Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[p.j]

Hi Apple,

testing one two three yes got it lol

'What are your thoughts on 'petitions'? well I think no feel that there is some ground in this as by the count here some 90,000 views and that there are many many people who are fighting for there homes here.

And what are the government doing, nothing because if they did then they would not have a nice little directorship to go to when they are no longer an MP.

So its up to the little ordinary man on the street you and me to do some thing about it so petitions yes. A BIG YES to let the rest know what is going on.

 

Hi IS IT ME

 

A petition is the way forward your right..

 

speak soon its been a while..

 

pj.

[IS IT ME?]

I rember it was Tony Bair who was going to take action against the sub prime lenders before he was prime minster but as I said they do nothing because were do they end up???

[p.j]

over 92,000 views i guess the word is spreading fast....keep the word spreading...

[IS IT ME?]

Hi

well 90,000 people can't be wrong can they??? lol

[p.j]

Hi

well 90,000 people can't be wrong can they??? lol

 

your damn right IS IT ME lol

[andrew1]

Hi Mutti

 

There is no doubt that a lender must execute the deed regardless of whether he intends to make further advances or not.....of that there is no issue....

 

However, there is legislation that says that if the Lender wishes or intends to make further advances (offer more money to the borrower during the term of the loan) then in order to keep his 'priority' on the title register...ahead of other potential lenders that the borrower has the right to approach for further borrowings.... then the lenders intent to do so must be stated on the title register....

 

LRR 2003 provides that when a lender expresses an intent to make further advances - then HMLR MUST note the lenders intent on the title.....you can gauge that back in the 90's......there was no issue.... HMLR were noting the titles......however...in recent times; they appear to have relied on the 'approved form of charge'...as the 'answer' and 'remedy' to all things securing any lender or borrower obligations......

 

The 'further advances' are intended to be made to the borrower...not to anyone else.

 

It is the Borrowers title....not anyone else's.

 

I won't quote chapter and verse.....because the info is already on this thread.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

 

Ah ha, thanks apple, I think the penny has dropped (It takes a while!)

 

On my 1989 Title deed, where it says "This Mortgage is made for securing further advances" (and is unsigned by the bank), this has only been included to secure any further advances provided by the mortgaging bank before any other 2nd or subsequent charges, irrespective of whether there are 2nd charges throughout the term?

 

So, If I had a mtg in 1989, took a loan from another lender in 2006 who registered a 2nd charge, but the mortgaging bank provided a further advance in 2007, then that 2007 loan would still be secured by the 1st charge and took precedence when the mortgage was redeemed in say 2009 over any 2nd or subsequent charges....?

 

And that's why it's been included on the Title deed.

 

And you (or Ben maybe) are saying it (The title deed) doesn't need to be signed?

 

Have I got that right?

 

 

I haven't yet got a copy of the Official copy of the Register from the LR, but the one I do have says nothing about Further Advances on it, just the bank name and address as 1st charge and the 2nd charge loan - would that be right too?

A1

Edited November 4, 2013 by andrew1

[bhall]

Hello Andrew1

 

This might help to explain more about what I previously said about tacking.

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7ZcTb0Z_OHQC&pg=RA6-PA779&lpg=RA6-PA779&dq=Tacking+further+advance&source=bl&ots=Hm-GqiattI&sig=DMxbcCVctyrYo8HLqtUEV51iLHc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=51d2UqTXBeO1iwLdh4HgAg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited November 3, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

For mortgage deeds executed by a borrower after LRA 2002 -

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/49

 

49 Tacking and further advances

 

(1)The proprietor of a registered charge may make a further advance on the security of the charge ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if he has not received from the subsequent chargee notice of the creation of the subsequent charge.

(2)Notice given for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be treated as received at the time when, in accordance with rules, it ought to have been received.

(3)The proprietor of a registered charge may also make a further advance on the security of the charge ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if—

(a)the advance is made in pursuance of an obligation, and

(b)at the time of the creation of the subsequent charge the obligation was entered in the register in accordance with rules.

(4)The proprietor of a registered charge may also make a further advance on the security of the charge ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if—

(a)the parties to the prior charge have agreed a maximum amount for which the charge is security, and

(b)at the time of the creation of the subsequent charge the agreement was entered in the register in accordance with rules.

(5)Rules may—

(a)disapply subsection (4) in relation to charges of a description specified in the rules, or

(b)provide for the application of that subsection to be subject, in the case of charges of a description so specified, to compliance with such conditions as may be so specified.

(6)Except as provided by this section, tacking in relation to a charge over registered land is only possible with the agreement of the subsequent chargee.

 

49(3)(a) - if a mortgage deed states that there is an obligation to provide a further advance.

 

If a mortgage deed only states that it secures further advances, that is not an obligation.

[NodNodWinkWink]

Hello IS IT ME?

 

I am very impressed by your thread and I got here because of p.j and his recent posting on my thread (No reference made to this thread - just a good sound sensible cagger).

 

I do have some experiance as a lay person in dealings with LRA and LPA Act 1925 and I would like to know at what stage you are at in this on going saga .....

 

HOWEVER>>>>>>>>>>..

 

We do have a wee problem and that is I do not have the time to read and sort over 2,800 posts within your mammoth response of 140 Pages !

 

THEREFORE, IS IT POSSIBLE >>>>>>>>>>>

 

For you to put together a precis on your current situation in a posting that is linked to a page that holds the posting.

 

Here is what I mean - BELOW IS THE LINK TO THIS PAGE WHICH IS PART OF YOUR SIGNATURE ?! :-)

 

I am ALMOST 100 % CERTAIN it would help you and other members wishing to help you:-

 

NNWW - Keep up the good work and keep smiling away :-)

 

PS- Just seen the next posting from bhall - seems you are in good safe hands - Brilliant stuff - No need to respond to me IS IT ME :-)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed/page140

Edited November 3, 2013 by citizenB

[bhall]

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

 

In UNRAM's response from the Property Chamber it gave him a date of (I think, as I can't find the post at the moment) of 7 November to make a submission. If you can contact UNRAM it might be helpful to him if you share with him the 'great news' that will stop the lenders dead in their tracks before it goes to the property chamber.

 

As he has already been informed he will incur costs, your 'great news' might resolve the costs issue for him too.

[bhall]

Just found UNRAM's post

 

I have received notice from the Property Chamber my application is going forward and I have been ORDERED to send a copy of the application and all supporting documentation to the lender. The lender is ORDERED to respond within one calendar month. I will scan the documents if there is some way of getting them to you.

 

They have indicated that there is going to be a group tribunal in London in November or December.

 

This is exact wording of the reply...

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

[IS IT ME?]

bhall,

As I have said I have no wish to reply to your postings so I will not, just to say your a waste of time so go and complain to the site team like you always do.

[IS IT ME?]

UNIRAM,

 

Your post I shall answer,

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

 

I shall take it up with the chamber as to why the 'internet' is such a bad place?

An Oral hearing is to take place can any one tell me what I am going to say? no so for the likes of silly Ben to say its all bad is just what he wants and his lender friends

As for costs THEY HAVE GOT TO WIN FIRST BEN AND THEY ARE FAR FROM THAT LOL AS WHY ARE YOU AND THEM SO WORRIED!

Er the tribunal has the power to change the register

As you are putting in your application by the 7th SUBJECT TO ANY REPRESENTATIONS er I think that it means it could or it could not.

 

All I will say for all of those watching this thread I am more than ever looking forward to this hearing and the last couple of days have shown me what some people will do to put others of for there owns means.

This thread is 1000 and 1 % correct I know it the lenders know it that's why all their responses so far have been as they are and they have a top ' legal team looking into it' as OL their legal people did not want to take it on.

So bring it on

[bhall]

bhall,

As I have said I have no wish to reply to your postings so I will not, just to say your a waste of time so go and complain to the site team like you always do.

 

I am not asking you to reply to me.

 

I was suggesting given that UNRAM has only a few more days, that you help him, as you have 'great news' to stop the lenders dead in their tracks before it gets to the property chamber.

 

The information that you have might also help with his argument with his lender about the costs that they have told him, he will have to pay.

[IS IT ME?]

If you think for one moment I am going to give YOU any information so you can pass it onto your bosses you are more silly than I thought.

 

As I said 'THEY HAVE TO WIN WIN THERE CASE BEFORE ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL CAN GRANT COSTS.

[applecart]

Ah ha, thanks apple, I think the penny has dropped (It takes a while!)

 

On my 1989 Title deed, where it says "This Mortgage is made for securing further advances" (and is unsigned by the bank), this has only been included to secure any further advances provided by the mortgaging bank before any other 2nd or subsequent charges, irrespective of whether there are 2nd charges throughout the term?

 

So, If I had a mtg in 1989, took a loan from another lender in 2006 who registered a 2nd charge, but the mortgaging bank provided a further advance in 2007, then that 2007 loan would still be secured by the 1st charge and took precedence when the mortgage was redeemed in say 2009 over any 2nd or subsequent charges....?

 

And that's why it's been included on the Title deed.

 

Any you're (or Ben maybe) are saying it (The title deed) doesn't need to be signed?

 

Have I got that right?

 

 

I haven't yet got a copy of the Official copy of the Register from the LR, but the one I do have says nothing about Further Advances on it, just the bank name and address as 1st charge and the 2nd charge loan - would that be right too?

A1

 

This thread as you know asserts that the Deed must be executed by the Lender regardless as to whether the 'deed' looks to secure further advances or not......such reliance is enshrined in statute...so, for that ...there is no issue....

 

Ben, kindly provided for us the understanding that when a 'further advance' is expressed as party to the 'deed' that the Lender must execute the 'deed'...albeit latterly, (as expected) there are attempts made to muddy his initial submission..... we do not worry about this 'attempt' for there is statute to show that whatever or however anyone may try to make out that there is no need for a lender to execute the deed..... it would be tantamount to an attempt only to circumvent the law....clearly.....that will/should not be allowed to happen ; )

 

I'm pleased that the 'penny' has 'dropped' for you.......it will assist you make more sense of all things 'mortgage' .... as it does for me and many others ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

If you think for one moment I am going to give YOU any information so you can pass it onto your bosses you are more silly than I thought.

 

As I said 'THEY HAVE TO WIN WIN THERE CASE BEFORE ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL CAN GRANT COSTS.

 

WELL SAID...... your focus is brilliant...... ; )

 

Just need to get other borrowers to where we are.......

 

I realise just as you have.....propositions are being posted...they are looking for 'loopholes'..... regrettably...there are none...

 

The DEED IS VOID......There is no reliance on 'specific performance' either....so.....NO DEFENCE!

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me, P.J... others....

 

What are your thoughts on 'e-petitions'?

 

I think they are fast...to the point...... and delivered direct to parliament.....any thoughts??

 

Apple

[p.j]

Hi Is It Me, P.J... others....

 

What are your thoughts on 'e-petitions'?

 

I think they are fast...to the point...... and delivered direct to parliament.....any thoughts??

 

 

 

Apple

 

 

Hi Apple

 

I say lets get it sorted ASAP as 92000+ views on this thread shows the word is spreading fast some media exposure would certainly help in bringing the sub prime lenders to TASK..what should of happened along time ago.if it wasn't for is it me starting this thread and Apple pointing and assisting in what as to be done they would still be getting away with their underhanded tactics to repo your home.

 

 

pj.

[applecart]

Here is a link to information on 'e-petitions'....

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

 

Give it some thought.... lets' discuss whether this additional 'action' will assist us - right now - at this point??

 

Apple

[applecart]

I rember it was Tony Bair who was going to take action against the sub prime lenders before he was prime minster but as I said they do nothing because were do they end up???

 

Yes, it was during the Labour governments term that the RRO came into existence....Lord Irvin was 'labour'.......a close associate of Tony Blair......

 

The issue of course was .....even though Lord Irvin brought the RRO into force.....it appears to be have totally ignored....swept under the carpet.....to the detriment of consumers....alongwith the LRA 1925 section 25 by the way.....ummmm??

 

I think an e-petition may assist the current government re-call that both the LRA 1925 s.25 and the RRO are in force??

 

Thoughts??

 

Apple

[honeybee13]

bhall,

As I have said I have no wish to reply to your postings so I will not, just to say your a waste of time so go and complain to the site team like you always do.

 

Hello Isitme.

 

If you don't want to read what bhall says, you could just put him/her on your ignore list.

 

HB

[bhall]

I am sorry if you consider posts such as the below to be a waste.

 

Think of it as an opportunity to consider a potential argument before the hearing is heard.

 

 

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.

 

Forewarned is forearmed.

Edited November 4, 2013 by bhall

[chris0147]

@HB: I have sent you a PM, did you get them??

[applecart]

@HB: I have sent you a PM, did you get them??

 

 

9 posts....and you have PM facility Chris0147........please expand....how did you manage that??

 

Apple