Hi Stevlynd, from what i can understand, your lender offered you a 5 year facility which they led you to believe would be renewed, but after the five years was up they had run into problems and were not in a position to renew and therefore made a demand for their money. As far as I can see the bank would be under no obligation to extend or renew the facility, and it would be your responsibility to ensure that you there was an extention in place or repay the monies outstanding by the end of the 5 year term. The fact the you did not miss a payment is not an issue, the facility had expired and the law says they are entitled to demand payment. If you failed to make payment on demand at the end of the 5 year period, they would be entitled to appoint recievers according the the terms of the mortgage and the general law, so your only challenge would be on the basis that the appointment was not in accordance with the terms of the mortgage and the general law. To establish whether the appointment is within the terms of the mortgage you must look at the letter of appointment and compare it to the mortgage and facility aggreement. So for example where the terms of the mortgage and/or facility aggreement provide for the appointment of one or more receiver, but does not provide for them to be appointed to act jointly and severely, but the letter of appointment appoints two receiver to act jointly and severely the appointment can be declared void. In such a case the bank and receivers become liable for trespass and you may be able to claim demages. Once you establish that there has been an invalid appointment, it is importantant that you take the right steps and challenge the appointment in the courts by bringing an application (prefferably in the High Court) for a declaration that the appointment is void. Another protentential challenge is based on how the appointment document has been signed, which as I have stated previously must be signed by either: Two authorised signatories A director in the presence of a witness, who attests the signature By a person authorise to execute documents on behalf of the company under a power of attorney , in accordance the Power of Attorney Act 1971. If it is not so signed then again the appointment may be declared void. A Receiver(s) also has an obligation to act, he may not sit on his hands, if he sits on his hands and does nothing you can sue him for the loss of income that has arisen from his lack of action. i.e. the loss of rental income that you would have had had he marketed the property for rent. If the receiver informed the tenants to stop paying you rent, but then failed or delayed taking steps to collect rent themselves they will again be liable for any loss of rent that has arisen from their lack of action. If the property becomes vacant and the receivers takes no steps to either rent or sell the property again the receiver becomes liable for lost income. If you can not get you head around what I have written, then I will be willing to have a look at the documents if they are available. These will be: The letter or appointment The facility aggreement The deed of charge I believe you will have to send these to the moderators who will then forward them to me. I hope this is of some help to you.

Hi Stevlynd, if you need assistance you need to take the time to explain what your situation is and the problem you are trying to overcome. It's a bit much to expect anyone to just take on your paperwork without am idea of what the problem is and how the problem arose.

Has anyone used the case Nautch Ltd and others v mortgage Express and another [2012] to challenge the appointment of receivers either in court or prior to it getting to court i.e. the bank dis-instructing the receivers prior to it getting to court?

I wrote the artical yesterday and have only posted it here - I am as surprised as you that it has been picked up and copied there so quickly, but have no qualms about it because the main thing is to get the information out there to people who need it and can make use it. I would imagine someone who has access to post on forumsee saw the artical here, liked it and so posted it there.

Yes any caselaw from superior courts in other common law jurisdictions (particularly from those countries forming part of the commonwealth) do indeed form persuasive precedents, and if a court in the UK is to over-rule the precedent it needs to explain why, and as this will result in contrictary case law on the point this would consitute good gounds for appeal. When deciding a case the parties will look for UK caselaw to support their case, as these will be binding, if the point has never been decided in the UK, then the parties would look to see if the point has been decided in any other commonwealth jurisdictions, such as Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc.., As there are very little UK case law dealing with challenges to the appointment of LPA receivers, we have to look for case law in other commonlaw jurisdictions. The bottom line is that many people are unable to effectively challenge the appointment of receivers because they don't know how. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get effective legal representation in the UK because it is a specialist area and most solicitors and barristers practicing in receivership law make a lot of money representing banks and receivers, which means when you go to the legal profession they have a conflict. Do they ****-off the banks and receivers by proving that an appointment is void, and perhaps set a new precedent, or do they take you money and then tell you that you don't have a case, in the knowledge that you probably unable to scrutinise the appointment yourself and are entirely reliant on their expertise. The fact that I have only been able to find one successful challenge to the appointment of receivers in the UK, and one in Ireland seems to suggest that we cannot depend on the legal profession in challenging the appointment of receivers, we have to take the lead. Which means that we have to equipt ourselves with as much knowledge as possible, so that if we are instructing a solicitor or barrister we can identify the grounds for our challenge and instruct them to challenge on those grounds. If they are then negligent in prosecuting the challenge you then have a claim against them for professional neglegence. The UK case where the appointment of some of the receivers was sucessfully challenged is: Nautch Ltd and others v Mortgage Express and another [2012] EWHC 4136 (Ch) - [2013] All ER (D) 115 (Mar) The irish case where the appoint of receivers was successfully challenged is: Merrow Ltd -v- Bank of Scotland Plc & Anor [2013 IEHC 130]

Just to clarify, this artical was written by me after over two years of dealing with LPA receivers in and out of court. The purpose of the thread is to give people who are effected by LPA receivers a very strong starting point in obtaining remedy. The site that has copied my thread can be seen here: http://finance.forumsee.com/a/m/s/p12-25867-0139981--lpa-receivers-how-effectively-challenge-their-appointment.html, and has infact credited this site as the source, and if you look at the artical who will see there is formating errors which usually happens when an artical is cut and pasted between different file formats.

The appointment of a receiver(s) can be effectively challenged by scrutinising the terms and conditions of the mortgage and the contents and form of letter or deed of appointment. The appointment document must be executed in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, which may include any or all of the following: The Law of Property Act 1925 s109(1) – Must be under ‘his’ hand The Companies Act 2006 s44 – Execution of documents - Hilmi & Associates Ltd v 20 Pembridge Villas Freehold Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 31 The Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 s1 – If made by deed of appointment, although even if the appointment is not affective as a deed it may still be affective as ‘under his hand’ In practice this means that the letter of appointment must be signed in accordance the Companies Act 2006 s.44 and be signed either by: Two authorised signatories A director in the presence of a witness, who attests the signature By a person authorise to execute documents on behalf of the company under a power of attorney , in accordance the Power of Attorney Act 1971 If the letter of appointment is not properly executed the appointment is void and the ‘lender’ and any receiver(s) acting under the appointment are liable for damages. The next thing to check is whether the appointment is in accordance with the mortgage deed, for example if the appointment document appoints two receivers to act jointly and severally, but the mortgage only allows for the appointment of one or more receivers and does not stipulate that they may act jointly and severally then the appointment is deemed ineffective and void. The principle that the Lender is obliged to appoint receivers in accordance with the Mortgage is accepted and applied by the courts throughout the common law world. The Bank purports to appoint Receiver(s) without the aid of the courts in pursuant to its contractual rights under the Mortgage with the Receiver's authority being derived directly from the Mortgage. Therefore the receiver has to be appointed in strict compliance with the terms of the contract between the parties (mortgagee and the mortgagor). Since the receiver's authority is derived from the mortgage under which he is appointed, an appointment is not valid unless it is made in accordance with the terms of that mortgage. This principle has been recognised by the leading commentators (Receivers and Administrators, Kerr & Hunter; and The Law of Private Companies (3rd Ed, Courtney). Lynch-Fannon Corporate Insolvency and Rescue (2nd ed.) has noted that "the penalty for non-compliance with the formalities for the appointment of the receiver is that such appointment is void". She also observed that non-compliance with formalities of appointment amounts to an abuse of process. In Wrights Hardware v. Evans (1988) 13 A.C.L.R. 631 the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the deed of charge authorised the Chargee under clause 4.3 to “appoint in writing any person to be a receiver or receiver and manager ... of the mortgaged premises" and under clause 4.4 "in addition ... appoint in writing any person to be an additional receiver or receiver manager" who had “full powers and authority to exercise all or any part of the powers expressed to be conferred on a receiver appointed...". The Chargee had in fact appointed the defendants “jointly and severally to be receivers and managers" of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought interlocutory relief restraining the defendants from acting as receivers and managers on the basis that the appointment was invalid, there being no power in the charge to appoint receivers and managers jointly and severally. The defendant argued that the proper construction of the charge authorised the appointment of joint and several receivers and managers or, in the alternative, the appointment was nevertheless valid insofar as it authorised the defendants to act jointly. The Supreme Court of Western Australia held that the relevant clauses could not have the meaning contended for by the defendants and granted the injunction. Franklyn J. emphasised the importance that the terms of the debenture be complied with by stating: "I am satisfied that the relevant law applying to the appointment of a receiver or receiver and manager, and receivers or receivers and managers pursuant to the charge is as follows: 1. The manner in which a receiver is to be appointed is prescribed by the debenture deed, in this case the charge, and must be strictly followed…” I am aware that many mortgagees are appointing two receivers to act jointly and severally, when in fact the terms of the mortgage do not permit the appointment of receivers to act jointly and severally; any such appointment is void. If the receivers appointment is void, then the receiver(s) are trespassers and liable to damages for trespassers and if they have sold your property they are liable for conversion and/or trespass with conversion. The lender may also be vicariously liable for trespassers and conversion, and liable for breach of contract. Even if the letter of appointment is valid, receive(s) will routinely act outside of the scope of their powers, and as such commit acts of trespass. Unless the power of the receiver(s) are extended by the terms of the mortgage, the extent of the powers of the receiver(s) are limited to those derived from the LPA 1925 s.109(3) – (8). This means that unless the powers of the receiver(s) have been extended the receiver(s) may not: Grant tenancies, or leases Accept the surrender of tenancies or leases Bring possession proceedings unless it is in relation to rent Market or sell the property Although under s109(3) mortgagee may delegate powers to the receiver(s), on my reading, the mortgagee can only delegate its own powers to the receivers and cannot delegate the powers of the mortgagees and this would make the receiver the agent of the mortgagee. So unless the receiver(s) powers have been extended by the terms of the mortgage the extent of the receiver’s powers as the agent of the mortgagor are limited to those stipulated in the LPA 1925 s.109(3) – (8). If the receiver(s) exercise any power that is delegated by the mortgagee, then the receiver becomes the agent of the mortgagee, and the mortgagee becomes a mortgagee in possession.

I am not sure why Apple wasn't the one to represent IIM's friend at the hearing as no one understands the argument better than Apple, it follows that Apple would have been the best man for the job. I also hope that the applications were successful, but just as well we were not holding our breath for the outcome.

It is my view that Neuberger deliberated avoided United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1996], and his judgment was very cleverly worded. He said the s.2. argument was hopeless, as it did not apply to deeds, but he did not specify if section 2 argument applied to the implied contract for an equitable mortgage that arises from the deposits of title deeds, which in my view it does. In MOLTON FINANCE LTD. [No. 001609 of 1965] – [1968], Denning MR states: “…It seems to me that when an equitable mortgage or charge is created by deposit of title deeds, there is an implied contract that the mortgagee or chargee may retain the deeds until he is paid. This implied contract is part and parcel of the equitable mortgage or charge. It is not a separate legal or common law lien. It has no independent existence apart from the equitable mortgage or charge. When the mortgage or charge is avoided for non-registration, then everything which is ancillary to it is avoided also...” In the United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1996], Gibson LJ states: “The effect of section 2 is, therefore, that a contract for a mortgage of or charge on any interest in land or in the proceeds of sale of land can only be made in writing and only if the written document incorporates all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed and is signed by or on behalf of each party. […] In the present case, for the reasons given, it seems to me clear that the deposit of title deeds takes effect as a contract for a mortgage and as such falls within s.2 […] I therefore conclude that by reason of s.2, the mere deposit of title deeds by way of security cannot any longer create a mortgage or charge.” Every valid legal mortgage must be preceding by a valid equitable mortgage, being as the deed is for an legal mortgage and not an equitable mortgage, the equitable mortgage can only arise from the deposit of title deed, and as such gives rise to an implied contract, which itself must be 2.3 compliant since 26, September 1989. Read the Heldon Judgment carefully and notice how the judgement says that Mr Heldon is mistaken in concluding that the contract must be in the deed because there is no other agreement, but also notice (perhaps because the argument was not put) that he does not say that there is no need for an agreement with 2-party signatories, but just that (in that particular case), the section 2 agreement was not to be found in the deed. Many would say that the judgement was per incuriam (a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant).

The Lamb case dealt with whether the deed was a contract of, or a contract for the disposition (mortgage), and it was found that the deed was a contract of, and therefore did not have to comply with s.2. However the lamb case did not address whether the deed complied with s.1(3) at the moment of signimg. The ‘it’ referred to in the LPMPA 1989 s1(3) refers to the deed in its complete form (consisting of all its component parts and all of their pages), including the terms and conditions and the mortgage offer (the agreement), ass upported by the judgment in Garguilo v Jon Howard Gershinson & Anr [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0377 (06 January 2012. if the deed contains obligations for the lender to perform (such as an obligation to make further advances), then the lender must also sign the deed, this is supported by by Lightman J in the Murray v Guinness [1998] judgment: “In my view s.2 of the Act imposes requirements for the validity of contractual obligations of the character there specified: the document in which any such contractual obligation is contained must be in the form specified in s.2 if the contractual obligation is to have legal effect….” The lamb deed did not contain any such contractual obligations on the part of the lender, and so this argument was not considered. In my view where there is an obligation to make further advances there must be a preceding agreement that is signed by both parties, and if there is not then the deed must serve as a specialty contract and be executed by the lender. As the property chamber is a crown agency, it can not be seen to be impartial, particularly in cases where an individual is challenging the banks. It there is a huge difference in the way the courts and tribunals interpret the law when both parties are corporations, and when one party is an individual Agreed.

Thanks for your advise Ben. Now that the adjudicator has been replaced by the Property Chamber has the procedure and and form on which to make a set aside application changed or does the procedure and form used remain the same?

Hi Ben what is your view of the status of a charge by way of legal mortgage if the mortgage deed DOES contain an obligation that the Deed is made to secure further advances and the lender is obliged to make further advances ..., but the lender has failed to sign the mortgage deed?

Please check out this youtube video: Metropolitan Police Without Jurisdiction Unlawful Eviction - Part II (Full Version) On Friday 21 June 2013, 9 serving Police Officers from the Peckham Police Station, attend a flat in Southwark to unlawfully execute a County Court Warrant. This act was unlawful, as the police to not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to execute civil warrants or to involve themselves in civil dispute. The only duty they could possibly have in a civil matter, is one of keeping the peace.

What year were your mortgages taken out?

Unless there is an all property charge, then each charge stands alone, one does not affect the other. This is why for example MEX is trying to force it customers to sign new terms and conditions, one of the new terms is that you agree for a single charge across all properties. So that a breach on one mortgages is a breach on all.

When did they sign the new terms and conditions, and what lender are they with?

MEX have been aggressively attempting to force all it's customers onto New Term & Conditions, so that they can they can that they can have more control over the way that their customers manage their buy to let properties, close their mortgage book by 2020, and put all the customers on all charges mortgage, which means a default on one mortage account is a default on all mortgage accounts. Has anyone been forced to sign MEX new terms and conditions this year?

If you move into the property and tell them you have done so, I understand they will need to get a possession order. Obviously you can not be a trespasser on your own property. I would also check to see that the mortgage deed has been properly executed, by meeting the requirements as stated in paragraphs 7 to 10 of my "Notice of Unlawful Templeton and LSL Appointment 31 07 12". If you are satisfied that the deed has not been properly executed, then there is no legal charge, and therefore ANY appointment of LPA Receivers by the mortgagee is unlawful, and you can serve the LPA Receiver notice of this and take back over you property. Please see the Ben Gilroy clip above.

If the relationship between the receiver and the mortgagee is to close and the receiver is not acting independently of the mortgagee, the receiver may be deemed to be the agent of the mortgagee.

This is a notice I sent to Templeton LPA receiver yesterday. I was going to post it on a separate thread, but as so many people have contributed to this thread it is probably more useful to post it here. There is a lot of information in this notice, and it may be useful to different people in different ways. My view is that once you have right on your side and you have the courage to stand up against those whose unethical and immoral behavior has no bounds you are a winner, and if you believe you WILL win you will be victorious. This is after a war of principalities: Notice of Unlawful Appointment of Templeton and LSL by or on Behalf of Mortgage Express From: Please Reply to: Date: To: Davies, Templeton LPA, Argyle House, Castlebridge, Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff, CF11 9AB For the avoidance of doubt: I do not consent to this appointment, as it is deemed unlawful In response to you correspondence informing me that yourself and and Paul Jardine have been appointed as LPA receiver over my properties. Mortgage Express claim to have the right to appoint you, but this is only a claim which I has been, and continues to dispute since October. The dispute has not been resolved and is on-going: complaint (H55/LM/CHARM121659). This complaint is currently being investigated by Paul Marshall – Please see attached letter dated 24 July 2012. The result of this complaint into whether Mortgage Express has the power to appoint an LPA receiver for historical arrears (i.e. arrears that has been cleared), would have affected your appointment. This is an issue on which you should have sought independent legal advice. My Complaint is also based on the fact that even if the terms enable Mortgage Express to appoint a receiver on the grounds of historical arrears, they are excluded from doing so based on a Promissory Estoppel, which has been in place from since 12 January 2009. I will forward you the email sent to me by John Jacobs and Mr Shelton, which is just one of the pieces of evidence to support Promissory Estoppel. As I said it is not my job to do your job, and you should request full disclosure from Mortgage Express in order that you could properly validate your appointment. Your failure to carry out even the most rudimentary checks to validate you appointment is a failure to carry out the duty of care that you owe me and my tenants, and also indicates that you relationship with mortgage express is much too cosy to carry out you duty in an independent and professional manner. It is clear to me that you have not examined the particular terms and conditions that the mortgagee is relying on to appoint you. Or even looked at the arrears history to verify that the individual properties over which Mortgage has appointed you receiver have ever been in two or more month’s arrears (Calculated according to what the payments were at the time when arrears occurred – this is the way that the calculation should be made, as any attempt to do otherwise would not be in good faith. There is an assumption in contract law that each party of a contract will not seek to take advantage of a technicality within the contract to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the other party. Likewise the concept of historical arrears is in bad faith, and it not referred to at all in any of the Mortgage Expresses terms. The other main issue involving the validity of your appointment is that there appears to be no signed contract then there can be no valid Legal Charge if this requirement is not satisfied, at best there can only be a charge in equity. Likewise in preforming your duty of care to me it is fundamental that you have seen a lawfully binding contract signed by both parties, which is referred to in s2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. I requested the same from Richard Banks – Chief Executive of UKAR (the company set up to manage the banks that have been taken over by the government with tax payers money) on the 11th April 2012, and have not received it. s2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 "... THE document incorporating the terms ...", must be executed by the Mortgagee Company under section 2(3) of the 1989 LPMPA statute. Failure to do so renders a nullity, from the outset, the mortgage contract and nullifies the power of attorney/sale & associated registered charge. Furthermore, Cousins Law of Mortgage (2010) 3rd Edition affirms: “… Where a purported contract for the grant of a mortgage on or after September 26, 1989 fails to comply with the requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, no mortgage will be created and, notwithstanding any oral agreement or deposit of title deeds, the creditor will have no interest in or rights over the debtor’s land ..." (see page 610-611). In addition the Terms that Mortgage Express are relying upon, in the enforcement of its alleged claim, breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, “s.5 Unfair Terms” states: “(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. […] (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.” I also made a request to Richard Banks on 11th April 2012, for a copy of the document that satisfies the requirements of The Companies Acts 2006 s44, which states: (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. (4) A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed in whatever words, to be executed by the company, has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.” Mortgage Express and Richard Banks failed to supply me with a copy of the requested document; It is therefore ironic that having shown complete disregard for the statutory obligation under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, and section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, which means that the charge is invalid, they are relying on the same Act for their authority to appoint you. Mortgage Express do not have a valid legal charge, at best they have only a charge in equity. Clearly Mortgage Express believe they can make the law up as they go along; I reject this presumption, if the Law of Property Act applies to me, then it must also apply to Mortgage Express. There is also the issue that the notices served on me by Mortgage Express were not correctly drafted or served. You are reminded that the purpose of a notice is to give the individual who is being served the opportunity to take remedial action for the thing that he is being noticed, so if not correctly drafted or served the individual served is denied the opportunity to take any action and so the notice is void. You are also advised that If you have deliberately misled me or my tenants as to the extent of you powers and authority, you will be committing an offence under the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 are engaged (Section 1 to 4). If you in turn have been misled by Mortgage Express, then you need to take your own steps to rectify this. We have had the Pensions scandal, Subprime scandal, the miss-selling of Loan Protection scandal, the miss-selling of complex financial products scandal, the Libor scandal, and now we have the Invalid Mortgages scandal. The common feature in all of these scandals is the trust that hard working people placed in the banks to represent their interest and act in an equitable manner, trust which turned out to be miss-guided. For all of the reasons set out above, I do not accept your appointment, and am advising all of my tenant not to speak to you until such time they see a valid court order confirming that your appointment is lawful. Additionally I am officially informing you that you do not have permission to enter any of my properties and that if you do so you will be entering as a trespasser. I would also request that you take steps to rescind the notices that you have sent out to my tenants until such time as you have properly completed the validation process; and now you have been notified of the unresolved issues surrounding you appointment you will be held liable for alarm, distress, financial damages caused by your actions to myself and my tenants. In Good Faith - without prejudice cc.

This is an interesting link on How to Halt Receivers For all those who are prepared to stand up for Freedom, Truth and Justice

I have a copies of 2000, 2004, and 2010 Terms - I try and scan and post them, or at least a link to them.

The contract which I am talking about is the terms and condition of the 'agent's' appointment, what payments he received, his duty's and responsibility to the borrower, to the tenants. I know what I would do if someone appointed an agent to act on my behalf without my permission, without consultation and without due process. I would dismiss them straight away, by not dismissing them you are giving you consent and agreeing that you are incapable of handling your own affairs, and managing your own assets. You are also agreeing that anyone who is brought in to act as your agent will do a better job than you. Hence, no consultation with lender or receiver, no feedback or reporting; and most importantly no accountability to you. One of the main problems that is preventing people, who find themselves in the position where a lender has appointed someone to act on their behalf, is that people are looking in the wrong place for the answers. You will not find you answers in the unilateral contract that exist in the form of your mortgage, you have to look to the wider law, in particular the common law. As far as my understanding goes, one party can not impose an agent on another without first proving that the party concerned is incapable of acting for them self or given them explicit permission to do so. Now, the fact that I may have been in two months arrears does not mean that I am incapable of managing my mortgage, even if the terms and conditions say that I am incapable. If the terms and conditions defined you as a 'banana', or a 'big time loser' if you missed two or more payment does it mean that it is so. No, you can only dress-up as a 'banana', and a 'big time loser' you could be, but are not necessarily so - in fact, very unlikely, otherwise you probably wouldn't have got the mortgages in the first place. I think it's time for us all to stop thinking in the way we were condition to think, because then we will always come out the looser with the same old guys walking away with what was yours. I am a strong believer that the law always provides remedy for your wrongs, but you have to look outside of the law that they are directing you towards.

Yes, but the law of property act does not say that you can not dismiss the agent that has been appointed by the lender. Common law would say that you can dismiss an agent, and as you have not signed a contract if you disaggree with the appointment you should be able to dismiss the appointment. I think there is an assumption that the principal does not object to the appointment. And as I said before where is the contract and who is the appointed - Does the agent sign the contract on your behalf - there seems to be a clear conflict of interest here, and a lot of instructions. In signing the mortgage deed does one waive in rights under common law, and if so where was this disclosed prior to the signing of the mortgage?

I would like to know what people think about one party of a agreement instructing and imposing an agent on the other party to an agreement. My view is that it is unlawful, and in any case if the mortgage company appoints an agent to represent your interest if your agent is not representing your then surely you must be able to dismiss 'it'. Also, if an agent is appointed, there must be a contract of appointment, who are the parties to these contracts, and who has signed it - These people are very tricky and slippery and something I will be looking into further. If anyone has a view on this please share.