Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[steampowered]

I'm still getting my head around this issue to do with Accenden administering loans when they themselves did not originate the loan.... I am also trying to understand how they managed to secure 'authority' from the FCA to administer loans that they did not 'originate'.....

 

Why is this a problem?

 

I can't see any reason why a lender shouldn't be able to outsource administration of their loan book. I don't see why this would need authority from the regulator or from the borrower.

[applecart]

nope real estate is full up so it says Apple ... ; )

 

pj

 

I think I've managed to evict the adverse possessors - all gone now - lol

 

Apple

[applecart]

Why is this a problem?

 

I can't see any reason why a lender shouldn't be able to outsource administration of their loan book. I don't see why this would need authority from the regulator or from the borrower.

 

Hi Steampowered...

 

Sorry... I wasn't ignoring you.... I had a few things to sort out.....

 

Simply stated...but think of the reality on the ground.......

 

The problem is - the 'mortgage' loan market is heavily regulated....done, so I thought; to protect consumers....yet....If we were to ask a front line staff member of any of these 'outsource' administration companies a simple question like....what does 'TCF' mean?.....or .... can you list the principles of TCF?.......I fear half of them would not have a clue.....worse still; if you ask a staff member of any of these companies....Can you tell me, what does section 23 of the LRA say?....again; I fear....they would not know.....

 

If regulation means that acting as an 'authorised' or 'approved representative'...means you can simply 'tell' front line staff what to 'think', 'say' and how to 'deal' with consumers....in a market that is not only heavily regulated...but also heavily legislated.....then we have 'a problem'....

 

Look at this thread for example.....how long has it taken for us to get the message across that a deed intended to secure indebtedness is supposed to be signed by the Borrower and Executed by the Lender?....

 

How long has it taken to break it down...that an 'approved form of charge'...does not satisfy the formalities of a deed intending to secure an interest in favor of the Lender..?.

 

How long as it taken to break down that a 'mortgage' is not lawful when the estate is registered land?

 

How long will it take for consumers to understand that a FR1 form is used for 'mortgages'?.....and that terms such as 'full title guarantee' and 'charge by way of legal mortgage' do not apply to a registered estate?

 

e.g....at HMLR... you have 'front line' staff members who have no idea that when you see a document with the expressed words to says: 'this, blah blah... and secures further advances'.....you should 'know'...that if you do not enter...'this secures further advances' on the title.....then HMLR are in breach of the LRR 2003?....because....the law actually says the words 'MUST' be entered on the title....yet; few if any actually show these words on any borrowers title....

 

They also have no idea that if the 'absolute proprietor' (borrower) sends them a fee with a UN1 form....that they are supposed to enter the notice.....no questions asked....NOT to seek 'consent' from the 'chargee'...the 'chargee'..... is not the 'Absolute Proprietor'....of any registered estate...

 

So, on the surface...yes you can 'fiine' the company billions of pounds....but, does that change anything??..... Are Barclays not back in the news for fixing rates yet AGAIN??......

 

I bet Barclays will retain their 'authority' and their 'approved representatives' will suffer no harm.....they just carry on as normal.....

 

Accendens are always being discussed on the CaG......they do not have a good reputation.....not on the CaG .... not as far as I can tell?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just so you know...I can see your message...but I am unable to respond : (

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Just a look in will be back later thanks for your comments

[p.j]

Just a look in will be back later thanks for your comments

 

hi is it me hope all is well speak soon.

 

pj

[MUTT1]

Hi ISITME,

 

Good to see you back, hope everything is ok.

[MUTT1]

Hi all,

 

I have been going through my present and past mortgage documents and would like to know if anyone can advise why I have been asked by the various lenders, not to date the Mortgage Deed? The deeds as provided by LR subsequently show a date, why do lenders do this?

 

Also, why are signatures required by both the borrower and lender on the Mortgage Deed, when an entry has been made on the register as an obligation to make further advances? Why such a requirement to sign by both parties specifically in this situation?

 

And, I can find no document from any of my lenders that has been signed by both parties, so what document/s give a lender the legal right to request CMI, interest, legal fees, arrears charges etc? What counts as the contract/agreement as mentioned in the many threatening letters received stating that the contract /agreement has been breached and also certain terms and conditions that allow for the imposition of charges, interest, etc that form part of the said contract/agreement.

[sequenci]

Also, why are signatures required by both the borrower and lender on the Mortgage Deed, when an entry has been made on the register as an obligation to make further advances? Why such a requirement to sign by both parties specifically in this situation?

 

For it to be a 'legal' deed it is a statutory requirement for both signatures to be present as far as I'm aware.

[MUTT1]

Hi sequenci,

 

Thanks for that, yes that's what I understand from the contents of this thread however, HMLR insist in correspondence to me, that only the borrower needs to sign under general terms. As far as it is concerned (HMLR) the only need for both parties to sign the deed is when certain conditions are attached and warrant additional entries onto the register.

 

I still do not understand why the lenders do not want a borrower to date the deed which is then completed at a later date.

 

I am aware of the Registration Gap and other arguments being used, but I still cannot pin down what constitutes a legal contract/agreement.

[MUTT1]

sequencie,

 

Forgot to add, I have written to a number of lenders both past and present and requested that they specifically state what document/s they rely on as a contract/agreement between me and them. And,what do the terms and conditions apply to, is it the mortgage deed or, some other document?

 

A fairly simple request I would have thought and yet none will reply.

[applecart]

Just a look in will be back later thanks for your comments

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Thanks for popping in.....hope you are ok?.....take as much time as you need......but we need you back.....so please come back soon..... ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

For it to be a 'legal' deed it is a statutory requirement for both signatures to be present as far as I'm aware.

 

Hi Sequenci...

 

This is what this thread asserts.... and I know there are many who have reservations as to whether the Chamber will uphold the fact as you've stated above....

 

If it helps....each time I have spoken to the Chamber.....they tend to be appalled at what is coming to light....having said that...it is 'front line' staff I speak to..... so, this does not necessarily mean the Judges have the same opinion of course.....

 

Each time I have spoken to 'front line staff' at HMLR.....they are not appalled at all... they give a completely different impression.......but, again this does not necessarily mean the Judge will uphold their stance either...

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi all,

 

I have been going through my present and past mortgage documents and would like to know if anyone can advise why I have been asked by the various lenders, not to date the Mortgage Deed? The deeds as provided by LR subsequently show a date, why do lenders do this?

 

Your Solicitor will have dated the deed......as a 'certified true copy'.......before sending it off to HMLR.....there is case law to say that just because 'YOU' did not DATE

the deed does not alone cause the deed to be void.....I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of conveyance solicitors are quaking in their boots...thinking that they are likely to come un-stuck on grounds of 'professional negligence'......but, I'm not sure that they should be so worried.....for the RRO removed any onus from them when it removed words to do with the solicitor being liable in any way for simply witnessing the deed or any document signed by a borrower as a deed.....in relation to land....

 

Also, why are signatures required by both the borrower and lender on the Mortgage Deed, when an entry has been made on the register as an obligation to make further advances? Why such a requirement to sign by both parties specifically in this situation?

 

I can only say, this is an anomaly.... created by HMLR (sorry to have to say that).....what they do is they have a different rule for the approved 'form of charge' which is in direct contradiction to the statutory duty to note the register when a further advance is expressed .....and of course the readily and easy way in which the Borrower can tell that the Lender must execute the deed that way......the 'approved form of charge' helps lenders disguise a lot of wrongs as far as I can see....

 

And, I can find no document from any of my lenders that has been signed by both parties, so what document/s give a lender the legal right to request CMI, interest, legal fees, arrears charges etc? What counts as the contract/agreement as mentioned in the many threatening letters received stating that the contract /agreement has been breached and also certain terms and conditions that allow for the imposition of charges, interest, etc that form part of the said contract/agreement.

 

This is the reason why this thread exists.... we are exposing a lot of issues to do with our LR system....Lenders who abuse it...and District Judges who uphold it all.... However, ......it is reliance on due legal process that should get this matter sorted........We are starting to make sure that each and every borrower has access to the correct legislation...and the correct channels to prevent these 'front line' staff members of 'authorised' or 'approved representatives'.....abusing regulations, the law and due process.....

 

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Oh of course, I appreciate that. It's the same story for any courts.

[MUTT1]

Hi apple,

 

Thanks for your reply, in relation to the RRO, because this is not retrospective it does not apply to me. I have tried to pin down HMLR on the wording of "secures further advances" and does this mean that an additional entry should be made onto the register but I am being fobbed off with the response that my questions are of a complex legal nature and as such HMLR cannot comment.

 

I totally agree with your sentiments that HMLR seem to think it has done no wrong and, has also insisted to me that, as an organisation, it is totally impartial.

 

I have a lot more questions to put to HMLR and it will be interesting as to what comes back.

 

MUTT1

[marika41]

Hi, Apple, reading through trying to learn what I need to I have been ignoring anything to do with RRO as my mortgage was before this came into effect but I was wondering with lloyds putting themselves on the register in 2007 would that make a difference in any way or do I carry on ignoring anything to do with RRO?Oh by the way my defence was posted today, I included my other stuff as well though because I have mentioned it in letters before I thought I had better include it all just in case, I split it into clear sections though so hopefully it will not complicate anything but now I can concentrate properly on this issue

[applecart]

Hi apple,

 

Thanks for your reply, in relation to the RRO, because this is not retrospective it does not apply to me. I have tried to pin down HMLR on the wording of "secures further advances" and does this mean that an additional entry should be made onto the register but I am being fobbed off with the response that my questions are of a complex legal nature and as such HMLR cannot comment.

 

I totally agree with your sentiments that HMLR seem to think it has done no wrong and, has also insisted to me that, as an organisation, it is totally impartial.

 

I have a lot more questions to put to HMLR and it will be interesting as to what comes back.

 

MUTT1

 

 

I'm not surprised you are being 'fobbed' off to be honest by HMLR.......however, given that a whole lot of the legislation in regard to ownership and rights and interests in land is their responsibility......and they are supposed to be implemented by them...it is surprising that they cry 'it is of a legal nature.... and as such we cannot comment'........shocking, totally shocking....

 

Essentially, they are saying.... we can allow a lender to take your house safe in the knowledge that we can plead total ignorance......nothing to do with us....ah well, thank goodness..... ignorance is no longer 'bliss'.... : )

 

We are peeling this whole blight on the landscape back like an over ripe banana.....

 

Ask them 0000's of questions.... it is only fair that they respond...

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi, Apple, reading through trying to learn what I need to I have been ignoring anything to do with RRO as my mortgage was before this came into effect but I was wondering with lloyds putting themselves on the register in 2007 would that make a difference in any way or do I carry on ignoring anything to do with RRO?Oh by the way my defence was posted today, I included my other stuff as well though because I have mentioned it in letters before I thought I had better include it all just in case, I split it into clear sections though so hopefully it will not complicate anything but now I can concentrate properly on this issue

 

You raise a good point here Marika....regarding Lloyds..... however, when you read through your defence...and understand it....you should find that anything that Lloyds has done....is subject to your relationship with C & G......to me, that means... if there is no relationship with you and C & G....it is most unlikely that Lloyds can claim any rights to your property...

 

I cannot comment on what else you have decided to include in your defence.....for I did not think it was or should be necessary to include anything more.... but it is prudent for you to way up the pros and cons and apply them in a way that you are comfortable with : )

 

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' approach.... the important thing is that you DEFEND - which you have done..... : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Site Team

 

I have a question....

 

What is the benefit of making a Cagger a 'friend'......can you 'PM' 'Friends'?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi P.J

 

Time is running - the house is full -

 

Apple

[applecart]

Oh of course, I appreciate that. It's the same story for any courts.

 

I apologise for appearing to be stating the obvious... I intended no offence....

 

Apple

[p.j]

Hi P.J

 

Time is running - the house is full -

 

Apple

 

all empty they have been moved out....

 

pj

[marika41]

Hi Apple, yes I agree, just have to wait for the court date now and see what the judge has to say about it, but now I can concentrate on getting my head round all this and get my application into the chamber hopefully with your help I can get it in sooner

[applecart]

all empty they have been moved out....

 

pj

 

Hi PJ

 

There are still too many adverse possessors in the house...... can you evict them please...time is running : )

 

There are some very important people looking to move in...and they will not do so until you remove the adverse possessors ... lol

 

Apple