Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Apple,

May I answer this if I may,

Sequenci,

This thread is new and untried and like the Bank charges and Loan book loans has not been before the courts which will be the test ground for this and then we will know.

Until then no one can say what will happen as there are no cases being heard before the property chamber.

Are you saying that because the charges case and those of loan book loans should not have been on CAG or people act on them because I know that until the case which I was one came before the courts none had any chance of succeeding.

I would now ask why is the CAG looking to close this thread ?

I did not want to say any thing at this time but you have forced me to by the thought of you closing this thread that there is at this time a journalist looking into this and feel this should be allowed to go the the chamber.

[IS IT ME?]

Sequenci,

I would say that if you closed this thread before it goes to the chamber it would do the CAG no favours at all as there are people who do not wish to see it closed both members and quests.

 

NO ONE HAS BEEN FORCED OR ASKED TO TAKE ACTION WHICH THEY DO NOT WISH TO, THIS THREADS HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THE CHAMBER AND THEREFORE UN TRIED.

BUT I HAVE HAD TWO CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE COUNTY COURT AND HAVE BEEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE HEARING.

[IS IT ME?]

Sequenci,

 

I would now ask you who has given CAG pressure to close this thread???

[ims21]

Erm...where is the suggestion that this thread may be closed?

[applecart]

Oh my no it goes far deeper than that I was forced to apply for the mortgage through violence and threats once he had the money i was assaulted so badly he went to prison there is lots more to this sorry tale i have lots of proof but did not know i had a remedy in the courts no one told me until recently

 

Hi Marika

 

Oh my goodness...that's terrible..... : (

 

My genuine feeling is that the Defence as it stands is to address the issue from a purely Legal point of view.. it is dealing with the Lender unlawful attempts to now take the house away from you....Unlawfully ...whilst the underlying facts as to how you ended up with the mortgage are indeed an issue....they would not be brought into the Defence.

 

To go into court and say....essentially....'well, I was forced to sign the deed...and here is the evidence of the guy who made me do it.....is not legal grounds......whilst it is not nice to hear of anyone being forced into doing something they did not intend to do.....the Lender is not interested in how you came about signing the Deed....as it happens..... they are not bothered that they did not execute it either.....all they know is somewhere along the line.....someone somewhere is not paying them any money.....and they are pursuing possession of the house.......

 

A finding that you were 'forced' into the mortgage is not a greater defence than the one you have in draft form on here.....

 

To add in the 'undue influence'....would be tantamount to saying.....I know you have no lawful defence Mr Lender...but whilst I'm at it...can I just also mention I was forced into this by a violent person....

 

What difference do you think it would make????

 

You would be being and bringing an 'emotive' defence.....the Judge will not be interested in your emotions....regrettably..... he is only interested in the LAW......and it is the LAW that has to do with property that makes the difference as to whether you keep your house or not......not whether you were 'forced to mortgage' by a violent person I'm afraid hun.....

 

If you have a 'beef' with the violent perpetrator....you would take a separate proceeding and claim against that person as a totally separate case.....which you have every right to make...as and when you deem it necessary to do so......

 

If you were saying it was my Lender who 'forced' me to take the mortgage...it was the lender who then brutally assaulted me and took the money.....and you have evidence...then it would be worth bringing it into the proceedings...because then...it would not be viewed as 'emotive'....for the party accused would be in fact the party bringing the claim against you......and you would be able to prove 'undue influence' against the lender...as the perpetrator.....but, clearly..... it is not your lender who is 'guilty' of 'undue influence' or 'violence' is it?

 

I hope this helps put things into perspective for you hun?

 

 

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Please answer the question as all we are getting is questions as to why we are doing this or has this been tried before, so again I ask who's giving the CAG pressure????

[marika41]

Thank you Apple I hear what you are saying I also had the money outright to buy the property way back in 1990 but the financial advisor I saw about buying the house talked me into having a mortgage instead ( I sound very gullable I know but my husband had just died and I was very young) should I forget that for now too?

[applecart]

Hi Apple,

May I answer this if I may,

Sequenci,

This thread is new and untried and like the Bank charges and Loan book loans has not been before the courts which will be the test ground for this and then we will know.

Until then no one can say what will happen as there are no cases being heard before the property chamber.

Are you saying that because the charges case and those of loan book loans should not have been on CAG or people act on them because I know that until the case which I was one came before the courts none had any chance of succeeding.

I would now ask why is the CAG looking to close this thread ?

I did not want to say any thing at this time but you have forced me to by the thought of you closing this thread that there is at this time a journalist looking into this and feel this should be allowed to go the the chamber.

 

Jeez..... thanks Is It Me..... I was busy answering Marika41.....then saw all this.......

 

I'm pleased the press are onto this........ ; )

 

Sequenci.....I think Is It Me has 'answered' you.....it would be unfair of me to override that.....after all - this is Is It Me's thread ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Please answer the question as all we are getting is questions as to why we are doing this or has this been tried before, so again I ask who's giving the CAG pressure????

 

Yes, I wouldl like to understand this too Is It Me......do you think we will get an answer.....??

 

Apple

[marika41]

Erm...where is the suggestion that this thread may be closed?

 

That could be my fault as I read the questions about the long thread etc. as maybe it was time to close it, my apologies if I misinterpreted it incorrectly

[ims21]

I think there is a bit of paranoia creeping in here.

 

There is no pressure and once again I ask where the suggestion of closing the thread has come from?

[applecart]

Thank you Apple I hear what you are saying I also had the money outright to buy the property way back in 1990 but the financial advisor I saw about buying the house talked me into having a mortgage instead ( I sound very gullable I know but my husband had just died and I was very young) should I forget that for now too?

 

Hi Marika41

 

There are untold 'wrongs' that go on in the world....as you know and have regrettably experienced first hand.......but sometimes....we have to face up to reality.... the reality right now....is this....the lender is trying to take your house..... the house that you have been paying for..... the house you live in......that is your home....whether the experiences in acquire it were good or bad..... it is your home......if you wish to remain there....then you must 'fight' to do so.....

 

Fact is...we have all been 'gullible' hun......

 

We are now addressing that gullibility.....it is not about the broker...it is not even about the solicitor.....nor even HMLR....or the courts who have granted so many suspended possession orders...they do so....even before you step into the court room these days....it's about the Lenders........

 

Keep ypur focus there for now.....

 

We can deal with that chap who absconded with your money in other ways.... he has already gone to prison once though....so....it may be difficult to put him on trial again and again......no matter how much we would all like to ......

 

Stay focused......this is about your home now... you have to stay strong.....ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

I think there is a bit of paranoia creeping in here.

 

There is no pressure and once again I ask where the suggestion of closing the thread has come from?

 

I think it was due to the ' way' that Sequenci 'posed' the question that may have caused Marika concern.......

 

Perhaps the 'paranoia' creeping in was intentional?......Sequenci over to you??

 

Apple

[marika41]

Thank you Apple I will deliver my defence Tuesday and will concentrate on the topic at hand once again Thank you for the help

[sequenci]

Hi Apple,

May I answer this if I may,

Sequenci,

This thread is new and untried and like the Bank charges and Loan book loans has not been before the courts which will be the test ground for this and then we will know.

 

I get that, however - those arguments were developments of previous arguments of a similar nature - especially the bank charges arguments - some of the key arguments around penalties have been used for decades prior to bank charges even being charged upon people.

Until then no one can say what will happen as there are no cases being heard before the property chamber.

 

So you're trying to say that challenges re: contracts/deeds/signatures have not been tried before? Of course they have, and many have failed.

 

Are you saying that because the charges case and those of loan book loans should not have been on CAG or people act on them because I know that until the case which I was one came before the courts none had any chance of succeeding.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

 

I would now ask why is the CAG looking to close this thread ?

 

Where on earth did you get that idea?

I did not want to say any thing at this time but you have forced me to by the thought of you closing this thread that there is at this time a journalist looking into this and feel this should be allowed to go the the chamber.

 

I hope the journalist seeks qualified legal opinion from a property/land lawyer prior to writing their piece.

 

For the record, I've never said anywhere that I disagree with any commentary within this thread - and I'll always welcome comment and opinions from all. It's important to remember that we're talking baout peoples' homes here - some of which could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Wouldn't you agree that it's fair and reasonable to ask anyone to substantiate their claims?

[sequenci]

Perhaps the 'paranoia' creeping in was intentional?......Sequenci over to you??

 

Apple

 

All I am asking is for you to answer my questions.

 

Nothing more, or less, than that.

 

If there are people that are overly paranoid I daresay internet forums should not be the places they seek their help and assistance from.

[andrew1]

Can I just add my 2p's worth?

 

I realise some threads go to extrordinary lengths debating and arguing,

quite controversially on many occasions,

but then controversial arguments which could

and I say could

ultimately be a very serious challenge to what has been generally accepted as 'right' by the institutions need this debating

and I see no reason to come up with proof as such until these controversial issues have been placed in front of a court.

 

I don't post on this thread,

but it is no less important in the overall picture of much that I am doing in comparing companies activities as well as the laws being used is crucial.

 

There is a truth out there, it will be based upon facts and how the eventual decision by High court emerges.

 

My experience over 6 or 7 years on here,

especially when we challenged the very existence of DCA's,

ran threads which also expanded into many thousands of pages,

but nobody can deny what benefits were derived from those exploits eventually

- the DCA world is a very different kettle of fish thatn it was before we all hit them.

 

apple, Ist It Me and Ben have submitted some compelling arguments and views

which still need to be tested and going to court can take years

so people should not take anything as gospel

- that would be mad.

 

We had/have that in our Swift battles and still they go on and whilst many have been victims of Swift, myself included,

our arguments are gradually becoming more and more compelling and proven because gradually we are getting them in front of courts

which make a difference rather than some County Courts where the Judges have little or no knowledge of such things

- it takes considerable time and banks know exactly how to delay things.

 

It has taken us since 2007 to prove some things which on the face of it appeared generally accepted as correct, but weren't,

we've uncovered no end of things unlawful and this all required thousands of hours of research and argument...it continues....

 

People along the way lose their homes during the process and some,

taking things off these threads when common sense dictated otherwise,

but that's the down-side (if there is one) of self help forums.

 

People can be told endlessly not to cut and paste without understanding,

but they do just as people take medical info and use it totally out of context with their illnesses.

 

Let this debate roll and all credit to apple IIM and Ben for continuing.....

 

2p ended..

 

A1

 

p.s. Sorry sequenci, didn't see your last two posts before I posted..

[applecart]

I get that, however - those arguments were developments of previous arguments of a similar nature - especially the bank charges arguments - some of the key arguments around penalties have been used for decades prior to bank charges even being charged upon people.

 

See 'Garguillo'..... see 'bibby'..... they are on this thread..... in Garguillo...the deed was void due to the 'it' not being attached.....in 'Bibby'....the deed was void even though it had been said to be duly delivered.....due to a 'technicality'... on the finding that it had been amended...and not 'resigned' and 'executed'......

 

So, issues surrounding the validity of a deed have been around for 400 yrs Sequenci.......'Bibby' in particular goes into some detail about the need for complying with the formalities in relation to deeds.......

 

Both these cases are party to the application before the Chamber......along with statutory provision and assurance that the Lender has no defence to a finding where the deed is un=executed.

 

That is 'tangible'......and is enough for us to do the same as was done in the bank charges cases and take the matter forward to its natural successful conclusion.....

 

So you're trying to say that challenges re: contracts/deeds/signatures have not been tried before? Of course they have, and they have failed.

 

Garguillo was not a failure..... Bibby wasn't either.......if you are talking about 'eaglestar' or 'helden'..... you will find both relied on section 2 not section 1 and likewise neither relied on the relevant statute......there is noone on this thread that would encourage any borrower to make the same mistake again.......'eaglestar' and 'helden' will not assist any lender defend against 'bibby' or 'garguillo'...the RRO....or any of the statutory protections as sourced and in place to ensure they do not get through the net ever again .....

 

 

No, I'm not saying that at all.

 

 

 

Where on earth did you get that idea?

 

 

I hope the journalist seeks qualified legal opinion from a property/land lawyer prior to writing their piece.

 

He certainly won't get it from 'helden' or 'eaglestar'...... if he comes here he has all the information on this thread to assist him.....he can view 'garguillo' and 'bibby'.....and rely on the relevant legislation to validate his 'piece' as provided for him right here......and if he waits until the outcome of the lead case.......the info will be available to the wider market.....we do not attract as many 'views' here as the journalist is likely to attract in the wider media..........sp, yes..... he could as a journalist even begin to start speculation from now.....after all Optima Legal have started too......why not a journalist???

 

For the record, I've never said anywhere that I disagree with any commentary within this thread - and I'll always welcome comment and opinions from all. It's important to remember that we're talking baout peoples' homes here - some of which could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Wouldn't you agree that it's fair and reasonable to ask anyone to substantiate their claims?

 

Neither should you.......that would be tantamount to rendering every borrower doomed without a fair trial......which clearly would not be in any ones interest to be seen to be doing on a consumer forum....especially when this thread looks to the protection of the borrowers home....against unlawful possession....so, yes, on that front...there is no issue asking 'fair and reasonable questions.....however..... your questions were neither fair nor reasonable....given that you are more than aware that this case has yet to go to trial......and especially when you do not ask the same of anyone else.....no offence

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Of course they were fair and reasonable!

[applecart]

Can I just add my 2p's worth?

 

I realise some threads go to extrordinary lengths debating and arguing, quite controversially on many occasions, but then controversial arguments which could and I say could ultimately be a very serious challenge to what has been generally accepted as 'right' by the institutions need this debating and I see no reason to come up with proof as such until these controversial issues have been placed in front of a court. I don't post on this thread, but it is no less important in the overall picture of much that I am doing in comparing companies activities as well as the laws being used is crucial. There is a truth out there, it will be based upon facts and how the eventual decision by High court emerges.

 

My experience over 6 or 7 years on here, especially when we challenged the very existence of DCA's, ran threads which also expanded into many thousands of pages, but nobody can deny what benefits were derived from those exploits eventually - the DCA world is a very different kettle of fish thatn it was before we all hit them.

 

apple, Ist It Me and Ben have submitted some compelling arguments and views which still need to be tested and going to court can take years so people should not take anything as gospel - that would be mad. We had/have that in our Swift battles and still they go on and whilst many have been victims of Swift, myself included, our arguments are gradually becoming more and more compelling and proven because gradually we are getting them in front of courts which make a difference rather than some County Courts where the Judges have little or no knowledge of such things - it takes considerable time and banks know exactly how to delay things. It has taken us since 2007 to prove some things which on the face of it appeared generally accepted as correct, but weren't, we've uncovered no end of things unlawful and this all required thousands of hours of research and argument...it continues....

 

People along the way lose their homes during the process and some, taking things off these threads when common sense dictated otherwise, but that's the down-side (if there is one) of self help forums. People can be told endlessly not to cut and paste without understanding, but they do just as people take medical info and use it totally out of context with their illnesses.

 

Let this debate roll and all credit to apple IIM and Ben for continuing.....

 

2p ended..

 

A1

 

p.s. Sorry sequenci, didn't see your last two posts before I posted..

 

Now that's what I call 'constructive' criticism.....

 

I have worked tirelessly to get to this stage...for me...seeing possession hearings 'adjourned'....is the catalyst......

 

I have left NO stone unturned.... Ben won't allow me to...bless him.....

 

It is true.....Is It Me...Ben and I ...... work tirelessly....to bring the likely contentions here...open and transparent.... for all to see......

 

Now.... because of this forum.....switched on Borrowers can rely that they are empowered to walk into a court room, look the Lender in the eye and say - I want this adjourned, the deed is at issue'......and the Judge will adjourn the proceeding......

 

Whatever the outcome in January.....if it is not based on LAW.... we will spot it... we will challenge it.....of that there is no question...no question at all ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Of course they were fair and reasonable!

 

Who to? ....nevertheless, you will note I answered you in full....... Hopefully you have the 'tangible' proof you were looking for ; )

 

Apple

[sequenci]

I'm grateful for your response.

 

I was wondering if you have anything which is specific to mortgages. Fair question, no?

[bhall]

I am still not home yet, so posting on my phone

 

Apple said -

 

See 'Garguillo'..... see 'bibby'..... they are on this thread..... in Garguillo...the deed was void due to the 'it' not being attached.....in 'Bibby'....the deed was void even though it had been said to be duly delivered.....due to a 'technicality'... on the finding that it had been amended...and not 'resigned' and 'executed'......

 

....Both these cases are party to the application before the Chamber......along with statutory provision and assurance that the Lender has no defence to a finding where the deed is un=executed.

 

Property Chamber said -

 

The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge.

[bhall]

The property chamber has already told Is It Me? That the reliance on those cases is not relevant to the claim that a lender must sign a mortgage deed

 

I will respond to the other things Apple claims can be relied upon when I next have access to my desktop.

 

In answer to your question sequencei - that was never really answered - no, to date the cases that have been posted to this thread which actually deal with the subject of if a lender has to sign a deed have all been unsuccessful - it is these case under the principle of Stare decisis that set precedents on this topic not any old case about a deed.

 

Everything unlike the arguments against bank charges (remember what happened when that actually got to Court) is based upon Apple's interpretation of the law and wishful thinking.

 

I would go as far as to say no borrower can rely upon anything Apple has posted in relation to property law.

 

I'll be home either tomorrow or Sunday and will respond to all the baseless claims of Apple then

Edited October 25, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

It is silly to ignore the things the Property Chamber has already said, especially considering who is holding the actual hearing.