Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

...full title guarantee?

 

ssssshhhhhhhh!!.... don't interrupt Ben..... he is actually giving us something constructive for a change..... I don't want him interrupted......we are learning...... I like to learn : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Stupid me.. Thanks!

 

This is so contradictory it's a joke. It talks about. Presumption of delivery and then more or less says when the wording says 'questionable whether a presumption of delivery is necessary' in pg113 11.67??? That sentence needs to make up its mind!!

 

SSSShhhhhhhh......No, don't say that.... Ben is helping us all see the error of our ways..... best not to interrupt.......this is a new side to Ben....he actually is 'saying' something...We should hear him out.....he is trying to make sense : )

 

Apple

[citizenB]

pj, your post at no # 2072 has had a fair chunk edited from it. If you are going to make such a statement, it must be backed up with some proof

[applecart]

pj, your post at no # 2072 has had a fair chunk edited from it. If you are going to make such a statement, it must be backed up with some proof

 

oooohhh come on CitizenB.....we need to learn....Ben is coming forward like never before.....let P.J do the same??

 

Apple

[citizenB]

apple, it would be really nice if we could all say whatever we wanted to about anyone or any company.. but.. if you are going to accuse them of "fraud" or other serious wrongdoing - then there MUST be some evidence to back that up.

[IS IT ME?]

Apple

DON'T FULL INTO THE TRAP!!!!!!

BEN IS BEN AND AS HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PUT ANY THING ON THIS THREAD BUT CONTINUES TO DO SO WHY???

Cizertnb, you have the case from NI which clearly shows what they will do and have done. I state again NO lender will come to court even though they have been asked too.

[IS IT ME?]

Apple

I also note and others should Ben does not answer the question put to him.

[bhall]

Apple

I also note and others should Ben does not answer the question put to him.

 

A little unfair there Is It Me ?

 

I think you will find that I have actually responded too and answered the majority of the questions directly put to me.

 

I do wonder why though, some people ask a question when they don't want to hear the answer.

[bhall]

oooohhh come on CitizenB.....we need to learn....Ben is coming forward like never before.....let P.J do the same??

 

Apple

 

Yes you do need to learn ;-)

[IS IT ME?]

Ben

its the last one asked which needs to be answered!

[IS IT ME?]

cIzternb

here PJ post where's he gone worng???

 

hi unram yes i have mortgage con offer and my deeds show the lender in question as a charge..my deeds have only my signatureicon and a friend as a witness no solicitor or lender and yes i have the full sale contracts between preferred mortgages southern pacific to eurosail it actually states in there that they have sold "All" there interests that includes there loans to along with mortgages..out of all my paperwork from taking the mortgage theres not a signature of any lender anywhere only mine .

 

pj

[IS IT ME?]

Well I see he's not playing ball any more,

SO YOU KNOW PEOPLE WHY WHEN HE REPLIES AND WHAT TO DO

I am off to bed fed up waiting lol.

[bhall]

Well I see he's not playing ball any more,

SO YOU KNOW PEOPLE WHY WHEN HE REPLIES AND WHAT TO DO

I am off to bed fed up waiting lol.

 

Really sorry you were waiting for me Is It Me? I didn't know, I logged off and watched a film on Sky on demand called Wee Man. It was quite good.. Recommend it.

 

The last question I could find from you, except for the one about PM's was about the investors and what do they get.

 

The answer is quite simple and straight forward, they make even more money. If you are really interested, you can read paragraphs 59 and 60 of Paratus AMC Ltd & Anor v Countrywide Surveyors 2011 - the judge explains the process.

 

If instead of a question posed by you, you refer to URAM and full title guarantee as noted within the mortgage deed, it's meaning is another myth generated by this thread.

 

All it means is

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/36/section/3

 

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994

 

3. Charges, incumbrances and third party rights.

 

(1)If the disposition is expressed to be made with full title guarantee there shall be implied a covenant that the person making the disposition is disposing of the property free—

 

(a)from all charges and incumbrances (whether monetary or not), and

 

(b)from all other rights exercisable by third parties,

 

other than any charges, incumbrances or rights which that person does not and could not reasonably be expected to know about.

 

Full Title Guarantee is a reassurance given by the borrower to the lender of the above. Nothing to do with the way it has been incorrectly portrayed in this thread.

 

Anyway, as you are going to bed, I will bid you good night. ;-)

Edited October 20, 2013 by bhall

[p.j]

pj, your post at no # 2072 has had a fair chunk edited from it. If you are going to make such a statement, it must be backed up with some proof

 

citizenB what proof would you like ?

 

pj

[bhall]

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

 

Lol you apply the same flawed logic to interpreting my posts as you do to interpreting legislation.

 

I have made no reference to a sole trader and further to the above a sole trader is in no shape of form a company.

 

Apple seriously you can attempt to very politely and nicely discredited both myself and the information that I post as much as you want but please at least stick to what I actually posted. ;-)

 

Everything I have posted has been supported by independent third party sources, it is a shame we can 't all say the same.

 

We will see in January the true extent of your misunderstanding. Remember you was told months ago when you had the opportunity to amend the application. You thought you knew best and now others will sadly pay the price.

 

Ben

[bhall]

Apple

 

As the Property Chamber has already said as a matter of law the lender does not generally have to sign the mortgage deed.

 

I know you hate it when I remind you of that fact as that one line comprehensively blows apart the points you keep posting.

 

They say ignorance is bliss, is it ?

 

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."

 

John F. Kennedy

 

"myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic"- it is almost as if JFK was talking about Apple's fanciful and legally flawed ideas. ;-)

 

 

Speak to you again in January when the truth will finally be revealed.

Edited October 20, 2013 by bhall

[citizenB]

citizenB what proof would you like ?

 

pj

 

If there has been any media reporting - court judgments !! Anything that is already in the public domain.

[caro]

It is 'Apple's' posts Ben that has attracted more than 68,000 views to the CaG....my posts Ben rely on the LAW.....if my interpretation of the LAW is incorrect...then please tell us why NO BORROWER who has relied on the information in these posts has had a suspended possession order granted???

 

And then.....when we look at the info in the 'other' threads....why is it every single one of those Borrowers are GUARANTEED a 'suspended possession order'.....or worse....loss of their homes??

 

After all....this thread and those too....all rely on the LAW....

 

How come the OUTCOMES from this thread work in favor of the Borrower......and the threads you refer to us......well.....need I say any more??

 

Apple

 

Have I missed something, or has there been a case that has been judged and won using your suggestions? If so please provide information to confirm this.

 

All I've seen is less than a handful of people had cases adjourned. I wouldn't call them successful unless people have judgments that allow them to keep their homes.

 

A skirmish may have held off the enemy, but the war is far from over, so please don't imply to those seeking advice to help them keep their homes that your ideas have been successful. They are still not tried and tested unlike the cases in the Home Repossessions Successes sub forum.

[caro]

Apple

DON'T FULL INTO THE TRAP!!!!!!

BEN IS BEN AND AS HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PUT ANY THING ON THIS THREAD BUT CONTINUES TO DO SO WHY???

Cizertnb, you have the case from NI which clearly shows what they will do and have done. I state again NO lender will come to court even though they have been asked too.

 

Ben has made it quite clear why he continued to respond on this thread, and it is to prevent people losing their homes.

 

I could ask why you wish to discredit him and encourage others to risk using unproven theories to keep their homes when there are methods that have worked thousands of times.

 

What is your motive?

 

How do we know that you aren't a lender trying to mislead people for your own greedy purposes?

 

I'm not asking you to answer these questions at the moment, but please accept that all on this thread wish to keep people in their homes, and if you have proof to the contrary, please forward it to admin@consumersctiongroup.co.uk to investigate.

[UNRAM]

Apple

I also note and others should Ben does not answer the question put to him.

bhall is presenting lots of confusing information that appears relevant but when I have tried to further or elaborate any thread of discussion it trails off to nothing... He is also presenting lots of contradictory information...

[MUTT1]

Hi Ben,

 

If you look at post numbers 2085, 2086 and 2087, you will see that you were asked by apple the same question in relation to POA, will you please give a direct answer to this simple question? All you have to do is say yes or no.

 

In addition, in your post 2116 you make reference to the PC indicating that generally deeds need to be signed only by the borrower. Would you kindly give your interpretations as to what constitutes a deed to come under the term generally and, also, could you give specific examples of when a mortgage deed does not come under the generally heading and has to be signed by both parties.

[MUTT1]

Hi marika41,

 

Did you get anything from LR yesterday?

[IS IT ME?]

Caro,

Thank you for your post however I CAN AND WILL SAY UNLIKE BEN I AM NOT A GREEDY LENDER AND HAVE TAKEN THESE ISSUES TO COURT AND HAD THE CASE TWO IN FACT ADJUNORED AND QUESTIONS ASKED BIG TIME WHICH THE LENDER REFUSES TO ANSWER.

i HAVE ASKED Ben QUESTION WHICH HE DOES NOT ANSWER, AS HAVE OTHERS MAY BE YOU SHOULD ASK THE QUESTION CLOSURE TO HOME???

IF YOU REMEMBER THE LOAN BOOK LOANS AND HOW WAS THERE MAY BE YOU WOULD REMEMBER MY ATTENDING AND EVINCE???

YOU SHOULD ALSO ASK WHY IS NONE OF THE BIG FOUR IN THIS THREAD?

MAY BE THE CAG SHOULD BE HELPING PEOPLE ON THIS THREAD INSTEAD OF KNOCKING THEM.

 

SORRY MY CAPS IS LOCKED ON FOR SOME REASON!!!!

[MUTT1]

Hi IS IT ME,

 

I totally agree with what you are saying, I have also put several questions to Ben and I think it will be interesting to see how he responds.

 

I would also like to ask the mods who are posting on this thread, is the PM facility blocked on ALL THREADS or just this one. Simple answer yes or no.

[ims21]

PM facility is not blocked on this thread.