Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[sequenci]

Sequenci.

Are you talking about the quests?? like the 18 people now?

Surely if they were right then they would join and post no???

 

Most of the guests are just bots.

[sequenci]

Just want to comment on the reference made to interest rate rises becoming a very real possibility. I know for sure that there are many, many people out there that are just about surviving. Any rise in interest rates even by a small amount would, I know, lead to an explosion in repossessions.

 

This is why I feel that this thread is tremendously important, and gives home owners in this situation some glimmer of hope.

 

MUTT1

 

I think having a glimmer of hope is certainly important.

[steampowered]

The Lender has 'gone away'..... who will take the Borrower to court?.....Are you saying that some unknown entity has the lawful right to do so.....some party who was never party to the original loan between the lender and the borrower?

 

Apple

 

In a securitisation structure, the lender never 'existed' in the first place. From the very start the lenders were dedicated special purpose entities with no employees and no assets apart from mortgages.

 

I imagine the mortgage administrator would take the borrower to court acting on behalf of the original lender, or on behalf of the entity to which the original lender has assigned its interest.

 

Generally speaking, debts may be freely assigned without the need to secure the consent of the borrower. The requirements for a legal assignment are set out in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/136, which basically boil down to the assignor having to notify the borrower (there is also a concept of equitable assignment where the debt has been sold but no notice given to the borrower).

 

I don't want to derail this topic too much by talking about assignment, the key point is that a win in the Property Chamber is not necessarily the end of the matter so people need to be prepared for the long slog even if successful.

 

Perhaps you could tell me exactly (no you do not have to be physic) what would be my loan agreement in this instance.

 

The documents are what I actually received when I took out a mortgage with a lender that has become infamous on this site, documents that thousands of other borrowers would have received when taking out a mortgage.

 

1. Mortgage Application Form, signed by me and witnessed.

 

2. Declaration of Consent, signed by me.

 

3. Mortgage offer, no signature required.

 

4. Re-Mortgage Declaration, signed by me and witnessed.

 

5. Mortgage Deed signed by me and witnessed.

 

6. Booklet Lending and Mortgage Conditions.

 

I'd say the loan agreement is all of 1, 2, 3 and 6. These are the documents setting out the terms on which the lender was prepared to offer you a loan, which you accepted by signing them and/or by borrowing money. I'd imagine document 1 refers to the other documents and says something along the lines of you accepting those documents by signing the application form, but this probably isn't strictly necessary so long as all documents were given to you at the time you took out the loan. I don't think there is any legal requirement for the lender to sign any of these documents in order for there to be an enforceable debt.

 

4 is a bit different because that relates to a re-mortgage which would be a separate agreement.

 

5 is a bit different because it is designed to secure the debt rather than set out the terms of the debt. Most of the discussion in this thread and certainly any Property Chamber application only directly concerns the validity of the security, which is document 5.

[sequenci]

It is a fair question to put to a site team member of the CaG.....What do you suggest consumers do?

 

Well I wouldn't suggest they rely on untested arguments, sadly.

 

But, they could:

 

a) look at ways to maximise their income

b) ensure that they concentrate on meeting their priority debts - such as mortgage arrears, council tax, fuel etc.

c) if neccessary look at reduce their non-priority debts to the bare minimum; possibly even token payments

d) explore alternative accomodation where neccessary

 

I'm just not certain trying to argue defective deeds will work, though I would be delighted if it does.

[alisono]

Apple hi

Lender has changed it registered address on 17/04/2012 to pw&c

I actually have copied what is very interesting information registered at companies house from 2006

 

What is a declaration of satisfaction in full or part of a mortgage charge/full/ charge8

[steampowered]

I have been checking out companies house and looking at the parties involved in my lenders dealings.

My lender according to companies house has 19 mortgages 2 outstanding and 17 satisfied.

The SPV who apparently purchased or pooled my mortgage has only 2 outstanding mortgages

The SP who is the trustee had 8 mortgages 2 outstanding.

Does anyone one know what this means are the mortgages pooled so hundreds in them or are they as they say just 2 or 8 mortgages

 

These not mortgages or debts of the underlying borrowers. They are charges granted by the entity which registered them, and not necessarily over land.

 

In the case of the SPV, it will have granted a charge over all of its assets in favour of the trustee (the trustee acts on behalf of the investors, to ensure money flows from the SPV to the investors). I imagine the 2 outstanding charges are a specific charge over the right to receive loan repayments and a general floating charge of all the SPV's assets. If the SPV defaults on its obligations the trustee can use these charges to take control of the SPV.

 

In the case of the trustee or the lender, the registered charges could be anything - security over their property, over shares they own, over their right to receive repayment of debts and so on.

[IS IT ME?]

SEQUENCI,

well your reply does not answer the question yet again.

 

I asked if andrew1 posts was correct here it is again

 

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.

With the greatest of respect, that is not true. CAGicon passed all the details of posters, (including their email addresses) who were investigating and chasing Cabot to their then Chief executive Ken Maynard when he threatened legal action against the site six weeks before telling the individuals concerned they had done so.

 

Whilst recognising that the site is bigger than any one group of poster and legal positions must be protected, it did not make for good relations with those posters who had contributed a significant amount of assistance to fellow caggers en route and they left the site.

 

CAGicon do when cornered and I could see a very heavy resistance building by lenders against the general theme of this discussion here and whilst there is no specific named company target as there was with Cabot and what we were all doing against them, Cag none the less have form for disclosure. Sorry, just ask BankFodder.

 

So there you have it,

Why do I ask,

You keep on at apple for their help in this matter which has done its job, more than the last ones I may add.

There seems to be a one sided attack against what ever apple states yet I have seen NONE addressed to BEN s posts why??

 

If we are wrong in January as Ben said then its up to US what happens or where it goes to then BUT believe me it will NOT end in January.

[IS IT ME?]

Alisono,

what I feel has happened is that the lender has sold it loans 'FULL TITLE GUARANTEE ' and you have an SPV doing the busniess for the bond holders.

Can you say who the lender is??

OR PM?

[alisono]

Apple hi

Lender has changed it registered address on 17/04/2012 to pw&c

I actually have copied what is very interesting information registered at companies house from 2006

 

What is a declaration of satisfaction in full or part of a mortgage charge/full/ charge8

Also DECLARATION THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY/UNDERTAKING :RELEASED/CEASED/PART/CHARGE 16. What does this mean

[alisono]

alisono,

what i feel has happened is that the lender has sold it loans 'full title guarantee ' and you have an spv doing the busniess for the bond holders.

Can you say who the lender is??

Or pm?

 

southern pacific mortgages ltd

[alisono]

Well I have just had my letter from the property chamber.

 

Well, it says that a possession order was made in a case and the tribunal has given notice to strike out the application on the basis that it is an abuse of process to litigate the validity of the charge proceeding before the tribunal.

[citizenB]

Do you mean the possession order is struck out or your application ?

[sequenci]

SEQUENCI,

well your reply does not answer the question yet again.

 

I asked if andrew1 posts was correct here it is again

 

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.

With the greatest of respect, that is not true. CAGicon passed all the details of posters, (including their email addresses) who were investigating and chasing Cabot to their then Chief executive Ken Maynard when he threatened legal action against the site six weeks before telling the individuals concerned they had done so.

 

Whilst recognising that the site is bigger than any one group of poster and legal positions must be protected, it did not make for good relations with those posters who had contributed a significant amount of assistance to fellow caggers en route and they left the site.

 

CAGicon do when cornered and I could see a very heavy resistance building by lenders against the general theme of this discussion here and whilst there is no specific named company target as there was with Cabot and what we were all doing against them, Cag none the less have form for disclosure. Sorry, just ask BankFodder.

 

So there you have it,

Why do I ask,

You keep on at apple for their help in this matter which has done its job, more than the last ones I may add.

There seems to be a one sided attack against what ever apple states yet I have seen NONE addressed to BEN s posts why??

 

If we are wrong in January as Ben said then its up to US what happens or where it goes to then BUT believe me it will NOT end in January.

 

I'm still none the wiser, apologies. What is the precise question which you wish to ask?

 

There seems to be a one sided attack against what ever apple states yet I have seen NONE addressed to BEN s posts why?

 

Because Ben's views generally reinforce what I was taught at Law School and my subsequent training in mortgages and legal practice. If I come across anything that I would like further clarifcation on then I'll ask.

[IS IT ME?]

ALISONO,

er sorry I don't under stand this post,

you sent an application into the chamber, questioning the deed

your application before the chamber has noting to do with the case of possession order,

ITS WEATHER THE LAW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED

can you paste up the reply?

[IS IT ME?]

I'm still none the wiser, apologies. What is the precise question which you wish to ask?

 

Is that post true or not??

[alisono]

Neither at the moment I actually informed the property chamber on the 21st October and the solicitors informed them on the 24th.

The solicitors have asked a few questions saying the property chamber does not have the power to grant what we have asked for in the application that the property chamber has restrictions

On being able to grant declarations. They ask 4 questions on what it appears I am asking to do and the property chamber phase said its point 2 which rectify the registry by removal of said lender

Need to read it in more depth and think of my response back to the property chamber as I applied to them before I net to my first hearing.

Also think the solicitors have jumped the gun as the county court don't say my bring next week so about possession it what I have entered into a defences Nd submitted to property chamber

[alisono]

Ok:

IS IT ME I am wanting to do this discreetly so do I ask the CAG team to let me post to them so they can forward to you?

[sequenci]

I'm still none the wiser, apologies. What is the precise question which you wish to ask?

 

Is that post true or not??

 

I believe it is although I wasn't party to the events, so I'm unsure as to the precise circumstances. What's important to bear in mind (and sorry for going off topic) is that there can be instances where disclosure of information is unavoidable. Although it's a wiki page this will fill you in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_Pharmacal_Order

 

This case is also really important: Smith v ADVFN PLC

 

We all need to be very careful as to what we post (and publish) on internet forums - especailly here in the UK with our ridiculous libel laws.

[citizenB]

Ok:

IS IT ME I am wanting to do this discreetly so do I ask the CAG team to let me post to them so they can forward to you?

 

Alison, are you wanting to email something to a Site team Member, for documents to be forwarded to IsitMe ?

[alisono]

OMG I don't believe what the solicitors have put into the letter to the tribunal.

 

They have said that the District judge declined to make an order to make the defendants continue to making their mortgage payments in the interim period and even suggested they might stop their payments .... OMG THIS IS A BLATANT LIE THE JUDGE NEVER SAID THAT ALL .

 

I AM GOING TO WRITE THEM NOW AND ALSO GOING TO RING THEM UP.

[alisono]

CITIZENB Yes please I want to scan something to IS IT ME only

[Winged Piglet]

steampowered,

 

You keep referring to the "loan agreement" in a number of your posts, suggesting that all of us with a mortgage must have a loan agreement.

 

Perhaps you could tell me exactly (no you do not have to be physic) what would be my loan agreement in this instance.

 

The documents are what I actually received when I took out a mortgage with a lender that has become infamous on this site, documents that thousands of other borrowers would have received when taking out a mortgage.

 

1. Mortgage Application Form, signed by me and witnessed.

 

2. Declaration of Consent, signed by me.

 

3. Mortgage offer, no signature required.

 

4. Re-Mortgage Declaration, signed by me and witnessed.

 

5. Mortgage Deed signed by me and witnessed.

 

6. Booklet Lending and Mortgage Conditions.

 

There you have it, all documents relating to this particular lender (bet other caggers know which one). Not one document signed by the lender.

 

Now, what I want to know, and this is something that my current lender and past lenders seem extremley reluctant to answer, what constitutes to be my loan agreement.

 

Would it be No. 1? Don't think so. Would it be No.2? Don't think so, or perhaps No. 3? Again, don't think so. What about No. 4? No, well No. 5 Then?

 

Or could it be No. 6 the Mortgage Deed that contains the reference to the "Mortgage Conditions"?

 

I really can't understand why I have had no responses to my numerous attempts to get what I consider to be a very simple and straightforward answer. If I have/had a loan agreement, then where is it?

 

It is also interesting that, unlike some other posters on this thread, my letters have never been returned or have received anything with lender gone away so, I really do not see why there is any reason for the lenders in this particular instance not to respond. Unless of course, there never was a legally executed loan agreement.

 

Oh, and by the way, I think this post is highly relevant to this thread.

 

MUTT1

 

Hi Mutt1,

 

Well I have a signed application form and the mortgage was done via a broker (not witnessed and no lenders signature), a mortgage offer not signed by either or any party (which was revised and came the day before completion), and a Deed signed and witnessed by me and OH but no lenders signature on anything whatsoever. I asked both original lender and admin

on behalf of the new 'lender' as securitised, and they refer me to the Deed as the answer, as it refers to the mortgage conditions and on signing I and OH are apparently bound to the terms and conditions of the Mortgage Offer on signing the Deed!

 

Oo just saw a flying piglet!

 

So there is no contract only their - let's make the Deed into a loan agreement/contract stance too - perhaps Lenders are conscious of being environmentally friendly and wanted to save paper lol! ;-)

 

There is no lawful logic - as I have said before if the Deed is masquerading as the underlying Loan Agreement/Contract too then where is the Lender's signature then?

 

There was also the question of how can the administration company for the SPV do everything as though they are the Lender? Power of Attorney (Lender SPV to Administration Co) was their reply? However there is still the further ruse that the SPV is the Lender/owner as in actual reality, the Administtration Co is acting on behalf of the Special Purpose Vehicle SPV (Lender) or Pretender lender as they cannot be FCA regulated and the SPV is acting on behalf of the investors who they sold the rights to the contractual payments to.

 

Steampowered? RESTITUTION? I cannot see court after court saying that's ok Mr Lender silly you forgetting to sign those pesky Deeds and the Loan Agreement was eaten by your dog so you forgot to ask your Borrowers to sign, never mind Mr Borrower, it was a silly mistake and you need to dance to Mr Lender's tune? Really? I just can't see it just because they would want and need it? AND you are forgetting Steampowered, what detriment has the pretender Lender suffered as they had their 'money' back after securitising. So if they claimed a loss then under restitution - where would that leave them then?

 

WP

[citizenB]

CITIZENB Yes please I want to scan something to IS IT ME only

 

Ok, I will provide you with an email address by private message.

[IS IT ME?]

alisono,

SOLICITORS LIE THATS A FACT DO NOT RING THEM YES WRITE TO THEM ONLY THAT WAY YOU HAVE A COPY

[IS IT ME?]

wp

HOW CORRECT YOU ARE!

No wait some one will be along in a mo and say your not lol

 

Alisono please wait before you send any thing!