Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

Does a deed with an obligation for further advances need to be signed by the lender to eliminate all possibility of fraud, and does the law reflect this?

[IS IT ME?]

BHALL,

 

I now KNOW that you work for the LENDER and by the post that you have done now confirms it.

I have asked that you do not try and deter people from using this information on this thread if they wish nor to put people right as you put it by only doing your job!

Why do you not stay on your own thread for your thoughts?

 

Apple please do not be mislead by his or her postings as it is a waste of time and ener

[UNRAM]

Can I take a few steps back?

 

Whose duty is it to execute a mortgage deed? Borrower or the lender?

Whose duty is it to deliver?

Can a deed that has not been executed or delivered be legally registered?

[UNRAM]

Amendment: Does this only apply when the company granting a deed? Does this apply when a company is a grantee?

 

It appears from statute that deed and delivery and execution occur together, unless a contrary intention is proved.

Deeds and signatories: Companies Act 2006

46 Execution of deeds (1) A document is validly executed by a company as a deed for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 34) and for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland if, and only if—

(a) it is duly executed by the company, and

(b) it is delivered as a deed.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a document is presumed to be delivered upon its being executed, unless a contrary intention is proved.

 

Duly executed?

44 Execution of documents (1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) every director of the company, and

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Amendment: Does this only apply when the company granting a deed? Does this apply when a company is a grantee?

What of the common seal, which acts as a signature?

45 Common seal

(1) A company may have a common seal, but need not have one [if it doesnt it needs the signature to satisfy section 44]

(2) A company which has a common seal shall have its name engraved in legible characters on the seal.

(3) If a company fails to comply with subsection (2) an offence is committed by—

(a) the company, and

(b) every officer of the company who is in default.

(4) An officer of a company, or a person acting on behalf of a company, commits an offence if he uses, or authorises the use of, a seal purporting to be a seal of the company on which its name is not engraved as required by subsection (2).

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

If above law applies to company as a grantee: I am guessing if signature-by-seal is used the seal/signature will need to be applied after the borrower has signed. Either way, the mortgage deed for my property has no signature and no seal.

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

Uunram,

And there you have it!

[UNRAM]

Is it me.

 

Not quite there yet. I need to establish if there is a duty for a grantee to execute/deliver a deed or whether this law only applies to company-as-grantor.

 

Is the requirement for a mortgage deed to be executed only by the grantee or by both parties?

 

I don't wish to sound petty but my selected moniker is UNRAM (Union Of Northern Rock's Asset: Mortgagors) not Uniram or uunram or uram or weram for that matter...

 

I apologise if I am missing the point of the thread with my posts I need to eliminate all possible mistakes...

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

BHALL,

 

I now KNOW that you work for the LENDER and by the post that you have done now confirms it.

I have asked that you do not try and deter people from using this information on this thread if they wish nor to put people right as you put it by only doing your job!

Why do you not stay on your own thread for your thoughts?

 

Apple please do not be mislead by his or her postings as it is a waste of time and ener

 

Hi Is It Me

 

You will recall, the LBL threads were 'plagued' in the same way.

 

I quite enjoyed my stay in one of the top hotels in London paid for by the OFT......(that Lender was swiftly moved from market) I simply can't help thinking - if the OFT had been allowed to regulate the sub-prime market instead of the FSA...potentially .unscrupulous mortgage lenders would have been brought to heel years ago.....

 

But, it is what it is...at least the FSA have been disbanded (my terms)....oh and for that matter - the 'independent' Adjudicator; (they were paid for and shared offices with HMLR I believe, but don't quote me)....The BBA went too didn't it.....looks like the whole mortgage market is getting a wee bit of an overhaul recently....

 

No, don't fear Is It Me....I'm here for the long haul .....got a whole 12 years to get this sorted ...afterall, we are dealing with a Deed...not a simple contract

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Yes I was there for that and was it good, LBL had 5 members of there legal team all having a go!

Stayed in Hotel what next lol

Its about time the mortgage market got into gear my only thoughts are will the people making the law now be looking for jobs at the end?

[applecart]

Is it me.

 

Not quite there yet. We need to establish if there is a duty for a grantee to execute/deliver a deed or whether this law only applies to company-as-grantor.

 

Is the requirement for a mortgage deed to be executed only by the grantee or by both parties?

 

I don't wish to sound petty but my selected moniker is UNRAM (Union Of Northern Rock's Asset: Mortgagors) not Uniram or uunram or uram or weram for that matter...

 

I apologise if I am missing the point of the thread with my posts I need to eliminate all possible mistakes...

 

 

Hi UNRAM

 

It would appear that all legislation only applies to inter company land transactions by Deed...but, as you know; Companies also enter into land transactions with consumers by Deed....All Land Transactions must be entered into by Deed....it cannot be done by simple agreement alone....the 'agreement' must meet LP(MP)Act 1989 section 2.....and the Deed must meet the Acts you mention in relation to the Companies duty to execute the document and LP(MP)Act 1989 when the other party is an 'individual'....that means people like you and I...or indeed sole traders...

 

It is the LPA 1925 section 74 that relates to the mode of execution by a Company in land transactions...and section 74 (5) that is specific to Deeds.....and the presumption of delivery is provided for within the provision of section 74A (1) (2).....

 

Land acts as a security...

 

So, when Company A enters into a Land transaction with Company B...and Company A is the 'grantor'.....Company B will be the 'grantee'....the Law says that both Company A and B must sign/execute the Deed for it's validity...(the Company Acts you refer to provide the statutory requirements to protect each company in the event there is a dispute as to the validity of the Deed) ......therefore, whilst it is Company A (as 'grantor')....that expresses an 'intent to convey' to Company B (as 'grantee')......Company A...cannot cause Company B to be 'bound' to accept the Deed...only Company B, can bind himself to be 'bound'...Company A.can rely on the rebuttal presumption in relation to 'delivery' if Company B has not executed the Deed ..... Company B will be left with no security in land for the debt...... (and there can be a good argument even in the event it is signed by both companies ...if 'technically' (as seen in 'Bibby').... Company A can evidence that there was no intent to be bound).

 

Now, apply the same analogy to when Borrower A enters into a land transaction with Company C..... Borrower A, is the 'grantor' and Company C is the 'grantee'....and you will find, the only difference is that in relation to Borrower A signature...the applicable Law is the LP(MP)Act section 1 (3) with the added benefit...that Borrower A's signature can never be 'technically' found to cause any presumption of Delivery to be inferred since the coming into force of the RRO 2005.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Yes I was there for that and was it good, LBL had 5 members of there legal team all having a go!

Stayed in Hotel what next lol

Its about time the mortgage market got into gear my only thoughts are will the people making the law now be looking for jobs at the end?

 

I knew other Caggers had been invited...I've kept a copy of the email they sent too....just so as I know who we all are......Thanking us for our assistance : )

 

I have much respect for the OFT - imagine, us - mere 'pimples' on the landscape of the financial industry involved to that level.....butiful, absolutely butiful - totally loved it!!

 

Ah Well, here we are again, yet anther lending institution...just a different brief..and legislation to boot!!....and, yes another fight to the bitter end......

 

Their jobs??...all I know is that folk on the Titanic had to stay on ship until they either sank or swam...

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

I need to become better acquainted with RRO 2005. If you can quote relevant section in correct context it will help a great deal.

 

I am still not clear on a key point "Is there a legal requirement for a mortgage deed to be executed/delivered only by the grantee or must the lender-grantor also execute/deliver?"

 

This is not clear from the statute I have presented nor your reply...

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

I do appreciate where you are coming from here.....you will need to familiarise yourself with the RRO 2005

 

In the meantime acquaint yourself with Blackstones Law Dictionary here:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36602123/B...Law-Dictionary

 

It confirms what a 'Specialty Contract' is - I've quoted from it for you below:

 

"Record, Specialty, Simple

 

Contracts of record are such as are declared and adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdic-tion, or entered on their records, including judgments, recognizances, and statutes staple. Harde-

man v. Downer, 39 Ga. 425. These are not properly speaking contracts at all, though they may

be enforced by action like contracts. Specialties, or special contracts, are contracts under seal, such as deeds and bonds. Ludwig v. Bungart, 26 Misc.Rep. 247, 56 N.Y.S. 51. All others are included in the description "simple" contracts; that is, a simple contract is one that is not a contract of record and not under seal; it may be either written or oral, in either case, it is called a "parol"

contract, the distinguishing feature being the lackof a seal. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 30, 6 Am.Dec. 150; 4 B. & Ald. 588; 2 Bla.Comm. 472.

 

Special Contract

A contract under seal; a specialty; as distin-guished from one merely oral or in writing not

sealed. But in common usage this term is often used to denote an express or explicit contract, one which clearly defines and settles the reciprocalrights and obligations of the parties, as distin-

guished from one which must be made out, and its terms ascertained, by the inference of the law

from the nature and circumstances of the transaction.

 

A special contract may rest in parol, and does not mean a contract by specialty; it is defined as one with peculiar provisions not found in the ordinary contracts relating to the same subject-matter. Midland Roofing Mfg. Co"

 

Hope this helps further?

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Thank you to save me trawling this thread to find RRO2005 references (I know I have seen some in here) please can you re-quote in context here.

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

The importance of the RRO 2005 from a Borrowers point of view is found at Schedule 2. Article 10 (2) of the RRO 2005...there you will find that it repeals the presumption of delivery in relation to a Borrowers signed deed by repealing words from section 1 (3) of the LP(MP)Act 1989...

 

This is so important for you to get to grips with....otherwise, other posters may lead you to believe it has no relevance whatsoever....when it's relevance is sooo significant for you and every other Borrower....

 

Read the RRO 2005 again, and again and again....until it becomes like a second skin....and know it back to front...especially Article 10 (2) stated above found in the schedule 2.

 

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Can you also offer me your opinion on my own situation: (i) no deed signature/seal (ii) no mortgage offer signature/seal. (iii) no formal mortgage agreement/contract supplement to (ii).

[UNRAM]

every google link to RRO relates to fire safety. i need an actual link.

[applecart]

Let me explain further.....

 

Right now if you look at section 1 (3) of the LP(MP)Act 1989....you will not see any or very few of the amendments that the RRO 2005 enforced in September 2005 make to it....however to find them I had to dig deep....they are there - but not on the face of the legislation...they are posted on the various threads now though...if you need to see them or go to the Act itself.

 

The RRO 2005 is just one of those pieces of regulation that have been Well hidden, mis-understood; never quoted or relied upon by Borrowers unless you know of it and know how to cross reference it with the legislation that it affects....and more importantly...you also need to know the implications and how it works to protect your rights as a Borrower...

 

One of the very important rights it protects is your civil right to rely that you did not 'deliver' the Deed....previously this was not the case....it is now

 

When a deed is not 'delivered'...it is simply not a Deed...for mortgage purposes (keeping it simple) the LPA 1925 section 52...says the Deed will be void : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

OK I am still only finding details on fire regulations when I type RRO 2005. Interesting as it may be this is not the sort of fire I am seeking to fight...

[applecart]

LOL...

 

here you go: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1906/contents/made

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can you also offer me your opinion on my own situation: (i) no deed signature/seal (ii) no mortgage offer signature/seal. (iii) no formal mortgage agreement/contract supplement to (ii).

 

No Problem...

 

(i) Lender needs to prove 'execution' and 'delivery' for validity of the Deed to be in evidence - no execution = presumption of delivery is rebuttal on sight of your signature alone because of the protection for you as an individual within the provisions of the RR0 2005 and its effect on section 1 (3) of the LP(MP Act 1989 in regard to your signature

 

(ii) Lender needs to prove there was an 'agreement' to enter into the Deed....i.e it is the 'agreement' that must meet LP(MP) Act 1989 section 2 - both signatures and all content to be attached to it...your signature alone does not meet section 2...lender cannot rely on 'estoppal' because part performance under the provision of section 40 of the LPA was repealed by the said section 2 LP(MP)Act 1989

 

(iii) No 'agreement'....No Valid Deed.... line of contention is in sight in your favor.....

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Still not seeing it I'm afraid. I hope you can be patient with this as I am sure you're understanding is more mature than my own. I have the RRO2005 and the LPMPA1989 side by side:

 

According to the repeal you have referenced, LPMPA1989 1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

becomes

 

LPMPA1989 1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

How does this assert that the lenders signature is now required?

[UNRAM]

No Problem...

 

(i) Lender needs to prove 'execution' and 'delivery' for validity of the Deed to be in evidence - no execution = presumption of delivery is rebuttal on sight of your signature alone because of the protection for you as an individual within the provisions of the RR0 2005 and its effect on section 1 (3) of the LP(MP Act 1989 in regard to your signature

 

(ii) Lender needs to prove there was an 'agreement' to enter into the Deed....i.e it is the 'agreement' that must meet LP(MP) Act 1989 section 2 - both signatures and all content to be attached to it...your signature alone does not meet section 2...lender cannot rely on 'estoppal' because part performance under the provision of section 40 of the LPA was repealed by the said section 2 LP(MP)Act 1989

 

(iii) No 'agreement'....No Valid Deed.... line of contention is in sight in your favor.....

 

Apple

 

1. According to other cases of which you are aware what are the chances of having NRAM removed from the registry based on the facts I have presented to you? Is 'removed' the correct term? (I've heard other terms such as set aside). Basically I am seeking a permanent and complete removal.

 

2. Given that I do not have a signed/sealed mortgage offer/contract what happens to the purported debt? Can the debt even exist if there is no agreement in place to define terms and conditions of repayment? I realise that money was created to pay the seller but what is the legal status of a debt in this instance?

Edited July 19, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

Here's why....

 

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

 

.....This one was before the RRO 2005 came into force - your mortgage was taken out in 2007, so this does not apply to your Deed...however, if it did, you would be hard pushed to show that you had no intent to enter into a disposition of your entire estate...ie. by unilateral deed - your signature alone...refers to a 'disposition' of the fee simple - meaning the entire estate - section 53 deals with outright 'dispositions' of an estate......they can be protected by registration on the land title...but even then it is only an 'equitable' right due to the protection afforded to you by section 53 (1)©. This one...means that so long as you have signed the deed, sent it to your solicitor who posts it off to the lender....then the necessary 'delivery' element that is particular to the formality of a deed was met...and the presumption of delivery was effected...whether the lender had signed/executed it ...yes or no...

 

Lenders in reliance on the legislation...circumvented it by not signing the Deeds at all.....providing themselves with the ideal 'tool' used for 'securitisation' purposes...You ended up with a Deed that obligated you to pay, no right to redemption...only the equitable right to redeem was left.... this is not what the legislator intended at all...

 

The Law Commission reports looked at Land Law and the outcome was the RRO 2005 (keeping it brief of course)....the RRO removes that presumption of delivery in relation to an individuals signature once and for all... remember, how would you know or understand if the lender had signed the deed or not...you wouldn't even know that the Order was in force unless you looked deep to see the amendments made to the LP(MP)Act 1989 would you if it was not for this thread????

 

so, the outcome is that the one above is repealed and now provides:

 

LPMPA1989 1.3.(b) it is delivered as a deed.

 

It has been said for more than 400 yrs,...... a principle brought back into modern day in the case of 'Bibby' that 'delivery' is a necessary formality....the 'grantor' cannot 'deliver' the deed to the 'grantee'....so, it was necessary to provide via statute that as 'grantor'....the Borrower was not to be taken to be liable to 'deliver' the deed in the way the LP(MP)Act 1989 unamended version suggested.....so now, for you, given that your deed was entered into after 2005....these new basic legal principles are there to protect you....the onus is squarely on the Lender to 'execute' so that a presumption of 'delivery' can be said to have occurred in your case.....

 

Does this add to your knowledge? Is it beginning to sink in???

 

Apple