Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

74(1) of the 1925 Act substitute—

“(1) In favour of a purchaser an instrument shall bedeemed to have been duly executed by a corporation aggregate if a sealpurporting to be the corporation’s seal purports to be affixed to theinstrument in the presence of and attested by—

(a)two members of the board of directors, council orother governing body of the corporation, or

(b)one such member and the clerk, secretary or otherpermanent officer of the corporation or his deputy.”.

The explanatory notes explain that “Article 3 replacesthe wording in section 74(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) (“the 1925Act”) in order to extend the presumption in favour of a purchaser of dueexecution by a corporation to all instruments under seal. Such instruments maybe attested by two members of the corporation’s governing body.”

And your point is what

[Jabba the hut]

14 It is in accord with Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th edition 1975 volume 12, para 1360 to find that where the Respondent has benefited from an un-executed deed to say that it is liable to give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred as more fully set out below:

 

“….where a party named in a deed has without executing the deed, accepted some benefit under it, that person must give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred, and so must perform all the covenants and stipulations on their part contained in the deed”

 

15 Halsburys Law cited above is in accord with the Torts (interference with Goods) Act 1977 section 3 (2) to find that the applicant is entitled to indemnity against the Respondent due to all benefit it derived as more fully set out in the application at para ‘4’.

 

The only benefit to the Respondent provided by the Deed is that it is a form of security. It would appear that the Respondent until it exercises any rights to possession and/or sale of the property would not have received any actual or real benefit from the deed.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[Jabba the hut]

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.

 

 

Apple

Here is the full reply;

 

Upon reading(?)lol the application dated 10th may under sec 108(2) of the LR Act 2002

and upon the tribunal considering that the application ought to be stuck out as there is no reasonable prospect of the application succeeding.

 

It is ordered as follows;

 

Her Majesty's land reg is to be removed as the respondent[ person against whom an order is sought] to this application

 

The applicant has until 5pm 16th July to make written representations in relation to the proposed striking out of the application

 

This order is made pursuant to rules 9 and 10 of the tribunal procedure (first tier tribunal property chamer rules 2013.

 

Reasons,

 

Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only requires execution by the borrower.

 

The applicant does not contest that they executed the charge so dated. The charge is not in a form showing it required to be executed by the lender.

 

The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge.

 

The land re form of charge CH1 does not require execution by the lender except where a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

and that's it.

 

what I would say is that there has been no CH1 form nor have they really read the application because it does very clearly state that the lender should execute the deed.

 

I also note is uses the term generally, always and why say the tribunal can not rectify the register because it's not a document?

 

so what do you think apple lets prove your right.

 

Very similar, if not near identical responses and conclusions from both the Property Chamber and the Respondent

[IS IT ME?]

OH PLEASE not another one!!!!

Tell your bosses we will see them in the chamber and they can say all that there and see were it gets them.

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME AND POSTS HERE I AM AFRAID.

[IS IT ME?]

why oh why is this not another one AGAIN this wastes the threads time and try s to put people off can the site team not do any thing??? and this takes up the thread and people will loss were they are in it.

[IS IT ME?]

jabba please stop posting on here your posts are wrong

[AndyOrch]

All Irrelevant copy/paste posts removed.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[TimetogoRAM]

The only benefit to the Respondent provided by the Deed is that it is a form of security. It would appear that the Respondent until it exercises any rights to possession and/or sale of the property would not have received any actual or real benefit from the deed.

 

Apart from deliberately not sign a deed to ensure this isn't executed so thousands of charges can be sold on for securitisation purposes. This is fraud which is in fact a criminal offence not a mere civil offence..

"Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities."

 

Ps doesn't Leia kill Jabba in the end? :o)

[IS IT ME?]

Apart from deliberately not sign a deed to ensure this isn't executed so thousands of charges can be sold on for securitisation purposes. This is fraud which is in fact a criminal offence not a mere civil offence..

"Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities."

 

Ps doesn't Leia kill Jabba in the end? :o)

I hope so why do these people do this? Their job may be

[TimetogoRAM]

No idea. There's no justification for not signing the deed. None whatsoever! If there was no ulterior motive then just sign or seal the thing. Problem we've got is theres a mentality or culture that you should just get a mortgage and pay it for 25-35 yrs no questions asked so to 'go against the grain' is frowned upon.

Anyone have a recent mortgage from a normal high street bank? What does that deed look like?

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

I captured all of Jabba the huts posts - they are in my 'emails- in-box'......my concern is that they will be in each and everyone else's too.....

 

I'm pleased they have been removed from your thread....

 

The point Jabba made however is not one I wish to ignore....in fact I think it is important to re-iterate a few points....

 

Jabba sought to make out that a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' is being permitted within the general law.....

 

We understand here that a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' IS permitted within the general law......BUT what Jabba failed to understand is that ....a charge by way of legal mortgage....IS NOT permitted when the Land is REGISTERED

 

So...to RE-ITERATE...................A Charge by Way of Legal Mortgage...neither 'expressed' or 'within the general law' is NOT permitted when the land is 'registered'

 

WHY?

 

Because NO Registered Proprietor (Borrower) of registered land - has the POWER to charge the registered estate by:

 

Mortgage By Demise...OR

 

Sub Demise.....OR

 

Charge the Registered Charge by:

 

Legal Sub-Mortgage

 

Regrettably for Lenders...even when they make the application for their 'mortgage' to be entered on any REGISTERED ESTATE...whether the Borrower is 'purchasing' or 're-"mortgaging".......the Borrower automatically within the provisions of the applicable LAW becomes the REGISTERED PROPRIETOR......The one with the OWNERS POWER...

 

WHY?

 

Because the Land is REGISTERED....i.e it was registered with HMLR before the Borrower 'purchased' or 're-"mortgaged"...

 

The Law immediately 'kicks in' - if you will....to say, The Borrower is the new owner of the registered estate....

 

The Law says.....Borrower....you...as the REGISTERED PROPRIETOR have NO POWER TO MORTGAGE THIS REGISTERED ESTATE.....

 

REMEMBER....ULTIMATELY ALL LAND IN THE UK BELONGS TO THE CROWN.......so.....

 

IF you as a Borrower unwittingly happen to sign a deed in favor of an unscrupulous Lender...by reason of HMLR's MISTAKE...combined with the CUNNING OF ANY INSTITUTIONAL LENDER....

 

AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST....the unscrupulous financial institution becomes the Biggest Land Owner in the UK......Instead of the CROWN.....

 

This issue is BIGGER than Jabba understands.....

 

like I said ....these unscrupulous lenders and their advocates.....do not fight or defend against the Borrower......

 

They are defending against the Legislators of the UK.......

 

Borrowers are NOT GUILTY ..... we simply take to the courts the legislators intent.....

 

To which there is.....

 

NO DEFENCE..

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apart from deliberately not sign a deed to ensure this isn't executed so thousands of charges can be sold on for securitisation purposes. This is fraud which is in fact a criminal offence not a mere civil offence..

"Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities."

 

Ps doesn't Leia kill Jabba in the end? :o)

 

Hi TimetogoRAM

 

It is for the Chamber to determine if it is 'fraud'......However, you will notice that we as mere internet folk (Borrowers) make no such claim of course ....neither in the application or the reply.....we simply say....'due to lack of proper care' or 'by reason of'...

 

We do of course point the Chamber to the Torts Act.....that should set alarm bells ringing well enough.....it cannot be said to be right to mortgage registered land when it is not permitted in the general law......

 

Apple

[applecart]

No idea. There's no justification for not signing the deed. None whatsoever! If there was no ulterior motive then just sign or seal the thing. Problem we've got is theres a mentality or culture that you should just get a mortgage and pay it for 25-35 yrs no questions asked so to 'go against the grain' is frowned upon.

Anyone have a recent mortgage from a normal high street bank? What does that deed look like?

 

I doubt whether their deeds will be any different to yours or anyone else's....

 

Ultimately....until HMLR acknowledge and are ordered to stop this practice of mortgaging registered estates by 'assent'...they will continue to do so....

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Is It Me

 

I captured all of Jabba the huts posts - they are in my 'emails- in-box'......my concern is that they will be in each and everyone else's too.....

 

I'm pleased they have been removed from your thread....

 

The point Jabba made however is not one I wish to ignore....in fact I think it is important to re-iterate a few points....

 

Jabba sought to make out that a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' is being permitted within the general law.....

 

We understand here that a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' IS permitted within the general law......BUT what Jabba failed to understand is that ....a charge by way of legal mortgage....IS NOT permitted when the Land is REGISTERED

 

So...to RE-ITERATE...................A Charge by Way of Legal Mortgage...neither 'expressed' or 'within the general law' is NOT permitted when the land is 'registered'

 

WHY?

 

Because NO Registered Proprietor (Borrower) of registered land - has the POWER to charge the registered estate by:

 

Mortgage By Demise...OR

 

Sub Demise.....OR

 

Charge the Registered Charge by:

 

Legal Sub-Mortgage

 

Regrettably for Lenders...even when they make the application for their 'mortgage' to be entered on any REGISTERED ESTATE...whether the Borrower is 'purchasing' or 're-"mortgaging".......the Borrower automatically within the provisions of the applicable LAW becomes the REGISTERED PROPRIETOR......The one with the OWNERS POWER...

 

WHY?

 

Because the Land is REGISTERED....i.e it was registered with HMLR before the Borrower 'purchased' or 're-"mortgaged"...

 

The Law immediately 'kicks in' - if you will....to say, The Borrower is the new owner of the registered estate....

 

The Law says.....Borrower....you...as the REGISTERED PROPRIETOR have NO POWER TO MORTGAGE THIS REGISTERED ESTATE.....

 

REMEMBER....ULTIMATELY ALL LAND IN THE UK BELONGS TO THE CROWN.......so.....

 

IF you as a Borrower unwittingly happen to sign a deed in favor of an unscrupulous Lender...by reason of HMLR's MISTAKE...combined with the CUNNING OF ANY INSTITUTIONAL LENDER....

 

AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST....the unscrupulous financial institution becomes the Biggest Land Owner in the UK......Instead of the CROWN.....

 

This issue is BIGGER than Jabba understands.....

 

like I said ....these unscrupulous lenders and their advocates.....do not fight or defend against the Borrower......

 

They are defending against the Legislators of the UK.......

 

Borrowers are NOT GUILTY ..... we simply take to the courts the legislators intent.....

 

To which there is.....

 

NO DEFENCE..

 

Apple

 

And that is why I ask are these. People so interested in outing people off because they have no defence to it so bring it on

[alisono]

Dear IS IT ME?

 

For the first time here I have read and have some hope. I am off to Court D/J I think for repossension hearing of my house next week October 2013. It's been going on for 3 years each time SMPLt/as LMC either dont turn up or or last year same time did but said because I had made some more payments on my arrears they wouldnt go for possession just liberty to restore. Unfortunaetly lost my job and took 5 months to get a new one, so I am back next week again for a repo hearing.

In the last 3 months they have turned down my offers of extra of the arrears as they say my position is not stable, I have 18 years left to pay this supposed mortgage.

They wont capitalise my arrears as they are under or are not obliged to change my mortgage T's & C's

In my case this is what I have found out.

1. HMLR say that they have my mortgage deed signed by me and witness by my witness and stamped offically by my solicitors dated 25/06/07. They say they dont have to have a copy of my then Mortgage lender signed and dated as proof just the entry dated 23.07.07 and my signature.

2. Have have proof in a document that my mortgage has been pooled/scruntinzed/sold to a third party called now a trustee, within the document it also states my mortgage lender will retain and hold title to my property, the adminstration of my mortgage will be adminstered by Capstone Mortgages now renamed Acenden.

3. Eurosail and Wilmington Trust are the people with interest in my mortgage.

4. I have note that SPML are still trading and are now registered at Union Street London the address of PW&C the bankrupcy adminstrators for Lehman Brothers as SPML when I got my mortgage were owned by them. SPML at Companies house state they own 19 mortgages 17 satisfied 2 remain.

5 Mortgage sold I think October 2007, Acenden just admitted after 2 years of me asking the questions about Eurosail and their involvement. (30th August 2013)

6. Acenden say Eurosail are not taking action against me it's my lender SPML t/as London Mortgage Company registered at High Wycombe (actual address of Acenden)

7. I have added all my charges up since Acenden took over my mortgage excess of £6,000 charges to my account.

8. Eurosail only regualted in the UK at OFT for CCA 1974 possible as they also bought secured loans under £25,000

9. My T's & C's from LMC clearly state my loan is not regulated by CCA 1974.

 

Can you help me prepare my defense for Court or point me in the right direction.

 

Many thanks Alisono

[IS IT ME?]

Hi

Right first things first send a letter by recorded post asking for the mortgage sale agreements AND ALL other documents with regard to the sale of your mortgage.

If they have already admitted it then say you will inform the court of this fact.

Then go on the internet and find all your sale documents there to cross reference what they send you.

Then you Must inform the court that there is now a question as to who owns the mortgage and that the people who are here in court today do not own the mortgage.

If you got any documents then post them up here and we will help.

[alisono]

Dear IS IT ME?

 

Acenden wrote to me on the 30th August 2013 saying :

 

In response to your request for further documentation in relation to the mortgage securitisation, we can confirm that SPML still holds the legal title in your mortgage. Eurosail-Uk 2007-6NC PLC holds a benefical interest in your mortgage by virtue of being pooled with other mortgages and securitised. Eurosail-UK 2007-6NC PLC is a publicly list company.

Prospectus deatailing the securitisation structure and parties to it is in the public domain and be found at this link : http://www.ise.ie/debt_documents/eurosail%206nc%20P_9539.pdf

[alisono]

I have the pdf if you can tell me how to upload it it's a lengthy document and it transpires that Lehman Brothers did all this before they collaspsed.

What is interesting is that Capstone now rebranded Acenden has a board member who worked for Lehman Brothers and has moved over to run this adminstration company who are in authority to take us all to court to repossess our homes

[applecart]

Dear IS IT ME?

 

Acenden wrote to me on the 30th August 2013 saying :

 

In response to your request for further documentation in relation to the mortgage securitisation, we can confirm that SPML still holds the legal title in your mortgage. Eurosail-Uk 2007-6NC PLC holds a benefical interest in your mortgage by virtue of being pooled with other mortgages and securitised. Eurosail-UK 2007-6NC PLC is a publicly list company.

Prospectus deatailing the securitisation structure and parties to it is in the public domain and be found at this link : http://www.ise.ie/debt_documents/eurosail%206nc%20P_9539.pdf

 

Hi Alisono

 

Hope you don't mind my 'butting in' here....given that I realise your question was not directed to me...but, as I have been assisting Is It Me, I hope you won't mind my looking to assist you also?

 

What SPML mean when they have sent you the response in the letter dated 30th August 2013 is that they intend to rely in court that despite the fact that they have securitised your mortgage, this did not cause their legal mortgage to be removed from your title held at HMLR and that they remain entitled to a right to possession of your property....

 

In fact, they will push for possession of your property and the Judge will grant them the order unless you are in a position to either meet their financial demands.....or.....provide the court with evidence that they have no legal right to be taking you to court in the first place.

 

This thread as you may know by now asserts that where the deed has not been executed by a lender.....we assert that SPML (in this case) is not entitled to possession of your property.

 

I would suggest you take SPML's letter with you to court....and a copy of the mortgage deed.....ensure the DJ sees both the letter and the deed.....explain to the DJ that you are concerned to note that in it; SPML admit to having sold the beneficial interest to Eurosail; yet fail to recognise that according to the Trustee Delegation Act 1999 section 10 (copy and paste the front page of the TDA Act and section 10 and the explanatory notes to that section)...to provide the DJ with the necessary evidence that.there is no lawful means by which SPML can be said to have separated the Legal and beneficial interest as suggested in their letter to you...

 

Point out that given the evidence you have provided him with.....that you note that you do accept that SPML have somehow managed to retain their name on your registered estate after admitting selling the beneficial interest........point out that you are concerned to note that SPML's admission is made.......at a time....when it is also in evidence .......that the underlying deed remains un-executed by them;....., .............when the RRO 2005 goes a long way to find that they had a duty to execute the deed before they acted to sell even the beneficial interest by virtue of the un-executed deed...

 

Point out that you do not expect that the DJ should determine the issue in the limited time he has allocated within the county court and request that the matter be adjourned subject to determination by the Property Chamber (this being your preferred route to remedy)

 

It is fitting and your right to make this request... and it is fitting and your right to go to court and assert that it is your belief that SPML have no right to possession of your property on the finding that the deed has not been executed by them at any time prior to the mortgage being entered against your registered estate......and you must humbly request and inform the court that you have a civil right to request that either the court make allowance for you to either make application to the property chamber or to him (if he has the time - which he won't) and fitting that the proceedings be adjourned to afford you the necessary time to submit an application to the Property Chamber so that a determination can be made as to the validity of the mortgage - that purports to give SPML a legal right to seek possession of your property as entered on your estate by HMLR and determination as to the validity of the un-executed deed.

 

Inform the court that you do not believe that adjourning the proceedings will prejudice SPML... for a determination made by the Property chamber would not prejudice any right of SPML to bring proceedings in the event the Chamber is satisfied that the mortgage by way of the un-executed deed is found to be validly and lawfully applied in their favour against your registered estate.

 

The proceedings in Is It Me's case is awaiting the determination of the Property Chamber.....there is no reason why a busy DJ should not allow you to make an application before he rubber stamps a suspended possession or outright possession or otherwise in your case....

 

By the way...the link you posted is 'temporarily' unavailable....

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Alisono

 

Just another quickie.....

 

Copy and paste the 'draft written representation' posted up on this thread....complete the form to make the application to set-aside the deed.....and take it as your proof that you intend to send it off........advise that you would have done so already had it not been for the untimely claim made by SPML to take possession of the property ..... It will act as your proof that you have already done the necessary groundwork to speed up a response from the Chamber..... and to reduce any delay that may prejudice SPML by the proceedings being adjourned on the day....

 

Hope this helps too?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Well said once again apple,

Alsono I agree with what has been posted, that is what I have done and believe me they are screwed so arm yourself with the paperwork and give it all to the court and if you have time hand it into court before the hearing so the D/J has it before the hearing.

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

No problem,....

 

That's got to be a first though? a lender who openly admits that they did securitise a mortgage.. when here on this thread .... we know that a 'mortgage' is not lawfully entered against any registered estate.....amazing....but hey ho.....congratulations to SPML for coming 'clean'....it won't assist them though.....

 

All Alisono needs to make sure of is that he/she does not move forward on the 'securitisation' issue.....just focus on the Deed being un-executed.......

 

Ah Well, despite their best efforts in coming 'clean'.....looks like SPML..... like your lender will now be yet another lender that the Property Chamber will become aware of.....(that's if Alisono follows through on the advise given).

 

It's all good.....the more Lenders who face the Chamber the better.....government will soon get wind of the fact that what the Law Commission thought was a mere 'pimple' on the landscape.....is in fact now a huge problem.....

 

Apple

[alisono]

Good Morning Applecart & IS IT ME?

 

Thank you so much, can you help me draft what I need so I am armed with everything before I go to Court next week.

When I spoke with the HMLR yesterday the lady on the consumer help desk told me that they didnt need to execute a deed as they had a copy of ours which was witnessed and had our solicitors stamp on.

I can drop by hand the document to the Court today so the DJ has this before ext Wednesday.

Do I send a copy to Acenden/SPML?

Also I penned a letter last night to them not only asking for all the documentation on the sale, but also outlining SMPL lack of people to talk to, them being registered @ PWC offices as they were formerly in the Group of the disgraced Lehamna Brothers.

I outlined my charging costs saying I didnt think they were fair and sent them infotrmation on the MCOB from FCA as to why they werent fair.

I looged a complaint with the FCA on the grounds that my trems and conditions were unfair also, this is that SPML have sold/pooled my mortgage the new Trustee of the notes is not registered with the FCA so cannot sell or maintain mortgages so I will have no T;s & C's, the mortgage adminstrator clearly admits it is not obliged to change my terms and conditions so it unfair. I told them that SMPL never intented to sell me a mortgage for 25 years as they had committed to as they sold mine within 5 months so this was unfair.

Or should I just send another income and expenditure form offering my £200 extra per month and send a copy to court also?

Thanks again your help is wonderful and a breathe of fresh air.

[applecart]

Hi Alisono

 

We do not say that this is as 'tried and tested' as providing the court with your financial ability to pay your debt....What we say is.....Dear Mr Judge...before you engage me into throwing my hard earned cash at SPML...do you mind just looking at this Deed...and this 'mortgage' for just one itsy bitsy moment...before you compound this catastrophe of errors by granting them possession of my house please......

 

Here’s a ‘draft’ letter to submit to the court ahead of the hearing:

 

[enter your name and address here]

[enter courts address here

start it with “Court Manager” followed

by the courts address and postcode]

 

 

[enter the date here]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [enter SPML’s name here] v [enter your name/s here] - Claim No: [enter claim No here]

With reference to the above I/We write ahead of the hearing due on the [enter date and time of hearing here] to advise that the Claimant in a letter dated 30th August 2013 admits selling a beneficial interest of the mortgage charged against my freehold registered estate to a company called Eurosail.

 

I/We acknowledge that the sale of beneficial interests is an accepted practice and that retention of the title in the name of [enter lenders name here] is allegedly enough to persuade the court that the Claimant retains a legal right to possession.

 

With this in mind, I/We draw the courts attention to the Trustee Delegation Act 1999 section 10 to provide the statutory proof that there is no lawful means by which the legal and beneficial interest can be separated as alleged by the Claimant. ‘exhibit A’ attached. [copy first page of the said Act and section 10 and the explanatory notes that relate to section 10 and attach to this letter, on the top of this bundle put the words “Exhibit A”]

 

Additionally, I draw the courts attention to the statutory provision of the LRA 2002 section 23, to say that I/We had no power to mortgage my/our registered estate; by demise or sub-demise or legal sub-mortgage; when, to do so would be tantamount to a disposition of the whole legal estate against the intent of the legislator.

 

Finally, the said mortgage deed is not executed by SPML, yet, according to the combined effect of the Articles 10 Schedule 2 of the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 removing any presumption of delivery on sight of our/my signature alone by virtue of amending Section 1 (3) LP(MP)Act 1989; it can no longer be said or be misconstrued that the mortgage deed is validly executed and is void for want of delivery in a claim for possession.

 

The RRO 2005 causes the execution of Deeds to be analogous to the statutory provisions of section 46 Companies Act 2006 and the LPA 1925 section 74 (1) & (5) as amended and section 74A in relation to SPML’s fiduciary duty to execute the deed by signatory of 2 Directors and attested by a notary before it can be said or presumed that the deed has been validly executed and thus delivered.

 

In the circumstance, I/We believe that the issues raised herein require more time than is within the scheduled time limits of the county court to determine without prejudice to either party.

 

I/We therefore humbly request that it be ordered that SPML’s claim be adjourned with liberty for SPML to restore the claim subject to the issues stated herein being allowed to be more fully determined by the First Tier Tribunal of the Land Division of the Property Chamber as to the validity of the mortgage deed, along with the validity of the mortgage entered against My/Our registered estate. “Exhibit B” [attach a copy of the draft written representation – amend it first to include your own info – and a copy of the application form itself must be attached]

 

I/We have sent a copy of this letter to SPML recorded delivery on the [enter date sent – keep a copy of the receipt from the post office]

 

I/We believe that the facts stated herein are true.

 

[it’s a good idea to make the letter ‘official’ with a ‘statement of truth’…you can send it in with your application to the Chamber]

 

 

[sign] Date:

 

[Print your name here]

 

 

Send a copy of the letter to your lender (SPML in this case)

 

Print off a copy of the 'draft written representation' - I will amend it slightly to assist you....but check it through before you send it off ok?... I will post it up in a wee while......any questions to do with it...get them asked asap...ok...we can tweek it to suit your circumstances.....

 

Do not refer to the other issues you mentioned in your post.....they have no relevance to the claim made against you for possession of your home........stay focused.....keep to the main issues ok?

 

If I think of anything else...I'll let you know

[alisono]

Thank you so much, I cant thank you enough. I will type this up now and check with you I got the correct article download to attach.

I have a copy of my land registry documents and a copy the SPML gave me 2 years ago and they submitted to the court then a copy of my signed deed which was witness by a friend and my solicitor stamped. HMLR say they have no other executed document from Southern Pacific only this.

 

Thank you