Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Apple

 

Cases are only being adjourned until the Chamber hearing in January.

 

If your arguments are as flawed as I KNOW them to be, what do you think happens to the cases that have been adjourned. What do you think will happen to those families ?

 

The defences that you appear to hold in such contempt, actually work.

 

The don't result in a case being adjourned for weeks or even months, they result in families staying in their home permanently.

 

Something that your 'advice' will not do.

 

Are you saying that every poster offering help in the repossession forum is a stooge ? That view is as flawed as the other thoughts you have shared on this thread.

 

Remember while a case is adjourned families will still have to live with the constant worry that they could lose their family home. The Lenders legal costs which could be passed onto the borrower could also increase during that time.

Edited October 12, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

This is CAG, not a freeman of the land or void mortgage type site. You will find lots of arguments very similar to your own that don 't work there too if you are really that interested.

[applecart]

Apple

 

Cases are only being adjourned until the Chamber hearing in January.

 

If your arguments are as flawed as I KNOW them to be, what do you think happens to the cases that have been adjourned. What do you think will happen to those families ?

 

The defences that you appear to hold in such contempt, actually work.

 

The don't result in a case being adjourned for weeks or even months, they result in families staying in their home permanently.

 

Something that your 'advice' will not do.

 

Are you saying that every poster offering help in the repossession forum is a stooge ? That view is as flawed as the other thoughts you have shared on this thread.

 

Ben

 

Members are supposed to recognise that hearings are being adjourned.....subject to the outcome of the Chambers decision.....The Lenders deed is VOID.......why are we not working to adjourn hearings in the Borrowers favour until the decision is made......Is that not a fairer way forward???

 

You said Is It Me's Friends application would be struck out...you were wrong....

 

The Defence of the Lender was posted on here....It offered no defence....it offered 'excuse'....and 'pleas' for 'equitable remedy'....

 

Did you miss that???

 

Those looking to assist Caggers should adapt the approach that leads to 'adjournment'...... not suspended possession.....That's what you do when you have the consumers interest at Heart Ben......!!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

This is CAG, not a freeman of the land or void mortgage type site. You will find lots of arguments very similar to your own that don 't work there too if you are really that interested.

 

Ben..... see my previous post

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

bhall,

I am only going to answer your threads once,

I know there is some thing more than just hope in this , as why would you lawyers, sorry people be so worried.

The defences you state only work up to a point and when the lender has the order the games then begin and they DON'T stay in there homes permanently

As for stooge, seen them and they are what they are

So don't worry about us and let us get on with it.

 

THOSE THAT ARE READING THIS THREAD THIS ACTION IS BEING TAKEN AND HAS TO DATE STOPPED PEOPLE LOSING THERE HOMES UNTIL THE HEARING IN THE CHAMBER WHICH IS NOT FLAWED AS STATED BUT YOU AND YOU ALONE MUST MAKE THE CHOICE TO DO THE SAME OR NOT, I KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO.

 

There will that do??

[applecart]

bhall,

I am only going to answer your threads once,

I know there is some thing more than just hope in this , as why would you lawyers, sorry people be so worried.

The defences you state only work up to a point and when the lender has the order the games then begin and they DON'T stay in there homes permanently

As for stooge, seen them and they are what they are

So don't worry about us and let us get on with it.

 

THOSE THAT ARE READING THIS THREAD THIS ACTION IS BEING TAKEN AND HAS TO DATE STOPPED PEOPLE LOSING THERE HOMES UNTIL THE HEARING IN THE CHAMBER WHICH IS NOT FLAWED AS STATED BUT YOU AND YOU ALONE MUST MAKE THE CHOICE TO DO THE SAME OR NOT, I KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO.

 

There will that do??

 

Can I just ADD....

 

A VOID DEED KEEPS THE ROOF OVER THE BORROWERS HEAD......NOT A SUSPENDED POSSESSION ORDER!!!

 

That more like it : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

oops sorry yes

[caro]

Can I just ADD....

 

A VOID DEED KEEPS THE ROOF OVER THE BORROWERS HEAD......NOT A SUSPENDED POSSESSION ORDER!!!

 

That more like it : )

 

Apple

 

A deed is only void if a judge says it's void. So far that hasn't happened using the arguments suggested in this thread.

[applecart]

A deed is only void if a judge says it's void. So far that hasn't happened using the arguments suggested in this thread.

 

I said: "A void Deed keeps the roof over the Borrowers Head"

 

What I meant was.....It is a proven FACT....if you go to court and advise the Judge that you have made an application to the Property Chamber for a determination as to the validity of the Deed (not the lenders 'form of charge') the proceedings will be Adjourned.........you stay in your home...whilst you wait for a determination from the Chamber.........

 

Contrast that outcome with:

 

A Suspended Possession Order......FACT.....a suspended possession order will keep you paying the lender, you will be advised to avoid any mention of the un-executed deed......and the lender...off the back of the SPO will come take your house as soon as you miss a payment.....

 

Which would you prefer?

 

We are aware that the deed is only void if the Judge says it is void....that's why applications need to be made to the Chamber.....Lenders must be made to sit back and wait whilst Borrowers exercise their democratic right to get the deed declared VOID....

 

 

 

Apple

[citizenB]

 

Contrast that outcome with:

 

A Suspended Possession Order......FACT.....a suspended possession order will keep you paying the lender, you will be advised to avoid any mention of the un-executed deed......and the lender...off the back of the SPO will come take your house as soon as you miss a payment.....

 

Which would you prefer?

 

We are aware that the deed is only void if the Judge says it is void....that's why applications need to be made to the Chamber.....Lenders must be made to sit back and wait whilst Borrowers exercise their democratic right to get the deed declared VOID....

 

 

 

Apple

 

Your outcome appears to require the deed to be proved void and the "borrower" to be absolved from repaying what is owed - is my understanding correct ?

[applecart]

Your outcome appears to require the deed to be proved void and the "borrower" to be absolved from repaying what is owed - is my understanding correct ?

 

Hi CitizenB

 

We already know the Deed is Void.....We are simply waiting for the Chamber to confirm that it is void and to set it aside in Is It Me's Friends Case.

 

If the Chamber do not do so....then we will be given their 'reasons' for not doing so.....from that detail we will glean, where it is or what it is that we have missed.... from there.... we will formulate an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.....

 

In the interim period...Is It Me's friend will stay at home; whilst we get to the bottom of things...

 

Apple

[citizenB]

Applecart, I think you have avoided answering my question. What is the final outcome - no more money to change hands ?

 

I am finding it very hard to believe that, 100's possibly 1000's , of mortgages will not have to be repaid !!

[TimetogoRAM]

I dont think anyone is saying that thousands of mortgages will go unpaid. A judge can rule the deed be put aside. The repayment of the debt is a different matter altogether. That is to do with the offer/agreement. If that is deemed to be void, well that can be corrected. Not sure a void deed can be. Remember the mortgage has already been sold on. All you had to do greedy lender was sign the thing. Why didnt you sign it??

 

Besides look at the PPI cases, no one would've thought that couldn't be challenged but it has, rightfully paying back billions to the consumer. Banks have had their day and we the consumer are fighting back.

 

Im all for opinions, but for me in what I've read on this topic, people's opposition to this thread has been about precedent and the fact this hasnt been ruled yet. It hasnt been ruled yet because it hasnt been challenged in the right way. So stop talking about what has been before as a defence because it really is weak!

 

Lets get focussed again!!

[bhall]

There is an elephant in the room that has not really been addressed. That elephant is that the legislation that applies to deed's simply doesn't say that a deed has to be signed by both the grantor (the borrower) and the grantee (the lender)

 

If you look at the legislation for regulated consumer credit agreements - Section 61(1) of the CCA 1974 actually states that the agreement must be signed by the debtor (the borrower) and the creditor (the lender)

 

If you look at the legislation for contracts - section 2(3) of the LPAMP 1989 (as amended) again actually says that a contract must be signed by both parties to the contract.

 

When you look at the legislation that applies to deeds - section 1 of the LPAMP 1989 (as amended), there is no such requirement.

 

It is undeniable, no matter how much it is interpreted or twisted. It just does not say it.

 

My own view on this thread is that it must remain open at all costs at least until the Chamber Hearing. To protect other Caggers from the advice in this thread the outcome of the hearing must be published in this thread.

[bhall]

The Chamber in its initial response went so far as to confirm as a matter of law a lender is not generally required to sign a mortgage deed.

 

The Chamber in its subsequent response to Unram went so far as to confirm that it could not do most of the things asked of it in the amended application.

 

Everything anti the assertions of this thread have been ignored and brushed under the carpet. I fear this is something that will come back to bite Caggers during the chamber hearing.

 

It is fine for Apple to say if the Chamber reject the assertions of this thread an appeal will be made, it is not Apple that has made an application to the chamber and it is not Apple that will be liable for costs. A few people should remember that little fact.

[TimetogoRAM]

We're going over old ground here mate, the deed is a speciality contract and must be signed by both the borrower with witnesses and the lender.

I have a offer/contract not even signed by me or my lender. As you have already mentioned does not abide by section 2 lpmpa 89.

Looks like a double whammy then doesnt it! - void contract therefore not payable, void deed therefore not enforceable! Cheers done!!

[bhall]

Delivery is about the borrower demonstrating intent to be bound by his deed. Something that is ignored in this thread but should not be forgotten.

 

By a solicitor sending the deed to the HMLR to be registered, intent can be clearly shown.

[bhall]

We're going over old ground here mate, the deed is a speciality contract and must be signed by both the borrower with witnesses and the lender.

I have a offer/contract not even signed by me or my lender. As you have already mentioned does not abide by section 2 lpmpa 89.

Looks like a double whammy then doesnt it! - void contract therefore not payable, void deed therefore not enforceable! Cheers done!!

 

You confuse what the law says with what Apple says

[TimetogoRAM]

"Intent" sounds like doubt - look at RRO 2005 "presumption" my friend.

Why didn't you just sign the thing??! Haha

 

Apple has been good enough to show/direct us to the factual side of the law. It's not interpretation or what Apple says, it's there in black and white!

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1906/contents/made

[TimetogoRAM]

Why didn't you just sign the thing ??!!

[TimetogoRAM]

All you had to do is sign it - why didn't you just sign the thing?!!

[bhall]

I am afraid you will come to realise how wrong the assertions of this thread actually are. I hope that it does not result in you incurring thousands of pounds in costs.

 

You might want to read what the legislation you have quoted actually says about presumption. It does not say what Apple has told you. Read it for yourself

 

Easy way to prove I am wrong

 

Which specific section of which specific legislation says that a deed must be signed by both the grantor and the grantee - bearing in mind my previous post about the CCA 1974 and s.2 of the LPAMP 1989.

 

Please post that specific requirement as detailed within a specific section of specific legislation without telling anyone what you think it means but what it actually says.

[TimetogoRAM]

Please answer my question? I had to sign it!

[bhall]

All you had to do is sign it - why didn't you just sign the thing?!!

 

The Property Chamber has already confirmed to Is It Me?'s friend that as a matter of law a lender is not generally required to sign

 

Look at the Land Registry's own mortgage deed the CH1 form. Please look at it yourself, you will see that it is only required to be signed as a deed by the borrower unless there is an obligation to provide a further advance.

 

These are facts that are being disregarded and brushed under the carpet

[bhall]

Apologies to the site team, when relying to time's post I clicked on report and not reply by mistake, please disregard that reporting of that post.