Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[sequenci]

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

 

Apple

 

So why, if you don't me asking, isn't this massive news? It would be even bigger than Black Monday, surely?

[applecart]

So why, if you don't me asking, isn't this massive news? It would be even bigger than Black Monday, surely?

 

Regrettably, although we have over 100,000 views here the CaG is not the 'media'...we are rather isolated here in that regard.......

 

I believe Alisono has agreed to assist all followers of this thread to get the message to the media...

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Given the vast number of mortgages in the UK why hasn't there been anything of significant magnitude before?

[kegi]

Kegi

 

I did not refer to the 'Article'.....I referred to what was said on the 4th November 2013 on BBC NEWS...what they 'said' on the BBC News and what is in their Article is different.. It is 'their' Article'....they can report it on the BBC News in their own words and quote the figure as they saw fit.....Are you now trying to infer that I don't know what I "heard"??? YES

 

With respect, if the 'Article' was 'distorted' in any way.... then it was 'Shelter' themselves who are responsible for that Kegi.....not me.... I only repeated what I 'heard.....I hear you

 

Apple for what its worth you referred to the article in at least four of your posts misquoted of course and them added your extra bits on to make it sound more like the way you wanted it to [easily proved] .Now you are saying that the newsreader on that day in the hourly bulletins got their own headline news item wrong [easily proved to be wrong as well] so you posted what you heard as a fact based on hearsay well done you . But its obvious you are not going to admit you were/are wrong so I am done with it

Let it go like I said before, don't mention it again and that's it.Get on with the debate and work on what those who will be going to the chamber will do in regards to a plan B .

KEGI

[applecart]

Kegi

 

I did not refer to the 'Article'.....I referred to what was said on the 4th November 2013 on BBC NEWS...what they 'said' on the BBC News and what is in their Article is different.. It is 'their' Article'....they can report it on the BBC News in their own words and quote the figure as they saw fit.....Are you now trying to infer that I don't know what I "heard"??? YES

 

With respect, if the 'Article' was 'distorted' in any way.... then it was 'Shelter' themselves who are responsible for that Kegi.....not me.... I only repeated what I 'heard.....I hear you

 

Apple for what its worth you referred to the article in at least four of your posts misquoted of course and them added your extra bits on to make it sound more like the way you wanted it to [easily proved] .Now you are saying that the newsreader on that day in the hourly bulletins got their own headline news item wrong [easily proved to be wrong as well] so you posted what you heard as a fact based on hearsay well done you . But its obvious you are not going to admit you were/are wrong so I am done with it

Let it go like I said before, don't mention it again and that's it.Get on with the debate and work on what those who will be going to the chamber will do in regards to a plan B .

KEGI

 

Kegi

 

Thanks Kegi..... I agree, you are right - let's leave this matter of your interpretation of what "I heard" alone... it is to do with the e-petition.....the e-petition has a thread of it's own.....this thread is an all together different topic as you rightly point out..... ; )

 

Plan B...if necessary is an appeal.....there is no issue on that.....we don't truly need to consider that as an issue...certainly not at this point.....we would have to first see if the Chamber for any reason decides against the LAW in favor of circumvention of it.. I can't see that they will or should

 

However, Plan B will be only forthcoming as and if necessary ; )

 

Apple

[kegi]

Hi kegi

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

I know its easily done and that's my problem I have never figured out who you really are and you are so good at sussing all us lenders out

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.

Don't try telling me what I can and not do on this site IS IT ME

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?

Seems I am seq now 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.

What does it matter there is no defence no defence lol lol

kegi

[applecart]

Given the vast number of mortgages in the UK why hasn't there been anything of significant magnitude before?

 

Good point Sequenci.... that is one of the issues that underpin the applications that are being made to the Chamber in relation to all registered estates in the UK....We are saying..... if we have no power to 'mortgage' a registered estate.... then how come registered estates are being 'mortgaged'?

 

Likewise; if both un-registered estates and registered estates can be 'mortgaged'....why is the deed that is signed by the Borrower...not 'assumed' by the Lender (executed by them)...

 

We have read the Law Commissions reports on the issue...we have read 'Bibby' and 'Garguillo'.......Is the Law Commission wrong? are the decisions of 'Bibby' and 'Garguillo' also wrong??.... these were decisions made in superior courts of record I beleive....

 

Should these cases be sidelined because they do not agree with 'Helden', 'Eaglestar' and more recently the un-reported case of 'lamb' made by circuit judges??

 

We know that lower courts are persuaded by 'Helden', 'Eagle Star'..'lamb'.... however - correct me if you consider I am misguided in this belief...but it would be 'Bibby' that is the higher authority amongst them all.....?

 

We are being advised on this thread that the Lender does not have to execute the Deed....and advised that the decisions of lower courts should be persuasive enough to say that it is only the Borrower who is to be bound as the party who signed the deed and therefore obligated to it.....When, latterly we are finding that the Lender does in fact 'execute' the Deed after all..... WE are advised that he only needs to 'assume' it to 'discharge the charge'.......but no receipt is to be given to the owners of a registered estate.....

 

There are arguments on both sides......Is It Me's Friend has been good enough to allow us all insight into his case.....as no one else has given consumers such an opportunity....we are working with Is It Me and His/her friend ... and will be able to see how far reaching the 'magnitude' is in due course......

 

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

What does it matter there is no defence no defence lol lol

kegi

 

Kegi.... with respect, there is no issue with anyone posting on this thread other than those that may prove to be offensive or undermining of alternative points of view....

 

We have been minded by IMS21 to avoid this type of behaviour....it applies to us all, including yourself....

 

This is Is It Me's thread..... he is defending his thread...and his reliance on the advise that I and others are providing as constructively as we can to assist him/her and his/her friend address that which is an important issue for them - we are finding that others share the thread and the content within it too...

 

Can I remind you of IMS21's comments.....so, that we move forward as guided by you in your most recent post without re-visiting being minded by IMS21 again please?

 

Thank you in Advance

 

Apple

[bhall]

Kegi.... with respect, there is no issue with anyone posting on this thread other than those that may prove to be offensive or undermining of alternative points of view....

 

We have been minded by IMS21 to avoid this type of behaviour....it applies to us all, including yourself....

 

This is Is It Me's thread..... he is defending his thread...and his reliance on the advise that I and others are providing as constructively as we can to assist him/her and his/her friend address that which is an important issue for them - we are finding that others share the thread and the content within it too...

 

Can I remind you of IMS21's comments.....so, that we move forward as guided by you in your most recent post without re-visiting being minded by IMS21 again please?

 

Thank you in Advance

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

The cases you rely (Bibby and Garguillio) on the Property Chamber has already said in its response to Is It Me? Have nothing to do with if a lender has to sign a mortgage deed. Why are you still ignoring that fact and sweeping it under the carpet ?

 

Bibby is not an authority as it did not relate to the topic of this thread. I am sorry but it is that simple. Read what the Property Chamber has already said, look at the recent actions of the Property Chamber.

 

The cases you dismiss were actually about and dealt with the specific issue of if a mortgage deed has to be signed by a lender.

 

Every case that is publicly available that dealt with this specific issue - the courts have ruled the lender does not have to sign the deed.

[bhall]

Kegi

 

I did not refer to the 'Article'.....I referred to what was said on the 4th November 2013 on BBC NEWS...what they 'said' on the BBC News and what is in their Article is different.. It is 'their' Article'....they can report it on the BBC News in their own words and quote the figure as they saw fit.....Are you now trying to infer that I don't know what I "heard"??? YES

 

With respect, if the 'Article' was 'distorted' in any way.... then it was 'Shelter' themselves who are responsible for that Kegi.....not me.... I only repeated what I 'heard.....I hear you

 

Apple for what its worth you referred to the article in at least four of your posts misquoted of course and them added your extra bits on to make it sound more like the way you wanted it to [easily proved] .Now you are saying that the newsreader on that day in the hourly bulletins got their own headline news item wrong [easily proved to be wrong as well] so you posted what you heard as a fact based on hearsay well done you . But its obvious you are not going to admit you were/are wrong so I am done with it

Let it go like I said before, don't mention it again and that's it.Get on with the debate and work on what those who will be going to the chamber will do in regards to a plan B .

KEGI

 

With the danger of people thinking that you are me.

 

STAY FOCUSED KEGI ;-)

 

Sorry could not resist

[bhall]

Given the vast number of mortgages in the UK why hasn't there been anything of significant magnitude before?

 

Because no one had the benefit of Apples interpretations until now lol

[applecart]

Apple

 

The cases you rely (Bibby and Garguillio) on the Property Chamber has already said in its response to Is It Me? Have nothing to do with if a lender has to sign a mortgage deed. Why are you still ignoring that fact and sweeping it under the carpet ?

 

Yes, you are correct; this is what the Chamber did say to the 'initial' application made by Is It Me On behalf of his friend; we were thereafter fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to amend the application...since having done so; we again have been fortunate to find that the application is set to be heard in due course....I am more than sure that had we proceeded on the misguided belief that the Chamber had jurisdiction to set aside the 'charge'...over and above it's jurisdiction to set aside a deed.....we would not have moved the issues forward in the way that we have successfully done

 

Bibby is not an authority as it did not relate to the topic of this thread. I am sorry but it is that simple. Read what the Property Chamber has already said, look at the recent actions of the Property Chamber.

 

Yes, in the initial application, the Chamber did find that 'bibby' did not relate to the setting aside of a 'charge'...'bibby' was then re-submitted as party to the amended draft written representation...as it relates to the setting aside of a deed....we, as I say....have been afforded the opportunity to move the application forward now that it is better understood that it is the Deed we are talking about and that it is the deed we are looking to for a determination by the Chamber....and again, yes we are fortunate..... the application is due to be heard in due course...

 

The cases you dismiss were actually about and dealt with the specific issue of if a mortgage deed has to be signed by a lender.

 

Yes, I am aware - much the same as in 'bibby' and in 'garguillo'.....as I say, now that the Chamber understands that there was no reliance intended that either one of these cases were intended to be relied upon to set a side the 'charge'....they have kindly accepted the application and it is being moved forward to a hearing in due course....

 

Every case that is publicly available that dealt with this specific issue - the courts have ruled the lender does not have to sign the deed

 

Yes, you are correct here too.... However, the cases of 'garguillo' and 'bibby' go much further, deeper into the issue in relation to the formalities of a deed....neither of these cases look to shoehorn section 53 into the mix....notably 'garguillo' refers to section 52 because quite rightly....there is no 'disposition' intended by a borrower of a registered estate... to do so would be to attempt to circumvent the law....'bibby' is clear...sight of the borrowers signature alone is not enough....and speaks of section 74 of the LPA - these cases are more than on point to assist Is It Me's friend as he moves his application forward......and, like I say.... the Chamber has accepted these submissions...and the hearing is set to be heard in due course......

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

 

With the danger of people thinking that you are me.

 

STAY FOCUSED KEGI ;-)

 

Sorry could not resist

 

Please try to 'resist'.... for IMS21's comments relate to you too....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Because no one had the benefit of Apples interpretations until now lol

 

That's kind of you to say Ben.....it's an alternative argument... one which has been accepted for hearing by the Chamber.....although I would not have been so bold to suggest that my 'interpretation' alone is all that is important.... The Chambers interpretation of the alternative argument put by me...was the first important step.....

 

We are grateful that they deem there is enough merit in the alternative argument to take the matter forward to a hearing

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Apple,

Good evening one and all,

Well the meeting went very well and a lot was discussed and argued out which did include the deeds not being signed and on that information which made across I am more than happy to move forward with this with this information.

As for the Irish case which I find funny that they know about it and were dealing with the 'Facts' of the case, may be they are expecting the same here or it will all go up in the air for them lol.

 

Ben you will be waiting a LONG time for me to reply to your question I fully believe that you work for the lenders and it is debatable whether your posts are deceptive in there nature and NO one will be able to show otherwise, I would ask others if they feel the same but that's not what its about. So you kept it up and lets see who wins the day.

 

Apple I will say that the people there were very impressed with your posts lol God that's another cup of tea or is it a Mug?

[applecart]

Apple,

Good evening one and all,

Well the meeting went very well and a lot was discussed and argued out which did include the deeds not being signed and on that information which made across I am more than happy to move forward with this with this information.

As for the Irish case which I find funny that they know about it and were dealing with the 'Facts' of the case, may be they are expecting the same here or it will all go up in the air for them lol.

 

Ben you will be waiting a LONG time for me to reply to your question I fully believe that you work for the lenders and it is debatable whether your posts are deceptive in there nature and NO one will be able to show otherwise, I would ask others if they feel the same but that's not what its about. So you kept it up and lets see who wins the day.

 

Apple I will say that the people there were very impressed with your posts lol God that's another cup of tea or is it a Mug?

 

Hi Is It Me?

 

I'm both humbled and honoured to know that the meeting you had included reference to the work that both you and I are doing to add to the knowledge of all consumers in the UK.....in an effort to assist your friend to get Justice....I truly am ; )

 

It is without doubt an 'alternative argument' - and is without doubt one which is validated by the applicable and substantiating Law....

 

I am encouraged.....There is no 'battle' to truly consider any longer..... only the route to Justice for one and all : )

 

Apple

[kegi]

Kegi.... with respect, there is no issue with anyone posting on this thread other than those that may prove to be offensive or undermining of alternative points of view....

Apple with respect to you also that piece should have appeared at the bottom of my reply to IS IT ME's post where he/she was saying or words to that effect that people or watching to see what we are doing in respect of our cases and i replied with those words which if deemed offensive are your words which you must have said 100's of times lol

We have been minded by IMS21 to avoid this type of behaviour....it applies to us all, including yourself....

 

This is Is It Me's thread..... he is defending his thread...and his reliance on the advise that I and others are providing as constructively as we can to assist him/her and his/her friend address that which is an important issue for them - we are finding that others share the thread and the content within it too...

 

Can I remind you of IMS21's comments.....so, that we move forward as guided by you in your most recent post without re-visiting being minded by IMS21 again please?

Yes you can apple

Thank you in Advance

 

kegi

[applecart]

Kegi.... with respect, there is no issue with anyone posting on this thread other than those that may prove to be offensive or undermining of alternative points of view....

Apple with respect to you also that piece should have appeared at the bottom of my reply to IS IT ME's post where he/she was saying or words to that effect that people or watching to see what we are doing in respect of our cases and i replied with those words which if deemed offensive are your words which you must have said 100's of times lol

We have been minded by IMS21 to avoid this type of behaviour....it applies to us all, including yourself....

 

This is Is It Me's thread..... he is defending his thread...and his reliance on the advise that I and others are providing as constructively as we can to assist him/her and his/her friend address that which is an important issue for them - we are finding that others share the thread and the content within it too...

 

Can I remind you of IMS21's comments.....so, that we move forward as guided by you in your most recent post without re-visiting being minded by IMS21 again please?

Yes you can apple

Thank you in Advance

 

kegi

 

No Worries Kegi... ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Stay focused people

 

Ignore Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1389 (8 August 2001) -

 

15. In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts.

 

Ignore that the RRO 2005 did not amend s.1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as claimed by Applecart (as proven by Lamb)

 

Ignore Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542 (11 May 2011) -

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interest in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppel or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

 

Ignore s.53 of the LPA 1925 -

 

(a)no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law;

 

Ignore The Mortgage Business v Lamb (which considered section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005.

 

Ignore that delivery is about the intent of the borrower and not the signature of the Lender. (As confirmed by Lamb)

 

Ignore Palmer v Land Registry

 

Just stay focused - ignore and sweep everything under the carpet that disproves the fanciful ideas asserted by this thread.

 

No defence ? More like no case to answer.

[bhall]

It is Me ?

 

Where is the evidence to support your accusation. ?

 

Still waiting ;-)

[applecart]

Stay focused people

 

Ignore Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1389 (8 August 2001) -

 

15. In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts.

 

Ignore that the RRO 2005 did not amend s.1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as claimed by Applecart (as proven by Lamb)

 

Ignore Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542 (11 May 2011) -

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interest in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppel or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

 

Ignore s.53 of the LPA 1925 -

 

(a)no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law;

 

Ignore The Mortgage Business v Lamb (which considered section 1 of the LPA (MP) 1989 as amended by the RRO 2005.

 

Ignore that delivery is about the intent of the borrower and not the signature of the Lender. (As confirmed by Lamb)

 

Ignore Palmer v Land Registry

 

Just stay focused - ignore and sweep everything under the carpet that disproves the fanciful ideas asserted by this thread.

 

No defence ? More like no case to answer.

 

Hi Ben, we do not ignore any of the above..as you know an alternative argument has been presented to the Chamber to determine the validity of the deed and the 'mortgage' of registered land.....

 

We all understand that you do not agree with the alternative argument and we wholly respect your stance as relied upon by you to advise 'caution' ...however, we have submitted the 'alternative' argument...

 

You will appreciate, the people concerned here....are not Lenders... the people concerned in this thread are the Borrowers......it is for their benefit that the information in this thread relates to .... after due consideration of what it is the Lender is likely to rely upon for his objection to the applications being made.

 

The alternative argument... so far..... has been accepted by the Chamber......

 

That's where we are up to......

 

We await the outcome in due course...

 

Apple

[applecart]

It is Me ?

 

Where is the evidence to support your accusation. ?

 

Still waiting ;-)

 

Ben... can you let this go please? It is irrelevant.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can I just say:

 

29. Mr Helden's case on section 53 is only marginally less weak. The section does indeed apply to mortgages, as, unlike section 2, it is concerned with the "creat[ion] or disposi[tion]" of any "interest in land". However, it is far less prescriptive than section 2, which requires every term of the arrangement to be included in a document or identical documents signed by both parties. Section 53 merely requires the arrangement to be in a document signed by the person creating or disposing of the interest. Section 2 therefore may give rise to problems when it comes to estoppel or rectification (as discussed in the thoughtful judgment of Morgan J in Oun v Ahmed [2008] EWHC 545 (Ch), paras 41-55), but no such problems arise in connection with section 53.

 

You cannot 'mortgage' registered land...

 

Apple

[bhall]

Sorry forgot to also say also

 

Ignore that a judge has never ruled that a mortgage deed is void because it has not been signed by a lender.

 

Ignore that judge after judge after judge have ruled over and over again that a mortgage deed is not void because it has not been signed by a lender.

 

 

Stay focused and ignore everything

[bhall]

Way to much being ignored in this thread including the obvious.