Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Do you disagree with what I have just posted about both Bibby and Garguilo, can you show me where I am wrong ?

 

Can you demonstrate that in either case the judgements were reached for any other reason ?

 

Did the property chamber tell you, what I said it did ?

 

There you go Is It Me? Some questions for you, for a change lol

Edited November 24, 2013 by ims21

[IS IT ME?]

Bhall

No they did not say that so I stand by what I said before

Now answer the question put to you and don't do what you always do make it a first lol

Edited November 24, 2013 by ims21

[bhall]

Bhall

No they did not say that so I stand by what I said before

Now answer the question put to you and don't do what you always do make it a first lol

 

Are you sure they did not say that ???

 

Apple

Here is the full reply;

 

Upon reading(?)lol the application dated 10th may under sec 108(2) of the LR Act 2002

and upon the tribunal considering that the application ought to be stuck out as there is no reasonable prospect of the application succeeding.

 

It is ordered as follows;

 

Her Majesty's land reg is to be removed as the respondent[ person against whom an order is sought] to this application

The applicant has until 5pm 16th July to make written representations in relation to the proposed striking out of the application

 

This order is made pursuant to rules 9 and 10 of the tribunal procedure (first tier tribunal property chamer rules 2013.

Reasons,

 

1 The application is to set aside a charge dated xxyyzzz made between (1) Lender and (2) the borrower HM land registry is not a party to that charge. The application is made under sec 108(2) of the LR act 2002. The tribunal has no power to make an order to alter the register when exercising its jurisdiction under sec 108(2).

 

It can only rectify or set aside a document under sec 108(2) and the register of title is not a document for the purpose of that provision.

So, HM land registry should not be named in part 3 of the application but the lender should be named instead of HM land registry.

 

Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only requires execution by the borrower.

 

The applicant does not contest that they executed the charge so dated. The charge is not in a form showing it required to be executed by the lender.

 

The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge.

 

The land re form of charge CH1 does not require execution by the lender except where a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

and that's it.

 

what I would say is that there has been no CH1 form nor have they really read the application because it does very clearly state that the lender should execute the deed.

 

I also note is uses the term generally, always and why say the tribunal can not rectify the register because it's not a document?

 

so what do you think apple lets prove your right.

 

"The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge."

 

You was the one that posted that they did say exactly that ;-)

 

We should also not forget the Property Chamber told you

 

"Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only requires execution by the borrower."

Edited November 24, 2013 by ims21

[bhall]

Is It Me? you might want to reread this thread, it appears you have forgotten the things you have previously said

 

Not wise to forget or sweep under the carpet what the Property Chamber has already told you is it, Is It Me?

[IS IT ME?]

And what are they doing now

Again answer the questions put before you which ever one you want to be

[bhall]

And what are they doing now

Again answer the questions put before you which ever one you want to be

 

The Property Chamber is proceeding to a full hearing as it should do, to reach a judgement that can be applied to future applications.(as it has previously informed UNRAM)

 

If you post when your hearing is, if it is in London, I will attend the hearing in the public gallery and afterwards I will take up your invitation of a coffee. However for me, it will have to be a coke or something as I really don't like hot drinks.

 

Not sure what you mean by "which ever you want to be"

 

I am now going to enjoy the rest of my Sunday, I hope you do the same

[bhall]

Repost the question and I will try and come back later to answer it

[sequenci]

Phewww, just needed to clear that smoke there, Hi IS IT ME,

 

Caro,

I note that you removed some posts earlier, you said they were off topic, I think they were most definitely on topic. Remember, there was a mention to in them to your earlier post, has this embarrassed you, have you binned them for this reason?

 

A) They are here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?410513-Off-topic-posts(1-Viewing)-nbsp

B) Please don't be rude to Caro (or anyone else for that matter). Some folks have verged very close to the moderation line of late. I'm keen not to see anyone suspended from posting.

[applecart]

Hi All

 

The so called 'fanciful ideas' are causing Lenders a whole load of concern....we are on solicitor number 4.

 

When your house is being repossessed - ask yourself this question......How many firms of solicitors get involved?

 

I'll tell you.....NONE......it will be an Agent...a circuit representative of no fixed abode that's who.....

 

Here we have seen an Agent replaced by 4 different firms of solicitors.....what are they struggling with?

 

......The FACT that there is NO DEFENCE!!......

 

BHall is the only one really who advances any type of legal contention to match us.....and it is admirable.... but he is not for all intent and purpose a site team member or a solicitor.....so... in that regard.... he is just as 'amateur' as the rest of us.....he's knowledge of the common practice is also admirable.....but it is not the LAW...it is with respect Bhall....full of 'F'LAW ratified into LAW.....sorry to have to say that....but it is true....

 

What have the 'fanciful ideas' of 'amateurs' achieved so far????

 

1 Agent....and 3 firms of solicitors down...with another one soon for the slaughter......The LAW is the LAW...they cannot circumvent it!!!....Is It Me's friend is still in his/her home awaiting the outcome of an application that they cannot defend.

 

What have the 'tried and tested' ways achieved so far????

 

80,000+ homeless....a petition to David Cameron to be presented to him in due course by Shelter......A e-petition from a concerned consumer to the necessary Government Department

 

 

 

Apple

Edited November 24, 2013 by applecart

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Sequenci,

 

Consider, that this thread explores the issue of 'common practice', that is, this is the way we've always done it and that might explain some disagreement within the professional arena. When you follow Apple's argument you will see that it has logic reinforced with legal concrete. When I read the counter argument well, I feel it is weak and lacks reinforcement relevant to its topic, indeed I think it is partially based on the beleif of common practice and that it is attempting to find somethig to fit. However, that's just my view.

 

I agree with your sentiment that people should seek alternative views from whatever source and I don't think this thread is forcing anyone to follow this route for salvation. But that salvation might be there given time. You see the thread advises that everyone will have different circumstances and that decisions should be based on those circumstances, so in that regard, to me anyway, that parallels the beliefs of the Cag.

Edited November 24, 2013 by ims21

[applecart]

Are you sure they did not say that ???

 

 

 

"The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge."

 

You was the one that posted that they did say exactly that ;-)

 

We should also not forget the Property Chamber told you

 

"Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only requires execution by the borrower."

 

Where's the 'F'LAW here BHall...

 

Let me tell you....

 

WE are not referring to the 'Charge'......we are referring to the DEED......

 

The Chamber is making reference to the 'Approved form of Charge'....that's HMLR's Approved form of Charge .....we are talking about the 'Mortgage Deed'.....not the Approved Form of Charge......

 

Now before YOU sweep this titbit under the carpet.....as you tend to ignore anything that you either cannot understand or your brain does not calculate as being a 'common practice'.....

 

Let me break it down for you once and for all......the approved form of charge is generally only ever signed by the borrower....that's the 'common practice' that you rely on....

 

What the 'F'LAW says is that the so called 'Approved form of Charge' is in fact the DEED.....meeting HMLR's approved form of charge is not the same as meeting the necessary formalities required of a deed.....a deed must be 'granted' by the Borrower.....and guess what?..... to be valid as a DEED it must then be 'ASSUMED' by the Lender......That makes the Deed 'complete' ... the Lender MUST Execute it....other wise is has not been delivered.....it is not complete....it is NOT a DEED......

 

so..an approved form of charge is not a deed.

 

Got it?

 

Apple

Edited November 24, 2013 by citizenB

[ims21]

Thread tidied

[applecart]

Bibby is a case relied upon by the application

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2495.html

 

335.The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it.

 

Bibby even confirms that delivery is about the intent of the borrower to be bound by their deed.

 

336. On my findings none of the Guarantees, the Warranties or the Bibby ID Agreement was intended to be delivered, in the technical sense, when handed to Mr. Darling at the meeting on 27 August 2008 after signature by Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott. It follows that neither Mr. Magson nor Mr. Scott was bound by his Guarantee or his Warranty, and so is not liable to Bibby FS or Bibby ID in this action. It also follows that QCFS was not in fact bound by the terms of the Bibby ID Agreement, but the relevance of that to the issues in this action is the rather peripheral point that there were no obligations on the part of QCFS to Bibby ID for Mr. Magson or Mr. Scott to warrant.

 

The deed was not delivered because the court accepted that when signed by the grantor the deed was in draft form and not in a final form.

 

Bhall....read the above - don't just copy and paste it here.....read it again....s.l.o.w.l.y this time please ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

As for Garguilo v Gershinon, in that case the signature page was separate from the lease deed. That isn't the case with a mortgage deed.

 

In this case the Adjudicator found that section 1 (3) of the LPA (MP) 1989 clearly provided that the signature of the grantor must form part of the physical document (the physical document being the 'it').

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with if a mortgage deed is void if it has not been signed by the lender.

 

 

Who's favor is the deed intended to be for Bhall?...... Who is supposed to be the beneficiary of the Deed Bhall?....The Borrower or the Lender?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Least we forget the property chamber has already told Is It Me? that the authorities that the application relies upon are concerned with if the documents have been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute the charge.

 

Keep ignoring what the Property Chamber has already said - not very wise.

 

No, you are wrong again Ben...

 

The Chamber have accepted the application...it is going to a hearing...having been amended and the same said authorities are now being considered in relation to the DEED...NOT the Charge....got it?

 

There is no one here ignoring what the Chamber has already said .... only you ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi GiveHimaMask

 

Now...about those 'resolutions'.....do you want to move forward from there??

 

So, far, there are 4 firms of solicitors struggling with a worthy Objection to the application......let's discuss what options they are likely to put to their client (the Lender)...(if any)

 

Apple

[GiveHimaMask]

hi Apple,

 

Perhaps we could start with;

 

Now I really had a good look at this and..... I think your goose is cooked.... I would advise you to escalate this problem up a level or three to see if there is any thing that can be done.... in the meantime... I'm gonna have me a look at me own deeds and i'll get back to you.

[GiveHimaMask]

Apple,

 

just a geest, you know I seriously want to dicuss possible outcomes in a fallout.

[IS IT ME?]

I like it givehimamask good very good,

No there or is it their who cares they can do nothing to this now the lender should have looked a long long time ago for a way out when we were on No: 2 I say.

 

I can find NO where that I or apple have asked people to join the army,

We have seen for the last 10 years people with the knowledge to do some thing about this and they have chosen not to do so that's up to them but now some one is why knock them?

As I ve said before and it seems to be forgotten without the Noran case there would be more people out on their ear,

Edited November 24, 2013 by ims21

[IS IT ME?]

As for the fall out, well its a bit late 130,000 views ( never mind these are robot's lol) and as of now 17 quests

[marika41]

hi GHAM Just read your simplified very helpful post, T hank you very much

[bhall]

Where's the 'F'LAW here BHall...

 

Let me tell you....

 

WE are not referring to the 'Charge'......we are referring to the DEED......

 

The Chamber is making reference to the 'Approved form of Charge'....that's HMLR's Approved form of Charge .....we are talking about the 'Mortgage Deed'.....not the Approved Form of Charge......

 

Now before YOU sweep this titbit under the carpet.....as you tend to ignore anything that you either cannot understand or your brain does not calculate as being a 'common practice'.....

 

Let me break it down for you once and for all......the approved form of charge is generally only ever signed by the borrower....that's the 'common practice' that you rely on....

 

What the 'F'LAW says is that the so called 'Approved form of Charge' is in fact the DEED.....meeting HMLR's approved form of charge is not the same as meeting the necessary formalities required of a deed.....a deed must be 'granted' by the Borrower.....and guess what?..... to be valid as a DEED it must then be 'ASSUMED' by the Lender......That makes the Deed 'complete' ... the Lender MUST Execute it....other wise is has not been delivered.....it is not complete....it is NOT a DEED......

 

so...an approved form of charge is not a deed.

 

 

 

Got it?

 

Apple

 

Oh capital letters, someone shouting lol

 

 

You can shout as much as you want

 

For a form of charge or other instrument to be a deed it must comply with section 1(2) of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended -

 

“(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.

 

Now that we know what formalities a form of charge or other such instrument must meet to be a valid deed, let's go through each one and use the accord mortgage deed as an example (as I know it is one close to Is It Me?'s heart)

 

http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002-Mortgage-Deed-E&W.pdf

 

The first requirement for a form of charge to be a valid deed -

 

(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);

 

The Accord Mortgage Deed has the heading 'mortgage deed'.

 

The Accord Mortgage Deed also states - "Signed as a deed by the Borrower"

 

"The borrower must execute this charge as a deed"

 

So the mortgage deed meets the requirements of s.1(2)(a) as it is clear on the face of it that it is a deed and it expresses itself as signed as a deed.

 

The second requirement for a form of charge to be a valid deed -

 

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

 

To see what is required for it to be validly executed as a deed by that person - we must look to s.1(3)

 

(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.”

 

As we already know the Accord Mortgage Deed is signed by the borrower, so (a) is taken care of.

 

The Accord Mortgage Deed, also includes a section for the signature to be attested (witnessed), so (a)(i) is also taken care of.

 

That leaves us with s.1(3)(b) it has to be delivered to be validly executed by an individual.

 

Bibby confirms

 

335. The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it.

 

The critical thing is if the borrower has separately indicated his intent to be bound by his deed.

 

The sending of the Accord Mortgage Deed by the legal representative of the borrower shows very clear intent that the borrower intends to be bound by his deed.

 

So that is also s.1(3)(b) taken care of.

 

So the Accord Mortgage deed meets all of the requirements of s.1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended to be a valid deed.

Edited November 24, 2013 by citizenB

[bhall]

Bhall....read the above - don't just copy and paste it here.....read it again....s.l.o.w.l.y this time please ; )

 

Apple

 

Lol you are on a mission to be funny today Apple - it is working

 

I have read it very slowly and it still says

 

"The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it."

[bhall]

No, you are wrong again Ben...

 

The Chamber have accepted the application...it is going to a hearing...having been amended and the same said authorities are now being considered in relation to the DEED...NOT the Charge....got it?

 

There is no one here ignoring what the Chamber has already said .... only you ; )

 

Apple

 

Lol

 

It is funny, Is It Me? also said I was wrong, right before I quoted his posted where the Property Chamber had said exactly that ;-)

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Marika41,

 

Your welcome, I'm going to make a few changes to it, 'cause it might help some more. I'm not at home at the minute but will post it up later.