Jump to content

Winged Piglet

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-11 Bad

About Winged Piglet

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I very much doubt Ben can access the decision. He would need the Case numbers and names at the very least. Not all decisions made are made public. The only people who know the decision are the applicants at this stage and anyone they choose to then inform and or their representatives. If the decision has gone out to the parties neither Ben or Dodge will be able to get a copy, that's nonsense. Ooh the N word again. You can make all the enquiries you like both of you but there is a procedure and you both are not party to it so have no advantage. There is no way that either Ben or Dodge could pos
  2. Ah Sequenci I think you'll find that it many cases it is common for your solicitor to also act for the lender. If you don't believe me see what the Council of Mortgage Lenders advise:- Oops what's that the CML guide for us Borrowers says what....... If your conveyancer is also acting for your lender, they will check that the lender's requirements are met and*your lender may instruct the conveyancer to prepare the mortgage deed. This is the legal contract between you and the lender. Your conveyancer will explain the terms of the mortgage deed to you, and then have them signed by you
  3. I think all you've shown with this is that in world of the County Court the 'decision makers' can be a law unto themselves can they not. Law is ignored on a daily basis and on the basis that the poor souls before them may not have the money, ability or knowledge or representation to then appeal to a higher court and therefore bad decisions can be buried quite easily and they never see the light of day again.
  4. Ah Sequenci that's nice but... why??? Expand. WHY then don't you believe that to be the case?
  5. Well you can't mean the PC as the decision has not been made yet has it. So which court are you referring Dodge? Do tell. Now 4 down three across........aha got it..... s.u.b.s.t.a.n.t.i.a.t.i.o.n
  6. Yesssssss but IF (one more time) the PC rule that the Deeds in these cases ARE void, then what remains? An equitable mortgage? Yes? or would you like me to repeat it again. I hear parrots are very good at crosswords too ;-)
  7. Yes Sooooooo if they then have an unsecured debt HOW are they going to get a CCJ without any evidence of a signed loan agreement? How then can the Lender persuade the court that they have a case?? They have nothing to wave at them. What a mortgage offer with ommission of any signature of any of the parties involved? REALLY? How could the Lender show the court that the Borrower agreed with the Terms and Conditions in the first place or that the document was the one relied upon or that the Borrower had indeed even seen it. How could they show the court beyond doubt the terms of the loan agreemen
  8. Well as hundreds of thousands of Lenders have shown by ommiting to ask Borrowers to sign the underlying loan agreements, you are correct in this instance, however this doesn't mean they're lawful. Oddly I believe or so I have been told that for a few of the large volume sub-prime lenders it was a decision to purely change their business models which made them decide to not bother asking Borrowers to sign Mortgage Loan Agreements/Offers but relying bizarrely instead on the signed application form to apply for the mortgage and then the Deed. Prior to this they did ask Borrowers to sign and this
  9. Er Dodge, if the PC declare the Deeds in these cases void using the core argument by Apple in this thread, then it is asserted is it not that the PC may declare that those mortgages in this circumstance would then remain but in equity only, so an Equitable Mortgage?? Now where's my pen I really must finish that crossword......... WP
  10. Thank you Apple, much appreciated. I don't know why everyone else was getting so ruffled??
  11. Firstly, I've been on here for a while if you scroll back long before you mate and directed one of the people to this thread who has now taken their case to the PC. Secondly no-one has been attacked. My post which (Citizen B can you please put back my orirignal post as I have not broken any forum rules at all) was simply to enquire how an equitable mortgage may be enforced if there is no underlying loan agreement signed. This was in response to the previous posts and is clearly relevant. Holidays to Krakov I fail to see the relevance yet these posts remain. You now have a thread which do
  12. 1. These cases are not vexatious. 2. Many lenders did not ask borrowers to sign a mortgage contract so what do you say to that? 3. Perharps on the legal advice you might have something........but hold on Borrowers did get legal advice from their solicitors.....or did they? 4. Securitisation has been accepted by whom??
  13. Yes Apple and Is It Me do come and play.......it's just not cricket without you
  14. 'and will certainly not allow borrowers to walk away from their commitments? ' Really Citizen B? You are forgetting it's not up to them is it. Even you seem accepting of the way the Lender has manourved themselves into fooling us Borrowers that they are all powerful and can do whatever they please.This language of them not allowing or letting. Well they may well be forced to under the weight of the law if the courts declare it! Commitments? How did the Borrower become committed exactly? Remove the void Deed and reveal no loan agreement, so where/ when did the commitment evolve?
  • Create New...