Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Hi Mutti

 

Thank you......This has been possible due to Is It Me and his Friend..... So, we need to remember them too.... and quite rightly they have been attributed with the 'lead case'.... : )

 

We have a long way to go yet, there are lots of different borrowers in different situations - they too deserve the opportunity to secure a declaration as to whether their deed is valid or not.......The issue is that because there is no 'prescribed form' of charge....there are a lot of deeds that have been allowed to be registered against registered estates by HMLR on sight of the Borrowers signature alone...... I can find nothing in legislation that says that the practice is lawful at all......except in relation to 'un-registered land'.....so....

 

Like I said a deed is by nature a 'speciality contract'...... It is worth us looking into a case for those whose loans/deeds fall outside the RRO......

 

What do you think?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi TimetogoRam,

 

Thanks for the reply, I was aware of much of the info you provided but just wanted confirmation of what I thought made a mortgage deed void was correct.

 

I do not want to give away to much at this stage in relation to lender etc., however, in regard to HMLR, I have never mentioned RRO 2005. What I will say, is that I have on several occasions, questioned the need for a lenders signature on a mortgage deed and the answer has always been no.

 

I believe that HMLR (certainly my local office) are aware that something is happening just by the questions being put to me by LR staff, all of which I have refused to answer.

 

Anyone dealing with their local LR would, I think, be wise not to mention or question the validity of any mortgage deed. As I have said, HMLR know something is going on but, at the moment it's not quite sure what it is.

 

Regards

 

I totally agree....try to avoid raising the issue with HMLR......you will receive a 'negative' response.

 

Apple

[MUTT1]

Hi apple,

 

I agree with you 100% that we should look at helping anyone (just like me) who has or HAD a mortgage/loan that falls outside the remit of RRO 2005.

 

Going on my own experiences and the absolute misery and financial difficulties my current and previous lenders have caused me then yes I think we should do all that we can to help each other.

 

What I do not understand is the problem with sending a pm in this thread. You, like me, are aware that lenders, solicitors, DCA's and all the rest monitor this site and this thread, I truly believe that the mods within CAG are giving this shower an unfair advantage by allowing them access to info that will be used against them. Are we privy to their info held in secrect and used against us? The answer of course is no.

 

You make a good point about others not being clued up about what is happening, yes this is a self help site but, what should be rembered is that certain individuals who through no fault of their own, want to do something to remedy the situation that they may find themselves in but are unsure as to how to go about it.

 

It is not being lazy or wanting others to do the work for them, it is I feel, that some people cannot grasp the complexities of law and regulations. I, for one if I am able, would happily assist wherever I could.

 

And, of course IS IT ME should be thanked for starting this thread off and for making such a huge contribution in what could turn out to be an explosive situation for lenders and the other [edit]s in the future.

 

Regards.

Edited October 9, 2013 by honeybee13
Pejorative word.

[applecart]

Hi apple,

 

I agree with you 100% that we should look at helping anyone (just like me) who has or HAD a mortgage/loan that falls outside the remit of RRO 2005.

 

Going on my own experiences and the absolute misery and financial difficulties my current and previous lenders have caused me then yes I think we should do all that we can to help each other.

 

What I do not understand is the problem with sending a pm in this thread. You, like me, are aware that lenders, solicitors, DCA's and all the rest monitor this site and this thread, I truly believe that the mods within CAG are giving this shower an unfair advantage by allowing them access to info that will be used against them. Are we privy to their info held in secrect and used against us? The answer of course is no.

 

You make a good point about others not being clued up about what is happening, yes this is a self help site but, what should be rembered is that certain individuals who through no fault of their own, want to do something to remedy the situation that they may find themselves in but are unsure as to how to go about it.

 

It is not being lazy or wanting others to do the work for them, it is I feel, that some people cannot grasp the complexities of law and regulations. I, for one if I am able, would happily assist wherever I could.

 

And, of course IS IT ME should be thanked for starting this thread off and for making such a huge contribution in what could turn out to be an explosive situation for lenders and the other [edit]s in the future.

 

Regards.

 

Hi Mutti

 

I agree...we are exposed somewhat.... However.....the good thing is.... we are not saying or relying on any ambiguous legislation to assist any Borrower.....it is all there enshrined in statute for Lenders - Borrowers or anyone who cares to know to follow through on......so in that regard..... we do not need to PM

 

However, my concern is that Borrowers are unlikely to post up 'personal' circumstances on the open forum ..... debt is a personal issue for many Borrowers ......

 

Until Borrowers say... "oi, I believe you are ripping me off and I rely on statute to evidence that you are" Borrowers will continue to be fair game..... against the public interest

 

Until Borrowers take steps to make it clear that 'mortgages' are unlawful - I fear - things will stay as they are...............and..... nothing will get done....

 

So, yes.......since 2002... no mortgage is lawfully charged to a registered estate....LRA 2002 section 23

 

So that's definitely includes thousands of other borrowers.........However,,,, the ambiguity of the LPMPA 1989 section 1 between 1989 and section 23 of the LRA 2002....in relation to the deed, could pose an issue on it's face...

 

I need to re-consider the position from that point of view.....uuuummmmm???

 

My immediate thoughts are:

 

A deed is a speciality.....it must be signed by Borrower and executed by lenders.....section 1 lpmpa 1989 applies in relation to the Borrower....the lpa 1925 applies to the lender.....(because it is a land transaction intending to create legal relations between borrower and lender)

 

The RRO albeit did not come into play until 2005......caused a new section 74A to the LPA 1925......ummm??

 

Can you state a year of when your last loan was taken?...does not have to be exact....

 

Apple

Edited October 9, 2013 by honeybee13

[TimetogoRAM]

Mutt1, I have to agree with what you are saying, that PM's should be made available to not give the lender any clue of who is involved and what is going on...

 

However I must admit the law is the law and is it quite conclusive really . If a lender has failed to sign a deed then this cannot be undone no matter how they are going to try and wriggle out of it. You cannot, since 2002 charge a mortgage to a registered estate and since 2005 you cannot expect the borrower to presume it has been delivered. A lender may say - "well it has been delivered blah blah blah" - yeh right!

 

I'll be interested to know how many applications the property chamber have received in the past 3 months or so..... Maybe they need to think about recruiting to deal with the demand!

[IS IT ME?]

erm

this seems to be going full steam ahead lol.

apple see you had tea lol

[MUTT1]

Hi apple,

 

My current mortgage was taken out in Jan 2003.

[MUTT1]

Hi TimetogoRAM,

 

I agree that the law is the law however, it is how the law is interpreted that makes the difference. Look at this thread for example, we have the same reg's, statute, law etc,being viewed differently by Ben, Jabba Hut and I think others to the way we view things. Perhaps Ben & Co are trolls merely trying trying to stop this thread from bringing out the truth or, they may be genuine in what they think is the truth. Who knows?

 

Again, look at some of the decisions some judges have made when, quite clearly and abiding by the law presented to them, have decided for whatever reason to ignore the facts and made decisions based purely on their own interpretations.

 

Just because the law is quite clear and unambiguous in this particular situation, does not mean that it can't be ruled upon to mean something else.

 

We all know that the implications of declaring deeds void and having charges removed from LR title registers are huge, so lets just see if the Property Chamber do the right thing and concentrate on the facts put before it and not the consequences if it rules in favour of the mortgagor.

 

I still think that we could be giving to much away on the open forum, and I just wonder why if all posts and communication between caggers should be on the open forum then why have the PM facility at all.

 

Just my thoughts.

[MUTT1]

Hi all,

 

Just wondered if anyone is having difficulty accessing this site. It seems strange that I have been a member of CAG since 2006 and have never had a problem viewing or posting on the forum until I started posting on this thread.

 

From my last post yesterday until now I have been unable to access the site using internet explorer (which I have used for years without any problems). I have had to use Google Chrome which I never had to do before. Seems very strange.

[p.j]

erm

this seems to be going full steam ahead lol.

apple see you had tea lol

 

hi is it me yes full steam ahead all my papers have been delivered to court and stamped this time also documents served on the lender proof sent to property chamber.

 

just got to wait now.

 

p.j

[UNRAM]

why are we not being given PM facilities if they are available? i asked this before and was given a very distracting and confusing answer...

[ims21]

There are some issues that are with Techie at the moment in respect of access to the site and/or various forums.

 

It will be sorted as soon as possible.

[IS IT ME?]

PJ.

well done told you they had to we will wait and see what happens now, my feeling would be that the court will adjourn until the property chamber hears your case.

but don't worry I'll be there.

[p.j]

PJ.

well done told you they had to we will wait and see what happens now, my feeling would be that the court will adjourn until the property chamber hears your case.

but don't worry I'll be there.

 

hi is it me thank you yeah i think they have no choice but too as the case is now in dispute but you never know.they should let me know in a few days hopefully.

 

pj

[TimetogoRAM]

I have received my latest letter from my lender, who have said they are not upholding my 'complaint' (the non signing of the deed) and If I want to proceed further I must go to the financial ombudsmen service within 6 months. They have also said that they note I have made an application to the property chamber. Their response to this, is that if they have to defend this claim in court that it is written with my terms and conditions that all their costs would be added to my mortgage....

 

1. The financial ombudsmen service have already stated that this particular issue would not be in their jurisdiction as this is a law issue.. So my lender are obviously directing me to a service that they know wouldn't do anything??!

 

2. How cheeky of them that they firstly believe that they can even unnerve me with this talk of adding costs to my mortgage and secondly as we all know if the deed is void - doesn't that make the t&c's attached to the deed void anyway?!

Edited October 10, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[UNRAM]

The lender is demanding payment of costs for solicitors fees ahead of the Tribunal. I believe that the decision to apply costs lies with the Chamber. Is this correct? If so, what rules do I push back to them to tell them they have to wait for a determination by the Chamber?

 

I found this: The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

 

Orders for costs, reimbursement of fees and interest on costs13. (1) The Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only—

(a)under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) and the costs incurred in applying for such costs;

 

(b)if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in—

(i)an agricultural land and drainage case,

(ii)a residential property case, or

(iii)a leasehold case; or

©in a land registration case.

Edited October 10, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

The lender is demanding payment of costs for solicitors fees ahead of the Tribunal. I believe that the decision to apply costs lies with the Chamber. Is this correct? If so, what rules do I push back to them to tell them they have to wait for a determination by the Chamber?

 

I found this: The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

 

Orders for costs, reimbursement of fees and interest on costs13. (1) The Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only—

(a)under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) and the costs incurred in applying for such costs;

 

(b)if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in—

(i)an agricultural land and drainage case,

(ii)a residential property case, or

(iii)a leasehold case; or

©in a land registration case.

 

Dear Legal Representative,

 

Thank you for your notice indicating that your client intends to pursue a claim for costs ahead of a Tribunal determination and ignore the Chambers jurisdiction and procedures defined by the (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. Your client's intention to apply charges ahead of a Tribunal determination constitutes exercise of undue influence in it's position of significant financial advantage (backed by several billions of pounds sterling of tax payer loans) against an individual claimant with limited personal resources and a child due in the spring of next year. May I remind your client once again of its duty to Treat Customers Fairly in accord with its FCA guidelines.

 

Aside from this ignorance/violation of procedure I assert that it is your client's duty to know the law governing the instruments it is attempting to enforce and I see no lawful nor moral reason why I as an individual of limited resources should be held financially liable for your client's legal preparation before my case has been before the Tribunal. This is an obvious attempt by your client to penalize me for raising this application and I shall appeal to the Chamber to proscribe any payment of costs before the case is properly disposed of on the grounds that this is unconscionable conduct.

I raise objection to your client's intention to recoup costs ahead of the hearing. Any forced application of costs will be a contravention of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 Section 13(1)© and the jurisdiction of the Property Chamber as this case concerns Land Registration. According to Section 13(9) The Tribunal may order an amount to be paid on account before the costs or expenses are assessed as an exercise of its authority.

According to Tribunal Rules Section 13 (4) A person making an application for an order for costs— (a) must, unless the application is made orally at a hearing, send or deliver an application to the Tribunal and to the person against whom the order is sought to be made; and (b) may send or deliver together with the application a schedule of the costs claimed in sufficient detail to allow summary assessment of such costs by the Tribunal.

I refuse to agree to pay any legal costs, contractual monthly subscription arrears or any other administrative costs that have not been made by order of the Tribunal before the case is disposed and I request that you route all further notice of costs by application to the Chamber and copy me in observance of Section 13. I seek that the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction to determine aggregate costs based on the facts presented to them and full consideration of the case and of your client's attempt to exercise undue influence ahead of the hearing.

 

In the event that the Tribunal determination is made in your client's favor I shall request that each party be held liable for its own costs due to your client's significant government backed financial advantage. In the event of this outcome, your client can easily recoup costs by presenting the details of this case in reply to any future relevant borrower claims.

 

I will notify the Chamber of your client's present intention to ignore Tribunal Rules and the Chamber's jurisdiction and I will notify them again if your client should choose to instead observe the formalities of the process it is now engaged in (and has a legal duty to observe). As your client is allegedly regulated by the FCA I will also notify the director of supervision of the FCA and the Chief Ombudsman of the FOS of your client's attempt to ignore legal procedures and exercise undue influence as this will obviously affect other borrowers attempting a similar course of action in the future.

Please can you confirm your client's agreement to observe and abide by the Tribunal Rules for the remainder of this case. I also request a copy of a contract pursuant to UK law that envinces an enforceable agreement or referencing sub-terms to do the same obliging me to pay their legal fees - or any charges at all. I only have a copy of the mortgage offer which references sub-terms of the unsigned deed, but the former is a non-compliant document and not a legal contract. It is also the document that your client first presented as a response to my request for a proof of title. It is obvious that your client is deriving enforceable terms and conditions from some source and I appreciate that the actual signed contract may be held on file elsewhere and I request a copy at your earliest convenience.

Please notify me at your earliest convenience whether your client intends to pursue this unconscionable claim against my objections and if so I request an invoice outlining it's reasonable costs including a decomposition of your company's charges for services rendered ahead of taking deducting any payment from the proceeds of the sale of my legal estate.

 

Please also send a copy of an enforceable mortgage agreement and enforceable sub-terms for the actual disposition referenced therein.

 

Yours sincerely,

UNRAM

Edited October 11, 2013 by UNRAM

[TimetogoRAM]

The lender is demanding payment of costs for solicitors fees ahead of the Tribunal. I believe that the decision to apply costs lies with the Chamber. Is this correct? If so, what rules do I push back to them to tell them they have to wait for a determination by the Chamber?

 

I found this: The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

 

Orders for costs, reimbursement of fees and interest on costs13. (1) The Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only—

(a)under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) and the costs incurred in applying for such costs;

 

(b)if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in—

(i)an agricultural land and drainage case,

(ii)a residential property case, or

(iii)a leasehold case; or

©in a land registration case.

 

 

Have they sent you a letter stating they are demanding costs? Where in the t&c's does it state this?

 

They are unbelievable. They believe they hold borrowers to ransom!

[UNRAM]

Ransom indeed. Please review my post as I have modified it a few times. I would appreciate your feedback.

 

Please note I don't have any T&C's in a format compliant with LPMPA1989.

[TimetogoRAM]

I have been sent a letter stating that it is within my t&c's that I would pay their costs to defend this claim. Although the t&c's are not compliant with this act, I was just wondering if there was anywhere within them where it said this?

 

I have reviewed your post and this is excellent UNRAM. They have completely ignored the tribunal rules and made their own judgment to

in effect

(b)if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in— ©in a land registration case.

 

They are now acting in a completely undemocratic manner. Surely the financial conduct authority should be made aware of this?

[UNRAM]

I have been sent a letter stating that it is within my t&c's that I would pay their costs to defend this claim. Although the t&c's are not compliant with this act, I was just wondering if there was anywhere within them where it said this?

 

I have reviewed your post and this is excellent UNRAM. They have completely ignored the tribunal rules and made their own judgment to

in effect

(b)if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in— ©in a land registration case.

 

They are now acting in a completely undemocratic manner. Surely the financial conduct authority should be made aware of this?

 

Clive Adamson, Director Of Supervision at the FCA and Natalie Ceeney, Chief Ombudsman at the FOS will be copied in on my replies. Unfortunately due to prohibitions placed upon them they are unable to make any comment and unable to take any action to protect the commercial interests of the firms they "regulate".

Edited October 11, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

 

Dear Legal Representative,

 

Thank you for your notice indicating that your client intends to pursue a claim for costs ahead of a Tribunal determination and ignore the Chambers jurisdiction and procedures defined by the (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. Your client's intention to apply charges ahead of a Tribunal determination constitutes exercise of undue influence in it's position of significant financial advantage (backed by several billions of pounds sterling of tax payer loans) against an individual claimant with limited personal resources and a child due in the spring of next year. May I remind your client once again of its duty to Treat Customers Fairly in accord with its FCA guidelines.

 

Aside from this ignorance/violation of procedure I assert that it is your client's duty to know the law governing the instruments it is attempting to enforce and I see no lawful nor moral reason why I as an individual of limited resources should be held financially liable for your client's legal preparation before my case has been before the Tribunal. This is an obvious attempt by your client to penalize me for raising this application and I shall appeal to the Chamber to proscribe any payment of costs before the case is properly disposed of on the grounds that this is unconscionable conduct.

I raise objection to your client's intention to recoup costs ahead of the hearing. Any forced application of costs will be a contravention of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 Section 13(1)© and the jurisdiction of the Property Chamber as this case concerns Land Registration. According to Section 13(9) The Tribunal may order an amount to be paid on account before the costs or expenses are assessed as an exercise of its authority.

According to Tribunal Rules Section 13 (4) A person making an application for an order for costs— (a) must, unless the application is made orally at a hearing, send or deliver an application to the Tribunal and to the person against whom the order is sought to be made; and (b) may send or deliver together with the application a schedule of the costs claimed in sufficient detail to allow summary assessment of such costs by the Tribunal.

I refuse to agree to pay any legal costs, contractual monthly subscription arrears or any other administrative costs that have not been made by order of the Tribunal before the case is disposed and I request that you route all further notice of costs by application to the Chamber and copy me in observance of Section 13. I seek that the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction to determine aggregate costs based on the facts presented to them and full consideration of the case and of your client's attempt to exercise undue influence ahead of the hearing.

 

In the event that the Tribunal determination is made in your client's favor I shall request that each party be held liable for its own costs due to your client's significant government backed financial advantage. In the event of this outcome, your client can easily recoup costs by presenting the details of this case in reply to any future relevant borrower claims.

 

I will notify the Chamber of your client's present intention to ignore Tribunal Rules and the Chamber's jurisdiction and I will notify them again if your client should choose to instead observe the formalities of the process it is now engaged in (and has a legal duty to observe). As your client is allegedly regulated by the FCA I will also notify the director of supervision of the FCA and the Chief Ombudsman of the FOS of your client's attempt to ignore legal procedures and exercise undue influence as this will obviously affect other borrowers attempting a similar course of action in the future.

Please can you confirm your client's agreement to observe and abide by the Tribunal Rules for the remainder of this case. I also request a copy of a contract pursuant to UK law that envinces an enforceable agreement or referencing sub-terms to do the same obliging me to pay their legal fees - or any charges at all. I only have a copy of the mortgage offer which references sub-terms of the unsigned deed, but the former is a non-compliant document and not a legal contract. It is also the document that your client first presented as a response to my request for a proof of title. It is obvious that your client is deriving enforceable terms and conditions from some source and I appreciate that the actual signed contract may be held on file elsewhere and I request a copy at your earliest convenience.

Please notify me at your earliest convenience whether your client intends to pursue this unconscionable claim against my objections and if so I request an invoice outlining it's reasonable costs including a decomposition of your company's charges for services rendered ahead of taking deducting any payment from the proceeds of the sale of my legal estate.

 

Please also send a copy of an enforceable mortgage agreement and enforceable sub-terms for the actual disposition referenced therein.

 

Yours sincerely,

UNRAM

 

Hi UNRAM

 

It is of course tempting to get into un-necessary dialogue with your lender.....However; the matter is before the Chamber, you do not have to rise to the 'bait' or wax lyrical with them.....un-necessarily...

 

Any letter they send to you must also be sent to the Chamber.... and vice versa.....as I understand it....

 

Check with the Chamber to see if they have a copy of the Lenders letter as sent to you on their file.....if they have....then you need do no more.....if they haven't....then make it your duty to send it on to the Chamber....

 

As you know....they can apply for costs...such costs are determined by the Chamber...and subject to your ability to pay.... the deed has not yet been determined....we assert the deed is void.....long before any lender should be reserving costs...they truly should work to respond to the application to remove their charge from the register.....the one that is shored up by an un-executed deed.

 

Try to remain Focused : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I have been sent a letter stating that it is within my t&c's that I would pay their costs to defend this claim. Although the t&c's are not compliant with this act, I was just wondering if there was anywhere within them where it said this?

 

I have reviewed your post and this is excellent UNRAM. They have completely ignored the tribunal rules and made their own judgment to

in effect

(b)if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in— ©in a land registration case.

 

They are now acting in a completely undemocratic manner. Surely the financial conduct authority should be made aware of this?

 

Hi TimetogoRAM

 

The Chamber will determine the Deed....as per my post to UNRAM.....stay focused.....If the Deed makes reference to t's & c's and is found to be void.....then the t's & c's will be of no consequence.

 

I'm amazed that your Lender is conducting itself in this way.......if they send you any letters once your application is in with the Chamber.....get them sent off to the Chamber...(after checking that they have not already done so).

 

Apple

[applecart]

erm

this seems to be going full steam ahead lol.

apple see you had tea lol

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Yes...full steam ahead......there is far too much ground covered to let it slip now : )

 

I'm taking at least 3 sugars in my tea now.... LOL

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi TimetogoRAM,

 

I agree that the law is the law however, it is how the law is interpreted that makes the difference. Look at this thread for example, we have the same reg's, statute, law etc,being viewed differently by Ben, Jabba Hut and I think others to the way we view things. Perhaps Ben & Co are trolls merely trying trying to stop this thread from bringing out the truth or, they may be genuine in what they think is the truth. Who knows?

 

Again, look at some of the decisions some judges have made when, quite clearly and abiding by the law presented to them, have decided for whatever reason to ignore the facts and made decisions based purely on their own interpretations.

 

Just because the law is quite clear and unambiguous in this particular situation, does not mean that it can't be ruled upon to mean something else.

 

We all know that the implications of declaring deeds void and having charges removed from LR title registers are huge, so lets just see if the Property Chamber do the right thing and concentrate on the facts put before it and not the consequences if it rules in favour of the mortgagor.

 

I still think that we could be giving to much away on the open forum, and I just wonder why if all posts and communication between caggers should be on the open forum then why have the PM facility at all.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Hi Mutti

 

I see where you are coming from here....fortunately non of the cases posted up included reference to the RRO....further non of them made reference to the Deed being a Speciality Contract....

 

Remember, if you do not put the LAW or the correct Law in front of the Judge...it is not his place to infer it.....

 

In my experience I have known both Solicitors and Barristers to interpret the law to suit their clients needs....twisting and manipulating it until it fits if you will......the Judges then 'accept' it....and Ben & Co....well???

 

So, yes...we have to wait and see how they will look to manipulate the law in these cases.....and whether the Chamber will act 'in the public interest'....

 

The PM facility as I understand it is solely in the control of the CaG.....there is no Law that applies to it..as far as I know...you can bet if there was - I would have looked into it by now ; )

 

Apple