Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Jabba the hut]

From Practice Guide 6 .......bet you can work out who this titbit relates to different from that posted earlier for yourselves:

 

3 Death of a sole proprietor (or sole surviving proprietor) of a registered estate or of a charge or mortgage

 

3.1 Registration of the personal representatives

 

To make an application to Land Registry to register the personal representatives of a sole registered proprietor of a registered estate or of a charge or mortgage, you will need to send us the following.

 

Application form AP1.

 

Evidence of the grant of representation, which should be either the original or official copy of the grant of probate or letters of administration (we will return this to you) or a certificate confirming that you hold the original or an official copy of the same.

 

The fee payable under the current Land Registration Fee Order.

 

Once they are registered as proprietors, the personal representatives can later transfer or assent the estate, or the charge or mortgage. See section 3.2 Registration of a disposition by the personal representatives.

 

 

 

Apple

 

Here is a link to the above mentioned Practice Guide 6, so it can be read by everyone

 

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-6

 

The title of Practice Guide 6 is

 

Devolution on the death of a registered proprietor

 

Scope of this guide

This guide deals with applications associated with the death of a joint, sole or last surviving proprietor of a registered estate, or of a charge or mortgage. It is aimed at conveyancers, and you should interpret references to ‘you’ accordingly

 

 

It all has to do with someone that has actually died.

 

Obviously by posting on this thread, we are all still alive.

[Jabba the hut]

Has the borrower died ?

Has the lender died ?

 

If the answer is no, then all of the information posted about the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and Practice Guide 6 does not apply.

 

The Introductory text for the Administration of Estates Act 1925

 

An Act to consolidate Enactments relating to the Administration of the Estates of Deceased Persons.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/introduction

 

Section 55 Definitions

 

“Personal representative” means the executor, original or by representation, or administrator for the time being of a deceased person, and as regards any liability for the payment of death duties includes any person who takes possession of or intermeddles with the property of a deceased person without the authority of the personal representatives or the court, and “executor” includes a person deemed to be appointed executor as respects settled land:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/55

[Jabba the hut]

Apple

 

You incorrectly jumped to the Administration of Estates Act 1925 by looking at the Land Registration Rules 2003 instead of the Land Registration Rules 1925. You should now just leave that line of thought there. You made a mistake, no big deal, everyone makes them and it was an easy mistake to make.

 

You are alive, I am alive, all the posters and readers of this thread are alive. None of us have died.

 

It is a good thing that this mistake has been identified is it not ?

 

Now everyone that submits any applications, defence or claims can amend the information they are going to submit.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[IS IT ME?]

so why are you commenting on it???

is it to waste time and posts again.

 

I think we need to put what this is about and the reasons for it back into the front line again!

[UNRAM]

Has the borrower died ?

Has the lender died ?

My lender died in 2008 and appears to have come back as some kind of zombie...

[IS IT ME?]

Ha Ha lol

I like it well done,

[TimetogoRAM]

Jabba the hut died in Return of the Jedi - killed by Princess Leia if I remember rightly!

[UNRAM]

My lender died in 2008 and appears to have come back as some kind of zombie...

I didnt intend this as a joke. This really does seem to be the case. But I'm glad it was taken in good humour...

[Jabba the hut]

My lender died in 2008 and appears to have come back as some kind of zombie...

 

Was your lender Northern Rock with the company registration number 03273685 ?

 

if so, sadly it didn't die, even though it should have been put out of its misery a long time ago.

 

It was on deaths door, until Dr Government stepped in and performed CPR at the last minute. Northern Rock Plc changed its name to Northern Rock (Asset Management) Plc on 31 December 2009 and is still very much alive (in that it is the same legal entity), just using a different name.

If you check with Companies House, you can see Northern Rock (Asset Management) Plc, previously called Northern Rock Plc has been trading since 30 October 1996

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[Jabba the hut]

so why are you commenting on it???

is it to waste time and posts again.

 

I think we need to put what this is about and the reasons for it back into the front line again!

 

Don't you want mistakes corrected for the benefit of those submitting applications or defending repossession ?

 

Strange stance to take

[Jabba the hut]

Jabba the hut died in Return of the Jedi - killed by Princess Leia if I remember rightly!

 

And what an outfit she was wearing at the time

[Jabba the hut]

LOL.....he is a one isn't he ......

 

I think he intends that I should quote chapter and verse.... I'm more than sure that Caggers will pick up on what is being said by me without Jabba's analysis.....

 

Jabba is simply reading what I have posted out of context....intending to further confuse one and all....

 

Law Com 271 is here on the CaG....Caggers can read it at their leisure......and will - without me having to quote chapter and verse from it.....pick up that a legal sub-mortgage is created by 'assent' under the old LRR 1925 - as re-enacted in the new LRR 2003 at rule 163 ©

 

So, Jabba can Jabba jabba on all he/she likes......

 

Mortgages by assent as a means of creating a legal sub-mortgage are repealed.....the loophole is closed by virtue of the AEA 1925 section 36 (3) being repealed by Schedule 2 of the LPMPA 1994.....

 

Caggers need not fear Jabba.....Jabba will have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch up with me : )

 

Apple

 

 

Apple

 

Rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 1925 is different from Rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 2003. Rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 2003 is not a reanactment of rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 1925, they are completely different and related to completely different things.

 

You have even posted what rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 1925 actually said

 

“46 See r 163(1) which provides that “The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as sub-charges”. This does of course echo the power of a proprietor of a registered estate to charge that estate with the payment of money at law which is, again, unique to registered land: see above, para 7.2.”

 

This is further confirmed by

 

Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks [2004] EWCA Civ 568 (13 May 2004)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/568.html

 

"53. Nor, as we see it, is there any other basis on which it could be held that the respondent was divested of its right to claim possession of the property. In the course of his judgment the recorder analysed the provisions of the LRA 1925 and of the Land Registration Rules 1925 as amended (the Rules") in order to identify the powers of a sub-chargee. Thus, in addition to section 27 of the LRA 1925 referred to above he referred to rule 163 of the Rules. Rule 163(1) provides:

 

"The proprietor of a charge or encumbrance may at any time charge the mortgaged debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the proprietor of land charged and such charges are in these rules referred to as sub-charges."

 

Rule 163(2) provides that the proprietor of a sub-charge shall, subject to any entry to the contrary in the register, have the same powers of disposition in relation to the land as if he had been registered as proprietor of the principal charge. The recorder observed that that rule is concerned with powers of disposition whereas this case is concerned with the power to take possession. That is so, although we have no reason to doubt that, subject to the terms of the particular sub-mortgage, a sub-mortgagee in principle has a right of possession."

 

There is no reference or mention of assent, personal representative or deceased. That is something that you have jumped upon by reading and referring to the wrong legislation

 

As you have posted yourself, rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 1925 didn't say

 

When you follow through to Rule 163 (1) it says this:

 

Registration of a personal representative

163.—(1) An application by a personal representative to become registered as proprietor of a registered estate or registered charge—

(a)in place of a deceased sole proprietor or the last surviving joint proprietor, or

(b)jointly with another personal representative who is already so registered, or

©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,

must be accompanied by the evidence specified in paragraph (2).

 

The above is actually from the Land Registration Rules 2003

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/163/made

 

You must see that you have made a mistake

 

 

Your own post and the above referenced case confirm the wording of rule 163 of the Land Registration Rules 1925, as referred to by the Law Commission was

 

r163 of the Land Registration Act 1925

 

(1) The proprietor of a charge or encumbrance may at any time charge the mortgaged debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the proprietor of land charged and such charges are in these rules referred to as sub-charges

(2) The proprietor of a sub-charge shall, subject to any entry to the contrary in the register, have the same powers of disposition in relation to the land as if he had been registered as proprietor of the principal charge

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[Jabba the hut]

Jabba,

What the hell has the deceased persons got to do with this thread Iam NOT dead and I don't think any one else on here is.

I have asked very nicely for you to stop posting ben so I ask again.

YOU WILL NOT PUT PEOPLE OFF BY THIS.

 

Legislation relating to 'deceased persons' is the basis of one of Apple's arguments.

 

UNRAM

 

A lender has no power to be 'registered as proprietor'....

 

section 36 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was repealed by the LP(MP)Act 1994 section 21, by virtue of Schedule 2 to the Act.

 

Apple

 

 

UNRAM

 

I know you do a lot of research in your own time.....can I ask that you look up section 36 (3) of the AEA 1925 and you will see it is no longer there......if you go into the 'original' as enacted section to the said Act.... you will see what it used to say......which was:

 

"(3)The statutory covenants implied by a person being expressed to convey as personal representative, may be implied in an assent in like manner as in a conveyance by deed."

 

By repealing the above section...the legislator removed the reliance that Lenders used to circumvent the law - this section used to afford the lender the right to simply get a Borrowers signature on a deed (which we are all seeing in evidence today) - get it registered with HMLR and claim rights to the 'mortgage' of an exiting lender.....

 

so in a nutshell.....It was the 'in-coming' lenders means of avoiding the necessary formalities in relation to their statutory duty to execute the deed......i.e 'assume' any obligation to the Borrower.....

 

This section was the form of 'assent' as referred to in the LPA 1925 at section 52 (2).......it is no longer available .....FULL STOP...

 

They must execute the Deed....

 

All the loopholes were closed by the legislators over the years....and each and every time Lenders have found other means to get around it.....when the RRO came in in 2005.....the legislator took the action to remove any presumption of delivery on sight of a Borrowers signature as well.......so, now..... the lender cannot even rely on estoppal.....

 

Their own fault really, they should have listened to the legislator when he first took steps to curve their 'certain activities'.......now there is simply NO DEFENCE at all.....

 

Apple

 

It is entirely based on Apple reading the Land Registration Rules 2003, instead of the Land Registration Rules 1925

 

The Administration of Estates Act 1925 as its introduction confirms is an Act to consolidate Enactments relating to the Administration of the Estates of Deceased Persons. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/introduction

 

 

It has nothing to do with if a Lender can or cannot be the registered proprietor of a legal charge.

 

The Land Registration Act 2002 confirms that the Lender must be registered as the proprietor of the legal charge

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/2

 

Land Registration Act 2002

 

SCHEDULE 2 Registrable dispositions: registration requirements

 

 

Part 1 Registered estates

 

 

Creation of legal charge

 

 

8 In the case of the creation of a charge, the chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the charge.

 

the chargee being the lender

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[Jabba the hut]

Jabba

 

IF THERE WAS OR IS NO MERIT IN THESE CASE WHICH BY THE WAY THERE ARE NOW A FEW BEFORE THE PROPERTY CHAMBER DO THEY NOT JUST SAY GO AWAY, YOU HAVE NO CLAIM AGAINST THE NICE LENDER?

I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND WILL SAY AGAIN PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WORK FOR THE LENDER OR THERE SOLICITORS WHO TRY REALLY REALLY HARD TO PUT PEOPLE OFF HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT??:-x

 

By correcting the mistakes, the application submitted will be stronger, so I sleep very soundly.

 

Don't you want the application people submit to be as strong as possible ?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[Jabba the hut]

oh..... and before Jabba jumps on here to analyse pracrtice guide 6....let me assure him/her......the scope of the Guide is stated as:

 

Scope of this guide

 

This guide deals with applications associated with the death of a joint, sole or last surviving proprietor of a registered estate, or of a charge or mortgage. It is aimed at conveyancers, and you should interpret references to ‘you’ accordingly.

 

Apple

 

Correct

 

This guide deals with applications associated with the death of a joint, sole or last surviving proprietor of a registered estate, or of a charge or mortgage

Death

[applecart]

Correct

 

This guide deals with applications associated with the death of a joint, sole or last surviving proprietor of a registered estate, or of a charge or mortgage

Death

 

Crikey....what's been going on here then???

 

Jabba….

 

I am pleased to note that you are looking to assist borrowers understand the correlation between the AEA; the LRR 1925 and the LRR 2003

 

Let’s look at it from this point of view shall we……..

 

Land Registration Rule 163 (1) © says only this:

“©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,”

 

When the Law Commission spoke of LRR 163 (1) © the above is what they are referring to.

 

Let’s say the Borrower has a loan with ‘Accord’…..and the Borrower wants to take out a new loan to pay off ‘Accord’ and manages to negotiate a loan with say ‘NRAM’……..

 

Accord is already ‘registered’ on the Borrowers title – is that not the case…..?

 

But, NRAM intend to loan the Borrower enough money to ‘discharge’ his indebtedness to Accord

 

So – When ‘NRAM’ want to replace ‘Accord’……what do you think is the administrative process behind enabling the transaction to go ahead??

 

There is no longer LRR 1925……As you know

 

(you can search high and low for it on-line - know I have and failed, but it is not there…if anyone has managed to get a copy – post it up)

 

There is only the LRR 2003 now…….

 

So….I ask you again Jabba…….what is the administrative process that is necessary to remove ‘Accord’…..when ‘NRAM’ is looking to come onto the Borrowers title????

 

There is NO LRR 1925…….

 

If you would be good enough to respond to this scenario…then – we will all get a better idea as to where you are coming from…. : )

 

Apple

[alisono]

Dear All,

 

I have just had the worst 1 hour my life @ Court. I lodged the court papers last week as per the help of Apple but they werent on file them to hand they hadnt been filed and in fact he hadn't even received the letter from the claimants solicitors.

The Solicitor for them tried to badger him into making a summary decision against us and repossenion order and thankfully he did not. The Solicitor kept arguing that if the Judge looked at Paragon vs someoon the legal deed issue he would see it's a nonsense and I have no grounds, the judge remarked we would see if it was a red herring and flawed argument.

The Judge hadn't heard of Property Chamber at all.

When I gave a copy of what I had filed th Judge said this was not a properly executed defence and I should of got a solicitor.So help help help help.

I have been order to file a defence within 14 days on my grounds as per my application. I have been ordered to get in touch with the property chamber to see how long they will take to make a decision. The judge wouldn't discuss my arrears as this is now a separate issue but he also wouldn't give them a respossession order either. The costs were as to be confirmed not sure on that.

 

So I need a solicitor eho can help me. Any suggestions .thank you so much

[alisono]

Just to let you know on the deed the solicitor told the Judge because I had signed it, witnessed and my solicitor had stamped that was all they needed. Plus I spoke with LR and they told me exactly the same. They said by law it wasnt up to my lender the onus was on me as a borrower.

The Solicitor kept trying to get me to admit my debt and repeatedly told the Judge I had said I took a mortgage with SPML.

[Jabba the hut]

Crikey....what's been going on here then???

 

Jabba….

 

I am pleased to note that you are looking to assist borrowers understand the correlation between the AEA; the LRR 1925 and the LRR 2003

 

Let’s look at it from this point of view shall we……..

 

Land Registration Rule 163 (1) © says only this:

“©in place of another personal representative who is already registered as proprietor,”

 

When the Law Commission spoke of LRR 163 (1) © the above is what they are referring to.

 

Let’s say the Borrower has a loan with ‘Accord’…..and the Borrower wants to take out a new loan to pay off ‘Accord’ and manages to negotiate a loan with say ‘NRAM’……..

 

Accord is already ‘registered’ on the Borrowers title – is that not the case…..?

 

But, NRAM intend to loan the Borrower enough money to ‘discharge’ his indebtedness to Accord

 

So – When ‘NRAM’ want to replace ‘Accord’……what do you think is the administrative process behind enabling the transaction to go ahead??

 

There is no longer LRR 1925……As you know

 

(you can search high and low for it on-line - know I have and failed, but it is not there…if anyone has managed to get a copy – post it up)

 

There is only the LRR 2003 now…….

 

So….I ask you again Jabba…….what is the administrative process that is necessary to remove ‘Accord’…..when ‘NRAM’ is looking to come onto the Borrowers title????

 

There is NO LRR 1925…….

 

If you would be good enough to respond to this scenario…then – we will all get a better idea as to where you are coming from…. : )

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

It is only you that is making any connection to 163(1) of the LRR 2003. The Law Commission never made that connection, you did

 

You made that connection by reading a document was that printed two years before the LRR 2003 existed.

 

163(1) of the LRR 2003 has nothing to do with any of this.

 

It is clear to see how you made the mistake, you read the LRR 2003 instead of what the Law Commission referred to being the LRR 1925, I have shown you where in the report the Law Commission confirms that it is referring to the LRR 1925

 

Read what the Law Commission said. jeez

 

I have even shown you that 163(1) of the LRR 2003 said something completely different to 163(1) of the LRR 1925

 

You made a mistake, draw a line under it and move on..

 

Mistakes happen

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[Jabba the hut]

Dear All,

 

I have just had the worst 1 hour my life @ Court. I lodged the court papers last week as per the help of Apple but they werent on file them to hand they hadnt been filed and in fact he hadn't even received the letter from the claimants solicitors.

The Solicitor for them tried to badger him into making a summary decision against us and repossenion order and thankfully he did not. The Solicitor kept arguing that if the Judge looked at Paragon vs someoon the legal deed issue he would see it's a nonsense and I have no grounds, the judge remarked we would see if it was a red herring and flawed argument.

The Judge hadn't heard of Property Chamber at all.

When I gave a copy of what I had filed th Judge said this was not a properly executed defence and I should of got a solicitor.So help help help help.

I have been order to file a defence within 14 days on my grounds as per my application. I have been ordered to get in touch with the property chamber to see how long they will take to make a decision. The judge wouldn't discuss my arrears as this is now a separate issue but he also wouldn't give them a respossession order either. The costs were as to be confirmed not sure on that.

 

So I need a solicitor eho can help me. Any suggestions .thank you so much

 

Sorry to hear about what happend, all is not lost as you have time now to file a defence.

 

The Paragon case referred to is most likely either

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

 

or

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2003] EWHC 2834 (Ch) (25 November 2003)

URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/2834.html

 

Both cases are in connection to securitisation

[Jabba the hut]

Apple

 

Page 124 (as you originally referred us too)

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc271_land_registration_for_the_twenty-first_century.pdf

 

"This power, which is unique to registered land, is derived from the present provisions of the Land Registration Rules 1925 as to the creation of sub-charges.46"

 

46 See r 163(1) which provides that “The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as sub-charges”. This does of course echo the power of a proprietor of a registered estate to charge that estate with the payment of money at law which is, again, unique to registered land: see above, para 7.2.

 

Where in r163 (1) of the LRR 2003 does it say “The proprietor of a charge or incumbrance may at any time charge the mortgage debt with the payment of money in the same manner as the proprietor of land can charge the land; and such charges are in these rules referred to as sub-charges” ?

 

It doesn't

 

As I have shown the above is the wording of rule 163(1) of the LRR 1925.

 

How can the Law Commission in 2001, refer to Legislation that came two years later ?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Jabba the hut

[applecart]

Dear All,

 

I have just had the worst 1 hour my life @ Court. I lodged the court papers last week as per the help of Apple but they werent on file them to hand they hadnt been filed and in fact he hadn't even received the letter from the claimants solicitors.

The Solicitor for them tried to badger him into making a summary decision against us and repossenion order and thankfully he did not. The Solicitor kept arguing that if the Judge looked at Paragon vs someoon the legal deed issue he would see it's a nonsense and I have no grounds, the judge remarked we would see if it was a red herring and flawed argument.

The Judge hadn't heard of Property Chamber at all.

When I gave a copy of what I had filed th Judge said this was not a properly executed defence and I should of got a solicitor.So help help help help.

I have been order to file a defence within 14 days on my grounds as per my application. I have been ordered to get in touch with the property chamber to see how long they will take to make a decision. The judge wouldn't discuss my arrears as this is now a separate issue but he also wouldn't give them a respossession order either. The costs were as to be confirmed not sure on that.

 

So I need a solicitor eho can help me. Any suggestions .thank you so much

 

Brilliant RESULT.....a whole 1 hour huh....we are always told they only have 5 - 10 minutes....eeerrrrmmmm???

 

No REPOSSESSION>.......NO income and expenditure form presented.....NO sweaty hands......CASE ADJOURNED......RESULT!!!!

 

It is despicable that the District Judge did not know about the Property Chamber.....post his name up on here.....just to 'name and shame him'......how ridiculous!!!!.....you work as party to the judicial system and you are not aware of the Property Chamber???? WHATTTT!!!!..... he truly needs to be NAMED AND SHAMED!!!!

 

Perhaps you should have assisted him by letting him know the Chamber have taken over the role of the HMLR Adjudicator...because staff at HMLR have been avoiding applications getting through to him....so the whole office and staff have had to be re-sited to make sure the public get a fair opportunity to get their claims against SPML and others heard without unnecessary bias

 

Right....we need to formalise the 'grounds'.....into a 'defence'.....that will not be a problem....

 

The 'application' made to the 'chamber' is not a defence for him per se....(it also tells me... that you did not set out your 'application' correctly by the way....but we can deal with that if the Chamber suggest that it is an issue for them...ok?)...

 

You have a letter from the Chamber confirming that they have accepted your application.......did you show that to the district judge??

 

No discussion of the arrears..... great, that's because they will not be enforceable if the deed is void...

 

No possession order...hahahahaha....the district Judge would risk his whole career if he went ahead in the knowledge that the Chamber are involved and granted them an order....the Judge appears to have got wind of 'CAUTION' prevails......the deeds are void......

 

Mention of the Paragon case...is typical of these types of lenders......it assists them to overlook the issue to do with the deed.....stay focused......the battle begins : )

 

You will find it hard to get a solicitor to represent you...we have 'solicitors' who are site team members.....non of whom have come forward as yet to assist this scenerio......it is a new approach.....you only have 14 days......so, your stuck with me and Is It Me for now.........(no offence to our champion site team intended by this comment)

 

We will work on your defence .....ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just to let you know on the deed the solicitor told the Judge because I had signed it, witnessed and my solicitor had stamped that was all they needed. Plus I spoke with LR and they told me exactly the same. They said by law it wasnt up to my lender the onus was on me as a borrower.

The Solicitor kept trying to get me to admit my debt and repeatedly told the Judge I had said I took a mortgage with SPML.

 

Why anyone bothers talk to HMLR is beyond me........HMLR are as much of the problem as the Lender.....that's why HMLR NO LONGER DEAL WITH APPLICATIONS......it has been taken away from them....it is the Property Chamber....totally separate......HMLR have big issues coming their way.....they will defend their corner as strongly as the lender does...they are in it together......!!!!

 

It is by virtue of HMLR practices why Borrowers are having to fight hard to keep their homes in the first place!!!....if HMLR did not 'mortgage' registered land...then we could all have avoided having to defend 'securitisation'.....etc, etc.....

 

I'm glad you stuck to your guns....I'm glad you did not give in to the Lenders Solicitor.....WELL DONE : )

 

Once you put in a 'defence'......it may have to be by way of 'counter-claim'......did he give you any other info to assist you on this at all???

 

Apple

 

You have 14 days...give me a couple of days or so...... we will deal with this.....

[alisono]

Hi Apple,

 

Firstly thank you and I am happy to be stuck with you and IS IT ME.

 

The Judge didn't introduce himself and to be honest I was so nervous I never looked at the list of who he was.

He said he had never heard of the Property Chamber and told me I needed to speak to them to see how long this will take them as he was not going to let this meander Long. Hence 14 days for defence.

The solicitor wanted him to read Paragon V Pender and pulled out the paragraphs he had highlighted.

The Judge said no talk of arrears as this was now a separate issue and he would not make a summary decision in 10 minute hearing after I had bought this to light and he hadn't read it before hand.

The possession was to be sort after if my claims were a red herring and not founded. Because their solicitor kept pressing He actually said that if the mortgage was indeed void and unenforceable then it would open up a lot of other things.

 

Their solicitor was adamant that SPML had the right to be on my deeds and he tried to talk around securitisation which the Judge did understand about, so really the only point I raised was why had the new note holder or people that had my debt had not registered this,as an interested party, the solicitor said they didn't need to and so I told the judge perhaps it might be also as they weren't regulated by the FCA and if done would also need to give me new terms and conditions which they couldn't do. The Judge said he wouldn't rule today on something that may come back and make him look foolish.

 

Thank you so so so much.

[p.j]

hi alisono have they already got a possession order or was they going for one.the difference between my deeds and yours its only my signature and a friend as a witness no stamp or solicitors name in sight from the one i got from HMLR and there solicitors sent me the exact copy.

 

p.j