Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

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

 

If I am the only one that has made a FOI request, is it any surprise I am the only one that got a response ?

 

more flawed apple logic

[bhall]

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

 

 

Cheers...Ta

 

Apple

 

Demands for me to respond from someone that ducks and dives straight forward questions - oh the irony

[applecart]

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Hi Ben

 

not only are your ears burning, but your head must be wrecked with all that banging it against a brick wall ; )

 

Whilst you now purport to rely on Alisono's posts...... the fact is the Chamber gave you information regarding a case that is still in progress...... the Lamb case had 28 days to progress...but you were able to derive info .... as evidenced by your post on this thread relating to the progress derived from an FOI....not from Alisono's post...do you get where Is It Me is coming from??

 

You are making it look as though the Chamber have a blatant disregard for applications being made in confidence...... you have compromised the CaG...because viewers may make reference to it ....same like Is It Me.....

 

That's the point made here....nothing more..... I hope you have deep pockets for wednesday's shopping spree??

 

Apple

[bhall]

Apple don't make me post chubby checker and sam cooke again, you know I will

 

'twist'n'

[bhall]

Hi Ben

 

not only are your ears burning, but your head must be wrecked with all that banging it against a brick wall ; )

 

Whilst you now purport to rely on Alisono's posts...... the fact is the Chamber gave you information regarding a case that is still in progress...... the Lamb case had 28 days to progress...but you were able to derive info .... as evidenced by your post on this thread relating to the progress derived from an FOI....not from Alisono's post...do you get where Is It Me is coming from??

 

You are making it look as though the Chamber have a blatant disregard for applications being made in confidence...... you have compromised the CaG...because viewers may make reference to it ....same like Is It Me.....

 

That's the point made here....nothing more..... I hope you have deep pockets for wednesday's shopping spree??

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

You are ignoring the fact that the Property Chamber gave me no information about lamb and the Property Chamber made no reference to lamb whatsoever, you are just making this up now

 

what I said was

 

"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"

 

This was some two months after (in otherwords more than 28 days if that even matters) the property chamber had already told Alisono that Lamb had been struck out

 

 

Even you must be able to see your flawed logic

[applecart]

Demands for me to respond from someone that ducks and dives straight forward questions - oh the irony

 

Don't stress Ben......Caro has assured me that Dodgeball and Bhall are separate people ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple

 

You are ignoring the fact that the Property Chamber gave me no information and the Property Chamber about and made no reference to lamb whatsoever, you are just making this up now

 

I'm sorry, but you did infer that it was the lamb case that had been struck out after your received the response from the Chamber.....

 

What do you think people will take from your posts Ben?... do you think that when you infer the lamb case that they are going to understand that you meant something else??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple don't make me post chubby checker and sam cooke again, you know I will

 

'twist'n'

 

hahahah - funny - you know your Mrs will make you pay by way of yet another shopping trip ; )

 

Best to avoid that Ben : )

[bhall]

I'm sorry, but you did infer that it was the lamb case that had been struck out after your received the response from the Chamber.....

 

What do you think people will take from your posts Ben?... do you think that when you infer the lamb case that they are going to understand that you meant something else??

 

Apple

 

 

Apple you are clutching at straws.

 

There has been no breach of confidentiality - please for once, just read what is actually said - go on break a habit of a life time

[bhall]

hahahah - funny - you know your Mrs will make you pay by way of yet another shopping trip ; )

 

Best to avoid that Ben : )

 

Stop twisting and interpreting things then

 

Read what things say, don't interpret them to mean whatever you want them to mean on that specific day

[bhall]

Don't stress Ben......Caro has assured me that Dodgeball and Bhall are separate people ; )

 

Apple

 

I wonder who I won't be tomorrow - Fletch, if your lucky, tomorrow I won't be you

[caro]

I wonder who I won't be tomorrow

 

Always assuming you aren't REALLY me, dodgeball et al.

 

Time for me to turn in. Night all.

[Crapstone]

What's the fuss about with bhall? If they want to make a FOI then it's up to them and it's open to anyone. If they have inside knowledge , the power to subscribe to certain places or it's part of their job then that's up to them and I'd sooner they do it and not just leaving this hanging as it's going to be public whatever is said. I don't see much forthcoming from Is it Me or Apple other than trying to make the argument personal and it's not much good threatening action when you've already offered up things and ASKED for this discussion Is It Me.

 

You've even turned up against the moderators who are the very people trying to help! Not everyone has an agenda, and if they do, then it's only to stop people jumping in feet first with foolish ideas especially when it's not them that's going through it!

 

Whatever next? Am I going to be accused of being Apple, Bhall or Caro? I certainly need an avatar similar to bhall that's for sure.

[bhall]

Always assuming you aren't REALLY me, dodgeball et al.

 

Time for me to turn in. Night all.

 

lol good night caro - you will start rumours

[bhall]

What's the fuss about with bhall? If they want to make a FOI then it's up to them and it's open to anyone. If they have inside knowledge , the power to subscribe to certain places or it's part of their job then that's up to them and I'd sooner they do it and not just leaving this hanging as it's going to be public whatever is said. I don't see much forthcoming from Is it Me or Apple other than trying to make the argument personal and it's not much good threatening action when you've already offered up things and ASKED for this discussion Is It Me.

 

You've even turned up against the moderators who are the very people trying to help! Not everyone has an agenda, and if they do, then it's only to stop people jumping in feet first with foolish ideas especially when it's not them that's going through it!

 

Whatever next? Am I going to be accused of being Apple, Bhall or Caro? I certainly need an avatar similar to bhall that's for sure.

 

 

Thank you for one of the most sensible posts of the day

[Crapstone]

Nite Caro..whoever you are lol..

[Crapstone]

You're welcome bhall. Just wait and see what happens and then we'll know for sure who has flogged the proverbial dead horse as it's not too comfortable sitting on this fence

[applecart]

Crikey, the cavalry is out ; )

 

At the end of the day.....this thread is not about any other than the OP's application being made to the Chamber.

 

The OP is 100% happy so far......

 

That's where it is at.....all this latent banter makes no difference to the application.....the application is in full swing.....nothing said now will change it.

 

It is on point.......the OP's friend had no statutory power to grant a 'mortgage'

 

The OP's friend is not bound to a deed that has not been 'assumed' (executed) by the Lender.

 

The Lender had no business selling off a mortgage or debt to an SPV.....

 

For that....the Lender will pay the price....he's charge will be altered/removed.....of that - there should be no doubt ; )

 

If the Lender cannot come up with a reason why his charge should be allowed to stay within 28 days.......it will be removed....end of really : )

 

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Did I read this bit from the 'duff' case correctly......???

 

"Conclusion

 

In bringing an action to obtain possession of a borrower’s family home, the lender must be able to demonstrate that it has made every reasonable effort to come up with a repayment schemeicon and to engage with the borrower. There is no contractual entitlement to an order for possession in respect of registered land and the lenders must determine that it can satisfy the proofs set out in section 62(7) whereby the right for possession accrued before 1 December 2009. If the property is unregistered land, an order for possession is possible but the bank must now demonstrate compliance with the code of conduct."

 

I wonder what Lenders will make of that????

 

Add to that = the DEED is VOID.......oooooopppppssss!!!!

 

There remains NO DEFENCE....!!

 

It's a wee bit quieter now I notice.....

 

Apple

 

Hi All

 

Just to ensure we remember the focus - Above is one of my previous posts. The link source to the case referred to is here:

 

http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news/difficultiesincreaseforlenderstoobtainpossessionorders.html

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can I just point something out very quickly.......whilst the deed has to be signed by the lender...of that there is no doubt....

 

You will notice this deed says....

 

Barclays BANK PLC acknowledges the receipt of all monies secured by

the within written Legal mortgage

 

 

So, where's the issue you might ask?

 

Look again at the statement.... then ask yourself.....when is it that Barclays intend to 'acknowledge receipt of all monies'??

 

Then question....if you as a Borrower are paying in 'installments'..... there will be no execution of that document until ALL those instalments amount to the full balance of the loan.....right??

 

So, therefore....they don't execute it.....they can't execute it.....because essentially ....they say they will not execute it until ALL the money is paid in full.....

 

But, as a borrower... you took out a 25 year loan......Anyone managed to pay that 'final' installment???.......

 

NO!!

 

Everyone got or about to get a suspended possession order?

 

YES!!

 

Anyone's house been re-possessed before they get round to paying the final installment?

 

YES!!

 

Is the deed then signed/executed by the Lender..... (you know the same said Deed that they tell you they do not have to execute)

 

YES!!

 

FINAL QUESTIONS.....

 

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO STILL THINKS THE LENDER DOES NOT OR DOES NOT HAVE TO EXECUTE THE DEED???

 

IS THERE ANYONE WHO REMAINS UNSURE OF WHEN THAT DEED MUST BE EXECUTED BY THE LENDER.....?

 

can those who say...'a lender does not have to execute the deed'.....please come forward and let us all know......Why are they Executing them them... (albeit quite wrongly - in their own time frame of course)

 

I've said it once, I will say it again....Lenders cannot be allowed to continue to have it both ways....we have found out....we are on to them....

 

Now where is that horse I was accused of 'flogging' again???

 

Good On YOU Is It Me......Thanks for bringing these 'deeds' to the forum ; )

 

Apple

 

For anyone who is unsure how we got to where we are ....... see the above post......we had no choice but to flog the 'horse' in the above manner in order to get where we are today ; )

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Why then does the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the trade organisation representing Lenders including High Street Lenders the same as on your example Deeds, give guidance to Borrowers telling them that Lenders should sign the Deed?Why? Answer me that then?

 

 

Here is what the CML says:-

 

If your conveyancer is also acting for your lender, your lender may instruct the conveyancer to prepare the mortgage deed. This is the legal contract between you and the lender. Your conveyancer will explain the terms of the mortgage deed to you, and then have them signed by you and the lender.

 

My conveyancer also acted for the Lender (like in thousands of cases) and strange they didn't sign the Deed.

 

???

 

WP

 

 

 

Hi Dodgeball, Thank you for confirming (#4776) that you have read this thread from the beginning. I would assume that having read the above post that you might have formed an opinion, would you be kind enough to share that opinion? BP

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/consumers/homebuy/homebuy2

[Peterbard]

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

 

just because you haven't sen one does not mean that one does not exist , it must have if money changed hands.

 

Even if the charge was proven to be void(which will not happen) there is still then a matter of the outstanding finance, do you think they will just give it up ?

[applecart]

just because you haven't sen one does not mean that one does not exist , it must have if money changed hands.

 

Even if the charge was proven to be void(which will not happen) there is still then a matter of the outstanding finance, do you think they will just give it up ?

 

 

That's your opinion..... ; )

 

Do I think they will just give up??.......if the chamber determines the deed is void and sends written notice to the Registrar to remove the Lenders charge......the purported security goes.......if they then take the matter to court to seek a CCJ for the 'debt'......and they cannot put forth a valid agreement......I'd have thought they would have great difficulty in doing anything other than to give up.......who's to know though......I cannot pre-empt what a lender will or will not do......??

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball, Thank you for confirming (#4776) that you have read this thread from the beginning. I would assume that having read the above post that you might have formed an opinion, would you be kind enough to share that opinion? BPhttp://www.cml.org.uk/cml/consumers/homebuy/homebuy2

 

 

Who knows it is guidance not statute, they may be referring to the contract rather than the deed,(as per Lamb) or they may just have got it wrong. Who knows.

 

I have had several mortgages and the deed has never been signed by the lender, in fact looking at my deed there is not even any space for a lenders signature.

 

In a contractual sense, lenders signatures do not generally have to be there in order for the agreement to be properly executed, if there is consideration.

[Peterbard]

That's your opinion..... ; )

 

Do I think they will just give up??.......if the chamber determines the deed is void and sends written notice to the Registrar to remove the Lenders charge......the purported security goes.......if they then take the matter to court to seek a CCJ for the 'debt'......and they cannot put forth a valid agreement......I'd have thought they would have great difficulty in doing anything other than to give up.......who's to know though......I cannot pre-empt what a lender will or will not do......??

 

Apple

 

Yes, creditors do pursue debts without the written documentation being present, and courts do enforce on balance of probability that an agreement must have been made.

They do not like debtors being unjustly enriched, and then there is the lenders human rights as in Wilson at the lords, peaceful enjoyment and all that.