Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Redemption payment farce

mortgage deals, ideas and discussion
Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Redemption payment farce

#344471

Postby Arborbridge » October 2nd, 2020, 12:08 pm

We have a letter from Lloyds giving instructions for the redemption of a mortgage.

There's a sort code and account number which the letter explains one must use, but no payee name. This is, however, demanded by the online dialogue box. First we tried the name of the bank with whom we are redeeming the mortgage, but that didn't work = error message returned saying the account details and payee name don't match.

Then a long wait on the phone for the mortgage bank's helpline. After much faffing about, they said the payee's name was my own. Rang off. Tried to use my name as payee, but this returns the say message, which asks "What do you want to do"? unfortunately there are no options to smash someone's face in for incompetence and ambiguity.

No we are given a stark choice: carrying with the transfer and hope, or phone the helpline which was no use in the first instance. If the transfer falls into the wrong place, I imagine the customer will be to blame.

We are not the only ones with this ridiculour problem: I notice a message from someone else with an identical problem who has been hanging on for an hour for speak with someone.

Arb.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344501

Postby Alaric » October 2nd, 2020, 12:47 pm

Arborbridge wrote: First we tried the name of the bank with whom we are redeeming the mortgage, but that didn't work = error message returned saying the account details and payee name don't match.


It's a recently introduced security feature in online banking. You have to input the name of the account. The problem is that the exact designation as required by the software isn't always communicated by the potential payee. Some banks just give a warning and allow the payment regardless of whether the account designation is a 100% match.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344506

Postby dealtn » October 2nd, 2020, 12:51 pm

Arborbridge wrote:We have a letter from Lloyds giving instructions for the redemption of a mortgage.

There's a sort code and account number which the letter explains one must use, but no payee name. This is, however, demanded by the online dialogue box. First we tried the name of the bank with whom we are redeeming the mortgage, but that didn't work = error message returned saying the account details and payee name don't match.

Then a long wait on the phone for the mortgage bank's helpline. After much faffing about, they said the payee's name was my own. Rang off. Tried to use my name as payee, but this returns the say message, which asks "What do you want to do"? unfortunately there are no options to smash someone's face in for incompetence and ambiguity.

No we are given a stark choice: carrying with the transfer and hope, or phone the helpline which was no use in the first instance. If the transfer falls into the wrong place, I imagine the customer will be to blame.

We are not the only ones with this ridiculour problem: I notice a message from someone else with an identical problem who has been hanging on for an hour for speak with someone.

Arb.


Confused.

You have a mortgage with Lloyds you are trying to pay off. You are using another bank to make an electronic payment to redeem the loan. Lloyds didn't provide the "payee name" but after getting this information from their (unhelpful) helpline you now have this. You now use this and the "other" bank is now producing a "message".

Why are you ringing the helpline again, the second issue is with the other bank?

What do I have wrong?

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344520

Postby Arborbridge » October 2nd, 2020, 1:08 pm

Both accounts are with Lloyds. The letter from Lloyds makes no mention of a payee name, but the dialogue box asks for it. We have the choice of carrying on with the payment or not doing so.

After a second call to the helpline - (the same one as we previously contacted) associated with Lloyds redemption department - we were told that the payee name shouldn't be our personal name, but Lloyds Bank Plc (contrary to their previous advice).
We explained that we have already tried that but received a "no match" message, whereupon we were told that we should just carry on anyway. they would "guarantee" that this sort code and account number were the correct ones and the non-match was spurious.

How can Lloyds not recognise a Lloyds named account? My complaint against Lloyds is that this lack of payee name isn't explained in the letter, and the whole thing is a complete waste of a customer's time. They cause the confusion and leave the customer in a double bind - it's slovenly and outrageous.
To cap it all, they asked if we wanted to make a complaint which looked like it was going to turn into a very long and painful procedure, so we declined because we did not want to risk timing out of the account when we had just put in all the numbers and double checked them.

A frustrating morning over what should be a simple matter.

Arb.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344523

Postby Arborbridge » October 2nd, 2020, 1:11 pm

Alaric wrote:
Arborbridge wrote: First we tried the name of the bank with whom we are redeeming the mortgage, but that didn't work = error message returned saying the account details and payee name don't match.


It's a recently introduced security feature in online banking. You have to input the name of the account. The problem is that the exact designation as required by the software isn't always communicated by the potential payee. Some banks just give a warning and allow the payment regardless of whether the account designation is a 100% match.


Yes, I've had this before with idealing.com - there's a problem with the bank recognising the "." or something. Name match is great, but create furthre problems for customers - usually involving hours on helplines or calling payees. Better than losing your payment, but far from perfect.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344553

Postby dealtn » October 2nd, 2020, 2:09 pm

Arborbridge wrote:Both accounts are with Lloyds. The letter from Lloyds makes no mention of a payee name, but the dialogue box asks for it. We have the choice of carrying on with the payment or not doing so.

After a second call to the helpline - (the same one as we previously contacted) associated with Lloyds redemption department - we were told that the payee name shouldn't be our personal name, but Lloyds Bank Plc (contrary to their previous advice).
We explained that we have already tried that but received a "no match" message, whereupon we were told that we should just carry on anyway. they would "guarantee" that this sort code and account number were the correct ones and the non-match was spurious.

How can Lloyds not recognise a Lloyds named account? My complaint against Lloyds is that this lack of payee name isn't explained in the letter, and the whole thing is a complete waste of a customer's time. They cause the confusion and leave the customer in a double bind - it's slovenly and outrageous.
To cap it all, they asked if we wanted to make a complaint which looked like it was going to turn into a very long and painful procedure, so we declined because we did not want to risk timing out of the account when we had just put in all the numbers and double checked them.

A frustrating morning over what should be a simple matter.

Arb.


Ok makes more sense now.

Lloyds won't have an account with "Lloyds Bank" as its account name, it will be an internal settlement/suspense account and Lloyds system won't be looking for "Lloyds" within its system. If you were to be paying the loan off from ABC bank, then in the payee name entered on their platform "Lloyds Bank" will work. I agree its stupid, but the system won't have been coded expecting Lloyds Bank (customer) to be paying Lloyds Bank settlement/suspense account.

That's how it would have been 30 odd years ago when I last worked in retail banking, and I doubt if the thinking has changed much in that time, despite the changes in both the real world and how banking is delivered.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344572

Postby Arborbridge » October 2nd, 2020, 3:02 pm

dealtn wrote:
Ok makes more sense now.

Lloyds won't have an account with "Lloyds Bank" as its account name, it will be an internal settlement/suspense account and Lloyds system won't be looking for "Lloyds" within its system. If you were to be paying the loan off from ABC bank, then in the payee name entered on their platform "Lloyds Bank" will work. I agree its stupid, but the system won't have been coded expecting Lloyds Bank (customer) to be paying Lloyds Bank settlement/suspense account.

That's how it would have been 30 odd years ago when I last worked in retail banking, and I doubt if the thinking has changed much in that time, despite the changes in both the real world and how banking is delivered.


I can see how we get to that point, but what seems to me helpful, is that this isn't explained in the letter with some sort of warning. The cynic in me suggests that Lloyds would rather not do too much explaining in case some liability occurs: they would rather waste an hour of customer time. Even worse, was that the inital offerring from the Helpline was rubbish, which had the effect of our deciding to queue for another 30 minutes to get back to them.

The transfer was made, and hopefully that's done now. The next item on the agenda is that I bet Lloyds won't remove their charge on the house until we request it.

Thanks for your explanation and comments. If only their helpline had been so helpful...

Arb.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344587

Postby Alaric » October 2nd, 2020, 3:31 pm

dealtn wrote:the system won't have been coded expecting Lloyds Bank (customer) to be paying Lloyds Bank settlement/suspense account.


Isn't it slightly more subtle? The sort code and account code are no doubt some internal suspense account and have probably been public for the twenty years or more that online banking has been up and running. What's new is the requirement that the person making the payment needs to know the exact name of the account as well as the codes. It's the part of the bank handling mortgage repayments not being aware of a change to the general banking environment, or not making the necessary alterations to repayment processes.

In order to make an online payment, you now need four pieces of information:-
Bank Sort Code
Account Number
Account Name
Narrative to put on the transaction.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344590

Postby dealtn » October 2nd, 2020, 3:43 pm

Arborbridge wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Ok makes more sense now.

Lloyds won't have an account with "Lloyds Bank" as its account name, it will be an internal settlement/suspense account and Lloyds system won't be looking for "Lloyds" within its system. If you were to be paying the loan off from ABC bank, then in the payee name entered on their platform "Lloyds Bank" will work. I agree its stupid, but the system won't have been coded expecting Lloyds Bank (customer) to be paying Lloyds Bank settlement/suspense account.

That's how it would have been 30 odd years ago when I last worked in retail banking, and I doubt if the thinking has changed much in that time, despite the changes in both the real world and how banking is delivered.


I can see how we get to that point, but what seems to me helpful, is that this isn't explained in the letter with some sort of warning. The cynic in me suggests that Lloyds would rather not do too much explaining in case some liability occurs: they would rather waste an hour of customer time. Even worse, was that the inital offerring from the Helpline was rubbish, which had the effect of our deciding to queue for another 30 minutes to get back to them.

The transfer was made, and hopefully that's done now. The next item on the agenda is that I bet Lloyds won't remove their charge on the house until we request it.

Thanks for your explanation and comments. If only their helpline had been so helpful...

Arb.


I think you read too much into it.

And yes I wouldn't expect them to remove the charge either unless you request it (they wouldn't have put it there without you requesting it either). Depending on how old the transaction is, it might be to your benefit, and also a reason to leave a £1 mortgage, rather than pay it off. If there are various title deeds and documents that are valuable the mortgage provider often holds these free of charge in secure storage with a charge or mortgage in place. You might decide you want to substitute such secure storage, but now have to pay for it.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344593

Postby Arborbridge » October 2nd, 2020, 3:47 pm

dealtn wrote:I think you read too much into it.

And yes I wouldn't expect them to remove the charge either unless you request it (they wouldn't have put it there without you requesting it either). Depending on how old the transaction is, it might be to your benefit, and also a reason to leave a £1 mortgage, rather than pay it off. If there are various title deeds and documents that are valuable the mortgage provider often holds these free of charge in secure storage with a charge or mortgage in place. You might decide you want to substitute such secure storage, but now have to pay for it.


Thanks, I did think of the document side of it, but we want to put the house in joint names. They said they would not do this without another mortgage agreement with the various fees that entails. So we thought we'd just pay it off and have done with it.

Arb.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7085
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344596

Postby Mike4 » October 2nd, 2020, 3:52 pm

Alaric wrote:
dealtn wrote:the system won't have been coded expecting Lloyds Bank (customer) to be paying Lloyds Bank settlement/suspense account.


Isn't it slightly more subtle? The sort code and account code are no doubt some internal suspense account and have probably been public for the twenty years or more that online banking has been up and running. What's new is the requirement that the person making the payment needs to know the exact name of the account as well as the codes. It's the part of the bank handling mortgage repayments not being aware of a change to the general banking environment, or not making the necessary alterations to repayment processes.

In order to make an online payment, you now need four pieces of information:-
Bank Sort Code
Account Number
Account Name
Narrative to put on the transaction.


This isn't necessarily true. My own recent experiences with the new name-matching service is it doesn't work with accounts designated as "business" accounts. All that is required is bank a/c number, sort code and a reference (number or words) just as before.

I recently paid a locksmith and the name-matching procedure rejected his (business) bank account name for me, even though he and I had a phone conversation at the time and made sure the name I was entering was letter-perfect. The payment went through fine despite the rejected name match.

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344614

Postby didds » October 2nd, 2020, 4:54 pm

Mike4 wrote:This isn't necessarily true. My own recent experiences with the new name-matching service is it doesn't work with accounts designated as "business" accounts. All that is required is bank a/c number, sort code and a reference (number or words) just as before.

I recently paid a locksmith and the name-matching procedure rejected his (business) bank account name for me, even though he and I had a phone conversation at the time and made sure the name I was entering was letter-perfect. The payment went through fine despite the rejected name match.


yes... quite.

I recently paid via BACs for a service we'd used. Name for the A/C was akin to "A Jolly Good Service Company". But it was a personal account. And went through as a "personal account".

Which just goes to show just because you deal with a business with an account name in the name of the business doesnt mean its a business account. Undoubtedbly the reverse is also true. Which seems to make a mockery of the entire requirement (of course "obviously" the distinction is for banking ease, not the covenience or aack of confusion for their customers)

didds

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344623

Postby Alaric » October 2nd, 2020, 5:21 pm

didds wrote: Which seems to make a mockery of the entire requirement (of course "obviously" the distinction is for banking ease, not the covenience or aack of confusion for their customers)


Perhaps a little less secure because of the fake name issue, but why don't the systems do a look up of Account name based on Sort Code and Account Number ? So you key in Sort Code and Account Number and back comes the name corresponding to that account with a message "Are you sure?". Even better , it could also give the Bank and Branch name as looked up from the Sort Code.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#344644

Postby dealtn » October 2nd, 2020, 6:00 pm

Alaric wrote:
dealtn wrote:the system won't have been coded expecting Lloyds Bank (customer) to be paying Lloyds Bank settlement/suspense account.


Isn't it slightly more subtle? The sort code and account code are no doubt some internal suspense account and have probably been public for the twenty years or more that online banking has been up and running. What's new is the requirement that the person making the payment needs to know the exact name of the account as well as the codes. It's the part of the bank handling mortgage repayments not being aware of a change to the general banking environment, or not making the necessary alterations to repayment processes.

In order to make an online payment, you now need four pieces of information:-
Bank Sort Code
Account Number
Account Name
Narrative to put on the transaction.


So in the old days you would have a mortgage account, either at a branch with its own sort code, or a "mortgage centre" with its own sort code, depending on how the bank sets things up. To redeem the mortgage (or make a capital lump sum) you typically wouldn't be able to make a credit direct to the mortgage account, and if you did (by paying in a cheque over the counter say) it would usually "reject" and go into a credit suspense account at the branch (or mortgage centre). It would get manually sorted, probably the next day, with all transactions "backdated" to adjust for interest etc.

So if your mortgage details were Sort Code 11-00-01 12345678 you might be asked to make the payment to 11-00-01 (or even 11-xx-yy) for the account abcdefgh, but quote reference 12345678. The credit would appear in credit clearing into the suspense account and the "system" would allocate payments against the reference numbers and the bank clerk (or official!) would process in bulk all payments across all accounts, with an exceptions report for manual intervention etc. (remember this isn't for ordinary monthly mortgage payments). From the outside it would just look like a credit was made to your mortgage account, with the balance reduced or paid off.

Now with "modern" online payments etc. there is now an additional variable, whereby the account name is also checked. So instead of 11-00-01 abcdefgh with a reference of 12345678 you also need the account name. This "name" would be Lloyds Bank (or another bank elsewhere obviously). I would imagine, but don't know for certain as I don't work for a bank anymore, that an agreement is made between banks such that if a customer of xyz bank tries to make a payment to abc bank, then even if the real account name is abc bank internal suspense account XXXXX then abc bank alone would be sufficient, and that xyz bank's system wouldn't even go into a "close match" process. All the banks would agree that as the funds made, even if they don't match exactly are staying in the bank, and not going to a third party account that is ok.

The issue is that for a customer of Lloyds, making a payment to a Lloyds Bank suspense account, it is coded (subtly) incorrectly, in that if you put Lloyds Bank as the payee name, and the bank account name to the outside world is Lloyds Bank Suspense Account XXXXX, but Lloyds Bank is sufficient, in this case the paying bank has input "Lloyds Bank" but the receiving bank only has "Suspense Account XXXXX", and not Lloyds Bank Suspense Account XXXXX in its "database". The "Lloyds Bank" bit from an internal perspective doesn't exist, and when payer bank and payee bank are the same it "gets confused".

terminal7
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1917
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:26 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#345173

Postby terminal7 » October 4th, 2020, 7:06 pm

cancer-inducing organisations
- clearly not Joey from Friends.

T7

unperplex
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 131
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 6:22 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#345197

Postby unperplex » October 4th, 2020, 9:13 pm

Thanks Arborbridge for raising this fascinating issue illustrating how the ‘identify account” systems work (or rather, don’t work). Thanks also to the other contributors for their detail/anecdotes.
A small additional point. Dealtn thinks it might sometimes be in ones interest to leave a nominal £1 outstanding on the mortgage to ensure free storage of valuable title documents. My own (professional) experience leads me to think that it will be vary rare indeed (if ever) that the mortgagee (in England anyway - the law and practice may be different in Scotland) will be storing any valuable title deeds.Almost all titles are registered these days and since dematerialisation in about 2003, the original land/charge certificate is no longer needed anyway as all transactions are done by reference to the digital Register. There may be some old “Pre-Registration” Documents which may be of historical (ie: non-legal) interest or some other papers dating from before you bought which might be of use in answering the odd pre-contract query from any future purchaser, but these are not “valuable” and do not have to be kept in secure storage as they do not embody title to the property. You could quite easily keep them in the sideboard or attic.
The one exception to this would, theoretically be a VERY OLD unregistered title, where old documents do carry the title. However this is (a) very rare indeed and (b) have to be a property which has not been sold or mortgaged for a VERY LONG time (maybe 50 or 100 years or more) and (c) I cannot conceive of a mortgagee lending on an unregistered title without the title having to be registered.
One, quite different, reason for leaving a nominal £1 on the mortgage might be if the mortgagee has always arranged directly the insurance on the property and you wish this arrangement to continue even after you have “paid off” the mortgage . These days however I would think that most people (particularly if they are viewing Lemon Fool) will have exercised their legal right of choice and arranged their own insurance and would not want to leave it to the mortgagee and their pet insurers with, possibly, non-competitive rates.....

vagrantbrain
Lemon Slice
Posts: 316
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 7:12 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#346586

Postby vagrantbrain » October 9th, 2020, 7:53 pm

Out of interest, how would one go about leaving £1 on the mortgage for a period of time? If you pay off a chunk of the mortgage would the lender not still require monthly payments on the outstanding balance, even for a pound?

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#346643

Postby dealtn » October 10th, 2020, 8:33 am

vagrantbrain wrote:Out of interest, how would one go about leaving £1 on the mortgage for a period of time? If you pay off a chunk of the mortgage would the lender not still require monthly payments on the outstanding balance, even for a pound?


Yes, but those payments would be £0-00 or maybe occasionally £0.01 which they could collect by Direct Debit.

I once had a mortgage with a negative interest rate which was interest only. That required a conversation asking whether the bank would like to set up a Direct Debit in my favour. It was agreed they would be making payments to my mortgage account directly to reduce the balance instead.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#346651

Postby Itsallaguess » October 10th, 2020, 9:04 am

dealtn wrote:
vagrantbrain wrote:
Out of interest, how would one go about leaving £1 on the mortgage for a period of time? If you pay off a chunk of the mortgage would the lender not still require monthly payments on the outstanding balance, even for a pound?


Yes, but those payments would be £0-00 or maybe occasionally £0.01 which they could collect by Direct Debit.

I once had a mortgage with a negative interest rate which was interest only. That required a conversation asking whether the bank would like to set up a Direct Debit in my favour. It was agreed they would be making payments to my mortgage account directly to reduce the balance instead.


My Microsoft Money records show that some time back in 2008, the last 6 months of automatic mortgage payments from my bank account were around 35p each month, after working hard for a number of years to pay regular, but relatively small lump sums off the capital owed. It's really surprising how the snowball-effect can be taken advantage of once things start to get going with regular lump-sum payments off large debts like that...

I did wonder if it was worth keeping that 35p payment up for the rest of the mortgage term, but I finally bit the bullet and arranged two consecutive monthly payments of around £18 to be taken, which then finally paid off the remaining balance.

It really was one of the best days of my life to know that no-one else then had a claim on the roof over my head, and it opened up a whole new approach to investing for me, knowing that I could then concentrate on that side of things with mortgage-risk completely removed from the equation.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1385 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#347409

Postby Clitheroekid » October 13th, 2020, 3:08 pm

unperplex wrote:The one exception to this would, theoretically be a VERY OLD unregistered title, where old documents do carry the title. However this is (a) very rare indeed and (b) have to be a property which has not been sold or mortgaged for a VERY LONG time (maybe 50 or 100 years or more)

This is not particularly rare at all, neither is the period 50, still less 100 years.

Compulsory registration was brought in as a rolling programme, starting in Central London in the 1920's and ending up in the most rural areas at the end of 1990. So if you own a house in, say, rural Suffolk, that's not been transferred or mortgaged since November 1990 the title will still be unregistered, meaning that if you do want to sell or mortgage it you will have to prove title by the production of title deeds.

This provides lots of entertainment for the few solicitors left who can still happily deal with unregistered conveyancing - the reaction of the average 25 year old, completely unqualified `conveyancing executive' to being presented with an unregistered title for approval is often hilarious.

You might be surprised how often such titles crop up in practice - I'm dealing with a woman whose parents completed the purchase of the house she's living in on 1 September 1939, just two days before war broke out!

and (c) I cannot conceive of a mortgagee lending on an unregistered title without the title having to be registered.

Lenders are perfectly happy to lend on unregistered titles, but probably only because mortgaging the property triggers the need for first registration of the title.


Return to “Mortgages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests