Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[andrew1]

Welcome back apple...and there was me thinking you were a fella! I like the quotes too...thank goodness for common sense....now on with the serious stuff..

 

A1

[applecart]

good to see you back Apple I really hope it was not me mentioning my other issue that caused the problem,I have been worried about your absence I would still appreciate your help with the void deed too

 

Hi Marika...no, not you....don't think that for a moment.....ok?

 

I am of the opinion that you are on our wavelength......We are here to assist those who are ; )

 

Did you manage to get your DEFENCE sent off to the local county court in time?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Welcome back apple...and there was me thinking you were a fella! I like the quotes too...thank goodness for common sense....now on with the serious stuff..

 

A1

 

Thank you A1

 

Will do ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Do the Council of Mortgage Lenders think the Deed is the loan agreement also?

 

Here's more of their advice on what needs to be done for fresh meat borrowers

 

Your conveyancer will do the following

 

 

Register or record the change of title to the property, and the mortgage deed (loan agreement) in favour of the lender, with the Land Registry.**

 

'Change of title'?.......do remember ..... they are the Council of 'Mortgage' Lenders.......and ask and consider - What's in a name??

 

The CML wholly condone 'mortgages'....a 'mortgage' is a disposition of the borrowers whole estate......Owners of registered estates have no power to grant any lender a 'mortgage'....

 

However...there is legislation to support an argument that a 'mortgage' can be entered on a borrowers title on a 'first' registration of an estate/property/land - the FR1 form is required for those......there is still a fair bit of housing development going on....the FR1 form can be used for those........

 

Most Borrowers were then encouraged to 're-'mortgage'.....any such 're-mortgage' would not require the FR1 form.....the Lender would be dealing with Registered Land at that point....

 

I do agree with the CML when they kindly advise that both the Borrower must sign...and the Lender must execute the deed prior to registration ......there is statutory provision to ensure that this is so ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Any more news about apple coming back?

As i have questions because I have had great news back which will more than stop the lenders dead in their tacks before this goes to the property chamber

 

Hi Is It Me......

 

Could you be talking about the FACT that the Chamber are finding that a large number of Lenders are not actually receiving applications......because any application sent to a lenders address as shown on the deed .....are being returned by the Post Office..........as 'gone away'.................???

 

That finding might have the same effect to 'stop the lenders dead in their tracks'......

 

Might be an idea that ALL applications refer to and are made to be sent to the lenders address shown on the Deed moving forward......just to make sure.... they get the post....

 

 

Apple

[sequenci]

 

I assist Is It Me and others to assert that the DEED is VOID....There remains NO DEFENCE!!!....

 

Applecart ; )

 

Morning!

 

Have you found any binding authority in relation to residential mortgages which asserts this position yet? Welcome back, by the way

 

Seq.

[MUTT1]

Good to see you posting again apple, the thread just wasn't the same without you. Hopefully there will be more good news as this campaign progresses.

[applecart]

Morning!

 

Have you found any binding authority in relation to residential mortgages which asserts this position yet? Welcome back, by the way

 

Seq.

 

Thank you Sequenci.

 

I mean you no offence, but I'm looking to move this thread forward working with those who are on the same wave length.....

 

Just to explain further, ....there will be no one on our wave length that should be concerned with 'binding authority in relation to residential mortgages' .....We can rely wholly on Statutory provision....the case law that we have submitted and reliance on Halsbury's Law is/are good authority to get the ball rolling.........

 

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Others have already rebutted your case law suggestions, and none of what I saw was specific to residential mortgages - hence me asking. I find it all incredibly fascinating.

 

Also, should you not succeed - would you be happy to cover any costs that there folks you are helping may incurr?

 

For the record, I hope your ideas *do* succeed. I just cannot personally see a court agreeing with you, but I'm no expert. I just cannot understand why this hasn't been attempted historically. Afterall, look how many residential mortgages there are.

 

....there will be no one on our wave length that should be concerned with 'binding authority in relation to residential mortgages'

 

Perhaps they should be. Just my 2c though

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[applecart]

Good to see you posting again apple, the thread just wasn't the same without you. Hopefully there will be more good news as this campaign progresses.

 

Cheers ; )

 

We still have loads to do ....

 

Apple

[GiveHimaMask]

Apple,

 

Me to, welcome back, now there is a sense of balance restored to the thread.

 

Onward and Upward

 

GiveHimaMask

[applecart]

Others have already rebutted your case law suggestions, and none of what I saw was specific to residential mortgages - hence me asking. I find it all incredibly fascinating.

 

Also, should you not succeed - would you be happy to cover any costs that there folks you are helping may incurr?

 

For the record, I hope your ideas *do* succeed. I just cannot personally see a court agreeing with you, but I'm no expert. I just cannot understand why this hasn't been attempted historically. Afterall, look how many residential mortgages there are.

 

 

 

Perhaps they should be. Just my 2c though

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

 

 

Thanks Sequenci...

 

We appreciate your points made and your good wishes. ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple,

 

Me to, welcome back, now there is a sense of balance restored to the thread.

 

Onward and Upward

 

GiveHimaMask

 

Thanks GiveHimaMask ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

In regard to my post #2655...... this is a significant issue......

 

Say you send off your application to the Chamber, the application includes the Lenders address as shown on the Official Copy of the 'mortgage' Deed.....

 

Your application is accepted by the Chamber......you are instructed to send the application on to the Lender for a response......

 

You wait and you wait for a response.......only to find your response comes back from the Post Office.....telling you that the Lender has 'gone away'.........

 

This means that the Lender is not aware that you have made an application to the Chamber..... Neither you Nor HMLR are obliged to track down the Lender or his whereabouts.......

 

I can see a situation where the Chamber will have no choice but to find against the Lender where so ever the Lender fails to 'respond' to an application made to an address held on the public record at HMLR.....and his only defence is that he has 'gone away'.....

 

Apple

[p.j]

In regard to my post #2655...... this is a significant issue......

 

Say you send off your application to the Chamber, the application includes the Lenders address as shown on the Official Copy of the 'mortgage' Deed.....

 

 

 

Your application is accepted by the Chamber......you are instructed to send the application on to the Lender for a response......

 

You wait and you wait for a response.......only to find your response comes back from the Post Office.....telling you that the Lender has 'gone away'.........

 

This means that the Lender is not aware that you have made an application to the Chamber..... Neither you Nor HMLR are obliged to track down the Lender or his whereabouts.......

 

I can see a situation where the Chamber will have no choice but to find against the Lender where so ever the Lender fails to 'respond' to an application made to an address held on the public record at HMLR.....and his only defence is that he has 'gone away'.....

 

Apple

 

I think you maybe right apple i did look on the post office website and it says delivered to both addresses i sent the chamber application to the lender but can't see no signature?

 

i do know preferred have have two addresses one in london which they have no offices its just a registered address the one at high wycombe is both preferred and acendens plus acenden use a po box which i have been told to send payments to which is suspicious why didn't they give me a proper address?

 

the po box is also the address they gave to court?

[UNRAM]

Thank you Sequenci.

 

I mean you no offence, but I'm looking to move this thread forward working with those who are on the same wave length.....

 

Just to explain further, ....there will be no one on our wave length that should be concerned with 'binding authority in relation to residential mortgages' .....We can rely wholly on Statutory provision....the case law that we have submitted and reliance on Halsbury's Law is/are good authority to get the ball rolling.........

 

Apple

Apple,

With all due respect to Sequenci if (s)he has not read the thread content and the supporting statutory references then I don't think at this stage anyone should be trying to convince anyone of the "proof" for fear of going round in circles. This is not a one line answer... To avoid clogging the thread (as I have done in the past with my questions questions questions) is it best to avoid repeating the evidence and refer to historical information in the thread?

[sequenci]

I've read the majority of the thread, my questions remain unanswered. I'm pretty up-to-speed with land law and mortgages given that I do a fair amount of work with mortgages for a living. I'm pretty well versed with the various pieces of statute - I use some of it in work and some I remember well from my days of studying Land Law. I think it's important for anyone to remain objective when dealing with any situation, which many people on this thread seem to have an absolute inability to do. Think, for a minute, about outcomes. What outcome do you realistically think the courts will make? Do you think they are likely to render the majority of modern mortgage contracts potentially void? It is my personal opinion that they are unlikely to do that - and that they'll be able to look to ways, potentially via equity, to overcome some of the issues that have been raised. Which is why I always look to historicial dealings to try and ascertain what a probable outcome might be. I'm not skilled enough in this particular area to add much weight behind an opinion, though - I'm happy to consider the opions of those who work closer to the key issues at hand - such as Leah. I guess what I'm getting at is that all arguments need to be considered holistically and objectively. Hope that makes sense!

[marika41]

Hi Marika...no, not you....don't think that for a moment.....ok?

 

I am of the opinion that you are on our wavelength......We are here to assist those who are ; )

 

Did you manage to get your DEFENCE sent off to the local county court in time?

 

Apple

 

Oh thank goodness for that I have been very worried, I have intil next tuesday for my defence, it will now be going in this thursday or friday for definite

[applecart]

I think you maybe right apple i did look on the post office website and it says delivered to both addresses i sent the chamber application to the lender but can't see no signature?

 

i do know preferred have have two addresses one in london which they have no offices its just a registered address the one at high wycombe is both preferred and acendens plus acenden use a po box which i have been told to send payments to which is suspicious why didn't they give me a proper address?

 

the po box is also the address they gave to court?

 

According to FCA http://www.... Preferred Mortgages Limited do not have an Approved Representative.....see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmAppRepsCurr.do?sid=112446

 

Yet...complaints are to be made to a chap going by the name of 'Brent Jackson'......who works for Accenden.....please see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmContact.do?sid=112446

 

Yet...on an 'individual search'.....Brent Jackson is 'in-active'.......please see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/indivBasicDetails.do?sid=285669

 

Accenden are showing to be 'authorised' by the FCA - yet they do not have any permission to hold client money??.... see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?sid=157897

 

Yet......Accenden have No Principal.... i.e.....they are not working on behalf of Preferred.....as an approved representative....

 

I have a suspicion that Accenden have acquired FSA regulation to provide that they act on behalf of Eurosail......even though the mortgages were originated by say 'preferred'....'SPML' and the like......

 

That seems a bit odd to me......

 

Accenden did not originate any of the mortgages that it has managed to achieve regulatory status to administer......there is nothing to show that they are working as an approved representative of the Principal Mortgage Lender ......ummmmm???

 

Accenden are not named on any deed other than as an address for notices to be served.........ummmmm??

 

I think that seems odd.....what are your thoughts P.J?

 

I can't say I fully understand all that the FCA stands for ..... However.....it is odd....that a company that is not named as the beneficiary to the deed is enforcing it in a court of Law...

 

If Accenden were the Approved Representative for Preferred.... then the fact that they are found to be administering the loans would make a lot more sense....

 

If Accenden were named in the application as the owner of the loan...then it would make a lot of sense to see them as acting as an 'Approved Representative' (possibly) responding to the application made to the Chamber.....

 

I need to give this some more thought of course....but.... on the service..... it is not adding up at all...... no, not at all....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple,

With all due respect to Sequenci if (s)he has not read the thread content and the supporting statutory references then I don't think at this stage anyone should be trying to convince anyone of the "proof" for fear of going round in circles. This is not a one line answer... To avoid clogging the thread (as I have done in the past with my questions questions questions) is it best to avoid repeating the evidence and refer to historical information in the thread?

 

Hi UNRAM

 

There will be alternative views, we respect them as much as we hope they will respect ours.....we simply agree to differ at this point.....without looking to cause any offence or invoke any offence as we move this matter forward.. ; )

 

Hopefully, this approach will avoid any CaG feeling the need to go back and forth over issues raised and addressed in full previously.

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Hi every one, fisrtlt let me welcome apple back and I am sure that the lenders have now said ' oh god' that did not work.

 

But I will not be able to post for awhile as my father-in-law died last night and I have to go to Devon.

But will try and keep in touch.

Sequenci,

Thank you for your comments but as you say you do not know this field nor have any knowledge of it in this area and believe me I have considered what will happen and what the courts could do, which by there actions so far is not a lot.

I do believe that my questions to IMS21 with regard to Andrew1 post is correct has not been asked.

 

I would like to see this though to the end one way or the other win or lose Both sides have a lot to lose may be some one should be saying that to the lenders??

 

So every one stay d and keep going.

[MUTT1]

Hi sequenci,

 

You say that you are familiar with mortgage contracts, if this is the case then perhaps you could advise as to what constitutes a mortgage contract in my particular case.

 

I have been to court several times defending repossession claims by a number of different lenders, the basis of the claim has always been that I have failed to maintain (or make) my contractual monthly payment. As such, there are now arrears on the account to such an extent that outright possession is now sought.

 

So, contractual monthly payment however, do I have a contract? I have several documents (mortgage application, re-mortgage declaration, mortgage confirmation form and finally the now famous mortgage deed) all signed by me and yet nothing by the lender.

 

I may be stupid but I would have thought that if there was to be any contract or agreement, then surely there would be a document signed by both parties confirming that, yes indeed, a contract/agreement with terms and conditions applicable to the contract/agreement existed.

 

What, in the documents that I have highlighted above, would constitute a legal contract or agreement?

[p.j]

According to FCA http://www.... Preferred Mortgages Limited do not have an Approved Representative.....see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmAppRepsCurr.do?sid=112446

 

Yet...complaints are to be made to a chap going by the name of 'Brent Jackson'......who works for Accenden.....please see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmContact.do?sid=112446

 

Yet...on an 'individual search'.....Brent Jackson is 'in-active'.......please see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/indivBasicDetails.do?sid=285669

 

Accenden are showing to be 'authorised' by the FCA - yet they do not have any permission to hold client money??.... see here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?sid=157897

 

Yet......Accenden have No Principal.... i.e.....they are not working on behalf of Preferred.....as an approved representative....

 

I have a suspicion that Accenden have acquired FSA regulation to provide that they act on behalf of Eurosail......even though the mortgages were originated by say 'preferred'....'SPML' and the like......

 

That seems a bit odd to me......

 

Accenden did not originate any of the mortgages that it has managed to achieve regulatory status to administer......there is nothing to show that they are working as an approved representative of the Principal Mortgage Lender ......ummmmm???

 

Accenden are not named on any deed other than as an address for notices to be served.........ummmmm??

 

I think that seems odd.....what are your thoughts P.J?

 

I can't say I fully understand all that the FCA stands for ..... However.....it is odd....that a company that is not named as the beneficiary to the deed is enforcing it in a court of Law...

 

If Accenden were the Approved Representative for Preferred.... then the fact that they are found to be administering the loans would make a lot more sense....

 

If Accenden were named in the application as the owner of the loan...then it would make a lot of sense to see them as acting as an 'Approved Representative' (possibly) responding to the application made to the Chamber.....

 

I need to give this some more thought of course....but.... on the service..... it is not adding up at all...... no, not at all....

 

Apple

 

humm that is very odd so who was the agent acting on behalf of then this is strange indeed i did raise this question with the district judge this is when he asked the the agent who i have to make payments too? I have had a reply from court it says to pay acenden ltd po box high wycombe heard absolutely nothing from preferred/acenden or LTL with any bank details or setup any standing order nothing they are usually on the ball with letters..looking at those links it doesn't add up at all Apple...

 

pj

[sequenci]

What, in the documents that I have highlighted above, would constitute a legal contract or agreement?

 

Hi there,

 

Just so I've got it clear (sorry to ask!). Did you not get a copy of the document showing all the general contractual terms including the amount borrowed, interest rate and monthly contractual instalment? That's pretty incredible if you've not.

[sequenci]

Sequenci,

Thank you for your comments but as you say you do not know this field nor have any knowledge of it in this area and believe me I have considered what will happen and what the courts could do, which by there actions so far is not a lot.

What legal qualifications/experience do you have, if you don't mind me asking?

I do believe that my questions to IMS21 with regard to Andrew1 post is correct has not been asked.

Have you e-mailed him?

I would like to see this though to the end one way or the other win or lose Both sides have a lot to lose may be some one should be saying that to the lenders??

I don't really care about the lenders to be honest. I care about Caggers. I want to see a resolution too!

 

Incredibly sorry to learn of your loss. My thoughts are with you and your family.