Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[sequenci]

We all know that indeed - for the mortgage to be a 'legal' one. But don't forget that it's VERY possible to have an equitable one.

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7807/0/

[p.j]

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!

 

I totally agree too never known a forum for debate go on like this it most definitely looks like someone is getting lent on,maybe Apple got a little to close to bringing them down..this thread should of been left to run as it was a bit of brain clashing doesn't constitute insults to anyone

i think it was just a ploy to stop apple before potentially opening a big can of whupp ass.no one as attacked anyone personally as we do not know each other on that level its just a forum name used.

 

I take on board all info and advise from everyone on CAG who as knowledge on this subject but its up to me which advise i follow.

 

pj

[p.j]

We all know that indeed - for the mortgage to be a 'legal' one. But don't forget that it's VERY possible to have an equitable one.

 

http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/7807/0/

 

whilst that maybe true about equitable one my lenders agent as admitted they have sold there equitable interests so why are they trying to enforce a suspended possession order if they have sold there rights?

 

pj

[Winged Piglet]

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/

 

The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties.

 

This is what Optima Legal in your link say in their correct postion heading, so they agree that the underlying loan agreement needs to be signed by both parties.

 

This has already been posted as a link by Ben who asked if the Deed is found to be void then there is still a debt albeit an unsecured one. Well as I have already pointed out many Lenders do not take the advice of the correct position like Optima Legal on the signing of the underlying loan agreement , so in those cases the lender has no contract for the borrower to breach. I ask you Sequenci what in those circumstances has the Lender got to back up his claim. How can he prove a breach when there was no agreement of specific terms i.e. if the borrower didn't make the contractual payment at the contractual interest, how can the Lender then shout breach when they have no signed loan agreement by the Borrower to do so, or even signed by themselves or in fact at all. How can a Lender claim interest and charges or assign or sell in these circumstances?

 

Back to basics

 

If two parties come together to agree to something and each party has obligations, the Lender to lend the money at a rate of interest over a set period of time and the Borrower has the obligation to pay the borrowed money back over the set period of time, at the agreed interest rate, then this all needs agreement by both parties because they both have obligations to agree to perform.

 

I am scracthing my head to understand in basic terms why anyone would think they would not need an agreement signed by both parties in the first instance. That's the starting point before we even discuss Deeds. And whilst I do not want to divert from the question that does a Lender need to sign a Deed, they DO most definately imho need to sign the loan agreement!

 

How can equity follow the law if the Deed is found to be void AND there is no signed loan agreement to trigger any breach?

 

I have asked my Lender ( I have no signed loan agreement by me or them or even mickey mouse ;-) ) They merely and only directed me towards this wording from their paperwork which states that ''you are not bound by the terms of this offer document until you have signed the legal charge and the funds are released for your mortgage'

 

So again in my Lender placing both parties obligations i.e. mine and theirs into and wrapped up in the Deed, this is wrong I believe and unlawful as they have not signed the Deed as the other party who also has obligations under the Mortgage Offer and their own Terms and Conditions.

[Winged Piglet]

whilst that maybe true about equitable one my lenders agent as admitted they have sold there equitable interests so why are they trying to enforce a suspended possession order if they have sold there rights?

 

pj

 

yes very good point almost forgot my Lender too has sold the beneficial/equitable interest by securitising almost immediately and I have the proof!

[p.j]

yes very good point almost forgot my Lender too has sold the beneficial/equitable interest by securitising almost immediately and I have the proof!

 

me to from the courts transcripts so no getting out of that one..

 

pj

[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 ;-)

 

yes I know I am replying to my earlier post but I wanted to highlight as I would very much like and welcome people's opinions on what the Council of Mortgage Lenders say in their guidance. as stated above. Is this not significant? Is this not backing up what is asserted in this thread then? Perhaps the CML might like to expand if this is what they are telling people should happen, why isn't it then by all of their Lenders then?

 

opinions please ;-)

[TimetogoRAM]

The agreement for the lender to make a loan advance, in return for which the borrower will grant a charge over the property, is made up of the lender’s mortgage offer and the borrower’s acceptance of that offer. It follows that this agreement for mortgage must be in writing and signed by the parties.

 

This is what Optima Legal in your link say in their correct postion heading, so they agree that the underlying loan agreement needs to be signed by both parties.

 

This has already been posted as a link by Ben who asked if the Deed is found to be void then there is still a debt albeit an unsecured one. Well as I have already pointed out many Lenders do not take the advice of the correct position like Optima Legal on the signing of the underlying loan agreement , so in those cases the lender has no contract for the borrower to breach. I ask you Sequenci what in those circumstances has the Lender got to back up his claim. How can he prove a breach when there was no agreement of specific terms i.e. if the borrower didn't make the contractual payment at the contractual interest, how can the Lender then shout breach when they have no signed loan agreement by the Borrower to do so, or even signed by themselves or in fact at all. How can a Lender claim interest and charges or assign or sell in these circumstances?

 

Back to basics

 

If two parties come together to agree to something and each party has obligations, the Lender to lend the money at a rate of interest over a set period of time and the Borrower has the obligation to pay the borrowed money back over the set period of time, at the agreed interest rate, then this all needs agreement by both parties because they both have obligations to agree to perform.

 

I am scracthing my head to understand in basic terms why anyone would think they would not need an agreement signed by both parties in the first instance. That's the starting point before we even discuss Deeds. And whilst I do not want to divert from the question that does a Lender need to sign a Deed, they DO most definately imho need to sign the loan agreement!

 

How can equity follow the law if the Deed is found to be void AND there is no signed loan agreement to trigger any breach?

 

I have asked my Lender ( I have no signed loan agreement by me or them or even mickey mouse ;-) ) They merely and only directed me towards this wording from their paperwork which states that ''you are not bound by the terms of this offer document until you have signed the legal charge and the funds are released for your mortgage'

 

So again in my Lender placing both parties obligations i.e. mine and theirs into and wrapped up in the Deed, this is wrong I believe and unlawful as they have not signed the Deed as the other party who also has obligations under the Mortgage Offer and their own Terms and Conditions.

 

I couldn't have put it better myself!! I believe this is the issue with many borrowers. Certainly myself, UNRAM and WP. So anyone got an answer to this?

 

WP - this has part been discussed in this thread started by UNRAM as below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404532-What-is-the-legal-status-of-a-mortgage-deed-if-the-mortgage-agreement-is-deemed-void-%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

[TimetogoRAM]

yes I know I am replying to my earlier post but I wanted to highlight as I would very much like and welcome people's opinions on what the Council of Mortgage Lenders say in their guidance. as stated above. Is this not significant? Is this not backing up what is asserted in this thread then? Perhaps the CML might like to expand if this is what they are telling people should happen, why isn't it then by all of their Lenders then?

 

opinions please ;-)

 

Is it that lenders are now advised to sign and execute the deed because of the likes of this thread. Borrowers becoming wise to this issue perhaps! Has anyone on this thread got a more recent mortgage? Maybe post 2009? If so is it signed by the lender?

[TimetogoRAM]

me to from the courts transcripts so no getting out of that one..

 

pj

 

Where can you get this evidence? I only have links to annual reports etc and obvious links to securitisation being rife by my lender around the time my mortgage was taken out?

[p.j]

Where can you get this evidence? I only have links to annual reports etc and obvious links to securitisation being rife by my lender around the time my mortgage was taken out?

 

i applied for the transcript from court but i was given a link that showed my mortgage being sold to eurosail and i think alisonos servicer acenden gave her written confirmation as her mortgage was in the same pool as mine so not sure regarding your lender TimetogoRAM

 

pj

[IS IT ME?]

Winged Piglet,

You are 100% CORRECT apple has been lent on big time and WHY he has been the only one

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.

Please sequenci you have not read this thread have you Opm Legal have been posted before and replied to and you would have seen that in one case THEY even did not want to deal with this matter so where you think there posting carries any weight is beyond me.

You have got what you and your bosses wanted this thread closed and I can see no other reason than you have been pressured into taking this action, which by the way is against your own rules.

I would like to see a court now do this

 

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.

The BIG WORD HERE IS 'MAY' A PLAY ON WORDS JUST LIKE THE LEGAL SIDE.

 

I have asked you to answer some questions and still awaiting an answer from you.

[ims21]

You have got what you and your bosses wanted this thread closed and I can see no other reason than you have been pressured into taking this action, which by the way is against your own rules.

I would like to see a court now do this

 

It is clear you are not reading my posts.

 

But for the avoidance of doubt, this thread is NOT closed. This is in fact evidenced by your ability to post on it.

 

As to your conspiracy theory about pressure being applied, this is utter nonsense and not worthy of further comment.

 

It might be more productive for you if you concentrated your efforts on the subject matter of the thread and continued your discussion on those ideas.

[IS IT ME?]

ims21,

 

I think you should answer the question as now the impartiality of the CAG is now due to actions taken in question.

 

Why is it no one can get hold of apple?? even when asked no PMs allowed?

Even when asked because of the NEED to have some of the arguments off thread was told that they know every thing any way, No solicitor would allow this why are we and to be told that it is the way.

Now because of the NEED for the cases before the chamber how do we get hold of apple????

[IS IT ME?]

Ims21

This is not really a reply

As to your conspiracy theory about pressure being applied, this is utter nonsense and not worthy of further comment.

[ims21]

I think you should answer the question as now the impartiality of the CAG is now due to actions taken in question.

 

That doesn't make sense

 

Why is it no one can get hold of apple??

 

applecart is free to post and join in the discussions as and when they wish.

 

even when asked no PMs allowed?

 

The consensus of the Site Team is that, due to the subject matter, all should be in open forum for all to see. Identification of individuals remains anonymous.

 

how do we get hold of apple????

 

As above, they can post as and when they wish.

[ims21]

Ims21

This is not really a reply

As to your conspiracy theory about pressure being applied, this is utter nonsense and not worthy of further comment.

 

OK...There is no conspiracy and no pressure is being put on us.

[IS IT ME?]

IMS21,

I think I'll make it clearer for you then,

 

I think you should answer the question as now the impartiality of the CAGicon is now due to actions taken in question.

That doesn't make sense BECUASE YOU HAVE OUT APPLE OFF AND SLATE HER OFF AND THEY WHERE THE ONLY ONES, WHAT ABOUT BEN OR CAN'T YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT ONE OF YOUR OWN?

 

Why is it no one can get hold of apple??

applecart is free to post and join in the discussions as and when they wish. BECUASE I AND OTHERS HAVE ASKED FOR A PM FOR APPLE AND IF YOU ARE TELLING ME APPLE WOULD COME BACK AFTER YOU CLEARLY GOT REID OF THEM I THINK NOT.

 

even when asked no PMs allowed?

The consensus of the Site Team is that, due to the subject matter, all should be in open forum for all to see. Identification of individuals remains anonymous. SO YOU ALL AGREE THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT IS GOING TO HELP THE OTHER SIDE WITH THERE DEFENCE SHOULD BE ON THE THREAD BEFORE HAND AND ANY COURT HEARING???? IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOUR SAYING PLEASE CONFIRM THAT

 

how do we get hold of apple????

As above, they can post as and when they wish. YOU KNOW SHE WILL NOT BE BACK. SO WHY NOT SEND MY EMAIL ADDRESS TO HER?

 

KEEP THIS ON AN OPEN THREAD HERE SO OTHERS CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING

[IS IT ME?]

APPLE HAS BEEN THE ONLY AND I REPLETE ONLY ONE EVEN SITE TEAM MEMBERS TO GET THIS TO WHERE IT IS TODAY NO ONE ELSE, AND IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE I WILL LOOK.

THE PROPERTY CHAMBER HAVE AGREED TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER,

THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE DEFENCES, EVEN THOUGH THE LENDERS HAVE CRIED WOLF, WITH APPLE NO ONE ELSE BEN OR ANY ONE.

TWO FAMILIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STAY IN THERE HOMES AND NOTHING HAS BE GRANTED BY THE COURTS AGAIN BECAUSE OF APPLES POSTS, YOU ASK DO THEY WORK?? i WOULD SAY YES

AND I FOR ONE THINK THE CAG HAS SHORT ITS SELF IN THE FOOT BIG TIME.

 

YOU HAVE ASKED THAT A TAKES CARE AND CHECKS OUT INFORMATION BEFORE HAND, DON'T YOU THINK THEY HAVE DONE THAT 18 MONTHS AGO! SO THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING I THINK

[sequenci]

Winged Piglet,

You are 100% CORRECT apple has been lent on big time and WHY he has been the only one

I don't think anyone is leaning on anyone tbh. For sure we've seen the battle between Apple and Ben but that's pretty much the only element of contention within the thread that I've seen. I think it's important to remain objective when dealing with stuff like this, and when you're dealing with your own property that is very likely to go out of the window. I've read the majority of this thread though admittedly I'm incredibly busy with other stuff so I can't devote a huge amount of time to it. In addition, even though I deal with mortgages and land law in my day job it's slightly outside of my remit, so I am by no means an authority - not in the slightest. There have been other folks who work in this area and at least one solicitor post comments within the thread, so I do think it's important to consider all opinions. Simply relying on Apple's opinion could be great if it all works out - but equally dangerous if it doesn't. I guess I'll ask at this point three questions:

 

1. If this is such an easy thing to challenge why has it not been successfully done before in the context of residential properties? If it has are there are cases we can have a look at?

2. Is a court really going to render a mortgage void on such a small (in the grand scheme of things) issue?

3. Why, when asked, has Apple not provided anything in relation to residential mortgages to back up their claims? The property chamber is following due process.

 

Oh, please stick to lower case. It makes for easier reading.

 

Oh, and finally, I'm actually rooting for you guys. All I strive to do is to ensure that people follow the help they are given from a an objective standpoint. Hss Apple agreed to cover costs if things don't go the intended way?

[ims21]

All of these points have been answered already.

 

Apart from the request to send your e-mail address to applecart. This will not happen...we do not pass member's details on to anyone.

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you for your reply and I'll answer as follows

1. If this is such an easy thing to challenge why has it not been done before in the context of residential properties? Because as state before and not been denied It has never been known before and do you think the lenders are going to tell any one???

2. Is a court really going to render a mortgageicon void on such a small (in the grand scheme of things) issue? are they not going to or are you??

3. Why, when asked, has Apple not provided anything in relation to residential mortgages to back up their claims? Can you show where these matters have come up before and not been

 

Oh, please stick to lower case. It makes for easier reading. after Thursday my computer has been playing up so sorry for that

[sequenci]

1. How do you know that it hasn't been known before. A quick Google search brings up a significant amount of discussion - though I've not actually looked to see how much might be relevant to us here in the UK (no time for that, sorry!)

2. Sorry, not sure what you mean by that

3. In the thread. I asked for a few examples but the ones I was shown were to do with other things.

 

No worries re: the computer. Oh, and I'm not here (none of the site team are) to cause difficulties. I just try and sit on the fence. Always

[IS IT ME?]

You reply about ' FULL TITLE GUNERTEE' on the sale agreements as I rember

This is what it states

 

Charges, incumbrances and third party rights.

(1)If the disposition is expressed to be made with full title guarantee there shall be implied a covenant that the person making the disposition is disposing of the property free—

(a)from all charges and incumbrances (whether monetary or not), and

(b)from all other rights exercisable by third parties,

other than any charges, incumbrances or rights which that person does not and could not reasonably be expected to know about.

(2)In its application to charges, incumbrances and other third party rights subsection (1) extends to liabilities imposed and rights conferred by or under any enactment, except to the extent that such liabilities and rights are, by reason of—

(a)being, at the time of the disposition, only potential liabilities and rights in relation to the property, or

(b)being liabilities and rights imposed or conferred in relation to property generally,

not such as to constitute defects in title.

(3)If the disposition is expressed to be made with limited title guarantee there shall be implied a covenant that the person making the disposition has not since the last disposition for value—

(a)charged or incumbered the property by means of any charge or incumbrance which subsists at the time when the disposition is made, or granted third party rights in relation to the property which so subsist, or

(b)suffered the property to be so charged or incumbered or subjected to any such rights,

and that he is not aware that anyone else has done so since the last disposition for value.

 

Which means clearly sold all rights, no right to spilt the mortgage nothing yet I am some one who does not know any thing.

 

I do not think it does CAG any good to lose the only member of this thread who did do some thing and come up with these replies.

[IS IT ME?]

I may ask why I can not PM any one and no one can PM me????

 

If you say apple can come on line why not send her a email asking for her to comment on this matter