If like many others on this site you are having trouble with your lenders (especially Eagle Star) who is now owned by Zurich Finance let me Know!!!! I will expose them, or have Eagle Star or their solicitors been lying, hiding, deceiving, or tippexing your documents (allegedly of course) let me know, I will expose them. Are Eagle Star and / or their solicitors trying to repossess your family home and perhaps they have not signed the deeds or other documents to your property! have they the right to repossess your home? let me know, because together we can beat them through the courts, an expose their actions in the media. The reason for this message on this notice board is because Eagle Star and / or their solicitors Charles Russell of Cheltenham have put our family through the above, we have defended ourselve`s through the courts up to the court of appeal (yesterday 08/08/01) Eagle Star have even been reported to the Chelenham & Gloucester police and the Dyfed Powys Police in West Wales for Purjury and Perverting the Course of Justice! If you have had any of these problems with either Eagle Star or Messrs Charles Russell, both of Cheltenham let me know whether Civil or Criminal big or small I will be very interested to know! And possible may be able to help you with your problems. Regards: Nigel Green.

-- Nigel Green (nijgreen@btinternet.com), August 09, 2001

Answers

Nigel,

What was the outcome of the Appeal Court hearing?

Lee

-- Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com), August 09, 2001.

Nigel you are a star (not an eagle one!) what is the significance of deeds not being signed,it has never really been tested that they have to be.Unless you or anyone else knows different.

-- roger watts (rwatts.homeloans@virgin.net), August 15, 2001.

Hi Roger

The significance in the Mortgage Deeds or the Contract or Disposition not being signed by both parties may well be the biggest problem to hit lenders of all time.

On the 27th September 1989 the Law Changed, and there was a new statute: The law of Property (Miscelaneous) Act 1989 Section 2(1)which says that: "A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document, or where contracts are exchanged in each" Section 2(3) says: "The document incorporating all the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by each party. Section 2(6) Says: "Disposition" has the same meaning as in the Law of property act 1925 (i.e. pre 27th September 1989) The Law of Property Act 1925 to which it refers says @ section 1(ii)that a "Conveyance includes a "Mortgage" and a "Mortgage" includes a "Disposition"

The nuts and bolts of this argument (which is being tested through the court of appeal) is that if your mortgage does not have the lenders signature on it (but only if it was signed after 27th September 1989) may well not be valid or at least it may not be enforcable i.e. the lender may not be able to repossess you home, (although you may still owe the monies borrowed) if successful there may be millions of people who may have a claim against lenders who have repossessed their homes illegally or be guilty of trespass. At the moment this is a very grey area and we will not know the answer to this until it has fully been tested through the court of appeal (where we are now on a possible re-hearing)if not, then the House of Lords (if leave is given) if it is not given or the application fails we intend to take it to Europe, There is also a seperate issue in breaches and violations of our Human Rights under article 6 and or article 8 of the Human Rights Act and the right to a fair trial (but thats another story) so it could be very good news for borrowers and very, very, very, very bad news for lenders)as most lenders do not sign their mortgages, their mortgages are created by way of customer practice rather than the new law that came in on the 27th September 1989!!! watch this space

Regards Nigel Green

-- Nigel Green (nijgreen@btinternet.com), August 16, 2001.

Hello Nigel! You are indeed a star. Where the Human Rights issue is concerned - have a look the 1st Protocol, Article 1, which states..... 'Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law... The preceding provisions shall not, however,in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.'

Could that apply in any way to your situation? I'm looking at in my case as the CHELTENHAM &GLOUCESTER B.Soc.refused to supply copies of documents that illustrated the marketing that took place to achieve their claimed 'best price'. The B.Soc. Ombudsman allowed them to with-hold the documents,in the knowledge that I had a right of access to them,thereby breaching his duty of care to me (pigs might fly). I maintain that the under-selling of the property deprived me of my possessions i.e. the balance of monies that would have been available to me if the B.Soc. had behaved in the manner required by the B.Soc Act - in obtaining the best price reasonably available. Thought this might be of interest to you.

With regard to the date of 2?th September, 1989 does that mean that the new law regarding the 'signed deeds' only applies to mortgages taken out from that date and those before that date are not covered by the new law?

Will be following this little gem with great interest. Joy

-- Joy Harker (fightingback@harker.go-plus.net), August 16, 2001.

I am at this time 'in dialouge' with the Eagle Star over a reposession back in 1992. The deed was not signed by MAES Finance, where the money came from, so I maintain that the contract was not valid even then. I have invited Eagle Star to challenge this in court, nothing to loose all to gain, but as yet they have declined. I would maintain that any contract needs to be agreed between all parties for it to be valid. The fact that monies have been released is not an implied contract containing all the terms and conditions contained within the deed. I would welcome any input.

Jon S

-- JonS (j.k.s@ic24.net), August 17, 2001.

Hi Joy! Thanks for your interest and you information on the Human Rights Act, In my opinion, Eagle Star and their solicitors have told so many lies and misled the court so many times that probably most parts of our Human Rights has been violated one way or another, and thanks for the information on the 1st Protocol, Article 1 it is certainly another angle that can be used.

Regarding your problem, I was involved in a very similar problem regarding a shortfall, it was not for a property but a rather large lorry and a shortfall of some £18,000, the case I did as a Litigant in Person with some Legal Advice from Christina Rundle (Non Practising Barrister) prior to the hearing, the case was won by us by making an application to have the whole matter "set aside" put the lender to STRICK PROOF

The lender will have to prove the debt and they have to serve you with a statutory demand for the alleged monies owed. In my case they had served me with a statutory demand for the alleged monies owed £18,000 (joke) as the real debt was around only £6,000 (just a little different). They had also told the court that they had sold it at auction for the best price offered £6,000. I telephoned the company that removed the truck from my premises on a low loader who told me where they had taken the vehicle, they then told me that the vehicle had been sold (a funny handshake and a backhander pound note job) to a scrap yard who preceeded in stripping all the goodies off the truck and sold it on for £2,000, very unfortunately for the finance company who was chasing me for the £18,000 I turned up at court with a handful of faxes from the people in the chain of events, but just prior to me revealing the truth, this their solicitor (would you believe EVERSHEDS)had told the court that he had left the proof of the debt i.e.the auction papers at his office boy was he sent out with his tail between his legs by the District Judge when I produced my faxes. But from what I am aware and my experience they MUST issue you with a statutory demand and the Must by documentary evidence proove to the court (and you) that they have obtained the best posible price at auction of very close to the full market price if sold privately, (if they cannot prove the debt by documents how do they know what the debt is, or how did they get to that figure??) My advice do not pay them a penny unless they prove the debt and prove that they have obtained the best possible price, if they are hounding you too much put an application in at the county court to have the matter "set aside" and put them to "strict proof" because if they cannot prove the debt or cannot prove that the property obtained something close the full market value (forced sale) or the best possible price at auction they do not have grounds for claiming XYZ from you if they can`t prove how they got there.

TIP!! If you are on a low income, or social security, income support or other low income support you do not have to pay to make any application at court, (not even the Court of Appeal in London) ask the staff in the court office they are usually very helpful (take ID and proof of benefit / income with you)

Further: and according to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act they have to do all this within a reasonable time? and not leave their claim against you for years.

I hope that is of some help. Regards Nigel Green

-- Nigel Green (nijgreen@btinternet.com), August 17, 2001.

Hi Jon S With regard to your problem with Eagle Star with the deeds not signed, the first question is did you take out the mortgage before or after 27th September 1989 (date on Deed? or Mortgage) if it was before this date it does not have to be signed by the lender and all the terms and conditions do not have to be contained in one document, BUT! if it was after the magic date in 1989 when the new Statute governed by Parliament became law:- The Law of Property (Miscellaneous) Act 1989, unfortunatly for lenders, not a lot of people knew about that (or so they all say) or if they did, they did not bother to put their own signatures on the contract, they just carried on with custom and practice and not comply with what the statute required by law, Get a copy of the Law of Property Act 1925 and also a copy of the 1989 Act off the internet (any good search engine will find them I used www.excite.co.uk)by reading these you can see how the law radically changed in September 1989, in Halsbury`s Law Books and in the case of Quarrel - v - Beckford 1816 it says that a Mortgage is a "Disposition" which is correct, in the statute of the 1989 act (S2(1) and in the case of United Bank of Kuwait - v -Sahib 1996 it says that all dispositions and mortgages in what ever form have to be signed by both parties, At the Court of Appeal last week Lord Justice Mummery told me that although our mortgage is the disposition, our contract, (maybe like yours) is actually within the Mortgage Deed itself, therefore section 2 of the 1989 act does not apply, as section 2 is for contracts, but as our contract is within the Mortgage Deed it has to comply with section 1 (2) of the 1989 which deals with Deeds, which says: "it is validly executed as a deed by that person or, as the case may be, one or more of those parties" Our argument is that The "Mortgage Deed" "Contract" "Disposition" whatever label it is given, has to contain ALL the terms and conditions in ONE document and should be signed by BOTH Parties as stipulated by section 2(1) of the new 1989 Act.

If you follow what Mr Mummery LJ says that it applys to section 1 of the 1989 act, then our argument still applies it still has to be signed by both parties for the following simple reason:-

As mentioned above the Mortgage Deed, Contract, Disposition, contains terms and conditions, agreements and covenants which both parties have agreed to abide to, so if one or the other party did NOT sign, the opposing party could not bring them to justice in a court of law as there would be no signature to say that they had agreed to those terms and conditions in the first place i.e. the document is not a full legal document therefore it has only been a part perfomance on the part of the lender, which means that they cannot enforce the agreement and repossess your property. (although you may still owe the money)which is a completely different issue. We hope to be going back to the Court of Appeal as our hearing was only part heard and we hope to give some good news soon to a lot of people in the same situation as we find ourselves. Perhaps you could let me know who you are dealing with at eagle Star? Is it Cheltenham? Is it Phil Rice? Which Solicitors did Eagle Star use was it Charles Russell in Cheltenham or have they refused to let you see any of your documents? Hope some of the above is useful. Regards Nigel.

-- Nigel Green (nijgreen@btinternet.com), August 17, 2001.

I have found this posting very useful as my mortgage deed was not signed but sealed by the building society,having read the act when eventually found ihave decieded to use this in my defence should i have to go to court in the near future.If you are having trouble getting your head around the act(Law Of Property(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989(c.34))LOOK AT THIS WEBB PAGE http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890034_en_1.h tm .I have found it very useful. Kind regards

-- Daren Otsay (darenotsay@blueyonder.co.uk), September 01, 2001.

Further good news if your mortgage deeds have not been signed by the lender, I had previously posted at the top of this page that the Law of Property act says that it has to bee signed by both parties. Following that: "Emmet on Title" the judges bible also backs this up @ 2.038 "sale or other disposition" in Emmet on title (Necessity for Writing) says the following:- "Thus the provision" (i.e. the LPA 1989 Act)"would apply to contracts for the creation as well as the transfer of such an interest"....... This means that the mortgage deed is the document that actually transfers the interest of the land and or the property. So according to "Emmet" in the judges bible the document that transfers the interest i.e. the mortgage deed has to comply with the Law of Property (Miscelaneous)Act 1989. I.e. therefore the mortgage deed has to be signed by the lender to comply with the act. DON`T FORGET YOUR MORTGAGE MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED AFTER 27TH SEPTEMBER 1989 TO FALL INTO THIS NEW LAW STATUTE. Go Get Them Folks Good Luck Nigel Ps: don`t forget my percentage if you win (only joking!) If you can`t find "Emmet" I will e-mail it to you direct

-- Nigel Green (nijgreen@btinternet.com), September 24, 2001.

If you have e-mailed me direct and I have not yet replied, i`m sorry as I have been a little busy fighting my own battles, if I can help please e-mail me direct again. Regards Nigel

-- Nigel Green (nijgreen@btinternet.com), September 24, 2001.