Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

SPML and Accenden were Lehman Brothers vehicles. The registered address moved to PWC when Lehmans went bust becuase PWC are the administrators of Lehmans.

 

Not sure the change of address has any relevance to the legal aspects of this ... companies are allowed to change their address.

 

Hi SP

 

I thought Lehmans went bust much earlier than 2012......you forget - the US Government would not bail Lehmans out....

 

The legal aspect is as I have posted......they are supposed to update the address at HMLR...that is a public record....it is 'guaranteed' by HMLR to be correct......and clearly has not been for a number of years.

 

If they are looking to take possession on reliance of their name being on the title register....they have to prove that they are the same company at the same address as the one shown on the title.......otherwise.....who's to say that some unknown entity is looking to masquerade as Alisono's lender??? (that would be tantamount to fraud)....

 

As it Stands - Alisono has evidence that the Lender has 'gone away'.....there clearly was no forwarding address.....???? They have intentionally 'gone away'.....not to be bothered with notices sent to them....

 

So WHO is bringing the Claim.....Who is the solicitor actually working for??.......

 

Apple

[steampowered]

If they are looking to take possession on reliance of their name being on the title register....they have to prove that they are the same company at the same address as the one shown on the title.......otherwise.....who's to say that some unknown entity is looking to masquerade as Alisono's lender??? (that would be tantamount to fraud)....

 

As it Stands - Alisono has evidence that the Lender has 'gone away'.....there clearly was no forwarding address.....???? They have intentionally 'gone away'.....not to be bothered with notices sent to them....

 

So WHO is bringing the Claim.....Who is the solicitor actually working for??.......

 

Apple

 

Applecart, you will never have another company with the same name as an existing company because the registration will not be accepted by companies house - see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/66. Even if Companies House somehow screwed up it would be immediately apparent what had happened since the Companies House website shows you when companies were registered, who their shareholders are and all historic company names.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the company number is usually listed on HMLR registrations. It is perfectly lawful for companies to change their name whenever they want but the company number always stays the same.

 

In any event if there is no real dispute about whether the action is being brought by the right company difficult to see how any of this is relevant.

[applecart]

Applecart, you will never have another company with the same name as an existing company because the registration will not be accepted by companies house - see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/66. Even if Companies House somehow screwed up it would be immediately apparent what had happened since the Companies House website shows you when companies were registered, who their shareholders are and all historic company names.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the company number is usually listed on HMLR registrations. It is perfectly lawful for companies to change their name whenever they want but the company number always stays the same.

 

In any event if there is no real dispute about whether the action is being brought by the right company difficult to see how any of this is relevant.

 

The address is important too SP...not just the 'name'.... you forget...the application came back as 'gone away'.......so, in these cases......the Company name is the same....but...what about the address???

 

Apple

[applecart]

The address is important too SP...not just the 'name'.... you forget...the application came back as 'gone away'.......so, in these cases......the Company name is the same....but...what about the address???

 

Apple

 

This is becoming a familiar issue on this thread.....

 

SP.....No answer to the above?

 

It is a fair question....If you have been good enough to inform about changes of company names...can you go a little further and explain that .......if the lender has been good enough to update his address on the public register at Companies House.....Why has he failed to update the public register at HMLR...that too is a public register is it not.....?

 

Apple

[steampowered]

This is becoming a familiar issue on this thread.....

 

SP.....No answer to the above?

 

It is a fair question....If you have been good enough to inform about changes of company names...can you go a little further and explain that .......if the lender has been good enough to update his address on the public register at Companies House.....Why has he failed to update the public register at HMLR...that too is a public register is it not.....?

 

Apple

 

No doubt the lender should inform HMLR of changes to its registered address, to ensure that it can be contacted. But surely this is only an administrative thing. I don't see why failure to update would have any legal consequences or why it would affect the validity of the mortgage.

[bhall]

The only effect of not having an uptodate "address for service" is that it may adversely affect any claim for indemnity the lender may make against the land registry.

 

Does not effect the validity of a mortgage etc at all.

[bhall]

It should also be noted that under rule 29 the tribunal must provide a copy of the application and accompanying documents to the lender.

 

Under rule 32 the tribunal must give reasonable notice of any hearing

 

Under rule 34 the tribunal must have taken reasonable steps to notify the lender.

 

Taking 5 seconds to look up the lender on the companies house website, using the company number recorded on the title deed to identify the registered address could very easily be described as a reasonable step.

 

Try it for yourself, look at your title deed, make a note of the company number and do a quick search using that number at companies house. Takes a matter to seconds to find the registered address for any company.

[MUTT1]

Hi bhall,

 

I have several official copies of Mortgage Deeds but none has any company number as you suggest. The only numbers relate to the MD for HMLR and nothing else.

 

Am I missing something?

 

MUTT1

[applecart]

No doubt the lender should inform HMLR of changes to its registered address, to ensure that it can be contacted. But surely this is only an administrative thing. I don't see why failure to update would have any legal consequences or why it would affect the validity of the mortgage.

 

My sentiment exactly....it is a public record....there is statutory provision that they inform HMLR...I won't bore you with the detail - because I have posted it previously....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi bhall,

 

I have several official copies of Mortgage Deeds but none has any company number as you suggest. The only numbers relate to the MD for HMLR and nothing else.

 

Am I missing something?

 

MUTT1

 

Exactly...what prey the purpose of a 'public record' if lenders can avoid the statute that relate to it??

 

One should not have to be searching any other record in relation to the title register held at HMLR....what an absurd thought!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

Land Registration Rules 2003 section 198 (3)

 

(3) A person within paragraph (1) must give the registrar an address for service which is a postal address, whether or not in the United Kingdom.

 

 

That's what the LAW says.....not opinion or logical conclusions!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

IF the address given is found to be 'gone away'.....where is the compliance with statutory provision??

 

Apple

[applecart]

It is no good that a Lender 'shores' up his commercial 'certain activities'...but yet... fails to adhere to 'shoring' up the statue in relation to the underlying transaction between him and the borrower!

 

Let's not forget..in Allisono's case......the lender did not execute the deed..it is void...the address for service ... is 'gone away'.....the 'beneficial interest'..admittedly sold.......come on now...how much 'leeway' is the Lender expecting a court of LAW to order...???

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Smoke screens again lol

[TimetogoRAM]

The only effect of not having an uptodate "address for service" is that it may adversely affect any claim for indemnity the lender may make against the land registry.

 

Does not effect the validity of a mortgage etc at all.

 

Not sure anyone is saying that because the lender has 'gone away' this automatically invalidates the mortgage, what is being said is why is the lender doing this? Why are they not making themselves transparent to the customer and to the property chamber?

Lenders soon use clients and third parties to harass and intimidate borrowers into repaying a proposed debt but when the boots on the other foot - where are they?! Quite funny really!

[p.j]

i found this its in america it is on the same lines regarding unsigned deeds or notes as they call it.

all to do with subprime mortgages and what the courts did its a good read.

 

http://sites.temple.edu/lawreview/files/2012/02/83.1_Greenberg.pdf

[IS IT ME?]

Yes not long to come here lol

Its happening in N I

[lesterlass]

Yes not long to come here lol

Its happening in N I

 

 

Can you expand on that IS IT ME?

 

LL

[IS IT ME?]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

It will not be long before the courts here see what is going on and how the lenders have hoodwinked them.

There is already a case in N I is there not??

[lesterlass]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

It will not be long before the courts here see what is going on and how the lenders have hoodwinked them.

There is already a case in N I is there not??

 

 

Yes but they operate different to they rest of the sub prime.

[IS IT ME?]

How and WHY?

[applecart]

Yes but they operate different to they rest of the sub prime.

 

There is the 'Irish Stock Exchange'......so, I assume NI are aware of Mortgage Backed Securities....they trade every day......Companies who are not large enough to trade on the London Stock Exchange use the Irish Stock Exchange all day long.......

 

Same rules, same tranches, Classes etc etc......I couldn't find much difference to be honest ; (

 

But, like I say....we are concerned here with the relationship between the Lender (originator) and the Borrower (you, me, us).....

 

Apple

[alisono]

an update for you Is It Me and Apple

 

Guess what I received today a letter from lenders solicitors saying they will be happy to stay my repo until chamber has done test cases and the outcome is known, only long as I pay them my monthly mortgage plus £200 extra off the arrears. How strange I offered them and have been paying £200 extra for the last 5 months to them and they have rejected this offer 4 times previously. I paid this even vefore they started repo again. In the letter they suggest that the Propwrety Chamber will strike my claim out as they have done this someone else already as its abuse of the process.

[applecart]

Here is a 'draft' e-petition.....can we all critic constructively and discuss any amendments before I post it up on-line please : )

 

"This e-petition concerns the growing public interest and concern to do with the practice of mortgage securitisation which involves the origination and pooling of mortgages of registered estates in the UK.

 

It has come to light that an absolute proprietor of any registered estate has no statutory power to grant a mortgage to the favour of any lender.

 

Since the coming into force of the LRA 1925 section 25, there has been no statutory provision upon which a lender can rely to mortgage a registered estate of an Absolute Proprietor.

 

More recently, the LRA 2002 section 23 provides that there is no power whereby any Absolute Proprietor of a registered estate has power to lawfully grant a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

The practice of mortgage securitisation requires that the deed is signed only by the Absolute Proprietor of the registered estate; the Lender does not execute the deed and we are finding that Lenders are reliant on section 53 of the LPA 1925 to take possession of Borrowers homes. When it is becoming abundantly clear that a deed that only meets the provisions of the LPA 1925 s.53 has not been assumed by the Lender does not meet the formalities necessary for delivery of the deed.

 

The Law in relation to transactions intending to secure any indebtedness by way of a registered estate is not intended to be impeached by circumvention of the Laws of the UK.

 

This e-petition requires that the Attorney General consider these issues and act in the public interest to protect the citizens of the UK who suffer detriment to families and children when their homes are repossessed in the UK each day to benefit the certain activities of both sub-prime and main stream Banks in the UK against the protections of the applicable Law in relation to registered estates and the further protections implemented more recently by the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 ."

 

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

an update for you Is It Me and Apple

 

Guess what I received today a letter from lenders solicitors saying they will be happy to stay my repo until chamber has done test cases and the outcome is known, only long as I pay them my monthly mortgage plus £200 extra off the arrears. How strange I offered them and have been paying £200 extra for the last 5 months to them and they have rejected this offer 4 times previously. I paid this even vefore they started repo again. In the letter they suggest that the Propwrety Chamber will strike my claim out as they have done this someone else already as its abuse of the process.

 

Hi Alisono, who has ordered you to pay the monthly mortgage plus £200? Seems completely wrong that, as you do not owe them a penny. I would be putting representations against this if I was you as this is basically siding with the lender before any decision is made. Plus if you can afford this payment and the lender is getting their cash, how can they bring about a repossession order against you?