Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

I have been presented with a mortgage deed where the broker who arranged the mortgage (and presumably was a paid commission by the lender) has also attested the deed.

 

Can a broker sign attest a mortgage deed? Isn't this equivalent to the lender attesting the deed? This doesn't sound legal... Advice and opinions appreciated.

[applecart]

Can you elaborate and explain it in terms to someone new to the subject. Are you suggesting that lenders sold the mortgages and then somehow conned bond holders into thinking they were buying them? How does this work?

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Have a look at: ‘Paratus AMC Ltd & Anor v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2011] EWHC 3307 (Ch). (14 December 2011) :

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/3307.html

 

see in particular paragraphs 12, & then; 59 to 62 “The consequence of securitisation”

 

It is a case where after having sold its mortgage portfolio stated at paragraph ‘12’ to say: ‘GMAC sold to RMAC the beneficial ownership of a package of mortgage loans and their related security; these included the loan to the Borrower and the mortgage over the Property’

 

Countrywide came up against the same issue as Borrowers, that’s to say, that the ‘legal’ estate operated at law by virtue of LRA section 51, 58.

 

I won’t go into why and how this is the outcome after the sale on this thread...(I have a thread dedicated to the subject on the forum already) but, have a quick look at the case it may assist to add further to your knowledge.

 

I hope this helps?

 

Apple

[applecart]

What does this mean please? What is the significance of the registration gap?

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Cor, you can’t half ask a lot of questions mate.... : )

 

The ‘registration gap’ is confirmed by the Law Commission in it’s report posted... that as soon as the deed is signed....it operates in ‘equity’ until it is registered...it is said that this period of time between the signing of the deed and the time that elapses in between prior to registration on the title is... the ‘registration gap’.....

 

Many of us, myself included; had been led to believe that the ‘registration gap’ had something to do with the fact that lenders do not ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ the sale of the mortgages by registering the SPV’s interest on the title register at HMLR.

 

We can safely say that the sale to the SPV does not operate in ‘equity’ at all...it is registered – there is no ‘registration gap’ in that regard...it is simply registered at Companies House instead of at HMLR.

 

Commercially, the SPV’s registered charge operates at Law...between you and the lender, it is said to be an ‘equitable’ transfer....and said not to affect the Lenders right to possession to your home....in the event that you default....when, in fact....it is the TDA (Trustee Delegation Act), the LP(MP)Act 1994 and the LPA 1925 section 1 (7) that work together to find that the registered title after the sale is to have no more effect than a defective title and stand to operate at law as no more than an ‘equitable’ interest’....i.e no right to possession....

 

Apple

[applecart]

I have been presented with a mortgage deed where the broker who arranged the mortgage (and presumably was a paid commission by the lender) has also attested the deed.

 

Can a broker sign attest a mortgage deed? Isn't this equivalent to the lender attesting the deed? This doesn't sound legal... Advice and opinions appreciated.

 

Hi UNRAM,

 

I hear you when you seek 'patience'...but...

 

The issue to do with the Deed is not to do with who ‘attested’ your signature – this thread asserts that your Lender has not executed the deed....the legislation applies to the Lenders duty to execute the deed...a Broker attesting your signature...is not the same as the statutory duty for the Lender to execute the Deed...

 

With respect....Either, you wish to proceed along the lines that this thread asserts or you start a whole new thread of your own....no offence...but, right now...your questions are standing firmly in the way of progress....

 

Apple

[applecart]

This is what you advised UNRAM....

 

Apple,

 

I wish to proceed. Is it best to create new thread I think there is sufficient continuity between details of my case and those of Is It Me to proceed here but not my decision to make. Please advise.

 

I can only proceed on this thread if you truly are looking to 'proceed'....you had promised to provide info that I felt would be useful for us all to know....it works best if we work together to move forward...not backwards....Do you mind me asking....Where is the info you promised??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Perhaps you're right, maybe a bad choice of words on my part! It will be interest to see what the outcome of these cases will be.

 

No,no not at all...these are not straightforward defences as you will appreciate....but, yes, we are eeking out an alternative defence for all Borrowers to do with the Deed...if we are wrong, .....then we will soon know...

 

'In fact, even if the Property Chamber come back with a negative response, this does not mean we are 'wrong'....it will simply go to 'appeal' after we consider the reasons why they do not support the representation made....for they will have to say 'why' they believe it is wholly wrong....if they so decide...so, either way, Is It Me's friend will have further redress...

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM,

 

I hear you when you seek 'patience'...but...

 

The issue to do with the Deed is not to do with who ‘attested’ your signature – this thread asserts that your Lender has not executed the deed....the legislation applies to the Lenders duty to execute the deed...a Broker attesting your signature...is not the same as the statutory duty for the Lender to execute the Deed...

 

With respect....Either, you wish to proceed along the lines that this thread asserts or you start a whole new thread of your own....no offence...but, right now...your questions are standing firmly in the way of progress....

 

Apple

 

Acknowledged. I agree this was a bit off tangent I am trying to fill in gaps to discern what's relevant before I put this into practice. I will need to understand if I am to stand my ground. I will minimise questions to those relevant.

[UNRAM]

I hope you can see from the correspondence I have a very real and difficult situation to contend with. I have not included NRAM's material because they mark it confidential but I have consciously made descriptive reference in my own notices so there are few omissions.

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, Important changes to inquiry on NRAM account {account_removed}

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:28:23 +0000

 

 

Without prejudice save as to costs,

 

Dear Mr Banks, CEO NRAM PLC

 

I hereby give you 7 days notice of issue of a reduced offer for a full and final settlement (previously 35% proposed on Sat, 1 Jun 2013) to 30% of the purported principle amount owed on account {account_removed}. Should you fail to acknowledge/reply to this notice within 5 working days you agree that this new offer will become effective from 12:00 am 01/08/2013 and NRAM's automatic electronic receipt will be recorded as proof of delivery.

 

You agree, according to terms stated above, that this offer will automatically reduce without further written notice by 5% on the 1st of each successive calendar month (e.g. 25% on 01/09/2013) thereafter until either the offer reaches 0%, or a full and final settlement is agreed. During this period I will continue to service our agreed £50.00 pcm subscription payment until such time as either the deed or the mortgage contract, or both, are demonstrated to be void.

 

If we are unable to reach amicable agreement or the deed or agreement is deemed void according to relevant law, I will commence proceedings to seek the return of all deposits I have made to Northern Rock and NRAM (via your Natwest account?) to which NRAM has not been entitled from the date of the first payment. On the date of this notice this amounts to a total of £xx,xxx.xx which includes statutory interest applied at a rate of 8% from the actual date of each payment. This claim will include all recent and future CMS payments which I continue to service under duress.

 

If NRAM chooses to seek resolution through the courts or otherwise attempts a take possession of my home for non payment of NRAM's contractual monthly subscription - or the mortgage deed and/or mortgage contract are deemed void as a result of ongoing dispute - I intend to make a claim of compensation against Northern Rock Asset Management as redress for the following causes:

 

• Misleading enticement to purchase of lawful, legal and regulated and reserved funds from Northern Rock PLC in 2007.
  
• NRAM's enforcement of repayments of a purported debt advance (including interest) for which no factual evidence of risk nor financial loss exists nor can be demonstrated by Northern Rock (now known as NRAM but holding the same company number).
  
• NRAM's enforcement of contractual subscription payments by means of blackmail whilst refusing to confirm factual evidence of proprietary title and contractual changes to terms and conditions.
  
• NRAM's deliberate attempts to obfuscate, obstruct and pervert (i) a lawful inquiry, and (ii) a reasonable offer of amicable renegotiation and redress to resolve an inquiry that commenced in September 2012.
  

You also agree to NRAM paying costs in accordance with the following fee schedule if NRAM sells the alleged liability and/or appoints an agent to act on its/your behalf before this matter it is resolved:

 

• an amount equal to twice the purported principal amount owed at the time of transfer for dishonouring our agreement.
  
• £1000.00 per hour or part of it for my authorised representatives time.
  
• £1000.00 per recorded delivery or other recorded electronic notice.
  

I wish to assert again that I have a cash buyer who is keen to make a cash purchase with no mortgage requirements and no chain and I continue to agree to repay any money lawfully owed to NRAM pending receipt of factual evidence of NRAM's lawful and legal entitlements.

 

Please reply by 02/08/2013.

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice,

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, Important changes to inquiry on NRAM account {account_removed}

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:52:37 +0000

Without prejudice save as to costs,

 

Dear Mr Banks, CEO NRAM PLC

 

Both Jim Waddle and Jeff McAdam have failed to return requests to discuss payment terms. I have instead recently received two recent notices:

 

• 12/07/2013 /DM0373M: standard notice of arrears from Jeff McAdam, NRAM Debt Management
  
• 23/07/2013 LW/DM0027M: request for clarification from Jeff McAdam, NRAM Debt Management
  

Both have facsimiled signatures. The former is a standard template, and the latter is a request to "Please contact me within the next 48 hours... as there is a matter that needs clarifying".

 

I called to speak to Jeff McAdam but was instead routed to an operator who very abruptly demanded by name and number and claimed that 'I am managing your debt now' and that Mr McAdam would not be available. I ended the call immediately as notice LW/DM0027M was clearly intended as a misleading enticement to engage your company. I have recorded both correspondences and the telephone conversation itself as acts of harassment and will continue to do so.

 

It is reasonable I request that you prevent your staff from engaging in this kind of practice while we settle our dispute. Henceforth I am only willing to engage with senior staff and departments, signed and in writing to resolve this dispute.

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Att: Richard Banks, Important changes to inquiry on NRAM account {account_removed}

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:10:23 +0000

Without prejudice save as to costs,

Dear Mr Banks, CEO NRAM PLC

 

I am looking forward to receiving the full response to the enquiry opened in your proxy notice ref: CUSTREL/CR0186084 regarding the points I have raised. For the remainder of this notice the Account {account_removed} shall be referred to as the account.

 

It has become necessary to make amendments to the definitive inquiry list I previously sent you dated Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:27:11 which defines the requirements to authenticate and clarify my legal relationship with NRAM. Some items have been removed and only those relevant to my intended action remain. This is a definitive list though it may be subject to future change. Please send me the following information:

 

1. A statement of NRAMs acceptance or rejection of the Law Of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 s.2. relating to contracts for sale etc. of land (including residential mortgages) to be made by signed writing.
   
2. Identification of a legally binding mortgage contract signed by all contracting parties pursuant to LPMPA1989 s.2.
   
3. A statement of NRAM's acceptance or rejection of the amendments made to the The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 affecting deeds and their execution as specified in LPMPA1989 s.1.
   
4. A statement of NRAM's acceptance or rejection of the Law Of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 s.1. regarding the validity of a mortgage deed granted in good faith and as a specialty contract based entirely on the the grantor's expectation of execution and delivery of a legal mortgage as indicated in the deed.
   
5. Details of any power of attorney exercised in the name of the NRAM account holder by Northern Rock PLC or NRAM PLC or any of it's agents since March 2007.
   
6. Details of any securities created through exercise of powers of attorney (ref 5), or otherwise, including details of any transactions involving such instruments.
   
7. Details of the present true and legal owner of securities generated/created in (6).
   
8. Details of the present legal owner of the deed charged to Northern Rock PLC signed by myself in 2007.
   
9. Contractual terms and conditions defining a mortgagor's legal duty to service NRAM' Contractual Monthly Subscription (CMS).
   
10. Evidence of any changes to original terms and conditions to activate NRAM's CMS and enable mortgagor enrolment.
    
11. Details of the relationship/difference between NRAM's CMS charge and the prior interest repayments and principal debt purportedly owed which it appears to have replaced.
    
12. Details of NRAM's arrears handling procedures and NRAM's and regulator's rules and conditions for applying interest to subscription arrears and confirmation or otherwise whether interest is being applied to the arrears on the account.
    
13. Identification of a legally binding service contract defining NRAM's duties to its 'Customers'.
    

Omissions will not be accepted and the inquiry will be repeated. If you regard any item to be confidential to NRAM please explicity state this to be the case.

 

I must assert again that I have had a significant down payment available since 2012 to greatly reduce monthly repayments and your delays are have already cost me thousands of pounds, and I continue to agree to pay any money lawfully owed to NRAM pending receipt of factual evidence of NRAM's lawful and legal entitlements.

 

Please reply to this inquiry by 02/08/2013.

 

Thank you,

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: NRAM contractual subscription arrears interest accrual

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:54:01 +0000

Without prejudice save as to costs

 

Dear Mr Banks, CEO NRAM PLC

 

Thank you for your reply ref: CUSTREL/CR0186084 sent by proxy through your agent Mr. Christopher Bizzell assuring me of your further attention and enquiry. Your correspondence has been appended to the most recent audit of all correspondence relating to this matter (NRAM 10 07 2013 mortgage audit inquiry.pdf) and included as attachment to this email. I am disappointed that you were unable or unwilling to respond directly as I had requested but I am pleased we are in agreement that further enquiry is necessary and that this is not a complaint to be closed at NRAM's discretion.

 

I note that your reply has not addressed any of the issues I have raised and I hope these will be adequately and individually clarified in your reply within the 20 days you have specified, including statements regarding:

 

1. Contractual Monthly Subscription (CMS) payment arrears and interest accrual, and agreement to contracted charges, (to include standard guidelines for arrears handling) as requested via email on 30 Jun 2013 13:31:56.
   
2. Documentary evidence of regulated data handling and protection procedures in place, and a specific confirmation that there has been no breach of my personal information (as there has obviously been a breach of NRAM's) also requested on 30 Jun 2013 13:31:56.
   
3. Full terms and conditions of the CMS and its legal relationship/differences with prior interest payments and the principal amount purportedly owed (first referenced in email on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:27:11 with no reply to date)
   
4. Documentary evidence of earlier references to the CMS asserted by Mr Bizzell (ref NRAM notice CUSTREL/CR0151808 dated 30/04/2013) 'since the mortgage commenced'.
   
5. Clarification of the recently noted errors and incompleteness of Northern Rock's original mortgage deed (ref email to: [email protected], date: 6 Jul 2013 16:56:52)
   
6. A full reply to all queries raised in my email to you on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:27:11 that are not included in the points above or confirmation of the confidentiality status of any item that is not addressed.
   

I wish to reassert that I have had a significant down payment available since 2012 to greatly reduce monthly repayments and I continue to agree to repay any debt lawfully owed in accordance with a legally pursuant mortgage contract and lawfully advanced funds. The extended delay in addressing this matter has already cost me thousands of pounds and I am still waiting for a call from Mr. Jim Waddle or a senior delegate from your Debt Management Department for further discussion in the event that you intend to maintain your stance after your 20 day review.

 

I must refuse in advance any invitation to make further complaint in the event of our further failure to reach agreement as all past issues raised relating to NRAM's improper query handling and poor customer relations have been completely ignored by both NRAM and FOS staff (the latter informing me that you have been experiencing ongoing staffing problems).

 

I assert again that the Ombudsman has dismissed my inquiry (labelling it a complaint in order to obfuscate its true nature) solely on the basis of undefined perceived benefits gained from the purchase of the property with no legal definition and no reference to NRAM's required adherence to law of both contract and deed, nor evidence of regulation in his conclusion. As such I reassert that I not intend to raise further complaint as it is my intention to resolve this dispute amicably with you and I hope we are able to do so in good time and in good faith as further delays are incurring costs for both parties.

 

I have recently opened dialogue with Mr Clive Adamson, Director of Supervision at the Financial Conduct Authority to clarify the confidentiality status of the information I am requesting relating to this case and he has passed on details to the NRAM supervisory team within the FCA. We are working through the relevant legislation and he has considerately advised me that I may bring the issue before a court to seek resolution. I wish to first ensure that I have made (and demonstrated) every reasonable attempt to reach an amicable resolution with you before taking any further actions that may result in legal action and liabilities.

 

I wish to disclose that it has been necessary to copy subscribed Parliamentary and Treasury representatives in on this correspondence but I offer you my full personal guarantee that any renegotiation or final settlement will be handled in with confidence and sensitivity, and details will be neither published nor disclosed to any third party that is not privy to the original mortgage deed.

 

Please once again accept my gratitude for your further consideration and offer of assistance.

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice,

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: NRAM contractual subscription arrears interest accrual

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:31:56 +0000

Without prejudice save as to costs

Dear senior NRAM representative,

 

Please can you confirm whether NRAM is charging interest on mortgagor's subscription arrears. Your recent arrears notice states that £40 pcm will be charged to the account which will accrue interest but there is no mention of interest accrual on actual arrears. How does this work?

 

I have not given NRAM permission to sharing my personal data with third parties. Due to the recent data protection violation by one of your contractors (who admitted in a recent call to my home that they were trying to obtain personal information on behalf of NRAM) I seek written confirmation from the most senior office of NRAM/UKAR that my personal data is being handled in accordance with UK law and that data handling has been regulated and audited accordingly.

 

Please note:

 

• I do not give consent to any further charges being made by NRAM for any purported subscription arrears. The mortgage account has been brought into formal dispute and any charges or modifications to my personal credit history arising from this will be deemed an act of harassment, a demonstration of NRAM's undue influence, and attempt to thwart further inquiry, negotiation and settlement.
  
• I do not give consent to any field agent visits to my home to discuss best payment terms and I shall refuse to pay costs for unsolicited visit attempts as my payment terms have already been tacitly agreed with Mr. Richard Banks. Any field agents approaching my home will be politely asked to leave the premises.
  

I agree to repay any debt lawfully owed and I am still waiting for a call from Jim Waddle or a senior delegate from your Debt Management Department as I understand that Jeff McAdam is on holiday and no date was given for his return. I do not wish to speak with any junior member of staff who has not been made fully aware of this dispute.

 

I would appreciate if you can send me a details and guidelines for the correct and lawful handling of subscription arrears at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Re: NRAM account {account_removed}

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:26:39 +0000

Without prejudice save as to costs

 

To whom it may concern,

I wish to notify you of ongoing problems I am experiencing with NRAM PLC and UKAR and I would appreciate if you can take the time to assess, discuss and respond to the series of notices I have sent (included below). The only reply I have received from NRAM in 10 months of reasonable inquiry is a Customer Relations directive to continue to make Contractual Monthly Subscription payments or risk adverse credit history.

 

For several months I have been seeking an amicable settlement, or renegotiation, as an alternative to establishing (i) the true contractual nature my legal relationship with NRAM, and (ii) the conditions under which I purchased Northern Rock's financial product in 2007. I hope that you will consider this notice to be a demonstration of my ongoing commitment toward reaching such a resolution.

 

I have accepted NRAM's invitation to discuss mortgage payments and I am now waiting for a reply from Mr. Jim Waddle to discuss payment terms so we may avoid further charges and liabilities. I will be very happy to meet face to face with members of your senior board to finally resolve this issue.

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice

 

{name_removed}

 

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, CEO, NRAM, Re: account {account_removed}

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:17:40 +0000

Without Prejudice,

Dear Mr Banks,

 

Thank you for your reply dated 10/06/2013 ref: CUSTREL/CR0151808. I note that the reply is from your agent Mr. Christopher Bizzell and not from you, Mr Richard Banks, as I have repeatedly and reasonably requested. Given your repeated failure to acknowledge my legal entitlements and rights to access personal information I do not intend to engage in dialog with any delegate member of staff until we have reached an amicable resolution to this dispute. I am addressing you, Mr Richard Banks, and you have duty to respond as the chief authority of NRAM PLC.

 

I note that you persist in incorrectly identifying my inquiry as a complaint that may be 'closed' at your organisation's discretion. Any complaint I have raised regarding the inadequate and obstructive conduct of your Customer Relations department is entirely independent from my initial inquiry into the contractual nature of NRAM's purported legal entitlements. With all due respect, the inquiry I have raised is not a complaint despite NRAM's and the FOS' constant and misleading attempts to label it as such and it cannot be closed according to your organisation's satisfaction.

 

I am seeking evidence that Northern Rock offered sufficient and real consideration to create a legally binding mortgage contract under UK law and can financially justify repayment of the subscription payments purportedly "owed". I also seek accounting evidence of Northern Rock's "reserved, lawful regulated funds". I believe this an inquiry of national interest and as servant of a Treasury (publicly) owned company I believe you have a duty to handle my inquiry and any negotiation arising from it in a fair and appropriate manner. I believe that any shred of reason supporting private NRAM's private financial interests were extinguished when NRAM's debt became public.

 

I state again that it is inappropriate and insufficient that you insist on confirming your stance (ref CUSTREL/CR0151808 para.1) that I continue to servicea subscription without presentation of terms and conditions and evidence of NRAM's or Northern Rock's purported titles used as a basis for NRAM's subscription scheme. No item from the substantial volumes of paper you have presented in reply to my inquiry serves to quantify or qualify any aspect of your purported entitlements and certainly not any subscription payments. Under present circumstances your insistence on enforcing payments with threats of adverse conditions with undue influence constitutes blackmail and harassment.

I note that you have again referred me to the FOS when (I sincerely hope at this stage) you have full knowledge of the rejection by the FOS Ombudsman based on the consideration that I have received "benefit" from an (unqualified) advance from Northern Rock which must be repaid in full with interest. The FOS has breached duties (and public trust) failing to provide required evidence of its "NRAM inquiries" and has formally stated that legal and financial considerations of residential mortgage contracts are beyond the scope of its adjudicators. The Ombudsman has concluded that the law need not be observed, and legal entitlements need not be validated or verified due to the (unquantifiable and undefined) benefit mortgagors have received from acceptance of Northern Rock's promises and enticements.

 

I note by absence of your acceptance/rejection to my previous proposal that you remain in agreement to terms proposed in my emails ref: 1 Jun 2013 10:20:28 and 13 May 2013 10:24:00. which remain binding until formally rejected or renegotiated by yourself (Mr Richard Banks) along with presentation of the evidence I have requested. Renegotiations have been addressed directly to you and a reply from any delegate member of staff, including Mr. Bizzell, does not constitute your refusal. As such our agreed terms shall remain in force, and enforceable, until such time that they are formally rejected or renegotiated by either party. As the chief executive authority of NRAM I hope you will ensure that your staff are made aware of our agreement to deter any further harassment from unauthorised chasing of purported "missed mortgage payments".

 

Until such time that this situation is sensibly and respectfully resolved, or terms are renegotiated fairly, I shall continue to service the agreed £50.00 per month Contractual Monthly Subscription charge, while I escalate my inquiry, and I will not yield to further blackmail and extortion from any of your staff nor from your automated collection system (or it's facsimiled signatories referring to unobtainable or anonymous staff).

 

I am already acting under duress. I do not consent to any non-contracted charges for late payments or any other costs being applied to account {account_removed} due to lack of inter-departmental communications. I am aware the NRAM is no longer a bank and is therefore no longer in the business of creating yet more debt. I will consider any further enforcement of charges to be an act of harassment and intimidation.

 

Please note that I have notified the following agencies of this dispute: Equifax Ltd, Credit File Advice Centre, PO Box 1140, Bradford, BD1 5US, www.equifax.co.ukCallcredit Plc, Consumer Services Team, PO Box 491, Leeds, LS3 1WZ, www.callcredit.co.uk, Experian Ltd, Customer Support Centre, PO Box 8000, Nottingham, NG80 7WF, www.experian.co.uk

 

I politely request again your signed reply to my previous inquiry and your signed rejection/acceptance of terms previously stated in emails ref: 1 Jun 2013 10:20:28 and 13 May 2013 10:24:00 with clear reasons for your conclusion. If my proposals are not acceptable then I request your counter-offer at your earliest convenience.

 

I agree to pay any money lawfully owed to NRAM pending receipt of (i) factual evidence of NRAM's entitlements, (ii) evidence of adherence to UK law and FSA regulation, (iii) evidence of a mortgagor's lawful duty to service NRAM's Contractual Subscription.

If we are unable to negotiate a fair agreement (I have proposed 35% of the principal purported debt amount) I will be commence proceedings to ensure the return of all deposits I have made to Northern Rock and NRAM (via your Natwest account), less Northern Rock's initial charges of £440.58, from the date of the first payment. At the date of this notice this amounts to a principle amount owed of £xx,xxx.xx to also include statutory interest from the date of each payment.

 

I intend to include a negotiable claim of compensation against Northern Rock and its successors as redress for the following causes:

 

• Misleading enticement to purchase of lawful, regulated and reserved funds from Northern Rock PLC in 2007.
  
• NRAM's enforcement of repayments of a purported debt advance (including interest) for which no factual evidence of risk nor financial loss exists nor can be demonstrated by Northern Rock or its successor.
  
• NRAM's enforcement of contractual subscription payments by means of blackmail whilst refusing to confirm evidence of proprietary title and contractual changes to terms and conditions.
  
• NRAM's deliberate attempts to obfuscate, obstruct and pervert (i) a lawful inquiry, and (ii) a reasonable offer of amicable renegotiation and redress since September 2012.
  

Since the commencement of our new arrangement I have received message of repeated calls to my home from NRAM agents "to discuss the mortgage" and I politely repeat my request for all future communication to be made via written/recorded correspondence. I shall not respond to any further correspondence from NRAM marked with unauthenticated facsimiled or unreadable anonymous signature and I shall not accept any further "stance" from your office absent of your submission of factual evidence of NRAM's titles.

 

It appears there are at present serious delays on your automated telephone routing and I have been unable to connect in reasonable time. I have left a request for Mr Jim Waddle to call to discuss NRAM's offer to "avoid the £40 arrears administration charge by agreeing a payment arrangement directly with us" and I would appreciate his reply at his earliest convenience. Please note calls may be recorded.

 

I once again request either: (i) a full reply to the multiple inquiries I have raised, (ii) a formal renegotiation of the purported/implied contract, or (iii) your early agreement to a full and final settlement to include a compensation amount of your designation for the considerable amount of time and resources it has taken to raise this inquiry.

 

In light of the recent data protection violation committed during a recent intrusive call by Optimisa Research to my home I also require your written assurance that my personal data has and will be been handled and distributed in only accordance with law and regulation. You may be required to give evidence.

 

I have offered ample time (and alternatives) to try to resolve this issue and I require your signed and authenticated rejection/acceptance of my terms, or preferably a suitable renegotiation, by 07/07/2013.

 

Your immediate is attention is appreciated,

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice,

 

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: FW: Att: Richard Banks, CEO, NRAM, Re: account {account_removed}

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:20:28 +0000

Without Prejudice,

Dear Mr Banks,

 

Thank you for agreeing to the new subscription payment schedule of £50.00 p.c.m. which has been recorded and charged by the absence of your response to my previous correspondence ref 13 May 2013 10:24:00. You have agreed on behalf of NRAM PLC to accept £50.00 p.c.m. on the agreed payment date until either the end of the original mortgage term or the property is sold whichever is sooner. This monthly amount, along with the £xx,xxx.xx I amount I have already paid to Northern Rock and NRAM in credit "interest" payments should adequately cover further administrative charges for handling account {account_removed} for which there is no debt outstanding (as you have failed to provide evidence of a lawful debt).

 

As terms of our new arrangement, you agree to the following statements - either by your written acceptance or by absence of your reply - to become effective on 10/06/2013:

 

1. You are unable to provide evidence of sufficient (or any) consideration by Northern Rock nor NRAM as none was made.
   
2. You are unable to provide evidence of a lawful debt as there is no lawful nor legal mortgage agreement in existence, either written or implied.
   
3. You are unable to provide evidence of legal or lawful mortgage contract pursuant to UK law and statute as no such document exists.
   
4. You are unable to provide any form of service contract defining a minimal level of service for your "customers" as no such document exists.
   
5. Credit interest shall not, and cannot, apply to NRAM's purported Contractual Subscription Payment entitlement.
   
6. Accrued credit interest for any purported "Contractual Subscription shortfall" shall not apply to agreed monthly subscription payment.
   
7. No additional administration and legal costs shall be charged by NRAM to implement this arrangement which has been lawfully charged and agreed in advance by all parties.
   
8. The personal credit history of Mr {name_removed} shall not be modified without your prior written permission and a 10 day written notice shall be issued notifying me of NRAM's intentions before any (unlawful) modifications are made.
   
9. You agree to provide evidence of any credit modifications made - past, present and future - upon request, and provide the personal details of any member of staff responsible for any violation of condition (7).
   
10. Any member of staff in violation of condition (7) shall be deemed to be acting on their own volition, and may be liable to charges of harassment.
    

Please note further absence of reply does not not constitute a rejection to these or previous terms.

 

I am still awaiting a written personal assurance from you - Mr Richard Banks - that you have personally received and considered all of my earlier correspondence. Your Customer Relations agent's continue to make false claims and offer opinions with no valid evidence, vaguely quoting correspondence with no references, and continue to make false statements to justify sustained acts of blackmail and harassment.

 

Your agents are damaging the reputation of NRAM PLC, UKAR and HM Treasury. I request confirmation that the actions of Christopher Bizzell and Hamzar Darr, in handling this matter, have been reviewed and suitably regulated and I seek your personal written assurance these agents have represented both your personal views and those of NRAM and are not acting on their own personal ill-informed opinions and biases. I would appreciate your early and considerate reply to this separate line of inquiry.

 

I continue to seek an amicable and civil resolution to this dispute and repeat my offer of a full and final settlement to 35% of the purported mortgaged debt to close mortgage account {account_removed} with no amount owing subject to my previously stated terms and conditions. This settlement is not intended as an acknowledgement of the validity of NRAM's purported debt claim nor false claims of proprietary title but a gesture of good to resolve this dispute amicably and without creation of further liabilities. Transfer can be made within 5 working days of our written and signed agreement. If, for any justified reason, you consider that the proposed settlement figure does not reflect the value of the NRAM asset "mortgage account {account_removed}" or satisfy the interests of your stakeholders then I request again a reasonable counter-offer at your earliest convenience.

 

I once again wish to state that I agree to make repayment of any debt lawfully owed and I wish to make an imminent and substantial lump-sum payment - once you have verified and validated NRAM's claim of debt and title - to reduce my monthly payments. Your insistence on avoiding resolution is costing me a great deal of money in higher payments and I would appreciate your prompt attention.

 

Please reply to this notice by 10/06/2013. Absence of your personal, written and signed reply shall be assumed as both your acceptance to the new monthly payment, and your agreement to all additional terms stated above.

 

Kind regards,

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, CEO, NRAM, Re: account {account_removed}

Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:24:00 +0000

Without Prejudice,

Dear Mr Banks,

 

Thank you for your letter (ref CUSTREL/CR0151808) containing further confirmation of NRAM's expectation that I shall continue to service NRAM's Contractual Monthly Subscription or face adverse credit entries. Please find your modified notice attached with a complete audit of our correspondence to date. You have failed to present a legal (mortgage, or service) contract and your insistence on repayment (or repossession) without reciprocating an invitation to a fair settlement is an act of ongoing harassment, blackmail and extortion.

 

With all due respect, the personal satisfaction (ref CUSTREL/CR0151808) of your Customer Relations staff remains irrelevant to my inquiry as does any stance (ref CUSTREL/CR0151808) they intend to maintain. I have not at any time sought the personal or professional opinions of you or your staff only evidence of NRAM's title to clarify our (mutual) lawful contractual duties. I am also unclear to which emails your letter refers to as your services offer no way to track inquiries or questions.

 

I believe that Christopher Bizzell has made a false statement regarding historical reference to the CMS. I can confirm that no such reference exists prior to your notice CUSTREL/CR0151808/{account_removed} dated 14/03/2013. I will be happy to be corrected and I invite Mr Bizzell to retract this misleading statement at his earliest convenience or for you to do so on his behalf.

 

As far as I am aware a contractual subscription and a debt carry different contractual terms and NRAM is unable to lawfully register adverse credit history for non-credit arrears without creating liabilities. Your staff commit blackmail with each threat to register adverse credit information for arrears of non-credit repayments. I did not subscribe to any service NRAM purports to offer, nor do I intend to do so in the future.

 

I confirm NRAM's receipt of my previous notice dated 8 Apr 2013 09:56:25 and my proposal of a new CMS 'arrangement' and I note that you have failed to reply which as stated in the notice confirms your acceptance to the terms of the arrangement. You agree that while the account remains in dispute to accept on behalf of NRAM to accept the agreed monthly payment of £50.00 pcm payable on the currently scheduled mortgage payment date, free from accrual of further interest or other non-contractual fees or charges. Regular payment will continue until such time that you have provided evidence to support a valid claim of title over the property and either (i) qualified NRAM mortgagor's duties to service a Contractual Monthly Subscription or (ii) offered suitable and sufficient evidence of NRAM's claim on Northern Rock's credit debt.

 

I continue to seek an amicable and civil resolution to this dispute - ideally free from third party intervention. As a gesture of good will and to demonstrate my intention to end this dispute amicably I wish to increase my offer of a full and final settlement to 35% of the purported mortgaged debt to close mortgage account {account_removed} with no amount owing – subject to my previously stated terms and conditions. Transfer can be made within 5 working days of our written and signed agreement.

 

If, for any justified reason, you consider that the proposed settlement figure does not reflect the value of the NRAM asset "mortgage account {account_removed}" or satisfy the interests of your stakeholders, then I request a reasonable counter-offer at your earliest convenience.

 

At this stage I demand a confirmation that you, Mr Richard Banks, are receiving and responding to these notices and that replies are not being left to the judgement of unregulated or uninformed support staff who may be misrepresenting your opinions, those of NRAM, or UK statute.

 

Mr Richard Banks, I would appreciate your personal reply to this notice by 23/05/2013 in order to restore good faith to this contract.

 

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice.

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, CEO, NRAM, Re: account {account_removed}

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:56:25 +0000

 

 

Without Prejudice,

 

Dear Mr Banks,

 

I have a significant down-payment that I wish to use to reduce/eliminate the purported mortgage debt on account {account_removed} and I am unable to do so until you have (i) fully qualified the legal status of the debt over which you claim title, and (ii) defined the subscription model being used to process further interest(?) payments. I have had funds available since August 2012 and your negligence has already cost me a great deal of money in overpayments and I would now appreciate resolution to this dispute.

 

I wish to thank you again for your invitation to demonstrate the validity of your purported contract under English law (CUSTREL/CR0151808/{account_removed}) but would appreciate a demonstration of basic decency, professional integrity and honour through your response. You have failed to offer any confirmation or further details of the Contractual Monthly Subscription presented in CUSTREL/CR0151808/{account_removed} nor provide any further details to qualify the purported mortgage title beyond your mere personal satisfaction (page 2, paragraph 2).

 

Your invitation to discuss the legality of your mortgage assets is the only notice I have received from your office (albeit by proxy through your opaque customer relations department) and there is no reference to any interest payments for your purported debt, only to a duty to service a Contractual Monthly Subscription. I seek to know when the CMS started, all related terms and conditions, and evidence of all signatories involved in charging this purported obligation.

 

You have also stated (CUSTREL/CR0151808/{account_removed} page 2, paragraph 4) that you have informed me of your position numerous times though this is obviously a fallacy. Please provide evidence to confirm the truth of this statement or kindly retract this statement in writing in your next correspondence.

 

Since I began my inquiry I have received only large amounts of paper documentation wholly irrelevant to my inquiry: mortgage offers and applications are not mortgage contracts; a deed is not a contract if signed only by one contracting party. We still have no agreed service contract (I believe that none of your mortgagors do). I have certainly made no agreement to any Contractual Monthly Subscription and you have yet to demonstrate a lawful debt.

 

Due to my expectation of your ignoring this notice entirely, or the equal possibility that it is not routed to your office through your opaque Customer Relations department (with no customer service agreement obliging you to do anything at all) I hereby give you notice of my intention to reduce my Contractual Monthly Subscription payments to your Natwest Account to £50.00 p.c.m. commencing 01/05/2014 until I am in receipt of all the information I have reasonably requested.

 

It is not my intention to enter into further arrears and I will retain all payments you deem "contractually" due for payment on resolution. I will provide monthly evidence of the difference to be retained in a dedicated escrow account until such time that you have qualified the purported debt and the monthly subscription beyond mere personal satisfaction. I wish to be informed in advance of any adverse entries on my credit records. Your tacit agreement to this offer (if you choose to ignore this notice) is assumed. You agree not to make any further charges or fees that are not supported and regulated by a legitimate mortgage or service contract. Any further charges to account {account_removed} will be considered as a forced and unwarranted loan advance and an act of harassment. I shall not respond to any automated notices (with unauthenticated facsimiled signatures) from your unreachable debt management or mortgage operations managers and I shall communicate only with your office on the feasibility of this offer.

 

I request that you refrain from any further abuse of powers granted to you and your fellow directors in The Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2008 s3.11 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/432/part/3/made) and give both my inquiry, and my invitation to negotiate a settlement, the consideration they deserve.

 

I agree to settle any financial obligation lawfully owed once I am in receipt of evidence of financial consideration/advances and a lawful mortgage/service contract. I will resume "contracted" interest payments once you have clarified the legality of your debt and the nature of the CMS. As I have stated many times I am continuing to pay subscription/interest charges under duress and threat of harassment, and more recently blackmail. I have a large down payment that I wish to use to reduce/eliminate my mortgage debt and I am unable to do so until you have qualified the legality of the debt/subscription that you insist on enforcing. Your negligence is costing me a great deal of money and I reassert my preference to reach agreement of a reasonable full and final settlement to settle the debt and close the account. Please reply personally to this notice by 18/04/2013.

 

If I do not receive your reply, my new payment of £50.00 pcm (to your Natwest Account) will resume on 01/05/2013 while I seek further remedy.

Yours sincerely, without ill will or malice

 

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, CEO, NRAM, Re: account {account_removed}

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:27:11 +0000

Dear Mr Banks,

 

Thank you for your correspondence ref: CUSTREL/CR0151808/{account_removed} which I have included in a complete audit of my inquiries as an attachment to this notice. I note that you have replied through your agent Hamza Darr and I shall assume in good faith that he has accurately expressed your views and opinions on this matter and that I can reasonably reply directly to you. It is my intention to reach an amicable and private settlement agreement beneficial to all contracting parties, free from further disclosure and third party intervention.

 

I thank you for your invitation to demonstrate the validity of your purported contract under English law and I hope that you will be able to uphold the integrity of your kind offer - and your post - by replying to this correspondence directly and within the context that I have presented. With all due respect the description of the complaint and summary of events contained in your latest reply are gross oversimplifications of the issues I have raised and there is no mention of NRAM's opaque, unregulated and untraceable customer relations facilities, nor absence of a service agreement.

 

I response to your your invitation to demonstrate the validity of your purported contract under English law I have amply demonstrated the (in)validity of NRAMs purported "mortgage contract" and details are included in my notice to you dated 25 Feb 2013 10:00:34 (included again beneath this notice) and in the attached audit. With all due respect I believe that any legal responsibility to demonstrate the validity of the mortgage contract is NRAM's as it is NRAM that seeks to enforce the purported rights of the bankrupt and inept financial institutions it has been tasked to manage. If we are unable to reach a private and amicable settlement I must request that you re-issue your assessment and conclusion within the extensive legal context that I have provided.

 

NRAM's previous responses do not constitute evidence of a valid mortgage contract, and any insistence to the contrary indicates a clear lack of understanding of both property and mortgage law. While I shall accept previous administrative errors made by sub-ordinate staff I note that my "complaint" has been escalated to the Office of the Chief Executive. Any insistence to ignore law and regulation - and continue to provide paragraph summaries failing to address legal issues raised - shall be reasonably regarded as an act of negligence and/or incompetence.

 

With regards to your previous responses, I have previously offered NRAM an inventory of all material that has been presented and as this list remains unmodified by NRAM it remains definitive. The conclusion drawn from this content is clear: There is no mortgage contract signed by contracting parties pursuant to English law. In addition to the absence of this vital component there is also no evidence of a lawful consideration by Northern Rock, nor evidence any form of service contract.

 

Being an agent of the government, wholly owned by the HM Treasury, NRAM (and UKAR) have a responsibility to uphold and observe the law, and to preserve the integrity of our government and our Parliamentary procedures. It is my opinion that NRAM is now knowingly failing to do so given the extensive and coherent legal context that I have presented. I understand the conflict of interests that has arisen from the nationalization of Northern Rock and I appreciate your need - and honorable duty - to maintain the Status quo of private banking interests. It is for these reasons that I have been attempting to reach an amicable and private settlement agreement free from disclosure and third party intervention.

 

It is not been my intention to create liabilities and claims but I do not, and shall not, consent to servicing an unsubstantiated debt and I shall continue to do so under duress and threat of harassment and "adverse" conditions implied by your most recent notice (CUSTREL/CR0151808/{account_removed}). I must also raise further questions regarding the indemnities granted to directors whilst operating companies wholly owned by the Treasury, which I have raised, but which NRAM has repeatedly failed to address.

 

I am also concerned by the change to the status of monthly interest payments which you are now referring to as a Contractual Monthly Subscription. I can find no reference to this form of engagement. I have been led to believe I have been paying interest on a loan of credit issued in good faith with sufficient consideration to justify repayments. Please can you send a copy of the terms and conditions which define, or re-define, my duty to service a Contractual Monthly Subscription. If I am no longer servicing interest payments on a credit loan please can you provide a clear statement, including amendments to existing terms, including procedures to opt-out or unsubscribe from such an arrangement.

 

You have stated that you are satisfied that the mortgage contract is valid and enforceable, whilst still providing no supporting evidence. As I have stated since raising this inquiry more than 28 weeks ago I will be happy to be to reach agreement with you once I am in receipt of a lawful mortgage contract and evidence of a lawful advance and sufficient consideration. In order to substantiate your claim that you are satisfied with your assessment and conclusions I request the following items:

 

 

 

1. A statement of NRAMs acceptance or rejection of the Law Of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 s.2. relating to residential mortgages.
   
2. Identification of a legally binding mortgage contract signed by all contracting parties pursuant to LPMPA1989 s.2.
   
3. Identification of a legally binding service contract defining NRAM's duties.
   
4. Evidence of a legally required performance and advance by Northern Rock to charge and qualify the mortgage deed pursuant to LPA1925 statute.
   
5. Details of any power of attorney exercised in my name either by Northern Rock PLC or NRAM PLC or any of it's agents since March 2007.
   
6. Details of any securities created through exercise of powers of attorney (ref 5), or otherwise, including details of any transactions involving such instruments.
   
7. Details of the present legal owner of securities generated/created in (5).
   
8. Details of the present legal owner of the deed charged to Northern Rock PLC signed by myself in 2007.
   
9. Contractual duties to meet a Contractual Monthly Subscription with reference to appropriate terms and conditions.
   
10. Confirmation that amendments made to the Land Registry Charges Register in 2010 were lawful and pursuant to regulation and state why misleading dates are attached to entries of the latest edition of the register of title for my property.
    
11. Clarify whether NRAM's officers and directors have been granted any additional legal indemnities against claims that supercede any rules of the Companies Act 2006 as there is an entry
    
12. Confirm whether The Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2008 s3.11 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/432/part/3/made) defined as follows has granted greater powers and indemnities to the directors of NRAM than those defined for normal business practices by the Companies Act 2006. Can you also please state whether this modification applies to yourself as CEO.
    

"Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2008 s3.11 states "Proceedings against directors of Northern Rock11.—(1) No director of a relevant undertaking shall be liable for any act or omission of the director, acting in such capacity, which occurs while Northern Rock is wholly owned by the Treasury and accordingly no proceedings may be brought (or in Scotland, raised) against any such director in respect of such matters".

I hope you will honor your invitation for further discussion to restore good faith and integrity to our "arrangement". 28 weeks have now elapsed since the start of my inquiry and a third and final response from your own office has failed to provide any evidence of a lawful mortgage contract.

 

I also note that you have stated that you may record "adverse" information on a credit file labelled with my name. This is a clear statement of intention to cause harm and difficulty (by any dictionary definition) to my person if I choose not to comply with your latest Contractual Monthly Subscription model. I request that you either refute or rephrase this threat, or elaborate on the nature of the harm and difficulty I will experience if I choose to unsubscribe.

 

Please also note that I have not yet received any acknowledgement that you have routed and are processing my recent Subject Access Request (ref 13 Mar 2013 16:21:45) and require confirmation that this is being handled in accordance with ICO procedures.

 

I agree to settle any financial obligation lawfully owed once I am in receipt of the above documentation. In order to end this dispute amicably, privately and in good time I wish to increase my previous offer of a full and final settlement to 30% (of the principal amount) of the purported mortgaged debt to close mortgage account {account_removed} with no amount owing - subject to my previously stated terms and conditions. If, for any justified reason, you consider that this amount does not reflect the value of the asset "mortgage account {account_removed}" or satisfy the interests of your stakeholders, then I request a reasonable counter-offer at your earliest convenience. Upon reaching an amicable agreement to settle I wish to end all further negotiations and inquiries with NRAM PLC, terminate all further inquiries through the FOS, and release any outstanding Subject Access Requests. Payment can be made to your nominated account within 5 working days.

 

Please can you personally ensure that your Customer Relations team honors NRAM's written email assurance of timely routing and consideration by acknowledging this notice in writing by 22/03/2013, with a full relevant reply containing more than a simple statement of satisfaction by 27/03/2013. If you are unable or unwilling to offer the information I have reasonably requested for a fourth time (by reply to this notice) I shall be forced to apply for a court order to obtain the information I have requested.

 

I respect your position and your need to act in the the public interest and I shall uphold intention to reach an amicable and private settlement agreement beneficial to all contracting parties, free from further disclosure and third party intervention.

 

Your sincerely, without ill will or malice

 

{name_removed}

 

 

From: {name_removed}@hotmail.com

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Att: Richard Banks, CEO, NRAM, Re: account {account_removed}

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:00:34 +0000

Without Prejudice,

Dear Mr Banks

 

I contacted you on 11/02/2013 (and assumed your receipt of my notice in good faith by your confirmation dated 11 Feb 2013 12:03:44) with inquiries relating to mortgage account {account_removed} with an offer of a full and final settlement. I note that you have failed to offer any kind of reply to any of my correspondence. This situation has remained unresolved for almost six months and I am making very reasonable inquiries given the uncertainties and risks introduced by the nationalisation of Northern Rock and the absence of a public review of the validity of their assets and I would appreciate your urgent attention and kind consideration in handling this matter personally.

 

I wish to continue a negotiation of a full and final settlement. As an ongoing expression of good will and continued hope for an amicable and equitable outcome free from further third party intervention I am now able to raise my previous offer (of 15% of the principal amount owed) to 25% (of principal) as a full and final settlement of the purported mortgage debt to close my mortgage account with no amount owing - subject to my previously stated terms and conditions.

 

As previously requested if you are unwilling or unable to engage in a negotiation for a full and final settlement please can you personally offer the following information:

 

1. A statement of your acceptance or rejection of the Law Of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 s.2. relating to residential mortgages.
   
2. Identification of a legally binding mortgage contract signed by all contracting parties pursuant to LPMPA1989 s.2.
   
3. Identification of a legally binding service contract defining NRAM's duties.
   
4. Evidence of a legally required performance and advance by Northern Rock to charge and qualify the mortgage deed pursuant to LPA1925 statute.
   
5. Details of the present legal owner or reference to the securities claiming title of the debt income.
   
6. Details of the present legal owner of the deed charged to Northern Rock PLC signed by myself in 2007.
   

Please find additional information included as a footnote to this correspondence which may be of use in helping to resolve this issue. This information has been compiled from multiple reliable and respected sources and the conclusions reached are both fully verifiable and established in Statutory and Common Law.

 

I wish to repeat my offer of a personal meeting or telephone conversation to clarify the points I have raised and to engage in a fair and equitable negotiation with you. Please can you reply to this notice by 06/03/2013.

 

Yours sincerely without ill will or malice,

 

{name_removed}

 

Conditions of a residential mortgage nullity

 

 

A purported residential mortgage with no mutually signed contract (also called a "disposition") is a nullity. According to UK statute a deed is not a mortgage which only exists after electronic registration. It is an ongoing act of harassment to pretend that the paper mortgage deed is the disposition. Many mortgagee company 'home-possession' claims, in England or Wales, either unwittingly or deliberately overlook the Parliamentary supremacy of Land Registration Act 2002 (“LRA2002”) and the consequences of the LRA2002 inter-relation with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (“LPMPA1989”) s.2(1), s.2(3), s.2(5)c), and s.2(6 ). Mortgagee companies are harassing & trespassing upon mortgagors by unlawfully claiming possessory rights and willfully avoiding the consequences of the LRA2002 s.27(1) which renders the mortgage a nullity.

 

 

With reference to Chitty on Contracts 31st edition OCT.2012 (paragraph #4-013 sub-section #70), in relation to mortgages, which states: “... contract is contained in a deed ...”. The mortgagee company & mortgagor enter into a paper ‘CONTRACT-by-deed’ FOR THE electronic mortgage. Only after the execution/dating/delivery/completion of the paper ‘CONTRACT-by-deed’ is the electronic ‘mortgage’ eventually created, by Land Registry, at a ‘future’ moment in time (the electronic ‘MARKED-OFF’ moment FOR THE registration).

 

 

Statute References

 

 

 

1. LRA2002 s.27(1) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27) statute states: “… If a disposition of a registered estate or registered charge is required to be completed by registration, it does not operate at law until the relevant registration requirements are met …”.
   
2. LPMPA1989 s.2(1) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2) statute states: “… A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing …”.
   
3. LPMPA1989 s.2(5)c) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2) statute states: “… This section does not apply in relation to — a contract regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, other than a regulated mortgage contract …”.
   

 

 

Justification

 

 

 

1. Given that registrations are electronic; and
   
2. Given that no mortgage, with legal effect, is created until registration is completed (the electronic ‘MARKED-OFF’ moment, in time, in compliance with section 27(1) of the LRA2002); and
   
3. Given that the CONTRACT-by-deed is on paper (affirmed as a ‘specialty’ CONTRACT, having a 12-year limitation period, pursuant to the Limitation Act 1980 (“LA1980”) at section 8); and
   
4. Given that the paper CONTRACT-by-deed is needed to cause a consequent electronic entry to become registered; and
   
5. Given that the paper-dependent CONTRACT-by-deed leads to a delay, before the consequent electronic DISPOSITION, it is a matter of fact that there is an actual ‘REGISTRATION-GAP’ of time; and
   
6. Given that the executed paper CONTRACT-by-deed [containing any power of attorney (“POA”) e.g. pursuant to
   
7. which any receivers are appointed)] is the contract FOR THE consequent electronic DISPOSITION-by-registration; and
   
8. Given that the electronic DISPOSITION-by-registration is not the paper CONTRACT-by-deed; and
   
9. Given that FOR THE valid completion of an electronic [LRA2002 s.27(1)] DISPOSITION-by-registration, of an interest in land, there must be a valid [LPMPA1989 s.2(1)] paper CONTRACT-by-deed FOR THE consequent
   
10. DISPOSITION-by-registration; and it is therefore the case that likely every LPMPA1989 s.2(5)c) “regulated mortgage CONTRACT” is FOR THE consequent “DISPOSITION” to which LRA2002 s.27(1) refers; and
    
11. Given that the CONTRACT-by-deed “… must …” comply with LPMPA1989; s.2(1) by containing all terms; and s.2(3) by being executed by BOTH parties; it therefore follows that lack of compliance with s.2(3) results in a nullity.
    

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

1. The 'DISPOSITION' referred to within LRA2002 s.27(1), and LPMPA1989 s.2(1), is also known as the 'MORTGAGE'. It thereby follows, because of the LRA2002 s.27(1) ‘REGISTRATION-GAP’, that a ‘contract OF mortgage’ never exists because a mortgage only exists after the electronic completion of registration. For a valid mortgage, to exist, it is necessary for there to be a LPMPA1989 s.2(1) & s.2(3) compliant ‘contract FOR THE mortgage’. For requisite s.2(3) compliance the paper CONTRACT-by-deed [containing the mortgagee company power of attorney (POA)] must be executed by both parties otherwise any contractual right, POA, mortgage, possession claim, appointment of receivers or power of sale are all null & void ab initio.
   
2. As substantially every purported 'legal-mortgage' (the 'registration'), in England & Wales, is apparently a mistake, a void ab initio nullity, it follows that all consequent land registry & county court mistakes [which, in fact (from the outset), render all associated purported transactions without any legal effect whatsoever] may, for the sake of clarity, now be corrected retrospectively i.e. since inception and ex debitio justiciae [an absolute entitlement merely upon asking].
   

 

 

References

 

 

 

1. KEAY [2012] EWCA Civ 900 including paragraph #8, and HELDEN [2011] EWCA Civ 452 including paragraph #27 to #28, both from the Court of Appeal [rather than the Supreme Court], in so far as each lacks reasoning for a paper CONTRACT-bydeed FOR THE electronic mortgage, the reasoning is embarrassing & per incuriam. Except in so far as “… mortgage in the future …”; and the contract being executed ‘undated’ without that expressly written contractual term; are both applicable - each decision otherwise has zero binding effect upon any courts in regard to the ‘REGISTRATION-GAP’ reasoning. That is to say at least in so far as each reasoning judicially disregards the Parliamentary supremacy of the LRA2002 s.27(1) statute, in juxtaposition to the LPMPA1989 s.2, when reviewing the chronological time-line, of the legal status, of the ‘DISPOSITION’ [aka mortgage] and the intrinsic ‘REGISTRATION-GAP’ that therefore renders the mortgage a nullity. Furthermore - in relation to the mortgage having zero equitable or legal effect before or after registration:-
   
2. COUSINS LAW OF MORTGAGE [2010] affirms at page #610: “… Where a purported contract for the grant of a mortgage on or after September 26, 1989 fails to comply with the requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, no mortgage will be created and, notwithstanding any oral agreement or deposit of title deeds, the creditor will have no interest in or rights over the debtor’s land ...”.
   
3. LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE [1989] '… First, all contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land will have to be in writing ... Secondly, the signatures of all parties must be present; s.40 lacked this element of mutuality. Thirdly, noncompliance with the rule will make the contract VOID rather than unenforceable, as under s.40. Fourthly, non-compliance with the rule cannot be salvaged by part-performance; there is no contract to part-perform and s.40(2), covering part performance, is also repealed …'
   
4. MACFOY [1961] Privy Council c/o Lord Denning states: ‘… If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding, which is founded, on it is so bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse …’.
   

Edited July 26, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

If you need more evidence of the legitimacy of my interest I have recorded over 100 pages of correspondence, however the most recent postings are the most refined and closest in alignment with the themes expressed in this thread.

 

I spoke to the eviction defendant yesterday who assured me he will post details on here in the very near future. He and NRAM have been ordered to return to court and NRAM have failed to comply to two court orders to provide factual evidence of their entitlements - by going silent. Third hearing at the beginning of August and the defendant and his family are still in their home...

Edited July 26, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

 

Commercially, the SPV’s registered charge operates at Law...between you and the lender, it is said to be an ‘equitable’ transfer....and said not to affect the Lenders right to possession to your home....in the event that you default....when, in fact....it is the TDA (Trustee Delegation Act), the LP(MP)Act 1994 and the LPA 1925 section 1 (7) that work together to find that the registered title after the sale is to have no more effect than a defective title and stand to operate at law as no more than an ‘equitable’ interest’....i.e no right to possession....

 

Apple

 

Is it acceptable to request clarification on specific points you have raised? I do not wish to hinder progress, and I can cease questions altogether but it will not help my own case.

 

Is the "TDA (Trustee Delegation Act), the LP(MP)Act 1994 and the LPA 1925 section 1 (7) working together... to operate at law as no more than ...i.e no right to possession...." an unproven assertion or is there historical precedent?

[IS IT ME?]

Well UNIRAM,

Who's been a busy boy then?

[UNRAM]

Question no longer relevant dont answer unless you consider it of value., I have read and re-read your presentation and all supporting law and I 'get it'. I will proceed with applications next week...

I believe this is a relevant question and I hope this is not hindering progression only reinforcing it. You have used quoted the following case in your representation to the Property Chamber.

 

Bibby Financial Services Ltd v Magson [2011] EWHC 2495

As I understand the principle of this case is that the deed was not in its final form as the granters were expecting amendments to be made...

 

Verdict: The judge found that, although the directors had signed the documents as deeds in front of the witness and handed them over Bibby's representative, they did so on the understanding that revised documents incorporating the correct terms would be produced and signed to complete the agreement between the parties. They signed the documents merely to give comfort on both sides that an agreement would be reached.

 

Is this principle applicable to the case of a mortgage deed and is this what you are highlighting in 3. (xiii) of your representation? Are you suggesting that a mortgage deed, in accordance with the principal of this case, is not in its final form?

Edited July 26, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

Have they taken you to court at all?

 

Have they secured any order for possession at any time?

 

Do you still live in the house?

 

Have you taken any legal action against them at all?

 

Is everything simply standing in limbo because of the dispute right now???

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Have they taken you to court at all?

No.

Have they secured any order for possession at any time?

No.

Do you still live in the house?

Yes. It is my home.

Have you taken any legal action against them at all?

No.

Is everything simply standing in limbo because of the dispute right now???

Limbo. Correct.

 

The only meaningful exchange I have had in a year is an instruction to keep paying the Contractual Monthly Subscription or face having adverse credit entries recorded against me. I have notified all the credit agencies of the dispute.

 

Since changing my subscription amount both NRAM and UKAR (the parent company) have notified me they have opened internal investigations to look into my concerns and thanked me for my patience. This came after the 'complaint' was previously rejected by NRAM, the FOS and the OFT and NRAM sent me a letter saying "pay the CMS case is closed".

 

I stopped paying last November after being completely ignored for four months though I succumbed to the payment demands and notices of legal action with numbers to call if I ended up homeless. I restarted payments after two months. Not this time. I have had to ask NRAM to stop sending me copies of the Offer document as its a waste of paper...

Edited July 26, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

That's an interesting reply.....As you should know by now, the RRO 2005 is an extremely useful piece of legislation. You want to know how effective it is for you...and the lender needs to know as well.....you both need 'closure'...

 

When you have satisfied yourself that you have added sufficiently to your knowledge, it would only be a matter of common courtesy to advise NRAM that the stalemate position cannot continue indefinitely........they are essentially forcing you to take action....??

 

Below is the type of letter that could be sent to them, once you are sure and ready to move the matter forward.....

 

Dear Mr Banks

 

Notice of Intent

 

With reference to the above, I write to inform you that despite a number of letters sent to you over an extended period of time, it cannot be said that you have acted in a timely fashion to resolve the issues presented; subsequently, we remain in dispute.

 

Given the position as it stands; I take this opportunity to inform you that unless you are able to advise your proposed resolution to the issues and the dispute within the next 14 days to our mutual satisfaction, then I will have no choice but to seek redress via the Land Registration division of the Property Chamber without further redress to you after the period of time indicated herein expires.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

UNRAM

 

 

I think one of you have to 'budge'...it appears that they don't intend to....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just to add to my previous post....(I would mention that you are not refusing to pay...I tink it iis important to re-iterate that you are 'holding' payments until such time as the dispute is resolved..i.e any 'arrears that accrue' will be covered)

 

The approach does not come without risk...you have to cover your back.....there is every chance that a lender may commence action against you in court first...even though they have no right to...(but hey ho..they lead on the premise that they have every right to do so)

 

Just in case you falter at the alter - so's to speak in court....the first thing the Judge is going to want to put in place will be a 'order' from a choice of suspended or outright order for possession...so, stash the cash in readiness....as you have been doing....so that you can pay...and keep the wolf from the door...

 

You could also add to the letter that you rely on the RRO 2005 to find that the deed is void....just so's they know in advance what they are up against : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

"Is this principle applicable to the case of a mortgage deed and is this what you are highlighting in 3. (xiii) of your representation? Are you suggesting that a mortgage deed, in accordance with the principal of this case, is not in its final form?"

 

I'll answer this for you...in 'Bibby'..the Deed had been executed by both parties....but..'technically' it was not in final form.....it was taken to be a 'draft'...because there were amendments noted as not yet having been included in the deed...therefore it was not in 'final' form...and was void.

 

Between you and your Lender, this thread asserts that the Deed is not in final form on the finding that it has not been 'delivered' at all...it has not been 'executed' by the lender...therefore...no presumption of 'delivery' can be assumed on evidence of your signature alone.....by virtue of the RRO 2005 Article 10 (2).

 

This thread asserts that.....whilst the deed is in 'approved form' for registration purposes...(as you know it is registered at HMLR).......it does not serve to transfer legal interests to your lender for want of compliance with the statutory formalities relating to deeds in relation to land.. (LPA 1925 section 52 (1).

 

Hope this helps further

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just a quick observation...be mindful as to how you pose your statements..e.g:

 

3. A statement of NRAM's acceptance or rejection of the amendments made to the The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 affecting deeds and their execution as specified in LPMPA1989 s.1.

 

This statement is incorrectly stated...the RRO ‘came into force’ in September 2005 to ‘amend’ the LPMPA 1989 s.1 (3) (b):

 

It’s effect was to remove the presumption of delivery on evidence of your attested signature alone on the deed....it...Amended the LPA 1925 and created a new section 74A to put the onus on NRAM to execute the deed to avoid the rebuttal intent of the RRO’s amendment made to section 1 (3) (b) in addition to the statutory duty to do so in section 74 (5) of the LPA 1925, and to;

 

Provide that unless NRAM executes the deed, it will be invalid within the provision of LPA 1925 section 74A(1) in relation to LPMPA 1989 section 1 (2) (a) and fail to evidence delivery within the provision of section 74A (2) LPA 1925

 

A statement of NRAM’s acceptance or rejection of the effect that The Regulatory Reform(Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 had in removing the previous presumption of Delivery in relation to my signature alone on the Deed

 

Apple

[applecart]

Is it acceptable to request clarification on specific points you have raised? I do not wish to hinder progress, and I can cease questions altogether but it will not help my own case.

 

Is the "TDA (Trustee Delegation Act), the LP(MP)Act 1994 and the LPA 1925 section 1 (7) working together... to operate at law as no more than ...i.e no right to possession...." an unproven assertion or is there historical precedent?

 

Apologies if this confused you...

 

The TDA...refers to the securitisation process...in that the Mortgage Sale Agreements include a 'power of attorney'....section 10 of that Act provides that a POA will transfer both legal and equitable rights - not just equitable rights to an spv

 

From there, it can be deduced that the Lenders title is a 'bare title'...i.e it is registered but the lender having transferred all his rights to the SPV by way of POA has no powers to do anything...(although they do)....so

 

The reference to section 1 (7) LPA 1925 was to show that in such a scenerio...statute provides that the registered charge is to be taken to have no more legal effect at law than that of an equitable interest....an 'equitable chargee'...has no 'legal' right to possession.....

 

Despite this, Lenders rely on 'equity' (chancery courts) to yield up possession of borrowers homes given that charges on the title register operate at law to confer 'legal rights'....

 

Hope I haven't gone on to confuse you further : (

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

If you need more evidence of the legitimacy of my interest I have recorded over 100 pages of correspondence, however the most recent postings are the most refined and closest in alignment with the themes expressed in this thread.

 

I spoke to the eviction defendant yesterday who assured me he will post details on here in the very near future. He and NRAM have been ordered to return to court and NRAM have failed to comply to two court orders to provide factual evidence of their entitlements - by going silent. Third hearing at the beginning of August and the defendant and his family are still in their home...

 

Ok...Thanks for this...I'm hopeful that he and his family log in to view the info on this thread...it may help or we may be able to directly assist him if he comes on the thread...August is just round the corner...Likewise, we want to learn from him as well ...if he is willing??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can I just get this said .....

 

A mortgage contract is not a ‘disposition’ at all....it is as it says..a ‘contract’....it is the Deed that creates the ‘disposition’

 

The lpmpa section 2 deals with the ‘contract’ as being the ‘agreement’ for the ‘disposition’ only ....it is not the ‘disposition’

 

Section 52 (1) deals with the deed that will create a ‘legal’ disposition ...and

 

Section 53 (1) © that deals with the deed that creates a ‘equitable’ disposition

 

Mortgage contracts are entered into to agree the terms and conditions of the ‘disposition’...hence the necessity for the Deed...it is the deed that denotes and creates the ‘disposition’

It is only when the Deed is registered by HMLR that the whole transaction operates at law by virtue of being registered....the Deed appears to have a ‘dual’ function if you will...it is used by HMLR to effect the Charge on the register......,

 

And... is also the instrument used to create the ‘disposition’...the registrable disposition if you will....if the Deed does not create a ‘registrable disposition’ it is apt to be set aside by the Property Chamber...

 

To create a legally binding registrable disposition...the deed must be signed by both the lender and the borrower...

 

....if it is not, then it is not a deed that created a valid disposition within the provisions of the LPA 1925 section 52...be all and end all....the borrower has a reserved legal estate – see section 65 LPA 1925.

 

Yes, of course you could argue that there was no valid ‘agreement’ to enter into the disposition of your estate...but as I said before...the Deed used to effect the ‘disposition’ is registered at HMLR against your estate....it confers a ‘legal estate’ by virtue of simply having been registered...the Law at LRA 2002 s.51 & 58 says ...registered charges are ‘conclusive’.... courts say...it’s conclusive...this thread asserts...if we are to accept that that is the case, then; the Deed needs to be set aside...

 

Entering into a mortgage is to provide ‘security’ for a lender...nothing more....it is for the lender to ensure that the ‘security’ is in place and that he can withstand a defence based on the RRO 2005....

 

Mortgages by demise or sub-demise were legal under the LRA 1925 but this Act was repealed in regard to any mortgage entered into since the LRA 2002 came into force – it is section 23 that expressly repeals mortgages by demise or sub-demise...(it will not be too long now before mortgages entered into before the lra 2002 will expire anyway) – the effect is that the deed must be executed by the lender shortly after the Borrower signs – if the deed is presented for registration without the Lenders signature...then the Deed did not effect a disposition of the Borrowers Legal estate at all.....it is an ‘equitable’ disposition

 

A mortgage by demise was one where when you signed the Deeds, the Lender would own the estate until you made the final payment of the loan...it was not until then that you could reclaim your estate .

 

Each Deed that I have been referred to so far....on it’s face...clearly advises that the Lender will not execute until all monies have been paid by the Borrower.....now...correct me if you think I am wrong...but is that not an admittance of an attempt to circumvent the Law...

 

Likewise, if you have ‘terms and conditions’ as referred to in a deed...such ‘terms and conditions’ not being attached to the deed itself, but held in some other document....and that document/alleged agreement...is not signed by both you and the lender....are you to be held to account for those terms and conditions that you did not sign – thus agree to....notwithstanding the fact that in most instances the Lender has not agreed to those terms either???

 

Now since LRA 2002...as a Borrower, you have no power to create or enter into a mortgage by demise or sub-demise...section 65 LPA 1925 tells you...if the lender has not executed the deed...the legal estate is reserved to the borrower...i.e no legal estate passes – the RRO re-enforces this statutory fact...

 

This thread asserts that....., factoring the RRO into a Borrowers defence - means that there is simply no defence where a lender has not executed the deed...none...none that I have yet found at all...

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Just to add to my previous post....(I would mention that you are not refusing to pay...I tink it iis important to re-iterate that you are 'holding' payments until such time as the dispute is resolved..i.e any 'arrears that accrue' will be covered)

 

Apple

 

I am not 'holding' subscription payments I am honouring them as agreed with the CEO of NRAM who has acknowledged receipt of both my advance notice of the alteration and its execution and made no objection. In actuality I have had a significant lump sum available for a year to greatly reduce normal monthly 'repayments' (i.e. interested on a purported a loan) but I'm not just giving £XXX,XXX's to NRAM without knowing they have the right to accept it, and nor can they just expect me to.

 

NRAM's arrogance and incompetent dithering has cost me thousands in overpayments... NRAM are refusing to make any comment on the application of interest to subscription arrears having stated only that interest will be applied to a £40.00 charge (that I havent contracted to) for each month the account remains in arrears.

 

On top of this, NRAM are refusing to provide any details whatsoever regarding guidelines and procedures for arrears handling despite numerous requests. I have asked to speak both to NRAM's head of debt collection, Jeff McAdam and to also UKAR's head of debt collection Jim Waddle . The latter is an HM Treasury director presumably employed to ensure the principle of independence between NRAM and government stated by the Economic Treasury Secretary MP Saijd Javid as his reason for not wanting to get involved. This stinks.

Edited July 27, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Is the "TDA (Trustee Delegation Act), the LP(MP)Act 1994 and the LPA 1925 section 1 (7) working together... to operate at law as no more than ...i.e no right to possession....

NRAM are refusing to make any comment on the securitisation of the mortgage. Please can you draft an enquiry that I may send to NRAM incorporating the details above... as an aside to my main inquiry...

[applecart]

NRAM are refusing to make any comment on the securitisation of the mortgage. Please can you draft an enquiry that I may send to NRAM incorporating the details above... as an aside to my main inquiry...

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Your friend has the matter in court on this as an issue as I understand it...if I am wrong on that, then please correct me....If they have not provided the info in a court of Law; what chance do you think a letter from a consumer is going to have?

 

It would be upto you to find out if the 'old' Northern Rock securitised your mortgage for yourself...

 

Here's a starting point that may help you start your investigations:

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/09/17/northern-rock-the-questions-needing-answers/

 

I will see what else I can find...it may help your friend...so that instead of the court 'waiting' for them to free up the info...he may be able to provide it for them....I'll do some digging for you - Unless of course; we have a Cagger who already has the info to hand? : )

 

Apple

[URAM2]

Hello, I am the NRAM customer who UNRAM has told you about, I have been taken to court by NRAM and have been successful in overturning their repossession request.

 

I (We, my wife & I) have been a Northern Rock mortgage customer since 2002, I started to have problems with them last year when my business took a dive and I incurred some arrears on the mortgage. NRAM let me go onto interest only which did help up until their decision in February this year. NRAM stated that as the mortgage had only 16 years to left to run I had to increase my monthly payments in February from £758.00 to £1295.00 so that the mortgage would complete within that time scale. I told NRAM I could not afford this and asked could they extend the term, they declined and said they were unable to do this because they do not have a banking licence, to which I replied then why are you charging me interest on money you did not lend to me! No Reply!

 

I refused to pay the extra and continued to pay £758.00 each month until I was informed in April that they were taking us to court and had applied for possession of the property that we have lived in with 2 kids for almost 14 years. In May we went to court and I asked the Judge (Lady Judge) can NRAM provide a copy of my signed deed, signed mortgage contract & alleged CMS, the NRAM Lawyer could not help so the Judge adjourned the case and made an order to give me the documents that I requested.

 

We went back to court in early June and the Judge (Different Lady Judge) asked had I received the documents to which I replied no, the NRAM Lawyer said they had not yet been provided to her. NRAM broke a court order! I proved I could afford the monthly payment as well as £150pcm towards the arrears, so the Judge suspended the warrant (Phew !) and ordred that I should be given the documents I requested previously under my SAR by the 20th June 2013. The documents did not arrive so NRAM have now broken a second court order. The Judge also ordered that we should go back to court (In front of her only) to review the situation on 5th August, however I must continue to pay the £1295.00 CMI plus £150pcm towards the arrears, I have and am continuing to comply with my part of the order. NRAM have since provided me with single sheet document that is my alleged Deed, it has signatures of my wife & myself as well as an independent mortgage broker, but no signatures from a Northern Rock Representitive!

 

I have beaten NRAM twice in court and had the warrant for possession suspended but I have still not had all the documents I requested and we are back in court on the 5th August, at least it is not a possession hearing this time but it will be interesting. Any help from Applecart, Is It Me and all you other comrades out there is much appreciated.

 

Yours faithfully , Mr P