Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Who knows it is guidance not statute, they may be referring to the contract rather than the deed,(as per Lamb) or they may just have got it wrong. Who knows.

 

I have had several mortgages and the deed has never been signed by the lender, in fact looking at my deed there is not even any space for a lenders signature.

 

In a contractual sense, lenders signatures do not generally have to be there in order for the agreement to be properly executed, if there is consideration.

 

I hear you when you speak about 'guidance' rather than 'statute'.....however, that 'guidance' was definitiely to do with the Deed - Look here - this is what the CML 'guide' says:

 

"If your conveyancer is also acting for your lender, they will check that the lender's requirements are met and your lender may instruct the conveyancer to prepare the mortgage deed. This is the legal contract between you and the lender. Your conveyancer will explain the terms of the mortgage deed to you, and then have them signed by you and the lender. "

 

CML then guides in relation to the sale and purchase:

 

"Once the conveyancing work has been completed, you and the seller need to sign the contract your conveyancers have agreed that sets out the terms of the sale. The conveyancers will then exchange contracts and at this point both you and the seller are legally committed to the deal. At this point, you will need to pay a deposit of about 10% of the purchase price. Also, you become responsible for putting right any loss of or damage to the property (unless the contract says otherwise). Your conveyancer will advise on how and when this should be arranged and be put into effect."

 

Correct me if I am wrong....but - it would appear that the 'contract' (simple contract) is between the Buyer and the Seller??......Is that the one section 2 LPMPA speaks of perhaps....the one that Helden, Eagle Star etc is on about??

 

They then advise where 're-mortgages are concerned:

 

"Sometimes it is possible to use title insurance as a way to streamline some of the conveyancing. Title insurance can sometimes be used to complement or replace some elements of the legal work by insuring against the risk of problems arising in the future. It is more commonly used on remortgage cases than on mortgages to buy a property, but it may be useful if problems are identified during the conveyancing process."

 

So, there is a Deed - which must be signed by the Lender and Borrower

 

A Contract that must be signed by the Buyer and Seller - if it is a house purchase

 

And....title insurance.....linked with the Deed...if one is re-mortgaging and no mention of a separate contract.......

 

This is what the CML guides about 'completion':

 

"You become the legal owner of the property on an agreed date (known as the "completion" date) after exchange of contracts. This is when the price you are paying for the property is transferred from your mortgage lender to the seller. The conveyancer is responsible for checking that the funds have been received before allowing the keys to be released to the new owner. Often, in practice, it will be the estate agent who hands over the keys".

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Yes, creditors do pursue debts without the written documentation being present, and courts do enforce on balance of probability that an agreement must have been made.

They do not like debtors being unjustly enriched, and then there is the lenders human rights as in Wilson at the lords, peaceful enjoyment and all that.

 

Problem is - property transactions are different; a Deed is not a simple contract.....the issue is not between the 'seller and the buyer'......the issue is between the Lender and the Borrower....for that there must be a Valid Deed (LPA s.52(1)).......

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Who knows it is guidance not statute, they may be referring to the contract rather than the deed,(as per Lamb) or they may just have got it wrong. Who knows.

 

I have had several mortgages and the deed has never been signed by the lender, in fact looking at my deed there is not even any space for a lenders signature.

 

In a contractual sense, lenders signatures do not generally have to be there in order for the agreement to be properly executed, if there is consideration.

 

Hi Dodgeball, Are you saying it is your opinion that a trade association for the mortgage lending industry, with over 95% of the UK residential mortgage lenders signed up to it have not based their finding that both parties need to sign the deed, on Statute? BP

[applecart]

Thought I'd just quickly revisit the lamb case - if the CML guide this:

 

"If your conveyancer is also acting for your lender, they will check that the lender's requirements are met and your lender may instruct the conveyancer to prepare the mortgage deed. This is the legal contract between you and the lender. Your conveyancer will explain the terms of the mortgage deed to you, and then have them signed by you and the lender. "

 

and the statute says this:

 

LPMPA 1989 s.2:

 

(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.

 

(3)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 then the LPMPA 1989 at section 4:

 

(4)Where a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land satisfies the conditions of this section by reason only of the rectification of one or more documents in pursuance of an order of a court, the contract shall come into being, or be deemed to have come into being, at such time as may be specified in the order.

 

(6)In this section—

 

“disposition” has the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925;

“interest in land” means any estate, interest or charge in or over land [F2or in or over the proceeds of sale of land].

 

LPA 1925 definition of 'disposition' is:

 

“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;

 

LPA 1925 definition of conveyance is:

 

“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;

 

so, how does s.53 have anything to do with the 'terms and conditions' never mind the Deed??

 

Why, or how did the Courts miss the highlighted sections in the lamb case - Helden - Eagle Star etc.....

 

It does appear that section 2 can apply to the 'document' that contains the 'terms and conditions'.......?? Not sure if 'lamb' picked up on that point??......perhaps the lambs should have put forth the 'terms and conditions' to show that this was the document that should have been signed by the Lender and themselves ........Not the Deed......(for reliance on S.2)..... the Deed relies on other statute of course for its validity.

 

Could that be the 'error' of LAW worth taking to 'appeal'???

 

I think lamb did proceed on section 2 and section 27 (f) surely the courts could or should re-consider the decision???

 

NOT THAT WE RELY ON S. 2 of course......but, for those that have.....the highlighted sections do appear to make sense in relation to the 'terms and conditions'...... which invariably are not attached to the official copy held at HMLR BTW (the 'IT' as referred to by Ann McAllister in the garguillo case- just my thoughts)

 

Apple

 

p.s - wonder if Enforcer is still around - this titbit may help him in his appeal??

[applecart]

Hi Dodgeball, Are you saying it is your opinion that a trade association for the mortgage lending industry, with over 95% of the UK residential mortgage lenders signed up to it have not based their finding that both parties need to sign the deed, on Statute? BP

 

Good Point. The guidance must have relied on statute......they cannot 'guide' without it ; )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

In short, His Honour Judge Butler's reasoning was that mortgages are not within the scope of section 2 LP(MP)A at all. That section is concerned with contracts for the creation of a disposition in land, whereas a mortgage is itself actually a disposition in land [2]. The relevant statutory provision for a mortgage, being section 53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA), does not require every term to be included in a document signed by both parties, rather the document just needs to be signed by "the person creating or disposing of the interest" (i.e. the mortgagor/borrower). The judge also explained that section 27 LRA does not go so far as to say that a disposition required to be completed by registration (such as a mortgage) is created by registration and that it does not therefore exist or operate in equity before registration [3].

 

Statute

[fletch70]

Don't stress Ben......Caro has assured me that Dodgeball and Bhall are separate people ; )

 

Apple

 

But how do you know that Caro isn't Ben ?

 

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean hey aren't all out to get you

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball, Are you saying it is your opinion that a trade association for the mortgage lending industry, with over 95% of the UK residential mortgage lenders signed up to it have not based their finding that both parties need to sign the deed, on Statute? BP

 

No I am saying that the above court ruling and statute is.

[Peterbard]

Thought I'd just quickly revisit the lamb case - if the CML guide this:

 

"If your conveyancer is also acting for your lender, they will check that the lender's requirements are met and your lender may instruct the conveyancer to prepare the mortgage deed. This is the legal contract between you and the lender. Your conveyancer will explain the terms of the mortgage deed to you, and then have them signed by you and the lender. "

 

and the statute says this:

 

LPMPA 1989 s.2:

 

(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.

 

(3)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 then the LPMPA 1989 at section 4:

 

(4)Where a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land satisfies the conditions of this section by reason only of the rectification of one or more documents in pursuance of an order of a court, the contract shall come into being, or be deemed to have come into being, at such time as may be specified in the order.

 

(6)In this section—

 

“disposition” has the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925;

“interest in land” means any estate, interest or charge in or over land [F2or in or over the proceeds of sale of land].

 

LPA 1925 definition of 'disposition' is:

 

“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;

 

LPA 1925 definition of conveyance is:

 

“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;

 

so, how does s.53 have anything to do with the 'terms and conditions' never mind the Deed??

 

Why, or how did the Courts miss the highlighted sections in the lamb case - Helden - Eagle Star etc.....

 

It does appear that section 2 can apply to the 'document' that contains the 'terms and conditions'.......?? Not sure if 'lamb' picked up on that point??......perhaps the lambs should have put forth the 'terms and conditions' to show that this was the document that should have been signed by the Lender and themselves ........Not the Deed......(for reliance on S.2)..... the Deed relies on other statute of course for its validity.

 

Could that be the 'error' of LAW worth taking to 'appeal'???

 

I think lamb did proceed on section 2 and section 27 (f) surely the courts could or should re-consider the decision???

 

NOT THAT WE RELY ON S. 2 of course......but, for those that have.....the highlighted sections do appear to make sense in relation to the 'terms and conditions'...... which invariably are not attached to the official copy held at HMLR BTW (the 'IT' as referred to by Ann McAllister in the garguillo case- just my thoughts)

 

Apple

 

p.s - wonder if Enforcer is still around - this titbit may help him in his appeal??

 

There is no error here Apple, accept for yours of course

[applecart]

There is no error here Apple, accept for yours of course

 

Sorry Dodgeball

 

Please explain where the error is.....I'm happy to amend where necessary

 

Apple

[fletch70]

Just finally caught up

 

As far as I am aware of course there can be guidance withaout statute. I am looking at it from a consumer credit point of view but...OFT guidance on debt collection, S77-79 etc are just that. Guidance . ACAS code of conduct and guidance is not enshrined in law

 

Apple btw what were you on about MBE's etc . For the record the queen does not write to you asking you if you would accept an MBE

 

You keep going on about Ben having inside knowledge but when a poster says a claim has been struck out and then a FOI requests comes back that 1 has been struck out even a simpleton can put the two together

[applecart]

Crikey, the cavalry is out ; )

 

At the end of the day.....this thread is not about any other than the OP's application being made to the Chamber.

 

The OP is 100% happy so far......

 

That's where it is at.....all this latent banter makes no difference to the application.....the application is in full swing.....nothing said now will change it.

 

It is on point.......the OP's friend had no statutory power to grant a 'mortgage'

 

The OP's friend is not bound to a deed that has not been 'assumed' (executed) by the Lender.

 

The Lender had no business selling off a mortgage or debt to an SPV.....

 

For that....the Lender will pay the price....he's charge will be altered/removed.....of that - there should be no doubt ; )

 

If the Lender cannot come up with a reason why his charge should be allowed to stay within 28 days.......it will be removed....end of really : )

 

 

 

Apple

 

Hi Fletch70

 

See the above........that's where we are at right now.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi All

 

Just to ensure we remember the focus - Above is one of my previous posts. The link source to the case referred to is here:

 

http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news/difficultiesincreaseforlenderstoobtainpossessionorders.html

 

Apple

 

Hi Fletch70

 

I followed on with the above......

 

Apple

[bhall]

Crikey !

 

Looks like someone has been busy posting to bury their mistakes of yesterday (well this morning)

[applecart]

For anyone who is unsure how we got to where we are ....... see the above post......we had no choice but to flog the 'horse' in the above manner in order to get where we are today ; )

 

Apple

 

Then - the above - Just to assist keep posters focused : )

 

Hope this helps you?

 

Apple

[fletch70]

Is that another tactic to refuse to answer a question.

Unlike some I need sleep so have just caught up. I am sorry if I am not allowed to make comment on things that happened while I was asleep. Bad Fletch !

[bhall]

Is that another tactic to refuse to answer a question.

Unlike some I need sleep so have just caught up. I am sorry if I am not allowed to make comment on things that happened while I was asleep. Bad Fletch !

 

You have to remember rule 1

 

If it shows the fanciful ideas are wrong - sweep it under the carpet

[fletch70]

It seems to me as well that the statement that" if they can not come up with a reason in 28 days " is a huge assumption and has nothing to back it up

[applecart]

Crikey !

 

Looks like someone has been busy posting to bury their mistakes of yesterday (well this morning)

 

Just thought it best to get back on point really ; )

 

Do you take issue with that at all?

 

Apple

[bhall]

Just thought it best to get back on point really ; )

 

Do you take issue with that at all?

 

Apple

 

I take issue with the fact that you deny the obvious and even fail to understand something simple like the meaning of the word "or" - Sorry to dig that back up as you worked so hard to bury it

[applecart]

Is that another tactic to refuse to answer a question.

Unlike some I need sleep so have just caught up. I am sorry if I am not allowed to make comment on things that happened while I was asleep. Bad Fletch !

 

No Fletch70 - your not 'bad' at all - don't take on so.

 

Any comments on the Deed issue - No??

 

Any comments on the mortgage issue - No?

 

Any comments other than who Ben is - No??

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

I take issue with the fact that you deny the obvious and even fail to understand something simple like the meaning of the word "or" - Sorry to dig that back up as you worked so hard to bury it

 

Put in the bear garden thread - I'll see if I can find time to respond to you there ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

This post

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4466604&viewfull=1#post4466604

 

Shows that you will twist things at will and will never accept you are wrong even when it is undeniable.

 

Apple just being Apple

[applecart]

It seems to me as well that the statement that" if they can not come up with a reason in 28 days " is a huge assumption and has nothing to back it up

 

We are waiting for the OP to come off moderation - plus I posted the Tribunal Rules - if the page was not the one - then read the Rules through - the CaG is self help ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

This post

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4466604&viewfull=1#post4466604

 

Shows that you will twist things at will and will never accept you are wrong even when it is undeniable.

 

Apple just being Apple

 

Bear garden stuff Ben.

 

Start a new thread ; )

 

Apple