Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

Would this be a good time, while we are all waiting for the decision, to ask you to have a look at this? There are just so many issues of bad, illogical decisions and judicial errors it is overwhelming. The issues are not specifically "on thread" but are clearly related and may have relevance here. I don't want to presume on IsItMe's platform.

Or are you both taking a very well-earned break?

Jo

 

Ok Put it this way, IMO no it would not be a good time to be asking, a better time would be if and when we find out if these theories have any merit, that is after the hearings.

 

Until that happens I would, as far as possible keep whatever options I had open and treat any advice given here with extreme caution.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Apple/IsItMe. I've been staying quiet (dumbstruck) since it hit me a while back what you have actually put before the PC. The Crown v The Banks heh (with some of the highest judges in the land adjudicating). Only one way that can lawfully go IMHO. Though I might have a side bet on them dodging the issue for as long as they can - desperately picking at any possible flaws in the application rather than face the inevitibility of the argument. Is that what enabled them to throw out the one they did? As I said before I stand in awe.

I was wondering, while we seem to be at a hiatus, if it would be ok to ask for your help? I have noticed recent posts touching on s.2 again. You may remember we had a PO granted based on t's and c's (unsigned by anyone and never seen before by us) which the same DJ, at the same hearing, allowed should be proven at a future trial.

We have had appeal denied by the first DJ, an application to void the order (as prejudicial) dismissed or ignored by a CJ and a request to the CJ to leapfrog to Queens Bench deliberately misinterpreted as a request for leave to appeal to himself, and denied. So we now only have an oral hearing left (26th) before all doors are closed.

We have submitted an application to the PC for the deed to be declared void on the grounds we have never seen, let alone signed any of the documents they are saying are incorporated to it. I want to go further and apply the thread here as well but I am firefighting at the moment and don't feel I can take enough of the details on board right now to present a watertight application.

Would this be a good time, while we are all waiting for the decision, to ask you to have a look at this? There are just so many issues of bad, illogical decisions and judicial errors it is overwhelming. The issues are not specifically "on thread" but are clearly related and may have relevance here. I don't want to presume on IsItMe's platform.

Or are you both taking a very well-earned break?

Jo

Hi Jo

 

I have NO prob with giving you any help I can , I would need to know what you said in the first hearing and why the first d/j did not ask questions himself, ounces which are being asked now lol

Who is the lender if you can say?

Edited February 17, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

Hi Apple/IsItMe. I've been staying quiet (dumbstruck) since it hit me a while back what you have actually put before the PC. The Crown v The Banks heh (with some of the highest judges in the land adjudicating). Only one way that can lawfully go IMHO. Though I might have a side bet on them dodging the issue for as long as they can - desperately picking at any possible flaws in the application rather than face the inevitibility of the argument. Is that what enabled them to throw out the one they did? As I said before I stand in awe.

I was wondering, while we seem to be at a hiatus, if it would be ok to ask for your help? I have noticed recent posts touching on s.2 again. You may remember we had a PO granted based on t's and c's (unsigned by anyone and never seen before by us) which the same DJ, at the same hearing, allowed should be proven at a future trial.

We have had appeal denied by the first DJ, an application to void the order (as prejudicial) dismissed or ignored by a CJ and a request to the CJ to leapfrog to Queens Bench deliberately misinterpreted as a request for leave to appeal to himself, and denied. So we now only have an oral hearing left (26th) before all doors are closed.

We have submitted an application to the PC for the deed to be declared void on the grounds we have never seen, let alone signed any of the documents they are saying are incorporated to it. I want to go further and apply the thread here as well but I am firefighting at the moment and don't feel I can take enough of the details on board right now to present a watertight application.

Would this be a good time, while we are all waiting for the decision, to ask you to have a look at this? There are just so many issues of bad, illogical decisions and judicial errors it is overwhelming. The issues are not specifically "on thread" but are clearly related and may have relevance here. I don't want to presume on IsItMe's platform.

Or are you both taking a very well-earned break?

Jo

 

Hi Jo

 

 

I think I remember some of what you said previously. Thanks for the info above.

 

It is true we did hit on the s.2 issue with Ben's help.

 

It would appear that s.2 applies to the document that is headed up as a deed - not the 't's and c's - the T's and C's need only be 'referred to and stated by way of incorporation on the face of the 'deed'.

 

It would seem that you have to be very clear to make the distinction between the formalities of a Deed and the separate formality necessary to be met for a 'speciality contract'.

 

So - in brief - the statutory formalities that relate to a Deed - between the Lender and the Borrower are - s. 1 (3) LPMPA 1989 - for the Borrower to sign the "instrument" - witnessed (this is referred to as 'in "solemn form") and the Lender to execute the Deed - witnessed (again in "solemn" form) under Companies Act 2006 s.46 (1)......

 

Again - in brief - the statutory formalities of a 'speciality contract' are set down in s.2 - you have to remember of course to make a distinction between a 'simple contract' (not in solemn form - ie. signatures not witnessed) and the 'speciality contract' (witnessed signature and Execution) - remembering to point out the speciality contract carries with it a limitation period of 12 yrs ..

 

Did you also mention that you included s.27 (f)? (Legal Charge??) -

 

if you did -

 

There should be no harm in pointing out to the court that you wrongly inferred that s.27 (f) applied when in fact - it is s.27 (3)(b)..(sub-charge) that applies....given that on reflection this was the only statutory power you had as an owner of 'registered' land under LRA s.23 to grant to the Lender .....

 

There is no template here though Jo...... only that which we have found to be the statute set to protect against any mortgage being attached to any registered estate in the UK.

 

with your concern as to the 'procedure' - seek out the 'lamb' case posted on this thread - see if your case and the procedure followed the same as in 'lamb'...

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

I don't feel the question is irrelevant given that you appear to be an advocate and IIM doesn't put points across too well and doesn't reason. I apologise if you think I was being rude but we both know that you don't have much to hide behind and we are getting closer to the truth.

 

Crapstone

You mean the C H 1 form which has this in it

 

10 Execution

 

The borrower must execute this charge as a deed using the space opposite. If there is more than one borrower, all must execute. Forms of execution are given in Schedule 9 to the Land Registration Rules 2003. If a note of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for in panel 8 this document must be signed by the lender or its conveyancer.

Your not being rude

Edited February 17, 2014 by ims21

[IS IT ME?]

Or should it be a AP1 form lol they have to sign that

 

 

 

 

 

D/m10

[jotho]

Hi Jo

 

I have NO prob with giving you any help I can , I would need to know what you said in the first hearing and why the first d/j did not ask questions himself, ounces which are being asked now lol

Who is the lender if you can say?

Hi Isitme. Thank you for responding. The lender was Northern Rock, now NRAM. The first DJ responded very appropriately. We said exactly "in order for me to be able to defend myself I need to see what the claim is based on." The DJ looked briefly at what the claimant had brought to court, a Witness Statement by some trainee solicitor, the signed(only by me) deed amd 2 sets of "mortgage conditions" I had never seen before. I stated the truth, that I had never set eyes on the "mortgage conditions", that I had signed the deed against a document which they had not brought to court and that the terms on which they were basing their evidence (breach of contract) were not before the court. The DJ was very concerned by this. She ordered a PTR, by which time she indicated I should file a full defence (which I had not done) and that NRAM should have the opportunity to supply the missing documents. She reserved costs and said the matter was "serious".

At the PTR a different DJ presided. By this time NRAM had got their act together and put forward an Offer of Loan (unsigned by anyone) which they now stated contained the terms of the loan hitherto missing. The DJ was intrigued by the fact that the evidence might be flawed, that the terms presented in evidence might not actually have been agreed and ordered this part (the "money" part) of the claim to go to trial. He then made the bizarre order for the possession, based on the very documents he had just adjudged should be the object of a future trial.

Jo

[slick132]

Hi Jotho,

 

You should really start your own thread to discuss your case.

 

You can put a link to the new thread here, so those offering you advice can assist you on it.

 

[Peterbard]

Hi Isitme. Thank you for responding. The lender was Northern Rock, now NRAM. The first DJ responded very appropriately. We said exactly "in order for me to be able to defend myself I need to see what the claim is based on." The DJ looked briefly at what the claimant had brought to court, a Witness Statement by some trainee solicitor, the signed(only by me) deed amd 2 sets of "mortgage conditions" I had never seen before. I stated the truth, that I had never set eyes on the "mortgage conditions", that I had signed the deed against a document which they had not brought to court and that the terms on which they were basing their evidence (breach of contract) were not before the court. The DJ was very concerned by this. She ordered a PTR, by which time she indicated I should file a full defence (which I had not done) and that NRAM should have the opportunity to supply the missing documents. She reserved costs and said the matter was "serious".

At the PTR a different DJ presided. By this time NRAM had got their act together and put forward an Offer of Loan (unsigned by anyone) which they now stated contained the terms of the loan hitherto missing. The DJ was intrigued by the fact that the evidence might be flawed, that the terms presented in evidence might not actually have been agreed and ordered this part (the "money" part) of the claim to go to trial. He then made the bizarre order for the possession, based on the very documents he had just adjudged should be the object of a future trial.

Jo

 

Hmm

 

It sounds like the possession order would probably have been made under section 103 of the compliant deed. The situation regarding the agreement and the possible implications of enforceabiltiy need to be examined before the court case.

 

Just a suggestion

 

You really need some proper help with this imo. I would start your own thread.

[Crapstone]

Oh, and whilst we are on the subject of 'truth' - take a look at the FCA consultation paper CP 11/15 here: http://www.fca.org.uk/static/pubs/cp/cp11_15.pdf

 

Definitely looks to lenders to sort their deeds out in lieu of the Lehmans Brothers collapse - it says, they should get it sorted by 1st October 2011 too - on balance your view pales somewhat into insignificance I think - just my opinion...nothing more.

 

As you know in Is It Me's friends case, the Lender had a mortgage - that's to say it - what was it that Ben said? ... ah yes, the Lender owned the 'charge' with power to charge it etc.........I wonder if the Lenders mortgage ended up as party to a 'title transfer collateral arrangement?? That's what mortgage securitisation and mortgage Backed Securities are all about don't you know?

 

Apple

 

Seems you are clutching at straws with that one. I've read the whole document and subsequent amendments as written in the Handbook and nothing supports your idea that there is a need to change any deed, title or security for a domestic borrower. And more importantly says nothing about the need for the lender to sign in the way you are implying. It's not relevant to this thread.

 

Don't quote me but the purposes of signing for futher advance would usually be in the case of a new build house or a renovation in which morgage funds are released at stages.

 

The mortgages were and perhaps still are - in some cases portable - but did not allow for further funding and certainly don't now in the case of SMPL so there would be no further release of funds that the lender would ever have to sign for.

 

You are still not saying which specific document is unsigned and which one has that provision for the lender to sign under the circumstances descibed on this thread. I'm just going to wait now and see what the result is of the enquiries I've made are.

[mollypockets]

hey everyone,

Does anyone know WHY the lenders do not sign the deeds???

[Peterbard]

hey everyone,

Does anyone know WHY the lenders do not sign the deeds???

 

 

I will have a go Molly

 

Agreements are bilateral, this means that both parties give and receive benefit from them. Think of a sale agreement to by a car where one person gets the car and the other the cash. So they have to be signed by both parties.

 

A deed is unilateral, in that the borrower bestows ownership of the estate or charge(disposition) on the other party, the deed is a record of(and legalizes) this transaction, it is not a contract. So the borrower is the only one who needs sign.

 

There may of course be a contract to cover the financial arrangement which surrounds the transaction, but this is not covered by the deed.

[TimetogoRAM]

I will have a go Molly

 

Agreements are bilateral, this means that both parties give and receive benefit from them. Think of a sale agreement to by a car where one person gets the car and the other the cash. So they have to be signed by both parties.

 

A deed is unilateral, in that the borrower bestows ownership of the estate or charge(disposition) on the other party, the deed is a record of(and legalizes) this transaction, it is not a contract. So the borrower is the only one who needs sign.

 

There may of course be a contract to cover the financial arrangement which surrounds the transaction, but this is not covered by the deed.

 

All deeds have to be signed by both parties. Lenders know very well what they are doing. Molly - They are not signing the deeds purposely so they can securitise your supposed debt in other words sell this on to an SPV. Once your property is sold or they repossess your house then your deed will be signed thus executed. Lenders know what they are doing as this is proven if you can get hold of a deed from your lender to an SPV in that the deed will be signed by both directors of the companies. Molly read the early pages of this thread to get the understanding and then do your homework on your own mortgage/loan. Hope this helps!

[fletch70]

This may sound like a silly comment but when we talk about a consultation paper isn't it just that, a consultation?

I am not saying that it will not become law but surely when that happens it will be published.

[sequenci]

This may sound like a silly comment but when we talk about a consultation paper isn't it just that, a consultation?

I am not saying that it will not become law but surely when that happens it will be published.

 

That's about the size of it. These papers often seek opinion from various authorities, organisations, charities, the public etc. I recently took part in one about court fees.

[fletch70]

That's about the size of it. These papers often seek opinion from various authorities, organisations, charities, the public etc. I recently took part in one about court fees.

 

Who's a clever boy then

 

So in fact posting up excerpts from such documents and citing them as regulations is about as much use as a chocolate teapot?

 

 

Sorry for the sarcasm

Another thing I have noticed is that there are lots of extracts from judgements (you can usually tell by the strange language used) but without reference to the case. Again isn't that difficult as there is nothing to gauge it against.

[sequenci]

Who's a clever boy then

 

So in fact posting up excerpts from such documents and citing them as regulations is about as much use as a chocolate teapot?

 

If it's simply a consultation document with a view to making forthcoming changes then probably so. Otherwise I might make a consultation document stating that I own Facebook, Google and Microsoft.

[fletch70]

If it's simply a consultation document with a view to making forthcoming changes then probably so. Otherwise I might make a consultation document stating that I own Facebook, Google and Microsoft.

 

Better put you on my Christmas card list then lol either that or propose!

[caro]

hey everyone,

Does anyone know WHY the lenders do not sign the deeds???

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and give my opinion.

 

They don't sign because they don't have to.

Edited February 18, 2014 by caro

[bhall]

(The below has been posted to keep this thread updated with events)

 

 

I received the below response from the Property Chamber today. This is what the response said, I will leave it to everyone to make of it as they will

 

"Dear,

 

Thank you for your email of, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

 

• The outcome of the two cases detailed in your response, due to be heard on 20 January 2014 – If possible could you provide a copy of the cases or provide a summary of the cases

 

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

 

1. Please note the cases have been heard on 20th January but the decision has been reserved by the Judge, therefore I am not in a position to inform you about the outcome of both cases.

 

2. If you would like to have a copy of the decision, please notify us. A copy of the decision can be sent to you once it has been issued by the Judge.

 

3. These cases are rectification cases, and do not have a summary of the cases. But the decision will refer to facts of the cases. It may be beneficial to have a copy of the decision which can provide you the further information about the cases.

 

You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.

 

Disclosure Log

 

You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-of-information-disclosure-log "

[Peterbard]

I see your point Fletch.

 

The thing is - I find that those who have a vested interest (either Borrower or Lender) tend to ask constructive questions - that's why I asked.

 

In fact BP appears to very much up to speed - the questions posed by BP are constructive - BP has even posted understanding here also......that's nothing short of what I would expect someone who has a vested interest to do....

 

Those with a vested interest take time out to read the thread - they do not ask questions if they do not understand what they are talking about - they appear to hold off doing so until they can construct a relevant question I notice...

 

Just an observation - that was all...no offence to you.

 

In answer to you 'separate note' - It was Is It Me who was advised that the application would be struck out for 'lack of merit'.....we overcame the issue.....we moved on..... it is only Ben who appears to be of the opinion that we are still dealing with that as an issue.

 

'moved on' - the Lender is the one who's fate is in jeopardy - we overcame the issue - the application was heard - Is It Me stated quite clearly - the Lender was DUMBSTRUCK on the LRA s.23 point raised.......he did not overcome it.....he could not overcome the fact that the Borrower is not obligated to perform when it is only the Borrower that has signed the deed.......

 

These are excellent results and have been duly reported back here by Is It Me.

 

I have moved the thread forward on the premise that the Lender is unlikely to overcome the FACT and the LAW...The Lender has 28 days to consider s.23 along with the other grounds that had merit put to the Chamber - we see Ben doing just that; here on this thread. The application has not been struck out.

 

Had the Chamber intended to strike it out - when the Lender objected - the Chamber would have considered the 'objection' against the application and if it was satisfied that the 'objection' had 'merit' it would have struck out the application months ago....the 'objection' clearly had no merit..... the application went to a hearing.

 

Both parties were given fair opportunity to submit further argument........to make their points 'clear'.....no doubt the Lender did so..... no doubt Is It Me did so....

 

Those arguments will be considered.....

 

The decision can and will only go the Borrowers way........Like I say I moved the thread forward on this premise; to say the Lender will possibly get a further 28 days to appeal the decision

 

If the Lender appeals.....he needs to consider (with Ben's and those of others who share his alternative views) the 'grounds' he can rely to do so.....

 

That's where we are up to..

 

Apple

 

So how does this fit with this posted 16 Feb?

[fletch70]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and give my opinion. They don't sign because they don't have to.

 

I will do my best to stop any sarcasm but in the words of Jack O'Neill (for Stargate fans) You Think!

 

(The below has been posted to keep this thread updated with events)

[/b

 

 

I received the below response from the Property Chamber today. This is what the response said, I will leave it to everyone to make of it as they will

 

"Dear,

 

Thank you for your email of, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

 

• The outcome of the two cases detailed in your response, due to be heard on 20 January 2014 – If possible could you provide a copy of the cases or provide a summary of the cases

 

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

 

1. Please note the cases have been heard on 20th January but the decision has been reserved by the Judge, therefore I am not in a position to inform you about the outcome of both cases.

 

2. If you would like to have a copy of the decision, please notify us. A copy of the decision can be sent to you once it has been issued by the Judge.

 

3. These cases are rectification cases, and do not have a summary of the cases. But the decision will refer to facts of the cases. It may be beneficial to have a copy of the decision which can provide you the further information about the cases.

 

You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.

 

Disclosure Log

 

You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-of-information-disclosure-log "

 

Well I take that to mean that it is being thought about and written up but isn't ready yet so no one can have an know (except maybe the judge)

 

So how does this fit with this posted 16 Feb?

 

Sorry Dodge which post on 16th there are so many it gets confusing although the reply did seem to go against previous posts

[IS IT ME?]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and give my opinion.

 

They don't sign because they don't have to.

 

So that's why

The wool /Barclays sign

Nationwide sign

Halifax sign

Old abbey natinal signed

I could go on but it is

ONLY the lenders who securitised the mortgages that CAN NOT sign because then they would not be able to transfer the mortgages.

But as Ben has been busy we will wait only a couple more days

 

D/m11

[bhall]

So that's why

The wool /Barclays sign

Nationwide sign

Halifax sign

Old abbey natinal signed

I could go on but it is

ONLY the lenders who securitised the mortgages that CAN NOT sign because then they would not be able to transfer the mortgages.

But as Ben has been busy we will wait only a couple more days

 

D/m11

 

Both Barclays/Woolwich and Nationwide securitise mortgages

 

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/investorrelations/fundingprogrammes/securitisation.htm

 

http://group.barclays.com/prospectuses-and-documentation/secured-funding/securitisation

 

Abbey National before it became Santander also securitised mortgages

 

http://www.aboutsantander.co.uk/investors/debt-investors/holmes-master-trust/2000.aspx

 

Halifax also securitise mortgages

 

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/investors/debt-investors/securitisation/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/21/hbosbusiness.banking

 

 

I could go on but the point is virtually all lenders securitised mortgages.

 

Signing or not signing the mortgage deed has nothing to do with securitisation

 

Ben

[IS IT ME?]

BUT now they do NOT SIGN THE DEED, THAT IS THE POINT

[mollypockets]

hey all,

thanks everybody for your advice.

 

It just seems too fishy,the fact that there is no substantive reason why they dont sign,I mean its just as easy for them TO sign as it is to NOT sign.On the deeds ,there are boxes and places asking them to sign,

So they MUST have a good reason for not doing so,,,,,,,i.e,future monetary gain.

 

It seems to be the sub-prime lenders who have a policy of not signing and I think we can all agree,they are a pack of leeches, in that once you enter into any sort of agreement with them,they will suck you dry and then move onto their next victim.One has to consider what exactly our "agreement",for want of a better word,is with these bankrupt lenders,,,,,,,,,when WE sign the deed,,,,,what is it we are doing????????

WE are not signing an agree---ment with them because if it was an AGREEment then both parties would lay ALL their cards on the table,,,,,,,with no hidden agendas,such as selling the "agreement"to a third party for further monetary gain and in doing so creating three very different interests in the "agreement"(that would be my family home,but to the banksters,merely just a folio number or digits on their computer screens) when clearly we are conned into believing that we are entering a fair and balanced arrangement to purchase a property.

Also,when we sign,we are handing them a cash cow on a plate by giving them irrevocable lasting power of attorney.They hide this in the small print of the t+c and it means we give them a get out of jail free card,so they have authority to do anything they want ,in our name!!!!,,,,,,,think about that for a moment ,,,,,,,,,,lasting power of attorney is usually reserved for those poor souls who have succome to some mind destroying disease such as alzheimer`s or people who are not competent enough to look after their own financial affairs,,,,,,,the game is so rigged in their favor ,its just ridiculous .

You have to ask yourself,,,,,is their any innocent reason why they feel they need our power of attorney ,,,,,,,I think not,,,!!!