Report comment

The so called Mortgage deeds as they put it are not a valid agreement according to the law of contracts where there is only one signature upon the face of that document where the mortgages companies has failed to sign the agreement where it is their duty to sign the document to make it legally binding upon both parties I say this for the following reason:

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations, which are enforceable or recognizable at Law. A contract has four requirements for it to be considered Lawful: Full Disclosure-Meaning that both parties must be fully open setting and agreeing upon the details and the terms of the contract. Both parties must be left with no doubt or confusion about the terms set out in the contract.

Consideration – Can be ‘that which is offered’ in the agreement. Allows the parties’ time to consider if they stand to lose or gain from the contract. Terms & Conditions–Outline the structure and the requirements of the agreement and obligations of each or all of the involved parties. Signature-This is the most important part of the Contract and is the proof that the agreement took place. It also implies ‘consensus ad idem’ or a ‘meeting of the minds’ to show that a legally binding contract took place between the two party’s i.e. the mortgage companies and their customers

Special-Purpose Vehicle (SPV) limited–purpose organization that serves as a passthrough conduit for securities backed by mortgages, credit card, and auto loans lease and other financial assets.

The banks only interest in the loans following its true sale of the mortgage is that of a mere administrator and servicer of the loan. It is the SPV that is the banks client from whom the bank earns its servicing fees and from whom it receives its instructions. Consequently, the banks loyalty is to the SPV client only. The power to set the borrowers interest rates is a contractual power contained in the mortgage contract: a fortiori when the contract is sold to the SPV, the contractual power to set the borrowers interest rate is vested in the SPV and not the bank. Therein is the reason why the banks have not passed on the interest rates cuts. It is simply because they cannot, they must, in accordance with their administration agreement with the SPV, implement the interest rate policy of their client, the SPV.

Another legal issue arises here. Strictly speaking the claimant should be the SPV, however, the administrator bank will make the claim in its own name. However, at law, the bank locus standi to bring the claim in its own name without information the court that it is claiming in a representative capacity. The court therefore erroneously assumes the banks legal standing and is willfully misled by the legal ruse to conceal the SPV. At law, the bank has no legal right to bring the claim in its own name and no legal right to obtain a possession order against the borrower.

Finally, this issue highlights the importance of the principal of transparency. To echo the Prime Minister all transactions should be transparent and never hidden. The concealment of the SPV from the borrower presents the SPV with opportunity to abuse with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the consumer would never know who is really perpetrating the abuse and whom they should hold accountable. The borrower should know with who they are in privity of contract and that information should never be concealed.
Customers has always requested a copy of the (“Agreement”) with the two parties signatures to show a legal blinding contract took place and a copy of the (“Deed of Assignment” in which they always refuse to do so).

The citizens pay for all public services either directly or indirectly through their taxes. They are entitled to expect high-quality services, responsive to their needs, provided efficiently at a reasonable cost. Where the State is engaged in regulating, taxing or administering justice, these functions too must be carried out fairly, effectively and courteously.

Public bodies must not be shielded from obligations to their customers and clients by special privileges and indemnities. Government activities should not, for example be
Immune from inspection or enforcement.

The Crown has no immunity from Civil Liability, and can be sued for damages or breach of contract just like any other body. When public services fall well below the standard, and there is nowhere else to go, there must be some redress.