Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Apple if you are there??

[IS IT ME?]

Site team,

Are you sure apple can post?? as I know they would do so

I know that all my posts so far have been sent to you before being posted

[ims21]

Site team,

Are you sure apple can post?? as I know they would do so

I know that all my posts so far have been sent to you before being posted

 

Yes applecart can post but will be checked before going live.

 

There are currently none in the queue so no posts have been made.

[IS IT ME?]

ims21

 

 

 

How many are in the queue

[ims21]

ims21

 

 

 

How many are in the queue

 

 

There are precisely -> NONE

[applecart]

I have been trying to get back to you Is It Me...... hopefully this is now possible ..... as a test ; )

 

Apple

[Winged Piglet]

Haven't the courts already recognized that vexatious litigation en masse to avoid a mortgage contract is not going to be accepted and the only outstanding part is a question of the deed? All the court will seek to do is rectify and remedy flaws to put both parties back to the intended footing. Securitization is also accepted as a mortgage practice which again was pretty much covered by the fact it was stated in the mortgage offer, terms and conditions. They didn't hold a gun to your head to sign it and were free to seek legal advice.

 

1. These cases are not vexatious.

 

2. Many lenders did not ask borrowers to sign a mortgage contract so what do you say to that?

 

3. Perharps on the legal advice you might have something........but hold on Borrowers did get legal advice from their solicitors.....or did they?

 

4. Securitisation has been accepted by whom??

[Crapstone]

1. These cases are not vexatious.

 

2. Many lenders did not ask borrowers to sign a mortgage contract so what do you say to that?

 

3. Perharps on the legal advice you might have something........but hold on Borrowers did get legal advice from their solicitors.....or did they?

 

4. Securitisation has been accepted by whom??

 

I. We will have to disagree on that.

 

2. If the offer and consideration has gone through then it would still be a mortgage contract and accepted by payment.

 

3. That makes no difference. And has no immediate effect on the contract other than to pursue the giver of the advice.

 

4. Looking at the case in Ireland and ones in the US, the problem does not lie within the securitization as a financial practice.

[IS IT ME?]

Crapstone,

I don't get it

what has happened to the cases in the us and Ireland can you let us know?

[IS IT ME?]

Crapstone,

 

Ho I know the one now is that the one where the sloicitors lied in court and were found out???

[Crapstone]

Let me ask you this. Simply what is to be achieved? There have been lots of previous times were huge impact 'cases' have been made and won or lost. But what came of them?

 

The PPI claims put people back into the position they were in had they not paid it, with a little interest. Bank charges failed but again it put people back into a position to say what was fair and to question that and reclaim upon merit. There isn't a court that will put a person or company into the position that they can make something from a transaction or contract for nothing than can't prove a loss for. They are there to act in fairness to all parties.

 

The only beneficiaries are the lawyers and companies that have since set up and are now of such annoyance.

 

I think you are just over complicating the situation with too many 'what ifs' and not enough of looking at the whole.

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

Do remember......This thread does not look to argue any other than the validity of the Deed.

 

We are looking to ensure that the Lender cannot rely on the deed to secure possession of your friends home......the LAW says we are correct to look to set the deed aside on the grounds submitted to the Chamber.

 

It is peripheral to discuss the debt itself.... and as to whether the lender can stake a claim to it off the back of an un-executed deed...... is a futile attempt to circumvent the law....

 

We have not asked the Chamber to determine the debt.... and neither would we ..... we only want them to determine the deed.... they are doing that ... so long as they too remain focused and deal with only the deed ..... anything else is not for them to determine .....

 

We have seen now that the 4th solicitor is looking to rely that he can get the application dealt with on the basis that the deed can be amended..... no doubt in an attempt to secure the money through the back door.....

 

The lender in your case forgets ..... he sold all rights to the unlawful 'mortgage' to an SPV..... he cannot ask the Chamber to do nothing.....it is a 'bare trustee' on the title to your friends home ..... we want him removed ... we have found the avenue to remove him ...... he will be removed from your title...

 

The fact is ..... the Lender cannot get through the back door the finding and fact that he did not execute the deed.... and that is why I believe and would agree that Is It Me should refrain from allowing the matter be dealt with without a hearing.

 

Garguillo says that this would be no more than a futile attempt to circumvent the law in relation to deeds. Bibby would also agree.

 

If they are relying on 'Halsbury'...... that is not to do with the Deed and the fact that they did not execute it ......as based on the up to date volumes of Halbury's....... here on this thread we have not given sight of volume 84 for example which is to do with the LRA 2002.......the thread speaks of volume 13 (ages ago).......so the Lender would be re-miss to rely on a volume that has been since been updated time and time again since the 2007 re-issue...

 

The mention of the Law Commission and volume 4 is simply because the part referred to remains relevant in relation to the application made in the context it was relied upon.......

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

http://awakenlongford.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/freeman-judgement-31052013.pdf

 

This is one of the things I was looking through.

[IS IT ME?]

Apple

thank you for your post and yes I agree

Edited December 6, 2013 by ims21

[IS IT ME?]

crapstone,

yes but read No: 35 again and you will see that they are ALLOWED to go ahead with the claim just amend their statement of case.

[Crapstone]

That's what I said previously but it's no biggie and the rest was struck out. It won't change the facts, just define them.

[Crapstone]

Well that's me done. Nothing more to say and if I'm proved wrong then that would be fantastic news for all concerned. For now it's going around in circles as it has done for years and, as Sequenci said, it's not achieving anything by going over the same ground.

[Crapstone]

Is It Me you will also note that the case is not a simple consumer one for a 'home' and is for business purposes. They have 6 properties involved.

[GiveHimaMask]

hi All

 

I'm trying to trace if a particular mortgage has been securitised by tracking a MSA. The details are as follows;

 

Mort Date: Nov 2006

Mort Provider: Preferred Mort

Region: Northern Ireland

 

Obiviously what is of importance is the detailed schedule of addresses contained in the MSA.

Any suggestions.

 

Ta in anticipation.

[Crapstone]

I've no idea but I have previously downloaded everything I could find including all the stock index's. They are all on my old hard drive so that may be of use.

[applecart]

hi All

 

I'm trying to trace if a particular mortgage has been securitised by tracking a MSA. The details are as follows;

 

Mort Date: Nov 2006

Mort Provider: Preferred Mort

Region: Northern Ireland

 

Obiviously what is of importance is the detailed schedule of addresses contained in the MSA.

Any suggestions.

 

Ta in anticipation.

 

Hi Ya

 

Can you not have a look through the document posted up for SPML....that included Preferred......it will contain an annexe of all the pooled mortgages.... I do not think they separated them into different areas per se..... just simply bundled and sold the lot...... it might include the one you seek; even though it is in NI.

 

It should be on this thread......when you locate it..... look to the last pages.... that should contain a complete 'list' of mortgages sold

 

It will not matter that the date is Nov 2006..... these companies have a tendency to re-bundle and re-sell .... or at least wait until the bundle is big enough.... so it is still worth looking at the one on this thread I would say....

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[mollypockets]

hey all,kinda knew to this,what if the house number and postcode is wrong on my mortgage offer???????

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi mollypockets,

 

This thread is kinda quiet at the moment as we await an application to the Tribunal. However, you would need to check your Deed to see if these errors have been transferred to that document. You can get a copy of your Deed from the Land Registry.

you may or may not beaware that this thread is to do with Deeds, the assertion made is that under Law they have to be signed by you and your Lender, should your Deed not be signed by the Lender then this thread asserts that they are void for want of legal formality.

You could read the first 30/40 pages to get the gist of the Legal argument. From there the remainder of the thread further explores the Legal aspect and subsequent arguments put forward from other contributors. In any case applications have been put forward to the Tribunal Chamber and they await a hearing date. When you obtain a copy of your Deed then you will also witness whether yours has been signed by the Lender.

I have somewhere a record of a court case in the high court which gives a decision in relation to incorrect address, postcode etc., which I will post up for you, you will however need to satisfy yourself through your title Deed that the incorrect address has been used or whether it is just a typo on your mortgage offerwhich could be corrected by a judge.

 

Hope this helps.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Apple,

 

An interesting question posed to me today.

 

A second charge, does the same formalities apply to this as for the first charge???

[applecart]

Hi Apple,

 

An interesting question posed to me today.

 

A second charge, does the same formalities apply to this as for the first charge???

 

Hi GiveHimaMask

 

Good question.....

 

The first thing to remember is this.....first charges can ONLY be entered against un-registered estates - Do remember also that the Objection from Is It Me's friends lender relies that the lender secured a 'first charge' - this is a play on words.....for a FR1 form is required to be completed for any 'first charge'- there will be no such evidence of such a form - the only 'form of charge' used in all cases is those that have been 'approved' by HLMR for Charging purposes....this is done to avoid the necessity of completing the CH2 form and avoid HMLR entering notice of the lenders obligations in relation to 'further advances' being noted on the Borrowers title register

 

The next thing to remember is this.... any 'charge' entered against a registered estate is supposed to be by way of 'Notice'......to secure 'indebtedness' - so it should not be a 'charge' per se - it should be a 'Notice'

 

So, whether the lenders loan is first in line, second in line, third in line etc.....all should be entered as 'notices'.....priority is secured by way of the date that the notice is entered - lenders can further protect their priority by virtue of the obligation to offer further advances and it being noted on the title.......

 

Whether it is a first loan, second or subsequent loan taken by the Borrower - all must be conducted by deed....

 

Just a quickie here......................Remember also....a Legal charge by way of legal mortgage is another way of securing the 'asset' ..... (the house)......

 

Some Lenders very cleverly deriving a legal charge against a borrowers legal estate by way of 'legal sub-mortgage' - these are identified on the title when you do not see a 'restriction' in the proprietorship section..... but what you will see is the words on the 'deed' that say 'a charge by way of legal mortgage' and 'full title guaranatee' - with the Lender showing as the proprietor of the charge.......crafty I know.....but it is what it is.......

 

~Then from there..... understand that a DEED is the only means by which a lender and a borrower can secure any interest in relation to either a registered or un-registered estate.

 

The DEED must be VALID

 

The DEED MUST not only meet the formality required by HMLR's 'Approved form of Charge' ...BUT IT MUST ALSO.....meet the statutory provisions in regard to being both 'ASSUMED' (executed by the Lender) BEFORE the presumption of 'DELIVERY' can be said to be in evidence.

 

The statutory provision in relation to the Borrowers signature is without doubt borne from the 'amended' version of section 1 (3) of the LPMPA 1989

 

The statutory provision in relation to the Lenders execution is without doubt borne from the 'amended' version of section 1 (2)(b) of the LPMPA 1989 and is analogous to the LPA 1925 section 74 (1) as amended....and the Companies Act 2006 section 46.....there is further statutory provision in section 74 (5) LPA 1925 too (in brief)

 

If the Deed only meets HMLR requirement...i.e signed by the Borrower alone....then it is VOID.....for the statutory provisions in regard to 'assume' and 'delivery' will not have been complied with

 

If the DEED does not meet the statutory provision in regard to being 'assumed' (execution) by the Lender then there is no longer any stautory provision to say the deed has been 'delivered' and non to be taken either on sight of the borrowers signature alone....the DEED WILL BE VOID...

 

There is of course the 'charging orders' that can be entered on a borrowers title - this type of secured indebtedness does not need to be created by Deed - these are borne by order of the court only....

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple