Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bigphil61]

I am not sure what you mean by"move this forward", I had no idea we had stalled.

 

Anyway the quote refers to this particular case relates to possession and the charged estate, of no relevance to the OPs situation

 

 

Hi Dodgeball, If I take away any ambiguity and just post up the exact quote I would like your opinion on, eh?

 

 

'That no doubt has very serious consequences for the lender and ultimately may lead to various claims .

Whilst the factual background is rather complex this case serves a timely reminder to conveyancers and lenders as to basic principles . Ignore proper execution of deeds at your peril'.

 

 

What's your thoughts on the above quote?...BP

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball, If I take away any ambiguity and just post up the exact quote I would like your opinion on, eh?

 

 

'That no doubt has very serious consequences for the lender and ultimately may lead to various claims .

Whilst the factual background is rather complex this case serves a timely reminder to conveyancers and lenders as to basic principles . Ignore proper execution of deeds at your peril'.

 

 

What's your thoughts on the above quote?...BP

 

Hello BP

 

What is it you want Dodge to say ?

 

It went badly for the lender ?

 

I have no qualms in saying that it went badly for the lender. In fact, I would say it could not have gone any worse for the lender

 

However, the reasons and circumstances that it went badly in that case don't apply to the application made by the OP on behalf of his friend to the chamber - The chamber has already told Is It Me? that this case is not relevant to the question of if a lender has to sign a mortgage deed

 

The reason it went badly was because of the signatory page, this as we know is incorporated within a mortgage deed, so not applicable to the application - the "it" includes the signature as required by s.1

 

 

The above is from the Accord Mortgage Deed

 

http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002-Mortgage-Deed-E&W.pdf

 

In terms of the mortgage deed, the lenders do not ignore the proper execution of deeds at their peril - instead they comply with the statutory requirements as per my earlier post

 

The circumstances as detailed within that case are completely different to how a mortgage deed is used and signed by the borrower, prior to registration

[bhall]

You have to remember in Garguilo

 

(1) Andrew Francis Garguilo (2) Jennifer Margaret Garguilo v (1) Jon Howard Gershinson (2) Louisa Brooks both acting as Joint Fixed Charge Receivers of Desmond Daniel Charles Moore in respect of Flat 4, Station Court, 140A High Street, Godalming (Deeds : Execution) [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0377 (06 January 2012) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2012/2011_0377.html

 

61. The submission on this point is that, even without forgery being demonstrated, the mere fact that the signatory pages of the Lease were, as I have found, executed separately and inserted into the Lease invalidates the instrument as a matter of law.

 

66. It was common ground that the documents in question were intended to be deeds. It was also common ground that the clients were asked to sign incomplete drafts of each of the three documents and that, when fresh documents in final form came to be executed, the client was not asked to sign these versions but instead the signature pages from the drafts were detached and stapled to the final version. There were differences between the drafts and the final versions.

 

With a mortgage deed, the signatory page (well on a mortgage deed it is more of a space) is incorporated within the actual deed, it is not on a separate piece of paper that could be inserted into the deed at a later date

 

The mortgage deed, is also not a incomplete draft (as per Garguilo), the actual document signed by the borrower is the same document that is sent to the Land Registry

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball, If I take away any ambiguity and just post up the exact quote I would like your opinion on, eh?

 

 

'That no doubt has very serious consequences for the lender and ultimately may lead to various claims .

Whilst the factual background is rather complex this case serves a timely reminder to conveyancers and lenders as to basic principles . Ignore proper execution of deeds at your peril'.

 

 

What's your thoughts on the above quote?...BP

 

I think ben covered it

[bigphil61]

Hello BP

 

What is it you want Dodge to say ?

 

It went badly for the lender ?

 

I have no qualms in saying that it went badly for the lender. In fact, I would say it could not have gone any worse for the lender

 

However, the reasons and circumstances that it went badly in that case don't apply to the application made by the OP on behalf of his friend to the chamber - The chamber has already told Is It Me? that this case is not relevant to the question of if a lender has to sign a mortgage deed

 

The reason it went badly was because of the signatory page, this as we know is incorporated within a mortgage deed, so not applicable to the application - the "it" includes the signature as required by s.1

 

 

The above is from the Accord Mortgage Deed

 

http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002-Mortgage-Deed-E&W.pdf

 

In terms of the mortgage deed, the lenders do not ignore the proper execution of deeds at their peril - instead they comply with the statutory requirements as per my earlier post

 

The circumstances as detailed within that case are completely different to how a mortgage deed is used and signed by the borrower, prior to registration

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

I asked for Dodgeball's opinion on this recent (January 2012) case, as my interpretation of it might have differed slightly!

 

However, you have now confirmed my interpretation, the Lender ended up with nothing.

 

What I was looking to establish was simply this;

 

The OP and others partially rely on the principle set in 'Garguilo', in which the Ajudicator discusses some of the formalities associated with 'speciality contracts', because it is applicable case law.

 

 

And, that if Lenders choose to ignore these formalities or don't take these formalities into account then the deed can and will be declared void ...BP

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben,

 

I asked for Dodgeball's opinion on this recent (January 2012) case, as my interpretation of it might have differed slightly!

 

However, you have now confirmed my interpretation, the Lender ended up with nothing.

 

What I was looking to establish was simply this;

 

The OP and others partially rely on the principle set in 'Garguilo', in which the Ajudicator discusses some of the formalities associated with 'speciality contracts', because it is applicable case law.

 

 

And, that if Lenders choose to ignore these formalities or don't take these formalities into account then the deed can and will be declared void ...BP

 

Just a minor point we do not know that the lender ended up with nothing in the a fore mentioned case, as far as I know there has been nothing mentioned about further action, but I am sure that the lender would not just write-off any liabilities under the agreement, they would have pursued one or other of the parties I am sure.

 

As I said earlier though, if the point you are trying to make is that the charge was lost, then you are right in this case it was.

 

However as said this is nothing to do with the OPs case.

[bigphil61]

Just a minor point we do not know that the lender ended up with nothing in the a fore mentioned case, as far as I know there has been nothing mentioned about further action, but I am sure that the lender would not just right off any liabilities under the agreement, they would have pursued one or other of the parties I am sure.

 

As I said earlier though, if the point you are trying to make is that the charge was lost, then you are right in this case it was.

 

However as said this is nothing to do with the OPs case.

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Your correct, we don't know for sure what the lender was left with, although, just like you, we can speculate based on interpretation. We do, however, know what the Lender was advised. The Adjudicator advised thus;

 

 

'The Bank may or may not be entitled to be indemnified under section 103 and Schedule 8 to the Act'

 

 

Now, what agreement are you referring to? and pursue whom and based on what?

 

And, it has a lot to do with the OP and other applications because of the 'Principle' set by 'Garguilo', which is 'Case Law'! Case Law being one of the authorities I thought you said you relied on for your opinions, but hey ho, enough said....BP

[caro]

The application looks to the Chamber to say:

 

The Deed is void - the lender has not executed it.

 

The Mortgage is void - the estate is a registered estate - the Borrower has no statutory power to mortgage it.

 

Issues:

 

Lender asserts - Borrower is bound by the Deed - Not the Lender

 

Lender asserts - Borrower has power to mortgage registered estate.

 

As I understand it so far:

 

Chamber agree - Borrower has no power to Mortgage Registered Estate

 

Chamber agree - Borrower not bound by Deed when Lender has failed to execute the deed.

 

Lender has 28 days to set aside decision

 

Apple

 

I was under the impression that the chamber had not reached a decision, yet now you say the lender has 28 days to set it aside. Why would they be able to get it set aside? Wouldn't it be an appeal?

 

This is not what was said previously by either Ben when he contacted the chamber, or, for that matter, you.

 

Are you making assumptions or are you privy to some information that hasn't been posted?

[Peterbard]

/'/#

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Your correct, we don't know for sure what the lender was left with, although, just like you, we can speculate based on interpretation. We do, however, know what the Lender was advised. The Adjudicator advised thus;

 

 

'The Bank may or may not be entitled to be indemnified under section 103 and Schedule 8 to the Act'

 

 

Now, what agreement are you referring to? and pursue whom and based on what?

 

And, it has a lot to do with the OP and other applications because of the 'Principle' set by 'Garguilo', which is 'Case Law'! Case Law being one of the authorities I thought you said you relied on for your opinions, but hey ho, enough said....BP

 

When someone takes out a loan with a bank there is a thing called a loan agreement. This sets out the agreement for the repayment, interest to be charged default charges etc, in case of default the lender usually pursues the debtor for liabilities under it, this forum is full of em.

 

I rely on applicable case law and statute this is not applicable common law.

 

Edit, i get a feeling that someone is trying to make some kind of point here not sure what it is though

[bhall]

And, it has a lot to do with the OP and other applications because of the 'Principle' set by 'Garguilo', which is 'Case Law'! Case Law being one of the authorities I thought you said you relied on for your opinions, but hey ho, enough said....BP

 

Hello BP

 

I don't understand, which principle are you referring to in garguilo that can be applied to an application made to the chamber to determine if a lender has to sign a mortgage deed

 

If you mean that a deed can be found to be void, that is not a principle set by Garguilo - it is just a fact of life, it can and does happen

 

Apart from that I struggle to see any relevance in regard to Garguilo with the applications made, you have to remember that Apple has conceded that he/she misunderstood the meaning of the word "it" in that case.

[bhall]

I was under the impression that the chamber had not reached a decision, yet now you say the lender has 28 days to set it aside. Why would they be able to get it set aside? Wouldn't it be an appeal?

 

This is not what was said previously by either Ben when he contacted the chamber, or, for that matter, you.

 

Are you making assumptions or are you privy to some information that hasn't been posted?

 

Hi Caro

 

not wishing to speak on Apple's behalf, I think he/she might be referring to this post from Is It Me?

 

Hi Ben

Thanks for your in put as I thought you had better things to do lol

Yes the deed argument was used but you know what I was accepted that there is some thing wrong with the evidence that the lender has put before the court and as they now have 28 days to come back I will for reasons you know say no more on it, only to say that like before documents do not exist ( remember what happened last time funny that ) and that they don't want to show them why is hat Ben surely the lenders have nothing to hide????? Lol

Also they are very honest people and doing us all a favour lol

 

I don't know the reasons that I supposedly know or why Is It Me? will say no more about it. I also don't have a clue what happened last time. However, I do admit I find his posts hard to understand and follow at times.

 

I am still not 100% sure if he is referring to the property chamber hearing or one of the other cases he has been helping with. - As this response was posted in regard to a post I made, in which I intended to ask about the other case(s) he has helped with and not the application to the property chamber

 

If he is talking about the property chamber application, it does paint a different picture from the information provided to me by the property chamber via email and during a subsequent telephone conversation. However, as I am not a named party or an appointed representative involved in proceedings, I could have been given the brush off. However, time will tell as 28 days is nearly up. As It Is Me? is being surprisingly reluctant to share any information about the hearing, I guess we will have to just wait and see.

 

However, following his post, I did email the Property Chamber for clarification, once I receive the response I will post it in this thread.

[caro]

Thanks Ben. Let's hope we get clarification as I'm easily confused.

 

I hate to say it, but if the lender has 28 days I wonder if the decision will be immediately made or the chamber may want to take more time to deliberate and/or give detailed reasoning before making it available........

[Crapstone]

Doesn't this pretty much sum it up?

 

 

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

[IS IT ME?]

God not this again lol

Why if this firm were so sure of this they did not represent the lenders then ??? So so sure

[Peterbard]

God not this again lol

Why if this firm were so sure of this they did not represent the lenders then ??? So so sure

 

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

 

Seems like they have ?

 

"Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it."

[bhall]

God not this again lol

Why if this firm were so sure of this they did not represent the lenders then ??? So so sure

 

Would you prefer this one instead then ?

 

 

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

 

Walker Morris it would appear, had no concerns representing the lender in the Lamb case

 

It will be interesting to find out who the two Solicitors were that represented the two lenders on the 20 Jan, I guess for that we will have to wait for the decision to be issued

[bhall]

Doesn't this pretty much sum it up?

 

 

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

 

Pretty much yes

[IS IT ME?]

Pretty much yes

Ben, dodgeball.

Thank you for your posts which have been answered more than once and just to confirm to you once again THIs FIRM OF SOLICITORS WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS CASE even though they are the ones dealing with the case in the county court lol

So much for having the upper hand then???

Would I rely on this NO WAY. I could put up what I want it does no mean any one should follow it lol

 

I am happy to see you wasting your time trying to put people off for no other reason I can see than working for the lenders as there is no other reason for trying to lose those thread with long long posts which have been answered but you FAIL to answer the questions so simple lol

Edited February 15, 2014 by ims21

[bhall]

Ben, dodgeball.

Thank you for your posts which have been answered more than once and just to confirm to you once again THIs FIRM OF SOLICITORS WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS CASE even though they are the ones dealing with the case in the county court lol

So much for having the upper hand then???

Would I rely on this NO WAY. I could put up what I want it does no mean any one should follow it lol

 

I am happy to see you wasting your time trying to put people off for no other reason I can see than working for the lenders as there is no other reason for trying to lose those thread with long long posts which have been answered but you FAIL to answer the questions so simple lol

 

I guess that you must be looking forward to when the decision is issued by the Property Chamber then

 

Just so that readers of this thread know (including myself), has a date been set for a second hearing, so that the lender can provide the unidentified documentation - that is if they can provide it. - or it is going straight to a decision - I only ask because as posted, the Property Chamber informed me via email and in a subsequent telephone conversation that it had gone to the judge for a decision. Just wondering, if what I have been informed was correct or not

 

Just seems odd to have created a thread on a public forum and then at the most critical time, go silent on what happened and/or what is going to happen. - You have said virtually nothing of any detail about the hearing

 

If you want to elaborate, what was actually said in the chamber about s.23 and a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' ? - It is ok, if you don't feel like you can say, the decision when issued should reveal all

 

Anyway, respect to you, your dedication to this thread has been proven, as even on the day of the hearing you still found time to post here - So I take my hat off to you.

 

As a side note, I like to think that I have done a good job over what has been nearly a year at answering questions that are relevant and ignoring the ones that were totally irrelevant, especially given the hostility to my continued contribution to this thread and the ever increasing bizarre claims about who I am and who I work for.

[Peterbard]

Ben, dodgeball.

Thank you for your posts which have been answered more than once and just to confirm to you once again THIs FIRM OF SOLICITORS WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS CASE even though they are the ones dealing with the case in the county court lol

So much for having the upper hand then???

Would I rely on this NO WAY. I could put up what I want it does no mean any one should follow it lol

 

I am happy to see you wasting your time trying to put people off for no other reason I can see than working for the lenders as there is no other reason for trying to lose those thread with long long posts which have been answered but you FAIL to answer the questions so simple lol

 

Perhaps if you or Apple would tell us something that would actually help people, instead of all the mysterious double talk which proves to have no substance

[Crapstone]

Thanks Ben. Let's hope we get clarification as I'm easily confused.

 

I hate to say it, but if the lender has 28 days I wonder if the decision will be immediately made or the chamber may want to take more time to deliberate and/or give detailed reasoning before making it available........

 

 

 

You aren't on your own Caro!

 

 

If they have to set aside then doesn't that mean they 'won'? Well for now?

 

I was under the impression initially that the lender had 28 days to follow some direction given by the chamber and that it wasn't a decision as such. If they hace 28 days to set aside then if they do this could carry on for a while yet. It's hard to make anything out of all this fluff and veiled messages!

[enfircer]

I guess that you must be looking forward to when the decision is issued by the Property Chamber then

 

Just so that readers of this thread know (including myself), has a date been set for a second hearing, so that the lender can provide the unidentified documentation - that is if they can provide it. - or it is going straight to a decision - I only ask because as posted, the Property Chamber informed me via email and in a subsequent telephone conversation that it had gone to the judge for a decision. Just wondering, if what I have been informed was correct or not

 

Just seems odd to have created a thread on a public forum and then at the most critical time, go silent on what happened and/or what is going to happen. - You have said virtually nothing of any detail about the hearing

 

If you want to elaborate, what was actually said in the chamber about s.23 and a 'charge by way of legal mortgage' ? - It is ok, if you don't feel like you can say, the decision when issued should reveal all

 

Anyway, respect to you, your dedication to this thread has been proven, as even on the day of the hearing you still found time to post here - So I take my hat off to you.

 

As a side note, I like to thank that I have done a good job over what has been nearly a year at answering questions that are relevant and ignoring the ones that were totally irrelevant

 

Ben you have done an excellent job on posting,Specsavers appointments have gone up ten fold with the amount of your lengthy posts.

Why don't you wait and see what happens at the Property Chamber it's not long now.

[bhall]

Ben you have done an excellent job on posting,Specsavers appointments have gone up ten fold with the amount of your lengthy posts.

Why don't you wait and see what happens at the Property Chamber it's not long now.

 

Why thank you Enfircer, I am glad someone appreciates my contribution

 

You should be careful all of your recent posts either are directed to me or about me, people might start to talk - Sorry I am happily married

[bhall]

You aren't on your own Caro!

 

 

If they have to set aside then doesn't that mean they 'won'? Well for now?

 

I was under the impression initially that the lender had 28 days to follow some direction given by the chamber and that it wasn't a decision as such. If they hace 28 days to set aside then if they do this could carry on for a while yet. It's hard to make anything out of all this fluff and veiled messages!

 

 

I will be open and honest and post what I know - well at least what I have been told by the Property Chamber

 

In an email shortly after the hearing, the Property Chamber said that decisions usually take 28 days.

In a subsequent email, the Property Chamber said that the decision is with the Judge and should be issued after 20 Feb

This was also confirmed during a subsequent telephone conversation

 

After it has been issued it will take a few days to be added to their website, for people to view. So if what I have been told is accurate within the next two weeks the decision should be in this thread. They gave me this link to check for the decision

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/tribunal-decisions

 

They also gave me the reference numbers for both applications and said that I should contact them again after the 20 Feb, by which time the decision should be issued and quote the reference numbers

 

However, Is It Me? has said that it has been stayed for 28 days, so I don't know where that leaves things now. I have emailed the Property Chamber for clarification and await their response.

[caro]

You aren't on your own Caro!

 

 

If they have to set aside then doesn't that mean they 'won'? Well for now?

 

I was under the impression initially that the lender had 28 days to follow some direction given by the chamber and that it wasn't a decision as such. If they hace 28 days to set aside then if they do this could carry on for a while yet. It's hard to make anything out of all this fluff and veiled messages!

 

Not entirely sure as I'm not that clever, but I gather I'm confused about whether this is a chamber application or a court case being set aside. Don't quote me though.

 

I need a lie down.