Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

not in electronic form. now i think your making this up as you go along. is this intended to be a joke? does HMLR keep a big folder of official copies carefully ensuring of course they dont make it on to a hard drive at any point that they may be deemed electronic. or is the title register simply an entry in a database? Where was it registered in the first place - on some sort of shelf? Regarding your comment on 4(b) - i dont want to cause any upset but you clearly don't understand very simple boolean logic.

 

Hello UNRAM

 

I hope you had a good weekend. The wind is blowing but not yet as bad as they said it would.

 

It is neither a joke or made up.

 

In your post (#2499) you referred to section 91 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and you said your Mortgage Deed had a MD reference.

 

If you reread your post you will see that section 91(1) states

 

(1) This section applies to a document in electronic form where

(a) the document purports to effect a disposition which falls within subsection (2), and

(b) the conditions in subsection (3) are met.

 

If you refer to The Land Registration (Electronic Conveyancing) Rules 2008 as I have previously posted you will see

 

Electronic Legal Charges

 

3.(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (7), the grant of a legal charge of the whole of the registered estate in a single registered transaction is a disposition within section 92(2) of the act.

 

You have said that your Mortgage Deed has an MD reference, whereas an electronic mortgage deed has an E-MD reference number.

 

If you refer to the Land Registry's Practice Bulletin 15, it confirms

 

"E-MD" means electronic mortgage documentation.

 

As you said that your mortgage deed has a MD number instead of an E-MD number it is possible to determine that your Mortgage Deed is not in electronic form and therefore section 91 does not apply to it.

Edited October 28, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

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! -

 

Hello Timetogoram

 

Whilst the repeated references might make you "sick" you should consider

 

Section 2 is often relied upon by borrowers in the past instead of Section 1, as unlike section 1, section 2 states -

 

2(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.

 

Unlike section 1, section 2 includes a clear requirement that the document must be signed by each party.

 

Another example of legislation stating that a document has to be signed by both parties can be found in the credit consumer act 1974

 

61. (a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

As previously argued - If it was the legislatures intent to change the law to make it a requirement for the Lender to sign the deed, why didn't the legislature include the requirement in section 1 as it has been in section 2 and as the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Why doesn't section 1 simply say that both parties have to sign the deed ?

[bhall]

Hello Is It Me?

 

I hope where ever you are in the country, the weather isn't to bad.

 

I just wanted to respond to a couple of things you have said -

 

Your post 2559

 

"You say, or are you saying that Ben has taken offence and complained"

 

I would like to make it clear that I have not complained to the site team about Apple's recent posts.

 

Your post 2593

 

"WHAT ABOUT BEN OR CAN'T YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT ONE OF YOU OWN?"

 

I would like to make it clear that I am not and have never been a member of the site team. I do take your comment as a great compliment. They are very knowledgable and do what would appear by recent comments here a thank less job.

 

I think you should appreciate more what they do for you, especially as they don't get paid for what they do.

 

However, I will say that It does make a nice change from your usual accusation that I work for some unnamed lender

Edited October 28, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

I think that you should look at this thread, whilst it is not about mortgage deeds, it is about advice from an Internet forum that appeared to be based upon and supported by the law.

 

Remember with regard to the Property Chamber, you are not submitting a defence. Compared to a repossession hearing, the shoe is on the other foot, it is you that is the applicant.

 

You are the one making the claim that the other party has done something wrong.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406914-Form-4-Complaint-Judge-warns-debtors-against-taking-quot-legal-advice-quot-from-the-internet-!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Form 4 complaint: Burnley County Court: May 2013. His Honour Judge Butler

 

 

This particular Judgment is very serious indeed and it being posted as it is in the public interest to do so.

 

Firstly, the contents of the Judgment are vitally important but, as can be seen from the top right hand corner, all 3 pages have been copied from a particular website.

 

It is sadly the case that the website in question have continually claimed that it is a "myth" that Courts have ever ordered claimants to pay costs if a Form 4 Complaint is dismissed. This is all the more serious given that this judgment appeared on that particular website on around 29th May 2013 and the entire thread was removed from public view by the website owner on 3rd June 2013 after a post had been made about the judgment on Consumer Action Group.

 

From reading the final paragraph on Page 2 and the closing statement on Page 3 it is very clear that His Honour Judge Butler is confirming that costs have indeed been ordered and, as an example, he confirms that in one "recent case" at Southampton County Court a cost order of £10,000 had been ordered against the person making the Form 4 complaint. In fact, I referred to this particular Form 4 outcome a few days ago and it is my understanding that “costs” are still being debated and look likely to reach over £20,000 !!!

 

The Form 4 Complaint for Mr Kirk (the complainant) had been drafted by the website in question and this was confirmed on the thread started by Mr Kirk ( before it was removed from public view) and is evident by the PDF of the thread.

 

This Judgment needs to be available to the public and there are many reason for this:

 

Mr Kirk had initially posted a query on Consumer Action Group and he was advised in no uncertain terms by posters on here that he should not consider a Form 4 complaint in particular given......that the amount in dispute was just £20!!

 

The brief background is that the bailiff levied upon a vehicle owned by Mr Kirk's sister and that he charged a fee of £24.50, £18.00 and a "levy fee" of £28.00 There was also a small additional amount of £26.00 which apparently related to a shortfall against a previous account.

 

Mr Kirk complained to Rossendale’s about the levy. Sensibly, they removed the levy fee and visit fee and credited the account with the sum of £50.

 

The debtor was not happy to be told on this forum that he had no grounds in which to file a Form 4. Subsequently, he sought advice from another forum and from reading a copy of the PDF of his thread, it would seem that he was encouraged to file a Form 4 Complaint. The website in question are known to charge a fee of £99 for “drafting” the Form 4 complaint.

 

Before the website had removed the entire thread on 3rd June 2013 a copy of Mr Kirk's Form 4 had been displayed. Sadly, it referred to at lest 14 legal cases most of which were irrelevant "19th century law cases".

 

As a warning to anyone else who may quote such case law in a Form 4 complaint, it is noteworthy that His Honour Judge Butler stated that if he had felt it necessary to list the Form 4 for a hearing that he would have required the complainant to bring to the court copies of the legal cases referred to in the Form 4 and most seriously; he would have requested that the complainant or "his legal adviser" would have been required to attend court explain to the Judge the relevance of such legal cases !!

 

Finally, in paragraph 6 His Honour Judge Butler refers to Mr Kirk's comment that he had "taken legal advice" and he questions whether such "advice" had come from "face to face" advice from a solicitor or CAB or alternatively whether the "legal advice" had originated from "internet research". If so, he stated that "if from the latter he should not assume that this information is correct and nor should he assume that the court is aware of the matters he relies upon” ( in this he refers to the "19th century legal cases")

 

As mentioned above, within hours of brief details of this highly critical Judgment being posted on the CAG forum the judgment and the claimants entire thread were removed from public view.

 

The effect being that any new visitors to the website would be "kept in the dark" about the response to a Form 4 complaint that the website had drafted for him. To this day, that same website continue to advise debtors to file Form 4 complaints and most seriously....to "claim" that costs will not be awarded against the claimant.

Edited October 28, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Now turning the thread back to its actual topic

 

 

1.Can we all agree that the core issue, is that this thread asserts that the RRO 2005 amended section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989, to change the law, making it a requirement that a lender must sign the deed ?

 

If the answer is yes, please go on to 2, if no, please explain.

 

2. Can we all agree that the RRO 2005 made the following amendments / changes to section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(2)(b) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(3)

s. 1(2A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 8

s. 1(3)(b) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

s. 1(4) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 1 para. 14

s. 1(4A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(4)

s. 1(5) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 9 Sch. 2

s. 1(6) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

s. 1(6) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 1 para. 15

 

If the answer is yes, please move onto 3, if no, please explain.

 

3. On the basis that the answer to question 2 was yes, the RRO 2005 made the following changes to

 

Section 1(2) of the LRA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(2)(b) words substituted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 7(3)

s. 1(2A) inserted by S.I. 2005/1906 art. 8

 

Can we all agree that section 1(2) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was amended from as originally enacted

 

(2)An instrument shall not be a deed unless—

 

(a)it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b)it is validly executed as a deed by

that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties.

 

To

 

(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless:

 

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

 

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

If the answer is yes, please go on to 4, if no, please explain.

 

4. On the basis that the answer to question 2 was yes, can we agree that the RRO 2005 made the following change to

 

Section 1(3) of the LRA (MP) 1989

 

s. 1(3)(b) words repealed by S.I. 2005/1906 Sch. 2

 

Can we all agree that section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was amended from as originally enacted

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—

 

(a)it is signed—

 

(i)by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii)at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b)it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

 

To

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

If the answer is yes, please move onto 5, if the answer is no, please explain.

 

5. If the answer to 4 is yes, we agree that the only change made by the RRO 2005 to section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 was the repeal of the words "by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf"

 

After 130 pages and over 2,500, this thread really only comes down to one thing.

 

Does the repeal of the words "by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf", change the Law from that established in Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd V Green [2001] that a mortgage deed does not have to be signed by the lender to be both valid and enforceable - To the assertions made in this thread that a mortgage deed that has not been signed by the lender is void and unenforceable.

 

Unfortunately in the explanatory notes for the RRO 2005 there is no explanation of why those 13 words were repealed or of what the effect of those words being repealed would be.

 

6. As amended section 1(3) of the LPA (MP) 1989

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

 

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

Can we agree that section (1)(3) confirms that for a deed to be validly executed as a deed it must be signed by that person in the presence of a witness that attests the signature (or at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature) and that it must be delivered.

 

If the answer is yes, please more onto 7, if no, please explain.

 

7. If the answer to 6 is yes, we agree that there are two requirements to be met for a deed to be validly executed by an individual.

 

A) It must be signed in one of the two way described.

B) It must be delivered.

 

Can we agree that if either of the above requirements are not met, the deed is not validly executed by an individual

 

If yes, please move onto 8, if no, please explain.

 

8. If the answer to 7 was yes, we agree that delivery forms part of the requirements for a deed to be validly executed by an individual.

 

If delivery forms part of the requirements for a deed to be validly executed by an individual - where within section (1) of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005 does it actually that delivery is subject to or even related to the execution of the deed by the Lender - Remember as amended it the LPA (MP) 1989 includes delivery as part of the execution by the borrower, not the lender.

 

Where within section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005 is there any added requirement that the deed must be executed or signed by both the borrower and the Lender

 

- Remember as per Eagle Star v Green before the RRO 2005 it was established that no such requirement existed.

 

If the RRO 2005 did not change the law in the way it has been suggested in this thread, the law as pre the RRO 2005 and after the ROO 2005 is the same as that established by Eagle Star v Green.

 

Disclaimer - As it has been argued that the RRO 2005 changed the law and made it a requirement that the Lender sign the deed - I have ignored for the purposes of discussion the changes made to the LPA (MP) 1989 by both the Companies Act 2006 and the Legal Services Act 2007.

Edited October 28, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

(As before please forgive any typo's)

 

And on that note, I bid you good night

Edited October 28, 2013 by bhall

[IS IT ME?]

(As before please forgive any typo's)

 

And on that note, I bid you good night

 

Thank you Ben but I do not believe a word you say. Never have done and never will.

You got what with the others you hoped for but remember what you do in this world always comes back to you

I will not reply to any of your posts

You could still be a site team member and work for some one else as they do, look to see who owns CAG and by your actions you have put people out of their homes for that I say thank you

[TimetogoRAM]

Hello Timetogoram

 

Whilst the repeated references might make you "sick" you should consider

 

Section 2 is often relied upon by borrowers in the past instead of Section 1, as unlike section 1, section 2 states -

 

2(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.

 

Unlike section 1, section 2 includes a clear requirement that the document must be signed by each party.

 

Another example of legislation stating that a document has to be signed by both parties can be found in the credit consumer act 1974

 

61. (a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

As previously argued - If it was the legislatures intent to change the law to make it a requirement for the Lender to sign the deed, why didn't the legislature include the requirement in section 1 as it has been in section 2 and as the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Why doesn't section 1 simply say that both parties have to sign the deed ?

 

 

Ben, I'm not sure you have ever written anything which is a positive for the borrower. I'm not sure you actually read what people post properly either. I have mentioned in my post that I have never signed an agreement nor a contract, yet you halve 'mistakenly' (I believe) for once written the following:

 

"Another example of legislation stating that a document has to be signed by both parties can be found in the credit consumer act 1974

 

61. (a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner."

 

If this is the case why has my lender not signed a thing? I'm sure you will come up with something on the side of the lender to negate this Ben...you always do!!!!

[andrew1]

Thank you Ben but I do not believe a word you say. Never have done and never will.

You got what with the others you hoped for but remember what you do in this world always comes back to you

I will not reply to any of your posts

You could still be a site team member and work for some one else as they do, look to see who owns CAG and by your actions you have put people out of their homes for that I say thank you

 

Look, let's get this over and done with once and for all.....If you feel like that IS IT ME, then accept it and work around it...if we have personal attacks of any kind it will just throw the site team onto alert and waste their time so deal with Ben the way you know him/her to be and accept him for what he is...keep the scepticism to yourself and just answer the facts as the facts will speak for themselves one day.

 

I'm saying nothing more about any of this, but come on, let's get on with the show..

 

A1

[sequenci]

Thank you Ben but I do not believe a word you say. Never have done and never will.

You got what with the others you hoped for but remember what you do in this world always comes back to you

I will not reply to any of your posts

You could still be a site team member and work for some one else as they do, look to see who owns CAG and by your actions you have put people out of their homes for that I say thank you

 

Can you follow Andrew1's very sound advice please? Ta.

[IS IT ME?]

I would do but WHERE apple?

[IS IT ME?]

I am unable to contact Bankfolder, can you therefore pass this on.

[sequenci]

I am unable to contact Bankfolder, can you therefore pass this on.

 

Do excuse me, but pass what on?

[IS IT ME?]

request to contact me

[sequenci]

Bankfodder isn't around a great deal at the moment unfortunately. If you're looking for a timely response do consider getting in touch with the Site Team manager: ims21@consumeractiongroup .co.uk

 

(make sure you amend the e-mail address)

 

best wishes,

 

Seq.

[andrew1]

I made a comment once to a very nice lady who would argue with the Pope if she could and I could never shut her up....until one day I didn't argue with her and I said:

 

"I respect your right to your opinion, but I will beg to differ"

 

She remained speechless....

 

Maybe something we can all say perhaps and move on?

 

Come back, all is forgiven....

 

A1

[citizenB]

one of my favourite quotes from Voltaie, A1

 

 

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

 

 

[IS IT ME?]

Any more news about apple coming back?

As i have questions because I have had great news back which will more than stop the lenders dead in their tacks before this goes to the property chamber

[TimetogoRAM]

Any more news about apple coming back?

As i have questions because I have had great news back which will more than stop the lenders dead in their tacks before this goes to the property chamber

 

Hi Isitme.. What's the news?

[applecart]

Hi All

 

Firstly let me humbly thank those of you that have campaigned for Applecart to come back on the CaG...I’m truly honoured .....Thank you ; )

 

For the benefit of doubt, I was not “banned” etc.... no “conspiracy” or anything like that either...., I was simply in two minds as to whether to re-post or not....given that I said I would not comment, would not offer draft presentations or hands on assistance....in response to an untimely post by a CaG member......

 

I found It’s difficult to post ‘comment’ when you say... you will not do so.....LOL

 

Against this, .....All the posts in my brief absence, words of concern and encouragement.... reminded me that I came on this thread to assist Is It Me........I am NOT here to defend the right to do so..

 

Both Is It Me and I are on the same wavelength........and I am happy to work with him and those that are on our wavelength moving forward.....

 

Here are a few quotes I quite like myself by the way:-

 

“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”

― Criss Jami

 

“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

― Robert F. Kennedy

 

I assist Is It Me and others to assert that the DEED is VOID....There remains NO DEFENCE!!!....

 

Applecart ; )

[applecart]

Any more news about apple coming back?

As i have questions because I have had great news back which will more than stop the lenders dead in their tacks before this goes to the property chamber

 

Hey up Is It Me....... ; )

 

Ask away.........???

 

Apple

[p.j]

Hi All

 

Firstly let me humbly thank those of you that have campaigned for Applecart to come back on the CaG...I’m truly honoured .....Thank you ; )

 

For the benefit of doubt, I was not “banned” etc.... no “conspiracy” or anything like that either...., I was simply in two minds as to whether to re-post or not....given that I said I would not comment, would not offer draft presentations or hands on assistance....in response to an untimely post by a CaG member......

 

I found It’s difficult to post ‘comment’ when you say... you will not do so.....LOL

 

Against this, .....All the posts in my brief absence, words of concern and encouragement.... reminded me that I came on this thread to assist Is It Me........I am NOT here to defend the right to do so..

 

Both Is It Me and I are on the same wavelength........and I am happy to work with him and those that are on our wavelength moving forward.....

 

Here are a few quotes I quite like myself by the way:-

 

“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”

― Criss Jami

 

“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

― Robert F. Kennedy

 

I assist Is It Me and others to assert that the DEED is VOID....There remains NO DEFENCE!!!....

 

Applecart ; )

 

nice to see you back Apple

 

pj

[applecart]

nice to see you back Apple

 

pj

 

Thanks P.J

 

We have much work left to do..... ; )

 

Apple

[p.j]

Thanks P.J

 

We have much work left to do..... ; )

 

Apple

 

 

indeed we do Apple keep focused on the road ahead...

 

pj

[marika41]

good to see you back Apple I really hope it was not me mentioning my other issue that caused the problem,I have been worried about your absence I would still appreciate your help with the void deed too