Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

God not this again lol

Why if this firm were so sure of this they did not represent the lenders then ??? So so sure

 

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

 

Seems like they have ?

 

"Optima Legal has dealt with a number of cases recently where the borrower has alleged that the mortgage deed is void and unenforceable because the lender has not signed it."

[Peterbard]

Ben, dodgeball.

Thank you for your posts which have been answered more than once and just to confirm to you once again THIs FIRM OF SOLICITORS WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS CASE even though they are the ones dealing with the case in the county court lol

So much for having the upper hand then???

Would I rely on this NO WAY. I could put up what I want it does no mean any one should follow it lol

 

I am happy to see you wasting your time trying to put people off for no other reason I can see than working for the lenders as there is no other reason for trying to lose those thread with long long posts which have been answered but you FAIL to answer the questions so simple lol

 

Perhaps if you or Apple would tell us something that would actually help people, instead of all the mysterious double talk which proves to have no substance

[Peterbard]

Is it me

 

Speaking for myself, there is nothing I would like more that some protection or action which could make lenders think hard before foreclosing on peoples homes.

 

In fact over the past months we have been considering the effects of the oncoming and unstoppable increase in interest rates, which although being delayed are. and make no mistake, going to descend on the British public in the next couple of years, many are going to be in your unhappy condition and real measures are needed to help.

 

People who are in good jobs, have regular income or savings may be OK jsut a bit of belt tightening , but what about those who are just barely scraping by now. These people need to be thinking about taking realistic and sometimes drastic action now.

However they see your thread and there is no need to bother, there worries are over , because all we have to do is stop paying our mortgage and there is nothing they can do because the lender has not signed the deed.

 

So the next thing is that there are homeless people that you have "helped" to be homeless, Do you begin to see what harm un-supported and dangerous claims like this can do.

 

So to be frank, if there is anything that can help state it, because we have not heard it so far, stop giving half stories an half truths which make no intelligible sense.

 

In short either put up or shut up for everyone's sake.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Dodgeball
may

[Peterbard]

To be fair dodgeball, many people in work are struggling too due to years without cost of living increases.

 

Indeed and this makes the point even more relevant. It is surprising how people will grasp at any ,even unlikely cure rather than face their problem, giving unsound advice is not helping.

[Peterbard]

You seem to have a problem, as I said I am not sure what it is.

 

For your information a mortgage is a loan, it is a loan of money secured on the property(via a deed), this is what draws interest.

 

The OPs situation is not currently engaged in questioning the repayment of the loan, but this will be an issue. Indeed this was the initial question prompted byEll-enn if you remember(ie what happens to the loan if the charge is void)

 

Irregardless this was not the point you raised, the Garguillo case was a loan secured on property.

 

Now if you will stop these silly attempts to try and score points off me , it would be greatly appreciated as , I do not have the time and inclination to keep pandering to them, (many thanks)

 

Oh and again This case is of no help to the OP(just a gentle reminder

Edited February 16, 2014 by Dodgeball
via a deed

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben,

 

I'm a little worried that, after all this time and 280 + pages into this thread where, in your own words you have contributed at least 40% of the posts, you are now asking what the principle is in 'Garguilo'?

 

Ok, just for you, Its the formality the formality associated with 'speciality contracts', such as a 'deed', hope this helps....BP

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "principle" perhaps if you tell us, we will be able to tell you if it is anything to do with the OPs case specifically or just a general principle that applies to all deeds.(ie as described by the statute as discussed as you say in the last umpteen pages.)

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

The title of this thread says it all really, 'Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed', it refers to a 'principle', which some of us have now come to understand forms part of the formalities associated with the 'Deed'...BP

 

Sorry still not with you. The subject of the thread is general and relates to the validity of a deed, it asks specifically if it has to be signed by the lender if that is what you mean, but this applies to all deeds, and the answer is no it doesn't.

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Surely, logically, if what you state is correct, because, 'the Lender does not need to sign', why do you and Ben protest so much?...BP

 

I know I am probably being dense, but I no idea what you mean here

[Peterbard]

Oh I see,I think I gave my reasons for questioning unproven theories when it comes to debt yesterday on here , is that what you mean ?

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

You nor I, are obligated (within the context of this thread) to understand anything, we either get it or we don't, that's just a fact...BP

 

Sorry Ben you are going to have to translate again for me No second thoughts I will just nod politely

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

With respect to you, I'd rather debate the 'deed' and the formalities surrounding it, not your abilities to understand what is being debated!...BP

 

Oh I fully understand the issues with the deed. It is just your comments I have a problem with. Perhaps if you ceased pointing them in my direction ? Then I would not feel the polite need to respond

[Peterbard]

Ben Ben !

 

How does the song go, new York new York , so good the named it twice(quite A compliment Ben Ben)

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Respond by all means, just remember, the thread has not been closed as you wished and the debate will continue with or without your input...BP

 

The debate ended some pages ago sadly, what we have now is the repeating of information for those who never really understood the argument, Ben has more patience than me for this task so, please I ask again , unless you have something useful or relevant to say please just address your comments to the topic and not to me personally. Many thanks

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben,

 

 

As you and I know, you have discussed this many times with IsItMe and Apple so their is no need for me to go over old ground at this point, the Property Chamber has not struck out the applications!

 

The question logically then is, why have they not struck them out, based on your assertions, Halsbury's, Lamb, Fergus, etc, etc?

 

Could it be, that they do in fact have merit, perhaps?....BP

 

He He

I am going to give my opinion here.

 

Going of my experience with CCA issues, where many people are making claims due to misinterpretation of statute and common law, I have seen several instances where a court will hold back judgment in order to issue a comprehensive and solid rebuttal of all the offending "arguments"

 

This is an attempt to dissuade others from continuing the mistakes and clogging up the court system with cases which are at best ill founded.

 

I could be wrong in this assumption of course, unfortunately there is to little evidence being provided to form a concrete opinion one way or the other.

[Peterbard]

Hi Jotho

 

Do you have your own thread on this?

Perhaps if your issues are different(it would be a good idea anyway TBH) it may be a good idea, and will not interfere with the cases we are awaiting answers to on here,

 

Plus I am sure many people may be able to give opinion and advice.

[Peterbard]

Would this be a good time, while we are all waiting for the decision, to ask you to have a look at this? There are just so many issues of bad, illogical decisions and judicial errors it is overwhelming. The issues are not specifically "on thread" but are clearly related and may have relevance here. I don't want to presume on IsItMe's platform.

Or are you both taking a very well-earned break?

Jo

 

Ok Put it this way, IMO no it would not be a good time to be asking, a better time would be if and when we find out if these theories have any merit, that is after the hearings.

 

Until that happens I would, as far as possible keep whatever options I had open and treat any advice given here with extreme caution.

[Peterbard]

Hi Isitme. Thank you for responding. The lender was Northern Rock, now NRAM. The first DJ responded very appropriately. We said exactly "in order for me to be able to defend myself I need to see what the claim is based on." The DJ looked briefly at what the claimant had brought to court, a Witness Statement by some trainee solicitor, the signed(only by me) deed amd 2 sets of "mortgage conditions" I had never seen before. I stated the truth, that I had never set eyes on the "mortgage conditions", that I had signed the deed against a document which they had not brought to court and that the terms on which they were basing their evidence (breach of contract) were not before the court. The DJ was very concerned by this. She ordered a PTR, by which time she indicated I should file a full defence (which I had not done) and that NRAM should have the opportunity to supply the missing documents. She reserved costs and said the matter was "serious".

At the PTR a different DJ presided. By this time NRAM had got their act together and put forward an Offer of Loan (unsigned by anyone) which they now stated contained the terms of the loan hitherto missing. The DJ was intrigued by the fact that the evidence might be flawed, that the terms presented in evidence might not actually have been agreed and ordered this part (the "money" part) of the claim to go to trial. He then made the bizarre order for the possession, based on the very documents he had just adjudged should be the object of a future trial.

Jo

 

Hmm

 

It sounds like the possession order would probably have been made under section 103 of the compliant deed. The situation regarding the agreement and the possible implications of enforceabiltiy need to be examined before the court case.

 

Just a suggestion

 

You really need some proper help with this imo. I would start your own thread.

[Peterbard]

hey everyone,

Does anyone know WHY the lenders do not sign the deeds???

 

 

I will have a go Molly

 

Agreements are bilateral, this means that both parties give and receive benefit from them. Think of a sale agreement to by a car where one person gets the car and the other the cash. So they have to be signed by both parties.

 

A deed is unilateral, in that the borrower bestows ownership of the estate or charge(disposition) on the other party, the deed is a record of(and legalizes) this transaction, it is not a contract. So the borrower is the only one who needs sign.

 

There may of course be a contract to cover the financial arrangement which surrounds the transaction, but this is not covered by the deed.

[Peterbard]

I see your point Fletch.

 

The thing is - I find that those who have a vested interest (either Borrower or Lender) tend to ask constructive questions - that's why I asked.

 

In fact BP appears to very much up to speed - the questions posed by BP are constructive - BP has even posted understanding here also......that's nothing short of what I would expect someone who has a vested interest to do....

 

Those with a vested interest take time out to read the thread - they do not ask questions if they do not understand what they are talking about - they appear to hold off doing so until they can construct a relevant question I notice...

 

Just an observation - that was all...no offence to you.

 

In answer to you 'separate note' - It was Is It Me who was advised that the application would be struck out for 'lack of merit'.....we overcame the issue.....we moved on..... it is only Ben who appears to be of the opinion that we are still dealing with that as an issue.

 

'moved on' - the Lender is the one who's fate is in jeopardy - we overcame the issue - the application was heard - Is It Me stated quite clearly - the Lender was DUMBSTRUCK on the LRA s.23 point raised.......he did not overcome it.....he could not overcome the fact that the Borrower is not obligated to perform when it is only the Borrower that has signed the deed.......

 

These are excellent results and have been duly reported back here by Is It Me.

 

I have moved the thread forward on the premise that the Lender is unlikely to overcome the FACT and the LAW...The Lender has 28 days to consider s.23 along with the other grounds that had merit put to the Chamber - we see Ben doing just that; here on this thread. The application has not been struck out.

 

Had the Chamber intended to strike it out - when the Lender objected - the Chamber would have considered the 'objection' against the application and if it was satisfied that the 'objection' had 'merit' it would have struck out the application months ago....the 'objection' clearly had no merit..... the application went to a hearing.

 

Both parties were given fair opportunity to submit further argument........to make their points 'clear'.....no doubt the Lender did so..... no doubt Is It Me did so....

 

Those arguments will be considered.....

 

The decision can and will only go the Borrowers way........Like I say I moved the thread forward on this premise; to say the Lender will possibly get a further 28 days to appeal the decision

 

If the Lender appeals.....he needs to consider (with Ben's and those of others who share his alternative views) the 'grounds' he can rely to do so.....

 

That's where we are up to..

 

Apple

 

So how does this fit with this posted 16 Feb?

[Peterbard]

BUT now they do NOT SIGN THE DEED, THAT IS THE POINT

 

See Caros post

[Peterbard]

hey all,

thanks everybody for your advice.

 

It just seems too fishy,the fact that there is no substantive reason why they dont sign,I mean its just as easy for them TO sign as it is to NOT sign.On the deeds ,there are boxes and places asking them to sign,

So they MUST have a good reason for not doing so,,,,,,,i.e,future monetary gain.

 

It seems to be the sub-prime lenders who have a policy of not signing and I think we can all agree,they are a pack of leeches, in that once you enter into any sort of agreement with them,they will suck you dry and then move onto their next victim.One has to consider what exactly our "agreement",for want of a better word,is with these bankrupt lenders,,,,,,,,,when WE sign the deed,,,,,what is it we are doing????????

WE are not signing an agree---ment with them because if it was an AGREEment then both parties would lay ALL their cards on the table,,,,,,,with no hidden agendas,such as selling the "agreement"to a third party for further monetary gain and in doing so creating three very different interests in the "agreement"(that would be my family home,but to the banksters,merely just a folio number or digits on their computer screens) when clearly we are conned into believing that we are entering a fair and balanced arrangement to purchase a property.

Also,when we sign,we are handing them a cash cow on a plate by giving them irrevocable lasting power of attorney.They hide this in the small print of the t+c and it means we give them a get out of jail free card,so they have authority to do anything they want ,in our name!!!!,,,,,,,think about that for a moment ,,,,,,,,,,lasting power of attorney is usually reserved for those poor souls who have succome to some mind destroying disease such as alzheimer`s or people who are not competent enough to look after their own financial affairs,,,,,,,the game is so rigged in their favor ,its just ridiculous .

You have to ask yourself,,,,,is their any innocent reason why they feel they need our power of attorney ,,,,,,,I think not,,,!!!

 

Leaving aside the reason why they do not sign for a moment. This thread is about whether they have to sign, the answer to that is no they do not, the statute is clear deeds do not need to be signed by the lender.

 

Now if you ask why they do not sign anyway, I have no idea. People say it is so they can securitse the loan(or at least the value of the charge.)

 

It seems to me that if they wanted to do so they could do that with or without a signature, i know that unsecured loans like credit card bank loans etc are securitiesd(these have to have both signatures) and form parts of investment portfolios for many of the major lenders, this is enabled by a term in your credit agreement, and it does no harm I can see to debtor, it is merely a business tool and helps the lender stabilize his cash flow and aids liquidity.

 

So frankly I do not see the problem anyway.

[Peterbard]

Hi Molly

 

Sounds like you are having it rough mate,I do sympathies.

 

I take it that they are seeking possession under section 103 of the LOPA ? Interested to hear about the credit agreement, as you say it would not be regulated under the CCA on a first mortgage or indeed if over 25K if taken out before 2008, however not to say that it is not a binding agreement on both parties.

 

Would it be possible to have a look.

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2005/1452/contents

 

Also useful.

 

This is interesting from the above

 

rticles 3-9 relate to the changes to the law relating to deeds and other instruments.

 

18.Article 3 sets out the law relating to the formalities that must be undertaken for deeds which are executed by individuals. This Article abolishes the requirement for a deed to be sealed by an individual and sets out the new requirements dealing with the designation of a document and the requirements for signing and witnessing the execution of a document.

 

19.Article 4 deals with the execution of instruments by a liquidator. This Article amends the relevant provision of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and provides that the powers of a liquidator should include a power to execute deeds on behalf of a company and gives a power for the liquidator to use the company’s seal.

 

20.Article 5 amends section 7 of the Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Act 1971 making it clear that a deed properly executed by a donee is as effective as if executed in a manner which would constitute due execution of the deed by the donor.

 

21.Article 6 clarifies the legal position in relation to the delivery of deeds by abolishing the requirement that the authority given by one party to deliver an instrument must itself be evidenced in a deed. Where a solicitor, or an agent or employee of a solicitor, purports to deliver an instrument on behalf of a party to the instrument, this Article states that it should be conclusively presumed in favour of a purchaser that he is authorised to deliver the document.

 

22.Article 7 deals with escrows and makes it clear that a party delivering a deed in escrow should be entitled to revoke that escrow at any time prior to the fulfilling of any conditions on which the escrow depends. It also clarifies the law to the effect that a corporation is and always has been capable of delivering a deed in escrow in the same way as an individual.

 

23.Article 8 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Pigot’s Case. A statutory declaration is also provided to the effect that a material alteration to a deed or other written document evidencing a contractual intention does not by itself invalidate the document or render it void or otherwise affect any obligation under the deed.

 

24.Article 9 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Bain –v- Fothergill.

 

25.Articles 10-15 relate to changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That Order contains, amongst other provisions, civil protections for those people who are suffering from domestic violence and Articles 10-15 contain amendments to these civil protections.

[Peterbard]

This is why I am cautious when it comes to N.I, the laws are very similar but not exactly the same to those in England and Wales and indeed some legislation applies to both jurisdictions. Molly needs someone that is familiar with N.I, ideally as posted by Seq and Crapstone

 

Yes indeed, interesting to see the slightly different approach though I thought.

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben

 

I moved on the 'premise' that the lender has 28 days to consider his position.

 

I think you are confused because you did not understand the point I made to Fletch70 (post copied at #5721)..it appears Fletch didn't either - oh well.... it's no bother....Is It Me understands and that's the main point....this is afterall Is It Me's thread ; )

 

The 'reserved judgement' is exactly what it says......on that point, as I understand it .....the Judge will reserve Judgement for '28 days' or if you will '4 weeks'.......

 

I pointed out that you and others (and LENDERS) have that period of time to consider the merit of LRA s.23 - I assert that they have NO DEFENCE to LRA s.23 and that on that point - there is nothing they can do.......I assert that the Judge cannot and will not be expected to avoid the protection it affords any Borrower - IT IS STATUTE....stated simply and FACTUALLY.

 

so, in that regard, when I say the Lender has 28 days to set aside the decision... it is based on the 'premise' that the Lender who was 'dumbstruck' will get 28 days to appeal what I assert to be the Judges acceptance of the merit of LRA s.23....

 

 

Hope this helps you see where it is at?

 

Apple

 

 

I see so this means that the case was heard on the 20th Jan and we are awaiting the decision(in ordinary person speak)

 

 

I guess we will know any time now then .