I don't feel the question is irrelevant given that you appear to be an advocate and IIM doesn't put points across too well and doesn't reason. I apologise if you think I was being rude but we both know that you don't have much to hide behind and we are getting closer to the truth.

I've answered that above. On taking the mortgage with them if they move..but I'll second guess you that they aren't too portable but that doesn't mean they don't have the documents online or available as it can happen.

You are releasing the mortgage from the former property to the new one and agree to the new mortgage terms. Why would they send that to someone that isn't moving? That isn't something that an Accord borrower would receive unless they wanted to take their mortgage with them on moving. So one minute you are saying there is a space and now you say there isn't? Make your mind up! IIM couldn't justify their way out of a paper bag from what they have posted hence they called you in. Just for clarification were you at the hearing? Or are you just going on what you are told by IIM? A simple question ....

Seems to be a transfer of mortgage on aquiring a new property and nothing more sinister than that. Next......

Apple. To be fair people have been more than patient and raised valid points that you deem to be beneath you to answer, or you simply can't answer because you just don't know yourself. We only have your word on what the Chamber has said and that's looking more doubtful as time goes by. We will see......... So is that it? Has the nail been hit on the head that the lender didn't put their name in the box? Nothing to do with a signature or the fluff surrounding it? No mass claims and the hitting of a nerve? Again we will see..

I can only assume that the 'Lender' part is blank and does not carry the company name? That should be filled in but other than I can't see what case you'd have other than trying to make it bigger that what it is.

Show that space then without just referring to what bhall has posted. It clearly shows the space for borrowers and guarantors but no such space for the lender. Where does that signature you seek go?

But how can they execute the deed when they were not present? It can't be amended as you've said yourself. You are not going to allow Joe Brown to amend the deed with his name that our Fred Smith signed as you wanted are you?

So would that mean each time an occurrence happened to our mythical 'Fred Smith' and his counterparts, an amendment to the deed would be required? Or would it be logical to have it registered under the company name? And in the event of anything happening to the company then it's the company name to be changed and we or the company do not seek to change every deed made in various names on or behalf? Could be quite confusing..

A company is a company as registered or not. A limited company is just that and has a legal entity in its own right for example limited. It's perfectly clear that the name of the mortgage company and number are present on all the documents so it's not as though they have failed to apply that. The space provided does not appear to allow for that of the lender.. see above my reasoning why. What you are looking at is more simple but look further into the financial acts and the rights of companies.. then it gets a bit deeper. You'll be quoting Pigot next lol...

With such a dynamic environment as banking and lending it would be futile to insist on a single person putting so much as a mark on the deed on behalf of the company. It would be meaningless if the company has its own identity. What use would it be? If 'Fred Smith' were to sign it and left the company, sold up or died does that mean the deed is no longer valid too? Then you'd be questioning what authority they had to sign in relation to it being a company!

Also is not the company a separate legal entity that would have it's name plastered all over the documents along with the company registration number as indeed, (no pun intended) it does?

I was also wondering, as you do, what possible outcomes there could be if you were to succeed. The scenario that's been painted is that the charge will be void so no repossession. Maybe even a complete discharge of the mortgage and refund has been suggested I believe. The lender would be able to claim against the solicitor, conveyancer or their underwriters. But what if you were to reverse the process as fairly as possible back to situation you would have been in before? To reverse it you would need the mortgage payments to be refunded and, because the house was purchased by money that didn't belong to borrower, the property would have to be sold to pay back both the sum of money given and any equity had by the borrower. The borrower has had beneficial interest given to them as without the mortgage they would not have the property. And if it's widespread that a signature hasn't been used then they can't argue that they could have used a different lender and not had the same situation occur.

What 'space' is that Apple? Can you define what you mean a little more please? Are you saying that the lender has not signed ANYTHING in the whole mortgage process?

I'll do the same and between us we should be able to figure out what stage it is at and we can't all be wrong or right can we? If you could pm the ref. numbers that would be helpful

And we all know the lenders aren't going to be the ones to lose out even if a win were to happen. If the security goes then it's just another case of being propped up by the public again with another financial mess and even tighter belts!

IIM. I don't think Bhall has put anyone off anything. Quite the opposite really as they have inspired people to look at the law and understand a lot of things they would not have usually looked at. All in a way that's pretty clear, concise and interesting without ambiguity or rudeness. If people do want to apply to the Chamber they are free to do so and, depending on the outcome, they just might.

You aren't on your own Caro! If they have to set aside then doesn't that mean they 'won'? Well for now? I was under the impression initially that the lender had 28 days to follow some direction given by the chamber and that it wasn't a decision as such. If they hace 28 days to set aside then if they do this could carry on for a while yet. It's hard to make anything out of all this fluff and veiled messages!

Doesn't this pretty much sum it up? https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

Apple can you post just a quick synopsis of the key points you are trying to make without copy and paste. Just the ones you are contesting - in brief please.

On another note and not to detract - At this rate with the way the wind is blowing there may not be much title to be had and I'm in the Midlands so it must be like hell on the coast and with the floods to boot. Not good at all.. It would be interesting, as I've stated before, on how any properties that have sub-prime mortgages AND have had block insurance inflicted on them are dealt with. As previous, they seem to under insure at the max. premium so with such a large event and so many properties involved we might just get a clue what this would mean if a claim for the whole of a property were to happen and what position it would leave the homeowner in. Just a thought..

Yes mine seems to jump and change and I have to keep refreshing the pages.

Yes bhall it's a pretty long case that has gone on some years and makes for some interesting and surprising reading.

http://www.wragge.com/analysis_2775.asp . There is also a full seminar somewhere on the net debating the whole merit of the case in pdf form and some 56 pages long.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/452.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1396.html