Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[UNRAM]

FACTS : You have just 172 regular viewers and not 59,000, desperate or otherwise. You have had 59,000 + views. Some of those could have been from guests, although I would think it is more likely the regular viewers coming back. A thread has been made available to you for the sole purpose of discussing / sharing your "ideas" on a public forum and in one place. If you are going to use it to make attempts to encourage people to deal OFF forum, in private, or to continually thump site team or others who disagree with you then you are going about things the wrong way and this thread WILL be closed.

CAG what is a regular viewer? Is the 172 regular viewing members only or regular viewing members and guests combined? How does CAG determine the most likely viewing patterns or is this a personal opinion/guess? Such statements can only serve to downplay interest in this thread and undermine the efforts we are all putting in. As far as I have understood we are requesting PM's in the interest of privacy I haven't seen any evidence of anyone encouraging it. People want it because this is sensitive information that affects their homes and livelihoods may depend on it. We are at a serious disadvantage to the lender in terms of finance, privacy and resources. In my own situation my lender is drawing from £45,000,000,000 in taxpayer "loans" to play this game and is already demanding I pay its legal costs upfront - before a hearing or even responding to my application. There's no legal pushback to this sort of behaviour because the company directors have been granted unlimited legal indemnities by statute bestowing them unlimited powers to pretty much do whatever they please. This is a total joke. Contributers to this thread are not the bad guys here. I see nothing wrong with people trying to exchange information in the most efficient and useful way possible to avoid giving the lender any more of the massive advantage they already have. I don't think anyone here is going to hide essential information with the rest of the viewers. I asked the question before and was thrown off track with a very confusing answer and no follow up. So if I may I would like to politely ask: why no PM? I hope I will not be "closed" for asking this again. IMHO I can't see any value in either playing statistics up or down I just hope some good comes of this. Edited October 12, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

Well said....BUT.....

 

It's not you guys that anyone has an issue with.....The Site Team are taking issue with ME.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Good morning,

I am now back in the land of the living after being away with work.

I have a quick question this morning please and ask for your guidance.

I have all my papers now ready to go, been hanging on for the deed copy fromHMLR which hasn't yet appeared. I have an official copy that I've had for 2 years it says it s an official copy and has a HMLR stamp on it, I think I may of got this via the lender a few years ago when I asked for t's & C's anyway but obviously photocopied from land registry.

 

This one can be used.....if you get a more recent one from HMLR in time, you can take it with you to the hearing or send it in if it gets to you before the hearing date.

 

I also have all the information and papers to serve via the property chamber so do I add as a point into the prepared defence at the bottom and mark as exhibit D or just take these separately on Monday morning to the court to be stamped when I hand deliver. I will next day deliver to the lenders solicitors.

 

The general understanding is that anything that you are sending to the other side once the application has been sent to the Chamber...must be copied and sent to the Chamber also....anything the other side send to you must also be sent to the Chamber......

 

Funny but if I send the chamber stuff as directed by the chamber this is not to the mortgage administrator or their solicitors addresses, 1 is the address on the mortgage deed copy the other the official registered office of PW&C London.

 

After the hearing on the 2nd October I haven't had a letter back from anyone not even the court with the judges directions on, which I thought I should of have instructing me what I had to do as the outcome of his finding that day and filing my defence etc....

 

Thanks for the advice and help

 

Nice to see you back Alisono....If I have not answered your query fully....let me know...ok?

 

 

APPLE

[applecart]

Hi apple,

 

Many thanks for your support and advice, much appreciated. I will do as you suggest and try to get a better understanding of the LRA 1925.

 

If, I get stuck (probably will) I will give you a shout.

 

Regards

 

Yes, Please do : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

Well said....BUT.....

It's not you guys that anyone has an issue with.....The Site Team are taking issue with ME.

Apple

In that case threatening to shut down this thread is even more unreasonable and unjustified. Since 2008 I have been researching every possible remedy to the bullying and bulls*** that I myself - and millions of others - are being subjected to by the "purchasers of interest in legal estate for sufficient consideration" aka the lender. In this time I have found no successful remedy to overcome artificial, incredibly convoluted, highly abstract "laws" that have no basis in reality but are used to evict people from their homes when they can't repay money that was raised by their signature in the first place which was then commodified to generate further profits. If present practices are allowed this to continue we (you, me, Apple, other CAG members not pro-actively investing in another collapse) will inevitably suffer a far, far greater injury than the one we experienced in 2008. What's the worst that will come from private PM if some people want to exchange documents in this way - more misinformation? It's everywhere anyway. If I have to choose between inaccurate PM from Apple and allowing the lender to claw at my home. my wealth and my estate to lie to me at every turn to recoup a monopoly loan that originated from my signature then I choose the well-intended errors of the former. Thanks to Applecart and others we are finally getting some coherent arguments together and revealing chinks in the impenetrable armour. It would be a great disservice to the entire nation to close this thread because someone is "pumping up" viewer numbers.

Edited October 12, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

In that case threatening to shut down this thread is even more unreasonable and unjustified. Since 2008 I have been researching every possible remedy to the bullying and bulls*** that I myself - and millions of others - are being subjected to by the "purchasers of interest in legal estate for sufficient consideration" aka the lender. In this time I have found no successful remedy to overcome artificial, incredibly convoluted, highly abstract "laws" that have no basis in reality but are used to evict people from their homes when they can't repay money that was raised by their signature in the first place - and then commodified to create further profit. If present practices are allowed this to continue we (you, me, Apple. CAG) they will inevitably suffer a far, far greater injury than the one we experienced in 2008. What's the worst that will come from private PM if some people want to exchange documents in this way - more misinformation? It's everywhere anyway. If I have to choose between inaccurate PM from Apple and allowing the lender to claw at my home. my wealth and my estate for a monopoly loan that originated from my signature then I choose the former. Thanks to Applecart and others we are finally getting some coherent arguments together and revealing chinks in the impenetrable armour. It would be a great disservice to the entire nation to close this thread because someone is "pumping up" viewer numbers.

 

Well Said Again,

 

They lose sight of the painstaking work and research done to get to this stage.....easily done no doubt.....They lose sight of the amount of homes that have been repossessed....families turfed out of their homes.....it is easily forgotten that we are actually on the same page.......or so I thought......the objective is to keep more Borrowers in their homes........the objective is to assist Borrowers understand what their Consumer Rights are......in order to keep the roof over their head.

 

I am not a Lawyer, I do not articulate the way others do...but I do what I can to get the info out to others to help them stay in their homes....granted, it is not 'tried'.....but, neither was claims for PPI.....yet, a lot of people now benefit....and it was no doubt people like us....who saw it was wrong...and had to break down barriers to get JUSTICE.....

 

If the Lender has conducted his business correctly......then he should have nothing to worry about......

 

If the lender has not.....then, why should he be allowed to circumvent the LAW to the detriment of Borrowers....

 

Yes, there is the 'Moral' Ground.....but who overstepped that 'moral' ground first??

 

We are on the right path.....We are making in-roads.....

 

The Consumer....Public interest......surely...... must be at the forefront and uppermost whenever the thought of closing a thread is posed, or suggested.....This is the CaG...which stands for Consumer Action Group.....

 

We as Consumers....are taking Action...as a Group.....

 

In threatening to remove the thread....you are essentially saying.....we are not about the Consumer...We are not about the Public Interest....We have no other reason for saying or threatening to do so...other than APPLE.....

 

I just don't get it.....I really don't...

 

Oh, and if you feel I have been too vocal.....I can only apologise....but, it had to be said.

 

Apple

[MUTT1]

Hi all,

 

Just to give you an insite of my own situation, currently on a suspended possession order also in arrears. I have been to court numerous times with several lenders and have fought a desperate battle to keep hold of my house and home.

 

I have had to contend with outrageous legal charges, arrears charges, huge early redemption charges. I have had to put up with unannounsed and costly visits from lenders field agents causing stress and huge embarrassment in front of friends, family and my neighbours.

 

Many sleepless nights just waiting for the next knock on the door. Waiting for an eviction notice to be served.

 

Well, up until now I have had no choice but to put up with this however, through this thread there is now the possibility that something might be acheived by challenging this unacceptable situation and one that has been going on for years.

 

I think that my own situation is bad enough but, I really feel for those poor individuals who have probably been through the same as me but then one step further and have ulimately lost their homes.

 

To threaten to close this thread and by doing so removing the chance that members of this site can at last get some form of justice is, in my opinion, totally wrong and unjust.

 

I have seen the way forward and I am not prepared to sit back and take any more rubbish,threats,demands or financial penalties any longer.

 

And as for morals, banks, lenders, morals? Come on get real.

 

These are my own views and opinions, and hopefully can be accepted as such.

 

Regards

[steampowered]

Guys, the situation is really very simple.

 

 

Discussing the legal position is fine. But being rude and offensive to people who happen to disagree with you is unacceptable. I'm not sure how to make it this any clearer.

 

Other people should be able to express their views, whether or not you like them, without facing vitriol. This approach does people who are arguing their case in the Property Chamber or in court a great disservice - it leaves people unprepared for the need to politely address and deal with the arguments made by the other side's lawyers in court. If you start being rude to the other side's lawyer the judge will shoot you down in flames.

[UNRAM]

Guys, the situation is really very simple.

 

Discussing the legal position is fine. But being rude and offensive to people who happen to disagree with you is unacceptable. Other people should be able to express their opinions, whether or not you like those opinions, without facing vitriol.

Please can we bring this back to PM facilities.

[applecart]

Guys, the situation is really very simple.

 

 

Discussing the legal position is fine. But being rude and offensive to people who happen to disagree with you is unacceptable. I'm not sure how to make it this any clearer.

 

Who was being 'rude' exactly?? Who called Caggers: 'desperate'.....who said this thread was 'fanciful'....who is demeaning the content of this thread by making reference to 'ideas'.......?? Do you think we are not 'offended'????.... I agree such language should be seen as UNACCEPTABLE......I can assure you it was not I who used the language.....I merely brought it to everyone's attention on this thread as it was directed at them.......progress would be better served if the caution is directed at the party/s who use such terms to describe Caggers who visit this thread......

 

Other people should be able to express their views, whether or not you like them, without facing vitriol. This approach does people who are arguing their case in the Property Chamber or in court a great disservice - it leaves people unprepared for the need to politely address and deal with the arguments made by the other side's lawyers in court. If you start being rude to the other side's lawyer the judge will shoot you down in flames.

 

It is also quite simple....it is Consumers who make contributions to the CaG.....They have a right not to be referred to as 'desperate' by Caggers .....they have a right to make their own decisions when information is presented to them....... I have a right to bring that information to them without 'vitriol'......

 

The CaG benefits from the contributions made off the back of the posts herein......so, please....there is no issue here...other than you have a Cagger who has gone beyond the realm and has verbally vilified all Consumers who visit this thread as 'desperate'.....you have deemed this thread full of 'ideas' and 'fanciful'........Can you let us know what you are going to do about that please......???

 

Apple

[citizenB]

Your not kidding.... can you believe it.........................Yep 59,000 + 'desperate' Caggers and growing.....all of whom are wilfully subscribing to Apple's 'fanciful' 'ideas'....amazing isn't it.....far more than any other thread on here to do with 'repossession'......ummmm???

 

I don't refer to my fellow Caggers as 'desperate'.....others do and have done so....quite openly on other threads....Me.....I would never be so bigoted.....I call it 'public interest'......it is the growing 'public interest' that is making in-roads .... the Chamber can of course decide against every single Borrower......and I'm sure if there are lawful grounds upon which they can rely to do so...they will.....

 

If there is a stone that I have unwittingly left unturned....and the Lender finds it....and he throws it at us.........we will 'catch it'....and 'analyse it' with a view to throwing it straight back!!.....followed by appeal.....followed up with representation at the European Court....after all....we are still in the EU.....we will not stop until the world knows .....that what is happening here in the UK is WRONG....there is no statute to support the 'certain activities' of these lenders....none...

 

Yes, please take a look at P.J's defence,,, if there is anything that needs 'flagging-up'......just shout...be quick though...I think time may be against us.....

 

I think the number of applications are growing......and so they should be.....the Chamber needs to know just how much the public interest is growing.... : )

 

Apple

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Well said....BUT.....

 

It's not you guys that anyone has an issue with.....The Site Team are taking issue with ME.

 

Apple

 

Applecart, site team do not have "issues" with you or anyone else!

 

If you look at your post quoted above, I think it was YOU who mentions "desperate" and "fanciful".

 

Your "viewing" figures have gone over 60,000 - you have 179 subscribers (these are registered caggers who receive notice that a post has been made) your viewing figures could indeed be made up from either guests or simply those subscribers returning.

 

I think the question remains. Has anyone actually used your ideas in court and WON.

 

There is always going to be someone required to test the water - be a guinea pig if you like, however CAG would prefer that is not someone who has come to CAG for help and who is vulnerable.

 

How would you feel if someone were to use your ideas in court - they lose and are faced with huge costs because most of these cases will likely be heard in one of the higher tracks. Appeals are also extremely costly.

[applecart]

Applecart, site team do not have "issues" with you or anyone else!

 

If you look at your post quoted above, I think it was YOU who mentions "desperate" and "fanciful".

 

Your "viewing" figures have gone over 60,000 - you have 179 subscribers (these are registered caggers who receive notice that a post has been made) your viewing figures could indeed be made up from either guests or simply those subscribers returning.

 

I think the question remains. Has anyone actually used your ideas in court and WON.

 

There is always going to be someone required to test the water - be a guinea pig if you like, however CAG would prefer that is not someone who has come to CAG for help and who is vulnerable.

 

How would you feel if someone were to use your ideas in court - they lose and are faced with huge costs because most of these cases will likely be heard in one of the higher tracks. Appeals are also extremely costly.

 

Hi Citizen B

 

Here is the thread with the derogatory comments: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404597-Repossession-hearing-on-3-10-any-advice/page3&highlight=repossession

 

Here is what the Cagger said:

 

"You're projecting. I am not 'only interested in my point of view' (that's your stance - hence me stating you're projecting), I am interested in keeping people in their homes and am very successful at it, thanks very much.

 

The OP is desperate - like many of the other people that you have drawn into your nonsense (all they need to do is google to find the reality of your 'legal argument'), and as a result of desperation, they are prepared to listen to any bumpf that even remotely sounds like it has a legal basis - even when it does not.

 

Your ideas ARE fanciful. The law is what it is, and there is plenty to debunk what you think you're 'achieving'. The courts frequently hear cases that have no chance of success - all it does is waste the court's time and raise costs for the losing party.

 

Now off you go back to the thread that has been dedicated to you and don't provide poor advice to people who are in imminent danger of losing their homes IN REALITY."

 

If you truly have no issue with ME....then...can you advise..... What are you going to do about the above??

 

I will re-visit your other comments in due course...

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi CitizenB

 

I think you should by now have all the detail you require to discern where the real issue stemmed from......and full detail of who is letting your team and the ethos of the CaG down......I am hopeful that you will deal with the issue and allow me and like minded consumers to get on with that which we come to the CaG to do....which is to provide help and assistance to those who need it, professionally without bias.

 

In answer to your concerns, may I say to:

 

I think the question remains. Has anyone actually used your ideas in court and WON.

 

I do not expect that you will have had time to read all the pages of this thread....So let me bring you up to date....

 

What do your refer to as ‘won’ when you are talking about ‘repossession’.....do you mean has anyone managed to stave off imminent possession of their home by reliance on lawful rememdy?

 

YES.

 

Do you mean, Are consumers successfully staving off ‘suspended possession orders’?

 

YES.

 

Do these results constitute SUCCESS?

 

YES.

 

Do these results mean that Consumers have WON after using my advice in court?

 

YES.

 

Court proceedings are SUCCESSFULLY being ADJOURNED.....no Suspended Possession Orders are being granted.....No income and expenditure info is proffered.....Just the LAW.

 

 

There is always going to be someone required to test the water - be a guinea pig if you like, however CAG would prefer that is not someone who has come to CAG for help and who is vulnerable.

 

All consumers are vulnerable CitizenB...We are all consumers...The CaG brings consumers together in one place to discuss and debate ways forward in protecting consumer rights... you know that and so do I.... I am an advocate of the Consumer...of that there is no doubt.....We don't only look to 'stave off possession'....we go beyond that....we want to stave off un-fair possession of the consumers home....

 

Whilst you would prefer that it is not a CaG member that chooses to ‘test the water’....you need to go back to the Norgren Case....the Norgren's basically said...."it is not fair....I have x amount of years to go on this loan....I want you to spread the arrears over the term"......

 

....if they did not ‘test the water’......do you think we would be able to rely that consumers can spread the arrears over the outstanding term of the loan today??? Of course NOT......

 

so, with respect.....We are to applaud those consumers who are willing to publicly ‘test the water’ ... I might add.....they did not have to do so...many don't...but when they do.... they are not left to do so blindly....Consumers are more discerning these days.....if we don't understand something...we ask.... this thread allows them to do so.....and we look into it and come back to them with assistance.... that's the spirit of the CaG that I believed I was party to....

 

You have to admit....there are many consumers who come to the CaG seeking assistance to stave off repossession.....they get best advise as to how to go about completing I&E forms....etc, etc.....What you never speak about is the numbers of those consumers who find themselves back at square one.....WHY? not because they have not followed the advise....it is because in austere times the odds are stacked against them.....lenders increase interests rates at the drop of a hat...they are running consumers into the ground..with one aim in mind.....and their homes get repossessed anyway....All this off the back of un-executed deeds.....It is WRONG...We are dealing with it.....

 

How would you feel if someone were to use your ideas in court - they lose and are faced with huge costs because most of these cases will likely be heard in one of the higher tracks. Appeals are also extremely costly.

 

They are already using my 'ideas' as you call them.......so far, no one has come forward to say.....I put your 'idea' forward and the court granted the Lender possession......

 

What I am finding is site team members are making out that these 'ideas' have no merit..... even though all the 'ideas' are squarely presented on LAWFUL Remedy.....

 

It is one thing to promote 'caution'..... Given the above succcess....it is about time that the CaG refrain from referring to this thread and the LAWFUL remedies it provides as 'fanciful' or 'idealistic'.....especially coming from those whom you would expect would know better...especially when the same said venerable consumer is reliant on un-biased opinion....It is all very well to say 'you are wrong'....but if you cannot justify the statement....then it is best to refrain from making comment..... Consumers contributions deserve to be respected....

 

The application to the Chamber.....talks about the deed....it is void.....you cannot make a deed valid if it isn’t......the lender cannot sign it now.....in fact....they cannot sign it until the house is sold......right now.....the houses are not sold....the deed will remain un-executed......we use Legal, lawful process to get it set aside.....if we have not presented the case wholly correctly in the draft written representation...then we will keep tweaking it until we get it right......a VOID DEED must be set aside......there is NO DEFENCE

 

How will I feel if the Chamber find against the Consumer?.....gutted.....totally gutted!!!.....because given the substantiating Law....I would immediately realise that the Chamber would circumvent the LAW against the intended balance found within the LRA 2002, LPMPA 1989, the RRO and other legislation that has been provided to protect the public interest......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi all,

 

Just to give you an insite of my own situation, currently on a suspended possession order also in arrears. I have been to court numerous times with several lenders and have fought a desperate battle to keep hold of my house and home.

 

I have had to contend with outrageous legal charges, arrears charges, huge early redemption charges. I have had to put up with unannounsed and costly visits from lenders field agents causing stress and huge embarrassment in front of friends, family and my neighbours.

 

Many sleepless nights just waiting for the next knock on the door. Waiting for an eviction notice to be served.

 

Well, up until now I have had no choice but to put up with this however, through this thread there is now the possibility that something might be acheived by challenging this unacceptable situation and one that has been going on for years.

 

I think that my own situation is bad enough but, I really feel for those poor individuals who have probably been through the same as me but then one step further and have ulimately lost their homes.

 

To threaten to close this thread and by doing so removing the chance that members of this site can at last get some form of justice is, in my opinion, totally wrong and unjust.

 

I have seen the way forward and I am not prepared to sit back and take any more rubbish,threats,demands or financial penalties any longer.

 

And as for morals, banks, lenders, morals? Come on get real.

 

These are my own views and opinions, and hopefully can be accepted as such.

 

Regards

 

Thanks for this Mutti....

 

It is situations like yours that keeps me going...as far as I'm concerned.... whoever, wherever they are...if they are a consumer in a predicament.... we are here to help...If that means we come out of our 'comfort' zone to do so...then that's what we have to do...we are not here to Judge you...only to assist where we can : )

 

I am 100% sure the 'form of charge' document in your case is NOT a DEED....you have every right to make application to the Chamber.....that's what the Chamber is there for...to help you with a determination for you and your lender to be sure as to each others rights on the finding that the deed is VOID.

 

I am looking at the LRA 1925.....so, don't worry, if you have any concerns with it.....we should be able to discuss it on a level..ok?

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi CitizenB

 

I think you should by now have all the detail you require to discern where the real issue stemmed from......and full detail of who is letting your team and the ethos of the CaG down......I am hopeful that you will deal with the issue and allow me and like minded consumers to get on with that which we come to the CaG to do....which is to provide help and assistance to those who need it, professionally without bias.

Apple

The individual concerned is actively steering newcomers away from the "void deed" thread before obtaining details of circumstances. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405691-Hi-newbie-here-Repossession-Help-Needed%281-Viewing%29-nbsp post 6. "I think you ought to put aside any thoughts about void deeds and the like. In post 11 on the same thread he/she goes so far as to say "The system isn't corrupt". I'm not sure if this was meant as a joke. Has this adviser been paying attention to the financial news since 2008? Has this adviser had any interaction with senior members of the FCA sitting on the sidelines watching it all going on? This advisers use of language is also far more vitriolic and demeaning than anything I have seen in this thread but I have not seen similar message from CAG regarding closure...

[bhall]

To be a deed, a form of charge or other such document must comply with s.1(2) of the LPAMP 1989 as amended. If the form of charge or other such document meets those requirement, it is a deed.

 

As amended

 

(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless

 

(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

(b) it is validly executed as a deed:

(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, an instrument shall not be taken to make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed merely because it is executed under seal.

 

If the above requirements are met the form of charge is a deed.

 

Using the Land Registry's own form of charge the CH1 form as an example

 

It clearly expresses itself to be signed or executed as a deed

[bhall]

That is what the law says

[bhall]

As amended s.1(3) of the LPAMP 1989

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

(b) it is delivered as a deed.”

[bhall]

If it was the purpose of the legislation to make the changes to the way a deed is signed/executed (as executed means signed), the legislation would state that.

 

There are repeated posts about the legislators intent to do this and that.

 

The simple fact is that the actual legislation contains no such requirement.

 

I feel for the Caggers that could be left paying back additional legal costs of potentially thousands of pounds based on little more than the ideas posted in this thread.

[UNRAM]

If it was the purpose of the legislation to make the changes to the way a deed is signed/executed (as executed means signed), the legislation would state that.

There are repeated posts about the legislators intent to do this and that.

The simple fact is that the actual legislation contains no such requirement.

I feel for the Caggers that could be left paying back additional legal costs of potentially thousands of pounds based on little more than the ideas posted in this thread.

This is a self help forum I believe it has already been agreed that information is here to use or dispose as one sees fit. No one is being forced to adopt these ideas... No one is being steered away from other remedies.

[UNRAM]

As amended s.1(3) of the LPAMP 1989

 

(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if:

(a) it is signed:

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and

(b) it is delivered as a deed.”

Am I the only one having a Déjà vu moment here?....

 

Delivered as a deed?

[IS IT ME?]

citizenb,

I am sorry and now a little worried by your post and would ask why is the site getting worried about this, as I can see NO where have I asked any one to post up threads off site or any thing else.

As for thumping site team can you show me where???

AS for private PMs this is to look at the paperwork before it goes forward and I can not see any were in the site rules which say it is not allowed.

It makes people think may be the site has been approached in order to close this thread??

[bhall]

Am I the only one having a Déjà vu moment here?....

 

Delivered as a deed?

 

Delivery as you, yourself have recently posted (post 1583)

 

"a deed is delivered in law "as soon as there are acts or words sufficient to show that it is intended by the party to be executed as his deed presently binding on him"

 

It is the borrowers deed, delivery takes place when the borrower shows intent to be bound by his deed - when the borrower's solicitor sends it to HMLR for registration as a clear example.

 

In your post

 

"and even that party retains possession of the document"

 

If the assertions of this thread are correct, how can the document be considered to be delivered, if it can be retained by the grantor ? making it impossible for the grantee to sign/execute it ?

 

Please don't refer to the ROO 2005 as it made no change to the above principle of delivery.

[applecart]

Am I the only one having a Déjà vu moment here?....

 

Delivered as a deed?

 

That appears to be the latest strategy.....we need to remain focused me thinks...

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

That appears to be the latest strategy.....we need to remain focused me thinks...

 

Apple

Ben, thanks for your input but I have made the application to the Chamber so no going back now. Although the lender (though sitting on £45,000,000,000 in taxpayer bailouts) is trying to get me to cough up his solicitors legal fees ahead of even responding to the application let alone waiting for a hearing, I am going to sit this one out I think... My only hope is that this lender is not having more cash flow problems or misrepresenting its books again... I don't think the taxpayer will survive another round of bailouts...