Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

pj.

Thanks that was worth watching.

[kegi]

 

Hi Kegi......as an ex-council house....it would seem to me that it would have been registered for the 'first time' with HMLR when you applied for the 'right to buy'......this would be the 'trigger' - your lender was ok in applying a 'mortgage' .....

 

However, It sounds as though you have never looked to change the Abbey (Santander) for another lender...is this true?....are you still with the Abbey (Santander)?

 

Apple

 

apple are you saying that the house i bought which was 30 years old could be classed as a new build i cannot see how that could be right registered for the first time or not .Having said that I should have explained better that we bought it first with a council mortgage and then applied for a mortgage with high street lenders couple of years later so it was registered prior to Abbey in my case

kegi

[applecart]

 

apple are you saying that the house i bought which was 30 years old could be classed as a new build i cannot see how that could be right registered for the first time or not .Having said that I should have explained better that we bought it first with a council mortgage and then applied for a mortgage with high street lenders couple of years later so it was registered prior to Abbey in my case

kegi

 

I hear you...... is the deed signed by both you and the Abbey?

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

pj.

Thanks that was worth watching.

 

Yes, I agree......helps remind us all what this is all about......and where we may be heading.... £650.00 per week to repay a loan???? crikey!!!!... interest only!!!.... yikes!!!!

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

My understanding is that true mortgages, in the old legal sense of the word, have not been used for land in several decades. The legal meaning of mortgage is a complete transfer of ownership to the creditor, with a promise of the creditor to transfer the property back when the debt is repaid. My understanding is that these days it is called mortgage by way of legal charge, which is really a legal charge not a mortgage in the ancient sense of the word, hence why borrowers sign a deed of charge.

 

Hello Steampowered

 

What you have said is of course for all intent and purposes applicable to this thread entirely correct.

 

What you refer to as the ancient sense of the word, is a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

The Law of Property Act 1925 introduced a new type of legal mortgage - a charge by way of legal mortgage (a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage)

 

The two different types mortgage - by demise and by charge were available after the LPA 1925. However, in time the use of a mortgage by demise almost became unheard of and almost all mortgages were by charge. As a result, the LRA 2002 made mortgages by demise obsolete, leaving the mortgage by legal charge the only type of mortgage of a registered estate.

 

The applicable legislation being

 

LRA 1925

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/21/section/3

 

Interpretation.

 

In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—

(i)“Charge by way of legal mortgage” means a mortgage created by charge under which, by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925, the mortgagee is to be treated as an estate owner in like manner as if a mortgage term by demise or subdemise were vested in him, and “legal mortgage” has the same meaning as in that Act;

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/87

 

Charges by way of legal mortgage.

 

(1)Where a legal mortgage of land is created by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, the mortgagee shall have the same protection, powers and remedies (including the right to take proceedings to obtain possession from the occupiers and the persons in receipt of rents and profits, or any of them) as if—

 

(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).

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205

 

“Mortgage” includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money’s worth; “legal mortgage” means a mortgage by demise or subdemise or a charge by way of legal mortgage.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/23

 

23 Owner’s powers

 

(1)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate consist of—

(a)power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, and

(b)power to charge the estate at law with the payment of money.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/3/1/1

 

Section 23: Owner’s powers

 

55.This section states the unlimited powers of an owner. It makes one change to the current law. Under the existing law, there is a presumption that a registered charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, unless there is clear provision to the contrary, or it is made or takes effect as a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. Mortgages by demise or sub-demise are now in practice obsolete, because of the advantages of a charge (that enables freeholds and leaseholds to be made the subject of a single charge rather than separate demises or sub-demises; the grant of a charge of a lease is not thought to amount to a breach of the common-form covenant against subletting without the landlord’s consent; and the form of legal charge is short and simple). Subsection (1)(a) therefore abolishes them, with prospective effect.

 

The above is more clearly explained via this link -

 

http://lawnotesh1.blogspot.co.uk/201...gages.html?m=1

 

Legal Mortgages of Registered titles under the LRA 2002

 

By virtue of SECTION 23(1) of LRA 2002, the legal charge is the only permissible method of creating a legal mortgage of a registered freehold or leasehold estate. SECTION 23(1) contemplates two ways a registered title may be 'charged' so as to create legal mortgage: first is the usual 'charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage'; and the second is the less common method of simply charging the land with the payment of money.

 

SECTION 87 of LPA 1925, the charge must be made by deed, and it must be expressed to be by way of legal mortgage: it must declare itself to be a 'legal mortgage made by charge'. This section makes it clear that a chargee obtains the same protection powers and remedies as if the mortgage has been created by a long lease of 3000 years in the old way. For both borrowers and lenders, the charge represents a quick, easy, economical and simple way of mortgaging land.

Edited November 19, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

This information has already been posted and can be found in this thread. As it has been swept under the Carpet, I feel now would be a good time to bring them back to the attention of readers.

 

Please note the repeated use of the term 'registered estate' in the following.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/part/3/crossheading/powers-of-disposition

 

Powers of disposition

 

23 Owner’s powers

 

(1)Owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate consist of—

 

(a)power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an interest of that description, other than a mortgage by demise or sub-demise, and

(b)power to charge the estate at law with the payment of money.

 

As confirmed by s.23(1)(a) in relation to a registered estate, a borrower has the power to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law - The only kind not permitted is a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/part/3/crossheading/registrable-dispositions

 

Registrable dispositions

 

27 Dispositions required to be registered

 

(2)In the case of a registered estate, the following are the dispositions which are required to be completed by registration—

 

(f)the grant of a legal charge.

 

As confirmed by s.27(2)(f) - in the case of a registered estate, the grant of a legal charge is a disposition that is required to be completed by registration.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/part/5/crossheading/powers-as-chargee

 

Powers as chargee

 

51 Effect of completion by registration

 

On completion of the relevant registration requirements, a charge created by means of a registrable disposition of a registered estate has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage.

 

As confirmed by s.51 - the charge being a disposition of a registered estate, once completed by registration takes effect, if it would not do otherwise, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/2

 

SCHEDULE 2

Registrable dispositions: registration requirements

 

Part 1

Registered estates

 

Creation of legal charge

 

8In the case of the creation of a charge, the chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the charge.

 

As confirmed by Schedule 2, Part 1 (8) - In regard to registered estates, the chargee (the lender) must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the charge.

 

Not only following the LRA 2002, in terms of a registered estate can a borrower grant a charge, once registered that charge is registered, if it would not do otherwise it would take effect as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage.

 

Furthermore it is the lender that must be registered as the proprietor of that legal charge.

[bhall]

It is asserted by this thread that the RRO 2005 amended section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 to give effect that a mortgage deed that has not been signed by the lender is void.

 

However, it didn't

 

1.Can we all agree that the core issue, is that this thread asserts that the RRO 2005 amended section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989, to change the law, making it a requirement that a lender must sign the deed ?

 

If the answer is yes, please go on to 2, if no, please explain.

 

2. Can we all agree that the RRO 2005 made the following amendments / changes to section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(2)(b) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(3)

s. 1(2A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 8

s. 1(3)(b) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

s. 1(4) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 1 para. 14

s. 1(4A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(4)

s. 1(5) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 9 Sch. 2

s. 1(6) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

s. 1(6) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 1 para. 15

 

If the answer is yes, please move onto 3, if no, please explain.

 

3. On the basis that the answer to question 2 was yes, the RRO 2005 made the following changes to

 

Section 1(2) of the LRA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(2)(b) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(3)

s. 1(2A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 8

 

Can we all agree that section 1(2) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was amended from as originally enacted

 

(2)An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

 

(a)it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b)it is validly executed as a deed by

that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

 

To

 

(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless:

 

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

If the answer is yes, please go on to 4, if no, please explain.

 

4. On the basis that the answer to question 2 was yes, can we agree that the RRO 2005 made the following change to

 

Section 1(3) of the LRA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(3)(b) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

 

Can we all agree that section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was amended from as originally enacted

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—

 

(a)it is signed—

 

(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

 

To

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

If the answer is yes, please move onto 5, if the answer is no, please explain.

 

5. If the answer to 4 is yes, we agree that the only change made by the RRO 2005 to section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was the repeal of the words "by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf"

 

After 130 pages and over 2,500, this thread really only comes down to one thing.

 

Does the repeal of the words "by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf", change the Law from that established in Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd V Green [2001] that a mortgage deed does not have to be signed by the lender to be both valid and enforceable - To the assertions made in this thread that a mortgage deed that has not been signed by the lender is void and unenforceable.

 

Unfortunately in the explanatory notes for the RRO 2005 there is no explanation of why those 13 words were repealed or of what the effect of those words being repealed would be.

 

6. As amended section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

Can we agree that section (1)(3) confirms that for a deed to be validly executed as a deed it must be signed by that person in the presence of a witness that attests the signature (or at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature) and that it must be delivered.

 

If the answer is yes, please more onto 7, if no, please explain.

 

7. If the answer to 6 is yes, we agree that there are two requirements to be met for a deed to be validly executed by an individual.

 

A) It must be signed in one of the two way described.

B) It must be delivered.

 

Can we agree that if either of the above requirements are not met, the deed is not validly executed by an individual

 

If yes, please move onto 8, if no, please explain.

 

8. If the answer to 7 was yes, we agree that delivery forms part of the requirements for a deed to be validly executed by an individual.

 

If delivery forms part of the requirements for a deed to be validly executed by an individual - where within section (1) of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005 does it actually that delivery is subject to or even related to the execution of the deed by the Lender - Remember as amended it the LPA (MP) 1989 includes delivery as part of the execution by the borrower, not the lender.

 

Where within section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005 is there any added requirement that the deed must be executed or signed by both the borrower and the Lender

 

- Remember as per Eagle Star v Green before the RRO 2005 it was established that no such requirement existed.

 

If the RRO 2005 did not change the law in the way it has been suggested in this thread, the law as pre the RRO 2005 and after the ROO 2005 is the same as that established by Eagle Star v Green.

 

Disclaimer - As it has been argued that the RRO 2005 changed the law and made it a requirement that the Lender sign the deed - I have ignored for the purposes of discussion the changes made to the LPA (MP) 1989 by both the Companies Act 2006 and the Legal Services Act 2007.

[bhall]

As

 

Eagle Star v Green

Helden v Strathmore

The Mortgage Business v Lamb

 

all being cases that are actually about if a mortgage deed has to be signed by the lender - have been swept under the carpet in favour of two cases which have nothing to do with that actual issue - a closer look at those two cases is necessary -

 

 

Bibby Financial Services Ltd v Magson [2011] EWHC 2495

 

The Defendants in Bibby contended - and the High Court agreed - that, although they had in fact signed the deed and handed over the deeds in question (in a pub, no less), they had done so on the basis that these were draft documents and not final versions, and that the deeds had therefore not been delivered.

 

Can anyone make a similar claim with regard to the mortgage deed that they signed ? Did anyone sign a mortgage deed on the basis that it was a draft and not the final version of the Deed ?

 

Garguilo v Jon Howard Gershinson [2012] EWLandRA

 

The Adjudicator found that

 

The central factual issue in this case is whether a third party executed the Lease that is to say whether he signed the execution page and the plan knowing that they related to the Lease. It is not in dispute that he did not do so at the meeting where the other leases were executed.

 

However she found that the pages signed by him (the final execution page, and the plan) were, at the time of signature, separate from the remainder of the Lease. This conclusion was inescapable in the light of certain correspondence. There was also a hand written, undated, note which appears to have been written by a solicitor during the course of a meeting (or phone call) “Me to send you lease for 4.Pages"

 

The Adjudicator found that section 1(3) clearly provides that the signature and attestation must form part of the physical instrument at the moment of signing. The policy argument is that the signature should reflect the proper agreement. If the signature is obtained separately the maker cannot be sure of the terms of the deed and the risk of fraud or mistake remains.

 

The 'it' in s.1(3) is the actual deed. In relation to this thread that would be a mortgage deed.

 

Can anyone or does anyone claim that the signature part of their mortgage deed, did not form part of the mortgage deed they signed ?

 

if the answers to the above/below questions are no, the cases are irrelevant

 

Can anyone make a similar claim with regard to the mortgage deed that they signed ?

 

Did anyone sign a mortgage deed on the basis that it was a draft and not the final version of the Deed ?

 

Can anyone or does anyone claim that the signature part of their mortgage deed, did not form part of the mortgage deed they signed ?

 

Please remember that the original application to the Property Chamber relied upon both of these cases. In response to the reliance placed on these cases the Property Chamber said (as stated in post 202 of this thread)

 

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

[bhall]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2495.html

 

335.The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it. The point was explained by Sir Charles Hall V.C. in Watkins v. Nash (1875) LR 20 Eq 262 at page 266:-

 

"You cannot deliver the deed to the grantee himself, it is said, because that would be inconsistent with its preserving the character of an escrow. But if upon the whole of the transaction it be clear that the delivery was not intended to be a delivery to the grantee at that time, but that it was to be something different, then you must not give effect to the delivery as being a complete delivery, that not being the intent of the persons who executed the instrument."

 

 

- From the above taken from Bibby

 

"The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it."

 

Please note

 

a) "The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed"

 

b) "but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it."

 

The case upon which the application made to the Property Chamber relies upon confirms that delivery is not related to a lender signing the mortgage deed but the borrower separately indicating that he intends to be bound by his deed.

 

As posted previously in this thread, the legal representative of the borrower sending the mortgage deed to the Land Registry is a clear indication of the intent of the borrower to be bound by his deed.

 

Whilst Lamb was dismissed and swept under the carpet of this thread, it should be remembered that as per Bibby, in Lamb in was also said -

 

 

30.....

 

.... The applicable section of the 1989 act is not s.2 but s.1 of the 1989 act. The deed made it clear on its face that it was intended to be a deed, it was signed and it was delivered. A deed executed after 31st July 1990 need not be sealed: see s.1(1)(b) of the 1989 act. "Delivery" for this purpose simply means the signing if the deed with the intention to be bound by its contents....

 

Both Lamb and Bibby concur that delivery involves the intent of the person signing his deed (the borrower) and not the signature of the lender as asserted by this thread.

 

Bibby has been relied upon by the assertions made in this thread when in fact Bibby serves to disprove those same very assertions.

Edited November 19, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

I think the points the site team have repeatedly made about the number of "views" have now been conclusively proven.

 

The thread for the petition has nearly 1,300 views, yet it has only been signed 15 times in the last week.

 

If as asserted by this thread - views were/are different people viewing a thread and not repeat visitors and Internet bots/spiders etc, it would mean that over 1,250 people had read the petition thread, considered the points made and then chose not to sign it.

 

Obviously whilst this is possible, I consider that it is unlikely. However , it should put to bed any assertions made by this thread in terms of the number of views.

 

I am also surprised that considering that this thread asserts that after speaking with the Property Chamber it is overwhelmed with applications, after one week only 15 people have signed it.

 

Considering that one of those 15 was me, it does make you wonder, just how few applications have actually been made. Certainly, it would appear to be far less than that previously portrayed by this thread.

Edited November 19, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

As I said previously not sure about the assertions of this thread of "no defence" on the basis of a mortgage deed and if it is void if it is not signed by the lender and the information posted in this thread - it appears that no claim to answer is a more appropriate and accurate assertion.

 

After the weekend, I have a lot of work to catch up on this week. Sadly this will impact on my ability to comment on this thread in the next few days or respond to questions (so please don't post 20 times about a question not being answered Is It Me? )

 

Goodnight

 

Ben

Edited November 19, 2013 by bhall

[Crapstone]

Everything to do with SPML has always been through Capstone, now Accenden. It's in the T & C's of the original mortgages that they are managed by these off shoots.

 

Although they ask every year for proof of insurance, and to have their interest stated, they back down when you refuse. For a costly amount they will under insure your property and knowingly do so at your expense. From an insurance point of view to under insure....... Fill in the blanks.

[IS IT ME?]

As I said previously not sure about the assertions of this thread of "no defence" on the basis of a mortgage deed and if it is void if it is not signed by the lender and the information posted in this thread - it appears that no claim to answer is a more appropriate and accurate assertion.

 

After the weekend, I have a lot of work to catch up on this week. Sadly this will impact on my ability to comment on this thread in the next few days or respond to questions (so please don't post 20 times about a question not being answered Is It Me? )

 

Goodnight

 

Ben

 

 

GOD it's back and all these postings must be very worried now the same old rubbish post time after time and still he doesn't get it NO ONE is buying it Ben your trying too hard

It was a quite weekend shame really didn't miss you lol

[andrew1]

Yes, I agree......helps remind us all what this is all about......and where we may be heading.... £650.00 per week to repay a loan???? crikey!!!!... interest only!!!.... yikes!!!!

 

 

Apple

 

Only just watched this, but Mr Gilroy must have been reading Cag archives......2 poignant things he said right near the end:

 

1) "It made me question who owned the loans due to securitisation"

 

2) Something I wrote way, way back when the banks failed " If the government paid off everyone's debt, controversial though it sounds, rather than bail out the banks everyone would be out of debt and the banks would have got their money and the country would be booming"

 

It's all on Cag somewhere! He's hit the nail right on the head with both.

 

A1

[p.j]

Only just watched this, but Mr Gilroy must have been reading Cag archives......2 poignant things he said right near the end:

 

1) "It made me question who owned the loans due to securitisation"

 

2) Something I wrote way, way back when the banks failed " If the government paid off everyone's debt, controversial though it sounds, rather than bail out the banks everyone would be out of debt and the banks would have got their money and the country would be booming"

 

It's all on Cag somewhere! He's hit the nail right on the head with both.

 

A1

 

Hi Andrew1.

 

He as hit the nail on the head.If you notice anyone who is starting to uncover the truth and start succeeding the hate campaigns start the rumors get spread by the very people who are the one's being bought to task to misguide people and plant a seed of doubt,its the likes of ben who for all he is doing right or wrong he is definitely not one of us but one of them guiding people to go and grovel to their lenders for a suspended possession order to put them further into the clutches of the cold streets.

The banks will always get a bail out and the poor will get handouts...

 

I took something that Crapstone put in a thread in 2009 its exactly as he says.

 

"So I have to chuckle at the regular consumer advice to approach your lender and ask for this and that.... Say this in court and say that... They have no idea what is going on and the Judges are just that -Judges-. Judges are not economic experts and just want to go home after dealing with us 'silly' people that have signed up for a lifetime of misery but it's far easier to forget the other side of the arguement and use the rubber stamp in favour of Goliath".

 

He is correct in the fact people have got no idea whats going on..

 

pj.

Edited November 19, 2013 by p.j

[sequenci]

,its the likes of ben who for all he is doing right or wrong he is definitely not one of us but one of them guiding people to go and grovel to their lenders for a suspended possession order to put them further into the clutches of the cold streets.

 

I don't think I've seen him actually do that, but if you can point me to an example I would be grateful to see it.

[andrew1]

Hi Andrew1.

 

He as hit the nail on the head.If you notice anyone who is starting to uncover the truth and start succeeding the hate campaigns start the rumors get spread by the very people who are the one's being bought to task to misguide people and plant a seed of doubt,its the likes of ben who for all he is doing right or wrong he is definitely not one of us but one of them guiding people to go and grovel to their lenders for a suspended possession order to put them further into the clutches of the cold streets.

The banks will always get a bail out and the poor will get handouts...

 

I took something that Crapstone put in a thread in 2009 its exactly as he says.

 

"So I have to chuckle at the regular consumer advice to approach your lender and ask for this and that.... Say this in court and say that... They have no idea what is going on and the Judges are just that -Judges-. Judges are not economic experts and just want to go home after dealing with us 'silly' people that have signed up for a lifetime of misery but it's far easier to forget the other side of the argument and use the rubber stamp in favour of Goliath".

 

He is correct in the fact people have got no idea whats going on..

 

pj.

 

Well I know it bucks a certain trend, but I would really like to think Ben was being viewed as someone concerned, from his perspective of the law, about people losing their homes having taken a 'cut and paste' route which sadly so many do at the sniff of a claim....

 

I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept him as just trying to provide a balanced view. I'm prepared to stick with that for now.

 

I have a table tennis ball here at home, half white, half I coloured black. Hold it one way and the person looking at it sees only white (or black depending which way you are holding it).

 

If I say it's black, you say it's white....move your view around a little and you begin to see why the other person is saying it's black. Keep moving and you begin to see where the other person is coming from. - I used it when I ran my business and had difficult meetings to attend, banks, clients, whoever....it kept reminding me to step into their shoes sometimes and see where they're coming from.

 

If it's arrogance, it'll soon show, if it's ignorance - educate, if they're right - be bold enough to accept it, but never dismiss what someone is saying as nonsense as their perspective comes from somewhere - you just have to establish from where..

 

A1

[sequenci]

Well I know it bucks a certain trend, but I would really like to think Ben was being viewed as someone concerned, from his perspective of the law, about people losing their homes having taken a 'cut and paste' route which sadly so many do at the sniff of a claim....

 

I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept him as just trying to provide a balanced view. I'm prepared to stick with that for now.

 

I have a table tennis ball here at home, half white, half I coloured black. Hold it one way and the person looking at it sees only white (or black depending which way you are holding it).

 

If I say it's black, you say it's white....move your view around a little and you begin to see why the other person is saying it's black. Keep moving and you begin to see where the other person is coming from. - I used it when I ran my business and had difficult meetings to attend, banks, clients, whoever....it kept reminding me to step into their shoes sometimes and see where they're coming from.

 

If it's arrogance, it'll soon show, if it's ignorance - educate, if they're right - be bold enough to accept it, but never dismiss what someone is saying as nonsense as their perspective comes from somewhere - you just have to establish from where..

 

A1

 

This is a great post. And I totally agree. For what it's worth, I think this thread is one of only a few on CAG which has encouraged healthy debate from different avenues. We've seen countless examples of people being blinded by one opinion and absolutely not even entertaining any other arguments - only to get royally stung in the end. I think having the ability to consider all arguments, all asides and all posibilities in an objective fashion is the key to finding a solution to anything.

[p.j]

I don't think I've seen him actually do that, but if you can point me to an example I would be grateful to see it.

 

Hi sequenci he as told people on this thread to go and get advice about their threats of possession and not to follow the fanciful ideas.. The tried and tested method does work in keeping people in their home a little while longer a quick fix if you like which i am not saying is a bad thing but keeps people on that roundabout until they are chucked off.

 

pj.

[sequenci]

Hi sequenci he as told people on this thread to go and get advice about their threats of possession and not to follow the fanciful ideas..

 

I think that's sensible advice. When we're talking about people's homes it would be foolhardy not to seek advice from a number of sources, and certainly from somewhere where the advice is qualified (and insured!).

The tried and tested method does work in keeping people in their home a little while longer a quick fix if you like which i am not saying is a bad thing but keeps people on that roundabout until they are chucked off.

pj.

 

There are reasons why methods are tried and tested though. As much as I want for there to be success (contrary to what anyone thinks this is a LOT) I just cannot see it happening. But that is my own personal, reasonably educated, view. Others with more understanding have come on to the thread to express similar concerns. As I mentioned earlier, it's good that there are these conter arguments - as it ensures that anyone comming to the thread can make informed decisions as to the best route forward for themselves. My gut feeling is that a court is likely to interpret the law in a way that confirms with public policy.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[p.j]

I think that's sensible advice. When we're talking about people's homes it would be foolhardy not to seek advice from a number of sources, and certainly from somewhere where the advice is qualified (and insured!).

 

 

There are reasons why methods are tried and tested though. As much as I want for there to be success (contrary to what anyone thinks this is a LOT) I just cannot see it happening. But that is my own personal, reasonably educated, view. Others with more understanding have come on to the thread to express similar concerns. As I mentioned earlier, it's good that there are these conter arguments - as it ensures that anyone comming to the thread can make informed decisions as to the best route forward for themselves. My gut feeling is that a court is likely to interpret the law in a way that confirms with public policy.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

Seqenchi yes it is sensible advise because it does work for a little while longer getting people to stretch the truth that they have found a few more pounds from their already empty purse yes it does work..

 

in some cases people have been lucky to keep their houses longer than others but the problem is still there.

you only have to look at America the very same banks/lenders who are doing exactly the same here are in trouble for fraud and illegally foreclosing on peoples property.

While i do appreciate bens concern and his offer of the alternative advise, you have to ask yourself wether fanciful or not the applications have been accepted so there is something that must be right in the argument.I would of thought they would of looked at it and said no way this is not the case the lenders are right we know the law on the deeds who signs them who doesn't so that idea is being thrown out but it as not so what does that tell you,does that tell you they are fanciful in their ideas for thinking there must be a case ?

 

we shall see who is right or wrong in this but i can tell you my lender as still not proven they have not sold my mortgage on and will not tell me in the SAR as its sensitive data as to who owns it now..

why do you think they are not telling me what i have asked for ?

 

pj

[sequenci]

As I've said before, I think the deed argument is nonsense but there could be something in the securitisation issue.

 

The courts have an important role to play, and I'm pleased that the applications have been accepted for sure

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Sequenci

Yes I think a discussion on securitisation might be an idea.

Securitisation to bring about 'Mortgage Backed Securities'

 

So there we go MORTGAGE not allowed in the UK

 

I have not looked at USA Law but would presume that it is different to UK in so much as it permits Mortgages against property.

As you know this idea (securitisation) has invaded our shores and has also been adapted here in the UK. But do feel that it is worth discussing as it may be useful when we come to round 2 of this fight. That is in search of restitution.

[applecart]

I remind all Borrowers viewing this thread to remain FOCUSED and to REMEMBER the MAIN POINTS and thrust of this thread:

 

 

1 The Application was minded to be struck out on the premise that it was without merit.

2 The Chamber allowed time to make further submissions

3 We drafted the ‘written representation’ to amend the initial application to essentially ask for a determination of the deed (not the charge) with a view to set ting it aside on the following grounds:

 

a) The finding that it is the applicant who is the Registered Proprietor with owners powers to charge the registered estate..not the Lender

b) The finding that the applicant has no power to charge the registered estate with a ‘mortgageicon’.

c) The finding that a ‘charge by way of legal mortgageicon’ has the same effect as a ‘mortgage by demise or sub-demise’

d) The finding that a deed meeting the approved form of charge of HMLR is not a Deed that meets the necessary formalities in relation to ‘delivery’ of a deed

e) The finding that a deed meeting section 53 of the LPA 1925 does not meet the necessary formalities in relation to ‘delivery’ either....

f) The finding that the Deed must be executed thus ‘assumed’ by the Lender before any presumption of delivery can be said to be in evidence to meet section 1 (2) LPMPA 1989 (as amended) (RRO 2005).

g) The finding that the applicant cannot be bound to a deed on the presumption that he is wholly liable to both grant and assume the deed by way of his/her signatureicon alone.

 

4 The Grounds set out above are supported not only by the protections and interpretation of the Law making sure but also case law decided in superior courts of record, (all of which relate to the setting aside of a deed for want of delivery and/or formality) namely:

 

a) Popham J in Hawksland v Gatchel (1601) Cro. Eliz. 835

b) Bibby Financial Services Ltd v Magson [2011] EWHC 2495 (QB)

c) Garguilo v Jon Howard Gershinson & Anr [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0377 (06 January 2012

 

****The Draft written submissions do not rely at any point on section 2 of the LPMPA 1989 ****

 

'Lamb' has no correlation to the application....we know that section 27 (1) (f) is to do with 'dispositions' in relation to the 'estate' including 'legal charges'.....we know that it is LRA s.27 (3) that relates to sub-charges......that is all the power any Borrower had to offer....

 

The Lender did not assume it.......so, until MR LENDER comes up with something worthy of further debate on a thread that is not to do with Securitisation per se....

 

We REMAIN VIGILANT.....FOCUSED......and ON TOPIC...AVOIDING THE 'F'LAW......instead we rely on the LAW here ; )

 

This thread is not to do with 'securitisation' - sorry folks.....no offence intended......start a new thread, however, I assure you there are threads on that topic already available on the forum....But, sorry.....not here.........

 

Apple

[p.j]

I know this is america but it is on the same lines as here for example Acenden are using the name of preferred mortgages who went bankrupt in 2006 to re possess peoples homes getting people who know nothing about what they are doing getting them to sign affidavits for them as though they were operating still today same for southern pacific mortgages they have gone but the name lives on through CRAPSTONE/ACENDEN at companies house..,

I found this on a forum of theirs...

 

According to Dayen, the lawsuit claims that a key step in the securitization process, the physical delivery and endorsement of the promissory note and mortgage, never occurred in many cases, “forcing the production of a stream of false documents, signed by ‘robo-signers,’ employees using a bevy of corporate titles for companies that never employed them, to sign documents about which they had little or no knowledge.”

The forged documents were endorsed by employees of companies long bankrupt, executives who signed their name eight different ways, or “people” named “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Assignments” so that the banks could establish standing to foreclose in courts. The end result, according to white-collar fraud expert Lynn Szymoniak, is that over $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are still, to this day, based on fraudulent mortgage assignments.

 

 

exactly what is going on here...

 

 

pj