Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

There is a lot of misleading going on on here but not from Ben.

 

Also it is not "doing the right thing", to encourage people to follow a course of action based on some half baked absurd arguments which have no chance of success.

 

Personally I admire Ben's stamina, I would have given up long ago and left you to your just deserts.

[bhall]

There is a lot of misleading going on on here but not from Ben.

 

Also it is not "doing the right thing", to encourage people to follow a course of action based on some half baked absurd arguments which have no chance of success.

 

Personally I admire Ben's stamina, I would have given up long ago and left you to your just deserts.

 

Thank you for your kind words, they are appreciated.

 

Fortunately this thread will be one that has a public conclusion that cannot be denied, twisted and misinterpreted. Many threads, just fall down the listing for various reasons such as the OP stops posting.

 

I consider this far too important a topic to allow that to happen and I will do everything I can to ensure the decision of the property chamber is posted here as soon as possible (which will be far less than 28 days from now) - I consider it of paramount important that the conclusion is made as public as possible, especially as I have seen some of the fanciful ideas from this thread reposted on other forums.

 

Then everyone will be able to see for themselves, who has actually been misleading who.. be able to also see who knows nothing about property law then too

 

Thank you

[bhall]

Afternoon ben your welcome on the tip. If you know please explain what the hearing was about I for one would like it explaining in detail.

It will also show that if you do know your not misleading people with your posts.

 

Enfircer - I have already posted exactly what they were about already, don't you remember the Freedom of Information Act response ?

 

 

"With reference to your numbered paragraphs, I can confirm that the department holds the information that you have asked for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6, and I am pleased to provide this to you:

 

1. 10 applications based on the ground of non execution by a lender of a charge have been received by the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber.

 

2. 1 of those 10 applications has been struck out on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 9(3)(d) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 but the other applications continue (as of 7/1/2014).

 

3. See the response for 2.

 

6. 2 of the 10 cases have been listed for hearing on 20 January 2014."

 

I did a freedom of information act request, to prevent certain parties claiming that I 'shoehorned' the above information

 

So does that prove to your satisfaction that I am not misleading people ?

 

An interesting question would be, if a lender does have to sign a mortgage deed, or it is void - why did the Property Chamber strike out one such application because it was " frivolous or vexatious" and an abuse of process ?

 

If there was any real merit to to that argument, the application would not have been struck out on that basis would it

[fletch70]

Don't you know Caro ?

 

In between (well at least according to some) being the person that founded CAG, and being various different members of the site team, I also work for every single lender in the country, in addition to working for every single law firm in the country.

 

Somehow I also manage to attend every single hearing Is It Me? has said he has attended.

 

I do get around

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: the above is me being sarcastic

 

You know Ben , you really are a very busy boy. The only problem Ben is that when you answered caro you were obviously talking to yourself and therefore we can not believe a word you say.

I have a feeling Ben, that you are a stronger person than me. I would have set my mind to blowing them up long ago. ( I have a nuke aimed at Leeds BTW)

 

Seriously , all that Ben stuff was me being sarcastic and not condescending

 

I fully agree with both you and Dodge , it is very very easy to tell people to follow a high risk course of action when it is not your money or reputation involved. It seems that there is no legal liability insurance to fall back on either

I have not read the full thread as I have to eat and drink and I wasn't in on it at the beginning

[fletch70]

Can I also just add

 

I am no spelling or grammar Nazi but somethings really do wind me up

your and you're is one of them

 

I also don't do cryptic and comments such as "as you know" help no one and surely that is what we are here for

 

Also I think we have politicians in the house as so many questions that are asked are never answered

[Peterbard]

Can I also just add

 

I am no spelling or grammar Nazi but somethings really do wind me up

your and you're is one of them

 

I also don't do cryptic and comments such as "as you know" help no one and surely that is what we are here for

 

Also I think we have politicians in the house as so many questions that are asked are never answered

 

Hi Fletch and welcome

 

Grammar is not my strong suit either(you may have noticed, but what really gets my goat is the habit some people have of using repeated periods........... in order to give ....their.... generally mundane...comments... more...........gravitas.(you know who you are )

[bhall]

Can I also just add

 

I am no spelling or grammar Nazi but somethings really do wind me up

your and you're is one of them

 

I also don't do cryptic and comments such as "as you know" help no one and surely that is what we are here for

 

Also I think we have politicians in the house as so many questions that are asked are never answered

 

Hello Fletch

 

Thank you do your comments, you must really dislike my posts, I know when I get carried away, my level of english goes clean out the window lol

 

I read my own posts sometimes and think ?? slow down and type properly - My only excuse is that I have chubby fingers ;-0

[bhall]

Hi Fletch and welcome

 

Grammar is not my strong suit either(you may have noticed, but what really gets my goat is the habit some people have of using repeated periods........... in order to give ....their.... generally mundane...comments... more...........gravitas.(you know who you are )

 

Yep, I am guilty as charged

[fletch70]

Lol......yes ......I see what you mean.

 

Oh BTW if Ben is indeed certain members or ex members of the site team, why the hell are we agreeing with him?

[bhall]

Lol......yes ......I see what you mean.

 

Oh BTW if Ben is indeed certain members or ex members of the site team, why the hell are we agreeing with him?

 

lol just want to make it clear that Ben is not and has not ever been a member of the site team, it is an accusation made by posters seeking to deflect the weakness of their arguments (not referring to your Fletch but the people that made the original accusation)

 

I could never do what the site team do, I don't have the patience with people or the self control

[applecart]

The recent posts make interesting reading ; )

 

However, Speculation did not and will not win the Battle!!!

 

I personally have no issue with who is who - who they work for nor who they do not work for.....it is to me - irrelevant.

 

Spelling is not at issue here - this Thread is not about one's 'spelling' ability - The application before the Chamber does not raise spelling as an issue.

 

The FACTS are:

 

The deed is VOID - to which there is NO DEFENCE.

 

The mortgage is VOID - to which there is NO DEFENCE

 

The DECISION is IMMINENT - to which latent posters will have NO DEFENCE

 

Apple

[enfircer]

Enfircer - I have already posted exactly what they were about already, don't you remember the Freedom of Information Act response ?

 

 

"With reference to your numbered paragraphs, I can confirm that the department holds the information that you have asked for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6, and I am pleased to provide this to you:

 

1. 10 applications based on the ground of non execution by a lender of a charge have been received by the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber.

 

2. 1 of those 10 applications has been struck out on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 9(3)(d) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 but the other applications continue (as of 7/1/2014).

 

3. See the response for 2.

 

6. 2 of the 10 cases have been listed for hearing on 20 January 2014."

 

I did a freedom of information act request, to prevent certain parties claiming that I 'shoehorned' the above information

 

So does that prove to your satisfaction that I am not misleading people ?

 

An interesting question would be, if a lender does have to sign a mortgage deed, or it is void - why did the Property Chamber strike out one such application because it was " frivolous or vexatious" and an abuse of process ?

 

If there was any real merit to to that argument, the application would not have been struck out on that basis would it

 

Oh ok ben thanks.

[applecart]

For me personally this thread is and will continue to be my main focus on CAG. A number of claims on this thread have been made which could lead to innocent borrowers incurring thousands of pounds in legal costs.

 

At no risk to the person that made those claims as they have not made an application to the Property Chamber even though they claim mortgages have not been valid since 1925 (or has that argument now fallen away).

 

Until the property chamber 's written decision is posted, disproving those claims once and for all, I want to concentrate my efforts here.

 

However, my previous concerns of many people taking the claims made in this thread seriously, I am pleased to say have proven to be unfounded. Only 10 applications (as per the date of the FOI response) - one of which has been struck out, had been made and only 28 people have signed the petition since it was created.

 

Those numbers indicate how much faith people have in those claims (not a lot)

 

With respect Ben......

 

You are here because your own thread to do with deeds did not get off the ground - do you remember - you sought 'legal' input- you were assisted by 'Steampowered' - 'Gaston' I believe - you're argument was to do with 'unilateral deeds' .... needless to say -you're thread died a sorry death.....

 

Having failed to prove your point in your own thread - you now seek (it would appear) to disprove any legislation - any comment - even (lord forbid) typographical errors and grammar are made an issue and made worthy of debate..... whatever next??

 

The Chamber will have you're argument before them - They will have Is It Me's friends argument too......

 

I think Crapstone said - "let's wait and see".........and I agree with that;

 

Let's not speculate among ourselves - because from what I can see - there is sight of un-necessary 'sarcasm' -

 

Best to wait and see ; )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

The recent posts make interesting reading ; )

 

However, Speculation did not and will not win the Battle!!!

 

I personally have no issue with who is who - who they work for nor who they do not work for.....it is to me - irrelevant.

 

Spelling is not at issue here - this Thread is not about one's 'spelling' ability - The application before the Chamber does not raise spelling as an issue.

 

The FACTS are:

 

The deed is VOID - to which there is NO DEFENCE.

 

The mortgage is VOID - to which there is NO DEFENCE

 

The DECISION is IMMINENT - to which latent posters will have NO DEFENCE

 

Apple

 

HMMM

 

Personally, I would be far happier if there were some logical rationale to support your convictions.

[fletch70]

bhall

I am sorry but my assumption is that you are indeed Ben

 

I was not suggesting that you were or have ever been. It was a joke that people who know my history on here would have appreciated

 

I must agree that some/most of the site team have unlimited patience and understanding. Frustrating though it is, I would have banned myself many times over (oh they did lol) but that is mostly forgiven by them which makes them bigger people than me to be honest.

[Peterbard]

 

Having failed to prove your point in your own thread - you now seek (it would appear) to disprove any legislation - any comment - even (lord forbid) typographical errors and grammar are made an issue and made worthy of debate..... whatever next??

 

e

 

I think that this is the problem Apple, you seek to promote your "point", at any expense ?

 

Many of us seek to acquire evidence so that we can arrive at a logical conclusion, as opposed to making a conclusion and then trying to justify it by wrongly interpreting the evidence.

 

Just a couple of observations

[bhall]

With respect Ben......

 

You are here because your own thread to do with deeds did not get off the ground - do you remember - you sought 'legal' input- you were assisted by 'Steampowered' - 'Gaston' I believe - you're argument was to do with 'unilateral deeds' .... needless to say -you're thread died a sorry death.....

 

Having failed to prove your point in your own thread - you now seek (it would appear) to disprove any legislation - any comment - even (lord forbid) typographical errors and grammar are made an issue and made worthy of debate..... whatever next??

 

The Chamber will have you're argument before them - They will have Is It Me's friends argument too......

 

I think Crapstone said - "let's wait and see".........and I agree with that;

 

Let's not speculate among ourselves - because from what I can see - there is sight of un-necessary 'sarcasm' -

 

Best to wait and see ; )

 

Apple

 

Meeeeeooooowwwww ! lol

 

Let's not speculate among ourselves ?

 

Did you read your prior post

 

The recent posts make interesting reading ; )

 

However, Speculation did not and will not win the Battle!!!

 

I personally have no issue with who is who - who they work for nor who they do not work for.....it is to me - irrelevant.

 

Spelling is not at issue here - this Thread is not about one's 'spelling' ability - The application before the Chamber does not raise spelling as an issue.

 

The FACTS are:

 

The deed is VOID - to which there is NO DEFENCE.

 

The mortgage is VOID - to which there is NO DEFENCE

 

The DECISION is IMMINENT - to which latent posters will have NO DEFENCE

 

Apple

 

Are you the only one allowed to speculate - Sorry I didn't know your rules, I guess with you it is a case of do as I say and not do what I do.

 

I am sorry

 

* just remember those facts.. they are according to you

 

In every case posted in this thread, your argument that the deed is void has failed - now that is a fact

[bhall]

bhall

I am sorry but my assumption is that you are indeed Ben

 

I was not suggesting that you were or have ever been. It was a joke that people who know my history on here would have appreciated

 

I must agree that some/most of the site team have unlimited patience and understanding. Frustrating though it is, I would have banned myself many times over (oh they did lol) but that is mostly forgiven by them which makes them bigger people than me to be honest.

 

Dam.... Fletch you have blown my cover, I am indeed Ben

 

I know what you meant I was just jesting with you, it was nice (a little light humour never hurt anyone) compared to the recent direction the thread headed - I just didn't realise it wasn't allowed under the imposed rules of the thread

[bhall]

I think that this is the problem Apple, you seek to promote your "point", at any expense ?

 

Many of seek to acquire evidence so that we can arrive at a logical conclusion, as opposed to making a conclusion and then trying to justify it by wrongly interpreting the evidence.

 

Just a couple of observations

 

This is the problem

 

Previously Apple said s.23(2) was the lenders powers and now that does not fit with the latest fanciful idea, Apple now says s.23(2) are not the lenders powers

 

facts are being interpreted to lead to the desired outcome, instead of using facts to reach an outcome.

 

Anyway, the truth will soon be reveled

[fletch70]

Apple

 

You have totally misunderstood what i was saying about grammar and spelling

 

Some posts seem to be long rants without punctuation or spelling checks in any form. Of course your and You're have different meanings just as there and their do. When someone is trying to follow a post it makes it very difficult to see the wood fro the trees when it is all mashed together. Maybe with time i will come to be able to easily understand some of the posts on here in that i will "buy in" to the style of the poster.

 

It also appears to me that this thread has become very personal. My understanding is that , in the original case , a ruling is due very soon. It will be very interesting to read that ruling. Of course I am not sure how exactly this side of law works, money claims are more my thing but I imagine that if the lender were to lose it will be far from over. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, what are , if any the further appeals processes in this?

[applecart]

I find this post very confusing.

 

Are you referring to your friend whose case is with the chamber or your friend who you helped in court last week?

 

If the issue if the deed was raised in court last week, was it accepted as having merit by the judge?

 

If you can't say more about whichever case for legal reasons I can understand that. If so does that apply to both cases or just one?

 

Why would Ben know the reasons you can't say more?

 

Has your friend that you helped in court last week got a thread on cag or elsewhere so that their success can be shared with others in a similar situation?

 

In what capacity did you help your friend in court? Eg MacKenzie friend?

 

Sorry for so many questions but I just found your response confusing.

 

Hi Caro

 

I can understand your line of questioning here and why you may be confused.

 

As I understand it - Is It Me is referring to the Deed issue raised in the Chamber.

 

I also understand from Is It Me's previous post that the 'mortgage' issue has 'merit' by virtue of LRA s.23......simply put - we argued that Is It Me's Friend had no statutory power to 'mortgage' by demise or sub-demise - reading between the lines - it would seem the Judge has accepted that argument - due to the Lender having NO DEFENCE on that point.

 

With the Deed... although Is It Me has said it was raised in the Chamber - he has moved on to another issue - (with respect - as I wrote the submissions - I do understand where Is It Me is coming from more than most here) the issue he refers to was the point made about the selling off of the 'mortgage'....

 

This makes sense because - if you as a lender have a 'mortgage' - when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant you a 'mortgage' - the question begs...what are you doing with a 'mortgage' - accompanied with evidence to show that the lender sold the 'mortgage'....this means that there is evidence of 'wrongful interference' ...... it may be a criminal offence......can't really say....but, you never know.....

 

What Is It Me appears to be saying is that the Lender has 28 days to submit further representation as to why it's objection should not be struck out........remember, the lender is arguing that it's charge should be allowed to remain on the title.....Is It Me's friend is arguing to say that it should be removed.....

 

I, again; reading between the lines get the impression that the Chamber have made a decision.......on the ground that - if the Lender has 28 days to respond....that suggests a decision has been made.....it is not in the Lenders favor either - because - it would appear from Is It Me's post - that it is the Lender who has 28 days to represent again....that must be to do with a decision having been made AGAINST THE LENDER.

 

It is within the Chamber Rules to allow a party 28 days to submit reasons for why they think the Chambers decision is wrong.

 

It is the Lender who appears to be tasked with the issue - Not Is It Me's friend.

 

It looks to me that things have changed around - no longer is Is It Me's friend on the 'back foot' - it would seem it is the Lender who is in that position right now.

 

That's a big turn around. A positive one for Is It Me's friend too..... so far at least......

 

The Lender will no doubt object again... we could see them take the issue to the Upper Tribunal yet..... I know Log Book Loans went all the way...... no reason why these Lenders won't look to do the same........

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple

 

You have totally misunderstood what i was saying about grammar and spelling

 

Some posts seem to be long rants without punctuation or spelling checks in any form. Of course your and You're have different meanings just as there and their do. When someone is trying to follow a post it makes it very difficult to see the wood fro the trees when it is all mashed together. Maybe with time i will come to be able to easily understand some of the posts on here in that i will "buy in" to the style of the poster.

 

It also appears to me that this thread has become very personal. My understanding is that , in the original case , a ruling is due very soon. It will be very interesting to read that ruling. Of course I am not sure how exactly this side of law works, money claims are more my thing but I imagine that if the lender were to lose it will be far from over. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, what are , if any the further appeals processes in this?

 

Hi Fletch70.

 

Forgive me, I don't mean to be rude - but, I think the answer to the only relevant point you've raised will be found in the:

 

The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/51/made

 

Apple

[caro]

Hi Caro

 

I can understand your line of questioning here and why you may be confused.

 

As I understand it - Is It Me is referring to the Deed issue raised in the Chamber.

 

I also understand from Is It Me's previous post that the 'mortgage' issue has 'merit' by virtue of LRA s.23......simply put - we argued that Is It Me's Friend had no statutory power to 'mortgage' by demise or sub-demise - reading between the lines - it would seem the Judge has accepted that argument - due to the Lender having NO DEFENCE on that point.

 

With the Deed... although Is It Me has said it was raised in the Chamber - he has moved on to another issue - (with respect - as I wrote the submissions - I do understand where Is It Me is coming from more than most here) the issue he refers to was the point made about the selling off of the 'mortgage'....

 

This makes sense because - if you as a lender have a 'mortgage' - when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant you a 'mortgage' - the question begs...what are you doing with a 'mortgage' - accompanied with evidence to show that the lender sold the 'mortgage'....this means that there is evidence of 'wrongful interference' ...... it may be a criminal offence......can't really say....but, you never know.....

 

What Is It Me appears to be saying is that the Lender has 28 days to submit further representation as to why it's objection should not be struck out........remember, the lender is arguing that it's charge should be allowed to remain on the title.....Is It Me's friend is arguing to say that it should be removed.....

 

I, again; reading between the lines get the impression that the Chamber have made a decision.......on the ground that - if the Lender has 28 days to respond....that suggests a decision has been made.....it is not in the Lenders favor either - because - it would appear from Is It Me's post - that it is the Lender who has 28 days to represent again....that must be to do with a decision having been made AGAINST THE LENDER.

 

It is within the Chamber Rules to allow a party 28 days to submit reasons for why they think the Chambers decision is wrong.

 

It is the Lender who appears to be tasked with the issue - Not Is It Me's friend.

 

It looks to me that things have changed around - no longer is Is It Me's friend on the 'back foot' - it would seem it is the Lender who is in that position right now.

 

That's a big turn around. A positive one for Is It Me's friend too..... so far at least......

 

The Lender will no doubt object again... we could see them take the issue to the Upper Tribunal yet..... I know Log Book Loans went all the way...... no reason why these Lenders won't look to do the same........

 

 

Apple

 

Thank you for your interpretation apple.

 

I must say that I find it highly unlikely that a decision has been reached if the lender is being asked for a defence. That indicates to me that they want to know the response in order to reach a decision.

 

I do agree it would be best not to speculate about the outcome or anyone's identity.

[Peterbard]

Hi Caro

 

I can understand your line of questioning here and why you may be confused.

 

As I understand it - Is It Me is referring to the Deed issue raised in the Chamber.

 

I also understand from Is It Me's previous post that the 'mortgage' issue has 'merit' by virtue of LRA s.23......simply put - we argued that Is It Me's Friend had no statutory power to 'mortgage' by demise or sub-demise - reading between the lines - it would seem the Judge has accepted that argument - due to the Lender having NO DEFENCE on that point.

 

 

Hang on a minute, this would be a beach of section 23(1). if indeed this was a mortgage by demise, this is a different argument to the, no mortgage allowed on a registered mortgage or the borrower owns the charge nonsense.

 

Are you now saying that the lender has engaged in a mortgage by demise under section 23(1) in breach of the legislation.

[applecart]

Thank you for your interpretation apple.

 

I must say that I find it highly unlikely that a decision has been reached if the lender is being asked for a defence. That indicates to me that they want to know the response in order to reach a decision.

 

I do agree it would be best not to speculate about the outcome or anyone's identity.

 

Hi Caro

 

The Lender does not 'defend' he 'objects' - the 'objection' was made months ago......they can now only reply to the decision made.

 

They have 28 days to to so.

 

Apple