Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/or_1?q=or+

 

English definition of “or”

 

or

 

used to connect different possibilities:

 

Is it Tuesday or Wednesday today?

You can pay now or when you come back to pick up the paint.

Are you listening to me or not?

The patent was granted in (either) 1962 or 1963 - I can't quite remember which.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose - it's taking part that's important.

There were ten or twelve (= approximately that number of) people in the room.

He was only joking - or was he (= but it is possible that he was not)?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205

 

“legal mortgage” means a mortgage by demise or subdemise or a charge by way of legal mortgage

 

"or" - used to connect different possibilities

 

I hope this explains my previous comments about the significance of the use of the word "or"

 

As I said Apple, basic english

 

(I have added extra emphasis on "different" just to make the obvious point)

 

The above isn't that complicated is it ? - anyway film is about to start Bank Job on ch4+1 great film

[Peterbard]

I knmow it is a bit late to be starting an other topic, but putting aside the doomed deed thing for a minute.

 

If it were possible to have the deed declared void what about the credit agreement, it would not make that void would it ?

 

Would the lender not just take an action to enforce this and then seek a charging order once he had achieved a CCJ ?

[applecart]

As you, yourself have posted previously Apple - s.23(2) are the lenders powers

 

Hi Ben

 

It's a good thing that viewers are more than capable of making up their own minds...... you know you have taken the reference made out of context ; )

 

But Hey ho...that's the Ben we have all come to know folks ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

The above isn't that complicated is it ? - anyway film is about to start Bank Job on ch4+1 great film

 

Only when you reference it Ben - nobody else mis-understood the connection - only you : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Is It Me? - complete and utter nonsense and I mean that with all due respect.

 

It is information that is in the public domain - Freedom of Information etc- there is even legislation about it, so good luck with that, you will have as much luck with that as you will about a void mortgage deed

 

I have told you about this being all in the public domain before - there will be no way for anyone to hide anything.

 

I don't know what the outcome is, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how flawed Apples fanciful ideas are (can't even grasp the meaning of the word or ), so the outcome has been a foregone conclusion for months. You are just going through the motions.

 

Hi Ben

 

You conveniently forget (pity you) that the application proceeded on the amended written submissions.....it was only the first application (un-amended) version that you rely to confuse the issues here.....hey ho...that's the Ben we have come to know ; )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

The above isn't that complicated is it ? - anyway film is about to start Bank Job on ch4+1 great film

 

Oh no just switched it on , all those naked bodies, made me spit out my cocoa. i will watch my recordings of family guy I think

[applecart]

Thank you Ben ,

But as apple has said I can to post freely as you well know,

But I will say this I have printed of the last pages of your posts and will be taking action with the property chamber about your so called informant.

As there was nothing to say about the hearing as NO judgement had been made as well you know so I would like to know how you know what the out come is before those who have made the applications, you have not only dropped yourself in it but also CAG now.

 

over 200,000 viewers and only 1 poster able to receive a response to an FOI .....ummmmm???

 

That does appear suspect.....see your point here Is It Me......there seems to be evidence of 'compromise' even before the decision has been made.....I thought it was only 'decisions'...not 'progress' that was in the 'public domain'......very strange conduct from the Chamber.....very strange????

 

And all of it available to Ben only.....ummmmm>>

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben

 

It's a good thing that viewers are more than capable of making up their own minds...... you know you have taken the reference made out of context ; )

 

But Hey ho...that's the Ben we have all come to know folks ; )

 

Apple

 

Nope all the dozen or so references quoted to confirm this fact are all precisely in context

 

Really you do ot need the explanatory notes just read the legislation, it does what it says on the tin.

[applecart]

The above isn't that complicated is it ? - anyway film is about to start Bank Job on ch4+1 great film

 

 

Crikey Ben - your almost as clever as me : )

 

Wonder what those 2 different scenarios might refer to??

 

Could 1 be to do with the "estate" and the other to the "charge"???

 

Tap that magic hat again with your wand...and let me in on the 'slight of hand' ....oooops sorry Ben....I meant to say "the answer" : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Nope all the dozen or so references quoted to confirm this fact are all precisely in context

 

Really you do ot need the explanatory notes just read the legislation, it does what it says on the tin.

 

Ben????

 

Hello Dodgeball......!!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Ben

 

You conveniently forget (pity you) that the application proceeded on the amended written submissions.....it was only the first application (un-amended) version that you rely to confuse the issues here.....hey ho...that's the Ben we have come to know ; )

 

Apple

 

Could the real Ben respond to this please....happy to wait until he finishes watching his movie...

 

 

Cheers...Ta

 

Apple

[caro]

over 200,000 viewers and only 1 poster able to receive a response to an FOI .....ummmmm???

 

That does appear suspect.....see your point here Is It Me......there seems to be evidence of 'compromise' even before the decision has been made.....I thought it was only 'decisions'...not 'progress' that was in the 'public domain'......very strange conduct from the Chamber.....very strange????

 

And all of it available to Ben only.....ummmmm>>

 

Apple

 

Views not viewers.

 

I haven't noticed anyone else mention doing a FOI request.

 

Perhaps you could try and see what you get.

[caro]

I knmow it is a bit late to be starting an other topic, but putting aside the doomed deed thing for a minute.

 

If it were possible to have the deed declared void what about the credit agreement, it would not make that void would it ?

 

Would the lender not just take an action to enforce this and then seek a charging order once he had achieved a CCJ ?

 

Yup!

[applecart]

I knmow it is a bit late to be starting an other topic, but putting aside the doomed deed thing for a minute.

 

If it were possible to have the deed declared void what about the credit agreement, it would not make that void would it ?

 

Would the lender not just take an action to enforce this and then seek a charging order once he had achieved a CCJ ?

 

 

Ah, hello Dodgeball.... here you are - phew... I was getting all confused what with all that head banging and movies and naked bodies and all - crikey almost had an heart attack ; )

 

In answer to your question..... we have yet to see an agreement....so how are they going to get a CCJ off the back of one of those???

 

Apple

[applecart]

Views not viewers.

 

I haven't noticed anyone else mention doing a FOI request.

 

Perhaps you could try and see what you get.

 

Too busy here Caro...far too busy here...... Happy to consider all the evidence that Ben derives - if it is proven to be a compromise (hopefully it will not be - although he did mention the lamb case before the 28 days in which the Lamb case had to look to set aside the decision) - then the matter can become party to a complaint I'd of thought..... ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Sorry Caro.... I just noticed my error - I should have said 'views' not 'viewers'.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Don't... I have to take her shopping on Wednesday because of this and that is even worse than banging my head against the wall explaining basic things to Apple

 

Put your Mrs first or you will pay the price (especially when she finds out you have wasted precious 'wifey time' on a lost cause),......pay up Ben,) you know you are guilty (clearly in your wife's eyes) ....I don't blame her .... do the decent thing man......pay up : )

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Oh boy how I love being patronised!

 

Oh and why should it be of no issue to me or does the mighty applecart deem me unworthy or trying to expand my knowledge

 

... The Queen has not notified me of any intent to award an MBE yet.....unless you know more???

 

Apple

[bhall]

Too busy here Caro...far too busy here...... Happy to consider all the evidence that Ben derives - if it is proven to be a compromise (hopefully it will not be - although he did mention the lamb case before the 28 days in which the Lamb case had to look to set aside the decision) - then the matter can become party to a complaint I'd of thought..... ; )

 

Apple

 

My ears were burning so I thought I would log in.

 

Apple do you actually read this thread ?

 

It doesn't appear you do, either that or (sorry to use the or word) you have a very bad memory. - I would hate to think that you intentionally twist things to mislead readers of this thread.

 

Let's use the above post as an example shall we...

 

"Happy to consider all the evidence that Ben derives - if it is proven to be a compromise (hopefully it will not be - although he did mention the lamb case before the 28 days in which the Lamb case had to look to set aside the decision) - then the matter can become party to a complaint I'd of thought..... ; )"

 

Now what was it Ben actually said - Let's take a look shall we

 

9th January 2014

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4440066&viewfull=1#post4440066

 

To summarise 10 applications have been submitted, out of them one has been struck out (reading posts in this thread that would most likely be Lamb), out of the remaining 9 applications 2 are due to be heard on the 20th.

 

Ben

 

Please note - "(reading posts in this thread that would most likely be Lamb)"

 

I said that because -

 

7th November 2013

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4391767&viewfull=1#post4391767

 

Dear Apple, I have had another letter for the PC today. Referring me to The Mortgage Business Plc v Mrs Tilly Lamb which was appealed as it was a repo kris lamb and her lay person sought what we are doing the PC have struck this out as the Appeal sys no merit of success on LPA 1925 & LPMPA 1989 and her case was land registration act 2002 section2 (1) and section 27(1)

They have sent a copy to my solicitor saying. They are striking this out as it's been dealt with at county court and has no merit of success

 

 

Please note -

 

"Mrs Tilly Lamb which was appealed as it was a repo kris lamb and her lay person sought what we are doing the PC have struck this out as the Appeal sys no merit of success"

 

Least we also not forget

 

7 November 2013

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-Repossession-questioned-by-deeds-not-being-signed&p=4391859&viewfull=1#post4391859

 

Received a letter toady from the Property chamber letter telling me that they have struck out an application. They have sent this also to my lenders solicitors attached is the whole transcript of the above case.

 

Lamb in question was heard at my local county court for originally possession hearing and she had an order against them given. They appealed case To another DJ same court who said no appeal on your grounds, ground being ad stated above that the mortgage deed was indeed a contract and had never been executed properly so in the terms of contract and not executed it have never then formed a mortgage as both signatures of lender and. Borrow weren't on the deed. Lamb appealed again and was heard only for her Appel to be said they found that the DJ originally was correct even though he had not had the section 27 presented originally , some success may of happened if he had but on reflection no and her appeaL lost. again as not enough merit and would be unsuccessful.

I think she had then applied to the property chamber her reference number is newer than mine by 2 and they have struck it out as the DJ has. already litigated on this case.

Have you seen the Lamb transcript?

 

Please note -

 

"Received a letter toady from the Property chamber letter telling me that they have struck out an application."

 

"I think she had then applied to the property chamber her reference number is newer than mine by 2 and they have struck it out as the DJ has. already litigated on this case."

 

I know you never let any real facts get in the way of you telling a good story. However, I have told you about interpreting my posts before. You can't interpret the law and it would appear that you can't interpret the my posts either.

 

You need to stop twisting facts to make yourself look good, it does not work. You just look a little silly now

[caro]

Btw apple. In case you're wondering, Ben and dodgeball are 2 different people.

[bhall]

So both you and Is It Me? trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, can with all due respect, jog on - Your petty games do not work with me and never have

[bhall]

Btw apple. In case you're wondering, Ben and dodgeball are 2 different people.

 

Congratulations DB, you have made it onto the list of people that I am not lol

[bhall]

Put your Mrs first or you will pay the price (especially when she finds out you have wasted precious 'wifey time' on a lost cause),......pay up Ben,) you know you are guilty (clearly in your wife's eyes) ....I don't blame her .... do the decent thing man......pay up : )

 

 

Apple

 

I would not call trying to teach you basic english and very basic property law, a lost cause Apple. I am sure one day you will understand it - it isn't that difficult you just have to ignore your desire to interpret - try it and see

[bhall]

Hi Ben

 

It's a good thing that viewers are more than capable of making up their own minds...... you know you have taken the reference made out of context ; )

 

But Hey ho...that's the Ben we have all come to know folks ; )

 

Apple

 

Out of context ?

 

You either said it or you didn't

 

Just because it does not fit in with your fanciful ideas now, does not change the fact that you said it

[bhall]

Hi Ben

 

You conveniently forget (pity you) that the application proceeded on the amended written submissions.....it was only the first application (un-amended) version that you rely to confuse the issues here.....hey ho...that's the Ben we have come to know ; )

 

Apple

 

I have not forgotten about it. I think you have forgotten what you wrote about a mortgage by demise....

 

I did try to warn you at the time but your ego prevented you from listening. Just remember at the time, I tried to correct you and you thought you knew best