Well as you haven't read the case then you wouldn't know. Come back when you have.

Yes but you left out the remedy that is attached and how that would be applied now. You have also missed in the Anfield case that regardless of the charge not being executed, it was still valid as the intention to create a security was there from the outset. The other lender has no meaning in it and the same remedy would apply if there had not been another lender.

Of course I do! After all - anything is possible in your world. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and circulate the devastating news that an unknown person was 'DUMBSTRUCK'. Strange that such a 'high profile' case has not so much had a mention or a sniff in any news anywhere and by anyone other than here.

Lol.. I think I may need to share your avatar after all that! How can Apple not even understand the basics and still continue to talk such drivel that people actually listen to?

Obscenities? Somehow I don't think so. Apple I am sure you have more than enough to read and questions to answer that have been put to you previously and which you have avoided. Until you can provide any proof of any case or you having any part in it then this discussion is futile and only consists of the hearsay provided by IIM and yourself. You do not run this site and people are quite free to comment as they see fit and apt. If you don't like it then you know where the ignore function is.

I suggest you also look up the definition of obscenities as you don't seem to be on the same planet! Why one earth should I spell it out for you as it has been clearly done over and over again but it still hadn't got through to you? It's all there just read it for yourself. It's not my fault. I didn't make the legislation that you so obviously have a problem with reading and that's pretty self-explainatory. Read the points made in the cases for yourself as I'm not going sit here telling you a bedtime story. For heavens sake grow up! I've provided you with the means and I am not about copy and paste the text. I presume everyone else that looks at it will come to their own conclusions and they will also draw conclusions from the stance you are taking.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/title_register_proprietor I'm thinking of setting up a fund to buy more shovels to use on that hole you keep digging and for the brown stuff you'll need to move Apple. It's not us that are confused, or putting the applecart before the horse.

Now you are just making yourself look even more pathetic than what people already knew Apple. Just another reason not to believe a word you say. You would already have knowledge of these cases as part of your research. Isn't that what one does before embarking on preparing a legal case? Obviously not in your world! To bring the thread back on track..Oh yes, that's right. You have nothing to lose and both you and IIM have spent more time in the 'sin bin' than providing anything that can be construed as truthful. Good luck with that because I have a feeling you'll need all the luck you can get.

Now I know you really haven't read it or understood it! I suggest you read it again C A R E F U L L Y.

If you care to read it you will see. It is not me that's confused on the meaning of a deed or a charge and its application.

It is indeed! You can call me anything you like Dodge - as long as it's not Apple or IIM!

Anfield v Bank Of Scotland [2010] also interesting to see what happens when a charge is not registered. http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/11697/1136/

I wasn't aware this was a competition for who can show the most interest! I really should try harder. How very dare you appear to be more bothered than Dodgeball, Fletch, myself and the countless others that see through this charade bhall. Lmao!!! Bhall can't be Dodgeball. How can they be when they are Crapstone or am I Fletch??? If bhall is a solicitor then can I be the banker? I'll stick with being a debt collector but then again I could work in a court? RAM did I see you on James Turner Street as well? I'll have to look out for you next time I drive past it. So that'll be tomorrow then.

Look at that post. Does it speak wisdom or arrogance? The whole phrasing of it belongs on James Turner Street. Surely it's not W**** D** ? It does not matter if you have 'time' for people or you wishing to be a solicitor or dictating, yet again, what people should do. You seem to not get a grip that this is an open forum and is not under your control.

Why do I continue on this thread? From my point of view it makes a mockery of the efforts put in by people that have gone to court, faced arrears and fought them or have been evicted. And the people that have helped them. Apple has said nothing about experiencing that personally or having any qualifications to support their stance. So what if the PC decides in favour? Loopholes are easily closed and several spring to mind when avoidance is at the fore. And don't forget how quick the Government were to act on saving the banks. Does anyone actually think they would get away with not paying a debt that they knew was to be charged? Law does not sit still and watch, it evolves and not on terms that Apple would dictate. I'll wait for a decision to be made as neither party on here that promote it appear to be reliable.

No sugar Sherlock! I stand truly amazed and in awe of that revelation! Now how many years ago did Crapwest secure a charging order on my property only to be told the exact same thing by a judge? And how many years did it take to have it set aside when they refused any payments and returned every cheque/ DD and PO ever sent? Even trying to take the same action out twice for the same debt! Well I did play a part in the 'equity' but that's another story.... It's stating the obvious that selling something at loss to all parties and without a gain for the plaintiff is a futile act when careful consideration is given to all circumstances. Which is just why caution should be taken as all cases are different and depend on your circumstances for that decision to be made. One size does not fit all. I would encourage anyone reading to speak to their lender and avoid courts and legal action if possible. It can be done and you can challenge fees that have been applied to your accounts and certainly now in light of Yorkshire Bank coughing up, and in turn Accord which are part of the group I believe. It's never too late to do something and there are some wonderful people that can help you champion the reasons why you should stay in your home, all for the right reasons and for free.

And where would that 'nugget' be buried?.. Don't tell me..N.I. ! Turn left past the first tree, keep walking through the trees in a westerly direction, until you come to a wood in the middle of those trees. Still can't see the wood? Then you must have got lost and ended up in England or Wales.....tut..

Facts? ..Oh yes..the ones you keep telling everyone. Don't forget to mention the hearsay.... I say hearsay but there isn't a lot of saying to be honest but then you'd have to hear it - and to truly hear it you have to be there to say what you've heard.

Which you choose to interpret in your own unique way and not as was intended or actually written. But let us not forget. It is not Apple that will be evicted.

Pigot's case was also repealed for judgement purposes...but Apple would know that don't ya know Dodge.. If anyone needs the luck of the Irish I know who my bet is on..

I hope you're stocking up on tea Apple and have a rather large cup. You'll be needing it to cry in very shortly if it goes the way of your other theories of security avoidance. Same tune - Different fiddle.

They don't seek to 'possess' as an owner. They merely seek to sell in order to claim their charged amount. What do you think they are going to do? Fight over which bedroom they get to sleep in and pop around to meet the neighbours over a nice cup of tea?

Other agencies are available and you should be able to find one that can help you move forward MollyPockets. http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/northern-ireland.php

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2005/1452/contents Also useful.

Seems you are clutching at straws with that one. I've read the whole document and subsequent amendments as written in the Handbook and nothing supports your idea that there is a need to change any deed, title or security for a domestic borrower. And more importantly says nothing about the need for the lender to sign in the way you are implying. It's not relevant to this thread. Don't quote me but the purposes of signing for futher advance would usually be in the case of a new build house or a renovation in which morgage funds are released at stages. The mortgages were and perhaps still are - in some cases portable - but did not allow for further funding and certainly don't now in the case of SMPL so there would be no further release of funds that the lender would ever have to sign for. You are still not saying which specific document is unsigned and which one has that provision for the lender to sign under the circumstances descibed on this thread. I'm just going to wait now and see what the result is of the enquiries I've made are.