Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Ben.... What on earth are you on about?

 

 

There is no issue with any sources to Halsbury's Law that I have posted...... funny how I can post Halsbury and no one - not even you asked for page No's..... sources etc........ why? because... I do not look to misguide consumers.... I make it more than clear.... I am on the consumers side...... However with you...... well...... you .... with respect..... you need to be checked... watched.... and validated......nothing personal of course....but, you cannot avoid the finding that your alternative argument is based purely in favour of Lenders...

 

 

You need to understand.... if you want to assist the Lender..... this is not the place to do so...... we have made no pretence about that......as you know ; )

 

 

 

 

 

I'm as cool as a cucumber..... your posts present no threat to any of my posts - the Law - or the fact that the Deed is Void....

 

 

No offence ; )

 

 

 

 

Apple

 

I would disagree that there is no issue with your reference to Halsbury's Laws.

 

You did not find the partial quote you have repeatedly posted in Halsbury's Laws. The partial quote you have repeatedly posted is taken from the report from the Law Commission which in turn quoted from Halsbury's

 

If you had bothered to investigate further, you would be aware that it is a partial quote and does not mean what you have said it is "essentially saying"

 

You have referred to Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edition 1975 vol 12

 

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

 

and you have said

 

"Halsbury's Law is essentially saying, that where it can be shown that the Lender has not executed the deed, but benefits from CMI, repossession and the eventual sale of a borrowers home, then they are to be made liable to the Borrower for all the monies and benefits they have derived......"

 

 

The following is taken from the 2007 reissue -

 

 

 

64. Accepting benefit without execution.

 

Where a person named in some deed, whether as a party to it or not, has, without executing the deed, ac-cepted some benefit thereby assured to him, he is obliged to give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was therein expressed to be conferred; and he must, therefore, perform or observe all covenants or stipulations on his part which are contained in the deed, and on the performance or observance of which the benefit conferred was meant to be conditional1. For example, a mortgagee who has made a loan on mort-gage, but has not executed the mortgage deed (which has been executed by the mortgagor only), is bound to give effect to a proviso contained in the deed for reduction of the rate of interest on punctual payment, or for allowing the loan to remain on the mortgage for a certain term2. If a person enters into land under an assurance made to him by deed (which he has not executed) for a term of years, for his life or in tail, and it subsequently appears that the grantor who made the assurance had no rightful title to the land, the person who has so entered is estopped from asserting, against the remainderman under the deed, a possessory title to the land as derived from his own wrongful entry and the effect of the Limitation Act 19803, even though he may be able to set up such a title against the original rightful owner4. Where a company takes the benefit of an apprenticeship agreement which it has not executed, it will be taken to have adopted it and will be bound by it5.

 

 

1 YB 38 Edw 3, 8a; YB 45 Edw 3, 11, (pl 7); YB 8 Edw 4, 8b; Littleton's Tenures s 374; Bro Abr, Dette (38, 80), Obligation (13, 14, 27); 1 Dyer 13b, pl 65; Co Litt 230b and n (1); Brett v Cumberland (1619) 2 Roll Rep 63; R v Houghton-le-Spring (1819) 2 B & Ald 375; Webb v Spicer (1849) 13 QB 886 at 893 (on appeal sub nom Salmon v Webb and Franklin (1852) 3 HL Cas 510); Linwood v Squire (1850) 5 Exch 234 at 236; Macdonald v Law Union Insurance Co (1874) LR 9 QB 328 at 330 and 332; Aspden v Seddon (1876) 1 Ex D 496 at 503, CA; Westhoughton UDC v Wigan Coal and Iron Co Ltd [1919] 1 Ch 159 at 174, CA; Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169, [1957] 1 All ER 371. Before 1926, a grantee of land, subject to the reservation of an easement thereover, was bound, if he accepted the grant, to give effect to the reservation, though he did not execute the conveyance (May v Belleville [1905] 2 Ch 605); but now the reservation operates to create the legal estate reserved without execution of the conveyance by the grantee (see the Law of Property Act 1925 s 65(1); and PARA 239 post).

 

2 See note 1 supra; and Morgan v Pike (1854) 14 CB 473 at 483-486.

 

3 See the Limitation Act 1980 ss 15, 17 (as amended), Sch 1 (as amended); and LIMITATION PERIODS.

 

4 Dalton v Fitzgerald [1897] 2 Ch 86, CA; cf the Limitation Act 1980 Sch 1 (as amended) (see LIMITATION PERIODS); and see Littleton's Tenures s 374.

 

5 McDonald v John Twiname Ltd [1953] 2 QB 304, [1953] 2 All ER 589, CA.

 

As you can see Halsbury's is not 'essentially saying' what you have claimed.

Edited December 2, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Ben

 

' It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled"

 

 

mark twain.....

 

I have always been a fan of Mark Twain.

 

There is another quote attributed to him that I am sure you will find if you google it, about keeping and opening of the mouth.

 

Given your quite ridiculous posts, which have been removed about my identity (and for the record no I am not one of the founders of CAG), it is a quote you should really consider and you should heed Mark Twain's advice.

[bhall]

On the provision that the hearing is held in January - the Property Chamber will make a determination upon the merits of the argument.

 

Then the truth will be known.

[citizenB]

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

 

Mark Twain.

 

 

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

 

Mark Twain

 

 

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

attributed to Abraham Lincoln

[bhall]

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

 

Mark Twain.

 

 

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

 

Mark Twain

 

 

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

attributed to Abraham Lincoln

 

That's the one ;-)

[GiveHimaMask]

 

Hi Crapstone,

 

The amount of money involed is your mortgage or possibly your re-mortgage in your case.

 

The Deed referred to here is the terms of your loan, and if the Ded is found to be void then the security that your Lender has on his loan is your home is gone. So when the security goes your Lenders claim to your home also goes. It is under the terms of the Deed that your Lender is slegehammering his way into your home, to put you out and sell the property to recover his debt.

 

This thread asserts that all mortgages from 2002 will be affected and further suggests that mortgages since 1925 could come into play.

 

I know that you may view this as the little guy trying to put a spanner into the works but consider this.... should the Deed be void... then that could effect the security on 11.3 million homes in the UK... so that would represent an even bigger sledgehammer.

 

Your home is your home, your name is on the title register as the 'absolute owner' and wil remain their until your property is sold, irrepective of repossession, oh and the same would apply to your car. Remember, your Lender did not buy that for you, he merely loaned you some money with interest to help you purchase it.

 

Hope this helps

[Crapstone]

I'm still not convinced. The absolute intention was security and all loans over 25k are that. All the courts or tribunal will do is refer to what was intended and not what the mortgagee hopes for. In reference to the car ...I am the registered keeper but I did not buy it and neither did I take out a loan and there is no loan on it. But it doesn't mean it's mine? Unless the person can prove they actually own the house and land, regardless of the deeds, then it's just going to be altered to what the initial intention was when they signed the mortgage. You don't really think a judge is going to say that it's void do you? What then? One expensive hurdle should it fail. Full of bright ideas and even Bankfodder had his fingers burnt remember.

[Crapstone]

Your home is your home, your name is on the title register as the 'absolute owner' and wil remain their until your property is sold, irrepective of repossession, oh and the same would apply to your car. Remember, your Lender did not buy that for you, he merely loaned you some money with interest to help you purchase it.

 

Would you care to argue that under proceeds of crime? If it can be taken away when you don't pay then that is pretty fair. Don't get me wrong, I hate these lenders with a passion but I wouldn't go digging a hole for myself without fully understanding what can happen. Just the stress gets you down and then to be turfed out would be awful. Some sensible thought has to be put in other than the need to argue something that seems futile.

[GiveHimaMask]

Your home is your home, your name is on the title register as the 'absolute owner' and wil remain their until your property is sold, irrepective of repossession, oh and the same would apply to your car. Remember, your Lender did not buy that for you, he merely loaned you some money with interest to help you purchase it.

 

Would you care to argue that under proceeds of crime? If it can be taken away when you don't pay then that is pretty fair. Don't get me wrong, I hate these lenders with a passion but I wouldn't go digging a hole for myself without fully understanding what can happen. Just the stress gets you down and then to be turfed out would be awful. Some sensible thought has to be put in other than the need to argue something that seems futile.

 

Hi Crapstone,

 

To help you maybe understand what is being said here on this thread, are you willing to expand on the following;

 

Where do you perceive a crime.

Are you currently under threat of repossession.

What would be your worst case senario should you make an application to the Chamber

Why do you think it futile to argue the Law and its application in relation to Deeds.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Siteteam,

 

Can you advise when Is It Me and Apple are returning from their break??

 

Ta.

[ims21]

They can post any time they wish. They have not been banned but any posts they make will be checked before going live.

 

They have chosen not to make any posts lately.

[IS IT ME?]

ims 21

that is not really true and as you fully know but you will not post this up.

[Crapstone]

Hi Crapstone,

 

To help you maybe understand what is being said here on this thread, are you willing to expand on the following;

 

Where do you perceive a crime.

Are you currently under threat of repossession.

What would be your worst case senario should you make an application to the Chamber

Why do you think it futile to argue the Law and its application in relation to Deeds.

 

No crime just a comparison that ownership is not 'ownership' in the true sense that is given here by the emphasis on signed deeds.

Not now but have been several times via a charge and a sub-prime mortgage.

The worst case is to lose and know you don't have a leg to stand on and wasted all that time on grabbing at straws.

It's futile in the sense that the purpose of the contact was to form a mortgage and that was agreed by both parties. It won't discharge the mortgage or its security just as I've exampled that ownership of a car is not so simple. Indeed just an unregistered loan can lead an unaware motorist losing a vehicle even though they have nothing to do with the loan.

 

You argue this and talk about the law but what do you expect will be the outcome? When you can answer that for sure then people will listen. It's not you having to face it and neither is it me but I know which side of the fence I'd stay on and what I'd be willing to stake. I've spent the best part of almost 10 years trying to nail them so I guess I know what I'm talking about by now.

[sequenci]

ims 21

that is not really true and as you fully know but you will not post this up.

 

It is true.

 

There is a differene between being placed on moderation and being banned. As you can see.

[sequenci]

You argue this and talk about the law but what do you expect will be the outcome? When you can answer that for sure then people will listen. It's not you having to face it and neither is it me but I know which side of the fence I'd stay on and what I'd be willing to stake. I've spent the best part of almost 10 years trying to nail them so I guess I know what I'm talking about by now.

 

Wise words. Let's look at this objectively. Do you think it can be true that a mortgage becoems void and the monies owing to the lender disappears simply because a lender has not signed a document? I can't see it myself, and all the noises thus far from the chamber seem to imply the same.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Crapstone,

 

It would appear that you have had a bad expeience with a car that might have been gifted to you.

 

But do not confuse car proof of ownership with that of land.

 

When you purchased you home your name was registered with the Land Registry as being the 'Absolute Owner', of that there is no doubt, in the eyes of the Law and the Courts. If you had borrowed some money to help you buy your home you would have granted a charge over your property as security for the loan, that loan agreement would have been by way of Deed because that's what the Law requires you do.

 

Now Deeds have Formalities by way of completion, these go back some 400 years in Law and this thread asserts that those Formalities have not been complied with within the Law and in consequence are apt to be void. The application to the Chamber by IS IT ME's friend is simply to challenge the Lender that they have not complied with the Law in relation to Deeds and should the Chamber decide in IS IT ME's Friend's favour then the remedy would be to set aside the Deed as void (it is a nullity, it does not exist for want of completion), resulting in the charge being removed from the Land Registry. Once removed from the Registry, your Lender's security against your home becomes void.

 

Your Loan from your Lender however, will remain to be repaid. Now there are several contributors here who would wish to get ahead of this game by asking what happens to the Loan and several suggestions made that the Law would enable set-off against the original Loan. This is something that the Chamber has not been asked to decide nor would have jurisdiction to do so. In my view that would need a further challenge against the Lender and again a similiar amount of effort in research to establish full entitlement if any to set-off against the original loan.

 

The underlying purpose of this thread it to invite people the debate the finding in Law adt to add or subtract from it. That I feel has been duly acheived and it is now time to await the reply from the Lenders by way of their defence to the applications, to date, despite what some contributors suggest, their replies although limited in number have been weak. This is where this thread is at currently and any discussion in relation to restitution is only adhoc, and possibly a means of passing the time.

 

I appreciate that you are possibly war weary after ten years of fighting without sucess however, you are afforded the ability to follow the test case in this instance and then take action should you think it appropiate without compromising your position. You should however consider that there are people out there that have no other hope of protecting the roof over their heads and it is those people we should support as we may benefit from their stand against the Lender and his manipulations.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Sequenci,

 

I would refer you to an earlier post you made re your search thro your access to databases not turning up any results in relation to Deeds on residential mortgages.

 

I had at that time asked if you could search in your own time if you could find any results in relation to commercial property or company transactions in relation to Deeds. So if you get a chance could you have a look??

 

Ta.

[Crapstone]

GHaM,

 

No I haven't had any bad experience with a car and it was for example only. Neither am I, 'war weary after ten years of fighting without success'. Quite the contrary and have had the good fortune of turning the barrel on them.

 

If the charge were void then it would be at their liberty to reinstate it again as per the contract. A simple signature or mistake would seem to make no difference if the fact remains that the mortgage is in arrears and payments cannot be maintained.

 

What in the case of a compulsory purchase order? You may have an absolute title with no charge at all but does that mean you ultimately retain the right to the land? Do you have a right to be paid in full your asking price, compensation or to refuse completely as the title owner?

 

I just can't see this getting anywhere other than prolonging the agony and ending up back at square 1 with very little to show for it. It's worth a try, anything is, but to rely on this alone and keep going over it is just madness.

[Winged Piglet]

Wise words. Let's look at this objectively. Do you think it can be true that a mortgage becoems void and the monies owing to the lender disappears simply because a lender has not signed a document? I can't see it myself, and all the noises thus far from the chamber seem to imply the same.

 

Ah Sequenci, you are forgetting the following:-

 

1. The unsigned by the Lender Deed is used to create a charge to secure the borrowing.

 

2. The borrowing is a contract which contains the terms and conditions of the loan i.e. rate of interest to be applied, length of mortgage, and endless other clauses mostly benefitting the Lender

 

3. The Lender has sold on the borrowing via securitisation, so why would THEY need to ask for the now unsecured borrowing back if the Deed is void? They have misled the borrower into believing that they still owe their Lender money when facts dictate that not to be so. Smoke and mirrors. Who has ever had a lender write to them and say Dear Borrower, we've securitised your mortgage debt, we've had our money back but keep paying your contractual monthly payment to us and into our bank account and we'll pass it on to the true and actual beneficial owner? My estimate is....... Zero ;-)

To me this needs to be looked at by the FCA. How are lenders able to make us believe that we should still pay them, that the relationship has not changed. The Borrower will know nothing of the behind the scenes transactions, and the Lenders use this ignorance to make us keep paying THEM. How can the FCA allow this behaviour whereby hundreds of thousands of borrowers are making payments to a party who pretends to own the 'debt' when in reality they do not. The Borrower writes a cheque and sends it off to their lender to pay down the 'debt'. Whose name is on that cheque? The Lender cashes the cheque yet this money is not theirs to do so. They are handling it for their 'client' yet in my case, my 'Lender' has no such authority to handle client's or other parties money. They farm out the administration to a third party ( as they are not FCA authorised) who then act on their behalf, who then collect the money in the name of the pretender Lender who then pass it on to the investor Lender. The Borrower is none the wiser. To me this is misleading and false and the FCA should be investigating!

 

4. Furthermore if the borrower struggles to meet these 'contractual' ( even if there's no contract been made) payments the pretender Lender then pretend they have rights (rights established how exactly if there is no contract between Lender and Borrower) to reposess your property to claim what's 'theirs' to recover the arrears of 'contractual payments' . They cry to the court that detriment to themselves has occurred, they are out of pocket yet in reality their pockets were filled a few weeks after the lowly borrower signed the void Deed when they sold the beneficial rights to these payments and sold it on. One could then argue that the mortgage sale agreement they contract with to the investor lenders on the financial markets is void too, as they have assigned and sold the beneficial 'rights', whereby they had actually established no such rights as they failed to contract with the Borrower.

 

5. There are many examples and some I believe who have applied to Property Chamber who don't have an underlying loan agreement just the Deed. So if the Deed is void what can the Lender show (notwithstanding he's securitised it anyway) to make a claim in a court to assert his 'rights' to the money? Rights I may add which should be in a contract signed by both parties in order for any rights to even be born never mind sold and adopted by another party.

 

6. If the Deed is void and there is an underlying loan agreement signed by both parties, then it would be the investor 'lender' who bought the rights to the contractual mortgage payments. It would be them that had to make the claim as unsecured borrowing as it is only them & not the ghost pretender Lender who could claim that they have suffered any loss or detriment. However they don't appear as the owner of the legal title. So the pretender Lender would have to join forces with the investor Lender and hold hands to try and convince a court they had a viable claim. Not likely as who is the actual beneficial owner, it could be a thousand different funds, investors, pi's, financial instituions, etc etc. It won't be one indivdual or one company will it.

 

7. If there's no underlying loan agreement, then the pretender lender might as well waive toilet roll instead of an agreement at a Judge because............ ;-))

 

8. Proving detriment and loss is paramount. This idea of equity to me is nuts. Surely any Judge would say, if the Deed is void - so you have no Deed now to rely on, where's the loan agreement? - so you have no loan agreement to rely on as unsecured debt claim? Well we'll take a walk down Equity Street and follow the Law, but hold on a minute what's this you say? you've sold the equitable rights to someone else and had the benefit of all monies so you've suffered no loss - then what's your problem?. Where's the right to make a claim? I think a Judge would say you are a lender, this is your business and you should know what you were doing and this is not an anomoly but clearly has been repeated hundreds of thousands of times. Where was the due dilligence? Why didn't you satisfy yourself for reliance purposes with a loan contract? You have access to legal and company advice.Take it on the chin!

 

Oh and 'noises from the chamber seem to imply'. You must have bionic hearing Sequenci or a crystal ball as the PC have not ruled on this yet have they.

 

WP

Edited December 5, 2013 by Winged Piglet

[Winged Piglet]

GHaM,

 

No I haven't had any bad experience with a car and it was for example only. Neither am I, 'war weary after ten years of fighting without success'. Quite the contrary and have had the good fortune of turning the barrel on them.

 

If the charge were void then it would be at their liberty to reinstate it again as per the contract. A simple signature or mistake would seem to make no difference if the fact remains that the mortgage is in arrears and payments cannot be maintained.

 

What in the case of a compulsory purchase order? You may have an absolute title with no charge at all but does that mean you ultimately retain the right to the land? Do you have a right to be paid in full your asking price, compensation or to refuse completely as the title owner?

 

I just can't see this getting anywhere other than prolonging the agony and ending up back at square 1 with very little to show for it. It's worth a try, anything is, but to rely on this alone and keep going over it is just madness.

 

See my last but one post Crapstone and also then ask yourself this..... Where do the Lender's RIGHTS eminate from? They do not simply occur .

[sequenci]

Oh and 'noises from the chamber seem to imply'. You must have bionic hearing Sequenci or a crystal ball as the PC have not ruled on this yet have they.

 

WP

 

Not hearing. Eyesight. You know, the stuff they've sent out to people. Why do you think they are doing that?

 

I disagree with much of what you've written, I've posted it earlier in the thread - so I'm sure you can revisit it should you wish to

[gt4god2ulot]

Not hearing. Eyesight. You know, the stuff they've sent out to people. Why do you think they are doing that?

 

I disagree with much of what you've written, I've posted it earlier in the thread - so I'm sure you can revisit it should you wish to

 

Hi sequenci I am interested to know why they are sending stuff out too I am not an applicant but interested just the same

maybe you could say why they are doing it as you seem to imply you know.

 

could it be the fact the site is owned by bailiffs run by bailiffs that you would get first hand info into whats going on

if this is the case then please enlighten everyone as to what is going on .

[sequenci]

I've no idea why they've sent it so I can only speculate. And my guessing is that they would want applicants to know how similar queries have been considered historically. Perhaps to give those applicants a heads-up as to what the likely outcome is going to be.

 

I really have no idea where bailiffs come in to it, sorry.

[gt4god2ulot]

I've no idea why they've sent it so I can only speculate. And my guessing is that they would want applicants to know how similar queries have been considered historically. Perhaps to give those applicants a heads-up as to what the likely outcome is going to be.

 

I really have no idea where bailiffs come in to it, sorry.

 

Ok sequenci I thought you might know a bit more.

 

when I talk about bailiffs I am saying the site can get access from peoples details to legal departments to get heads up on

things that are going on as it seems reading through the thread some of the site team imply they know what the outcome

is going to be.I hope those applicants get a fair hearing because there's alot of people losing their homes to the fraudsters.

[citizenB]

are you implying that our site is owned/run by bailiffs ? You couldn't be further from the truth. We are "owned" by no one from the Financial industry at all. Neither can we obtain or use members private details ?

 

We have absolutely no idea what the outcome of this will be. Obviously we hope that isitme's friend comes out of this with no financial damage or the loss of his home.

 

You only have to look at the wider picture and how the industry has fought back if it felt under attack - we are merely pointing out that the mortgage industry will not go quietly and will certainly not allow borrowers to walk away from their commitments.