Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Apple,

You said: "What they fail to admit here is that the Borrower has no power to charge the estate or registered charge by way of mortgage by demise or sub-demise or sub-mortgage by virtue of the LRA section 23"

Are you suggesting here that ALL mortgages are invalid?

 

You went on to say: "YAAAWWWNNN.....you cannot mortgage a registered estate my dear....any document that is intended to secure a mortgage in any guise is obsolete.....this was registered land mate.....you have NO CHANCE!!!....."

As most residential property is registered what is the correct way for a lender to secure a residential home loan if it is not as a charge by way of legal mortgage? Obviously can't be done as mortgage by demise...

 

From reading your recent post I get the impression you believe all mortgages are illegal... If this is the case then I don't think any court can/will support your argument even if this thread is technically correct.

 

Hi UNRAM

 

I am terrible aren't I....I should have been more professional.....crikey.... I must have been tired when I posted the above....all that 'Yawning'....LOL : )

 

There is NO CORRECT WAY for any lender to mortgage any registered estate - Mortgages are no longer party to the order of the day.....

 

The order of the day for any lender is to derive a 'sub-charge'.....nothing more......the Borrower has no power to grant any lender a right to the whole of their registered estate....look up what a mortgage is.....look at the LPMPA 1994 for definition of 'full title guarantee' etc....you will find that all the terms on your deed relate to the disposition of your entire registered estate by way of 'mortgage'.......it is not lawful.....you have no power to dispose of or create an interest in your whole estate.....no power to dsipose of or create an interest in your registered charge....

 

I will say again....the only power that the legislator left you with...is the power to secure indebtedness for money or money's worth.....that's done by means of a 'sub-charge'....by way of a notice within the provision of section 32 to the LRA 2002...............not by Charge and not by Mortgage either....

 

A charge by way of legal mortgage.....is a mortgage by demise....they mean exactly the same thing.....section 51 will not assist a lender - not when we know that mortgages are obsolete.....it is there by reason of HMLR's mistake....it is apt to be amended............

 

So, yes...all or any type of mortgage on any registered estate since way back when.... is unlawful.......and to add a further point.....these' mortgages' are not even supported with a valid deed.......Ain't nothing wrong with my understanding of the Law UNRAM..... : )

 

There you go.....I've said it......no mortgage is lawful....there is no defence to any lender who goes into court advising they have a mortgage secured by a borrowers registered estate....

 

There is no defence for any lender who submits in evidence a deed that has not been executed by them either......

 

Apologies to any lender that didn't want it spelt out like this...but it's not my fault.....UNRAM pushed me into saying it .....the cats out the bag.....loud and clear......LOL : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

All good many thanks I'll stay focussed...

 

Don't worry....we will keep you on track...... : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me...

 

I agree, you are too far forward to back off now : )

 

To be fair, if that is there ‘defence’...then there is not much to worry about...

 

What they do say is they require that you prove your case for ‘rectification’.....that is the biggest issue.....we have without doubt ‘rocked’ the boat with the draft representation....but we could have said much more to ‘prove’ the case for ‘rectification’

 

This is what I mean....in brief....

 

when we said .....mortgages are obsolete....yes, we can prove that...LRA section 23

 

when we said .....deed not executed by them....yes, we can prove that too....LPMPA 1989 section 1 (2) analogous with the LPA 1925 section 74, 74A and 74 (5).....Companies Act 2006 section 46 (NOTE: we are saying LPMPA 1989 section “1 (2)”.......NOT section 2!!

 

When we said....RRO removes presumption of delivery from sight of borrowers signature alone....we can prove that...Article 10 (2) and also Article 7 (3)......(you could add Article 5 of the RRO in your oral submission and other Articles to ram the point home....)

 

In summary....what we have said is.....the concept of any type of mortgage has been obsolete since the coming into force of the LRA 2002....

 

You will note...I have spoken of the Administration of Estates Act 1925......this is because, many lenders relied on section 36 (3) of this act to say they are the ‘personal representative’ of the exiting lender......this little ‘loophole’ was relied upon to avoid the lenders bothering to execute the deed for the section basically said.....they didn’t have to.......it stems from the old 1925 LRA.....it is re-enacted by Rule 163......that ‘personal representatives’...i.e ‘lenders’...can ‘step into the shoes of the exiting lender without having to sign the deed.......The legislator closed that loophole in 1994!!....yet, here today....lenders are still mistakenly hoping, praying that we would not find out about it.....ah well....tough!!.....we have ......the LPMPA 1994 repealed it....see schedule 2 to that Act for confirmation........

 

You will note also... that I have spoken of the LRR 2003....that’s where you will see Rule 163

 

What we did not do is.......establish fully why all the above means the register must be ‘rectified’....by virtue of the deed being set aside

 

We have not shown or established WHY it is that HMLR should remove the Lenders name from your friends title ........

 

HMLR have a duty to maintain the register to reflect the intent of the parties as based on the prevailing substantiating LAW.....

 

I could go back as far as the LPMPA 1994 Schedule 2 alone .....to say that HMLR had a duty of care to ensure that the deed should be executed by the lender.....due to them.....the lender was able to somehow manage to override the repeal of section 36(3) of the AEA 1925.

 

Remember....HMLR’s practice is to ‘approve’ forms of charge....well....all them there clauses – such as ‘full title guarantee’ and charge by way of legal mortgage’.....all are obsolete....they all relate to granting the lender the legal right to take possession of your estate, property, money until the debt is paid in full........that is what a mortgage does.......it allows the lender to take over your estate and ‘block’ you out......(restriction in the proprietorship section....lender shown as ‘owner’ of the Registered charge)....all of which is not lawful.....not since 1994....and certainly not since 2002....the legislator enforced the RRO to further assist you take the point to a lender.....to the extent that they truly no longer have any defence......

 

There is no such thing as an ‘equitable mortgage’....reason....you can’t mortgage registered land...so how on earth do you get an ‘equitable mortgage’.....????

 

A ‘mortgage’ says...you have pledged your whole estate....that’s no longer possible....the borrower remains in possession.....there is never any mortgagor and mortgagee relationship to which LPA section 131 refers to because the lender has not signed the deed.......you can’t create something out of nothing......

 

HMLR as a government body have a duty in the public interest to keep ahead of amendments to the law and enforce it on behalf of the legislator......as soon as they see the word ‘mortgage’.....it should set off alarm bells.....it didn’t.....they continue to be oblivious .... they are making the issue worse.....it is their mistake.....one for which they will have not only have to rectify, but will also have to indemnify the Borrower for I’m afraid.....

 

HMLR practice of ‘approving’ forms of charge – you will find means that the obligation of the lender to ‘make further advances’....is not entered on your title .......that’s a mistake....because the fact that it is noted on the deed...is note of ‘intent’...the lenders ‘intent’.....you can’t ignore it....you need to enter it on the title....it’s an obligation.....the lender obligation....why isn’t it there????

 

HMLR practice of ‘approving’ a deed as a form of charge without the lenders execution.....that’s a mistake.....because section 36 (3) AEA is no longer there...it was repealed in 1994!!....why did HMLR accept a deed with only the Borrowers signature on.....you can’t create any interest in land without a deed...surely they knew that...it’s there in section 52 (1) of the LPA....section 52 (2) no longer applies..

 

I could go on and on.....but suffice to say...no parcel of registered land should evince a ‘mortgage’....if it does it is apt to be rectified......trouble is.....even if HMLR say....we will amend all the terms on the deed....in the misguided belief that such amendments will suffice to ‘rectify’ the error.......unfortunately it will not be enough...

 

ultimately; HMLR cannot correct the biggest mistake of all.....and that is .....they.....nor the Lender.... cannot ‘execute’ the deed for the lender....and the lender cannot execute it either.....that would be an outright attempt to ‘circumvent the law’......estoppel does not assist the lender....it does not assist HMLR either......

 

HMLR are at fault....they should have seen this coming years ago........The deed is apt to be set aside....and when it is ....they cannot do anything other than alter/rectify the borrowers title and indemnify the Borrower as the innocent party.......you cannot correct a deed that is not executed!!!...you can indemnify the innocent party though....

 

The Lender is not 'innocent'

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

There you go.....I've said it......no mortgage is lawful....there is no defence to any lender who goes into court advising they have a mortgage secured by a borrowers registered estate...

 

Apple

 

So how is a lender meant to secure repayment? Im not trying to catch you out... these questions need to be asked...

[UNRAM]

What they do say is they require that you prove your case for ‘rectification’..... that is the biggest issue.....we have without doubt ‘rocked’ the boat with the draft representation....but we could have said much more to ‘prove’ the case for ‘rectification’. This is what I mean....in brief.... when we said .....mortgages are obsolete....yes, we can prove that...LRA section 23

 

...

 

Apple

 

Though you have offered some guidance please may I request something in completed form to send to the lender or submit as part of my application? May also be of use to others... as a "stage 2"...

[applecart]

So how is a lender meant to secure repayment? Im not trying to catch you out... these questions need to be asked...

 

It's a good question UNRAM and worthy of going over again.......you won't 'catch me out'......trust me : )

 

The legislator repealed any means of a lender securing the money they loaned you by way of mortgage....this stems from the effect of the LRA section 23....

 

You are the Absolute Proprietor of the Registered estate....that 'title' registered in your name ....that's yours....conferred on you by LAW...conclusive as your Legal Estate....

 

That 'Legal Estate' comprises of a) the Legal 'interest'......and b).....the equitable/beneficial 'interest'

 

The Legal Estate is not transmissible......you cannot transfer it by way of 'mortgage' or 'charge by way of legal mortgage' or by 'charge'.....all of which would grant the grantee rights to the ESTATE......these options are no longer available to any lender....The ESTATE is 'REM'.....conclusive rights against the 'world at large'...it is yours....no Lender has the right to enter into possession of the Borrowers Legal ESTATE.....

 

You have power to charge your legal 'interest' ......and/or your equitable 'interest' only...... this is a 'personal' right....you can charge these rights to say, if you secure a loan against your 'personal' 'interests'...then the lender has a claim against you ..... not your ESTATE....

 

The Legal interest is the right to possession and to occupy the property.....you can only charge the legal interest with money or moneys worth....so if the lender is granted possession...he is only due the capital and any interest/costs (lawfully administered) that applied up to the date that the court granted possession.......

 

The Equitable interest is where you would charge any indebtedness....that's to do with the 'value' of your estate.....you know the lender makes the loan based on the 'value' of your estate....they give you say a 95% Loan to Value.....

 

The Legal interest is shown at the top of the title...there should be no 'restriction' in favour of any lender in that part of the title....a notice in the charges section is all that is necessary to secure the indebtedness ...see section 40 - 42 of the LRA 2002 and section 32.... there should be no 'restriction', when a 'notice' will do.....

 

The charges register is part of your legal estate....your charge is registered....you cannot dispose of your registered charge...but you can grant a 'sub-charge'......all HMLR need to do is note in that part...words to the effect that 'a sub-charge in favor of XYZ lender to secure the sum of XYZ is secured and secures further advances'

 

That's it.....that's how the lender secures his loan......nothing more....nothing less.....

 

It's intended to be more straightforward, easily administered.....so that e-conveyancing can kick in better, smoother...and more transparent.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Though you have offered some guidance please may I request something in completed form to send to the lender or submit as part of my application? May also be of use to others... as a "stage 2"...

 

I hear you...but this is a self help forum...where I have been allowed to upload documents to assist or links .... I have done so......

 

I do not think the CaG would allow me to post up a full defence/application at this stage.

 

However, if you post up what you want to say....I can, as I have before work with you to perfect it....what's happened to the one you were working on??

 

Yes, I do recognise that it is like a jigsaw...and yes, I realise you have the task of putting it all together...but, it is here....Surely taking a few months to fully understand this will be worth it for you...if not right now...in the not too distant future.....invest your time...it will be worth it......

 

The draft written representation can of course become a 'stage 2'......but, to post it up on the CaG...would give the Lender too much information all too soon......there is a balance.....it is important not to show your entire hand on an open forum...not all in one go.....they have played a tactical game for years.....now its our turn.... : )

 

 

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

The draft written representation can of course become a 'stage 2'......but, to post it up on the CAG...would give the Lender too much information all too soon......there is a balance.....it is important not to show your entire hand on an open forum...not all in one go.....they have played a tactical game for years.....now its our turn.... : )

Apple

 

By "Stage 2" I was referring only to further supplementary evidence you have suggested in the recent post not included in your original draft. I will "piece together" and post here at a later date...

 

Progress: I have submitted an application based on your original draft (with amendments that I have posted in the thread and you have reviewed) to the Property Chamber and notice of RRO2005 and LRA2002 section 23 to the lender and confirmed my recognition of their use of a specialty instrument. I have also submitted to the Chamber and the lender that LRA 2002 section 91 reinforces the formalities in LPA1925 section 52.

 

The lender has replied with

 

1. a statement that LPMPA1989 s2 does not apply to deeds,
   
2. a statement that RRO 2005 does not apply to the deed because I am an individual,
   
3. a statement of reliance on LPA1925 section 53.
   
4. no rebuttal of the applicability of LRA 2002 section 23.
   

Edited September 16, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

By "Stage 2" I was referring only to further supplementary evidence you have suggested in the recent post not included in your original draft. I will "piece together" and post here at a later date...

 

Progress: I have submitted an application based on your original draft (with amendments that I have posted in the thread and you have reviewed) to the Property Chamber and notice of RRO2005 and LRA2002 section 23 to the lender and confirmed my recognition of their use of a specialty instrument.

 

The has lender replied with a statement LPMPA1989 s2 does not apply to deeds, RRO does not apply, and that they intend to rely on LPA1925 section 53.

 

Gotcha....

 

You will find that the additional detail is all available on line...e.g: The LRR 2003 is the Land Registration Rules 2003....The 'AEA' is the Administration of Estates Act 1925.....is this what you are referring to?

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Gotcha....

 

You will find that the additional detail is all available on line...e.g: The LRR 2003 is the Land Registration Rules 2003....The 'AEA' is the Administration of Estates Act 1925.....is this what you are referring to?

 

Apple

 

Yes this is what I am referring to... I will examine the references and raise questions where I need to...

[TimetogoRAM]

Gotcha....

 

You will find that the additional detail is all available on line...e.g: The LRR 2003 is the Land Registration Rules 2003....The 'AEA' is the Administration of Estates Act 1925.....is this what you are referring to?

 

Apple

 

 

Surely you don't expect us to get our information from 'the Internet' after all lawyers never do that?! Ha.

 

I have received a response from my lender requesting that they are 'concerned by my letter and are looking into the complaint.' They have stated they will contact be back within 3 weeks and this shall be logged through their internal complaints procedure. Oh and this can then be forwarded to the 'independent' organisation that is the financial ombudsmen service should I choose if complaint not upheld..

 

Now I'm confused. Why do they require more time? Are their feathers ruffled or are they just simply playing delaying tactics in the hope I go away? Think I already know the answer!

[UNRAM]

Surely you don't expect us to get our information from 'the Internet' after all lawyers never do that?! Ha.

 

I have received a response from my lender requesting that they are 'concerned by my letter and are looking into the complaint.' They have stated they will contact be back within 3 weeks and this shall be logged through their internal complaints procedure. Oh and this can then be forwarded to the 'independent' organisation that is the financial ombudsmen service should I choose if complaint not upheld..

 

Now I'm confused. Why do they require more time? Are their feathers ruffled or are they just simply playing delaying tactics in the hope I go away? Think I already know the answer!

 

What are they replying to? What is your 'complaint'?

[applecart]

Surely you don't expect us to get our information from 'the Internet' after all lawyers never do that?! Ha.

 

I have received a response from my lender requesting that they are 'concerned by my letter and are looking into the complaint.' They have stated they will contact be back within 3 weeks and this shall be logged through their internal complaints procedure. Oh and this can then be forwarded to the 'independent' organisation that is the financial ombudsmen service should I choose if complaint not upheld..

 

Now I'm confused. Why do they require more time? Are their feathers ruffled or are they just simply playing delaying tactics in the hope I go away? Think I already know the answer!

 

Hi TimetogoRam

 

It's interesting that they are looking into your concerns as party to a 'complaint'.......it will be interesting as to what they come back with......it is not the kind of 'complaint' that they can really do anything about......other than to attempt to possibly continue to 'mislead' and 'misguide' you further.......in their own time of course.....

 

It is unlikely that they will come back with the result that says....'my goodness!... you are right....we have no right to your money....or your property...because we have not executed the deed.... we do apologise......we will contact Land Registry and get our erroneous charge removed without delay....."

 

If they do.....it will be a first.....because if they do that for you....then they have to do the same for each and everyone of their customers........NON of the Deeds will be executed by them......

 

The Financial Ombudsman is not the Property Chamber.... The Ombudsman cannot set aside the Deed.....

 

You are being sent on a folly.... normally circular in shape..... and never ending.......

 

You are at liberty to break the 'circle' when so ever you please to do so.......

 

This thread asserts that the way to break any 'circle' is by means of exercising your civil right to make an application to the chamber.

 

Whilst you are possibly still 'framing' your application.....and your grounds in support of that application.....I suppose you could humour them...whilst they deal with the 'complaint'

 

Like you.... we all know what the response will be.......

 

I would get on and study and research the findings in this thread.... and get on with getting your evidence together to support your application to the Chamber - regardless of them....what they say....what they do...

 

If they do come back and offer anything to say .... we are wrong....then that will go to assist your application.... if they say we are not at fault....then that too will assist your application.....

 

So long as that deed is in evidence.....un-executed.........it's only a matter of time before you get the justice you rightly deserve.....

 

I can tell you are focused.....so, you should be ok no matter what they say : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I want to revisit something posted up by way of response to Is It Me's application by his lender...

 

This is what they said:

 

Equitable mortgage

 

further or alternatively and subject to the tribunal deciding that the mortgage deed did not comply with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LP1989 which is denied and was not validly executed the respondents will say that the mortgage deed took effect as an equitable mortgage or charge

 

I'm interested to note they say "the respondents will say that the mortgage deed took effect as an equitable mortgage of charge"

 

Pleading an ‘equitable mortgage’ is misguided…..there has been no right to mortgage registered land since the coming into force of the LRA 2002 section 23…

 

So – if you took a loan after the coming into force of the LRA 2002…there should be no evidence of a ‘mortgage’ on your title…

 

The LRA 2002 specifically relates to ‘REGISTERED’ estates……the mode of ‘mortgaging’ a registered estate was party to the LPA 1925 section 85 (freehold) or section 86 (leasehold)

 

However….if you look at section 85 or section 86; you will see that sub-section (3) says:

 

(3)[F1Subsection (2) does not apply to registered land, but, subject to that, this section applies whether or not the land is registered land and whether or not]F1 the mortgage is expressed to be made by way of trust for sale or otherwise.

 

The above simply means that in relation to a freehold ‘registered estate’ there is no ‘mode’ of mortgaging it…..the ‘subject to that’ reference Is stated simply because a lender can still mortgage a freehold un-registered estate……

 

If you look at the bottom of the page of any Act of Law… you can find out which Act caused the amendment to happen….

 

In the above case…the annotation advises the amendment came about because of:

 

“F1 Words in s. 85(3) substituted (13.10.2003) by Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9), ss. 133, 136(2), Sch. 11 para. 2(6) (with s. 129); S.I. 2003/1725, art. 2”

 

You will also notice that sub-section (5) LPA 1925 section 85 was not in the ‘originally’ enacted version…. (if you look to the left of the Act at the top, you can view the ‘original’ and ‘revised’ versions….sometimes you have to flip between them to get the full picture and interpretation)

 

 

Sub-section (5) states:

[F2(5)In its application to instruments made after the coming into force of section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the words “under seal, and a bond or obligation under seal,” there were substituted the words “bond or obligation executed as a deed in accordance with section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989”.]

 

Again, if you follow the link at the bottom of the enactment… you will see it says:

 

“F2S. 85(5) added by Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 34, SIF 98:1), s. 1(8), Sch. 1, para. 5”

 

You then have to follow the link….when you do…..you will see that the inserted text should have been entered in section 81 LPA 1925…..not section 85….it has not been erroneously entered into section 86……

 

5The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 81—

“(5)In its application to instruments made after the coming into force of section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the words “under seal, and a bond or obligation under seal,” there were substituted the words “bond or obligation executed as a deed in accordance with section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989”.”

 

So, moving forward…..

 

If you then look at section 87 of the LPA 1925…. There is a further amendment…to insert this:

 

In section 87, at the end there is inserted—

“(4)Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (under which owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).”

 

This does not mean, that a registered estate owner can mortgage their registered estate, no, no,no…. what it means is that……

 

In relation to the mode of mortgaging a freehold un-registered estate; section 23 (1) (a) does not affect the lender and the Borrowers right to mortgage by demise or to exercise the power to do so……

 

The ‘un-registered’ estate owner….is at more risk in my opinion…but then that’s all party to the government looking to get all land in the UK registered…..

 

Owners of ‘un-registered’ land tend to have a lot more of it….the deeds will go back centuries in some cases…..with the way HMLR and lenders have been interfering with the powers of Registered Estate owners over the past decade…..I can’t say I blame an owner of ‘un-registered’ land when he refuses to register it….

 

 

When it comes to the ‘equitable charge’…..

 

You do not ‘charge’ registered land….to do so…. You are saying that the Borrower transferred his legal interest both legal and equitable in the registered Charge to the Lender……

 

That again, is not party to the definition of a sub-charge…..a sub-charge is all a Borrower has power to convey….

 

So, to go into the Chamber and say…we want to plead on grounds of an ‘equitable charge’……such a plea is totally misguided….

 

First off…. They can not ‘charge’ a registered estate…..if they did….or are found to have done so, without the owners consent or knowledge then that is wholly outside the intent of the legislator…..As a Lender, you cannot secure any more power than the Borrower had been empowered at law to grant….the borrower has no power to grant a legal sub-mortgage....which is what the 'charge' is essentially

 

A sub-charge must be made by deed…..so, again… even if they try to turn this around to say…oh, we meant to say….a ‘sub-charge’….can you rectify the register to change it to show a ‘sub-charge’…..the answer has to be no…..not in equity…. Not in a month of Sundays……

 

because…..for ANY interest in land to be secured…… you have to put in evidence a validly executed DEED…….The RRO places all the onus on the Lender to execute the deed…..they haven’t done so; the deed is void…..they cannot plea ‘equity’ on any grounds….

 

Their reliance on ‘estoppel’ is also wholly misguided…..You need only refer them to the decision in ‘gaguillo’….

 

In that case the Adjudicator clearly tells any one looking to claim an interest in land where their deed is void…. That they cannot claim ‘estoppel’… (i.e this is to say, the borrower signed it so he is bound by it) as the Adjudicator says…estoppel will not assist them…. To do so, is an attempt to ‘circumvent the law’ …..

 

Formality has its place in LAW…. You cannot avoid it and then…. When you get caught out….start or expect our highly esteemed judiciary to assist you….. that would be tantamount to looking to our judiciary to assist you pervert the course of justice…….surely they are not expecting our judiciary to assist them do that….No, surely NOT…….

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

Hi TimetogoRam

 

It's interesting that they are looking into your concerns as party to a 'complaint'.......it will be interesting as to what they come back with......it is not the kind of 'complaint' that they can really do anything about......other than to attempt to possibly continue to 'mislead' and 'misguide' you further.......in their own time of course.....

 

It is unlikely that they will come back with the result that says....'my goodness!... you are right....we have no right to your money....or your property...because we have not executed the deed.... we do apologise......we will contact Land Registry and get our erroneous charge removed without delay....."

 

If they do.....it will be a first.....because if they do that for you....then they have to do the same for each and everyone of their customers........NON of the Deeds will be executed by them......

 

The Financial Ombudsman is not the Property Chamber.... The Ombudsman cannot set aside the Deed.....

 

You are being sent on a folly.... normally circular in shape..... and never ending.......

 

You are at liberty to break the 'circle' when so ever you please to do so.......

 

This thread asserts that the way to break any 'circle' is by means of exercising your civil right to make an application to the chamber.

 

Whilst you are possibly still 'framing' your application.....and your grounds in support of that application.....I suppose you could humour them...whilst they deal with the 'complaint'

 

Like you.... we all know what the response will be.......

 

I would get on and study and research the findings in this thread.... and get on with getting your evidence together to support your application to the Chamber - regardless of them....what they say....what they do...

 

If they do come back and offer anything to say .... we are wrong....then that will go to assist your application.... if they say we are not at fault....then that too will assist your application.....

 

So long as that deed is in evidence.....un-executed.........it's only a matter of time before you get the justice you rightly deserve.....

 

I can tell you are focused.....so, you should be ok no matter what they say : )

 

Apple

 

Ha sorry Apple, I was in a very sarcastic and cynical mood earlier. I was simply stating that my lender have mentioned, (already I may add), that if my complaint is not upheld I will have the opportunity to go to the ombudsmen. I was merely being very cynical. I honestly now know (not suspect or believe) that the ombudsmen is no longer independent!

 

Back to my initial letter, I used the main points from this thread and the non execution of the deed and stated to my lender that I have a buyer for my property, but there will be a shortfall. I have politely requested that this shortfall is waived and gave them 7 days to consider 'my proposal' (boots on the other foot now hey!)

I have today (the 7 days expired today) have received a response from my lender stating that they are concerned (I bet they are) they want a further 3weeks. However time is up!

[UNRAM]

TimeToGoRam the FOS is a smokescreen. I have it in writing that they did not consider any legal aspects of the mortgage and do not request evidence of contractual consideration and it is their intent only to do what is "fair and reasonable in all circumstances". i.e. support NRAMs claim to your money and your home with no evidence of consideration nor evidence of title to your home. They do not consider execution of deeds as part of their adjudication. In my case they even overlooked the fact that the mortgage offer is not signed despite my insistence that it is a "contract for a future disposition" that goes so far as to define the terms and conditions of the purported deed. The Chair of the FOS is approved by the Treasury - who also owns NRAM and UKAR. This is not the impartial service it purports to be...

[IS IT ME?]

Apple,

On top forum again, Yes there is no way of giving this up now.

Your posts are very clear and to the point in LAW and that is some thing which some people have tried very hard to change or worry people into doing other actions and go off track and as you will see by the lenders reply THEY have read and watched this thread from the start and are still trying to stop this going forward and you have to ask WHY??

Because it is now open and out 'there' there is no way it could be bushed under the carpet so to speak and it has to come to a full hearing as the property chamber can not just now dismiss the application without it going to a hearing no matter what these solicitors say.

If I was them I would have looked at this some time ago and say 'Oh f..k do some thing now and stop it getting this far because every one is now in the same boat also what are there solicitors charging for this ' so called service ' I bet £10,000 just for the reply lol.

 

So keep it coming and lets show what the internet can do! lol.

 

By the way if I take some time to reply it is because due to this I have put the paperwork AND computers out of harms way. lol

[applecart]

Ha sorry Apple, I was in a very sarcastic and cynical mood earlier. I was simply stating that my lender have mentioned, (already I may add), that if my complaint is not upheld I will have the opportunity to go to the ombudsmen. I was merely being very cynical. I honestly now know (not suspect or believe) that the ombudsmen is no longer independent!

 

Back to my initial letter, I used the main points from this thread and the non execution of the deed and stated to my lender that I have a buyer for my property, but there will be a shortfall. I have politely requested that this shortfall is waived and gave them 7 days to consider 'my proposal' (boots on the other foot now hey!)

I have today (the 7 days expired today) have received a response from my lender stating that they are concerned (I bet they are) they want a further 3weeks. However time is up!

 

Hi TimetogoRam

 

Gotcha..

 

That's a very interesting proposal you have put before them.....it's like saying....I know you have no right to my property....and.....no right to my money.......but; guess what....I will sell my property myself.....and give you the proceeds of the sale 'voluntary'....but because I can't get the money you tell me I owe you.....I will offer you what I can get instead....and if you agree with this......then; I am happy to give you that money.................even though we both know I don't owe it to you..................eeeeerrrrrrmmmmmm???

 

If I were them, I would definitely need time to think about the proposal too : )

 

You are putting them in a 'catch 22' position.

 

The fact is; they have no right to the proceeds of the sale of your home.....for that.....they must put in evidence a duly executed deed.....you know and they know......they haven't got one

 

The only time that they will sign the deed is when 'ALL' the loan is paid....that's their re-mit......

 

If they accept your proposal....and let's say they agree the reduced price with you.....the deed will then be signed by them......you are then discharged from the title register....and....so are they (supposedly)......

 

So, in evidence will be ......the 'un-executed' deed.....and......the 'duly executed deed'.....

 

The Deed will then be made out to 'appear' as if all was duly executed from the outset.....

 

But you hold the evidence of the 'un-executed deed'.....they will end up holding a 'duly executed deed'...the 'duly executed deed' will be with HMLR.....

 

But.... what about the evidence of the 'un-executed deed'....the one that will have a date on it to show it was not executed by them on the date you requested an official copy?.....That date will be a date before the date that they execute the deed when they get the money off you.......That's 'evidence'......'evidence' that at the appropriate time, they had no right to the proceeds of the sale of your property...............

 

Who's to say....you will not make a claim off the back of the 'un-executed' deed months down the line.....????

 

You would have a right to claim back the money from the proceeds of the sale that you have propose to give them.....They owe you.....you don't owe them anything.....

 

so.....if they accept your proposal...they are doomed......if they don't .....they are doomed....

 

That's 'catch 22'....

 

Yes......,If I were them; I would think long and hard about your proposal too......

 

Apple

[applecart]

TimeToGoRam the FOS is a smokescreen. I have it in writing that they did not consider any legal aspects of the mortgage and do not request evidence of contractual consideration and it is their intent only to do what is "fair and reasonable in all circumstances". i.e. support NRAMs claim to your money and your home with no evidence of consideration nor evidence of title to your home. They do not consider execution of deeds as part of their adjudication. In my case they even overlooked the fact that the mortgage offer is not signed despite my insistence that it is a "contract for a future disposition" that goes so far as to define the terms and conditions of the purported deed. The Chair of the FOS is approved by the Treasury - who also owns NRAM and UKAR. This is not the impartial service it purports to be...

 

Hi UNRAM

 

I see where you are coming from here.....it's got to be 'horses for courses'.....the fos is not the Chamber....they have no power to set aside the deed....they cannot do anything about the contract.....you put the right complaint to the wrong Authority....that's all....

 

That's not the fault of the 'fos'......they have correctly advised you....they do not deal with the type of issue you put before them.....

 

You can't make them act on an issue that they have no power to act on....don't be so hard on them......the fos do a very good job and help loads of consumers each and every day.....

 

Your fight is not with the fos.....it's with your lender : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple,

On top forum again, Yes there is no way of giving this up now.

Your posts are very clear and to the point in LAW and that is some thing which some people have tried very hard to change or worry people into doing other actions and go off track and as you will see by the lenders reply THEY have read and watched this thread from the start and are still trying to stop this going forward and you have to ask WHY??

Because it is now open and out 'there' there is no way it could be bushed under the carpet so to speak and it has to come to a full hearing as the property chamber can not just now dismiss the application without it going to a hearing no matter what these solicitors say.

If I was them I would have looked at this some time ago and say 'Oh f..k do some thing now and stop it getting this far because every one is now in the same boat also what are there solicitors charging for this ' so called service ' I bet £10,000 just for the reply lol.

 

So keep it coming and lets show what the internet can do! lol.

 

By the way if I take some time to reply it is because due to this I have put the paperwork AND computers out of harms way. lol

 

Hi Is It Me

 

I hear you...load and clear : )

 

Yes get them computers shifted......if you can't shift the house....shift the evidence.... LOL

 

I suppose this topic can make you feel like that sometimes....but this is a democratic society.......this is a civil matter....Log Book's Directors were not hauled off to prison any more than the lenders will be in these cases......it's only 'tort'.....RRO came in in 2005...so what's that... 13 years of wrongful interference....

 

They only have to make good the wrong....they should be able to afford to....they have been making trillions off the back of consumers for decades......when they give it back.....all should be well and good : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Yes I agree but its better to be safe than sorry after all with just this one lender its £350 million and what's the likes of GMac RFC , Kensington and all the others who have done this because of the forms they used.

Already some of the paperwork has gone off the internet lo l But too late printed many copies off:-D

 

I think I'll do a draft in reply to the chamber on the Lenders response to the application, what do you think?

[applecart]

Yes I agree but its better to be safe than sorry after all with just this one lender its £350 million and what's the likes of GMac RFC , Kensington and all the others who have done this because of the forms they used.

Already some of the paperwork has gone off the internet lo l But too late printed many copies off:-D

 

I think I'll do a draft in reply to the chamber on the Lenders response to the application, what do you think?

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Yes, I agree....get a 'Reply To Defence' sent into the Chamber.

 

If you read what they say....they are actually admitting that they did not execute the deed and they even say why they did not do so.....most misguided of them......

 

The admittance....so long as you pick up on it in your 'Reply' should be enough to 'dispense with the issue' all together..... : )

 

How much time do you have before the hearing??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

This is the bit in their response, where the admittance is.....:

 

Because the mortgage deed was delivered either unconditionally or in escrow and subject to either (i) the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively (ii) completion of the purchase the mortgage deed was irrevicable and could not be withdrawn or recalled by the applicants. Further or alternatively the respondent will say for the reasons set out in this reply that the mortgage deed was delivered on or before the completion dated in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) 0f the LP 1989. Also alternatively the respondents will say that the mortgage deed was delivered by the firm in accordance with sec:1(5) of the LP act 1989 or otherwise on or before the completion date in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 The respondents notes that the applicants maintain that the mortgage deed must be executed by the respondents in accordance with sec:74(5) of the law of property act 1925 and or sec: 74(a) of the 1925 act. The respondent will say that any reliance on sec: 74(5) and or Sec: 74(a) of the LP act 1925 is misconceived as those provisions do not require the respondent to execute the mortgage deed. further the respondents will say that it does not have to as a matter of law execute the mortgage deed, the only person who needs to execute the mortgage deed were the applicants( and they did so) the mortgage deed was therefore validly executed and properly registered against the property by way of fierst legal charge.

 

 

....And this is the bit that stipulates their misguided belief that they did not need to execute it:

 

The respondent will say that any reliance on sec: 74(5) and or Sec: 74(a) of the LP act 1925 is misconceived as those provisions do not require the respondent to execute the mortgage deed

 

The mass majority of everything else they have said is 'irrelevant'......

 

Your application was to say that they did not execute the deed.....the Chamber accepted your application....as an issue for consideration...

 

Instead of them coming back with a response to deny the allegation....they have responded to essentially say you were bound by your signature alone......which you are not bound by at all.........(tactical, very tactical of them....)

 

Instead they are attempting to bring in issues that have nothing to do with the actual issue which is....'Mr Lender....the applicant has said you have not executed the deed...the applicant has said there is statutory provision to evidence that you cannot bind the applicant to be obligated to you on the applicants signature alone....Mr Lender.....this information is of grave to us here at the Property Chamber......the applicant has provided us with case law from 'garguillo' and 'bibby' and relevant provision from the RRO to make out their case against you......MR Lender can you please provide us with a response so as we know how you plea......Mr Lender, in other words ....can you provide us with the proof we require to assist you stave off your name being removed from the applicants title.....by proving to us without any doubt that you did in fact execute the deed......because in front of us we have a deed that is only signed by the applicant....dig deep in your coffers and produce for us a copy with your signature on......if you cannot do that.....then it will be your response that is struck out....as NO DEFENCE.....do you understand what we are asking you to do???......they have not understood, they have not produced any evidence ....and they can't either......the deed in evidence IS the official copy!!!...

 

What they have done...is in fact kindly admitted for you that you are right....they admit they did not execute the deed (but, what else could they say, the evidence is official) ....and have given 'lame' excuses for why they didn't do so......(that's all the legislators left them with.....ta dah!!!)

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Is It Me

 

Yes, I agree....get a 'Reply To Defence' sent into the Chamber.

 

If you read what they say....they are actually admitting that they did not execute the deed and they even say why they did not do so.....most misguided of them......

 

The admittance....so long as you pick up on it in your 'Reply' should be enough to 'dispense with the issue' all together..... : )

 

much time do you have before the hearing??

 

Apple

 

No date set as yet so we can get the Internet minds to work lol

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry just seen last reply doh

That's along the lines I be done so far but will post up later regards