Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Where is your evidence that I lied ?

 

 

Still waiting Is It Me?

[bhall]

If you go onto the rubix solutions website Is It Me?, click on the Woolwich mortgages from Barclays logo and then click on download PDF, the booklet you download contains an example of a Barclays mortgage deed, identical to the one posted in this thread with the same content and format - with the exception of a Solex logo.

 

 

Here is a link to make it easy for you

 

http://sarah3.rubixitsolutions.com/forms/Woolwich-Brochure.pdf

 

 

Both say Barclays, both quote the same terms and conditions, both quote the same Barclays address, both have the same Land Registry approved reference number and both only have space to be signed by the borrower and witness.

 

So where is your evidence that I have lied ?

Edited November 14, 2013 by bhall

[applecart]

Hi kegi

Can I ask what your problem is you sound like some one who has been on this thread before.

 

I can say that I AM MORE THAN HAPPY with the way things are moving forward and we will see what happens when i does.

If YOU don't like the way it is going then don't post or view the thread, as you don't agree with it.

 

As for the views being not humans, your having a laugh OR there is some thing wrong and you don't like it.

even when looking at the thread you see 6 or 8 members and then 19 or 23 guests so which is it? It cant be that lower figure lol?

 

Also you will be aware that there are people who are watching and looking to see what

A) what it is all about

B) Does it marry up with my case or possession hearing

C) Because of what the lenders are like they wish to keep a low profile. AS we know what games they play.

 

It's just 'tactics'......

 

The 'tactics' will not work.....the main information upon which consumers can rely on is already posted... ; )

 

The fact is .....latterly... they relied on 'lamb'.....boldly shouting from the rooftops ...."hey look....we have a 'trump card' ...it is 'lamb'....so you 'internet folk'.......it's game over"......I think someone forgot to let them know...we are not 'internet folk'.....WE ARE CAGGERS!!!

 

No doubt expecting that we would keel over and let them continue to abuse due process...with an 'un-reported' case from a court of no 'record'.....ohhhhhh pleeeasssseeeee..!!!

 

That's until we ripped 'LAMB' to shreds with the LAW!!..... I keep telling them...and will continue to tell them...... they have "NO DEFENCE."...!!!!!

 

Whoever they send to this thread to shout obscenities at the 'APPLECART'...will be defeated with kind due respect...

 

Because they now know 'lamb' will not assist them.... they are trying to 'bury' it ...... but it's too late.....we did it for them!!.....LOL

 

As for section 53....they better get to grips with the fact that ANY SUCH RELIANCE IS MISGUIDED......!!

 

Any Judge worth his weight will know.....LPA 1925 section 40 was ABOLISHED..REPEALED....KUPPUTTTT!...GONE!...FINITO!!!.....so, no reliance on 'part performance'!!!!.....ooooooppppppsssss.......LOL

 

So, they can continue to send the foul mouthed ones...the obstructive ones....the twisted ones...and all talk of 'bots'...'views' and 'costs'......it will make no difference....

 

IN CASE IT IS NOT 100% CLEAR.....THEY HAD NO DEFENCE....BEFORE 'LAMB'.....AND THEY STILL HAVE NO DEFENCE 'AFTER' 'LAMB'.....

 

so, What NOW....MR LENDER?

 

Apple

[applecart]

As for 'Bots'.....right now - there are 40 of them.....more than any 'bots'...than I see on any other thread on the CaG??

 

I'd like them to click the link to the e-petition.....and sign it please... ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

It's just 'tactics'......

 

The 'tactics' will not work.....the main information upon which consumers can rely on is already posted... ; )

 

The fact is .....latterly... they relied on 'lamb'.....boldly shouting from the rooftops ...."hey look....we have a 'trump card' ...it is 'lamb'....so you 'internet folk'.......it's game over"......I think someone forgot to let them know...we are not 'internet folk'.....WE ARE CAGGERS!!!

 

No doubt expecting that we would keel over and let them continue to abuse due process...with an 'un-reported' case from a court of no 'record'.....ohhhhhh pleeeasssseeeee..!!!

 

That's until we ripped 'LAMB' to shreds with the LAW!!..... I keep telling them...and will continue to tell them...... they have "NO DEFENCE."...!!!!!

 

Whoever they send to this thread to shout obscenities at the 'APPLECART'...will be defeated with kind due respect...

 

Because they now know 'lamb' will not assist them.... they are trying to 'bury' it ...... but it's too late.....we did it for them!!.....LOL

 

As for section 53....they better get to grips with the fact that ANY SUCH RELIANCE IS MISGUIDED......!!

 

Any Judge worth his weight will know.....LPA 1925 section 40 was ABOLISHED..REPEALED....KUPPUTTTT!...GONE!...FINITO!!!.....so, no reliance on 'part performance'!!!!.....ooooooppppppsssss.......LOL

 

So, they can continue to send the foul mouthed ones...the obstructive ones....the twisted ones...and all talk of 'bots'...'views' and 'costs'......it will make no difference....

 

IN CASE IT IS NOT 100% CLEAR.....THEY HAD NO DEFENCE....BEFORE 'LAMB'.....AND THEY STILL HAVE NO DEFENCE 'AFTER' 'LAMB'.....

 

so, What NOW....MR LENDER?

 

Apple

 

Lol

 

You do tell a good story, I will give you that.

[applecart]

Lol

 

You do tell a good story, I will give you that.

 

Hi Ben

 

I'm glad your around.....I wanted you to tell us all about how a deed being used to 'discharge the charge'.....do you remember?.....you said this....and I asked you....how can a Deed intended to 'create' be used to 'discharge' instead?.....

 

Now before I am accused of not allowing others to have their own opinion......this is your opportunity to bring your 'good story'......not to deny you the opportunity to do so....

 

The floor is all yours ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Section 40 of the LPA 1925 was repealed by s.2 (8) of the LPA (MP) 1989.

 

As you know s.2 of the LPA (MP) 1989 has nothing to do with deeds.

 

If you look at s.40 as originally enacted it said

 

(1) no action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land.

 

s.2 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as enacted said

 

(1) a contact for sale or other disposition of an interest in land

 

 

Much like Lamb you are mistakenly trying to apply part of s.2 to Deeds when it only applies to contracts.

 

 

As for your other comments about Lamb, I find them comical as the finding of Lamb is as per the Court of Appeal decision of Helden v Strathmore.

 

You are also sweeping under the carpet another case referred in the Lamb judgement - Palmer v Land Registry (2013) EWHC 1531 (ADMIN) 2nd May 2013

 

If you continue to ignore and sweep under the carpet things that disprove your fanciful ideas, you will accomplish nothing.

 

However, I am sure you will continue as you always have done...

 

And Is It Me? Still waiting on that evidence ;-)

 

Apple, you give out advice like it is confetti at a wedding. For once take some advice, don't ignore or sweep under the carpets things you don't agree with.

[bhall]

Your mixing up oranges with apples with your interpretations of the law.

[applecart]

Section 40 of the LPA 1925 was repealed by s.2 (8) of the LPA (MP) 1989.

 

As you know s.2 of the LPA (MP) 1989 has nothing to do with deeds.

 

If you look at s.40 as originally enacted it said

 

(1) no action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land.

 

s.2 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as enacted said

 

(1) a contact for sale or other disposition of an interest in land

 

 

Much like Lamb you are mistakenly trying to apply part of s.2 to Deeds when it only applies to contracts.

 

 

As for your other comments about Lamb, I find them comical as the finding of Lamb is as per the Court of Appeal decision of Helden v Strathmore.

 

You are also sweeping under the carpet another case referred in the Lamb judgement - Palmer v Land Registry (2013) EWHC 1531 (ADMIN) 2nd May 2013

 

If you continue to ignore and sweep under the carpet things that disprove your fanciful ideas, you will accomplish nothing.

 

However, I am sure you will continue as you always have done...

 

And Is It Me? Still waiting on that evidence ;-)

 

Apple, you give out advice like it is confetti at a wedding. For once take some advice, don't ignore or sweep under the carpets things you don't agree with.

 

This is what section 40 said:

 

40Contracts for sale, &c, of land to be in writing

 

(1)No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.

(2)This section applies to contracts whether made before or after the commencement of this Act and does not affect the law relating to part performance, or sales by the court.

 

The relevance of pointing out that section 40 was repealed is to show that the Lender cannot even try to make out that the ‘deed’ is a ‘contract’ for equitable purposes .....

 

We already know the Lender has not ‘assumed’ the Deed.....as you re-call ... we dealt with that earlier on in the thread........as you know it is important to air all possible ‘angles’..... as you know some Caggers have been confused into thinking that the Deed is a ‘contract’....just like in the ‘lamb’ case.. you may recall?

 

So....Thank you for making it clear that section 40 does not apply to the Deed as a ‘contract’ on the clear admitted finding that section 40 was repealed by section 2 LPMPA which only applies to ‘contracts’....Brilliant...We are AGREED ; )

 

No reliance on ‘specific performance’......on the mis-guided ‘assumption’ that the Deed is to be misconstrued as a ‘contract’......

 

So, no matter which way they go about it.....

 

'Lamb' does not assist them on this point either ; )

 

They still have NO DEFENCE.....

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just so that I am not accused of failing to listen to others and their 'alternative' argument.....

 

Can you answer the question about the deed being a document used for 'discharging a charge'?

 

That's an important question.....are you avoiding it? ; (

 

Apple

[applecart]

Your mixing up oranges with apples with your interpretations of the law.

 

I hear you.....so, the question to do with the deed that is intended to 'create' an interest is said by you to 'discharge a charge'......do you care to expand...I have asked you the question a number of times now.... you have yet to answer me...... Is It any wonder you accuse me of 'mixing up oranges with apples'....... ; (

 

Please answer the question....?

 

Apple

[applecart]

It would seem that instead of staying around to answer the question put to him - bhall has logged off... ; (

 

Apple

[caro]

It would seem that instead of staying around to answer the question put to him - bhall has logged off... ; (

 

Apple

 

Given the time I think I'll be off too.

 

Goodnight apple.

[applecart]

To IS IT IT ME?

 

You will now need to tone your posts down.

 

You will not be allowed to accuse other members of lying.

 

You also have no evidence to back up your accusations of various people working for lenders.

 

I remind the contributors to this thread that posters are permitted to post alternative points of view and should not be vilified for doing so.

 

 

Thanks for this reminder IMS21......

 

Would you be good enough to review the posts entered by Kegi please.....he/she referred to me as a 'blatant liar!!... when all I was doing was asserting my 'alternative points of view'.....I take it that your comments do include ME and protection for ME of my 'alternative views'.....and accordingly.....I take it that I too; should 'not be vilified for doing so'......

 

In fact - in this case..... the said Cagger....was 'vilifying' even though it is clear that it was the poster that was mis-guided in asserting it's 'alternative view'

 

Am I to understand that there are different 'rules' for those with an 'alternative view', so long as they disagree with my posts...it's ok.....BUT.... if I or anyone else happens to disagree with their assertions (this is not even their thread by the way); then we are minded that we cannot respond or vilify those Caggers.......

 

I mean you no offence; I'm just seeking to clarify the position...please advise?

 

Apple

[ims21]

Thanks for this reminder IMS21......

 

Would you be good enough to review the posts entered by Kegi please.....he/she referred to me as a 'blatant liar!!... when all I was doing was asserting my 'alternative points of view'.....I take it that your comments do include ME and protection for ME of my 'alternative views'.....and accordingly.....I take it that I too; should 'not be vilified for doing so'......

 

In fact - in this case..... the said Cagger....was 'vilifying' even though it is clear that it was the poster that was mis-guided in asserting it's 'alternative view'

 

Am I to understand that there are different 'rules' for those with an 'alternative view', so long as they disagree with my posts...it's ok.....BUT.... if I or anyone else happens to disagree with their assertions (this is not even their thread by the way); then we are minded that we cannot respond or vilify those Caggers.......

 

I mean you no offence; I'm just seeking to clarify the position...please advise?

 

Apple

 

The rules apply to all so anyone using the type of language I pointed out will now tone their posts down or risk having them removed.

[marika41]

Hi Marika41,

 

Haven't heard from you in a while.... its everything OK?

 

GiveHimaMask

 

Hi givehimamask, I am really trying to understand it all I keep rereading but am losing confidence fast, I know I will not be able to stand up and counter arguments given in court by someone well versed in law someone who has studied it for years, while i am a complete beginner. I keep hearing and reading you must properly understand what you are talking about and i do not, I liken it someone taking a first aid course, learning the basics then being sent out to work as a paramedic or a doctor. I have received a letter from court, there is to be a case conference on the 27th january I do not even know what that entails ha ha. But I have not given up completely yet I am reading and rereading so thank you for asking, I have not posted up because this thread is already so long I do not want to clog it up with questions that have already been answered somewhere in these pages, I am not confident enough to apply to the chamber but am not throwing the towel in yet

[marika41]

That's strange.... at the time you posted this question Marika41 was on this thread.....why did he/she not respond at all???

 

Apple

 

I have only just read the question Apple, I am reading earlier threads please do not think I am being rude

[citizenB]

A case conference will just be an attempt to manage the case going forward, marika. The Judge will want to know if there are any documents still required - whether there are any issues that are agreed and will not need to be raised, things like that. It will help the Judge decide on the amount of time the hearing will take in order to be cost effective.

[marika41]

Thank you citizenB

[andrew1]

Nothing to with deeds of course, but then who will need deeds....?

 

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/breaking-news-mortgage-securitisation-finally-sent-for-full-trial/

 

A1:madgrin:

[IS IT ME?]

Not again andrew1 lol

No that doesn't matter to some as its going to lose ha ha

 

I have noted the case and have some one there who is keeping me informed. I think you should get a FULL transcript of the hearing if you know what I mean there are some points in here which are to do with this matter

 

.

[IS IT ME?]

Apple

can you do a big favour to me and others can you repost the points and your argument for them again just so it is not lost on all those BOTS which view the thread lol

as we know they are only machines! bit like us really feeding the cash cow lol

As I have to go to London I will not be back until late but my wife's here and she does know much about it.

 

Ben why not meet up and I can see that your not a machine but a real person?? I'll buy you coffee?

[applecart]

Nothing to with deeds of course, but then who will need deeds....?

 

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/breaking-news-mortgage-securitisation-finally-sent-for-full-trial/

 

A1:madgrin:

 

 

 

 

This is fantastic News!!!.....

 

I can imagine someone like Mr Gilroy...will not stop until he relates the whole concept of 'securitisation' to the reality that the Deed between the Borrower and the Originating Lender is VOID for want of delivery....not to ention that there is a 'mortgage' of a registered estate..............and then reinforce that finding with the fact that the Court Order sent to the Borrower will not be signed by the Judge...and that the one on record held on the court file is not signed by the Judge either...only by the 'registrar'....a civil servant......not a Judge.....oooopppps!! And then from there he will no doubt point out that the address for service filed at HMLR (or thier equivalent LR) is 'GONE AWAY'......and then he may also point out that it is some administrator' (representative) who is not appointed by the Borower...has no Deed or 'relationship' with the 'Borrower' who is taking the money.....these 'administrators have no cause of action against the 'Borrower'......yet they and bringing proceedings claiming a right to possession of the Borrowers home.......in the name of a Lender..... who has 'gone away'.......

 

Securitisation was said to be all 'smoke' and 'mirrors'

 

Me, Thinks the 'smoke' and 'mirror' are beginning to fall away

 

I wish him and his loyal comrades all the best ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple

can you do a big favour to me and others can you repost the points and your argument for them again just so it is not lost on all those BOTS which view the thread lol

as we know they are only machines! bit like us really feeding the cash cow lol

As I have to go to London I will not be back until late but my wife's here and she does know much about it.

 

Ben why not meet up and I can see that your not a machine but a real person?? I'll buy you coffee?

 

I will put your request to the TOP of my LIST - No problem.....might not be finished today though....I've got quite a bit on.....but I assure you...it will be done ; )

 

Apple

[p.j]

Nothing to with deeds of course, but then who will need deeds....?

 

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/breaking-news-mortgage-securitisation-finally-sent-for-full-trial/

 

A1:madgrin:

 

 

A1 this is not true its make belief it is not on the freeman sites or debt free sites or anywhere i wonder who made this story up.?

 

 

pj

Edited November 14, 2013 by honeybee13
Pejorative word