Mortgages- illegal?

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

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?

The deed can be enforced and the property re-possessed, the requirements of the LOPA and the issuance of the charge via way of mortgage to the lender gives him that right over and above any financial contractual arrangement.

[jon1965]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Ian is, and always will be, Ian.

I was confused Ian as the posts were somewhat confusing.
There was a reference you "your" book which is by Veronica and links to video clips to Veronica who to be fair could easily be or have been an Ian
Then there was reference to last weeks bank holiday ?

Just these posts did not look like they were quotes but they must be

There was also a link to a book that is available from Amazon for 8.99

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

The deed can be enforced and the property re-possessed, the requirements of the LOPA and the issuance of the charge via way of mortgage to the lender gives him that right over and above any financial contractual arrangement.

I don't really understand this.

Without a financial contract arrangement there would not be a deed in the first place so how can a deed give them rights over and above any financial contracts and why is none of this explained in the mortgage contracts?

How can these mortgage contracts be legal if they are 100% in favour of the lenders?

The lenders are also required by government legislation to help customers in arrears, and use repossession as a last resort, yet lenders are consistently failing to help customers switch their loans to interest only for a while, or capitalising the arrears, until their financial circumstances improve so why are they allowed to stick so rigidly to one piece of legislation over and above another piece of legislation?

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

As said a deed is a unilateral agreement where the mortgagor (borrower) grants a charge by way of mortgage to the mortgagee(lender), this effectively gives the lender the title , once the mortgage is repaid the title is regained by the borrower.

It is not a matter of enforcing an agreement, if there is a default the lender merely exercises his right under the title to gain re-possession(or sell).

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

As said a deed is a unilateral agreement where the mortgagor (borrower) grants a charge by way of mortgage to the mortgagee(lender), this effectively gives the lender the title , once the mortgage is repaid the title is regained by the borrower.

It is not a matter of enforcing an agreement, if there is a default the lender merely exercises his right under the title to gain re-possession(or sell).

I understand the deed gives the lender title but the deed is only created when the loan agreement is created between the lender and the borrower so if the loan agreement is fraudulent in some way then the deed is also fraudulent and the lender has no rights to gain repossession using the rights under title, to do so would be obtaining property by deception.

Somewhere there are people that have won their cases but have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement so that other people can never find out how they won, surely if a borrower has evidence to prove the lenders are doing something illegal then wouldn't a non-disclosure agreement be a case of perverting the course of justice?

What about the staff that work at the lenders call centres? Are they so desperate for employment they are happy to treat people the way they do, and help to make people homeless and financially ruined?

Why are the lenders so desperate to either repossess people or offer them incentives to find a new lender?
Could they be doing this before anyone realises there is something wrong with the original mortgage contracts?

Has anybody compared their mortgage contract with a mortgage contract from a high street lender to see if there are any significant differences?

People need to be asking more questions about this subject!!!

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

[QUOTE=IanM;416151]I understand the deed gives the lender title but the deed is only created when the loan agreement is created between the lender and the borrower so if the loan agreement is fraudulent in some way then the deed is also fraudulent and the lender has no rights to gain repossession using the rights under title, to do so would be obtaining property by deception.

Somewhere there are people that have won their cases but have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement so that other people can never find out how they won, surely if a borrower has evidence to prove the lenders are doing something illegal then wouldn't a non-disclosure agreement be a case of perverting the course of justice?

What about the staff that work at the lenders call centres? Are they so desperate for employment they are happy to treat people the way they do, and help to make people homeless and financially ruined?

Why are the lenders so desperate to either repossess people or offer them incentives to find a new lender?
Could they be doing this before anyone realises there is something wrong with the original mortgage contracts?

Has anybody compared their mortgage contract with a mortgage contract from a high street lender to see if there are any significant differences?

People need to be asking more questions about this subject!!![/QUOE]

This may illustrate

[IanM]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

""We may assign, transfer or charge in whole or in part to any person or persons your mortgage, your debt or any of our rights under your mortgage or in respect of your debt at any time. By signing your mortgage you agree to any such assignment, transfer or charge. You may not withdraw from this agreement."""

This has already been ruled by the FOS that this term being contained in a mortgage offer is an unfair term and should be removed or an agreement made by the lender that this clause will not be acted upon without notifying the borrower of the assignment, transfer or charge to a new lender.

The case referred to doesn't mention anything about the mortgage contracts being fraudulent in any way and I don't believe anyone, as yet, has questioned the legality of the actual mortgage offers that create the deed that is registered in respect of it which is something that needs to be investigated.

As I see it at the moment, because you signed the mortgage offer and the deed, you are effectively giving the lender the right to fleece as much money out of you until you either find a new lender or are repossessed, or they sell your mortgage to another company that will then try to fleece even more money out of you.

You have to pay whatever they demand of you or they repossess meaning you will lose everything you have already paid them towards the capital of the mortgage because they manufacture fees and charges to swallow up any equity you may have gained on a repayment and interest mortgage.

And they are allowed to do this because you signed the mortgage offer with all its confusing terms and conditions.

If people knew the true meaning of the terms and conditions would they ever take out a mortgage in the first place?

Would they voluntarily sign up to be penalised for not being able to make a couple of payments on time, or to miss a couple, through no fault of their own?

The worst thing about all this is the banks are the ones controlling the economy so they are able to manipulate the system so that they have a steady stream of defaulters and repossessions so they can then sell another mortgage to the next victim of their grand scam and make a fortune in interest!

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Among other things the case illustrates that there is no contract on a first mortgage, the deed is the contract.

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

I agree that there is some sharp practice in the sub prime market, but we must not loose sight of the fact that banks provides mortgages which provide homes. Generally until people fall behind with their payments there is no problem with what ever the bank decides to do with the charge.

The courts have no issue with securitisation or creating a sub charge or even selling a charge by assignment. To be honest I cannot see the issue either.

[Robinhood2013]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

Most of us are find out the hard way trying to do battle with the sub prime lenders who take us to cleaners.

We need to question every thing they do and why they do it.

They will slip up and it only needs one judge to make a ruling against them and all hell will break lose

[Robinhood2013]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

deed is a deed not a contract

[Guest]

Re: Mortgages- illegal?

deed is a deed not a contract

Technically a deed is a "specialty contract".

Law Commission -

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/..._Documents.pdf
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/...ts_Summary.pdf
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/...nsultation.pdf

"A specialty contract can be “any contract entered into under seal” or “any obligation entered into by deed under seal”

Aiken v Stewart Wrightson [1995] 1 WLR 1281, per Potter J: approving the dictum of Oliver LJ in Collin v Duke of Westminster [1985] QB 581, 601 that “[t]he obvious and most common case of an action upon a specialty is an action based on a contract under seal, but it is clear that “specialty” was not originally confined to such contracts but extended also to obligations imposed by statute”.

The Law Reform Committee’s Twenty-First Report (Final Report on Limitations of Actions) (1977) Cmnd 6923 p 22: “For practical purposes, a specialty may be treated as an obligation entered into by deed under seal...”.

However, the reforms introduced in 1989 made two important changes. They permitted deeds to be executed without the use of a seal (by both individuals and companies); and they introduced a new requirement that the intention to create a deed must be clear from the face of the instrument.

An instrument is a specialty because it is in solemn form; it is a type of deed. Before 1989 execution in solemn form required the use of a seal. Since 1989, the rules for execution in solemn form (namely as a deed) have changed. For an individual, they are now set out in section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. But in other respects the position remains the same. Accordingly, a contract which is executed by an individual as a deed (that is by attested signature), and which makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed, will be both a deed and a specialty. The absence of any seal is immaterial."