Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lolerz
      Advice needed regarding Eviction

      By lolerz · Posted

      Please see my comments on your post in red
    • WiltshireGuy81
      Advice needed regarding Eviction

      By WiltshireGuy81 · Posted

      Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • dx100uk
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By dx100uk · Posted

      extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • BazzaS
      Sold shoes to a platform. Tracking shows no issues but company claim empty box received - Should I apply to strikeout?

      By BazzaS · Posted

      You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Andy111
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By Andy111 · Posted

      Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

IS IT ME?

By IS IT ME?
in Mortgages and Secured Loans

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3746 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

marika41

marika41

Posted
Posted
Thanks for your patience ......In relation to Ben’s Post on “Silver”

 

I do not retract my apology mate......because I’m good like that....and of course; because I should have been a wee bit more careful in addressing your reliance on “silver” for your contention with all things ‘Apple’....

 

On closer inspection of the above...I look at the ‘delivery’ of a Deed....but before I do, let me copy this bit for you to look at again:

 

“a writing cannot become a deed unless it is ‘signed’, ‘sealed’ and ‘delivered’ as a deed. Having reached that stage, it is correctly described as having been “executed” as a deed....'

 

As you know we no longer rely on a deed being ‘sealed’...it was abolished by the lpmpa 1989

 

So, today...this case would infer that we are looking only for ...’signed’ and ‘delivered’ then? And that “execution” is no longer a requirement after all??? I think NOT....

 

If ‘sealed’ is removed....how can we find out if the deed has been “executed” so that it meets the formality of ‘delivery’ in a decision required in a claim today?

 

Two further points to make here are:

 

1) The case in 2010 appears to rely on decisions from cases in 1989, 1969,

2) The case in Bibby came AFTER this decision in 2010

 

 

Having said that...let’s now look at what it says about ‘delivery’ which was ‘subject’ to the deed being ‘signed’, ‘sealed’ and ‘delivered’....

 

The case ("silver") says there are 3 ways in which a deed can be ‘delivered’:



  • A it may be delivered as an unconditional deed, being irrevocable and taking immediate effect

  • B , it may be delivered as an escrow, being irrevocable but not taking effect unless and until the condition or conditions of the escrow are fulfilled

  • C it may be handed to an agent of the maker with instructions to deal with it in a certain way in a certain event, being revocable and of no effect unless and until it is so dealt with, whereupon it is delivered and takes effect

Which one of the above would present the true state of ‘delivery’ today if the RRO had been mentioned?

 

The deed is signed by the Borrower alone....there is no ‘execution’ by the Lender....does that meet A, B or C to constitute ‘delivery’ of the Deed?

 

Had the RRO been taken into account, (in fact even we apply the RRO to any of the cases that Ben has posted) would the fact that RRO removed the presumption of ‘delivery’ on sight of the borrowers signature alone make a difference to meet any of the stated and accepted means of ‘delivery’ of A, B or C? .............(after all, we are saying that the RRO is the statute that made it possible for all Borrowers to rely that there can be NO 'presumption of delivery on sight of their signature alone since the coming into force of the RRO in 2005)......

 

If the Chamber accept that there is NO presumption of Delivery on sight of the Borrowers signature alone....which one of .A, B or C will they find applies in relation to that very necessary formality known as ‘delivery’ of the Deed??

 

Could they really say that A applies to say that the deed is ‘delivered’ unconditionally....when the applicable implication of the RRO says that the Borrower cannot be said to have ‘delivered’ it by virtue of having merely signed it?.....Article 10 (2)

 

Ok.... Could they say that B applies to say that it is ‘delivered in escrow’....yes, I suppose they could do....but then given this deed relates to land....if it is in ‘escrow’....then the ‘condition’ that B relates to...must be the ‘debt’....once it is paid in full...then the Lender can sign it....right?...NO, wrong....because the Borrower has no power to mortgage by demise, sub-demise or sub-mortgage..LRA section 23.......and finally a ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ is wholly subject to section 32 of the LRA ....to say that it is only if the agreement is 'valid' that section 51 would have effect......

 

Ok...finally, what about ‘C’....surely that must constitute that the deed is delivered’......right?......regrettably ‘NO’...because although you hand the deed to your solicitor....the deed still has to be ‘executed’ by the Lender ......so, therefore.....the handing of the deed to your solicitor is ...... ‘revocable and of no effect unless it is so dealt with'...BEFORE "whereupon it is delivered and takes effect’ would apply............so.... even this would find the deed has not been ‘delivered’...

 

So in cnclusion.....

 

The Property Chamber can rely that the RRO establishes that the Lender must ‘execute’ the Deed BEFORE any presumption of ‘Delivery’ can be taken to be in effect....so, the likelihood is that the Chamber will and should find that –there is no ‘delivery’ and that it is “C” that applies....the RRO is wholly reliable along with the other statutory provisions that relate to dispositions in relation to land.... to find that this IS the case....

 

Apple

 

I may be jumping the gun a bit here as I am way behind reading this thread but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the RRO in regard to my situation as I know my mortgage was signed before this came into effect

Link to post
Share on other sites
citizenB

citizenB

Posted
Posted

Yes, they are. I believe they were censured some while back in respect of the charges they added to mortgages.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?700-Hot-news-for-anyone-who-has-suffered-mortgage-arrears-charges-irresponsible-lending-or-other-unfair-lender-conduct

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
p.j

p.j

Posted
Posted

 

thanks for that citizenB

 

pj

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites
UNRAM

UNRAM

Posted
Posted (edited)
Apple,

 

This is not a discussion on mortgage sale agreements but of deeds so I believe its in scope. The mortgage sale agreeement contains both bilateral and unilateral deeds. Please can you share your opinion on this to further assist my understanding of the requirements of a deed. Do you agree with bhall that if a deed expresses only unilateral intent then it does not need to to be executed by the beneficiary... What happened to its specialty contract status in this instance? I can see problems with this as it opens up the possibility of abuse where a party may be included in a deed against their will or knowledge... However the mortgage sale agreement does include some unilateral deeds.

Apple I would certainly value your opinions on this topic. One of our primary assertions is that a deed is a specialty contract and requires the signatures of all assenting parties - though this will not always make sense i.e. to express a unilateral intent (if such an intent is really possible if it affects another...). My present understanding is that a mortgage is made by agreement to benefit two parties which makes it, without doubt, a 'specialty' contract.

Edited by UNRAM
Link to post
Share on other sites
UNRAM

UNRAM

Posted
Posted
Whilst this is American, the last paragraph might provide a welcome insight

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-formal-requirements-for-a-deed.html

 

This doesn't address the situation where a deed is used for bilateral assent... as is the case of every mortgage sale agreement I have looked at.... or in fact anywhere i have seen a deed used for the transfer of interest or any disposition of land (apart from a mortgage deed). I do hope the lender is not planning to use a book intended for Dummies as evidence...

Link to post
Share on other sites
citizenB

citizenB

Posted
Posted

Was there a hearing yesterday ? What happened ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
MUTT1

MUTT1

Posted
Posted

Hi marika41,

 

I have received my copy deeds within two days of posting and that was by cheque. I have also received other documents separately sent and paid for by cheque all within a few days.

 

Did you send your form and cheque to your local LR office?

 

My local office have been ultra fast in responding so it seems a bit strange that you are still waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
marika41

marika41

Posted
Posted
Hi marika41,

 

I have received my copy deeds within two days of posting and that was by cheque. I have also received other documents separately sent and paid for by cheque all within a few days.

 

Did you send your form and cheque to your local LR office?

 

My local office have been ultra fast in responding so it seems a bit strange that you are still waiting.

 

yes it does, i posted it last thurs and paid for next day delivery,will have to phone them monday if nothing arrives over the weekend, thanks mutt1

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
Because an individual is not a company.

 

The Companies Act 1985 applies to companies and not individuals, as quoted that part amends the Companies Act 1985 only, that part has no impact on any other legislation

 

Oh, I get it now.....The RRO speaks of 'individuals' as you and I know......but, what you infer is that the mortgage deed is between an 'individual' who MUST be a 'sole trader'?.....as a 'sole trader' he is considered the owner of a company....therefore the RRO applies....but if that 'individual happens to be a 'consumer'......then the RRO does NOT apply.........

 

Gotcha......

 

OK.....not to disregard your 'idea' as 'fanciful''......let's look at this in more detail shall we???............

 

I take it you can accept that there are 'individuals' who are 'sole traders'....yes?.....they are companies.....yes??

 

so, if the RRO means that an 'individual' is a 'sole trader'.....take into account that as a sole trader....you are not a LTD Company....right???....

 

so - please explain to us all.....HOW does the 1985 Act apply to the 'sole trader' who is the 'individual'....when as an individual the 1985 Act does not apply to 'individuals'????

 

Don't tell me.... you too are fresh out of UNI...and you are 'testing' what you have learnt ...here on this thread....correct??

 

I think you might struggle trying to explain to the Chamber that 'individual' applies to 'sole traders' as much as it applies to 'consumers' Ben......I truly think you might struggle big time on that one mate......'

 

Remember, the Lender has caused the Borrower to enter into a MORTGAGE DEED to secure 'INDEBTEDNESS' .....It is not only a speciality contract but it's intent is to secure a debt...That's why the Lender MUST execute the DEED Ben...if it is not executed by the Lender.....then the Lender has not 'assumed' the Deed.....there is no DELIVERY..... The DEED is VOID!!

 

Ben.... Let me remind you.......A Borrower has no power to GRANT a mortgage.....even if the Borrower is a 'sole trader'...(individual).....there would still be no power to grant a mortgage Ben???

 

Let me remind you....A mortgage is UNLAWFULLY entered on the title of any registered estate Ben......A deed is void if not executed by the Lender Ben.......

 

Let me remind you.....The RRO applies to 'individuals' Ben....that applies whether the 'individual' happens to be a 'consumer' or a 'sole trader' Ben.....

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
Oh, I get it now.....The RRO speaks of 'individuals' as you and I know......but, what you infer is that the mortgage deed is between an 'individual' who MUST be a 'sole trader'?.....as a 'sole trader' he is considered the owner of a company....therefore the RRO applies....but if that 'individual happens to be a 'consumer'......then the RRO does NOT apply.........

 

Gotcha......

 

OK.....not to disregard your 'idea' as 'fanciful''......let's look at this in more detail shall we???............

 

I take it you can accept that there are 'individuals' who are 'sole traders'....yes?.....they are companies.....yes??

 

so, if the RRO means that an 'individual' is a 'sole trader'.....take into account that as a sole trader....you are not a LTD Company....right???....

 

so - please explain to us all.....HOW does the 1985 Act apply to the 'sole trader' who is the 'individual'....when as an individual the 1985 Act does not apply to 'individuals'????

 

Don't tell me.... you too are fresh out of UNI...and you are 'testing' what you have learnt ...here on this thread....correct??

 

I think you might struggle trying to explain to the Chamber that 'individual' applies to 'sole traders' as much as it applies to 'consumers' Ben......I truly think you might struggle big time on that one mate......'

 

Remember, the Lender has caused the Borrower to enter into a MORTGAGE DEED to secure 'INDEBTEDNESS' .....It is not only a speciality contract but it's intent is to secure a debt...That's why the Lender MUST execute the DEED Ben...if it is not executed by the Lender.....then the Lender has not 'assumed' the Deed.....there is no DELIVERY..... The DEED is VOID!!

 

Ben.... Let me remind you.......A Borrower has no power to GRANT a mortgage.....even if the Borrower is a 'sole trader'...(individual).....there would still be no power to grant a mortgage Ben???

 

Let me remind you....A mortgage is UNLAWFULLY entered on the title of any registered estate Ben......A deed is void if not executed by the Lender Ben.......

 

Let me remind you.....The RRO applies to 'individuals' Ben....that applies whether the 'individual' happens to be a 'consumer' or a 'sole trader' Ben.....

 

Apple

 

You can say it as many times as you like, still doesn't make what you think you know the actual legal position.

 

Wait until January and see if you know as much as you think you do .

 

Ben ;-)

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
not a problem

 

Just remember deeds are used for many things not just to secure a mortgage.

 

This is true...... However....we are interested in the unlawful mortgage deed here Ben.....

 

The POA does not secure indebtedness.......it is different legislation that applies to that type of deed as you know...best not to confuse it with the deed spoken of in the LPA section 52 Ben......

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
Apple I would certainly value your opinions on this topic. One of our primary assertions is that a deed is a specialty contract and requires the signatures of all assenting parties - though this will not always make sense i.e. to express a unilateral intent (if such an intent is really possible if it affects another...). My present understanding is that a mortgage is made by agreement to benefit two parties which makes it, without doubt, a 'specialty' contract.

 

Hi UNRAM

 

I am happy to oblige : )

 

Yes...any document drawn up in 'deed' form will be a 'speciality'..... it is the 'deeds' intent that is important...... the Chamber will know that when we say the Mortgage deed is void...we are are saying that -there was no power to 'mortgage' and ..... the deed has not been executed by the Lender.....

 

The Mortgage Sale Agreement Deed.....is just that.... a SALE to the SPV...it's intent is not to secure a 'debt' at all.... it's intent is to sell that which the Lender purports to own...which is your house....he sold it.... by deed...for a consideration...it is bilateral...because any sale that relates to land....or any creation or disposition in relation to land must be by deed....A SALE IS A DISPOSITION.....both must sign....Seller and Buyer

 

The POA is unilateral...because a POA is NOT A SALE.....it is as it says a POA...the Lender knows that he intends to keep his name on the title.....but he has SOLD it to the SPV.....the SPV wants and needs further assurance....the POA 'GRANTS' and assures the SPV and the SPV grants to the Trustee by way of POA all legal and beneficial interests...and so on and so on...

 

A POA Deed is a 'grant' ...... it is a unilateral obligation.....the deed does not need to be assumed by the donee.....not like a deed that intends to secure indebtedness......

 

The Mortgage Deed...albeit the 'mortgage' is unlawful......must be executed by the Lender as well as the Borrower if the Lender intends to secure the collateral...(the house) to repay the loan....in the event of a borrowers default...albeit no borrower can be said to be in default of a 'mortgage'.... a 'mortgage' is UNAWFUL...there is NO statutory grounds upon which ANY Lender can secure a mortgage against any registered estate......that includes those since the coming into force of the LPA 1925.....ooooopsss did I just say that..... Yes, I think I did!!!

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
You can say it as many times as you like, still doesn't make what you think you know the actual legal position.

 

Wait until January and see if you know as much as you think you do .

 

Ben ;-)

 

Don't tell me ..... you are in bed with the Chamber tooooooo????

 

If you are.... then, yes, we stand no chance..... I know how much you like speaking of flogging horses..... LOL

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3746 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...