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

Hi Apple,

testing one two three yes got it lol

'What are your thoughts on 'petitions'? well I think no feel that there is some ground in this as by the count here some 90,000 views and that there are many many people who are fighting for there homes here.

And what are the government doing, nothing because if they did then they would not have a nice little directorship to go to when they are no longer an MP.

So its up to the little ordinary man on the street you and me to do some thing about it so petitions yes. A BIG YES to let the rest know what is going on.

 

Hi IS IT ME

 

A petition is the way forward your right..

 

speak soon its been a while..

 

pj.

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Mutti

 

There is no doubt that a lender must execute the deed regardless of whether he intends to make further advances or not.....of that there is no issue....

 

However, there is legislation that says that if the Lender wishes or intends to make further advances (offer more money to the borrower during the term of the loan) then in order to keep his 'priority' on the title register...ahead of other potential lenders that the borrower has the right to approach for further borrowings.... then the lenders intent to do so must be stated on the title register....

 

LRR 2003 provides that when a lender expresses an intent to make further advances - then HMLR MUST note the lenders intent on the title.....you can gauge that back in the 90's......there was no issue.... HMLR were noting the titles......however...in recent times; they appear to have relied on the 'approved form of charge'...as the 'answer' and 'remedy' to all things securing any lender or borrower obligations......

 

The 'further advances' are intended to be made to the borrower...not to anyone else.

 

It is the Borrowers title....not anyone else's.

 

I won't quote chapter and verse.....because the info is already on this thread.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

 

Ah ha, thanks apple, I think the penny has dropped (It takes a while!)

 

On my 1989 Title deed, where it says "This Mortgage is made for securing further advances" (and is unsigned by the bank), this has only been included to secure any further advances provided by the mortgaging bank before any other 2nd or subsequent charges, irrespective of whether there are 2nd charges throughout the term?

 

So, If I had a mtg in 1989, took a loan from another lender in 2006 who registered a 2nd charge, but the mortgaging bank provided a further advance in 2007, then that 2007 loan would still be secured by the 1st charge and took precedence when the mortgage was redeemed in say 2009 over any 2nd or subsequent charges....?

 

And that's why it's been included on the Title deed.

 

And you (or Ben maybe) are saying it (The title deed) doesn't need to be signed?

 

Have I got that right?

 

 

I haven't yet got a copy of the Official copy of the Register from the LR, but the one I do have says nothing about Further Advances on it, just the bank name and address as 1st charge and the 2nd charge loan - would that be right too?

A1

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

For mortgage deeds executed by a borrower after LRA 2002 -

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/49

 

49 Tacking and further advances

 

(1)The proprietor of a registered charge may make a further advance on the security of the charge ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if he has not received from the subsequent chargee notice of the creation of the subsequent charge.

(2)Notice given for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be treated as received at the time when, in accordance with rules, it ought to have been received.

(3)The proprietor of a registered charge may also make a further advance on the security of the charge ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if—

(a)the advance is made in pursuance of an obligation, and

(b)at the time of the creation of the subsequent charge the obligation was entered in the register in accordance with rules.

(4)The proprietor of a registered charge may also make a further advance on the security of the charge ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if—

(a)the parties to the prior charge have agreed a maximum amount for which the charge is security, and

(b)at the time of the creation of the subsequent charge the agreement was entered in the register in accordance with rules.

(5)Rules may—

(a)disapply subsection (4) in relation to charges of a description specified in the rules, or

(b)provide for the application of that subsection to be subject, in the case of charges of a description so specified, to compliance with such conditions as may be so specified.

(6)Except as provided by this section, tacking in relation to a charge over registered land is only possible with the agreement of the subsequent chargee.

 

49(3)(a) - if a mortgage deed states that there is an obligation to provide a further advance.

 

If a mortgage deed only states that it secures further advances, that is not an obligation.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello IS IT ME?

 

I am very impressed by your thread and I got here because of p.j and his recent posting on my thread (No reference made to this thread - just a good sound sensible cagger).

 

I do have some experiance as a lay person in dealings with LRA and LPA Act 1925 and I would like to know at what stage you are at in this on going saga .....

 

HOWEVER>>>>>>>>>>..

 

We do have a wee problem and that is I do not have the time to read and sort over 2,800 posts within your mammoth response of 140 Pages !

 

THEREFORE, IS IT POSSIBLE >>>>>>>>>>>

 

For you to put together a precis on your current situation in a posting that is linked to a page that holds the posting. :-)

 

Here is what I mean - BELOW IS THE LINK TO THIS PAGE WHICH IS PART OF YOUR SIGNATURE ?! :-):-)

 

I am ALMOST 100 % CERTAIN it would help you and other members wishing to help you:-

 

NNWW - Keep up the good work and keep smiling away :-):-)

 

PS- Just seen the next posting from bhall - seems you are in good safe hands - Brilliant stuff - No need to respond to me IS IT ME :-) :-)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed/page140

Edited by citizenB

WANT TO GIVE YOURSELF A REAL CHANCE OF ACHIEVING THE RIGHT RESULT WHEN MAKING COMPLAINTS? OR GIVNG CONTRACTURAL INSTRUCTIONS ? OVER THE TELEPHONE ? THEN RECORD THOSE CALLS FROM TODAY !! FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED !!:-):-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

In UNRAM's response from the Property Chamber it gave him a date of (I think, as I can't find the post at the moment) of 7 November to make a submission. If you can contact UNRAM it might be helpful to him if you share with him the 'great news' that will stop the lenders dead in their tracks before it goes to the property chamber.

 

As he has already been informed he will incur costs, your 'great news' might resolve the costs issue for him too.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found UNRAM's post

 

I have received notice from the Property Chamber my application is going forward and I have been ORDERED to send a copy of the application and all supporting documentation to the lender. The lender is ORDERED to respond within one calendar month. I will scan the documents if there is some way of getting them to you.

 

They have indicated that there is going to be a group tribunal in London in November or December.

 

This is exact wording of the reply...

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

UNIRAM,

 

Your post I shall answer,

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

 

I shall take it up with the chamber as to why the 'internet' is such a bad place?

An Oral hearing is to take place can any one tell me what I am going to say? no so for the likes of silly Ben to say its all bad is just what he wants and his lender friends

As for costs THEY HAVE GOT TO WIN FIRST BEN AND THEY ARE FAR FROM THAT LOL AS WHY ARE YOU AND THEM SO WORRIED!

Er the tribunal has the power to change the register

As you are putting in your application by the 7th SUBJECT TO ANY REPRESENTATIONS er I think that it means it could or it could not.

 

All I will say for all of those watching this thread I am more than ever looking forward to this hearing and the last couple of days have shown me what some people will do to put others of for there owns means.

This thread is 1000 and 1 % correct I know it the lenders know it that's why all their responses so far have been as they are and they have a top ' legal team looking into it' as OL their legal people did not want to take it on.

So bring it on

Link to post
Share on other sites

bhall,

As I have said I have no wish to reply to your postings so I will not, just to say your a waste of time so go and complain to the site team like you always do.

 

I am not asking you to reply to me.

 

I was suggesting given that UNRAM has only a few more days, that you help him, as you have 'great news' to stop the lenders dead in their tracks before it gets to the property chamber.

 

The information that you have might also help with his argument with his lender about the costs that they have told him, he will have to pay.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ha, thanks apple, I think the penny has dropped (It takes a while!)

 

On my 1989 Title deed, where it says "This Mortgage is made for securing further advances" (and is unsigned by the bank), this has only been included to secure any further advances provided by the mortgaging bank before any other 2nd or subsequent charges, irrespective of whether there are 2nd charges throughout the term?

 

So, If I had a mtg in 1989, took a loan from another lender in 2006 who registered a 2nd charge, but the mortgaging bank provided a further advance in 2007, then that 2007 loan would still be secured by the 1st charge and took precedence when the mortgage was redeemed in say 2009 over any 2nd or subsequent charges....?

 

And that's why it's been included on the Title deed.

 

Any you're (or Ben maybe) are saying it (The title deed) doesn't need to be signed?

 

Have I got that right?

 

 

I haven't yet got a copy of the Official copy of the Register from the LR, but the one I do have says nothing about Further Advances on it, just the bank name and address as 1st charge and the 2nd charge loan - would that be right too?

A1

 

This thread as you know asserts that the Deed must be executed by the Lender regardless as to whether the 'deed' looks to secure further advances or not......such reliance is enshrined in statute...so, for that ...there is no issue....

 

Ben, kindly provided for us the understanding that when a 'further advance' is expressed as party to the 'deed' that the Lender must execute the 'deed'...albeit latterly, (as expected) there are attempts made to muddy his initial submission..... we do not worry about this 'attempt' for there is statute to show that whatever or however anyone may try to make out that there is no need for a lender to execute the deed..... it would be tantamount to an attempt only to circumvent the law....clearly.....that will/should not be allowed to happen ; )

 

I'm pleased that the 'penny' has 'dropped' for you.......it will assist you make more sense of all things 'mortgage' .... as it does for me and many others ; )

 

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

If you think for one moment I am going to give YOU any information so you can pass it onto your bosses you are more silly than I thought.

 

As I said 'THEY HAVE TO WIN WIN THERE CASE BEFORE ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL CAN GRANT COSTS.

 

WELL SAID...... your focus is brilliant...... ; )

 

Just need to get other borrowers to where we are.......

 

I realise just as you have.....propositions are being posted...they are looking for 'loopholes'..... regrettably...there are none...

 

The DEED IS VOID......There is no reliance on 'specific performance' either....so.....NO DEFENCE!

 

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 Is It Me, P.J... others....

 

What are your thoughts on 'e-petitions'?

 

I think they are fast...to the point...... and delivered direct to parliament.....any thoughts??

 

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 Is It Me, P.J... others....

 

What are your thoughts on 'e-petitions'?

 

I think they are fast...to the point...... and delivered direct to parliament.....any thoughts??

 

 

 

Apple

 

 

Hi Apple

 

I say lets get it sorted ASAP as 92000+ views on this thread shows the word is spreading fast some media exposure would certainly help in bringing the sub prime lenders to TASK..what should of happened along time ago.if it wasn't for is it me starting this thread and Apple pointing and assisting in what as to be done they would still be getting away with their underhanded tactics to repo your home.

 

 

pj.

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to information on 'e-petitions'....

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

 

Give it some thought.... lets' discuss whether this additional 'action' will assist us - right now - at this point??

 

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 rember it was Tony Bair who was going to take action against the sub prime lenders before he was prime minster but as I said they do nothing because were do they end up???

 

Yes, it was during the Labour governments term that the RRO came into existence....Lord Irvin was 'labour'.......a close associate of Tony Blair......

 

The issue of course was .....even though Lord Irvin brought the RRO into force.....it appears to be have totally ignored....swept under the carpet.....to the detriment of consumers....alongwith the LRA 1925 section 25 by the way.....ummmm??

 

I think an e-petition may assist the current government re-call that both the LRA 1925 s.25 and the RRO are in force??

 

Thoughts??

 

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

bhall,

As I have said I have no wish to reply to your postings so I will not, just to say your a waste of time so go and complain to the site team like you always do.

 

Hello Isitme.

 

If you don't want to read what bhall says, you could just put him/her on your ignore list.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if you consider posts such as the below to be a waste.

 

Think of it as an opportunity to consider a potential argument before the hearing is heard.

 

 

Now turning the thread back to its actual topic

 

 

1.Can we all agree that the core issue, is that this thread asserts that the RRO 2005 amended section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989, to change the law, making it a requirement that a lender must sign the deed ?

 

If the answer is yes, please go on to 2, if no, please explain.

 

2. Can we all agree that the RRO 2005 made the following amendments / changes to section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(2)(b) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(3)

s. 1(2A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 8

s. 1(3)(b) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

s. 1(4) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 1 para. 14

s. 1(4A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(4)

s. 1(5) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 9 Sch. 2

s. 1(6) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

s. 1(6) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 1 para. 15

 

If the answer is yes, please move onto 3, if no, please explain.

 

3. On the basis that the answer to question 2 was yes, the RRO 2005 made the following changes to

 

Section 1(2) of the LRA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(2)(b) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(3)

s. 1(2A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 8

 

Can we all agree that section 1(2) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was amended from as originally enacted

 

(2)An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

 

(a)it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b)it is validly executed as a deed by

that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

 

To

 

(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless:

 

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

If the answer is yes, please go on to 4, if no, please explain.

 

4. On the basis that the answer to question 2 was yes, can we agree that the RRO 2005 made the following change to

 

Section 1(3) of the LRA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(3)(b) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

 

Can we all agree that section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was amended from as originally enacted

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—

 

(a)it is signed—

 

(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

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

 

To

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

If the answer is yes, please move onto 5, if the answer is no, please explain.

 

5. If the answer to 4 is yes, we agree that the only change made by the RRO 2005 to section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was the repeal of the words "by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf"

 

After 130 pages and over 2,500, this thread really only comes down to one thing.

 

Does the repeal of the words "by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf", change the Law from that established in Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd V Green [2001] that a mortgage deed does not have to be signed by the lender to be both valid and enforceable - To the assertions made in this thread that a mortgage deed that has not been signed by the lender is void and unenforceable.

 

Unfortunately in the explanatory notes for the RRO 2005 there is no explanation of why those 13 words were repealed or of what the effect of those words being repealed would be.

 

6. As amended section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

Can we agree that section (1)(3) confirms that for a deed to be validly executed as a deed it must be signed by that person in the presence of a witness that attests the signature (or at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature) and that it must be delivered.

 

If the answer is yes, please more onto 7, if no, please explain.

 

7. If the answer to 6 is yes, we agree that there are two requirements to be met for a deed to be validly executed by an individual.

 

A) It must be signed in one of the two way described.

B) It must be delivered.

 

Can we agree that if either of the above requirements are not met, the deed is not validly executed by an individual

 

If yes, please move onto 8, if no, please explain.

 

8. If the answer to 7 was yes, we agree that delivery forms part of the requirements for a deed to be validly executed by an individual.

 

If delivery forms part of the requirements for a deed to be validly executed by an individual - where within section (1) of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005 does it actually that delivery is subject to or even related to the execution of the deed by the Lender - Remember as amended it the LPA (MP) 1989 includes delivery as part of the execution by the borrower, not the lender.

 

Where within section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005 is there any added requirement that the deed must be executed or signed by both the borrower and the Lender

 

- Remember as per Eagle Star v Green before the RRO 2005 it was established that no such requirement existed.

 

If the RRO 2005 did not change the law in the way it has been suggested in this thread, the law as pre the RRO 2005 and after the ROO 2005 is the same as that established by Eagle Star v Green.

 

Disclaimer - As it has been argued that the RRO 2005 changed the law and made it a requirement that the Lender sign the deed - I have ignored for the purposes of discussion the changes made to the LPA (MP) 1989 by both the Companies Act 2006 and the Legal Services Act 2007.

 

Forewarned is forearmed.

Edited by bhall
  • Haha 1

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

@HB: I have sent you a PM, did you get them??

 

 

9 posts....and you have PM facility Chris0147........please expand....how did you manage that??

 

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...