Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

Yes I know I am posting on here again.

 

Mainly to say that this thread must be confusing to people who are relatively new to this subject(as I was) and trying to get a handle on the real meaning of the legislation in this area.

 

I would recommend going here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender

 

Most of all the relevant information regarding the legal requirement/purpose for the deed and its method of delivery is contained within the first page, and most of the relevant case law(without being misinterpreted by apple on her to everyone's confusion).

 

There is also an, if I may say so insightful and instructive post by steampower on there which echos what has been said by ben and fits perfectly with what is said in the legislation and supporting evidence.

 

Ta

[bigphil61]

If the consumer wins - what do they expect the outcome to do for them - are they expecting the money they borrowed to buy their home to be written off ?

 

 

 

Hi Ell-enn, Please accept my aplogies if someone has already posted you an answer. Please read this article on the Garguillo case, it gives a clear indication of what happens when the deed is deemed to be void:http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commercialblawg.com%2Fbusiness-law%2Fgarguilo-v-jon-howard-gershinson-2-louisa-brooks-joint-fixed-charge-receivers-of-desmond-daniel-charles-moore%2F&ei=Yt78UqffC4SR7AaN5IGABw&usg=AFQjCNGRudqbwiNCCC4gp9kxCjgANhoR2Q

[Ell-enn]

Hi Ell-enn, Please accept my aplogies if someone has already posted you an answer. Please read this article on the Garguillo case, it gives a clear indication of what happens when the deed is deemed to be void: http://www.commercialblawg.com/business-law/garguilo-v-jon-howard-gershinson-2-louisa-brooks-joint-fixed-charge-receivers-of-desmond-daniel-charles-moore/

 

 

Sorry Bigphil the link doesn't work, just takes me to a front page of a Commercial Law site

[bigphil61]

Hi Ell-enn, Sorry got the link messed up, please try again...BP

[IS IT ME?]

Originally Posted by Dodgeball:

Mortgages can be enforced without judicial intervention there has to be proof that there was intent to form a legal mortgage or that the borrower intended to transfer title on the land, this is opposed to having an interest in the land as in just an equitable charge, this was all explained in the Lamb judgment.

 

When the deeds validity is being questioned, it is its confirmation of an agreement to transfer the title and thus enable the foreclosure, this is not anything to do with section 2 as that is about an interest in the estate not the estate itself.

Ermmm who signs " confirmation of an agreement to transfer the title " when taking out a mortgage or even inform of this

Come on hands up who's got the letter confirming this ?

Well those who say one thing and do another!

It's you Ben who have put pages and pages on here all of the same thing yet at the hearing you never replied on any off them!

I still can not post and YOU should be asking why, not keep having a go at apple after all with 210,000 views some thing must be worrying for you when yours has what 250!

We will await the chambers ruling on this and as you you claiming that you are worried about people having costs, it's only to cases at this time, there are another 9 that are awaiting a ruling and they have NO costs added as yet!

I asked for you to answer the above post but again like the simple question from apple you could not do so!

I also asked if you would be willing to put your money were your mouth is? The offer is still there!

I don't think the site team will allow this post as it goes against good old Ben lol

[applecart]

It was my honest intention not to post again until the written decision of the Property Chamber in response to the application drafted by Apple had been issued.

 

However, after reading the subsequent every growing bizarre and worrying posts, I honestly feel that I am left with no option other than to post.

 

It would appear that Apple has forgotten that the recently posted link to the Lords, has in fact been posted before in a different format (from Hansard) to actually disprove one of Apple’s fanciful ideas in regard to the claims that a borrower has no power to grant a legal charge (charge by deed, expressed to be by way of legal mortgage).

 

However, in the last 12 or so hours, amazingly Apple has posted this information in a bizarre claim that it actually supports Apples views. I can only assume as was recently shown in relation to both garguillo and bibby, Apple has not actually read or understood what the document Apple has linked too actually says – I think with respect we have to take into consideration that Apple may be dyslexic or that English is not Apple’s first language.( I honestly do not mean any disrespect or any offense, I just can't think of any other rational explanation), I only say this because, the link that Apple has recently posted numerous times actually disproves one of the fanciful ideas of this thread and states-

 

Please note the words in brackets and in blue are my own additions to the document.

 

“On Report the Government and the Opposition moved amendments to clause 23 to deal with the question of how a legal charge (that would be a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage) could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to (that would be a mortgage by demise or sub-demise) can no longer be created. This problem arises because the bill will take away the power to create a mortgage by demise. Baroness Scotland explained the Government’s amendment.

 

Clause 23(1)(a) states than an owner’s powers to deal with a registered estate do not extend to the creation of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. As your Lordships will recall from Committee, that is a simplification of the existing law, introduced because those methods of creating mortgages are not used any more (because nearly all mortgages for decades have been mortgage by charge and not mortgage by demise or sub-demise) . I very much appreciate the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to that change.

 

Noble Lords opposite helpfully spotted that Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a mortgage has the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgagee by demise or sub-demise. The amendment should make the intended effect abundantly clear. (that is what they hoped for but as shown my Apples posts, it was not clear enough for Apple to understand)

However, we respectfully suggest that it is necessary to retain the reference to the creation of mortgages by demise or sub-demise, as that will still be possible in relation to unregistered land. It is beyond the scope of the Bill to legislate in respect of such land.

 

We prefer our amendment to Amendment No. 26, as it inserts a new subsection directly into Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It would be more helpful to insert the new subsection directly into the section whose interpretation it is designed to assist

 

The Lords tried to make it ‘abundantly clear’ that a legal charge (charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage) is not effected by s.23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002, which had the effect of abolishing mortgages by demise or sub-demise. Leaving the legal charge, the only type of mortgage a borrower can grant in regard to a registered estate.

 

Personally I feel that they did a very good job of making it clear.

 

Look at the question - "the question of how a legal charge could be defined when what it is said to be equivalent to can no longer be created."

 

In regard to the Lords link you said

 

 

 

Well it is straight from the 'horses' mouth that you are wrong and you are right (for once), you can't beat that

 

The answer to the question, provided by the Lord disproves your claims and yet you keep posting it over, over and over again.... very weird

 

 

Ben, now seriously....What on earth are you harping on about here man???

 

Read it again.........s.l.o.w.l.y.........

 

You do Know that you are speaking and no one (other than me, Dodge, Crappo, and f70, and a few site team) is actually taking any notice of you - you do know that don't you??

 

You seem to assume that you are the ONLY one (along with the reserved few who share your idea's - fanciful and illusionary as they may be) that has the 'angle' on this topic......

 

Well.... Ben, it is a good thing that I am not the only one who is able to understand what the Lords say and mean....or the statute.......looks like others are totally ignoring you.......

 

Guess what Ben......I'm not sure if you are aware........but......I heard on the grapevine that the number of applications have actually increased mate

 

Apple

Edited February 14, 2014 by citizenB

[Peterbard]

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

 

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

 

In his judgment of 12 July 2013, His Honour Judge Butler held that Lamb's argument was "illusory" and "false".

[bigphil61]

Sorry Bigphil the link doesn't work, just takes me to a front page of a Commercial Law site

 

 

Hi Ell-enn, You might have missed it, so I've posted the link again for you, if you look at the conclusion you can form your own opinion. As I understand it the lender in this case was Lloyds Bank Plc. I have also taken the liberty of adding para 77 directly from the actual decision which reads:

 

 

Should rectification be ordered?

 

 

1. As I have said, it is common ground that if the register is rectified by the removal of the Lease, the Charge will fall away. The Bank may or may not be entitled to be indemnified under section 103 and Schedule 8 to the Act.
   

 

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commercialblawg.com%2Fbusiness-law%2Fgarguilo-v-jon-howard-gershinson-2-louisa-brooks-joint-fixed-charge-receivers-of-desmond-daniel-charles-moore%2F&ei=4PP8UpDuDcjD7Aati4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNGRudqbwiNCCC4gp9kxCjgANhoR2Q&bvm=bv.61190604,d.d2k

[applecart]

Originally Posted by Dodgeball:

Mortgages can be enforced without judicial intervention there has to be proof that there was intent to form a legal mortgage or that the borrower intended to transfer title on the land, this is opposed to having an interest in the land as in just an equitable charge, this was all explained in the Lamb judgment.

 

When the deeds validity is being questioned, it is its confirmation of an agreement to transfer the title and thus enable the foreclosure, this is not anything to do with section 2 as that is about an interest in the estate not the estate itself.

Ermmm who signs " confirmation of an agreement to transfer the title " when taking out a mortgage or even inform of this

Come on hands up who's got the letter confirming this ?

Well those who say one thing and do another!

It's you Ben who have put pages and pages on here all of the same thing yet at the hearing you never replied on any off them!

I still can not post and YOU should be asking why, not keep having a go at apple after all with 210,000 views some thing must be worrying for you when yours has what 250!

We will await the chambers ruling on this and as you you claiming that you are worried about people having costs, it's only to cases at this time, there are another 9 that are awaiting a ruling and they have NO costs added as yet!

I asked for you to answer the above post but again like the simple question from apple you could not do so!

I also asked if you would be willing to put your money were your mouth is? The offer is still there!

I don't think the site team will allow this post as it goes against good old Ben lol

 

 

 

 

I'm conscious that Ben's view will remain different to mine....if i say it is yellow and blue that makes green - Ben will say 'no...it's blue and yellow that makes green....but not the green you think Apple.... this green has a "hint" of "green"..... see..... you've got it the wrong way round - what with all your fanciful illussionary interpretations...you missed out the word "of"...you haven't spotted the difference

 

The number of applications are actually increasing so I've heard on the grapevine......and there are definitely more than "10" applications made - contrary to what Bhall purports to be the case.... wonder why the Chamber would even reply to such a request and in accepting that they did - cuz Ben said so and he posted the evidence (albeit I noticed he's a dab hand at drawing up posters and plastering them on here....not sure he bothered to put it on his own thread) - why did they suppress the truth from him???

 

Yes, there is every effort here on the thread to submit the 'alternative view'..... which is to be absolutely applauded......however at the hearing ..... they were not so vocall.... in fact .... it has to be said..... they were 'DUMBSTRUCK'........strange that......very strange

 

Ah well...... 'dumbstruck' is NO DEFENCE.......that's possibly why they have been allowed 28 days to find their voice....... let's see what they manage to say....they didn't rely on anything posted by Ben here.....maybe..... they should or will......oh forgot.... they did!!.......that reliance fell short it would seem......ooooopppppsssss!!!

 

 

 

so, onwards and upwards

 

Apple

Edited February 14, 2014 by ims21

[Peterbard]

Sorry Bigphil the link doesn't work, just takes me to a front page of a Commercial Law site

 

Hi Ell-enn

An interesting case to be sure, something to be borne in mind when comparing it to the OPs case.

 

Firstly this was a three party arrangement, where a lease was granted by the initial borrower to the lessee.

 

Secondly it was the validity of the deed between the lessee and the borrower that was in question(not the borrower and the lender), as it was on the back of this that the lessee to a loan with the lender.

 

As far as the consequences of the invalidity of the deed on the lender, the matter is complicated because the loan was given to the lessee who it turned out had no right to the property to which the loan was secured.

 

This would not be the case in the op situation as the subject of the lease would be plainly the ops property so an action could be made to secure a charge even if the original charge was for some reason considered to be void( once the agreement was enforced).

 

I do not know what happened in the case mentioned I suppose the bank would take an action against the lenders, although they may have pursued the borrowers, as it was apparently down to their error(and as said the act does indemnify them in this respect) that the lease was not correctly formed, I would not be at all surprised if this has not all been covered already on this thread, but it is not really relevant to the OPs case IMO.

[applecart]

Hi Ell-enn, You might have missed it, so I've posted the link again for you, if you look at the conclusion you can form your own opinion. As I understand it the lender in this case was Lloyds Bank Plc. I have also taken the liberty of adding para 77 directly from the actual decision which reads:

 

 

Should rectification be ordered?

 

 

1. As I have said, it is common ground that if the register is rectified by the removal of the Lease, the Charge will fall away. The Bank may or may not be entitled to be indemnified under section 103 and Schedule 8 to the Act.
   

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commercialblawg.com%2Fbusiness-law%2Fgarguilo-v-jon-howard-gershinson-2-louisa-brooks-joint-fixed-charge-receivers-of-desmond-daniel-charles-moore%2F&ei=4PP8UpDuDcjD7Aati4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNGRudqbwiNCCC4gp9kxCjgANhoR2Q&bvm=bv.61190604,d.d2k

 

Lenders will have to of course consider if there is any indemnity due to them - Subject to LRA 2002 - Schedule 8 para (5):

 

Claimant’s fraud or lack of care

 

5(1)No indemnity is payable under this Schedule on account of any loss suffered by a claimant—

(a)wholly or partly as a result of his own fraud, or

(b)wholly as a result of his own lack of proper care.

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Hi Ell-enn

An interesting case to be sure, something to be borne in mind when comparing it to the OPs case.

 

Firstly this was a three party arrangement, where a lease was granted by the initial borrower to the lessee.

 

Secondly it was the validity of the deed between the lessee and the borrower that was in question(not the borrower and the lender), as it was on the back of this that the lessee to a loan with the lender.

 

As far as the consequences of the invalidity of the deed on the lender, the matter is complicated because the loan was given to the lessee who it turned out had no right to the property to which the loan was secured.

 

This would not be the case in the op situation as the subject of the lease would be plainly the ops property so an action could be made to secure a charge even if the original charge was for some reason considered to be void( once the agreement was enforced).

 

I do not know what happened in the case mentioned I suppose the bank would take an action against the lenders, although they may have pursued the borrowers, as it was apparently down to their error(and as said the act does indemnify them in this respect) that the lease was not correctly formed, I would not be at all surprised if this has not all been covered already on this thread, but it is not really relevant to the OPs case IMO.

 

 

Hi Dodgebhall, Thanks for your interpretation, but to be fair, I did ask Ell-enn to form her own opinion, as should we all...BP

[applecart]

Hi Ell-enn, You might have missed it, so I've posted the link again for you, if you look at the conclusion you can form your own opinion. As I understand it the lender in this case was Lloyds Bank Plc. I have also taken the liberty of adding para 77 directly from the actual decision which reads:

 

 

Should rectification be ordered?

 

 

1. As I have said, it is common ground that if the register is rectified by the removal of the Lease, the Charge will fall away. The Bank may or may not be entitled to be indemnified under section 103 and Schedule 8 to the Act.
   

 

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commercialblawg.com%2Fbusiness-law%2Fgarguilo-v-jon-howard-gershinson-2-louisa-brooks-joint-fixed-charge-receivers-of-desmond-daniel-charles-moore%2F&ei=4PP8UpDuDcjD7Aati4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNGRudqbwiNCCC4gp9kxCjgANhoR2Q&bvm=bv.61190604,d.d2k

 

 

LRA Schedule 8:

 

Interpretation

11(1)For the purposes of this Schedule, references to a mistake in something include anything mistakenly omitted from it as well as anything mistakenly included in it.

(2)In this Schedule, references to rectification of the register are to alteration of the register which—

(a)involves the correction of a mistake, and

(b)prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.

 

ummmm????

 

 

wonder who's name is in the 'proprietor' section then??

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

LRA Schedule 8:

 

Interpretation

11(1)For the purposes of this Schedule, references to a mistake in something include anything mistakenly omitted from it as well as anything mistakenly included in it.

(2)In this Schedule, references to rectification of the register are to alteration of the register which—

(a)involves the correction of a mistake, and

(b)prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.

 

ummmm????

 

 

wonder who's name is in the 'proprietor' section then??

 

 

Apple

 

I supposed the statute must be referring to all those invalid charging clause in the deed .... such as the term 'full title guarantee'..... 'proprietor of '[legal] charge'.....'charge by way of legal mortgage'......and the 'restriction'.............not to mention the failure to include that 'further advance' notice......yes, those would warrant an indemnity being due to the 'registered proprietor' - the borrower of course : )

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgebhall, Thanks for your interpretation, but to be fair, I did ask Ell-enn to form her own opinion, as should we all...BP

 

I think you will find that it was I who initially answered the query, also I don't not seek to make any ones mind up for them , this is why I prefaced my answer with"something to be borne in mind" and ended it with IMO.

 

Also I don't need your permission to comment on this thread.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi. All

Let's see if I can post

Dodgeball, the firm of solicitors you put so much faith in

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/ are the ones who did not want to touch this with a barge pole and if you HAD read the thread you would have seen then noted there, but as usual it's all apples fault lol

The games up!

[Peterbard]

Hi. All

Let's see if I can post

Dodgeball, the firm of solicitors you put so much faith in

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/ are the ones who did not want to touch this with a barge pole and if you HAD read the thread you would have seen then noted there, but as usual it's all apples fault lol

The games up!

 

I got the link form earlier in the thread, and i do not blame them. You would have been wise to take the hint.

 

Indecently there are links from no less than three separate firms of solicitors on here that say exactly the same thing

[fletch70]

I have to ask this

Earlier on in the thread Ben said that there were 10 cases 1 of which had been struck out , 2 on 20th and the remaining 7 possibly stayed until the ruling on the ones on the 20th

 

Apple and everyone else seemed fine to accept that, in fact Apple was at great pains to say there weren't many applications so no one was endangering anyones money and no one was being egged on by this thread

 

Now all of a sudden you have "heard on the grapevine" that there are more applications. Can you specify which grapevine?

Also Ben's info may be outdated because he asked a few weeks ago but that doesn't mean it was wrong or that he lied .

 

This thread is hard enough to follow without things like this being put in the way.

Edited February 13, 2014 by ims21

[IS IT ME?]

I got the link form earlier in the thread, and i do not blame them. You would have been wise to take the hint.

 

Indecently there are links from no less than three separate firms of solicitors on here that say exactly the same thing

 

And that is what I am saying they work for the lenders NOT the borrowers and by the ways. Hey are number 1 of 4 who washed their hands of it so not much confredence in the write up was there but you post it up May be some one will believe it lol

Well done

[Peterbard]

And that is what I am saying they work for the lenders NOT the borrowers and by the ways. Hey are number 1 of 4 who washed their hands of it so not much confredence in the write up was there but you post it up May be some one will believe it lol

Well done

 

Here is a news flash for you.#

Solicitors generally take on cases they think they can win. !!!!!

[Peterbard]

The opinion of a solicitor with 25 years experience

 

 

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/2e2yj-hi-when-mortgage-deed-signed-uk-residential-mortgage.html

 

And

 

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/34f2c-mortgage-deed-not-signed-sealed-mortgage-provider.html

 

According to the website she only provided answers to over 25,000 satisfied customers...

 

That's nothing !

 

But hey what does someone with that amount of experience know anyway.

 

Another legal opinion

 

https://360.optimalegal.co.uk/2013/warning-secured-lenders-do-you-sign-mortgage-deeds/

 

And another legal opinion

 

http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/social-medias-mortgage-revolution-does-not-materialise

 

Combine that with the two cases previously posted (green and helden) the professional legal point of view is clear.

 

But what do these people know anyway...

 

Here it was

 

[applecart]

I have to ask this

Earlier on in the thread Ben said that there were 10 cases 1 of which had been struck out , 2 on 20th and the remaining 7 possibly stayed until the ruling on the ones on the 20th

 

Apple and everyone else seemed fine to accept that, in fact Apple was at great pains to say there weren't many applications so no one was endangering anyones money and no one was being egged on by this thread

 

Now all of a sudden you have "heard on the grapevine" that there are more applications. Can you specify which grapevine?

Also Ben's info may be outdated because he asked a few weeks ago but that doesn't mean it was wrong or that he lied .

 

This thread is hard enough to follow without things like this being put in the way.

 

 

I have to ask this: Do you dream about me fletch??

 

I only ask because I don't think there are very many of your posts where you don't mention me......

 

If You do dream about me......please; keep it clean ok ; )

 

It's like this Fletch.....you press some digits on your mobile phone....you call the Chamber......and when your call is answered - you ask politely "can you tell me, rumour has it that you have only received 10 applications.....is that true?"

 

You then wait for the person to answer you and take a note of what is said - then post it up for one and all to see.....I did not need to ask or infer who had been heard or not..... I simply asked - the 'rumour has it'.....'is that true'?

 

the "grapevine" is - I'm not willing to divulge to you who I spoke to at the Chamber.....because - with respect - it's non of your business.....

 

Simple really though...it didn't hurt.... it was a painless but informative exercise - you should try it Fletch,

 

Oh, it was not that I did not want to believe Ben.... it was just that after he reneged on the s.2 point.... I thought 'oi, oi better check what he is telling me'.......so I did ; )

 

You don't take issue with me carrying out such a simple exercise to check out what I was being 'led' to believe I hope?

 

Apple

[bhall]

I have to ask this

Earlier on in the thread Ben said that there were 10 cases 1 of which had been struck out , 2 on 20th and the remaining 7 possibly stayed until the ruling on the ones on the 20th

 

Apple and everyone else seemed fine to accept that, in fact Apple was at great pains to say there weren't many applications so no one was endangering anyones money and no one was being egged on by this thread

 

Now all of a sudden you have "heard on the grapevine" that there are more applications. Can you specify which grapevine?

Also Ben's info may be outdated because he asked a few weeks ago but that doesn't mean it was wrong or that he lied .

 

This thread is hard enough to follow without things like this being put in the way.

 

Hello Fletch

 

It is one of Apple's tactics recently to accuse me of being a liar and now it would appear to accuse me of committing fraud.

 

The first time Apple accused me of being a liar was after I posted a number if extracts from Halsbury's Laws of England. Whilst Apple confirmed he/ she had not read Halsbury's, Apple accused me of shoehorning additional information into those extracts.

 

The only basis of that accusation was that the extracts from Halsbury's disproved a number of Apples fanciful ideas. So in Apples mind it must be made up - This was the first unsubstantiated accusation made by Apple about me being a liar.

 

Is It Me? ordered Halsbury's for £29.99 in an attempt to substantiate the accusation made by Apple. To date, no evidence to support Apples accusation has been presented.

 

You may recall that recently Apple challenged the accuracy of an email, I recently posted from the Property Chamber. Again it was implied that the content was not accurate. Again this claim was unsubstantiated and based upon nothing other than it was information Apple was not aware of. Unbeknown to Apple to pre-empt such an accusation, before posting about the email, I took the liberty of sending an unedited copy to a member of the site team.

 

Apple now accuses me of being a liar and by changing the number of applications made, Apple accuses me of committing fraud. Unbeknown to Apple again, the Ministry of Justice maintains a public record of Freedom of Information Act requests it has complied with and it is available to view on its website. Currently the log of completed requests is only up to Dec 2013, no doubt it will shortly be updated to include Jan 2014.

 

At that time, everyone will be able to see on the Ministry of Justice website a copy of the response to my FOI request, confirming that as of the date of that response only 10 applications had been made.

 

I am sure Apple will then apologise for the accusations that I have lied and committed fraud.

[applecart]

Here is a news flash for you.#

Solicitors generally take on cases they think they can win. !!!!!

 

Really???

 

Are you trying to infer that because a firm of solicitors are involved that they will win?........Are you even trying to suggest that Borrowers should shy away because of this????

 

What about a situation - such as in Is It Me's friends case where 3 or 4 firms of solicitors - including Optima Legal Services declined to take the application on ......

 

IMO - that tells me that the firm who has taken the case on - is soooooo desperate (or more likely - lenders "last port in a storm").... who for an enhanced fee.....has been foolish enough to even attempt to take on a case that it's own peer group have declined (clearly they are willing to put their reputation on the line - where those above him would not do so - not even for all the money in the world) - and what for????? the 'chance' or better put the 'hope' that they will win a 'new' client over it's peer group ........looks like they are about to pay the price huh : )

 

They are stuck with 28 days - their Barrister was 'DUMBSTRUCK' at the Hearing Dodge......

 

I think you'll find it's ore a case of........How do they repair the reputation of the barrister who's name will be plastered in the final decision (won't look good on his/her CV will it)....and also their own reputation when they have to concede that they were beaten in the Chamber by an un-represented layperson.....

 

Ooooooops???

 

28 days and counting s all the Chamber has given them....that's the time they have left to repair their reputations .....ladeedah ladeedah ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

I have to ask this: Do you dream about me fletch??

 

I only ask because I don't think there are very many of your posts where you don't mention me......

 

If You do dream about me......please; keep it clean ok ; )

 

It's like this Fletch.....you press some digits on your mobile phone....you call the Chamber......and when your call is answered - you ask politely "can you tell me, rumour has it that you have only received 10 applications.....is that true?"

 

You then wait for the person to answer you and take a note of what is said - then post it up for one and all to see.....I did not need to ask or infer who had been heard or not..... I simply asked - the 'rumour has it'.....'is that true'?

 

the "grapevine" is - I'm not willing to divulge to you who I spoke to at the Chamber.....because - with respect - it's non of your business.....

 

Simple really though...it didn't hurt.... it was a painless but informative exercise - you should try it Fletch,

 

Oh, it was not that I did not want to believe Ben.... it was just that after he reneged on the s.2 point.... I thought 'oi, oi better check what he is telling me'.......so I did ; )

 

You don't take issue with me carrying out such a simple exercise to check out what I was being 'led' to believe I hope?

 

Apple

 

I also have a number of outstanding FOI requests that once I receive a response I will post details of them in this thread, safe in the knowledge that as it is information Apple is not aware of, again I will be accused of being a liar, fraud and no doubt other accusations will be made ;-)

 

With such accusations and the recent changes to the law - It is lucky I am not the bhall, Enfircer claimed I was ;-)