Can the debt even exist if there is no agreement in place to define terms and conditions of repayment? I realise that money was created to pay the seller but what is the legal status of a debt in this instance?

Edited by UNRAM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi UNRAM

 

Here's why....

 

1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

 

.....This one was before the RRO 2005 came into force - your mortgage was taken out in 2007, so this does not apply to your Deed...however, if it did, you would be hard pushed to show that you had no intent to enter into a disposition of your entire estate...ie. by unilateral deed - your signature alone...refers to a 'disposition' of the fee simple - meaning the entire estate - section 53 deals with outright 'dispositions' of an estate......they can be protected by registration on the land title...but even then it is only an 'equitable' right due to the protection afforded to you by section 53 (1)©. This one...means that so long as you have signed the deed, sent it to your solicitor who posts it off to the lender....then the necessary 'delivery' element that is particular to the formality of a deed was met...and the presumption of delivery was effected...whether the lender had signed/executed it ...yes or no...

 

Lenders in reliance on the legislation...circumvented it by not signing the Deeds at all.....providing themselves with the ideal 'tool' used for 'securitisation' purposes...You ended up with a Deed that obligated you to pay, no right to redemption...only the equitable right to redeem was left.... this is not what the legislator intended at all...

 

The Law Commission reports looked at Land Law and the outcome was the RRO 2005 (keeping it brief of course)....the RRO removes that presumption of delivery in relation to an individuals signature once and for all... remember, how would you know or understand if the lender had signed the deed or not...you wouldn't even know that the Order was in force unless you looked deep to see the amendments made to the LP(MP)Act 1989 would you if it was not for this thread????

 

so, the outcome is that the one above is repealed and now provides:

 

LPMPA1989 1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

It has been said for more than 400 yrs,...... a principle brought back into modern day in the case of 'Bibby' that 'delivery' is a necessary formality....the 'grantor' cannot 'deliver' the deed to the 'grantee'....so, it was necessary to provide via statute that as 'grantor'....the Borrower was not to be taken to be liable to 'deliver' the deed in the way the LP(MP)Act 1989 unamended version suggested.....so now, for you, given that your deed was entered into after 2005....these new basic legal principles are there to protect you....the onus is squarely on the Lender to 'execute' so that a presumption of 'delivery' can be said to have occurred in your case.....

 

Does this add to your knowledge? Is it beginning to sink in???

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3747 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

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...