Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

I bet they say.......................... 'section 2 does not apply to Deeds'......

 

Apple

 

I have already had this reply from the lender and I have already bounced the argument presented here to them. They have responded with... silence.

[UNRAM]

or better still.... I bet they say.......'the obligation was on the Borrower....section 53 applies; this is a unilateral deed'

 

 

Apple

 

What would be a succinct reply in this instance?

 

Actually I don't need an answer to that... i know the response...

Edited September 11, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

What would be a succinct reply in this instance?

 

Actually I don't need an answer to that... i know the response...

 

LOL.... they could say.....'it's a unilateral deed, only the borrower has obligations under it'....

 

But 'Silence'...ummmm..... ......they do say 'silence is golden'

 

In a court of law, 'silence' is considered to be 'NO DEFENCE'

 

Let's hope they stay silent then hey : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

I agree but we all know they HAVE to say some thing no matter what.

[TimetogoRAM]

Is it me - Anything from the lender yet?

UNRAM - any response off the property chamber or Nram yet?

 

I'm still waiting for a response from lender. They have till monday or draft to property chamber is off! Keep us posted.

[IS IT ME?]

Well here it is apple quite a bed time read, it is not a lot and there is another part which I'll do tomorrow. You will note I have high lighted the bit about internet help which if you are watching thank you you know who you are and I look forward to seeing you at the hearing.

 

Well here is the reply but also there is a part which states;

' THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH THE HELP OF INTERNET FORUMS'

They go into the background of the application for a mortgage and what the amount was and other details which are incorrect but that is some thing I'll come to later.The Respondents objection

The respondents objects to the applications application. In accordance with rule 30(1) of the tribunal rules 2013 the respondents reasons are set out in this reply.

The respondent requires the applicants to prove their claim for rectification appear to be a precedent and or document completed with the help of the internet.

Entirely without prejudice to that requirement the respondent will say that the applicants application is entirely misconceived and or bound to fail for the reasons set out in this reply and therefore invites the tribunal to strike-out the application under rule 9(3)

The respondent admits that the nature of the mortgage deed is to create a first charge by way of legal mortgage and the respondent denies that the amendment to sec:1(3)(b) of the law of property act 1989 resulting from paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the regulatory reform order execution of deeds order 2005 have any relevance or changes the law in the way suggested by the applicants.

The respondent will say and admits that by sec1(3) of the LPact 1989 the mortgage deed is validly executed as a deed if and only if it is signed by the applicants and witness and it is delivered as a deed in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989.

The respondent notes that the applicant admit that they signed the mortgage deed and that there signatures were witnessed in accordance with sec:1(3)a of the LP act 1989 but deny that the mortgage deed was delivered in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LPact 1989 and the respondent requires the applicants to prove that the mortgage deed was not delivered either as alleged or at all. The respondent will say that by the applicants actions in signing the mortgage deed and having their signatures witnessed and sending the executed mortgage deed to the firm and or instructing them to proceed and complete the property's purchase amounted to the applicant unconditionally delivering the mortgage deed in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) LP1989. Further the respondent will say that the applicants actions in instructing the firm to ask for the advance to be paid to it in readiness for completion, amounted to the applicants either delivering the mortgage deed unconditionally or alternatively in escrow with delivery taking place upon completion of the purchase in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 for the avoidance of doubt

The mortgage deed took effect as a deed and was delivered as a deed upon the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively and at the very latest completion of the purchase.

Because the mortgage deed was delivered either unconditionally or in escrow and subject to either (i) the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively (ii) completion of the purchase the mortgage deed was irrevicable and could not be withdrawn or recalled by the applicants. Further or alternatively the respondent will say for the reasons set out in this reply that the mortgage deed was delivered on or before the completion dated in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) 0f the LP 1989. Also alternatively the respondents will say that the mortgage deed was delivered by the firm in accordance with sec:1(5) of the LP act 1989 or otherwise on or before the completion date in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 The respondents notes that the applicants maintain that the mortgage deed must be executed by the respondents in accordance with sec:74(5) of the law of property act 1925 and or sec: 74(a) of the 1925 act. The respondent will say that any reliance on sec: 74(5) and or Sec: 74(a) of the LP act 1925 is misconceived as those provisions do not require the respondent to execute the mortgage deed. further the respondents will say that it does not have to as a matter of law execute the mortgage deed, the only person who needs to execute the mortgage deed were the applicants( and they did so) the mortgage deed was therefore validly executed and properly registered against the property by way of fierst legal charge.

ESTOPPEL. if the mortgage deed did not comply with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 which is denied the respondents will say that the applicants are estopped from denying that the mortgage deed has been validly executed. The respondents will also say that the applicants or the firm acting as the applicants agent represented to the respondent that the mortgage deed had been validly executed by the applicants. In reliance of such a represention the respondents transferred the advance to the firm and would not have done so if no such representation had been made. Further or alternatively if the mortgage deed should have been executed by the respondent but was not which is denied the respondent will say that the applicants are estopped from now arguing either by virtue of their agreement to complete the purchase and or payment of monies to the respondents in accordance with the mortgage deed and or conditions and or terms that the mortgage deed was not validly executed. The respondents relied on the applicants conduct and or custom and or standard conveyancing practice and or the firm undertaking to register the mortgage deed against the property and transferred the advance to the firm to allow the applicants to complete the purchase. Further or alternatively the respondents are entitled in any event and for the reasons set out in this reply to a return or restitution of the advance together with interest and other sums payable under the mortgage deed

Equitable mortgage

further or alternatively and subject to the tribunal deciding that the mortgage deed did not comply with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LP1989 which is denied and was not validly executed the respondents will say that the mortgage deed took effect as an equitable mortgage or charge

[TimetogoRAM]

Talk about clutching at straws.

Do they really think that they can get this application 'struck' out by the tribunal on the basis of precedent and the fact that you have sought some of the information on FACT of law from Internet forums...

 

I'm gob smacked that they actually don't believe that the RRO is relevant. This order was in fact brought in to remove presumption of delivery. That is exactly what they have done. They have failed to sign or seal the 'document' to make it a deed, which brings this very doubt that in fact there is any execution.

 

What further makes me laugh about their denials is their constant contradictions. Firstly they state that the purported deed is executed because it is delivered to the conveyancer and then they state that there is no requirement for the lender (only the applicant) to execute the deed. As we all know a deed is a speciality contract and this requires to be signed, sealed and delivered.

 

Further, the lender has mentioned that should it be proved that the deed does not infact comply with the section of LPMPA 89 (which they deny) then they state that the mortgage took effect as an equitable mortgage, which as we all know is illegal since LRA 2002. LRA 02 s23 means that the applicant had no power to charge their property by way of legal mortgage, and as such had no power to grant the lender a charge..

Just to refresh LRA 2002 s23 owners powers (3)In subsection (2)(a), “legal sub-mortgage” means—

(b)a sub-mortgage by sub-demise, and

©a charge by way of legal mortgage.

 

Them holes are just from reading it once and not over examining their response. I'm sure apple and everyone else who's read this forum will respond in more detail, and with more intent.

[IS IT ME?]

Your gob smacked, I could believe this when I was first given it! You can see why they changed solicitors lol

I have picked up on your points already and as this now must be heard before the tribunal as the case in which they relied can not be grounds for a strike out.

As for the internet, they use it to find out case's and find out what people are doing so calling the kettle back does not even come into it.

They are very VERY worried and so they should be.:wink:

[UNRAM]

I too have had a reply from the lender. Based on consideration of all relevant information presented in this thread they consider the mortgage remains enforceable and are relying on Lamb vs Mortgage Business 2013 - that LPMPA1989 section 2 does not apply to mortgages as actual dispositions and no signature is required. I have agreed with them and noted that I have made no mention of reliance on LPMPA section 2 in any defense or Chamber Application.

 

They also state their reliance on on LPA1925 section 53 defining formalities for the disposition and have completely overlooked LPA1925 section 52 and LRA 2002 section 91. There is no defence or rejection of LRA section 23. No mention at all of RRO2005 amendments to LPMPA1989 section 1.5.

 

It may be the case here too that they attempt to rely on creation of an equitable mortgage.

Edited September 14, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Your gob smacked, I could believe this when I was first given it! You can see why they changed solicitors lol

I have picked up on your points already and as this now must be heard before the tribunal as the case in which they relied can not be grounds for a strike out.

As for the internet, they use it to find out case's and find out what people are doing so calling the kettle back does not even come into it.

They are very VERY worried and so they should be.:wink:

 

...as for the internet... we are all now reliant on the internet including the legislators and government making law and statute available online for everyone not just the lender's lawyers...

Edited September 14, 2013 by UNRAM

[TimetogoRAM]

I too have had a reply from the lender. Based on consideration of all relevant information presented in this thread they consider the mortgage remains enforceable and are relying on Lamb vs Mortgage Business 2013 - that LPMPA1989 section 2 does not apply to mortgages as actual dispositions and no signature is required. I have agreed with them and noted that I have made no mention of reliance on LPMPA section 2 in any defense or Chamber Application.

 

They also state their reliance on on LPA1925 section 53 defining formalities for the disposition and have completely overlooked LPA1925 section 52 and LRA 2002 section 91. There is no defence or rejection of LRA section 23. No mention at all of RRO2005 amendments to LPMPA1989 section 1.5.

 

It may be the case here too that they attempt to rely on creation of an equitable mortgage.

 

 

What part of s53 lpa 1925 have they relied upon?

 

As is is it me's response, they are using the fact it is an equitable mortgage as a backup if its a case of the deed is found to be undelivered. They also have failed to bring the LRA 02 into the equation.... - probably for the reason being that they are relying on an equitable mortgage being created.

Edited September 14, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[UNRAM]

What part of s53 lpa 1925 have they relied upon?

 

As is is it me's response, they are using the fact it is an equitable mortgage as a backup if its a case of the deed is found to be undelivered. They also have failed to bring the LRA 02 into the equation....

 

No subsection mentioned. Only reliance on 53.

[TimetogoRAM]

53. Instruments required to be in writing.

(1) Subject to the provision hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol:

(a) no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law;

(b) a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will;

© a disposition of an equitable interest or trust subsisting at the time of the disposition, must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing or by will.

 

Can you find any part of this act that will assist their defence? Apart from relying on the creation of an equitable mortgage. S53 (1)©

[IS IT ME?]

The answer to that is NO

[lesterlass]

Not sure if you have seen this, if not hope it's of use.

 

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2012/%5B2012%5D%20NICh%2016/j_j_DEE8511Final.htm

 

LL

[IS IT ME?]

yes very good lesterlass,

[lesterlass]

yes very good lesterlass,

 

 

Glad to be of help:madgrin:

[applecart]

Glad to be of help:madgrin:

 

All information is welcome...Thank you......

 

I'm Glad you have taken an interest : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me....

 

At last....I've highlighted my immediate thoughts in blue..... I will no doubt revisit after looking at what they have said in more detail......

HERE's what you posted up>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

' THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH THE HELP OF INTERNET FORUMS'

They go into the background of the application for a mortgage and what the amount was and other details which are incorrect but that is some thing I'll come to later.The Respondents objection

The respondents objects to the applications application. In accordance with rule 30(1) of the tribunal rules 2013 the respondents reasons are set out in this reply.

The respondent requires the applicants to prove their claim for rectification appear to be a precedent and or document completed with the help of the internet.

Entirely without prejudice to that requirement the respondent will say that the applicants application is entirely misconceived and or bound to fail for the reasons set out in this reply and therefore invites the tribunal to strike-out the application under rule 9(3)

 

The respondent admits that the nature of the mortgage deed is to create a first charge by way of legal mortgage.....

 

OK....so you admit that the nature of a mortgage is also totally obsolete???....because it is!!.... you cannot mortgage a registered estate mate....no such thing as a legal mortgage....we can talk 'legal sub-charge'...... but 'legal mortgage'???......Nah, them are definitely obsolete....

What they fail to admit here is that the Borrower has no power to charge the estate or registered charge by way of mortgage by demise or sub-demise or sub-mortgage by virtue of the LRA section 23

..and the respondent denies that the amendment to sec:1(3)(b) of the law of property act 1989 resulting from paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the regulatory reform order execution of deeds order 2005 have any relevance or changes the law in the way suggested by the applicants.

 

Eeeerrrm......wrong!!! the RRO article 10 (2) removed the presumption of delivery on sight of the Borrowers signature alone – that is a definite fact....

Analogous with the amendments to section 1 (5); 1 (6); and the LPA 1925 section 74/74A and the companies act 2006 section 46 and other pieces of legislation to do with their duty as a lender to validly execute a deed.

 

They again lose sight of the fact that the ‘draft written representation’ makes it clear that the Borrower had no statutory power to grant a mortgage here....so Gawd knows what they are on about here....I do believe they have not done their homework......the Borrower is ahead of them here.....AGAIN : )

 

The respondent will say and admits that by sec1(3) of the LPact 1989 the mortgage deed is validly executed as a deed if and only if it is signed by the applicants and witness and it is delivered as a deed in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989.

 

Eeeerrrrm.....GOOOD!!!!.....GOTCHA!!!!!.....ALMOST!!!.....they just need to admit to the 'amendments' made by the RRO too!!!! they are simply trying to be clever here....Article 10 (2) on its own defeats this feeble attempt to rely on the un-amended version of Section 1 (3)(b)......the amendment caused the presumption of delivery on sight of the Borrowers signature alone to provide no presumption of delivery for it removes the words ‘the person making it’.....so, the borrower as the ‘person making it’.....is not the person liable to deliver the document as a deed at all

Further, removal of the words ‘or a person authorised to do so on his behalf’ are also repealed........have they lost their focus or what???? (We did advise, that they remain focused didn’t we???....looks like they ignored us mere ‘simple’ ‘internet’ folks – Let me advise; they do so at their peril!!!!)

The respondent notes that the applicant admit that they signed the mortgage deed and that there signatures were witnessed in accordance with sec:1(3)a of the LP act 1989 but deny that the mortgage deed was delivered in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LPact 1989 and the respondent requires the applicants to prove that the mortgage deed was not delivered either as alleged or at all.

 

LOL....eeeerrm.....the RRO tells you that it has not been ‘delivered’!! by removing the presumption of delivery by repealing the words 'the person making it'.....doh!

 

But hey....if they want more....give them more...... There is no longer any right to assent to a ‘mortgage’....the right was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 to repeal section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.......so, if they are relying that the deed that meets lpa section 52 (a) (to do with ‘assents’) is going to help them....wellllllll.......they can think again!!!!....we are ahead of them there too..... : )

The respondent will say that by the applicants actions in signing the mortgage deed and having their signatures witnessed and sending the executed mortgage deed to the firm and or instructing them to proceed and complete the property's purchase amounted to the applicant unconditionally delivering the mortgage deed in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) LP1989.

 

Eeeerrrrm, the RRO removed the presumption of delivery...prey tell....why are they relying on this outdated means of trying to hold the Borrower to estoppel.....they need to look at ‘garguilo’....it clearly says in that decision.....you as a lender cannot rely on estoppel....THAT’s AN ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW MATE!!!! You can’t do that; not when we are FOCUSED!!!

 

Further the respondent will say that the applicants actions in instructing the firm to ask for the advance to be paid to it in readiness for completion, amounted to the applicants either delivering the mortgage deed unconditionally or alternatively in escrow with delivery taking place upon completion of the purchase in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 for the avoidance of doubt

How behind the times are they????.... I repeat ........Have they not seen Garguillo?? Bibby??...They do not understand what the RRO is actually telling them....or how it impacts on the way they have been taking the preverbial....(for want of a better word) in their ‘certain activities’.... oh well.....I admire this bold attempt by them......fact is.....there is no defence here...... : )

 

The mortgage deed took effect as a deed and was delivered as a deed upon the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively and at the very latest completion of the purchase.

 

This is where they are trying to ‘infer’ the right to ‘assent’ (LPA 1925 section 52 (2)(a).....very clever,.....but, like I said above.......they cannot claim any right to assent since the repeal of section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 schedule 2....hahahah.....They need to ‘think’ again..... : )

They are saying that when they paid off the last lender.....that as soon as the exiting loan company signed the DS1 form – they are ‘assuming’ that they effectively stepped into that lenders shoes...in right to mortgage the borrowers registered estate.....essentially trying to say to all Borrowers that because the exiting lender ‘fooled’ you into accepting a mortgage...they derived the right to do the same...... I think NOT!!!!

Because the mortgage deed was delivered either unconditionally or in escrow and subject to either (i) the advance being transferred to the firm or alternatively (ii) completion of the purchase the mortgage deed was irrevicable and could not be withdrawn or recalled by the applicants.

 

You seem a wee bit confused...which is it??? 'escrow' or 'unconditionally'....come on get a grip!!.....your being ambiguous here.....This is also another attempt to be ‘clever’.....there is no power to grant a mortgage...full stop....the mortgage deed is void...they did not execute it....there is no protection for them by way of ‘assent’....(this refers to the LLR 2003 Rule 163 to say they are trying to step into the shoes of the exiting lender.....this was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 schedule 2)

There is NO power to grant a mortgage....no power to do so by demise, sub-demise Or ‘assent’......and no power to grant a legal sub mortgage.....NO DEFENCE so far...... : )

Further or alternatively the respondent will say for the reasons set out in this reply that the mortgage deed was delivered on or before the completion dated in accordance with sec: 1(3)(b) 0f the LP 1989.

 

Eeeerrrrmmmm WRONG!!.....delivery is not in evidence until the lender validly executes the deed.......they forget.....no presumption of delivery without valid execution by them first!!!.....Section 1 (3)(b) does not assist them....until the deed complies with section 1 (2)......that's your client the 'lender'...they have to execute by at least 2 directors and attested BEFORE you can start to harp on about 'escrow' and 'conditional' delivery mate.......read this thread again....it should make sense to you....after all you are a firm of Lawyers...right??...we have laypeople who are understanding exactly what's going on .... how come you don't get it???

 

Also alternatively the respondents will say that the mortgage deed was delivered by the firm in accordance with sec:1(5) of the LP act 1989 or otherwise on or before the completion date in accordance with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989

 

YAAAAWWWWWNNNN!!!..... a notary power to deliver instruments was extended...that is true....but the authority to do so on behalf of a borrower was repealed by Article 10 (2).....and any presumption that the sight of a borrowers signature alone was repealed also.....oh...almost forgot.....the words ‘involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land’ were also removed by the legislator....so please...do tell...what do you think the purported deed relayed.......oh yes....that’s it...... NOTHING!!!

The respondents notes that the applicants maintain that the mortgage deed must be executed by the respondents in accordance with sec:74(5) of the law of property act 1925 and or sec: 74(a) of the 1925 act.

 

YEP....That’s correct...!!....it was made analogous with your duty to execute any document especially if you intend to create an interest to secure the money you ‘gifted’ to the exiting lender.....I’m sure the exiting lender truly appreciates the ‘gift’.. : )

The respondent will say that any reliance on sec: 74(5) and or Sec: 74(a) of the LP act 1925 is misconceived as those provisions do not require the respondent to execute the mortgage deed.

 

Eeeeermmmm.....yes it does..it's to do with your duty to execute a deed in relation to any transaction to do with land mate.....oh and if you are not happy at that....have a quick look at the LPMPA 1989 section 1.....then the CA 2006 section 46.....they are analogous mate.... you can't avoid the duty to execute the deed....... you know the DS1 signed by the exiting lender secured you nothing....not since the repeal of section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925....it was repealed in 1994 mate by Schedule 2 of the LPMPA 1994....Check it out.....How come you are not aware of this....you are Lawyers....surely you should have known????

 

further the respondents will say that it does not have to as a matter of law execute the mortgage deed,

eeeerrrrmmmm....see.... you’ve forgotten haven’t you....the AEA does not help you....section 36 (3) was .....I repeat ......repealed mate : )

 

the only person who needs to execute the mortgage deed were the applicants( and they did so) the mortgage deed was therefore validly executed and properly registered against the property by way of fierst legal charge.

 

WRONG!!!.....please see the RRO in it’s entirety....please see in particular section ‘h’ in the introductory text.... this will help you understand why you have NO DEFENCE - the legislator did not leave you with one.....: )

estoppel . if the mortgage deed did not comply with sec:1(3)(b) of the LP act 1989 which is denied the respondents will say that the applicants are estopped from denying that the mortgage deed has been validly executed.

 

Crikey.....how many times do we need to refer you to the decision in ‘garguillo’.... Yaaawwnnnn!!! Estoppel is a means of circumventing the law mate.....surely, you do not dream of going to the Chamber with this lame defence....no, surely not??....oh, you are....ok then....bring it on : )

The respondents will also say that the applicants or the firm acting as the applicants agent represented to the respondent that the mortgage deed had been validly executed by the applicants.

 

No Borrower can deliver the deed to any Lender.....did you not take any notice of us posting up ‘bibby’....we did it to help you see the error of your ways....did you miss it???....oh well, never mind...we have sent a copy to the Chamber....they can talk to you about it when we get there.....perhaps you prefer to hear it from them rather than us ‘internet folk’...huh?? : )

 

In reliance of such a represention the respondents transferred the advance to the firm and would not have done so if no such representation had been made.

 

How foolish of you.....it was all in your clients control....aaaalllllll you had to do was execute the deed in accordance with your memorandum of association....and in case you missed that....then the statutory provisions of section 74A are there to guide you.....surely you are not trying to say the Borrower is a Director of your Company....nah, your kidding???

Further or alternatively if the mortgage deed should have been executed by the respondent but was not which is denied the respondent will say that the applicants are estopped from now arguing either by virtue of their agreement to complete the purchase and or payment of monies to the respondents in accordance with the mortgage deed and or conditions and or terms that the mortgage deed was not validly executed.

 

What are you on about??....who is paying you?....you should be sacked!! How much are they paying you??? Have you got any idea as to the level of indemnity you will cause your client to pay out due to your inability to understand the law? .... re-submit your response immediately....as it stands.....it is a clear attempt to circumvent the LAW!!!

The respondents relied on the applicants conduct and or custom and or standard conveyancing practice and or the firm undertaking to register the mortgage deed against the property and transferred the advance to the firm to allow the applicants to complete the purchase.

 

The Borrower was at all times instructed by your client....the RRO takes away any onus from the Borrower to be liable for anything that you instruct him/her to do.....you my dear friend are not defending against the Borrower....you are defending against the Legislator....I think you had best re-think your defence....oooooh sorry I forgot.....You do not have one....could that be why you are repeating yourself perhaps????

 

Further or alternatively the respondents are entitled in any event and for the reasons set out in this reply to a return or restitution of the advance together with interest and other sums payable under the mortgage deed

 

You need to speak to the exiting lender....he has got your money....and the legislator does not care that he has....you were of like minds....you knew what you were doing...the Borrower had no idea what you were up to......you are to ask the legislator for advise..... I think the Chamber will assist you there....you come on along to the hearing and let’s see what guidance he gives you to ensure the convention of the Human Rights Act under Article 1 and 8 are secured for which so ever party is most deserved of protection : )

 

Equitable mortgage

 

further or alternatively and subject to the tribunal deciding that the mortgage deed did not comply with sec: 1(3)(b) of the LP1989 which is denied and was not validly executed the respondents will say that the mortgage deed took effect as an equitable mortgage or charge

 

YAAAWWWNNN.....you cannot mortgage a registered estate my dear....any document that is intended to secure a mortgage in any guise is obsolete.....this was registered land mate.....you have NO CHANCE!!!......

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

And they accuse Borrowers of looking for any 'port in a storm'!!!!! Oh Please...... : )

 

They have tried: Estoppal.....Assent.....Equitable mortgage.......section 53......crikey........looks like they are grasping at straws ..... Bless : )

 

Ah well....stay focused.....the battle begins : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Oh good very good, I nearly crashed when some one was reading this back to me! Lol

Well they had to put some thing in already for them any way well me and the Internet forum!!!

This is one that is not going away and they are not going to win. Just for safe keeping I be move all the paperwork and computer to some where safe and its on 2 any way

Because this is big really big as it affects ALL the lenders who act like this so there is every thing to play for BUT the point is I am not playing lol

Many many thanks once again apple you must be getting up there nose now! Lol

[UNRAM]

All information is welcome...Thank you......

 

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2012/%5B2012%5D%20NICh%2016/j_j_DEE8511Final.htm

 

I'm Glad you have taken an interest : )

 

Apple

 

 

Please can you highlight the relevance of this case? Why/how is this supporting our argument:

 

"...[5] So this mortgage deed, the original of which is now before me today, to comply has to be signed by the individual executing it in the presence of a witness who attests the signature."

There is no mention of a lenders signature... The judge even ties signing and execution together...

Edited September 16, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Apple,

You said: "What they fail to admit here is that the Borrower has no power to charge the estate or registered charge by way of mortgage by demise or sub-demise or sub-mortgage by virtue of the LRA section 23"

Are you suggesting here that ALL mortgages are invalid?

 

You went on to say: "YAAAWWWNNN.....you cannot mortgage a registered estate my dear....any document that is intended to secure a mortgage in any guise is obsolete.....this was registered land mate.....you have NO CHANCE!!!....."

As most residential property is registered what is the correct way for a lender to secure a residential home loan if it is not as a charge by way of legal mortgage? Obviously can't be done as mortgage by demise...

 

From reading your recent post I get the impression you believe all mortgages are illegal... If this is the case then I don't think any court can/will support your argument even if this thread is technically correct.

Edited September 16, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Please can you highlight the relevance of this case? Why/how is this supporting our argument:

 

"...[5] So this mortgage deed, the original of which is now before me today, to comply has to be signed by the individual executing it in the presence of a witness who attests the signature."

There is no mention of a lenders signature... The judge even ties signing and execution together...

 

Hi UNRAm

 

The Judge in the case is referring to an un-amended version of the Borrowers duty to sign the deed and to have it witnessed...so, please...do not read too much into it....it has no application with what we are dealing with in this thread

 

In this thread we are and have submitted into the Chamber notice of the RRO...we have also given the Lender notice of the RRO.....the lender has responded.....that's where we are up to now mate.....

 

The case posted makes no mention of the RRO even though the RRO extends to Ireland I believe......

 

But...like I said....we are grateful to any poster that finds these case and posts them up for us to see : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAm

 

In this thread we are and have submitted into the Chamber notice of the RRO...we have also given the Lender notice of the RRO.....the lender has responded.....that's where we are up to now mate.....

 

The case posted makes no mention of the RRO even though the RRO extends to Ireland I believe......

 

Apple

 

All good many thanks I'll stay focussed...

Edited September 16, 2013 by UNRAM