Mortgages- illegal?

[IanM]

deleted

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Why the bank didn't want to discuss mortgage contracts

---

Last week, after I returned from Spain, one of the first things I needed to do was to go to the bank and arrange a transfer of some money to my family account there. Since I'd arrived back on the Saturday, and a welcome Bank Holiday was imminent, I couldn't get to the bank until Tuesday. A transfer of funds from the UK to Spain is a pretty painless affair and so, there I was, waiting at the Information Desk for the Nat West representative to copy over the details from my previous transfer.
Scattered periodically over the desk were a number of pamphlets - you know the kind, they give you useful information about Student Loans, offer you great deals on Credit Cards or Savings Accounts. The one that lay closest to me detailed the different Mortgage options available at the bank. My friendly representative, sharp as a pin, jumped on the opportunity to ask if I was looking to take out a mortgage. I said, "Hmmm, well ... perhaps you could answer me a couple of questions first."
Now, don't get me wrong - there is absolutely nothing wrong with the staff at the particular branch of Nat West that I go to, they are very friendly and helpful, and this occasion was no exception.
I went on.
"When I come into the bank for a mortgage, we go through all the necessary 'application' forms, decide how much money I need from the bank, and I sign the mortgage contract. I promise to pay you back, and you give me the money by crediting my bank account."
"That's right, Sir", she says with a customary Nat West smile.
"So, firstly, can you tell me where the money comes from that gets credited to my account?"
The friendliness and courtesy remain, however the customary smile has become more enigmatic.
"Er, well - I'm not sure...", and she seems a bit flustered. It is not my intention to make her uncomfortable, so I feign ignorance to make her feel more at ease - two's company, and all that!
"It's just that I'm very confused about the nature of the contract. For example, for any contract, both parties must put up something in case of a breach of contract. For my part, it is the property that I buy that is at risk if I do not keep up payments on my mortgage - what is it that the bank puts up?"
"Sir", she now knows what she needs to do, "I can get one of our mortgage advisors to call you if you'd like to discuss that in more depth."
This is acceptable, and we arrange that a mortgage advisor would ring me Saturday (today, in fact) to discuss the subject in detail.
As you have probably already guessed, the call never materialised. Why wouldn't the bank want to talk to me about the nature of mortgage contracts? Now, I understand that there are multitude reasons why the call may not have been forthcoming - the advisor may have ended up under a bus, or had a family crisis to deal with. The call request by the representative in the bank may have been mislayed or lost or cleaned away by the night janitor by mistake - who knows? Obviously, I was a little forearmed when I went to the bank. The Mortgage pamphlet nudged me to do something I'd thought about before - asking questions. But, at the time, I was a little unsure about how it worked. So, I went out and bought myself the Third Edition of Contract Law, the Third Edition of The English Legal System and ordered a much weightier tome, called 'Equity'. In addition, I obtained a copy of 'Modern Money Mechanics', issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, which is a handy little guide to the modern 'fractional reserve' banking system that also operates in the United Kingdom.

Now I know why the bank didn't want to talk to me!

The story begins with our monetary system, known as the 'Fractional Reserve' system. As you probably know, banks bookkeeping revolve around 'assets' (loans) and 'liabilities' (deposits). Under the fractional system, when a deposit is made (say you just sold your car for £10,000 and you go to the bank to deposit it in your account), the bank has to keep a certain percentage (generally this is ten percent) as a 'reserve' - this covers the number of depositors who withdraw their funds within a specific time period (generally, not all depositors will do this at the same time - when it occurs, it is called a 'run' on the bank - the banks reserves cannot cover the depositors demands; anyone remember Northern Rock?)
Therefore, of the £10,000 made as a deposit, £1000 is kept in 'reserve', with the remaining £9000 becoming 'excess reserve' and used as the basis for new loans. Now, stay with me, the very important point is coming, and is best illustrated with an excerpt from Modern Money Mechanics:

------------

If business is active, the banks with excess reserves will have opportunities to loan the £9000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.

Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by £9000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.

------------

You should digest this, re-read it and let it sink in. The implications of the above paragraph are astounding. If the new loans for £9000 don't come from the money they receive as deposits (and, of course, they can't come from the reserve), where does the money come from? Are you ready for this? NOWHERE!!! The money is created out of thin air! When you sign a loan agreement, the bank accepts this as a promissory note - this is your promise to pay back to the bank (with interest). You agree to pay back this money, in return having someone type in a few digits on a computer and - voila - new money is created. Even better, when the operator does this, of course, it becomes a new deposit - from which ten percent is held in 'reserve' and the 'excess reserve' can feed even more loans! Even more money created from nothing. Bear this all in mind now, as I turn the focus onto contract law.

Let's start by defining a contract:

Contract - A contract is an agreement between two parties by which both are bound by law and which can therefore be enforced in a court. Contracts are distinguished from 'agreements', which are not binding, and from 'promises', which are enforceable but unilateral.

A contract involves one of the parties making an 'offer'. There are generally two ways in which an 'offer' is made. A 'straightforward offer' - when you sell your car, for example, you might say "Do you want to buy my car for £10,000?" You are making a direct offer. The second option for an offer is known as 'invitation to treat' - if your car is being sold at auction, for example, the car (lot) is the 'invitation to treat', and the bids on the car are the 'offers'.
The contract is made when there is 'acceptance' of an 'offer'. The person you asked directly may respond 'Yes'; the auctioneers hammer concludes a successful bid. Both the 'offer' and 'acceptance' have to be communicated' - this is the foundation for a written contract.
For a contract to be legally valid, both parties must give 'consideration'. This is a very important point, so please stay with it. Consideration is 'quid pro quo' - something in return for something else. One party agrees to do something and the other party agrees to 'something else'. As we have already found out, in the context of a loan agreement, your 'consideration' is the promissory note - your promise to pay the bank with interest. Consideration from the bank is the creditation of your account with the agreed sum.
Now for the bombshell - the rules of 'consideration' say that 'Consideration need not be adequate' - it is not for the law to say whether a contract was a fair one, if one party wants to sell his comb, as a ridiculous example, for £10,000 and the other party agrees to buy it - well, that's their business! Most importantly, however, 'Consideration must be sufficient' - this has a precise legal meaning in that:

a) Consideration is sufficient if it is real.
b) Consideration is sufficient if it is tangible.
c) Consideration is sufficient if it has discernible value.

And so, after quite a long ramble, we can return to our friends at the local bank, and their reasons for not contacting me to discuss these issues. When you go to the bank and apply for a mortgage, you 'accept' their 'offer' of a mortgage, then you sign the papers that seal the contract. You give 'consideration' in the form of the promise to pay back the sum, with interest, and the bank credits your account for the agreed sum. The credit to your account of this sum is the 'consideration' given by the bank in the contract, but the money is created out of nothing, as we saw from our look at the fractional reserve system. Since the rules of consideration specifically state that 'consideration is sufficient if it is real', as soon as you sign the contract at the bank, the bank has breached the contract by 'insufficient consideration'. The money, which never existed in the first place, is 'not real'!

What does this all mean, then? Since I do not have a mortgage, I cannot test this hypothesis, but from my research one thing is very clear - it would appear that every mortgage provided by a bank is illegal due to breach of the 'rules of consideration'. I don't want to influence anyone here, I'm just presenting the facts, but I'm sure you will understand the implications of what I've talked about. All loans are pretty much the same, whether it be a mortgage, a loan or a credit card. All of the contracts for these systems must be illegal, because the money is created from nowhere - it didn't exist, and therefore fails the 'rules of consideration'.

I wonder whether the bank will ever ring me? I certainly look forward to that call!

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Repossession and mortgage contract legislation 'unfair and illegal' By: thinkSPAIN , Thursday, March 14, 2013 SPAIN'S legislation covering mortgage foreclosure is illegal and abusive, according to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The government has been ordered to change it forthwith and the existing law will be invalid from today (Thursday). According to the ECJ, Spanish mortgage repossession laws do not guarantee consumers sufficient protection against abusive clauses in home loans. And where a judge in a Spanish court finds a contract term to be unfair, he or she does not have the legal power to stop the bank from repossessing the property and evicting the owner. This goes against European Union law, says the Luxembourg-based court. It does not conform with the EU directive allowing the judge to order actions necessary for the verdict to be efficient. If a mortgage contract is deemed illegal due to an imbalance of power in favour of the lender, the verdict means little because the bank cannot be forced to halt repossession proceedings. All the mortgage holder is entitled to is compensation, and this is rarely enough to compensate for the loss of a home or allow the person to buy another. The ECJ says this is particularly relevant when a loan contract relates to the main home of the consumer and breaches the EU human right to a place to live. Any compensation a lender is ordered to pay is insufficient incentive for withdrawing abusive contract terms, says the ECJ, since the bank ultimately ends up with a property which it can sell for far more than the amount it is forced to indemnify the homeowner. Such terms include late payment clauses, where the interest rate immediately rises to 18 per cent as soon as a monthly quota is missed by the homeowner. The case was brought to court by Mohammed Aziz, who had bought a VPO apartment – a council-subsidised property aimed at first-time buyers – and was forced out when the lender, CatalunyaCaixa, repossessed after he could not pay his mortgage. He had been struggling to meet his payments due to lack of work, but on missing one, the interest rate went up to 18 per cent which made it impossible for him to fulfil the bank's obligations on him. Spain's PP government has been working on changing mortgage and repossession laws to comply with EU directives, but suspended talks on reforms pending the outcome of the ECJ case. In the meantime, judges who find mortgage contract clauses to be unfair now have a legal instrument which they can use to force a lender to stop all repossession proceedings.

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Make a list of all of the payments you've ever made on your loan. From this list you will be able to discover all the charges and fees that went into the mortgage. Looking at the list you may be able to detect violations or other abnormalities relative to the contract between you and the lender. Now compare the loan that you should have based on the contract you signed and the one that you currently have. Ideally, you should also have an attorney look this over. The terms should be identical to what appears in the contract. Nothing at all should be different. Two things you should be sure to look for: (1) Are there pre-payment penalties, which you were not made aware of prior to signing the contract? (2) Does the amount you have to pay each monthly exactly match the amount that you originally told you would have to pay?

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

http://pjkartist.hubpages.com/hub/Ju...-Null-and-Void

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

When might a credit agreement be not enforceable?

There are a variety of cases in which a credit agreement might not be able to be enforced:

• If the lender doesn't hold a copy of the agreement
• If the credit or credit limit isn't stated on the agreement
• If the interest is incorrect
• Increased credit has been added without being requested
• Credit card charges are deemed as unfair
• Sub-prime products sold to people in good credit
• No recognition of a deposit
• No mention of a 'cooling off' period
• The agreement has not been signed
• A person has been mis-sold payment protection insurance as a prerequisite of taking out the loan

No mention of a 'cooling off' period- has anybody ever checked their mortgage offers?



A person has been mis-sold payment protection insurance as a prerequisite of taking out the loan- this is the main point I want everyone to discuss and consider the following:


If the PPI was a prerequisite of taking out your mortgage and added with or without your knowledge and was sanctioned within the mortgage contract then you have to question whether or not the original contract is enforceable, or not, as PPI was basically a fraudulent acquisition of funds for an insurance policy that in 99% of all cases would not pay out to the person paying it.

If the PPI was hidden in your mortgage contract, or included on the underwriting sheet as owed under the terms of the mortgage, and then the PPI was claimed back from the lender then surely the original contract is no longer a true reflection of your alleged debt to the lender making the contract unenforceable.

Once the PPI is removed or paid back then wouldn't it be logical to expect a new mortgage contract to be issued to reflect the true obligations of the customer to the lender?, otherwise, wouldn't the original contract always remain unenforceable?

Isn't this one of the reasons that Welcome Finance re wrote so many loan agreements?-I ask this because of something I realised when WF made us sign a new loan agreement when we got behind with payments.

""The seller broke the law during the sale: Most sales can be reversed if the seller committed fraud or violated the law.""

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Definition of 'Void Contract' A formal agreement that is illegitimate and unenforceable from the moment it is created. A void contract could be considered void for a number of reasons. Common causes of a void contract are contract terms that are illegal or become illegal due to changes in law; one party to the contract lacks the capacity to enter into a contract because he is a minor or mentally incapacitated; and it is legal but declared null by the courts because it violates a fundamental principle.

Investopedia explains 'Void Contract' There is some overlap in the causes that can make a contract void and the causes that can make it voidable. The fundamental difference between these two types of contracts is that a void contract is not legally valid or enforceable at any point in its existence, while a voidable contract can be legal and enforceable depending on how the contract defect is handled.

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

"""Most people who have one will spend the vast majority of their life paying off the debt accrued via their Mortgage. What most people don’t know regarding that debt is that it does not actually exist. In reality, the borrower actually creates the line of credit which the alleged lender lends back to them, usually over 25 years and at an extortionate rate of interest.
This multi-national fraud by non-disclosure, misrepresentation and abuse of position appears to be committed under an unconscionable and irrevocable Power of Attorney granted to the bankster in every Mortgage Deed. This allows the Mortgagee to create a Promissory Note in the name of the Mortgagor, for the purposes of securing and maintaining the legal charge registered against the property. The Mortgagor has no knowledge of the scope of this provision, which is used by the bankster to discharge the original debt before a single day’s interest is charged."""


When you pay a deposit for your home purchase the money has to be physically deposited in the solicitors account yet the lender only has to show a line of credit for the borrowed amount and not the actual physical amount of money itself, so is that legal under conveyance laws? or any laws?

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement. (See: consideration, contract of adhesion, unilateral contract, bilateral contract, oral contract)

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Mortgages - ILLEGAL as well as UNLAWFUL!

We have known, for quite a while, that every single mortgage ever established was unlawful. Because there is ZERO "Contractual Consideration" from the Finance Company ... because they create the so-called "finance" out of thin air. This was discussed in the 2nd Edition of my book.Thanks to someone who has pored through a load of Statutes, we now discover that mortgages are also illegal - in other words - 'not legal even under Statute'.IT IS A FACT that - when applying for a mortgage - one is sent a Title Deed to sign. And whoever is applying for the mortgage signs and dates it, and posts it back to the Finance Company.There is only space on the Title Deed for the Applicant(s) to sign. There is no space for the signature of the Finance Company (i.e. 'Representative') to sign.Thus the Title Deed does NOT, in itself, form a Lawful Contract.Another way of describing a mortgage is to call it a "disposition". A "disposition" of funds (to pay for the dwelling being purchased).Now, the full argument is here.What that is saying is that the mortgage is only created (according to Statute) when the Charge is lodged at the Land Registry.This only happens after the Title Deed has been signed and returned to the Finance Company.Thus the actual creation of the mortgage ("disposition") is in the future of the Title Deed.And the Statutes state specifically that any Contract for a future disposition, must bear the signature of BOTH Parties.And, since the Title Deed only bears the signature of the Applicant, this fails to create the necessary "Contract for the future disposition".Which means that "lodging the Charge with the Land Registry" was entirely fraudulent."Entirely fraudulent" means "null& void in Law".Thus to claim "possession" - at the time of foreclosure - is "utterly, and completely, entirely fraudulent, and thoroughly reprehensible" ... even according to Statute!So, you say, "Well, why don't the Finance Companies correct this by applying their own signatures, then?" ... to which the answer is: "What signature?" ... something like "A. B - for, and on behalf of, XYZ Finance Ltd"? DO YOU REALLY THINK MR. A. B IS GOING TO PUT HIS NAME TO AN UNLAWFUL FRAUD? (It's always UNLAWFUL, don't forget!)They have got away with this fraud, because THEY DON'T SIGN ANYTHING ... and because THAT OMISSION has gone unnoticed for so long ... because people are INDOCTRINATED at school, as opposed to being "educated".When, during your childhood, and young adulthood - even during your life - were these things explained to you ... things such as YOUR ACTUAL, FUNDAMENTAL, RIGHTS?The whole thing, "society today", operates "by omission". George Orwell said "Omission is the biggest form of a lie". You want proof that is true? OK, consider the Oath that Witnesses must take, before giving testimony to a Jury: "I do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".That's just another way of saying: "I swear not to omit anything relevant", isn't it? Which means that "omission" is tantamount to perjury.Other links:
Land Registration Act 2002, Section 27(1)
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Section 2(1), 2(3), 2(5)c, and 2(6)Veronica
December 2012

I haven't read all of the posts here, but I recognize the gist from the now defunct void mortgage forum.#

Very recently there has been a number of case in the property chamber where mortgages have been challenged on these issues. In all cases the court has found for the lender , in all cases, the court found these argument to be "without merit", "fanciful" and "not to have any legal basis".

Some of the misconceptions; that the deed has to be signed by the lender(it doesn't a deed is a unilateral agreement), that there is a gap between the execution and registration which somehow renders the deed void, there isn't the deed secures an agreement in equity until the registration takes place then it is a transfer of title)

I intervene here because at least ten(i know of) people have been persuaded to challenge their deeds on these arguments and are all now facing possession orders, I would hate to see this happen to anyone on here

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

I haven't read all of the posts here, but I recognize the gist from the now defunct void mortgage forum.#

Very recently there has been a number of case in the property chamber where mortgages have been challenged on these issues. In all cases the court has found for the lender , i all cases, the court found these argument to be "without merit", "fanciful" and "not to have any legal basis".

Some of the misconceptions; that the deed has to be signed by the lender(it doesn't a deed is a unilateral agreement), that there is a gap between the execution and registration which somehow renders the deed void, there isn't the deed secures an agreement in equity until the registration takes place then it is a transfer of title)

I intervene here because at least ten(i know of) people have been persuaded to challenge their deeds on these arguments and are all now facing possession orders, I would hate to see this happen to anyone on here

Thanks, I am only posting these for other peoples opinions and not as general advice for people to take as an answer to their prayers so that every possible scenario can be looked at as everyone's circumstances are different and one of them may have the answer hidden away somewhere within their mortgage paperwork.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the mortgage market that needs to be discovered and challenged before everyone loses their homes.

The biggest issue for me is that someone can take out a mortgage for 25 years but if they miss 3 payments the mortgage company can repossess them under the terms of the mortgage agreement.

In saying that, I can't remember seeing a clause in any mortgage offer I've seen that you agree to allowing them to take your home for missing 3 payments out of 300, I must go back and check this!!!

The mortgage companies do say that ""YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP REPAYMENTS ON YOUR MORTGAGE"", but does it set out exactly how many payments have to be missed in the contract or do they have the contractual right to repossess after 3 months?, and if they did have a specific clause, was you given the chance to alter or vary that term at all before you signed the contract?


If they do have the contractual right then that must be an unfair term in the contract as it is a bit of a one-sided term in my eyes. Why would anybody realistically agree to allow the mortgage companies the right to take their house off them for breaching the terms of the contract, mainly through no fault of their own, for only 3 months?

We must find out!

[jon1965]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

God i am confused.
Is Ian also Veronica?
Is Ian and or Veronica actually a granny smith or maybe someone who doesn't know if they are them or not?

Does this website allow free advertising for books?

Has the world gone mad?

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

God i am confused.
Is Ian also Veronica?
Is Ian and or Veronica actually a granny smith or maybe someone who doesn't know if they are them or not?

Does this website allow free advertising for books?

Has the world gone mad?

Ian is, and always will be, Ian.

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Thanks, I am only posting these for other peoples opinions and not as general advice for people to take as an answer to their prayers so that every possible scenario can be looked at as everyone's circumstances are different and one of them may have the answer hidden away somewhere within their mortgage paperwork.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the mortgage market that needs to be discovered and challenged before everyone loses their homes.

The biggest issue for me is that someone can take out a mortgage for 25 years but if they miss 3 payments the mortgage company can repossess them under the terms of the mortgage agreement.

In saying that, I can't remember seeing a clause in any mortgage offer I've seen that you agree to allowing them to take your home for missing 3 payments out of 300, I must go back and check this!!!

The mortgage companies do say that ""YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP REPAYMENTS ON YOUR MORTGAGE"", but does it set out exactly how many payments have to be missed in the contract or do they have the contractual right to repossess after 3 months?, and if they did have a specific clause, was you given the chance to alter or vary that term at all before you signed the contract?


If they do have the contractual right then that must be an unfair term in the contract as it is a bit of a one-sided term in my eyes. Why would anybody realistically agree to allow the mortgage companies the right to take their house off them for breaching the terms of the contract, mainly through no fault of their own, for only 3 months?

We must find out!

Yes it is allowed under statute http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...20/section/103

The lender would argue that the failure to repay was the fault of the borrower of course.

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Yes it is allowed under statute http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...20/section/103

The lender would argue that the failure to repay was the fault of the borrower of course.

Is this incorporated into the mortgage contract?

It is obviously a part of the government legislation but, does a mortgage contract contain a clause in relation to this that is clearly understood by the borrower before they sign the contract?