Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Winged Piglet]

Views is not the same as viewers wp.

 

Yes I am aware of that thanks. I meant the thread has attracted over 90,000 views so because of such a large number and growing by the day that it's completely possible.

[lesterlass]

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

 

Hi Apple,

 

That's the difference Swift don't securitise and no their not on the Irish stock exchange.

 

LL

[applecart]

Thanks All for your comments on the proposed draft e-petition..... ; )

 

I'm thinking that there has been much interest shown from repeat viewes to Is It Me's thread......however; we will need to see a whole lot more interest if we are to get 100,000 + signatures on an e-petition....

 

Twitter and Facebook spring to mind......Does the CaG have any direct link to these types of social media??...Or would this be seen to be encouraging a conflict of interest?? .....

 

Apple

[sequenci]

CAG has a Twitter account and a Facebook page.

 

I guess the sensible thing to do is await the outcome of the tribunals in Jan/Feb

 

Oh, and as Caro says you should take the amount of page views with a pinch of salt. It's better to consider how many contributors there are to a thread - that gives you a much more accurate measure of interest.

[applecart]

CAG has a Twitter account and a Facebook page.

 

I guess the sensible thing to do is await the outcome of the tribunals in Jan/Feb

 

Oh, and as Caro says you should take the amount of page views with a pinch of salt. It's better to consider how many contributors there are to a thread - that gives you a much more accurate measure of interest.

 

Hi Sequenci

 

This is good to know....do you have a link to the CaG Twitter Account and Facebook Page?

 

I guess you are right....we could wait for the decision of the Property Chaber....but, I'm more thinking..... the e-petition needs to go ahead of that hearing.....

 

I have amended the e-petition....from it..... you may see why I am thinking it needs to go ahead of any decision by the Chamber....and in spite of any decision they may come to - off the back of a 'draft written presentation'...... I shall post it up in a bit.....

 

Yes, I took on board Caro's guidance and other comments.......that's why we need a wider audience me thinks ..... so, if you could provide a link to the CaG Twitter and Facebook acct/page...we can look see if it is what we need.... if that's ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Here is another 'draft' e-petition'....Hopefully, it is more on point......Please, as before...critic constructively and advise if I have missed anything out....:

 

 

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 a registered estate has no statutory power to grant a mortgage to the favour of any lender.

 

There is statutory provision in both the LRA 1925 section 25, and the LRA 2002 section 23 to protect against the registration of a mortgage of any registered estate.

 

The common practice of mortgage securitisation requires that the deed is signed by the Absolute Proprietor only, when by Law, a deed in relation to land transactions must not only be signed by the Absolute Proprietor, but also executed by the Lender.

 

A large number if not all repossessions are granted in UK courts each day on the misguided premise that the ‘approved form of charge’ accepted by HMLR that meets the statutory provision of section 53 of the LPA 1925 are valid to secure indebtedness against a registered estate; when in truth; this is simply not the case.

 

Alarmingly; according to Shelter; (BBC News, 4th Nov 2013) there are some 82,000 families with children who are living in boarding accommodation mainly due to lenders repossessing their homes having placed reliance on an ‘approved form of charge’; when it cannot be said that such ‘approved forms of charge’ are either ‘assumed’ nor ‘delivered’; on the contrary the findings are that ‘approved forms of charge’ are void and should not be ratified by orders for possession against the public interest or circumvention of applicable statutory provisions.

 

There is a need to reduce the number of repossessions; balanced against the likely increased exposure to the public purse in the event that interest’s rates are increased.

 

Given that it is not lawful to mortgage any registered estate. Given that an ‘approved form of charge’ has never been an ‘assumed’ thus ‘delivered’ deed; and Given that there is statutory provision to find that the Deeds are Void for want of delivery; we call upon the Attorney General to act and call upon all members of the judiciary to observe and enforce Lord Irvins’s Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 in any possession claims brought by any lender and require that they produce an official copy of the deed that is not void for the want of delivery.

 

Further we call upon the Attorney General to act to cause all members of the Judiciary to observe the titles of any registered estate to ensure that they do not evince a mortgage of that said registered estate.

 

We believe that in signing this e-petition, that as a citizen resident in the UK, that we do so in an attempt to protect our personal interests against unlawful possession within the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

I could do with some help on quoting the correct ECHR protocols I suppose...but for now; this is what I have got.....

 

Please all.... your thoughts???

 

Apple

[sequenci]

@Real_CAG is the Twitter

 

The Facebook page is simply The Consumer Action Group.

 

I think it's really important to await the outcome of the chamber if you really want a petition to hold a degree of gravitas.

[applecart]

@Real_CAG is the Twitter

 

The Facebook page is simply The Consumer Action Group.

 

I think it's really important to await the outcome of the chamber if you really want a petition to hold a degree of gravitas.

 

I hear you....but.....consider this:

The Property Chamber is dealing with applications made by consumers based on a draft written representation as party to an amended application for Is It Me’s Friend.

 

In the meantime members of the judiciary will be rubber stamping orders for possession without any consideration of the statutory protections that are there to stop them doing so...

 

A decision made by the Chamber will not in itself cause any DJ to observe the law or the issues presented to them.

 

In fact.............. the recent feedback from how the Chamber is handling applications is concerning..........e.g we have learnt that a firm of solicitors (known to be acting on behalf of a lender that has ‘gone away’) has been able to simply write into them...request info.....the info provided .... is such that the applicant application and other applicants application are compromised even before any public decision has been made on any application .....

 

we have then received feedback that the Solicitor has used the info to ‘threaten’ the applicant into believing that her application will be struck out if she does not agree to paying CMI and £200 to cover arrears.....clearly...the solicitor was given far too much information. The information supplied had nothing to do with the applicant concerned.

 

An e-petition is targeted to the Attorney General.....I think this is the person who can act to ensure that All members of the Judiciary (including the Chamber) observe and enforce the RRO 2005 – without compromising a consumers right to confidentiality prior to any decision being made by them.....sure, general info is fine; but from what I can gather...more than a general indication has been given to the fir of solicitors – no consideration whatsoever of the Data Protection Act at all??

 

If members of the Judiciary are made aware of their duty to uphold and enforce the laws of our country and make decision after due consideration of all the detail of a case based on its full merit; then, we will at last start to see the mistakes made by HMLR and others remedied by the courts of first instance....

 

The e-petition does not look to impose on any decision that the Chamber come to; it more looks to set an overall precedent to ensure that the Judiciary observe the statutory provisions of the RRO 2005, the LRA 1925 section 25, LRA 2002 section 23 in all possession claims...regardless of the Chambers decision......and ensure it is implemented regardless where the claim for possession it brought..and regardless of whether an application is sent to the Chamber.

 

I’m not convinced that any decision from the Chamber alone will be enough. They are acting in response to applications made by consumers as made direct to them ...as pointed out above...they are already showing signs that they have no issue in compromising any consumers application.....and on the other hand you have District Judges acting on claims for possession made by Lenders.....rubber stamping possession ....in more than one instance...being quite ‘bullish’ in their attitude toward LiP’s in doing so.....

 

For these reasons; I think the e-petition should be pushed forward asap...for these reasons we need to push for 100,000 signatures asap.....this means using social media...word of mouth....telling friends, families, associates and everyone we know to sign it....even if they don’t truly understand it....

 

After you consider the above, let me know if you still feel the same way?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi All

 

Here is a useful link to information about the First Tier (Property Chamber) in a podcast....it talks about 'cost' orders and is very useful for Caggers who want/need to get a better understanding of what the Chamber is there to do:

 

http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=136

 

Apple

[MUTT1]

Hi apple,

 

With regards to the e-petition it appears (in my opinion) to place to much emphasis on securitisation. I can see that there is reference made to various legislation but it still seems that the core of the petition relates to securitisation.

 

Would it not perhaps be better (just my opinion), if greater emphasis was made in a more general way to promote the fact of the deed itself. And, to question the legallity of mortgages held regardless if securitisation has occurred or not.

 

MUTT1

[steampowered]

My honest impression is that the e-petition strays into crazy land. Particularly this line: "It has come to light that an Absolute Proprietor of a registered estate has no statutory power to grant a mortgage to the favour of any lender"

If you are correct, every single mortgage in the UK is invalid. The mortgage market would cease to exist overnight. The only people able to buy a house in the UK would be those who could afford to pay the full purchase price upfront.

[TimetogoRAM]

My honest impression is that the e-petition strays into crazy land. Particularly this line: "It has come to light that an Absolute Proprietor of a registered estate has no statutory power to grant a mortgage to the favour of any lender"

If you are correct, every single mortgage in the UK is invalid. The mortgage market would cease to exist overnight. The only people able to buy a house in the UK would be those who could afford to pay the full purchase price upfront.

 

SP - no, lenders would have to execute the deed so would lend in the correct, moral and legal way!

 

Apple, I am all for the petition and the content is good. When I look atthe e petition site I usually lose interest if the topic write up is too long. Mutt1 is right, maybe there is too much emphasis on securitisation? I believe we need something that gets to the point, is short and stands out. We need to reach out to every borrower who hasn't had their deed executed.

[applecart]

Hi apple,

 

With regards to the e-petition it appears (in my opinion) to place to much emphasis on securitisation. I can see that there is reference made to various legislation but it still seems that the core of the petition relates to securitisation.

 

Would it not perhaps be better (just my opinion), if greater emphasis was made in a more general way to promote the fact of the deed itself. And, to question the legallity of mortgages held regardless if securitisation has occurred or not.

 

MUTT1

 

Hi Mutt1,

 

Yes, Thank you..... I think this is a relevant point...... ; )

 

Apple

[alisono]

Hi Mutt1,

 

Yes, Thank you..... I think this is a relevant point...... ; )

 

Apple

Dear Apple, I have had another letter for the PC today. Referring me to The Mortgage Business Plc v Mrs Tilly Lamb which was appealed as it was a repo kris lamb and her lay person sought what we are doing the PC have struck this out as the Appeal sys no merit of success on LPA 1925 & LPMPA 1989 and her case was land registration act 2002 section2 (1) and section 27(1)

They have sent a copy to my solicitor saying. They are striking this out as it's been dealt with at county court and has no merit of success

[applecart]

SP - no, lenders would have to execute the deed so would lend in the correct, moral and legal way!

 

Apple, I am all for the petition and the content is good. When I look atthe e petition site I usually lose interest if the topic write up too long. Mutt1 is right, maybe there is too much emphasis on securitisation? I believe we need something that gets to the point, is short and stands out. We need to reach out to every borrower who hasn't had their deed executed.

 

Yes, again.... I like this too.....

 

The length of the e-petition may put some off, but at the same time we may lose the point we are looking to make when it gets to its destination.

 

I have seen some of the other e-petitions....and I felt they were too short...they state the issue...but fail to ask for a particular resolve....or to state the remedy required.....

 

I had a boss once.... he used to say "Apple...Don't assume I am aware of the issue; do not assume I will know the solution.....When you want me to act or do something ....... don't just bring me the problem.......bring me the solution"...... : )

 

But, yes, I will see what I can do to shorten it.

 

Thank you again....I appreciate your input ; )

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Hi Mutt1,

 

Yes, Thank you..... I think this is a relevant point...... ; )

 

Apple

 

Hi Apple,

 

I'm still reading through this thread and taking note of the issues raised, both for and against.

 

As for the e-petition, I tend to agree with Mutt1... I would add... keep it as simple possible...BP

[alisono]

The e-petition is great how do you want help in this matter I work in the global arena of IT/Telecoms and social media and I also have contacts i am sure would help:-) stupid question but what about floating this to question time, watch dog plus bbc forums and debates?????

[applecart]

Dear Apple, I have had another letter for the PC today. Referring me to The Mortgage Business Plc v Mrs Tilly Lamb which was appealed as it was a repo kris lamb and her lay person sought what we are doing the PC have struck this out as the Appeal sys no merit of success on LPA 1925 & LPMPA 1989 and her case was land registration act 2002 section2 (1) and section 27(1)

They have sent a copy to my solicitor saying. They are striking this out as it's been dealt with at county court and has no merit of success

 

They have sent a copy of 'lamb' to YOUR solicitor??......I did not know you were using a 'solicitor'?....We do not raise section 27 (1) and we certainly do not rely on section 2 (1)......they have it totally the WRONG WAY ROUND!!.....WE are talking SECTION 1 (2)!!.....surely they can spot the subtle but absolute difference??

 

You seem to be getting a fist full of letters through your door.....all at very short notice Alisono......the mind boggles......

 

They are striking it out without recognising their own obvious mistake in referring to a section of the LAW that you never mentioned......

 

They did this with Is It Me's Friend in the beginning......and we had to amend the application........

 

I will need to see exactly what the letter says......can you post it up or make arrangements as before to get it sent via the site team please ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Apple,

 

I'm still reading through this thread and taking note of the issues raised, both for and against.

 

As for the e-petition, I tend to agree with Mutt1... I would add... keep it as simple possible...BP

 

Hi and Welcome.... ; )

 

I'm working on it....

 

Apple

[applecart]

The e-petition is great how do you want help in this matter I work in the global arena of IT/Telecoms and social media and I also have contacts i am sure would help:-) stupid question but what about floating this to question time, watch dog plus bbc forums and debates?????

 

Brilliant...stay with us on this..... we simply must get this e-petition out.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

My honest impression is that the e-petition strays into crazy land. Particularly this line: "It has come to light that an Absolute Proprietor of a registered estate has no statutory power to grant a mortgage to the favour of any lender"

If you are correct, every single mortgage in the UK is invalid. The mortgage market would cease to exist overnight. The only people able to buy a house in the UK would be those who could afford to pay the full purchase price upfront.

 

 

No SP.....not every 'mortgage'.....only those that have been entered on the titles of owners of registered land......

 

No, there would be no impact on a lenders ability to lend and no impact against a Borrowers right to charge registered land at all....no need to 'scar monger'........all that would happen is lenders would execute deeds and HMLR would enter the lenders name on the charges register as normal.......without any 'restriction' being entered in the proprietorship section in favor of any lender....yes, the impact would affect MBS.....but that is an issue for the Government to look into.....not us.....

 

Apple

[alisono]

Sorry no they sent to the claimants solicitors code my lender so they can see they are striking out as the DJ litigated on it, it was then appealed and refused so I think lLamb then went to PC.

the Lamb ref number for the PC is actually 2 after mine interesting

 

They seem to think that Lamb and my lender are the same they are not

[applecart]

The e-petition is great how do you want help in this matter I work in the global arena of IT/Telecoms and social media and I also have contacts i am sure would help:-) stupid question but what about floating this to question time, watch dog plus bbc forums and debates?????

 

I don't think the question is 'stupid' at all....We need as much exposure as possible....WE are correct... there is no issue with that.....look how the Chamber has tried to rely on a case that was lost due to reliance on section 2 (1) when we are clearly saying and establishing section 1 (2) in your case.....now, what's that all about??.....

 

We had hoped that this matter would be retained here on the CaG alone...but if we are finding that we are still being led astray... then perhaps extra exposure is exactly what is needed.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Sorry no they sent to the claimants solicitors code my lender so they can see they are striking out as the DJ litigated on it, it was then appealed and refused so I think lLamb then went to PC.

the Lamb ref number for the PC is actually 2 after mine interesting

 

They seem to think that Lamb and my lender are the same they are not

 

Sorry Alisono..... break this down please..... I need to understand exactly what you are saying and exactly what you mean...

 

Apple

[alisono]

Received a letter toady from the Property chamber letter telling me that they have struck out an application. They have sent this also to my lenders solicitors attached is the whole transcript of the above case.

 

Lamb in question was heard at my local county court for originally possession hearing and she had an order against them given. They appealed case To another DJ same court who said no appeal on your grounds, ground being ad stated above that the mortgage deed was indeed a contract and had never been executed properly so in the terms of contract and not executed it have never then formed a mortgage as both signatures of lender and. Borrow weren't on the deed. Lamb appealed again and was heard only for her Appel to be said they found that the DJ originally was correct even though he had not had the section 27 presented originally , some success may of happened if he had but on reflection no and her appeaL lost. again as not enough merit and would be unsuccessful.

I think she had then applied to the property chamber her reference number is newer than mine by 2 and they have struck it out as the DJ has. already litigated on this case.

Have you seen the Lamb transcript?