Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[enfircer]

A couple of days ago Enficer posted (since been removed) a memorandum that was submitted to the Treasury Select Committee. Enfircer referred to it as 'interesting reading'.

 

The memorandum was only half of the story, you should google what happened in the outcome of the author of that memorandum's own possession proceedings.

 

The whole picture may not be a nice picture but it is better to look at the whole picture and not just a little part of of it.

 

Ben

 

For anyone who wants to look for this it was a memorandum of carmel butler (lawyer).

[enfircer]

Good Morning Everyone,

 

To clarify my previous response to Jo (apologies for the sharpness of my response)

 

It is not and never was "your mortgage". The problem is that we are used to saying we have a mortgage with such and such bank or I have a mortgage with Bank x etc. The use of term mortgage is used incorrectly and explains why a lot of fanciful ideas are eventually disproven.

 

A borrower grants a mortgage to the lender as security for a loan. To be clear, the borrower gives the lender a mortgage. Once given to the lender, the lender is the owner of that mortgage and as such is recorded by the Land Registry as the proprietor of the charge.

 

As the owner of the charge, the lender is free (subject to any term to the contrary) to sell or dispose of the charge as it sees fit.

 

Case law clearly confirms beyond any possible confusion that a lender is at law also free (subject to the contrary) to assign the debt to a 3rd party.

 

If you look at other websites you start to see the problems with these types of arguments. One site which heavily promoted the whole void deed issue, still provides its members with a copy of the Lamb case from January 2013, in the full knowledge that in a subsequent case Lamb lost.

 

Before it's forum settings changed (recently) there was never any mention of this.

 

If you look at another site that promoted this concept and that of the POA argument. It offers free membership, yet when you sign up, you have to pay for template letters.

 

CAG is far superior to those websites in that it does not charge, merely seeks a donation and to more a degree allows the freedom to discuss loses and potential loses.

 

Least we forget, two cases were heard by the Property Chamber last week. It would appear by Is It Me?'s post (he is still waiting) that neither of the two cases were one of his friends.

 

The chamber has indicated and it's rules permit that the decision of those hearings could be applied to other applications, including that of Is It Me?'s friend.

 

In closing look at some of the other threads - Marika's for example, she tried the deed route and the POA argument. In much the same way as previously posted by PJ the Judge was not interested and dismissed those arguments.

 

If they are having to pay once they have registered on the site then they are not on the right website.

asking for a donation is just a posh word for asking for payment you are still receiving monies whether it be payment requested or donation.

[enfircer]

If they are having to pay once they have registered on the site then they are not on the right website.

asking for a donation is just a posh word for asking for payment you are still receiving monies whether it be payment requested or donation.

 

Just to add i do not disagree with donations its upto the individual if they want to pay for getting valuable info they need.

There is a wealth of information on the internet for free.

[sequenci]

There is no obligation for anyone on CAG to make a donation to us. In fact, very few do. You'll never see any of the site team tryand long arm people in to doing so.

 

CAG does, however, cost a lot of money to run - which is why we've had to result to the Google ads. It wasn't something we wanted to do at all.

[enfircer]

There is no obligation for anyone on CAG to make a donation to us. In fact, very few do. You'll never see any of the site team tryand long arm people in to doing so.

 

CAG does, however, cost a lot of money to run - which is why we've had to result to the Google ads. It wasn't something we wanted to do at all.

 

We are diverting of the thread now sorry about that,I would also like to thank ben for his fatherly advice as Jotho put it.

 

Here is a link to the memorandum.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/144/144w273.htm

[Peterbard]

Sorry if I have this wrong as I was browsing and noticed the CCA mentioned, if the discussion on here is in regard to first charge mortgages they are exempt from the CCA of course as per section 16 of the act, as said I have not read the whole thread so forgive me if the information is not relevant.

[jotho]

Hi jotho i understand what your saying the lender is not telling you the truth what is the truth is they do not do anything under your name

it is under the POA itself that you gtanted them it is this you need to revoke with them and also if you do do this make sure the insurance and acting solicitors get revoked to.

once this is done you can request to see any document they have then.Don't forget to get it witnessed by a notory public.

Having watched the spanish white rabbit could you please tell me to ben where he is wrong on the POA?

 

Hi there. I'm not sure I understand your last question. In the situation I am in, facing eviction, I am naturally looking at every case where possession has been avoided. I came across one where the lender was asked if they had securitised the loan and they got a sacrificial young trainee to make the witness statement saying no they hadn't. When the lie was found out the case was thrown out.

 

I remembered White Rabbit saying they need the PoA to securitise. My lender has said they haven't used mine. No way have they not securitised the debt. We are talking NR at the height of their game. As my case involves fraudulent documents I am looking for any extra, unconnected back up to discredit them. If White Rabbit is correct, I can show them to be liars. If he is not correct, I can't. That's all. It's not a strategy and has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. I just can't find the answer anywhere and thought I'd try Ben. Please don't anyone get distracted with any of this. It was just a one off question. It doesn't matter. I greatly value your advice re. revoking it though and will get on to it pronto. Thanks.

 

And Ben, I know we all talk backwards about mortgages as in "I have a mortgage with...." instead of "I have granted a mortgage to..." but I don't think this is an issue really - just a habit they have instilled in us. It doesn't change reality, just designed to make us feel beholden.

Jo

[applecart]

Hi one and All...

 

I have read the posts with interest ; )

 

Look..... there are no statutory provisions upon which any borrower can rely to grant any lender a 'mortgage'......I still say and will say again; 'a 'mortgage' constitutes the entire disposal of a borrowers registered legal estate.

 

A Mortgage of registered land is intended to be and will always be (unless the statute is changed in the UK in regards to land) statutorily intended to be a LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY!!

 

So, whilst Ben is wholly correct in saying that all borrowers have granted the lender a 'mortgage' and that the lender is the owner of the legal estate - it is not legally intended that this should ever be the case......

 

That's the fight...that's the thrust of the applications being made to the Tribunal.....and so far; we have not been advised that we are wrong......not even after waiting more than 8 mths down the line..........nor even after a notice being received over 7 mths ago minding that the application would be struck out for lack of merit......!!!

 

A possession hearing is over and done with in minutes....not months!!........

 

We must be doing and saying something right ; )

 

Don't forget....for those 'sitting on the fence'....it is only 8 wks before the government commence tan intent to consult to sell off HMLR......read between the lines; and make your own minds up......

 

Thankfully, we set out on this thread to assist Is It Me's friend.....and his application is in........let's hope we get a decision before they sell off HMLR that's all I can say........

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Some general info here

 

http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/mortgages-and-charges/4532753525

 

Yes, although in practice, the principal method of securing a loan of money over land is by what is called a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage (indeed after the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force on 12th October 2003, this is the only method of creating a mortgage over registered land). Somewhat confusingly, this is called a "Legal Charge". It can be used to charge both freehold and leasehold property. In the case of freeholds, the effect of a legal charge is to give the lender the same protection, powers and remedies as if he had a term of 3000 years. In the case of leaseholds, the charge gave the mortgagee the same rights and remedies as if he had a sub-term one day shorter than the term vested in the mortgagor.

 

A legal charge is charged on the legal estate - that is the whole of the property, and will need to be entered into by the legal owners. It is possible however for one of two or more co-owners to charge what is called their equitable (or beneficial) interest. This is an equitable mortgage - a mortgage of an equitable interest.

 

Technically, a contract for a mortgage (which complies with the requirements of s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) creates an equitable right to call for a legal mortgage and is thus deemed to be an equitable mortgage.

 

Mortgage lenders prefer the security of a legal charge because it gives them a right to possession and sale of the whole property. An equitable mortgage merely gives a remedy - the right to apply to the court for sale of the property in order to realise the borrower's equitable interest.

[applecart]

Some general info here

 

http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/mortgages-and-charges/4532753525

 

Yes, although in practice, the principal method of securing a loan of money over land is by what is called a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage (indeed after the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force on 12th October 2003, this is the only method of creating a mortgage over registered land). Somewhat confusingly, this is called a "Legal Charge". It can be used to charge both freehold and leasehold property. In the case of freeholds, the effect of a legal charge is to give the lender the same protection, powers and remedies as if he had a term of 3000 years. In the case of leaseholds, the charge gave the mortgagee the same rights and remedies as if he had a sub-term one day shorter than the term vested in the mortgagor.

 

A legal charge is charged on the legal estate - that is the whole of the property, and will need to be entered into by the legal owners. It is possible however for one of two or more co-owners to charge what is called their equitable (or beneficial) interest. This is an equitable mortgage - a mortgage of an equitable interest.

 

Technically, a contract for a mortgage (which complies with the requirements of s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) creates an equitable right to call for a legal mortgage and is thus deemed to be an equitable mortgage.

 

Mortgage lenders prefer the security of a legal charge because it gives them a right to possession and sale of the whole property. An equitable mortgage merely gives a remedy - the right to apply to the court for sale of the property in order to realise the borrower's equitable interest.

 

With respect Dodgeball - we have already thrown the concept of mortgaging any registered estate...no matter what ever term it may be expressed on the deed .... out of the equation.

 

I won't repeat the reasons why or the legislation that stands to refute the entire concept of mortgaging registered land. But, trust me; we know that mortgages are a LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY no matter which way a lender looks to 'shoehorn' it to fit when the land is pre-existing registered land.......It would be a mistake for Borroers in the 'know' to be fooled by the website promoting them as we move applications forward.....

 

Trust me, it is not me that 'disagrees'' with you or the content in the link you posted......it is the LAW that disagrees with you and the content of the link you've posted.

 

We do our best to make sure that all viewers of this thread remain focused. No offence intended and hopefully non will be taken by you ; )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

More relevant info here

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/1

 

(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.

(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.

(4)In subsections (2) and (3) above “sign”, in relation to an instrument, includes making one’s mark on the instrument and “signature” is to be construed accordingly.

[applecart]

More relevant info here

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/1

 

(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.

(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.

(4)In subsections (2) and (3) above “sign”, in relation to an instrument, includes making one’s mark on the instrument and “signature” is to be construed accordingly.

 

Hi Dogeball

 

You are taking this thread over old ground - Trust me, there is going to be very little that you are likely to find and post up that has not already been considered within over 4,000 contributuory posts so far........

 

I'm losing sight of your intent right now?......

 

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dogeball

 

You are taking this thread over old ground - Trust me, there is going to be very little that you are likely to find and post up that has not already been considered within over 4,000 contributuory posts so far........

 

I'm losing sight of your intent right now?......

 

 

Apple

 

Quite possible but it is a very long thread and forgive me but much of it is made up of opinion and rhetoric, in an attempt to evaluate your argument i am seeking reliable authority.

 

The requirements and legal status of a deed are explained in the last post but one;

The requirement of[ A] signature is in the last post.

 

If there is any legal authority which shows that this is not the case I haven't seen it and would be grateful if it could be presented or represented, just humor me

 

Or is there some other argument that is being put forward.

[Peterbard]

With respect Dodgeball - we have already thrown the concept of mortgaging any registered estate...no matter what ever term it may be expressed on the deed .... out of the equation.

 

I won't repeat the reasons why or the legislation that stands to refute the entire concept of mortgaging registered land. But, trust me; we know that mortgages are a LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY no matter which way a lender looks to 'shoehorn' it to fit when the land is pre-existing registered land.......It would be a mistake for Borroers in the 'know' to be fooled by the website promoting them as we move applications forward.....

 

Trust me, it is not me that 'disagrees'' with you or the content in the link you posted......it is the LAW that disagrees with you and the content of the link you've posted.

 

We do our best to make sure that all viewers of this thread remain focused. No offence intended and hopefully non will be taken by you ; )

 

Apple

 

Sorry I mised this post, can I ask to which" law" you refer, and could you link it so I can evaluate it. many thanks

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry I mised this post, can I ask which" law" you refer, and could you link it so I can evaluate it. many thanks

Dodgeball

Well why not just wait for the chamber to come back and then you will see, I can not feel that this is another case of " no you can't do that or it does not mean that in law " yet we and those that have taken this to the chamber have seen the tricks they have come up with so I say with respect just wait.

We have had people make some good points and some bad but just think we would NEVER have got this far if it was so wrong .

[IS IT ME?]

What I would also say to all those viewing or watching this thread, GET YOUR APPLICATIONS INTO THE CHAMBER ASAP as you are aware the L R is being sold and it will not stop there,

As for those with ACCORD MORTGAGES question the mortgage sale agreement and who owns the mortgage!

[applecart]

Quite possible but it is a very long thread and forgive me but much of it is made up of opinion and rhetoric, in an attempt to evaluate your argument i am seeking reliable authority.

 

The requirements and legal status of a deed are explained in the last post but one;

The requirement of[ A] signature is in the last post.

 

If there is any legal authority which shows that this is not the case I haven't seen it and would be grateful if it could be presented or represented, just humor me

 

Or is there some other argument that is being put forward.

 

 

Hi Dodgeball......

 

You appear to assume that it is case law and authorities derived from case law that provides the "only" legal way forward...o......r the lord forbid..."the law".....this is what common practice does to the mind of man.....however, long before the clever, devious intent of the mastery of 'slight of hand' bestowed upon the unsuspecting public ..... as found in your posts (no offence to you) there was THE LAW.....

 

We have gone back to reliance of the LAW.... not with an intent to undermine case law - but to ensure that it does not stand against the might and thrust of the substantiating law!

 

Can't see anything wrong with that...hopefully you won't either?

 

Check the LAW when there is no case law.... you cant't go wrong....NO Judge is paid and intended to rely on case law alone without first having regard to the LAW!

 

Case LAW is devised by the Manipulation of the law by minds of man - their ability to shoehorn scenario to suit their personal capitalistic objective.....where as the LAW ?.... well.... the LAW is not intended to be manipulated and there is no hiding place within in.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Dodgeball

 

Are you looking to make an application to the Chamber?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is IT ME.....

 

Well, given that you are the OP..... there can be no truth better than what you have experienced and KNOW.......

 

so, with respect to you - I for one remain humbled by your experience as being one that has take your friends applciation to the Tribunal based on the LAW....

 

There is no better recommendation IMO....can't think why anyone would veer away from the statutory protections contained in the law really?

 

Apple

[caro]

Hi Is IT ME.....

 

Well, given that you are the OP..... there can be no truth better than what you have experienced and KNOW.......

 

so, with respect to you - I for one remain humbled by your experience as being one that has take your friends applciation to the Tribunal based on the LAW....

 

There is no better recommendation IMO....can't think why anyone would veer away from the statutory protections contained in the law really?

 

Apple

 

Probably because LAW is more than just statutes so all aspects have to be taken into consideration.

[Peterbard]

Dodgeball

Well why not just wait for the chamber to come back and then you will see, I can not feel that this is another case of " no you can't do that or it does not mean that in law " yet we and those that have taken this to the chamber have seen the tricks they have come up with so I say with respect just wait.

We have had people make some good points and some bad but just think we would NEVER have got this far if it was so wrong .

 

Oh I see

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball......

 

You appear to assume that it is case law and authorities derived from case law that provides the "only" legal way forward...o......r the lord forbid..."the law".....this is what common practice does to the mind of man.....however, long before the clever, devious intent of the mastery of 'slight of hand' bestowed upon the unsuspecting public ..... as found in your posts (no offence to you) there was THE LAW.....

 

We have gone back to reliance of the LAW.... not with an intent to undermine case law - but to ensure that it does not stand against the might and thrust of the substantiating law!

 

Can't see anything wrong with that...hopefully you won't either?

 

Check the LAW when there is no case law.... you cant't go wrong....NO Judge is paid and intended to rely on case law alone without first having regard to the LAW!

 

Case LAW is devised by the Manipulation of the law by minds of man - their ability to shoehorn scenario to suit their personal capitalistic objective.....where as the LAW ?.... well.... the LAW is not intended to be manipulated and there is no hiding place within in.....

 

Apple

 

Sorry what does any of this mean ?

 

I asked for proof of your theories ?

[Peterbard]

Hi Is IT ME.....

.

 

There is no better recommendation IMO....can't think why anyone would veer away from the statutory protections contained in the law really?

 

Apple

 

Now we are getting somewhere.somewhere. Just link me to this "statutory protection".

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball

 

Are you looking to make an application to the Chamber?

 

Apple

 

??

[applecart]

Probably because LAW is more than just statutes so all aspects have to be taken into consideration.

 

Good point, ......I appreciate it.... the application has taken this factor into account ; )

 

Apple