Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

I have a letter on file from a sub-prime lender confirming that they do not intend to sign the deed until all the monies are paid...if I could attach the letter ..... but I do not have the facility to do so.... I would happily post it up...... just to show you, Lenders are more than aware of the fact that they rely on the effect of a 'mortgage by demise'

 

So, take it from me, mention of the 'mortgage by demise' is relevant : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you apple , I too have looked at the mortgage by demise part and have come to that reasoning

As for ball I refer to my earlier post and you have got to ask why he or she does not want this to go ahead??

Take it as read I would not be going though this if I thought there was no truth in it.

The site team have my email address and I am more than happy for you to send the letter you have

Thanks once again regards

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

I cannot answer for Ben; All I can say to his posts is.......I'd like to think that we are all adding to each others knowledge in some way or other.....

 

I have just sent a scanned copy of the letter to a member of the site-team for them to send as a quote the detail from it for you directly....I do not believe that it will assist your friend as it from an all together different lender....if it was a letter from Accord; then I would have no issue making it publicly available on this thread....

 

But suffice to say, when you get the 'quote' as will be taken from the letter.....it will be a quote as witnessed by the site team ... i.e not just my say so

 

Then it will confirm that .....it is not untoward to find that mortgages by demise are party to a lenders (at least the lender who is party to the letter now in the hands of the site team) clear intent to cause the charge by way of legal mortgage to have the same effect as a 'mortgage by demise' even after the coming into force of the LRA 2002 and the RRO 2005....

 

Speak soon

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Site Team

 

I have sent the letter about 2 minutes ago...can you assist with the detail as requested for Is It Me please...??

 

Thanks a load

 

Apple

[applecart]

It is also of note to say that some lenders include on their mortgage deeds words that say:

 

"Receipt not to be used for Registered Charges

 

We XYZ Limited hereby Acknowledge t have recieved all monies intended to be secured by the within written Mortgage payment having been made by the within named Borrower"

 

The date will be left blank and the space for the Lenders execution/signature is left blank

 

or it may simply state:

 

"Receipt not to be used for registered charges

 

Date left Blank and space for execution/signature by the Lender is left blank

 

These are the ways in which it can easily be identified that the Lenders intent is to cause the Mortgage Deed to have the effect of a mortgage by demise; by clearly stating in whatsoever the terms in the deed above the space for their signature and execution that it will not be executed until they can execute at some date in the future to say they acknowledge receipt of all the mortgage debt....

 

Amazing....you don't need a letter from them to confirm that you have a 'mortgage by demise'....it's on the DEED!!!!!

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

soooooo.....on balance....what does the mortgage deed tell you?

 

At the top of it....it tells you the Borrowers intent - that is to charge the property by way of legal mortgage (which cannot be presumed to be 'delivered' without due execution by the Lender)

 

and

 

At the bottom of it.....it tells you the Lenders intent - to avoid taking/accepting a charge by way of legal mortgage (by stating that they do not intend to execute the deed until all the mortgage debt has been repaid by the Borrower.....a 'mortgage by demise')

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

exactly what I was trying to say to bhall but you put it into better words than I.

I have sent it off so lets see what happens now.

regards

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you apple have documents and will do as you say.

very helpful as always.

regards

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

No problem, It will be interesting as you say; to see how the Chamber deals with your written representation.

 

I'm pleased you have the document... : )

 

The disadvantage in all this of course is the fact that potentially your lender, HMLR and other interested bodies see your hand ahead of having to respond to the written representation...

 

It will be a waiting game now...

 

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Yes I agree and that is why I asked if this can be done via email or private PM, I don't know why you still can not have PM and surely its against the site rules for you not to have it?

[UNRAM]

I have recently been contacted by an NRAM (formerly Northern Rock) mortgagor who blocked eviction resulting in NRAM violating two court orders to prove their legal entitlements as debtor and proprietor. NRAM remains silent and the defendant is waiting to hear what the court intends to do about the violation. I too am an NRAM mortgagor and I have reduced my payments to £50.00 pcm until NRAM PLC disclose the terms and conditions of a purported "Contractual Monthly Subscription" duty. I have a deed with no lender/agent signature and no mortgage contract (nor Northern Rock signature on the offer). My conveyancer has been refusing to make any comment about delivery of deed nor offer evidence of funds for more than six months. I will continue to follow your work and apply your ideas in my own situation.

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Yes I agree and that is why I asked if this can be done via email or private PM, I don't know why you still can not have PM and surely its against the site rules for you not to have it?

 

Hi Is It Me

 

I know, I know.....but it is what it is.....

 

The deed is an issue and worthy of open, transparent debate.....so, whilst it's a pain that strategies are compromised....on the flip side, through you we get to see the responses...

 

If for any reason the written representation is rebuffed...those reasons will hopefully be placed here on the forum.....so, maybe the fact that I do not have PM right now is a good thing...

 

I've started to think of it this way.....the Property Chamber is not dealing with your friend alone right now, the Court is not dealing with your friend alone right now...they are having to deal with all interested parties that visit your thread on the CaG

 

It is a topic of Public Interest.....When the Public are involved....then, rather than 'slipping it under the carpet' or trying to 'fob you off' with legalise....they will have to be sure to treat you fairly, address the issue within that public interest and expose the Lender in the public interest if that lender is found to be culpable......

 

Remember, the intent is that the Property Chamber consider and give effect to the written representation including the RRO 2005....a regulatory reform that should have been given due effect ages ago.......can they really try to say it doesn't do as it is intended to do...which is to cause the presumption of delivery to be removed from a borrowers signature alone????.....

 

It will be interesting, like I say to see how they deal with it.....likewise; what about the issue of 'mortgages by demise'....how are they going to deal with that????? are they really going to say that a lender who clearly states within the deed 'we will sign when we have been paid all the money' is not giving effect to a 'mortgage by demise'????...

 

I have offered them a 'get out of jail' titbit...by suggesting the equitable interest comes into effect by virtue of s.53 (1)©.....but, I'm waiting to see what they do with that.....because, ultimately....if section 52 says - it must be by deed...expressed to be by way of legal mortgage.....the fact is.....a deed that falls into section 53 deed...is a 'disposition' - that is a 'mortgage by demise'....a disposition of the borrowers entire estate.....and is a breach of the LRA 2002 section 23...

 

The coming into effect of a section 53 disposition is not due to any fault of the Borrower....the section of the Deed signed by the Borrower tells the Borrower he is signing to create a 'charge by way of legal mortgage'..........having viewed, considered the wording in relation to him........I cannot see any Borrower not looking to give effect to charge the property by way of legal mortgage.......however, the reality is....in a number of cases, the Borrower does not receive a copy of the deed at any time with the lenders signature on at all.....not even when you request and receive the official copy from HMLR will you see the Lenders execution....The Borrower cannot 'execute' on behalf of the Lender....the matter was totally out of the Borrowers control.....

 

An outright disposition of the estate (section 53 - unilateral deed) is not what the Borrower signed for... Besides....it would be illegal for him to do so....so, yes....

 

....Lets wait to see what the the Property Chamber come back with in response to the written representation...

 

Apple

[applecart]

I have recently been contacted by an NRAM (formerly Northern Rock) mortgagor who blocked eviction resulting in NRAM violating two court orders to prove their legal entitlements as debtor and proprietor. NRAM remains silent and the defendant is waiting to hear what the court intends to do about the violation. I too am an NRAM mortgagor and I have reduced my payments to £50.00 pcm until NRAM PLC disclose the terms and conditions of a purported "Contractual Monthly Subscription" duty. I have a deed with no lender/agent signature and no mortgage contract (nor Northern Rock signature on the offer). My conveyancer has been refusing to make any comment about delivery of deed nor offer evidence of funds for more than six months. I will continue to follow your work and apply your ideas in my own situation.

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Welcome to the debate : )

 

Are you a member of the legal profession or CAB?.. I only ask because you say 'i have been recently contacted by an NRAM mortgagor'

 

I'm interested to learn more...i.e how did you manage to get the lender to agree to lower payments of £50 pcm?

 

The answer to the question may be of great assistance to a lot of Caggers struggling to meet CMI whilst they consider their options in relation to the Deed issue...all help is greatly appreciated on the CaG...

 

Thanks in advance : )

 

Apple

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13

[bhall]

It will be interesting, like I say to see how they deal with it.....likewise; what about the issue of 'mortgages by demise'....how are they going to deal with that????? are they really going to say that a lender who clearly states within the deed 'we will sign when we have been paid all the money' is not giving effect to a 'mortgage by demise'????...

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/51

 

 

51 Effect of completion by registration

 

On completion of the relevant registration requirements, a charge created by means of a registrable disposition of a registered estate has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage.

[bhall]

Duplicate post

[applecart]

It will be interesting, like I say to see how they deal with it.....likewise; what about the issue of 'mortgages by demise'....how are they going to deal with that????? are they really going to say that a lender who clearly states within the deed 'we will sign when we have been paid all the money' is not giving effect to a 'mortgage by demise'????...

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/51

 

Great, Thanks Ben : )

 

Apple

 

 

51 Effect of completion by registration

 

On completion of the relevant registration requirements, a charge created by means of a registrable disposition of a registered estate has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage.

[applecart]

I'm not sure that my response to you was clear Ben...

 

I said 'Great, Thanks Ben : )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Mortgage by demise - Be very interested to read the response from the Property Chamber on that one. Especially given the required content of a deed for a mortgage by demise (being very different to a mortgage by legal charge).

 

All I can say is that I did try to tell you, before the document was submitted, giving the opportunity for it to be changed.

 

Nothing more I could have done, my conscience will be clean.

[applecart]

I hear you Ben,

 

What is the content of a deed for a mortgage for demise?

 

Apple

[applecart]

On your first point Ben, We are talking not the 'effect' of the registered charge.....I think all Caggers know what the 'effect' is of that in regards to section 51 and section 58...

 

What we are talking about here is....is the deed valid for section 52 purposes.....it is only a deed that meets section 52 that is valid to create a charge by way of legal mortgage...

 

A deed that falls within the ambit (i.e caught by) of secton 53 is not a section 52 Deed.....we know that a Section 53 deed creates a disposition of the entire estate of the Borrower....(mortgage by demise) as you know, that is a unilateral deed...

 

..... a section 52 Deed must be Bilateral because of the right of redemption inherently implied - an obligation of which the Lender must be seen by way of the Deed (Execution) to uphold.....

There is no longer a clai for part performance, section 2 LP(MP)A 1989 abolished section 40 LPA 1925....so, there isn't even an equitable interest in reality...unless, the Lender can show that there is an agreement that meets the statutory requirements of section 2 LP(MP)A.....so, so long as we are talking a section 52 Deed....I cannot see that the Deed would not be set aside...In that regard....My conscious is wholly clear also : )

 

The application to the Property Chamber is not saying, the charge and the effect of the charge must be 'set aside'.....it is saying....the DEED must be set aside....with an expectation that the lenders registered charge will be altered and moved from the register.......That's a completely different contention...

 

Apple

[applecart]

On your second point Ben

 

the content of a 'mortgage by demise' could either be expressed or implied as you will know....

 

What most Borrowers have in evidence is a Deed that is signed by them....but not executed by the Lender....

 

In the section where the Lender is to execute/sign....it will say...words that 'express' ...not to be signed until the mortgage debt is paid in full.......

 

Is this the 'content' you are referring to?

 

If you are...then, I fail to see how such words do not express the Lenders intent to create a 'mortgage by demise'

 

Likewise, given that a mortgage by demise is not legal.....words of that type should not be evinced as party to any deed since LRA 2002....

 

Surely, a Lender wouldn't look to confuse the Law or a Borrower....No, surely not...

 

Apple

[citizenB]

I lost the plot on this thread around post # 5. Could someone please in "plain English", summarise what it is you are actually trying to achieve ?

[UNRAM]

I have agreed to pay NRAM (formerly Northern Rock) £50.00 pcm until such time that they explain the terms of my "Contractual Monthly Subscription" and explain why I don't have a mortgage contract only deed stating an obligation for further advances and no signatures from neither (the former) Northern Rock, its representative nor broker. NRAM (Northern Rock Asset Management) is the same company number as Northern Rock (not a new company just a name change).

 

I will be happy to fill you in on the full details via email. Early requests are a bit "freeman" but its starting to come together (with the help of threads like this). I have prepared a complete audit in pdf format dating back to September 2012. As CAG members are aware this is a complex problem so I thought it best to create a token (yes... I am a software engineer) to enable others to comprehend the situation in a more tangible format than reams of legalese. As I am involved in an involuntary subscription scheme I thought it only fair to subscribe my MP as (i) I believe it is duty to represent my interests, and (ii) he is ignoring me. I have also subscribed Directors of the FCA, FOS and OFT. I did approach the MP responsible for the UKFI/UKAR/NRAM chain (and the Economic Secretary of the HM Treasury) but alas he replied saying he was unable intervene to preserve a "principal of independence" between government and NRAM to avoid any "distortion of the market. For some reason overlooked to mention that UKAR/NRAM is employing an HM Treasury Director as Head of Debt Management (collection) for 722,000 customer and £75 billion in mortgage contracts to pay off a £45 billion taxpayer "loan" and the rest in wholesale funding. This is not a bank (no licence) it is a 100% publicly owned government debt collector, and its debt is classified as national debt. The Directors are granted indemnity against all proceedings "whilst in service of the government" and it has complete exemption from FOIA requests (I confirmed this with the ICO).

[applecart]

I lost the plot on this thread around post # 5. Could someone please in "plain English", summarise what it is you are actually trying to achieve ?

 

Hi CitizenB

 

Let me give you a quick synopsis..... : )

 

Basically, there is a Borrower..the lender has taken him to court to take possession of his/her home. There is a suspended possession Order in place.

 

Is It Me is assisting the friend to defend against possession....

 

Instead of relying on ‘Norgren’ and agreeing to make additional payments – which are the ‘norm’ defences....The Borrower is challenging the possession on the following grounds:

 

After registration at HMLR, the Mortgage debt as secured by the registered charge was sold to an SPV

The underlying Deed that underpins the Registered Charge is void for want of legal formality

 

The possession claim is still on-going; awaiting witness statements from the Directors of the Borrowers mortgage company to essentially confirm that the Company still owns the mortgage debt...

 

In the meantime, whilst proceedings are on-going, There was an application made to the Property Chamber applying to ‘set aside' the Deed

 

The initial response from the Property Chamber has rebuffed the application...for the reasons posted within these pages...to say that the application is apt to be struck out; but has crucially provided a window of opportunity for Is It Me to make a written representation as to why the application should not be struck out altogether...

 

The ‘Draft written representation’ was kindly posted up with your assistance....Thank you : )

 

Caggers were of course invited to comment on the written representation as a ‘draft’ document...and, as can be seen, Concerns have been aired concerning some of the content within it...concerns that suggest the application will be ultimately struck out.....meaning: the written representation will have also been unsuccessful....

 

Notwithstanding the concerns raised, time was of the essence and the application has been sent....without amendments

 

The ‘concerns’ raised with the written representation...so far relate to: ‘section 51’ and ‘mortgages by demise’

 

We are addressing these concerns moving forward...in the knowledge that the written representation has been sent....

 

It is said that section 51 applies ...to suggest that the application to set aside the deed; thus the written representation will fail.......

 

It is said that making reference to a mortgage by demise...will also cause the written representation to fail....

 

Ultimately, the aim is to provide the legal grounds from within the substantiating Law that establish that the Deed is void.....and apt to be set aside...and as a consequence...the lenders registered charge along with it.....to find that the lender does not have any security for the mortgage debt...

 

 

Does this help CitizenB?

 

 

Apple

[caro]

I will be happy to fill you in on the full details via email. Early requests are a bit "freeman" but its starting to come together (with the help of threads like this)./QUOTE]

 

This is one of many reasons that cag likes to keep everything on the open forum so that everyone can share the information and give their input for the benefit of all.

 

Please read the site rules about sharing information privately and share your experience on the thread, without identifying info removed.

 

If you wish to change your cag name to protect your privacy, please hit the black triangle shown on every post and advise what name you'd like to use so that admin can change it for you.

Edited July 18, 2013 by honeybee13