Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

So yes, I still see all the flaws in all of your fanciful ideas.

[bhall]

Hello WP

 

You ignore the legal principle of stare decisis

 

You also ignore that Helden was a case held in 2011.

 

If you refer to paragraph 29 of that judgement

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interest in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppel or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

 

Remember helden lost because of the above point. Since 2011 the above law has not changed. Hence why it was relied upon by the Judge in Lamb and why Lamb lost only a matter of months ago.

[IS IT ME?]

Does it not say

which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties

so the mortgage offer

conditions,

[bhall]

I am going to have a weekend off from all this, you should do the same Apple, it might help you see the wood from the trees.

[IS IT ME?]

Apple are YOU still unable to have PMs?

[bhall]

Does it not say

which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties

so the mortgage offer

conditions,

 

Sorry I thought we were discussing mortgage deeds not the mortgage offer/agreement.

 

Anyway Is It Me? from reading your recent posts I think you should take a weekend off too.

[IS IT ME?]

sorry Ben forgot you like long posts

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interesticon in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppelicon or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED

AND THIS IS WHAT i HIGH LIGHTED FOR YOU

2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest.

[bhall]

sorry Ben forgot you like long posts

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interesticon in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppelicon or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED

AND THIS IS WHAT i HIGH LIGHTED FOR YOU

2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest.

 

Lol what is it with you two today ? To many late nights ?

 

What does it say Is It Me?

 

Forget section 2, it is nothing to do with deeds, read the part about section 53 of the LPA 1925

 

The judge confirms that unlike section 2, section 53 applies to mortgages (the mortgage deed)

 

He goes onto say

 

"Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest"

 

That person is the borrower

 

This point was relied upon recently in the case of Lamb. In both instances the Lender won and the borrower lost

 

 

Seriously you two, take a day or two off of here, you both clearly need it.

 

See you in a few days

 

Ben

Edited October 26, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

Apple are YOU still unable to have PMs?

 

Hi Is It Me

 

No - I cannot do PM as far as I know .......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Lol what is it with you two today ? To many late nights ?

 

What does it say Is It Me?

 

Forget section 2, it is nothing to do with deeds, read the part about section 53 of the LPA 1925

 

The judge confirms that unlike section 2, section 53 applies to mortgages (the mortgage deed)

 

He goes onto say

 

"Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest"

 

That person is the borrower

 

This point was relied upon recently in the case of Lamb. In both instances the Lender won and the borrower lost

 

 

Seriously you two, take a day or two off of here, you both clearly need it.

 

See you in a few days

 

Ben

 

I'm hopeful that each and every ender will use section 53 in response to the applications made then Ben ; )

 

oooh...along with your take on the E-Conveyancing and your take on deeds of variation and further advances...etc etc...... I simply can't wait : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I am going to have a weekend off from all this, you should do the same Apple, it might help you see the wood from the trees.

 

Now why on earth would I do that?

 

This thread does not exist because of you Ben - it exists in spite of you mate....sorry to burst your bubble - lol

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Bingo!!!

[bhall]

Now why on earth would I do that?

 

This thread does not exist because of you Ben - it exists in spite of you mate....sorry to burst your bubble - lol

 

 

Apple

 

I told you before about interpreting my posts lol

 

Just stick to what I actually said ;-)

 

I suggested you have a weekend off as your posts are becoming more and more irrational and even less thought out than normal.

 

I have your best interests in mind with my suggestion. ;-)

[IS IT ME?]

Site team,

As this thread is now at a point of no return and as the defence requires that I keep some of the arguments which will be put forward a close secret is it possible for apple to have PMs and if not can we please know why?

As you are well aware the lenders have people on here and that is why I am asking.

You will also note that the solicitors do not tell the other party what they are doing?

[applecart]

Hello WP

 

You ignore the legal principle of stare decisis

 

You also ignore that Helden was a case held in 2011.

 

If you refer to paragraph 29 of that judgement

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interest in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppel or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

 

Remember helden lost because of the above point. Since 2011 the above law has not changed. Hence why it was relied upon by the Judge in Lamb and why Lamb lost only a matter of months ago.

 

Dear Ben

 

The case included nothing to do with the RRO as you know......here is an 'extract' from my post above for your convenience again:

 

The footnote for “20” says this:

 

We have previously rejected the suggestion that the mere use of words like “lease” or “mortgage” 20 would suffice. “It seems essential to avoid a situation where a document is held to be a deed simply because it was used in a transaction where a deed is required. This would amount to abolishing formalities for deeds altogether”: Law Com No 93, para 8.3(ii).

What now Ben??......do you still see a 'F' in my interpretation of the LAW as relied upon on the findings of the LAW Commission.... or do you want us all to see it from Ben and Co....student manuals point of view....that tactically taps in and out of the LAW as and when Ben and Co find it convenient to do so????

 

Likewise Ben....you may have spotted that Accord must have forgotten to include 'Helden' or indeed 'Eagle Star' in their response to Is It Me's application to the Chamber mate......I wonder why??......from what you say here...all they needed to do is quote either of those cases and hey presto......they would be well sorted....perhaps you should give them a quick call Ben and advise them that they should include these case on the premise of stare decisis

 

You'll probably find out they will tell you to leave them alone.....I'm sure they will be polite of course because I'm sure they will have already sussed that neither of those cases will assist them ; )

 

Apple

Apple

[applecart]

I told you before about interpreting my posts lol

 

Just stick to what I actually said ;-)

 

I suggested you have a weekend off as your posts are becoming more and more irrational and even less thought out than normal.

 

I have your best interests in mind with my suggestion. ;-)

 

What do you mean Ben?

 

Do you mean your #2503 and #2504????....not to mention every other one of your posts......

 

No, you deserve the weekend off mate......you get some rest........charge that battery........come back refreshed ok......Lenders and HMLR are relying on you to be on top of your game......you are failing them......or dare I say......it is clear you are tired, exhausted even......trying to misguide a few is one thing - but trying to misguide over 80,000 viewers....must be difficult.......don't you worry, you get some rest.......you are definitely showing signs of sheer exhaustion mate......we know how easy it is for you to blow a gasket........lol

 

Apple

[applecart]

Site team,

As this thread is now at a point of no return and as the defence requires that I keep some of the arguments which will be put forward a close secret is it possible for apple to have PMs and if not can we please know why?

As you are well aware the lenders have people on here and that is why I am asking.

You will also note that the solicitors do not tell the other party what they are doing?

 

I realise why I can't have PM now Is It Me...... it's because Ben has it...ben has 3 green boxes.....he is misguiding over 80,000 viewers...... I do not misguide...so, there is no chance of me getting the facility...............

 

Do you think if I start agreeing to everything Ben and Co say......I will get PM????.......looks like when you misguide us internet folk..... you get extra green boxes and PM facility to boot!!!.... not to mention time off when it suits you.....from sheer exhaustion for doing so.........LOL

 

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

I am still awaiting an answer so must be me too lol

[IS IT ME?]

I've only got ONE green box!

[applecart]

I've only got ONE green box!

 

LOL......ims21 has just pm'd me....lol

 

Whatever!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

Dear All

 

Please be advised that:

 

I am now no longer 'allowed' to disagree with 'alternative' views posted on this thread...therefore those of you who wish to pose 'alternative' views are more than welcome to do so.....you will be pleased to know that I WILL NOT disagree with your views....I WILL NOT REPLY to your view either....lest it be taken that I am disagreeing with you regardless as to whether I do or not.....

 

Further, I WILL NOT assist any Cagger....with Draft Presentations.....No more assistance with Applications to the Chamber either.......no More 'hands-on' assistance in any way shape of form....

 

There you go IMS21........I hope this is ok with you?

 

Apple

[ims21]

You may disagree with people...what you will not be allowed do is continually insult other members.

[applecart]

I've only got ONE green box!

 

Mine has gone down to 2.....lol

 

Apple

[applecart]

You may disagree with people...what you will not be allowed do is continually insult other members.

 

Who did I insult?....... Have I not myself been insulted by other members?? only to find that those who insult me get extra green boxes..... Have I not had members openly disagree with my posts?.....Come on Ims21....be open...be transparent.....this is personal isn't it?..........let us all know....what is your beef with Applecart? ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

This is what is at the bottom of all your posts ims21:

 

"Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail."

 

Against this - Is It Me believes that he has issues that are not appropriate for the open thread....yet, you deny him the opportunity to communicate with me?.......Why?

 

This is Is It Me's thread...he wishes to communicate with Me......Why won't you allow him to?

 

Apple