Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[TimetogoRAM]

Why do you feel your argument is any different?

 

I don't - I merely agree with the arguments on this thread. Until my lender comes up with a signed contract agreement I am sticking by what is the opinion of many on this thread. I have no contract and I have an unsigned mortgage deed.

[alisono]

apple,

 

Just a quick question, as you say, the borrower has not sold any land/property to the lender but, allows the lender to secure the debt by way of a legal charge on the borrowers estate.

 

For the lender to take any action against the borrower if default of the loan occurs, it relies on the mortgage conditions that allows such action to be taken. This includes repossession. Without the conditions specifying that the lender now has the opportunity to take the borrowers land/ property, then surely repossession cannot take place.

 

The Mortgage Conditions on their own cannot be considered to be the contract/loan agreement, there must be another document that refers to the said conditions, the two together would form the contract/loan agreement would it not?

 

The only document that I have ever had in several mortgages that contains any reference to the Mortgage Conditions is the Mortgage Deed.

 

If, as I see it, that it is the Mortgage Conditions and only the Mortgage Conditions that gives a lender the right to repossess a property, should there not be more significance to this point in this discussion?

 

I have tried umpteen times to get a lender to disclose to me what is considered to be the contract/loan agreement but none will.

 

I know that you are trying to steer us away from the contract side of things but, it is my opinion (and only mine) that this point should be given greater consideration along with the deed being signed by both parties.

 

I may have this all wrong so perhaps you could advise?

 

MUTT1

Hi Mutti,

 

Today I have asked the old Solicitor as the broker I used has disappeared for a full copy of all my mortgage informaiton and file from 2007. They have told me it's archived but will get it for me.

 

I have a copy of the terms and conditions booklet it refers to I kept these.

What I cant lay my hands on is any signatures from SPML on any documents I have.

Also surely if my mortgage has been sold on or pooled then said terms and conditions should be void as I owe no debt to SPML, why have these remained in situe, Acenden have told me they cant change any of my T's & C's only my lender can do this, well my lender has no staff so why are my charges etc... being changed each year??? The mortgage adminstrator has no right to change my charges... also my mortgage adminstrator keeps signing my letters on behalf of the London Mortagae Company Ltd... this company was dissolved in 2012.

 

I owe the money yes but wouldnt OFT or FCA not see this as who owns the debt and whom Iam actually paying need to give me new t's & C's as this is an un- fair practice and I may be impeded or imposed on things by a party who I owe now nothing too?

Mortgage Adminstrator have told me in a letter 30th August SPML have just kept hold of the legal title at the Land registy. Legal Title they dont own my legal title do they??? I thought I had title absolute they just had a charge and a restriction. No they put on Proprietor on the Land registry in the charges they are not ta

I would argue that when they gave me a mortgage and money anyway it was for 80% value of my home not all of it, why should they get the full legal title that not's fair.

you wont get anything from the Lender as the Mortgage Adminstrtors plays the card we only dealt with these matters from Nov 2009. When I asked for the arrrears information and what they send to the court is from Nov 2009, my 6k over charges are from 2008.

 

I think I am going to Serve SPML @ PW&Cooper's registered office an SAR and see if they comply.

[applecart]

Yes I beleive it could be, don't you?

 

Sorry Sequenci I thought I answered you before.....to repeat and extend that answer..........I don't see that a decision from an un-reported case sets any precedent.... as I understand it.....the decision was made upon appeal to a circuit Judge.....but, please correct me there if you can show me to be incorrect on that point.....

 

The Decision by the Chamber said to 'strike out' the 'lamb' application can be appealed....they just need to follow the Tribunal Rules... and frame their argument differently I would have thought in the event it can be confirmed that it was a circuit Judge who decided the matter in a county court..... The Chamber has wider case management powers......did you get time to listen to the 'podcast'....

 

But,, as I say...correct me if you consider I am not on point here?

 

Apple

[alisono]

I have had another letter from Property Chamber today.

 

A copy response to the Lenders Solicitors letter, saying they are not striking my application out as they havent received notice that the DJ or Court has given them a possession order.

They have asked tem to confirm te position and said they have copied me in

[MUTT1]

Hi apple,

 

Thanks for your response, I also agree that there does not seem to be a contract in existence. What I now need is clarification as to what document/s gives the lender specific rights to repossess the property.? Is this the Mortgage Deed and only the Mortgage Deed?

 

MUTT1

[applecart]

I have had another letter from Property Chamber today.

 

A copy response to the Lenders Solicitors letter, saying they are not striking my application out as they havent received notice that the DJ or Court has given them a possession order.

They have asked tem to confirm te position and said they have copied me in

 

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Brilliant...stay with us on this..... we simply must get this e-petition out.....

 

Apple

 

Hi Alisono...and ALL...

 

Here is the re-drafted e-petition.....please...again... constructive comments please? ; )

 

This e-petition concerns the growing public concern that finds that Lenders have not signed the ‘mortgage’ deed.

 

There is also a finding that there is no statutory power for any Borrower to sign a document that purports to grant any lender a ‘mortgage’ of any registered estate in the UK.

 

Alarmingly; according to Shelter; (BBC News, 4th Nov 2013) there are some 82,000 families with children who are living in boarding accommodation due to the repossession of their homes by lenders who have not signed the ‘mortgage deed’

 

If interest rates go up, many more families and children homes will be repossessed despite the fact that the lender has not signed the ‘mortgage deed’.

 

The Law say that a Deed must be signed by a lender before an order for possession of any families home can be said to be lawful.

 

Please sign this e-petition to assist us to call upon the Attorney General to help us cause all members of the Judiciary to act in the interest of Borrowers to ensure that they do not grant possession of any borrowers home when a ‘mortgage deed’ has not been signed by the Lender when the home is a registered estate.

 

 

If the above draft is acceptable........ Then Alisono...can I rely that you will assist us to get this set up properly please?

 

Apple

[steampowered]

Agreed that if a deed was void then you couldn't but Surely if a contract/agreement is void then I'd ave thought you can?

SP - that honestly does not make sense. So you're saying there's absolutely no onus whatsoever for a lender to sign anything for there to be a binding contract agreement between two parties. Where's the fairness in that? All loan/car/credit card agreements all have a lenders signature before we sign

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. English law does not impose any requirement for contracts to be signed. Its a bit fictitious to say you took the money but somehow didn't agree to the loan - I doubt you thought they were buying your house as a gift.

 

Not sure you are correct to say that loan/car/card agreements need lender's signature. I've never seen a lender's signature when applying for a credit card. You fill in an application form, sign it, send it to them and get a card in the post.

 

You mentioned it in s2 LPMPA - *]A contract for the disposition of an interest in land is covered by s2 LPMPA 1989 and requires the signature of both parties?.. Surely a mortgage agreement should come under category 2?

 

The case posted by applecart earlier explains that a mortgage deed is an actual disposition, not a contract for a (future) disposition.

[sequenci]

Sorry Sequenci I thought I answered you before.....to repeat and extend that answer..........I don't see that a decision from an un-reported case sets any precedent.... as I understand it.....the decision was made upon appeal to a circuit Judge.....but, please correct me there if you can show me to be incorrect on that point.....

 

Think about it. They are sending out to people information in relation to the judgment, surely this is likely to mean that the judges are all aware of that particular case and, of course, all of those referred to it. It's going to hold a degree of substance, no? All the cases, commentary and opinion I've come across seems to indicate that non-signing of the deed isn't going to be of great importance - and that there are measures to circumvent the need anyway. I'm still pretty sure that an equitable mortgage can exist - though I appreciate you do not.

 

There is no way on earth that the courts are going to render millions of mortgages void, and even if so what do you thgink lenders are going to do if the loans all of a sudden become unsecured? I just can't see it. Think about the public policy aspect that the courts will no doubt consider also?

 

The Decision by the Chamber said to 'strike out' the 'lamb' application can be appealed....they just need to follow the Tribunal Rules... and frame their argument differently I would have thought in the event it can be confirmed that it was a circuit Judge who decided the matter in a county court..... The Chamber has wider case management powers......did you get time to listen to the 'podcast'....

 

But,, as I say...correct me if you consider I am not on point here?

 

Apple

 

I've not had time to do a great deal, I've *so* much on elsewhere. I would like to get around it. I'm interested in all this from an academic perspective, and I support you guys for having your thread. I think that it's necessary to be objective, though. Consider all angles. Here's a question for you: *why* would a court agree with you?

 

I'm not trying to be a pain, as I say I find this all incredibly fascinating - and in addition to that, it's been one of the best threads on CAG for years. Fact.

[sequenci]

Not sure you are correct to say that loan/car/card agreements need lender's signature. I've never seen a lender's signature when applying for a credit card. You fill in an application form, sign it, send it to them and get a card in the post.

 

It has always been the case that for CCA regulated agreements a card/loan unsigned by a lender can be enforced with leave of the court.

[applecart]

Hi apple,

 

Thanks for your response, I also agree that there does not seem to be a contract in existence. What I now need is clarification as to what document/s gives the lender specific rights to repossess the property.? Is this the Mortgage Deed and only the Mortgage Deed?

 

MUTT1

 

The lender uses the 'approved form of charge' to give notice to the world at large (HMLR are the keeper of the public register) that he has given you some money.....HMLR rely that the 'approved form of charge' meets their criteria....to HMLR... for all intent and purpose....the 'approved form of charge'...having been found by staff at HMLR that it meets their criteria.... will enter a charge on the register in the lenders name on your title.

 

HMLR are also give effect to any other information that the approved form of charge expressly states...e.g when they are looking to give legal effect to words like 'FULL TITLE GUARANTEE.....they will check for terms that relate to a 'restriction'.....and 'charge by way of legal mortgage'.......

 

They effect all of the above by.....entering a note of the 'restriction' in the Proprietorship section of the title.....and referring to the lender as the 'Proprietor of the Charge' in the charges section......and so on....

 

The above depicts a 'mortgage'.....which essentially means you have given all your power to the Lender (briefly stated)

 

This is not what should happen.....

 

All that should be in evidence on the title is a 'notice' in the charges section showing your Lender as the party with an interest to secure indebtedness (the Loan) stating the amount of the money secured. If there is an obligation to make further advances..that too can be entered here too.

 

There should be no 'restriction' in the Proprietorship section at all......

 

So, in answer to your question.....

 

The Title Register.....is supposed to be a mirror of the underlying 'agreement'.....it does not 'guarantee' the validity of any underlying 'agreement'.....in your case.... that underlying 'agreement' is the DEED......

 

If the DEED is void.... then there is no right to possession.....for the charge entered on the title in favor of the lender is not 'conclusive'.....it is subject to the validity of the DEED....see section 32 LRA 2002....

 

explanatory notes of which state:

 

Section 32: Nature and effect

 

75.This section explains that a notice is an entry, made in the register, in respect of the burden of a third party’s interest. The entry is to be made against the registered estate or registered charge that is said to be burdened. As under the Land Registration Act 1925, if the interest is not valid (for example, if parties had entered into an agreement that was not a valid contract) the entry of a notice will not validate it.

 

For Loans before the LRA 2002....

 

see the LRA 1925 section 25 posted earlier on in this thread.

 

Therefore contrary to the lenders mistaken belief that an official copy of the title register is enough to secure possession of any borrowers home.......the truth is that ..... If there is no valid deed... there is no security..... it is the deed that is the document that needs to be valid to secure a right to possession..... not the title document.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Think about it. They are sending out to people information in relation to the judgment, surely this is likely to mean that the judges are all aware of that particular case and, of course, all of those referred to it. It's going to hold a degree of substance, no? All the cases, commentary and opinion I've come across seems to indicate that non-signing of the deed isn't going to be of great importance - and that there are measures to circumvent the need anyway. I'm still pretty sure that an equitable mortgage can exist - though I appreciate you do not.

 

There is no way on earth that the courts are going to render millions of mortgages void, and even if so what do you thgink lenders are going to do if the loans all of a sudden become unsecured? I just can't see it. Think about the public policy aspect that the courts will no doubt consider also?

 

I've not had time to do a great deal, I've *so* much on elsewhere. I would like to get around it. I'm interested in all this from an academic perspective, and I support you guys for having your thread. I think that it's necessary to be objective, though. Consider all angles. Here's a question for you: *why* would a court agree with you?

 

I'm not trying to be a pain, as I say I find this all incredibly fascinating - and in addition to that, it's been one of the best threads on CAG for years. Fact.

 

I asked that you come back to me if you found that the 'lamb' case went to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice.....it is at that stage that a matter is considered 'FINAL'......until then....the matter remains open......by way of appeal...to the Tribunal via those procedures......

 

They need only seek further permission to make a claim...or to appeal.....whichsoever is the appropriate route.....(again; if you think I am wrong on this point, please advise?)

 

With respect the question you ask....is one that is before the Chamber to answer.....There is every reason for the Chamber to find that we are right..... The Law tells us...THE DEED IS VOID....we are simply waiting for the Chamber to assist us implement the LAW.

 

Thank you for your kind comments in regard to Is It Me's friends thread..... It is rather interesting isn't it.....??

 

Now, what are your thoughts on the e-petition??

 

Apple

[applecart]

It has always been the case that for CCA regulated agreements a card/loan unsigned by a lender can be enforced with leave of the court.

 

eeeeerrrrm....................Not that this thread is to do with Credit Cards......Once you sign it and send it back SP.....they are supposed to countersign and send you that 'final' copy......with the card.... there is also supposed to be a 'cooling off' period.......that's the way the CCA works in relation to any agreement regulated under the CCA 1974.

 

But, like I say, this thread is not to do with CC's or the CCA 1974.....

 

I mean no offence guys.....but.....Can we keep the thread on point please.....?

 

Apple

[alisono]

Hi Alisono...and ALL...

 

Here is the re-drafted e-petition.....please...again... constructive comments please? ; )

 

This e-petition concerns the growing public concern that finds that Lenders have not signed the ‘mortgage’ deed.

 

There is also a finding that there is no statutory power for any Borrower to sign a document that purports to grant any lender a ‘mortgage’ of any registered estate in the UK.

 

Alarmingly; according to Shelter; (BBC News, 4th Nov 2013) there are some 82,000 families with children who are living in boarding accommodation due to the repossession of their homes by lenders who have not signed the ‘mortgage deed’

 

If interest rates go up, many more families and children homes will be repossessed despite the fact that the lender has not signed the ‘mortgage deed’.

 

The Law say that a Deed must be signed by a lender before an order for possession of any families home can be said to be lawful.

 

Please sign this e-petition to assist us to call upon the Attorney General to help us cause all members of the Judiciary to act in the interest of Borrowers to ensure that they do not grant possession of any borrowers home when a ‘mortgage deed’ has not been signed by the Lender when the home is a registered estate.

 

 

If the above draft is acceptable........ Then Alisono...can I rely that you will assist us to get this set up properly please?

 

Apple

Yes you can rely on me, let me know anything you want me to do and I will look at the ways of social media and support

[sequenci]

I asked that you come back to me if you found that the 'lamb' case went to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice.....it is at that stage that a matter is considered 'FINAL'......until then....the matter remains open......by way of appeal...to the Tribunal via those procedures......

 

They need only seek further permission to make a claim...or to appeal.....whichsoever is the appropriate route.....(again; if you think I am wrong on this point, please advise?)

 

With respect the question you ask....is one that is before the Chamber to answer.....There is every reason for the Chamber to find that we are right..... The Law tells us...THE DEED IS VOID....we are simply waiting for the Chamber to assist us implement the LAW.

 

Your understanding of the hierarchy of the court system is absolutely right. That wasn't really what I was getting at. My query is this: Why would a court override several previous decisions that have all stated that a deed which has not been signed by the lender can be enforced. Those cases have found ways to circumvent the 'law' as you see it, or at least intepret the law in a different way to give effect to the mortgage being enforceable.

Thank you for your kind comments in regard to Is It Me's friends thread..... It is rather interesting isn't it.....??

 

Now, what are your thoughts on the e-petition??

 

Apple

 

I think an e-petition would be a great idea once you've managed to demonstrate that your ideas hold substance. At the moment they are simply ideas. And there is nothing wrong with having those, not at all. I think that in order to have momentum you may need to have decisions found in your favour to get the ball rolling, so to speak? Put it this way, *if* your ideas are right you would have single-handedly kick-started the biggest financial fiasco since Black Monday.

[MUTT1]

Hi apple,

 

Once again thanks for the response, the new version of the e-petition is (in my opinion) much, much, better. Spot on in fact.

 

MUTT1

[p.j]

Hi apple,

 

Once again thanks for the response, the new version of the e-petition is (in my opinion) much, much, better. Spot on in fact.

 

MUTT1

 

 

yep i second that...

 

pj

[IS IT ME?]

Apple,

Yes firstly the e petition is OK so go ahead.

I do not know why the chamber have sent these Lamb papers out and when asked they do not know who signed to say send them out very strange

 

Sequenci,

You are very well aware of how the contracts needed to be signed by the credit companies and if they are not then there is no debt to them.

I see by your posts you are not happy with this going forward to the chamber and finding out who is right.

The Law is the Law and its HOW the judges interpret it that is the question if you read the Lamb case it is NOT the same as mine so why the chamber has sent this out I do not know,

BUT I will tell you now it will NOT stop at the chamber if needs to go to appeal then it Will.

[applecart]

Your understanding of the hierarchy of the court system is absolutely right. That wasn't really what I was getting at. My query is this: Why would a court override several previous decisions that have all stated that a deed which has not been signed by the lender can be enforced. Those cases have found ways to circumvent the 'law' as you see it, or at least intepret the law in a different way to give effect to the mortgage being enforceable.

 

We are not asking the court to consider those cases....in fact as far as I can tell from recent posts....non of those cases are being relied upon in the responses that we know of so far....apart from....more recently the un-reported' case of 'lamb'......Why?.....I've yet to understand ...so; cannot truly comment on it.... but clearly, it makes sense to look at it more closely.....From what I know about the 'lamb' case...there was no reliance on section 1 (as amended) and no reliance on the RRO 2005....but, these are just my immediate observations......When we went up against a particular franchise of LBL...they too boasted that they had never been 'defeated'....every case had been decided in their favor.....they boldy sent a number of cases that they had won into court to persuade the Judge to follow each and every other Judge....it was an intimidating, tactical and challenging them.....I remained as focused then as I am now.....We won.....We intend to win this case too.....like in LBL...it was the LAW that prevailed NOT the fact that they had won hundreds of cases prior to the claims we brought against them......The Law...will do the same for us now as it did then....if we have not framed our argument correctly, we will amend and re-frame - and appeal as and if necessary....

 

I think an e-petition would be a great idea once you've managed to demonstrate that your ideas hold substance. At the moment they are simply ideas. And there is nothing wrong with having those, not at all. I think that in order to have momentum you may need to have decisions found in your favour to get the ball rolling, so to speak? Put it this way, *if* your ideas are right you would have single-handedly kick-started the biggest financial fiasco since Black Monday.

 

Thank you for this Sequenci....let me say, it is not my intent to 'kick start the biggest financial fiasco since Black Monday'....However, If such a 'fiasco' should occur...then that would not be down to ME......that would be down to the Legislators intent......The RRO says it looks to strike a fair balance between the parties to documents and deeds.....I have simply brought that which the legislator says to the CaG.....they are not my words; they are his.......

so 'if' the ideas as you call them...are right.....then it means the Legislators intent is in force over and above that of any Lender who has sought to circumvent his LAW

 

 

Likewise, I thank you for your comments in relation to the e-petition......the reason I feel it necessary to move it forward is this:.....I believe that all members of parliament, whether they be Conservative - Labour - Liberal or otherwise will get the opportunity to review its content and to consider that which the Law says in relation to the allegations made as founded on Law....It may be that members of the Labour Government will get opportunity to look at what Lord Irvin enforced by way of the RRO 2005.....I think it is in the interest of all Borrowers to put ALL members of parliament on notice that we are trying to get the coalition to enforce and implement the RRO that was brought into force under a labour government.....the sooner they become aware of it..we will see just which government deserves the vote of millions of borrowers....we will see which government truly has the interest of Borrowers who are after all the very people the represent......Borrowers want to stay in thier homes....they do not want to live in board and lodging......this is fixable.... we call upon the to fix it by any means possible.....

 

For that reason.....I say.... we move it forward regardless of what any decisions of the Chamber makes...... in fact.....right now; where Caggers are reporting that they are being sent a copy of 'lamb'......I think it is imperative that the e-petition get out long before other cases are struck out by the Chamber...... Just MY Thoughts....but others may think differently....I await further comments......

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Sequenci,

You are very well aware of how the contracts needed to be signed by the credit companies and if they are not then there is no debt to them.

That's generally not the case to be honest with you.

I see by your posts you are not happy with this going forward to the chamber and finding out who is right

That's actually not the case either.

The Law is the Law and its HOW the judges interpret it that is the question if you read the Lamb case it is NOT the same as mine so why the chamber has sent this out I do not know,

BUT I will tell you now it will NOT stop at the chamber if needs to go to appeal then it Will.

 

Are you representing yourself?

[sequenci]

Thank you for this Sequenci....let me say, it is not my intent to 'kick start the biggest financial fiasco since Black Monday'....However, If such a 'fiasco' should occur...then that would not be down to ME......that would be down to the Legislators intent......The RRO says it looks to strike a fair balance between the parties to documents and deeds.....I have simply brought that which the legislator says to the CaG.....they are not my words; they are his.......

so 'if' the ideas as you call them...are right.....then it means the Legislators intent is in force over and above that of any Lender who has sought to circumvent his LAW

 

I understand that. Absolutely.

 

Likewise, I thank you for your comments in relation to the e-petition......the reason I feel it necessary to move it forward is this:.....I believe that all members of parliament, whether they be Conservative - Labour - Liberal or otherwise will get the opportunity to review its content and to consider that which the Law says in relation to the allegations made as founded on Law....It may be that members of the Labour Government will get opportunity to look at what Lord Irvin enforced by way of the RRO 2005.....I think it is in the interest of all Borrowers to put ALL members of parliament on notice that we are trying to get the coalition to enforce and implement the RRO that was brought into force under a labour government.....the sooner they become aware of it..we will see just which government deserves the vote of millions of borrowers....we will see which government truly has the interest of Borrowers who are after all the very people the represent......Borrowers want to stay in thier homes....they do not want to live in board and lodging......this is fixable.... we call upon the to fix it by any means possible.....

 

For that reason.....I say.... we move it forward regardless of what any decisions of the Chamber makes...... in fact.....right now; where Caggers are reporting that they are being sent a copy of 'lamb'......I think it is imperative that the e-petition get out long before other cases are struck out by the Chamber...... Just MY Thoughts....but others may think differently....I await further comments......

 

Apple

 

The way it see it currently, there is nothing of substance that underpins your petition. The minute people start seeing tangible proof that there is something in what you're saying it will spark interest, and a significant amount at that. At the moment your ideas are simply hypothetical - and although that doesn't detract anything from you at all you may find that a petition won't gather a great deal of traction. If the chamber finds in your favour then the wheels will REALLY start moving.

[caro]

Jan 06.

 

Interest payments returned plus statutory interest..

 

If you're getting away without paying the rest of your mortgage I'd be surprised if this wasn't considered unjust enrichment.

[MUTT1]

Hi alisono,

 

You, like me and thousands of others, will have documents from SPML without any signature from it. If you want full info on your arrears, charges or whatever else, then you should do as you suggest and DSAR whichever company is now dealing with SPML's affairs. You should, perhaps phone the ICO and ask what address it has in relation to a DSAR being sent to SPML.

 

In my own case, when I was dealing with SPML (some years ago now) I was fortunate enough to get a full response to my DSAR from SPML. Later correspondence was subsequently dealt with by Capstone, so you may need to consider its address for your SDAR.

 

It's funny, I was just thinking the same as you, how can anyone give somone much more than you actually owe. Take for example a mortgagor who owes say £50.000 (just a random figure) and yet has a property valued at £150.000, how can it be right in any sense that the mortgagee is allowed to take the lot.

 

I have other things going on at the moment regarding terms and conditions when a mortgage is sold and, once I have some answers, I will get back to you.

 

Seems positive the correspondence from the PC. This leads me to think, that if there was no merit in this thread, it/yours would have been kicked into touch some time ago.

 

MUTT1

[IS IT ME?]

Sequenci,

You are very well aware of how the contracts needed to be signed by the credit companies and if they are not then there is no debt to them.

That's generally not the case to be honest with you.

May be you can let me know which one's

 

Are you representing yourself? ah that would be telling just to say they could be a surprise in store. lol

[sequenci]

It's funny, I was just thinking the same as you, how can anyone give somone much more than you actually owe. Take for example a mortgagor who owes say £50.000 (just a random figure) and yet has a property valued at £150.000, how can it be right in any sense that the mortgagee is allowed to take the lot.

That shouldn't happen. If the house is repossessed then once the mortgage and costs are paid the mortgagor would get the difference.