Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

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

 

If you are referring to my previous posts P.J, you will see that I did not say that this case is make belief, you will find that I actually said that this would not be the first case in Ireland about securitisation and I referred you too Wellstead v Judge White a case heard in 2011 as an example.

 

In that case -

 

"But there is another obstacle which faces the applicant, and which he has not addressed, and it is that there is nothing unusual or mysterious about a securitisation scheme. It happens all the time so that a bank can give itself added liquidity. It is typical of such securitisation schemes that the original lender will retain under the scheme, by agreement with the transferee, the obligation to enforce the security and account to the transferee in due course upon recovery from the mortgagors.

 

In my view, discovery would not be ordered on a leave application in any event. But the applicant would have to overcome the arguability threshold for the point that he is making in relation to securitisation, and in my view and for the reasons outlined above he cannot do so.

 

Every allowance has been made by me for the fact that the applicant appears personally. Equally, he has been greatly indulged since August 2011 by stays being granted so that he could put his best foot forward on the present application. But there comes a time when this must come to an end, so that those for whose benefit the order for possession was made can have the benefit of it.

 

For all the reasons stated, I therefore must refuse leave to seek the reliefs being sought. Given the time of year approaching I will grant one final stay to expire on the 10th January 2012, after which date the bank will be entitled to enforce the order for possession and recover possession."

Edited November 14, 2013 by honeybee13
Quoting pejorative word.

[bhall]

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

 

.

 

This is the case in question

 

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H371.html

[applecart]

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

 

What??

 

Give me more info please??

 

Apple

Edited November 14, 2013 by honeybee13

[bhall]

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?

 

Still waiting on your evidence to support your claim that I lied.

 

I think it is almost as obvious that I am not a machine as it is that a mortgage deed as a matter of law does not generally need to be signed by the lender. ;-)

 

As for coffee, I don't drink any hot drinks, not even tea lol

[applecart]

This is the case in question

 

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H371.html

 

Thanks Ben.

 

Oooh, whilst I'm here....do you have time to answer the question about the deed being used to 'discharge the charge'.....??

 

No worries if you don't have time right now.... but can you at least give me an indication as to when you might get time to do so.........

 

To be fair; you said I mix up oranges and apples and I want to see if I have done so on this point.....please advise?

 

Apple

[p.j]

bhall

Basic Account Holder

 

Cagger sinceDec 2012I am inLondonPosts626

 

Re: Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

 

 

Don't you honestly think that this would be plastered all over the internet by now if it was entirely accurate ?

 

The freeman, debt free, void

mortgage

sites would be singing about it all day long. Instead not one peep, I wonder why ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

Plan for the worst, hope for the best

[p.j]

bhall

Basic Account Holder

 

Cagger sinceDec 2012I am inLondonPosts626

 

Re: Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

 

 

Don't you honestly think that this would be plastered all over the internet by now if it was entirely accurate ?

 

The freeman, debt free, void

mortgage

sites would be singing about it all day long. Instead not one peep, I wonder why ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

Plan for the worst, hope for the best

 

so it must not be true because they are not singing from the roof tops...

 

pj

[sequenci]

Well, there is a good point in that.

 

A quick Google search brings up scores and scores of sites arguing the mortgage deed issue, but despite a fair amount of searching I've not found any real successes. I find that staggering.

 

I also find it amusing that, given Apples convictions as to their beliefs they chose not to sign their own petition in their own name.

[applecart]

Extracts taken from the case posted up by Ben:

 

10. The defendants submit that the plaintiffs provided consent to securitisation of the loans on a number of occasions. The affidavit of Mr. Gary Collins on behalf of the defendants states as follows: –

 

“At all material times, the plaintiffs, in accepting the Offers of Mortgage Loans and in executing the Mortgage, consented to the securitisation of the loans. Clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions Leaflet incorporated into the Offers of Mortgage Loan, Clause 5.3 of the Mortgage, and Clause 18 of the Home Loan Mortgage Conditions provide for the express consent of the plaintiffs to transfer of the Mortgage, including transfer by way of securitisation.”

 

11. Clause 5.3 of the Mortgage Agreement reads as follows –

“The Borrower hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents to the Bank at any time or time hereafter transferring, assigning, disposing or sub-mortgaging or sub-charging the benefit of this Mortgage and Charge…to any third person or body…as part of any loan, transfer and securitisation scheme on such terms as the Bank may think fit…without any further consent from or notice to the Borrower…”

Is there any Borrower here that has an un-registered estate?......providing for the Lender to defend that the 'mortgage' was LAWFUL?....In the event....Has anyone here 'terms and conditions' include any mention of the fact that the 'mortgage' of the un-registered estate will be securitised??

 

I think NOT.....ummmm

 

The Freemen's are being allowed to bring the issue of 'securitisation' to trial by the looks of it P.J...see here:

 

"36. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice it appears appropriate that the plaintiff should deliver an amended statement of claim setting out the appropriate pleas in respect of their allegations in relation to the securitisation and Central Bank codes issues, as well as the remaining claim in relation to the third named defendant. It is appropriate that this claim should be advanced and in the circumstances, the court is disposed to making any appropriate order to assist in the management of the matter."

 

If you disagree...please advise?

 

The Freemans ... if I am correct... need to do as they have been allowed by the Judge to do...and that is to 'amend' their statement of claim without delay.....they need to look to the DEED....it will not have been 'assumed' by the Bank......all securitisations rely on this being the case.... it will be interesting to hear how they get on.....

 

Apple

[bhall]

so it must not be true because they are not singing from the roof tops...

 

pj

 

As you are fully aware the post you have quoted was not made in reference to that Irish securitisation case but to a comment made by an unknown person about an unknown case, that you referred too.

 

If you are going to quote me, please do it correctly, otherwise it makes you look desperate and foolish.

[bhall]

Extracts taken from the case posted up by Ben:

 

10. The defendants submit that the plaintiffs provided consent to securitisation of the loans on a number of occasions. The affidavit of Mr. Gary Collins on behalf of the defendants states as follows: –

 

“At all material times, the plaintiffs, in accepting the Offers of Mortgage Loans and in executing the Mortgage, consented to the securitisation of the loans. Clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions Leaflet incorporated into the Offers of Mortgage Loan, Clause 5.3 of the Mortgage, and Clause 18 of the Home Loan Mortgage Conditions provide for the express consent of the plaintiffs to transfer of the Mortgage, including transfer by way of securitisation.”

 

11. Clause 5.3 of the Mortgage Agreement reads as follows –

“The Borrower hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents to the Bank at any time or time hereafter transferring, assigning, disposing or sub-mortgaging or sub-charging the benefit of this Mortgage and Charge…to any third person or body…as part of any loan, transfer and securitisation scheme on such terms as the Bank may think fit…without any further consent from or notice to the Borrower…”

Is there any Borrower here that has an un-registered estate?......providing for the Lender to defend that the 'mortgage' was LAWFUL?....In the event....Has anyone here 'terms and conditions' include any mention of the fact that the 'mortgage' of the un-registered estate will be securitised??

 

I think NOT.....ummmm

 

The Freemen's are being allowed to bring the issue of 'securitisation' to trial by the looks of it P.J...see here:

 

"36. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice it appears appropriate that the plaintiff should deliver an amended statement of claim setting out the appropriate pleas in respect of their allegations in relation to the securitisation and Central Bank codes issues, as well as the remaining claim in relation to the third named defendant. It is appropriate that this claim should be advanced and in the circumstances, the court is disposed to making any appropriate order to assist in the management of the matter."

 

If you disagree...please advise?

 

The Freemans ... if I am correct... need to do as they have been allowed by the Judge to do...and that is to 'amend' their statement of claim without delay.....they need to look to the DEED....it will not have been 'assumed' by the Bank......all securitisations rely on this being the case.... it will be interesting to hear how they get on.....

 

Apple

 

Don't confuse things that may apply in the Republic of Ireland to what applies in England & Wales (or even Scotland for that matter)

[bhall]

I also find it amusing that, given Apples convictions as to their beliefs they chose not to sign their own petition in their own name.

 

I was not aware of that

 

Very strange

[applecart]

Well, there is a good point in that.

 

A quick Google search brings up scores and scores of sites arguing the mortgage deed issue, but despite a fair amount of searching I've not found any real successes. I find that staggering.

 

I see your point here Sequenci.... However, it would seem that the Freeeman's are in fact being allowed to move the securitisation issue forward....I agree with you many have followed this 'route'....I too have found no successess...... They get the opportunity to amend their statement.....they should do so on reliance that the underlying deed will be in 'escrow'....for a finding that the deed is void for want of delivery......etc etc...

 

I also find it amusing that, given Apples convictions as to their beliefs they chose not to sign their own petition in their own name.

 

I haven't spotted the name 'sequenci' on the e-petition either......must be because all signatures are in the name of the individuals concerned not the names used on the forum....that helps protect their identity from the world at large........I think that's probably why.....looks like the government respect 'privacy'.....one simply cannot argue with that....people prefer that they are not identified......makes it easier for folks to sign the petition..... without reproach ; )

 

 

Apple

[p.j]

As you are fully aware the post you have quoted was not made in reference to that Irish securitisation case but to a comment made by an unknown person about an unknown case, that you referred too.

 

If you are going to quote me, please do it correctly, otherwise it makes you look desperate and foolish.

 

huh i wasn't quoting you if i was i would of said before i posted ben..you need to decide who is singing and who isn't ben

 

 

 

pj

[applecart]

Don't confuse things that may apply in the Republic of Ireland to what applies in England & Wales (or even Scotland for that matter)

 

Ok Ben... Thank you.... I'll try not to do so moving forward.....just took it for granted that a statement that says....

 

"36. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice it appears appropriate that the plaintiff should deliver an amended statement of claim setting out the appropriate pleas in respect of their allegations in relation to the securitisation and Central Bank codes issues, as well as the remaining claim in relation to the third named defendant. It is appropriate that this claim should be advanced and in the circumstances, the court is disposed to making any appropriate order to assist in the management of the matter."

 

Means exactly the same in any language......

 

By the way.....can you answer the question ......Can you please advise...why is the Deed that is intended to 'create' a charge being used by lenders to 'discharge a charge'?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Ok Ben... Thank you.... I'll try not to do so moving forward.....just took it for granted that a statement that says....

 

"36. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice it appears appropriate that the plaintiff should deliver an amended statement of claim setting out the appropriate pleas in respect of their allegations in relation to the securitisation and Central Bank codes issues, as well as the remaining claim in relation to the third named defendant. It is appropriate that this claim should be advanced and in the circumstances, the court is disposed to making any appropriate order to assist in the management of the matter."

 

Means exactly the same in any language......

 

By the way.....can you answer the question ......Can you please advise...why is the Deed that is intended to 'create' a charge being used by lenders to 'discharge a charge'?

 

Apple

You not still waiting ?? Lol

He has to ask his boss but his in a meeting with me and you know what "they don't know"

And the reason it is not up on this here inter web is because they are making the case water tight and looking into the deeds question

If there was nothing in it Ben and others why then. The court moving it on and the big pay out??

I feel though the same will happen here

[applecart]

Bhall has once again logged off without providing an answer to the question to do with the deed being used to 'discharge the charge' and not 'create' the interest : (

 

Is It fair to pose the question to any site team member instead?.... if it is ......then can any site team member assist with this question.....?

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Hi All, I'm loving this thread, reading it for the third time, but in the meanwhile a quote for today: 'Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is regarded as self-evident'. - Arthur Schopenhauer

[applecart]

Hi All, I'm loving this thread, reading it for the third time, but in the meanwhile a quote for today: 'Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is regarded as self-evident'. - Arthur Schopenhauer

 

Hi Bigphil61

 

Thank you for your contribution......and welcome to the thread ; )

 

Which stage do you think we are at then??

 

Apple

[bhall]

Ok Ben... Thank you.... I'll try not to do so moving forward.....just took it for granted that a statement that says....

 

"36. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice it appears appropriate that the plaintiff should deliver an amended statement of claim setting out the appropriate pleas in respect of their allegations in relation to the securitisation and Central Bank codes issues, as well as the remaining claim in relation to the third named defendant. It is appropriate that this claim should be advanced and in the circumstances, the court is disposed to making any appropriate order to assist in the management of the matter."

 

Means exactly the same in any language......

 

By the way.....can you answer the question ......Can you please advise...why is the Deed that is intended to 'create' a charge being used by lenders to 'discharge a charge'?

 

Apple

 

Sorry I did not answer before because I didn 't think you was being serious. I guess you are .

 

The clue is in the word - Receipt

 

They are not signing it for any other reason then to confirm the debt has been repaid and the charge can be discharged - sorry I thought it was blindingly obvious - especially to someone with your cough, knowledge of mortgage and property law. ;-)

[bhall]

Hi Is It Me?

 

Still waiting for your evidence to support your accusation ;-)

[applecart]

You not still waiting ?? Lol

He has to ask his boss but his in a meeting with me and you know what "they don't know"

And the reason it is not up on this here inter web is because they are making the case water tight and looking into the deeds question

If there was nothing in it Ben and others why then. The court moving it on and the big pay out??

I feel though the same will happen here

 

 

ahhhhh.... I see.....all he had to do was say so.... I would have understood.....There is no defence to an un-executed deed....there is truly nothing they can do to make their case 'water tight' in that regard...absolutely nothing.....Yes, I do take for granted that they look to make out that the Borrower has signed the deed and it therefore bound by it....but they will not be able to overcome the evidence that is clear, transparent...and there for the world to see that..... THEY DID NOT 'ASSUME' THE DEED......ooooopppps!

 

No amount of meetings to try to find a way around that FACT will assist them ......if they find a way, we would all like to know how they do it in due course....for the Law is clear.....they simply CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THE LAW:horn:

 

The Law would have to change... it is isn't... they cannot create or misconstrue the law to suit their own objectives....that is not fair justice.......!!

 

Apple

[bhall]

To avoid the need for interpretation here is an example

 

http://www.themortgageworks.co.uk/includes/pdf/T118_v8bw.pdf

 

Please see page 2

 

I hope this helps with your knowledge and understanding ;-)

[applecart]

Sorry I did not answer before because I didn 't think you was being serious. I guess you are .

 

The clue is in the word - Receipt

 

They are not signing it for any other reason then to confirm the debt has been repaid and the charge can be discharged - sorry I thought it was blindingly obvious - especially to someone with your cough, knowledge of mortgage and property law. ;-)

 

IMS21 advised we do not vilify each other for our 'alternative' argument Ben....I think he made it clear that it relates to us all......

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying.....it is the Borrower who 'grants' the deed, the borrower who is obligated to perform the deed......and the lender is liable only to give a receipt on repayment of the loan amount in full???

 

Who does the lender give the 'receipt' to?..... I'm sure every deed advises that 'no receipt to be given for registered estates'.....is this to say the 'discharge'.....never truly occurs.... is this to provide that the assent to the unlawful 'mortgage' carries on regardless of the removal of one lenders name for replacement by another??

 

CIRCUMVENTION appears RIFE..... just my alternative argument..... ; )

 

Thank you for your answer - it tells me exactly what I have said all along.....the Borrower looks to create an interest...the Lender does not assume it....and benefits from an un-executed deed....ummmm Halsbury's Law springs to mind.......

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

To avoid the need for interpretation here is an example

 

http://www.themortgageworks.co.uk/includes/pdf/T118_v8bw.pdf

 

Please see page 2

 

I hope this helps with your knowledge and understanding ;-)

 

I haven't read it ... sorry....no offence

 

I'm not misguided into believing that it is at all possible to grant a 'mortgage' of any Registered Estate.....

 

Apple