Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[ims21]

applecart.

 

With this thread it is best that everything is kept in open forum so that anyone can see what is going on and others can comment on the information presented.

 

I remind you that this thread has been allowed to continue, it is not a right.

 

You will now keep this thread on topic in a civilised manner and stop the constant sniping at those who present an alternative to your views. You will also now stop pushing the CAG Site Team.

 

I will give fair warning that posts that do not now adhere to these requirements will be removed and those who do not adhere may be subject to moderation.

 

No further discussion on this.

[IS IT ME?]

What about keeping some thing under raps until the time?

Are you asking for the other side to KNOW all about the case before the hearing surely not.

[ims21]

What about keeping some thing under raps until the time?

Are you asking for the other side to KNOW all about the case before the hearing surely not.

 

I would think that the "other side" will have a pretty good idea of where you are going by reading this thread.

 

However, if you may PM information to any member of the Site Team and it can be passed on.

[IS IT ME?]

Think I'll print off the WHOLE of this thread

[IS IT ME?]

Apple,

Can I know if you are going to post any further on this thread and if not why not.

[IS IT ME?]

im21,

I think you have got what you wanted and apple is no longer posting here, I have read these posts and printed them off and can see evidence that others have also be 'playing the game' but have not seen any rebukes of there posts.

I think you should really now think about the people you have let down here and those who may not have posted but still done an application to the chamber, as by your own figures there has been some 40,000 views and who knows how many have done paperwork.

This does not sit very well with the CAG and looks like double standards to those viewing it.

I will say that I think there is some thing going on as Ben posts up as one person and then another comes on when his gone???

[IS IT ME?]

any one else feel the same please post.

[steampowered]

You can disagree with people but you cannot throw personal insults. It is a very simple concept and not difficult to follow. The constant baiting and constant insults are tiring and extremely childish - anyone acting like that in a court room or in front of the chamber will get shot down in flames.

[IS IT ME?]

steampowered,

Thank you for your reply but as it is a two way street so to speak I shall await the reply from IMS21

I can not see any one take issue with the ' so called personal insults ' you say or are you saying that BEN has taken offence and complained?

And we are not in a court room

So please lets have the honesty that every one keeps on about here.

[ims21]

steampowered got here before me and has answered the question.

 

This thread should be conducted in a mature and reasoned manner with both sides being explored and discussed.

 

If you feel that I have an agenda against applecart then you are wrong and that it entirely a matter for you. Applecart is welcome to post within the parameters I have outlined but we will not allow the thread to degenerate into pure personal attacks and veiled insults to either other members or the site team.

 

It is up to applecart whether they continue to post or not.

 

Whilst this s not a court room, the Site Team will ensure that order is kept on this thread. As I have said on more than one occasion, you have been allowed to have this discussion here but you do so within the parameters set out.

[marika41]

Apple please come back

[andrew1]

Hello Andrew1

 

Your mortgage deed does not unfortunately say that the lender is obligated to make a further advance, it only says that it secures a further advance.

 

This enables the lender, if it were to provide you a further advance to what is called "tack" that loan onto this first charge. As a result if you were to apply for a secured loan with another lender, your first charge lender would receive notification.

 

The is now governed to s.49 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

 

My battery is literally going to go at any second, so I will respond in more detail once I get home.

 

Hi, sorry to see all this trouble going on here, we've seen it all before when things get heated. Best to keep personalities out of it generally and just respond to the points whilst the dust settles and normality resumes...it will if everyone takes a step back then begins posting as normal...don't worry, it'll pass - it always does! LOL, but that's what makes CAG special, debate goes on until strong opinions set the feathers flying and in pops Site team to calm things down. Like chucking a bucket of cold water over 2 stuck dogs!

 

Anyway, let me continue slightly off course for a bit to bring back some normality....

 

Thanks for your post Ben in response to my Title document (since removed as too many prying eyes). This raises some interesting issues which others might find interesting so I'll continue on my theme, but won't clog up Is It Me's thread hereafter, but thanks IIM for your forbearance in letting this on here...

 

You mention Ben that the lender, by inserting clause 3 regarding Further Advances are saying that it only says 'it secures a further advance' - Okay, as you perhaps noticed this was a 1989 mortgage which at the time would be deemed exempt CCA and Unregulated.

 

Just for argument's sake, say I took a Further Advance of 5k either the same day, a week later or a month or 3 months later and this amount is given a separate account number to the main mtg, but documentation supplied with that 5k states that a certain payment of interest must be paid up front in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Now the 5k would be below the 15k limit of the day and therefore would normally, as a stand alone loan, be CCA regulated-yes?

 

Given your post and the statement on the Title Deed, could this 5k be secured by the title deed as you state, but regulated as a CCA loan? How far does that 'tack' as you call it go with regards to regulation, not the security, but the regulation?

 

Be interesting to know your perspective on this....

 

Thanks

 

A1

[Winged Piglet]

How very odd.........

 

Just had a look at the Council of Mortgage Lenders website and in their guide explaining what needs to be done to agree a Mortgage is this:-

 

 

If your conveyancer is also acting for your lender, your lender may instruct the conveyancer to prepare the mortgage deed. This is the legal contract between you and the lender. Your conveyancer will explain the terms of the mortgage deed to you, and then have them signed by you and the lender.**

 

 

I repeat, SIGNED BY YOU AND THE LENDER

 

 

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/consumers/homebuy/homebuy2#6

 

Am I mistaken or is it that the CML agree otherwise why do they state this. Afterall if the CML don't know their stuff what are they there for?

 

Discuss ;-)

[Winged Piglet]

Do the Council of Mortgage Lenders think the Deed is the loan agreement also?

 

Here's more of their advice on what needs to be done for fresh meat borrowers

 

Your conveyancer will do the following

 

 

Register or record the change of title to the property, and the mortgage deed (loan agreement) in favour of the lender, with the Land Registry.**

[steampowered]

...

 

A1, mortgages are not covered by the CCA, regardless of when they were entered into. My understanding is that mortgages were regulated by the Mortgage Code from 1997 and FSA Handbook from 2004. I'm not sure whether there was any statutory regulation before that.

[sequenci]

A1, mortgages are not covered by the CCA, regardless of when they were entered into. My understanding is that mortgages were regulated by the Mortgage Code from 1997 and FSA Handbook from 2004. I'm not sure whether there was any statutory regulation before that.

 

Second charges can be CCA regulated though.

[sequenci]

 

Discuss ;-)

 

Equity follows the law ;-)

[Winged Piglet]

You may disagree with people...what you will not be allowed do is continually insult other members.

 

 

 

Re: Apple

 

For what it's worth, I think that CAG have been a little harsh here, Apple is leading the way, forging a path through the mists and fogs of law surrounding a very important subject. There is of course when anybody tries to break new ground a shaking of the existing foundations BUT it may well be that the foundations the Lenders relied upon were actually flawed and not built on solid law but may find that when truly analysed and looked at that there is simply salt and sand........... that is not Apple's fault for pointing it out or asking questions.

 

Apple, we need your diligence, your tenacity, knowledge and strength to keep digging and challenging and asking questions so that no stone is left unturned and if any wrongs heaped upon Borrowers by Lenders have occurred that they will be righted by the use of Law.

 

I think site team that in my humble opinion that there is an element of overreaction to Apples posts. Unless I have missed something there does not seem to be any breach of your rules or continuous insults? And in the spirit of fairness then if you are going to accuse Apple, then by the same measure of your tolerance, Ben must also take a telling. We are all not in a Court sitting before a Judge but an open public forum and with debate and discussion will naturally come argument.*

 

But we are all CAGGERS otherwise why are we here, why was CAG set up? The overriding factor is that we should ALL want to determine the actual reality in law and should any unfairness or breach of Law which detrimentally affects consumers/borrowers found to have occurred, *we should and need to know about it, isn't that what CAG is all about after all?

 

No we all don't yet know the answer BUT the question has been asked and the Property Chamber must and will determine this issue by reply. And the question would not be sitting awaiting reply if it wasn't for Apple and this thread. This is a significant and ground breaking debate and CAG should be mindul of that fact and be proud that in the existence of CAG there is this platform for people to do so.

[Winged Piglet]

Equity follows the law ;-)

 

Expand ;-)

 

WP

[sequenci]

Expand ;-)

 

WP

 

If there is no legal deed the courts could apply the rule of equity; one of the rules is that equity sees that as done which ought to be done. So in a nutshell, if the deed fails from a legal perspective the courts may still allow it to be binding and enforceable.

[sequenci]

Here's an interesting question. Is there been a case *specific to residential mortgages* that has been successful already which use these arguments?

[TimetogoRAM]

If there is no legal deed the courts could apply the rule of equity; one of the rules is that equity sees that as done which ought to be done. So in a nutshell, if the deed fails from a legal perspective the courts may still allow it to be binding and enforceable.

 

Could you please expand some more on this...? Rule of equity? Where does this come from?

- if a court decides a deed is void but then uses this 'rule of equity' to effectively rule the deed to be binding and enforceable, how can a court do this?

 

I have an unsigned offer (unsigned by any party) with attached terms and conditions being purported to be a contract agreement and a deed which is only signed by me using t&c's attached. I know the offer and agreement is a different issue to the deed, but I can't see how the lender can firstly enforce the debt nor the deed on these 'unsigned' terms!

[sequenci]

Could you please expand some more on this...? Rule of equity? Where does this come from?

- if a court decides a deed is void but then uses this 'rule of equity' to effectively rule the deed to be binding and enforceable, how can a court do this?

 

I have an unsigned offer (unsigned by any party) with attached terms and conditions being purported to be a contract agreement and a deed which is only signed by me using t&c's attached. I know the offer and agreement is a different issue to the deed, but I can't see how the lender can firstly enforce the debt nor the deed on these 'unsigned' terms!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(legal_concept))

 

And in particular:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity#Equity_sees_that_as_done_what_ought_to_be_done

 

Some people will disagree but I think the whole deed challenging thing could be a bit of a misnomer.

 

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

[TimetogoRAM]

Re: Apple

 

For what it's worth, I think that CAG have been a little harsh here, Apple is leading the way, forging a path through the mists and fogs of law surrounding a very important subject. There is of course when anybody tries to break new ground a shaking of the existing foundations BUT it may well be that the foundations the Lenders relied upon were actually flawed and not built on solid law but may find that when truly analysed and looked at that there is simply salt and sand........... that is not Apple's fault for pointing it out or asking questions.

 

Apple, we need your diligence, your tenacity, knowledge and strength to keep digging and challenging and asking questions so that no stone is left unturned and if any wrongs heaped upon Borrowers by Lenders have occurred that they will be righted by the use of Law.

 

I think site team that in my humble opinion that there is an element of overreaction to Apples posts. Unless I have missed something there does not seem to be any breach of your rules or continuous insults? And in the spirit of fairness then if you are going to accuse Apple, then by the same measure of your tolerance, Ben must also take a telling. We are all not in a Court sitting before a Judge but an open public forum and with debate and discussion will naturally come argument.*

 

But we are all CAGGERS otherwise why are we here, why was CAG set up? The overriding factor is that we should ALL want to determine the actual reality in law and should any unfairness or breach of Law which detrimentally affects consumers/borrowers found to have occurred, *we should and need to know about it, isn't that what CAG is all about after all?

 

No we all don't yet know the answer BUT the question has been asked and the Property Chamber must and will determine this issue by reply. And the question would not be sitting awaiting reply if it wasn't for Apple and this thread. This is a significant and ground breaking debate and CAG should be mindul of that fact and be proud that in the existence of CAG there is this platform for people to do so.

 

I totally agree! This thread could probably be condensed into proper discussion, rather than stupid bickering which has come about. All I can say is at is stands at present, the 'very worried lenders' and the people who have opposed this discussion right from the start, as it stands, are winning because they have got exactly what they wanted and that is to interfere and to put doubt into people's minds, to put a total halt to this whole topic that lenders have got away with for years! Let continue what we started!

[TimetogoRAM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(legal_concept))

 

And in particular:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity#Equity_sees_that_as_done_what_ought_to_be_done

 

Some people will disagree but I think the whole deed challenging thing could be a bit of a misnomer.

 

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

 

Thanks I'll take a good read of the first two links. The third link are the very lawyers that these lenders are using. This makes me laugh, the way they have headed this 'the correct position' I might re-head this 'your correct position' - We all know about LPMPA section 1 and 2 and the fact they are separate etc and the fact that when you use this in a defence in court this has been tried and tested.. In fact t I'm sick of seeing this petty excuse. How can they even suggest in conclusion that there is no requirement for a lender to execute a deed. A deed has to be signed sealed and delivered by both parties - we all know that! I'll be very glad if they use this as a defence in the chamber. We just need to make sure we all stick to section 1, when we are talking about the deed anyway!

It seems to me that Lenders are separating and bringing both acts of legislation together when it suits them!

 

Just to add, I have now read the first two links and they both will not apply to me and probably hundreds of others because as I have already mentioned I/we have an unsigned contract agreement! -

Edited October 27, 2013 by TimetogoRAM