Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

I am still not home yet, so posting on my phone

 

Apple said -

 

See 'Garguillo'..... see 'bibby'..... they are on this thread..... in Garguillo...the deed was void due to the 'it' not being attached.....in 'Bibby'....the deed was void even though it had been said to be duly delivered.....due to a 'technicality'... on the finding that it had been amended...and not 'resigned' and 'executed'......

 

....Both these cases are party to the application before the Chamber......along with statutory provision and assurance that the Lender has no defence to a finding where the deed is un=executed.

 

Property Chamber said -

 

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.

 

Hi Ben

 

Thank goodness for mobiles hey ; )

 

You will recall the 'reply' you refer to was prior to Is It Me submitting the draft written presentation.... you will note..... once re-submitted.....the application was accepted .... the Chamber used its own discretion to accept the application instead of striking it out....

 

As you will know... the authorities were re-submitted also.....they have been accepted as relevant...if the Chamber believed that they did not assist the case, they had every right to 'strike out the application.....they did not.... the cases apply to deeds and the formalities in relation to deed Ben.....there is no issue there any longer mate ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

The property chamber has already told Is It Me? That the reliance on those cases is not relevant to the claim that a lender must sign a mortgage deed

 

I will respond to the other things Apple claims can be relied upon when I next have access to my desktop.

 

In answer to your question sequencei - that was never really answered - no, to date the cases that have been posted to this thread which actually deal with the subject of if a lender has to sign a deed have all been unsuccessful - it is these case under the principle of Stare decisis that set precedents on this topic not any old case about a deed.

 

Everything unlike the arguments against bank charges (remember what happened when that actually got to Court) is based upon Apple's interpretation of the law and wishful thinking.

 

I would go as far as to say no borrower can rely upon anything Apple has posted in relation to property law.

 

I'll be home either tomorrow or Sunday and will respond to all the baseless claims of Apple then

 

Oh do hurry back Ben

 

We are all waiting for you to address # 2425 mate...... I would have thought that would have been a priority for you..... give it a lot of thought before you respond though.... I don't want you discrediting yourself again....ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

It is silly to ignore the things the Property Chamber has already said, especially considering who is holding the actual hearing.

 

I agree...it is also 'silly' to ignore their conduct to date as well...... this is moving forward Ben..... you must not ignore that as being 'silly' mate......

 

Give credit where credit is due : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I'm grateful for your response.

 

I was wondering if you have anything which is specific to mortgages. Fair question, no?

 

Hi Sequenci

 

A deed is to do with the creation of any legal land transaction...... we are talking deeds primarily....why are you looking for anything specific to mortgages.... mortgages are unlawful.....we have flagged this FACT up for redress to the Chamber.......

 

The cases posted were to do with the DEED.... that's our main focus hiun : )

 

The 'mortgage' is also an issue..... but having said that...when the deed is declared void....guesss what........??? that 'mortgage'....goes at the same time....so please ask about the DEED and you will make a lot more sense.....

 

If you want info on unlawful mortgages and how to do it....and how to defend them.........speak to Ben...... LOL

 

 

Apple

[sequenci]

The folks I've spoken to about this (property lawyers) are still pretty sure that an equitable mortgage would still be possible, are they missing anything?

 

Also, why haven't there been any cases specific to consumer mortgages in the past if this is such an important issue?

 

I'm not looking to discredit anything anyone has said, I'm just interested.

[bhall]

The folks I've spoken to about this (property lawyers) are still pretty sure that an equitable mortgage would still be possible, are they missing anything?

 

Also, why haven't there been any cases specific to consumer mortgages in the past if this is such an important issue?

 

I'm not looking to discredit anything anyone has said, I'm just interested.

 

Despite Apple's insistence to the contrary

 

The two recognised authority 's on this topic are

 

Eagle star Insurance Company ltd v Green [2001] EWCA 1389

 

Helden v Strathmore ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542

 

In both cases the borrower argued that the lender had to sign the mortgage deed and in both cases the Court rejected the argument.

 

They are still the recognised authority on this matter as the RRO 2005 did not have the effect Apple wishes it did.

 

 

It is as simple as that

 

There are also been numerous cases brought this year based on the argument that the lender must sign the deed. They have all lost. Use google you will find the void mortgage websites with all the cases they have brought this year and lost (The Mortgage Business plc v Lamb (unreported case) was just one of them this year that lost in Court.

[applecart]

The folks I've spoken to about this (property lawyers) are still pretty sure that an equitable mortgage would still be possible, are they missing anything?

 

Also, why haven't there been any cases specific to consumer mortgages in the past if this is such an important issue?

 

I'm not looking to discredit anything anyone has said, I'm just interested.

 

If a Borrower has no power to grant a 'mortgage'.....how can they argue 'specific performance' due to an 'equitable mortgage' Sequenci? are you void of logic man...... come on

 

Where the draft representation speaks of 'at best section 1 (7) of the LPA 1925'...... I was giving lenders a rope to hang themselves in relation to registered land.....nothing more....... it would seem..... those property lawyers are falling for the trap set ....... hahahahaha.....looks like they will cling to any port in a storm....lol

 

Apple

[bhall]

And yes - Equity and Equitable would come in to it if a Lender did lost - as something that does not exist at law can still exist in Equity - it is an aged old concept.

[applecart]

Despite Apple's insistence to the contrary

 

The two recognised authority 's on this topic are

 

Eagle star Insurance Company ltd v Green [2001] EWCA 1389

 

Helden v Strathmore ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542

 

In both cases the borrower argued that the lender had to sign the mortgage deed and in both cases the Court rejected the argument.

 

They are still the recognised authority on this matter as the RRO 2005 did not have the effect Apple wishes it did.

 

 

It is as simple as that

 

There are also been numerous cases brought this year based on the argument that the lender must sign the deed. They have all lost. Use google you will find the void mortgage websites with all the cases they have brought this year and lost (The Mortgage Business plc v Lamb (unreported case) was just one of them this year that lost in Court.

 

Hi Ben

 

The cases you refer to were not relied upon by the Lender in Is It Me case as party to their 'response' unlike you....... even they realised... those cases do not defend section 1 mate....lol

 

Apple

[applecart]

And yes - Equity and Equitable would come in to it if a Lender did lost - as something that does not exist at law can still exist in Equity - it is an aged old concept.

 

Ben.... equity is not intended to surpass the LAW.....

 

The LAW is clear....stop trying to suggest the the 'F' in LAW exists mate...... it doesn't.....

 

All these additional posts Ben.....and you have not addressed #2425.......can you do that please?

 

 

Apple

 

Ther

[bhall]

If a Borrower has no power to grant a 'mortgage'.....how can they argue 'specific performance' due to an 'equitable mortgage' Sequenci? are you void of logic man...... come on

 

Where the draft representation speaks of 'at best section 1 (7) of the LPA 1925'...... I was giving lenders a rope to hang themselves in relation to registered land.....nothing more....... it would seem..... those property lawyers are falling for the trap set ....... hahahahaha.....looks like they will cling to any port in a storm....lol

 

Apple

 

Lol it still makes me laugh when you claim this ;-)

 

I wish I could be there when this is said in Court lol

[applecart]

Lol it still makes me laugh when you claim this ;-)

 

I wish I could be there when this is said in Court lol

 

yeah..... really..... on what grounds chum??

 

circumvention of the law perhaps...... you can't do that ..... garguillo provides that you can't do that ....the Law cannot 'execute' the deed for the Lender ben.....Is that what you want and expect the Chamber to do ......execute the deed........hahahaha.......your joking!!!

 

Apple

[sequenci]

yeah..... really..... on what grounds chum??

 

circumvention of the law perhaps...... you can't do that ..... garguillo provides that you can't do that ....the Law cannot 'execute' the deed for the Lender ben.....Is that what you want and expect the Chamber to do ......execute the deed........hahahaha.......your joking!!!

 

Apple

 

There are subtle differences between the law and equity though, right?

[bhall]

yeah..... really..... on what grounds chum??

 

circumvention of the law perhaps...... you can't do that ..... garguillo provides that you can't do that ....the Law cannot 'execute' the deed for the Lender ben.....Is that what you want and expect the Chamber to do ......execute the deed........hahahaha.......your joking!!!

 

Apple

 

It makes me laugh because of your lack of understanding of what equity is.

 

If something does not exist at law it can still exist in equity.

 

We can use assignment as another good example.

 

An assignment of a chose in action that does not meet the legal requirements of s.136 of the LPA 1925 does not operate at law but still operates in equity.

 

As the assignment does not operate in law, it is not a legal assignment. As the assignment operates in equity it is an equitable assignment.

 

The same can be said about a mortgage, if it does not meet the requirements of law (such as completion by registration, amongst other things) the mortgage does not operate in law but it does operate in equity hence it is an equitable mortgage.

 

If you look at part 55 of the CPR a mortgagee of an equitable mortgage can still bring a claim for possession.

 

Do you live in Egypt Apple as you are in denial about a lot of things here.

[bhall]

Besides which the deed is only security for the loan, even if you was right about the deed (which you are not) it would not effect the debt owed. The lender could still bring a claim in regard to the debt.

 

Your ideas are far from being the golden egg giving anyone a free house.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi marika41

Just to reinforce what Apple has said.

You can deal with all these issues, its only a matter of lining up your ducks. The first one to deal with of course is this DEED issue and your FRIENDS on the CAG are here to help you.

 

To try and assist you with your understanding of the Laws which have been referred to in your submission to the court...the LPA (Law of Property Act), tells you, (we, everybody) what you can do and cannot do in relation to an estate,... whereas...the LRA (Land Registration Act), tells you how you should do it. This in relation to the matters on this thread.

 

Hope this helps and you remain focused.

GiveHimaMAsk

[bhall]

The opinion of a solicitor with 25 years experience

 

 

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/2e2yj-hi-when-mortgage-deed-signed-uk-residential-mortgage.html

 

And

 

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/34f2c-mortgage-deed-not-signed-sealed-mortgage-provider.html

 

According to the website she only provided answers to over 25,000 satisfied customers...

 

That's nothing !

 

But hey what does someone with that amount of experience know anyway.

 

Another legal opinion

 

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

 

And another legal opinion

 

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

 

Combine that with the two cases previously posted (green and helden) the professional legal point of view is clear.

 

But what do these people know anyway...

[marika41]

Hi marika41

Just to reinforce what Apple has said.

You can deal with all these issues, its only a matter of lining up your ducks. The first one to deal with of course is this DEED issue and your FRIENDS on the CAG are here to help you.

 

To try and assist you with your understanding of the Laws which have been referred to in your submission to the court...the LPA (Law of Property Act), tells you, (we, everybody) what you can do and cannot do in relation to an estate,... whereas...the LRA (Land Registration Act), tells you how you should do it. This in relation to the matters on this thread.

 

Hope this helps and you remain focused.

GiveHimaMAsk

 

Thank you very much, I love all the help,advice, support and reassurance between the people on this thread it is heartwarming, staying focused is difficult at times and the reminders to stay focused are welcome it is easy to be sidetracked when you have been stressed for a long time. I am now focusing on understanding this issue properly, Thanks again much appreciated

[IS IT ME?]

That is it stay focused on it and I believe we are on the right track even people I know who are in the legal side say that this has never been before the courts like this and it is new ground

[Winged Piglet]

Besides which the deed is only security for the loan, even if you was right about the deed (which you are not) it would not effect the debt owed. The lender could still bring a claim in regard to the debt.

 

Your ideas are far from being the golden egg giving anyone a free house.

 

Ah but you are forgetting that many lenders especially sub prime did not present an underlying loan agreement to be signed by either party. The Deed alone was used referencing the terms and conditions to bind the customer to the 'debt' and would simply issue a Mortgage Offer which they didn't ask or require to be signed. If the Deed is found to be void, then the Lenders then do not have reliance on chasing the then unsecured debt as what are they going to present to any court? They have nothing no loan contract or agreement at all - they have nothing and there wll be no legal ability to chase or enforce the payment of this 'debt'. How bhall do you suggest in this situation Lenders could enforce or make a claim then?

 

WP

[Winged Piglet]

Bhall, following on from your links to opinions, this is what Optima Legal said re: loan agreement

 

'The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties.'

 

So as I said previously, Lenders not asking customers to sign the underlying loan agreement and signing it themselves, will be on a sticky wicket!

[applecart]

Bhall, following on from your links to opinions, this is what Optima Legal said re: loan agreement

 

'The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties.'

 

So as I said previously, Lenders not asking customers to sign the underlying loan agreement and signing it themselves, will be on a sticky wicket!

 

 

Well said WP...Well Said ; )

 

We know that the Deed is void.....we know that the lenders do not bother to get mortgage offers 'agreed'.....crikey...we are even learning that they don't bother with deeds of variation.....and even when Ben assures us that the Lender will execute a deed when a further advance is noted on the title.....welll.......even then they don't bother to......So all I can say is.....

 

What NOW Ben???

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

When you speak of 'it's first line of defence'....are you saying the lender has responded to your application to the chamber? or are you referring to them responding to the letters you send them?

Apple

No I am referring to their initial response to notice of my Chamber application. The nice little emails from their lawyers politely informing me that I am now racking up costs under the terms of the contract (YES - they called it a contract, not me) and their client is going to charge me for any future correspondence I send them. This is a public company with £45billion taxpayer backing. And because I am looking at this through novices eyes I have also noticed what others have failed to that their senior officers obviously have no idea of the law behind anything they are doing that they have to hand it off to a legal department and can't actually address ANYTHING themselves. The CEO clearly does not know his own business enough to answer "customer" queries. The Chairman has been silent the whole time. Truly Great Leaders... I politely requested that they please didn't send me extracts from terms and conditions from a form of charge that despite having obligation on the lender was clearly not executed. What did they send me? Yes, of course. A copy of an unexecuted deed with obligations on it - and actually said it was executed. Where did those terms and conditions come from? Oh yes, of course, they were agreed under a prior contract (not signed by the lender, mind) - the oxymoronic "mortgage agreement". I really don't think they actually read my emails properly.

Edited October 26, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

It happened like this: they sent me an email saying "under the terms... blah blah blah... you have to pay... blah blah... do what we say... blah blah". Standard terms... So I said...

 

In order that I may respond appropriately to your notice to deduct money from the proceeds of the sale of my estate I request presentation of a document pursuant to the Land Registration Act 2002 section 91. Your clients form of charge was only signed as a deed by the borrower before being filed at HM land registry ref MDxxxx. It would appear that there is no bilateral aspect to any part of my "mortgage agreement" with your client who appears to have completely avoided legally committing to any part of the contract (offer and deed) but nonetheless seeks to enforce it's purported terms and conditions. I have provided relevant extracts of land registration law for ease of reference. Please can you either accept or reject that this legislation applies to your clients form of charge before issuing any further demands for upfront payments. I would like to draw your attention in particular to section (4)(b).

 

(1) This section applies to a document in electronic form where—

(a)the document purports to effect a disposition which falls within subsection (2), and

(b)the conditions in subsection (3) are met.

(2) A disposition falls within this subsection if it is—

(a) a disposition of a registered estate or charge,

(b) a disposition of an interest which is the subject of a notice in the register, or

© a disposition which triggers the requirement of registration,

which is of a kind specified by rules.

 

(3)The conditions referred to above are that—

(a)the document makes provision for the time and date when it takes effect,

(b)the document has the electronic signature of each person by whom it purports to be authenticated,

©each electronic signature is certified, and

(d)such other conditions as rules may provide are met.

 

(4)A document to which this section applies is to be regarded as—

(a) in writing, and

(b) signed by each individual, and sealed by each corporation, whose electronic signature it has.

 

(5) A document to which this section applies is to be regarded for the purposes of any enactment as a deed.

 

Please note that (4)(b) denotes a bilateral signature requirement ("and" - not "or") for the deed stated in (5) which you have correctly identified as a contract.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

UNRAM

Edited October 26, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

So their lawyer replied: "you'll pay for this" (essentially). I know you said don't "wax lyrical" but I couldnt help myself - the temptation got the better of me. However now I know I'm paying for my own emails I will take your good advice in the future and send them the short thank you...

Edited October 26, 2013 by UNRAM