Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Apple

Please ignore BEN or bhall as he WILL get what he wants one way or the other and that is this thread closed or you off site.

Please for the people that need your help do not reply to him any more as I for one will not because he does not answer questions put to him and just fills this thread with rubbish.

[ims21]

All are welcome to post on this thread but within the forum rules.

 

bhall is putting an alternative (as have others) and they are perfectly entitled to do this without attracting abuse from other posters.

 

People should read this thread and make their own decisions as to whether they wish to act on the ideas presented or steer well clear. That is a matter for each individual.

 

Yes, Bankfodder is the top dog on CAG.

[IS IT ME?]

ims21,

Yes but when other people have asked and still he posts up on the thread why are you not doing the same.

His posts have been misinformed and not as true to the LAW shall we say.

[ims21]

The idea of an open forum is that all can post relatively freely.

 

Just because your opinions do not match those of others is no reason to prevent people from posting their comments and analysis and questions.

 

This is a thread open to all.

[bhall]

Apple

Please ignore BEN or bhall as he WILL get what he wants one way or the other and that is this thread closed or you off site.

Please for the people that need your help do not reply to him any more as I for one will not because he does not answer questions put to him and just fills this thread with rubbish.

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

You are mistaken, I have no desire or wish for this thread to be closed. On the contrary I want this thread to stay open so that the outcome of the hearing at the Property Chamber can be shown to everyone.

 

However, I am not going to say that information posted in this thread is correct, when I know it isn't, just to make you or anyone else feel better.

 

Instructions have previously been posted on this thread, telling you how to put me on ignore, so that you won't see my posts. If you don't like what I have to say, feel free to follow those instructions at anytime.

 

I personally feel it is important to correct the fanciful ideas repeatedly posted in this thread and I am sorry that having someone disagree with you or Apple, causes you any anguish.

 

I will not toe the line you want and just tell people things that they want to be true (when they really aren't) just to make them happy, when ultimately that could result in them losing their home. I am not here to win a popularity contest, just to ensure people are presented with information based on facts and not interpretation.

 

 

Sorry Ben

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[IS IT ME?]

Ben

No one has asked that you tow any line but by your own posts you are not being truthful or genuine to others.

Your tacit is to lose the thread by long multi posts and put people off by that.

 

We will see then the matter goes to the Chamber what is what and I hope that you will come back and say YOU were wrong.

AND what if apple is right what are you going to do then as many people would have lost there homes because of your advice have you thought of that???

[bhall]

Ben

No one has asked that you tow any line but by your own posts you are not being truthful or genuine to others.

Your tacit is to lose the thread by long multi posts and put people off by that.

 

We will see then the matter goes to the Chamber what is what and I hope that you will come back and say YOU were wrong.

AND what if apple is right what are you going to do then as many people would have lost there homes because of your advice have you thought of that???

 

Of course I will be here, as for Apple being correct, you already know what the Property Chamber has told you. Do you really think they will turn round and say they are wrong. Just take a look at the debt avoidance consumer forums and even some of the freeman ones, even there people are saying this won't work.

 

Apples arguments are not based on the law they are based on Apple's interpretation of the law. The law and Apples interpretations are very different things as will be confirmed by the Property Chamber in January.

 

I wish I was wrong Is It Me?, I do really wish Apple is right but Apple isn't

 

As I have said before, this might buy some time for some people but what happens to people that face a judge like PJ, who had no interest in the Property Chamber ?

 

If Marika's judge has the same point of view what do you think is going to happen to Marika based on the defence that has been posted ?

 

UNRAM has already been told he is going to have costs added. Who is going to pay for them, you ?? Apple ?? No

[bhall]

So as before, if you don 't want to read my posts, please put me on ignore.

[IS IT ME?]

Have tried that,

As for the property chamber your wrong they did not throw it out so again you are trying to frighten people off.

As for PJ case you know what's happened there then?

If a d/j over rides a Judge what happens???

This will be the last post from me to you.

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry cut off before I finished, can you name these sites???

[bhall]

Have tried that,

As for the property chamber your wrong they did not throw it out so again you are trying to frighten people off.

As for PJ case you know what's happened there then?

If a d/j over rides a Judge what happens???

This will be the last post from me to you.

 

Oh come now Is It Me?, you know exactly what has been posted in this thread already.

 

The Property Chamber has told you

1. Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower

2. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution of the borrower is needed.

3. They even told you that the Land Registry's own version of the mortgage deed does not require execution by a lender, except where there is a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

 

The Property Chamber has told UNRAM

 

1.The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief or

2. Provide an indemnity or

3. Award Damages or

4. On an application under s.108(2) LRA 2002, make an order for alteration of the register

 

 

Going by what the Property Chamber has already told you and what it had told UNRAM, do you really see the Chamber declaring all mortgage deeds void because they have not been signed by the lender ?

 

You must be able to see where this is heading, they have pretty much told you already.

 

As for p.j's case, p.j posted that the judge said that he did not care and is not interested about the property chamber or any applications as "he knows his job" - p.j said his case is on hold until the agent confirms who p.j is paying his mortgage too, not because the deed wasn't signed etc.

 

All of the above has been taken from posts made in this thread.

Edited October 24, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

Sorry cut off before I finished, can you name these sites???

 

Lol I think you already know which sites, especially considering the wording of posts there.

 

You can easily find them if you look for them. I am not going to promote such sites by naming them or by providing links to them.

 

You should stick to CAG, you know it makes sense

[UNRAM]

Oh come now Is It Me?, you know exactly what has been posted in this thread already. The Property Chamber has told you

1. Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower

2. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution of the borrower is needed.

3. They even told you that the Land Registry's own version of the mortgage deed does not require execution by a lender, except where there is a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

bhall why didn't the Chamber offer same advice in response to my own application? wouldn't they have a duty to advise me if this remains the case - as they did for Is It Me? or do you think they are just going to assume everyone knows that now because 70,000 people have viewed this thread?

[UNRAM]

The Property Chamber has told UNRAM

1.The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief or

2. Provide an indemnity or

3. Award Damages or

4. On an application under s.108(2) LRA 2002, make an order for alteration of the register

Dear CAG can anyone offer advice how to present a case to obtain damages for being subject to extortion to pay a "subscription" to a lender under unenforceable terms of an unsigned unilateral mortgage "agreement" and a deed with lender obligations included left unsigned by the lender.

[IS IT ME?]

Ben,

 

The Property Chamber has told you

1. Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower

NOT THAT IT IS CORRECT ' ALWAYS ' IS NOT THEY DON'T HAVE TOO

2. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution of the borrower is needed.

LET THEM SAY THAT

3. They even told you that the Land Registry's own version of the mortgageicon deed does not require execution by a lender, except where there is a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

MOST TERMS AND CONDITIONS SAY THAT AND AGAIN THE CHAMBER HAVE NOT SAID THAT THIS IS WRONG

 

IF the judge states that then he should be removed as lets say he grants a possession to a lender and then say the property chamber say yes I am right what happens to the one who lost his or her house? can they go back to this judge?

[UNRAM]

3. They even told you that the Land Registry's own version of the mortgage deed does not require execution by a lender, except where there is a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

Is It Me. Did the Chamber ACTUALLY state that the lender must execute where there is a note for an obligation by the lender as stated above. If so I have just received a misrepresentation by my lenders solicitor who has sent me a deed which she states has been executed - but does not fulfil the above condition. If so, what on earth are they (well, me, actually, apparently) paying these people for?

[UNRAM]

bhall what my lender has actually said about costs is that they are going to ignore the jurisdiction of the court and force their legal costs from me (which can't amount to much if the last post is confirmed...) ahead of either responding to the application or attending the tribunal. Well played lender. After sending me 4 notices she then went on to deter me from replying by informing me that I had been and was being charged for my replies. Pleasant.

[IS IT ME?]

Unram,

I am waiting for the hearing as you know BUT YOU NOTE BENS COMMENT

' LAND REGISTRY'S OWN VERSION OF THE MORTGAGE DEED' NO LENDER USES THIS ANY MORE.

 

BEN TRY'S VERY HARD I'LL GIVE HIM THAT.

I WILL KEEP ON AND SEE THIS THOUGH AND WIN.

[bhall]

bhall why didn't the Chamber offer same advice in response to my own application? wouldn't they have a duty to advise me if this remains the case - as they did for Is It Me? or do you think they are just going to assume everyone knows that now because 70,000 people have viewed this thread?

 

Hello UNRAM

 

I can only speculate

 

However from what has been posted in this thread Is It Me?'s application was the first the Property Chamber had ever received. This is most likely because it was submitted at the same time the Land Registry Adjudicator merged with the Property Chamber.

 

When there was just this one application, the Property Chamber wrote to Is It Me?'s friend with the points I have just posted and they also said

 

"the application should be struck out as it had no prospect of succeeding"

 

As you know with Apples assistance Is It Me? made a subsequent representation to the Chamber. This representation for some reason did not respond to any if the points made by the Property Chamber.

 

Shortly afterwards people such as yourself on CAG and people from other websites - where information from here had been posted started to submit the same application. Given that applications in double figures have been made -

 

I think the Property Chamber has done the right thing by arranging to hold a hearing where a number of applications can be heard at the same time, to reach a judgement it can refer too upon receipt of future applications. Things stay on the Internet for years so they will continue to receive applications for many years to come.

 

I think it is best to hold a hearing and for a judgement to be made in a similar to the bank charges situation a few years back. It bring an amount of certainty to this topic

[IS IT ME?]

Unram,

As this also shows they WILL do any thing to stop you taking this action.

[bhall]

Ben,

 

The Property Chamber has told you

1. Charges do not as a matter of law always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower

NOT THAT IT IS CORRECT ' ALWAYS ' IS NOT THEY DON'T HAVE TOO

2. The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution of the borrower is needed.

LET THEM SAY THAT

3. They even told you that the Land Registry's own version of the mortgageicon deed does not require execution by a lender, except where there is a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

MOST TERMS AND CONDITIONS SAY THAT AND AGAIN THE CHAMBER HAVE NOT SAID THAT THIS IS WRONG

 

IF the judge states that then he should be removed as lets say he grants a possession to a lender and then say the property chamber say yes I am right what happens to the one who lost his or her house? can they go back to this judge?

 

"let them say that" ???

 

You say as if it doesn't mean anything. That is was the view of the Property Chamber, the only view that matters in regard to this topic

[IS IT ME?]

BEN.

 

PLEASE THIS IS NOT CORRECT

 

"the application should be struck out as it had no prospect of succeeding"

 

THIS IS WHAT THE LENDER HAD TRIED TO DO NOT THE CHAMBER.

[bhall]

Unram,

I am waiting for the hearing as you know BUT YOU NOTE BENS COMMENT

' LAND REGISTRY'S OWN VERSION OF THE MORTGAGE DEED' NO LENDER USES THIS ANY MORE.

 

BEN TRY'S VERY HARD I'LL GIVE HIM THAT.

I WILL KEEP ON AND SEE THIS THOUGH AND WIN.

 

Is It Me?

 

You was the one that posted the above and said it was what the property chamber told you

 

Please see your post of 3rd July 2013 post # 136

[IS IT ME?]

BEN

 

I CAN NOT FIND THAT IN ANY LETTERS FROM THEM

 

The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution of the borrower is needed.

LET THEM SAY THAT SORRY I AM DOING THIS ON MY PHONE IT SHOULD BE 'YOU SAY THAT'

[bhall]

BEN.

 

PLEASE THIS IS NOT CORRECT

 

"the application should be struck out as it had no prospect of succeeding"

 

THIS IS WHAT THE LENDER HAD TRIED TO DO NOT THE CHAMBER.

 

Don't you even remember what you post in this thread ???

 

Please read your post #136 - you said it was an order from the property chamber

 

well he has had an order from the Property chamber as it is now known and it states; (Going by what he has said over the phone)

The application should be struck out as it has no prospect of succeeding

The LR should be removed as the respondent and the lender be put in its place

the reasons being;

HM is not a party to the charge(we never said they were)

The application is made under sec 108(2) of the LR act (?) 2002.

The tribunal has no power to make an order to alter the register when exercising its jurisdiction under sec 108 (2), it can only rectify or set aside a document under sec 108 (2) and the register of title is not a document for the purpose of that provision.

Charges do not as a matter of law(?) always require execution by the lender as well as the borrower.

The charge is created by the borrower not the lender so generally only the execution by the borrower is needed.

The charge is not in a form showing that it is required to be executed by the lender

The LR form CH1 does not require execution by a lender except where a note on the register of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for.

 

we have 14 days to make representations.

 

I have read and re read the law on this and I can not for the life of me see where this has charged, its not only me reading what I what to read or see what I whant to see but it is there.

So apple any thoughts???

 

I said all a long this will be a fight and very hard to get justice as this was all done behind closed doors.