Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

This might answer your question... According to this , both the borrower and the lender are the proprietor.

i.e proprietor register - borrower owns the estate. Charges register - lender owns the mortgage until paid off.

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/title_register_proprietor

 

This doc clearly states that the borrower is the proprieter of the title absolute and the lender is the proprieter of the charge...

[IS IT ME?]

Apple,

 

According to my deed in the Charges Register section there is a REGISTERED CHARGE dated [xx/xx/xx]. Next line states Proprietor: Northern Rock Asset Management.... at first glance it appears we are working from a mistaken assumption... It's pretty clear on the title register... Lender is proprieter of the charge...

 

Other point: the Proprietor is known as the "proprietor for the time being of the charge" elsewhere in the title deed... Dont think this changes the fact though..

First of all did you sign a so called deed with northern rock asset management I think not

Secondly they have a CHARGE that's all

If you read this thread from the start you would see that apple has put a lot of time in here and has stopped the lender from getting pros session from day one

This was done because the right questions were being asked and documents in place to help

[UNRAM]

Is It Me,

 

I am reading the entire thread again from the start... trying to cover every aspect and angle... I did sign a deed with northern rock who is northern rock asset management and to suggest i didnt would be clutching at straws i think... the deed in actuality resulted in a charge on the title register with the lender as proprietor - not the borrower - the lender...

 

is this thread asserting that the title register is presenting incorrect information and the borrower is the true proprietor of the charge?

 

please can you clarify.

Edited August 23, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

post removed

Edited August 22, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

 

I hear you; my time is spent here on the CaG of my own free will, I am not paid and do not receive any benefit from being on the CaG...in fact...I have non of the privileges afforded to all most all other Caggers.......accordingly, I do not have to assist, or indeed 'teach' anyone....the forum is intended to be 'self-help'.....likewise, where I have made a point...and someone disagrees.... I have every right to defend and establish the points made.....in this thread, a number of the questions you have asked....have in fact been answered time and again....

 

You are fortunate, when Is It Me and I started out...we did not have anyone that we could say 'oi you...give me more help or else...or 'as I proceed' to....neither would we seek to give the impression that such assistance is 'ours' of some misguided 'right'.....

 

I am not a site team member, I am not some Barrister or Lawyer.....my research is done off my own back....if it helps you then that is all well and good....if it doesn't....then, I can only apologise to you....given that the main thrust of this thread was to assist Is It Me....

 

It does not bode well to 'bite off the hand that has sought to feed you....'

 

Apple

 

I hope I have not offended you, I am re-reading entire thread and will continue to observe, intepret, ask questions and test ideas...

[UNRAM]

If you aren't making full payment your home is at risk of repossession. Fair enough you may be able to make payment if necessary, but you may also find penalty charges (which you can fight), extra interest, court fees and NRAMs legal costs added, which could run into tens of thousands.

 

Fair enough if you've got your eyes open and are willing to take the risk on behalf of yourself and your family (if you have one).

 

Why do we continue to tolerate this these bullying tactics?

[applecart]

Apple,

 

According to my deed in the Charges Register section there is a REGISTERED CHARGE dated [xx/xx/xx]. Next line states Proprietor: Northern Rock Asset Management.... at first glance it appears we are working from a mistaken assumption... It's pretty clear on the title register... Lender is proprieter of the charge...

 

Other point: the Proprietor is known as the "proprietor for the time being of the Hi UNRAMcharge" elsewhere in the title deed... Dont think this changes the fact though..

 

 

Hi UNRAM,

 

When you say 'got it'....and 'i've re-read the thread'...etc etc....I can tell that if you have....you still do not understand....that's why I have re-drafted your letter for you....

 

I gave up on your letter by saying 'aaaaaahhh I give up'....because although you were stating the correct legislation - you then said it was the lender who had the right to take possession by virtue of the LPA 1925 section 98....when it is clear from every post I have entered in relation to section 98 that it is the Borrower who seeks to regain possession........You just blew me away mate.....it was clear to me that you still do not understand.....that's why............, I suggested you re-read the thread....

 

I re-drafted your letter (even posted 'explanatory notes for you)....but even that appears to have been lost on you.......

 

Now here again...despite the thread advising that the document that purports to be a deed is void....you pipe up with details from what the 'title' register tells you.......to say...my lender is the 'proprietor'.....'it's pretty clear'.....

 

When the simple understanding is.....it matters NOT what the title register says......it is what the document that purports to be a DEED says that is important.....because.... if the 'deed' contains invalid clauses....and can be proven not to be a deed.....then that title register and the detail that your lender relies on to say he is the 'proprietor'... which you say is 'pretty clear'....will also be VOID...(an interest in land must be by DEED...if it is not a DEED...then it is VOID)

 

This thread takes you to the very legislation that helps you frame your argument to say....the Deed is void...and the detail on the title register is void too....

 

Now do you 'get it'??

 

Apple

[applecart]

First of all did you sign a so called deed with northern rock asset management I think not

Secondly they have a CHARGE that's all

If you read this thread from the start you would see that apple has put a lot of time in here and has stopped the lender from getting pros session from day one

This was done because the right questions were being asked and documents in place to help

 

Spot on!

 

NO Borrower has signed a DEED....they have ALL signed a document that PURPORTS TO BE A DEED...

 

Thanks Is It Me....You have said it all.... : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

This is the point... Our homes aren't at risk cos it ain't even secured. We are all effectively paying an unsecured debt that is now also in question due to being fooled!

 

Spot on Again.....Thank Goodness!!!!....someone else 'gets it'

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

Are we trying to prove that the deed is not a deed at all then...? So infact the lack of signature is just part of that evidence gathering to prove that we have no deed - therefore VOID?!

[UNRAM]

I am submitting this for review before I send to NRAM. It was my intention to capture and condense the main assertions of this thread (applied to my own individual case) into a single notice. Suggestions for amendments and additions most welcome...

 

===

 

Dear Mr Banks, CEO NRAM,

 

I am writing to you in continuation of my correspondence dated Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:29:41 to acknowledge your invitation from January 2013 ref [ref_removed] dated [date_removed] page 3, paragraph 9 to raise any problem with the mortgage. You (via your Customer Relations department) said,

 

"It is NRAM's position that you have a valid and enforceable mortgage. This is registered at the Land Registry and copy documents are available from them. In the event you believe there to be a problem with your mortgage or the enforceability of it then please set out exactly what it is".

Entries in the title register are not evidence of validity of the deed used to grant the charge. I have compiled a consolidated list of contentions demonstrating the invalidity of Northern Rocks puported entitlements for ease of reference and for which I seek your further opinion. I invite your corrections and rebuttals at this stage as they can be materialised at minimal expense and with no risk of liability for either party.

 

If you do not seek to offer corrections or rebuttals at this stage but only to continue with taking possession I will defend against all claims of your future costs, using this notice and all those preceding it as evidence of my sustained and undeterred attempt to resolve the issue amicably. I hope that we may resolve this issue before it reaches tribunal.

 

 

1. The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 removed presumption of delivery from evidence of the borrowers signature alone as amendment to LPMPA 1989 s.1 (3)(b). You stated in your letter CUSTREL/CR0186085 dated 16 08 2013 page 5 paragraph 8 that "The Order would not be applicable ... as you have executed the Mortgage Deed as an individual". This is inaccurate. To clear up further misunderstanding I quote from the legislation: "This Order reforms the legislation governing the execution of deeds and documents in order to standardise the formal requirements for companies, corporations and individuals".
   
2. The purported deed is invalid within the provision of LPA 1925 section 74A(1) in relation to LPMPA 1989 section 1 (2)(a) and fails to evidence delivery within the provision of section 74A (2) LPA 1925
   
3. According to Land Registration Act 2002 section 23, owner’s powers in relation to a registered charge prohibit the creation of a (2) legal sub-mortgage as a (3)© charge by way of a legal mortgage.
   
4. According to the Land Registration Act 2002 section 91 there is a requirement for a disposition (the charge/deed) classified according to section (2) to be (4)(a) in writing, and (4)(b) signed by each individual, and sealed by each corporation whose electronic signature it has.
   
5. There is no signed simple contract in existence incorporating terms and conditions for creation of a future disposition (by deed, as a specialty by fact of law) nor legal reference to the terms and conditions of the actual disposition. There is no legal basis for the charge on the title register.
   

I acknowledge that the charge is protected by statute once registered in accord with LRA 2002 section 58(1) . However, where a deed does not secure the charge it is statutory provision alone that grants ‘a charge by way of legal mortgage’. In accord with LPA 1925 s.1(7) the charge is only equitable having been granted by statute alone, not due to an enforceable deed.

 

I have responded to your invitation to raise problems with the mortgage and due to already extensive delays I require your prompt attention and look forward to your early reply within 7 days.

 

Please may I remind you of your obligation to treat customers fairly in accord with FCA guidelines. By repeatedly sending multiple "final response" notices you are continuing to prevent my early repayment of the mortgaged debt and sale of the property.

 

As the Absolute Owner of the Legal Estate and Registered Charge with rights to protect and defend my legal right to my estate as conclusive pursuant to the LRA 2002 section 58 (1) I deem it fair that you validate the purported agreement, deed and charge by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee before proceeding with any further action to take possession of my property or affect my previously clear credit history.

 

Your sincerely,

 

UNRAM

Edited August 24, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM...

 

I'm impressed ..... that's some going....Brilliant!!!!

 

Just spotted one little thing though.....After para 5...you say this: "I acknowledge that the charge is protected by statute once registered in accord with LRA 2002 section 58(1) "

 

Just amend it to say: I acknowledge that the charge is protected by statute once registered in accord with LRA 2002 section 51

 

Also, just to assist further.....

 

Where your lender harps on about: "The Order would not be applicable ... as you have executed the Mortgage Deed as an individual"

 

Refer them to Article 9 of the RRO:

 

Extension of presumption of authority to deliver

9. In section 1(5) of the 1989 Act (presumption of authority to deliver an instrument on behalf of another) omit the words “involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land”.

 

so.... Just because you have signed the document as 'an individual' as a 'deed'.....your signature has no 'weight'....it means nothing...it has no weight to transfer an interest in land or to create a registrable disposition.... Just as the legislator intended....the lender should know that ..... funny how they all seem to miss the protection that the RRO affords ALL Borrowers....???

 

I'm hopeful that this titbit will help you further : )

 

If I spot anything else .... I'll let you know Ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Are we trying to prove that the deed is not a deed at all then...? So infact the lack of signature is just part of that evidence gathering to prove that we have no deed - therefore VOID?!

 

That's right....We are providing ALL the information that a Borrower needs to protect their home from being repossessed.... The document is not a deed...

 

It's imperative that Borrowers swat up on the info supplied - Once you understand how to interpret and present the information .... you should be able to frame your argument to the Lender or the Property Chamber or both - UNRAM has already done so....he's is looking pretty good right now.....more should be doing the same....it's no more than the Legislator intended....to assist ALL Borrowers protect the roofs over their head... : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Ok... i will make necessary amendments and send this evening...

 

...like you have already said, its actually quite simple...

 

...According to the Land Registration Act 2002 section 91 there is a requirement for a disposition (the charge/deed) classified according to section (2) to be (4)(a) in writing, and (4)(b) signed by each individual, and sealed by each corporation whose electronic signature it has.

[UNRAM]

That's right....We are providing ALL the information that a Borrower needs to protect their home from being repossessed.... The document is not a deed...

 

It's imperative that Borrowers swat up on the info supplied - Once you understand how to interpret and present the information .... you should be able to frame your argument to the Lender or the Property Chamber or both - UNRAM has already done so....he's is looking pretty good right now.....more should be doing the same....it's no more than the Legislator intended....to assist ALL Borrowers protect the roofs over their head... : )

 

Apple

 

I hope my own summaries/notices will help this along...

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM...

 

I'm impressed ..... that's some going....Brilliant!!!!

 

Just spotted one little thing though.....After para 5...you say this: "I acknowledge that the charge is protected by statute once registered in accord with LRA 2002 section 58(1) "

 

Just amend it to say: I acknowledge that the charge is protected by statute once registered in accord with LRA 2002 section 51

 

Also, just to assist further.....

 

Where your lender harps on about: "The Order would not be applicable ... as you have executed the Mortgage Deed as an individual"

 

Refer them to Article 9 of the RRO:

 

Extension of presumption of authority to deliver

9. In section 1(5) of the 1989 Act (presumption of authority to deliver an instrument on behalf of another) omit the words “involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land”.

 

so.... Just because you have signed the document as 'an individual' as a 'deed'.....your signature has no 'weight'....it means nothing...it has no weight to transfer an interest in land or to create a registrable disposition.... Just as the legislator intended....the lender should know that ..... funny how they all seem to miss the protection that the RRO affords ALL Borrowers....???

 

I'm hopeful that this titbit will help you further : )

 

If I spot anything else .... I'll let you know Ok?

 

Apple

 

I don't understand your reference to section 9 in the context you have used it. This doesn't prohibit - it extends the scope of the presumption to include all transactions not just those... "involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land”... but will include those...

 

From the legislation notes... "Article 9 amends section 1(5) of the 1989 Act to provide that the presumption in favour of a purchaser that solicitors, etc, are authorised to deliver a deed on behalf of a party to it, is no longer limited to the creation or disposal of an interest in land".

Please can you give some additional context and background to your idea... and challenge my perspective if you do not agree...

 

9. In section 1(5) of the 1989 Act (presumption of authority to deliver an instrument on behalf of another) omit the words “involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land”.

 

effect...

 

(5)Where a solicitor [F1, duly certificated notary public] or licensed conveyancer, or an agent or employee of a solicitor [F1, duly certificated notary public] or licensed conveyancer, in the course of or in connection with a transaction [removes_the _following] involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land, purports to deliver an instrument as a deed on behalf of a party to the instrument, it shall be conclusively presumed in favour of a purchaser that he is authorised so to deliver the instrument.

becomes...

 

(5)Where a solicitor [F1, duly certificated notary public] or licensed conveyancer, or an agent or employee of a solicitor [F1, duly certificated notary public] or licensed conveyancer, in the course of or in connection with a transaction, purports to deliver an instrument as a deed on behalf of a party to the instrument, it shall be conclusively presumed in favour of a purchaser that he is authorised so to deliver the instrument.

Edited August 24, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

I like it apple more that take this on broad the better and its nice to see all your hard work coming to some thing

erm when this all comes home I would need to know where to send the champagne lol

[Jeremy Belknap]

I have finally finished reading this thread in its entirety.

 

Whilst I am all for giving anything a try, where you have nothing more to lose and potentially everything to gain, I was wondering if any of the contributors of this thread were aware of the recent case - The 'Mortgage Business Plc v Lamb' - 12 July 2013, In the Preston County Court on appeal from the Burnley County Court (Unreported) ?

 

It was argued on a different basis (mostly in relation to s.2 of the LPA 1989 MP) to that asserted by this thread that a mortgage deed had to be signed by the Lender. Whilst the arguments used were different, the outcome I fear may be the same and thus may be of interest -

 

"Lamb's appeal argument, put as simply as possible, was that her mortgage was null and void for want of statutory formality because it was signed by the borrower only and not the lender (as is the case with the vast majority of mortgage deeds) and as such it did not comply with LP(MP)A; therefore the mortgage did not exist at law and so could not be completed by registration as required by LRA; and thus it was not binding on the borrower.

 

Following this line of reasoning, borrowers could feasibly believe that having fallen into arrears they need not clear their debt, or that they could cease to pay their mortgage altogether, without in either scenario risking losing their homes.

 

It is clear why this argument has been seen as potentially 'revolutionary' and has been expounded by borrower-friendly forums. If found to be correct, the argument would obviously be of major concern to mortgage lenders and would require an urgent and whole-scale review of existing and future residential property mortgage investments.

 

If found to be wrong, however, belief and reliance upon this contention would potentially expose borrowers to the real and serious risk of losing their homes, adding to the problems of those already in financial difficulties."

 

Outcome

 

"In his judgment of 12 July 2013, His Honour Judge Butler held that Lamb's argument was "illusory" and "false". He was clearly concerned that it could mislead borrowers into wrongly thinking that their mortgage was not binding upon them, and that they could therefore default on payment without jeopardising their home. Conscious that the case was trying an argument that was the subject of much discussion on social media, as well as the focus of other residential possession proceedings, the judge delivered a careful, thorough and clear judgment, dismissing Lamb's appeal and lifting the stay of execution on the lender's recovery of possession.

 

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

 

[1] 12 July 2013, In the Preston County Court on appeal from the Burnley County Court (Unreported)

[2] Helden v Strathmore [2011] EWCA Civ 542 followed

[3] Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch) followed

 

His Honour Judge Butler referred to s.53 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which may come into play as part of Lenders replys' to the assertions made in this thread at any future hearing.

 

53 Instruments required to be in writing.

 

(1)Subject to the provision hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol—

 

(a)no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law;

 

In response to the above I would stress and ask that it is remembered that it did not set a precedent so may not have a bearing on any future hearings. However, the judgement in Helden v Strathmore deserves consideration as it did set a precedent as per the above

 

Once I am able to, I will provide a link to the above for discussion.

 

Jerry

 

EDIT

 

I am now able to post links

 

http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/social-medias-mortgage-revolution-does-not-materialise

Edited August 24, 2013 by Jeremy Belknap

[IS IT ME?]

erm this needs more looking into again.

1925 act????

these cases are nothing to do with this thread.

why when you have just joined and no other posts????

Edited August 24, 2013 by IS IT ME?
missing text

[Jeremy Belknap]

erm this needs more looking into again.

1925 act????

these cases are nothing to do with this thread.

why when you have just joined and no other posts????

 

A most unexpected response, I am not sure if you are being serious or facetious ?

 

The 1925, would be the Law of Property Act 1925. It was an act that laid down and reiterated many of the foundations of Property Law as it stands today.

 

The title of this thread is Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed is it not ? The Mortgage Business Plc v Lamb was about repossession being unsuccessfully questioned as the lender had not signed the deed. Surely the relevancy of that case to this thread is beyond question. Rather than having nothing to do with this thread, this case has a great deal to do with the subject of this thread.

 

You will see that I do have other posts, albeit not in this thread.

 

Jerry

Edited August 24, 2013 by Jeremy Belknap

[IS IT ME?]

So when it changed in 2002 it did nothing then.

The case you state relied on the 1925 act and as you say you read the whole thread

I have nothing to worry about and look forward to proving this thread right.

[IS IT ME?]

Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A) provides that a contract for the disposition of an interest in land must be made in writing, incorporating all the terms of the contract, and signed by each party to the contract. Section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA) provides that if a disposition is required to be completed by registration then it does not operate at law until the relevant registration requirements are met; and that the grant of a legal charge (or, a mortgage) is a disposition which is required to be completed by registration. Lamb's appeal argument, put as simply as possible, was that her mortgage was null and void for want of statutory formality because it was signed by the borrower only and not the lender (as is the case with the vast majority of mortgage deeds) and as such it did not comply with LP(MP)A; therefore the mortgage did not exist at law and so could not be completed by registration as required by LRA; and thus it was not binding on the borrower.

 

The wide public interest in the possibility of the so-called void mortgage revolution, however, is such that this, or indeed any of the other active possession cases considering the same issue, may find its way to the Court of Appeal.

So thats where we need to go if need be as the law is saying one thing and doing another.

[Jeremy Belknap]

So when it changed in 2002 it did nothing then.

The case you state relied on the 1925 act and as you say you read the whole thread

I have nothing to worry about and look forward to proving this thread right.

 

I am somewhat taken a back and disappointed with the hostility that I sense in your posts.

 

I have posted details of a very recent court case, which was about the same topic as this thread. After reading the thread, I was aware that there had been no prior reference to or discussion of that actual case and felt that it would be something that should be added, if for no other reason than to make people aware of it.

 

The changes in 2002, to which you have mentioned, were actually changes in 2003 when both the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003 both became law. The Land Registration Act 2002, repealed The Land Registration Act 1925 and not the Law of Property Act 1925, which is still very much in force today.

 

His Honour Judge Butler did take into account the Land Registration 2002, when reaching his decision as specified in my post. It is unfortunate that my posting of his judgement has resulted in this reaction from you.

 

Jerry

Edited August 24, 2013 by Jeremy Belknap

[IS IT ME?]

Jerry,

Thank you for your posts the changes were before the law commissioners in 2002 and made law in 2003,

You have answered the question yourself it repealed a lot of the 1925 act and if it was me I would have appealed this ruling.

So all that has been posted on this is wrong? and the LR act is not correct?

The reaction is one of surprise myself,

I for one will be continuing this thread and action having no worries about it , thank you

[Jeremy Belknap]

Jerry,

Thank you for your posts the changes were before the law commissioners in 2002 and made law in 2003,

You have answered the question yourself it repealed a lot of the 1925 act and if it was me I would have appealed this ruling.

So all that has been posted on this is wrong? and the LR act is not correct?

The reaction is one of surprise myself,

I for one will be continuing this thread and action having no worries about it , thank you

 

I appreciate your change of tone

 

I have no interest in getting into a urinating contest with you. I simply posted a case relevant to this thread. I did not tell you to stop following the course, you have decided to follow. Nor would I ever do so. What you do, is up to you.

 

I have explained my reasons for posting details of the case and I have explained that the case did not set a precedent and may not have a bearing on any future hearing.

 

For some reason, you have taken my post of information as some form of challenge against your beliefs. That was never my intention. As far as I am concerned you can believe what you wish.

 

In reply to your post you might be surprised to learn just how very little of the Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed by the Land Registration Act 2002. If you look at the repealed section of the Land Registration Act 2002, you can see that it hardly repealed anything, in the Law of Property Act 1925,your use of the term 'a lot' is an exaggeration.

 

Take a look for yourself

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/13

 

My only intention was to make people aware of the case and of the negative outcome of The Mortgage Business v Lamb as it was related to this thread but never mentioned or discussed.

 

In that case the borrower unsuccessfully challenged possession on the basis the deed was not signed by the lender.

 

It was my mistake to think that such a case or such an outcome might be something you would want to know about, especially given the course you are following. It is no wonder why with such a warm welcome, so few people have posted in this thread.

 

Jerry

Edited August 25, 2013 by Jeremy Belknap