Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Thank you Is It Me....

 

I respect that this is your thread and have tried to hold true to the rules of the CaG to ensure that I remain focused to bring you enough detail to assist you and your friend move your application forward... I apologise to you for the times that I have engaged in debate that is not on topic.......and will look to ensure I keep it to a minimum moving forward....

 

I am guided by you to remind all Borrowers viewing this thread to remain FOCUSED and to REMEMBER the MAIN POINTS and thrust of this thread:

 

 

1 The Application was minded to be struck out on the premise that it was without merit.

2 The Chamber allowed time to make further submissions

3 We drafted the ‘written representation’ to amend the initial application to essentially ask for a determination of the deed (not the charge) with a view to set ting it aside on the following grounds:

 

a) The finding that it is the applicant who is the Registered Proprietor with owners powers to charge the registered estate..not the Lender

b) The finding that the applicant has no power to charge the registered estate with a ‘mortgage’.

c) The finding that a ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ has the same effect as a ‘mortgage by demise or sub-demise’

d) The finding that a deed meeting the approved form of charge of HMLR is not a Deed that meets the necessary formalities in relation to ‘delivery’ of a deed

e) The finding that a deed meeting section 53 of the LPA 1925 does not meet the necessary formalities in relation to ‘delivery’ either....

f) The finding that the Deed must be executed thus ‘assumed’ by the Lender before any presumption of delivery can be said to be in evidence to meet section 1 (2) LPMPA 1989 (as amended) (RRO 2005).

g) The finding that the applicant cannot be bound to a deed on the presumption that he is wholly liable to both grant and assume the deed by way of his/her signature alone.

 

4 The Grounds set out above are supported not only by the protections and interpretation of the Law making sure but also case law decided in superior courts of record, (all of which relate to the setting aside of a deed for want of delivery and/or formality) namely:

 

a) Popham J in Hawksland v Gatchel (1601) Cro. Eliz. 835

b) Bibby Financial Services Ltd v Magson [2011] EWHC 2495 (QB)

c) Garguilo v Jon Howard Gershinson & Anr [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0377 (06 January 2012

 

****The Draft written submissions do not rely at any point on section 2 of the LPMPA 1989 ****

 

NB: Against the ‘grounds’ submitted in the ‘draft’ application the Lender cannot and understandably has not submitted to the Chamber that he has a lawful right to ‘mortgage’ a registered estate and he relies that it is ‘common practice’ to do so...and says this ‘common practice’ as relied upon by various un-related decisions and an un-reported case substantiate its ‘objections’ to the application going forward to a hearing... he also objects to say that the Borrower should be bound to the deed that he has not executed in reliance on ‘common practice’ ....’Common Practice’ is not the LAW....and it would be wholly misguided to walk into a superior court of record and admit that you have ‘mortgaged’ a registered estate...and notably; the lender has not done so.....or to walk into a superior court of record to rely that a deed that you have not executed will be misconstrued as one that is valid in relation to delivery based on the mis-conceived interpretations of the law based on a defence of ‘common practice’ ...’common practices’ .....circumvent the law....Consequently it is clear...there is NO DEFENCE ...

 

I would advise Borrowers to print off this page...stick it on the fridge and remind themselves.... this is what it is all about .... nothing else.....We want the Deed Set Aside... The register altered to remove the lenders charge...

 

If we have inadvertently missed any point....a decision from the chamber will have to let us know...we will amend and tweak.... re-submit and 'appeal'... if necessary.....

 

Apple

Edited November 15, 2013 by applecart

[applecart]

My signature is not showing in my post #3701....can a site team member please advise the reason for this please?

 

 

 

Apple

[bigphil61]

Hi Apple, Thank you for your welcome to this thread, its appreciated....and as for what stage I believe your at....your at stage 3...and as GiveHimaMask states...You were there within the first few pages of this thread... Another Quote if I may: If not us, who? If not now, when? - Hillel the Elder

[applecart]

Hi Apple, Thank you for your welcome to this thread, its appreciated....and as for what stage I believe your at....your at stage 3...and as GiveHimaMask states...You were there within the first few pages of this thread... Another Quote if I may: If not us, who? If not now, when? - Hillel the Elder

 

Thanks for this Bigphil61 ; )

 

There is no issue....We are indeed at Stage 3......It makes sense once we remind ourselves what the FOCUS of Is It Me's thread is all about......the grounds that we have submitted ..... and the strength of those grounds within the LAW

 

I'm glad your on board (so's to speak) and..... this second quote (not that I'm counting...) is again as apt as the first you posted....

 

"IF NOT US....WHO?".........."IF NOT NOW..... WHEN?"

 

I like it.....Thank you ; )

 

 

 

Apple

[citizenB]

My signature is not showing in my post #3701....can a site team member please advise the reason for this please?

 

 

 

Apple

 

 

Signatures for those other than Site team, do not show up in EVERY post - usually one or two posts per page.

[IS IT ME?]

Good morning, this is the trouble maker here lol

No really this is what has happened here is as apple and bighil61 state this is now at stage 3 ready for lift off.

However I can not find out any more on the Irish case.

I have printed off the advice from apple and have put it on the fridge, door and bed to read though and though.

At the meeting it was discussed that this could be the only down full of the case so that's what we will be doing between now and the hearing.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Apple,

Read your post # 3701.... it’s.... BRILLIANT.... it’s ....THE MONEY SHOT.... it’s.... THE EUREKA MOMENT.... it’.... THE DOG’s B**LS

You’ve just managed to summarise at least the first 80 pages of this thread.

So.... there you have it folks.... if your looking for a good place to start.... this is it... PAGE 186.... POST # 3710.

Now of course you will have to read the whole thread.... to familiarise yourself with the Laws.... the Laws which have been used to reach the finding.... highlighted in Apple’s post.... but.... it should be just like.... just like pinning the tail on the donkey now.

When you cross reference.... the finding.... with the various sections and clauses.... you will read... in plain English.... what it all means.

So, once again.... APPLE.... WELL PLAYED.... another.... STERLING PIECE OF WORK.

GiveHimaMask

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Marika41

 

Read Appl'e post #3701 pg 186.

This will help you better understand.... what this is all about.... and you don't need.... a Law Degree to understand it.

I am sure someone will be along shortly to deal with your particular problem.... the problem you highlighted in your post.... post # 3616

 

GiveHimaMask

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi IS IT ME,

I hope you weren't upset by my post of yesterday evening. I just wanted it to stop. No real point to it really.

You mentioned that at your meeting 'that this could be the only down fall of the case'. Do you wish to expand?

[IS IT ME?]

GivehimaMask,

Thank you for your post and yes apple has hit the nail on the head well and truly,

What I meant is that when people go to the chamber they have to be able to put into words what they wish to say and to be able to explain the nature of the application.

 

I know from others it is a hard thing to do and that's how they fall down.

 

As for your posts yes I am hurt hurt I tell you lol, no I had worst done to me than words and take no offence with it and agree with you.

[GiveHimaMask]

Many Thanks, IS IT ME,

 

I'm sure this will seem daunting to some folk, but, do not worry, help is at hand. After all this is the CAG and we are not jjust some internet folk.

 

GiveHimaMask

[applecart]

Good morning, this is the trouble maker here lol

No really this is what has happened here is as apple and bighil61 state this is now at stage 3 ready for lift off.

However I can not find out any more on the Irish case.

I have printed off the advice from apple and have put it on the fridge, door and bed to read though and though.

At the meeting it was discussed that this could be the only down full of the case so that's what we will be doing between now and the hearing.

 

Hi Is It Me....

 

Yes, the Main Points are there.....they are the points that have the Lenders worried....Why?....because....

 

You now know that every single consumer that visits this thread knows that they are the absolute owner of the Registered Estate.....Empowered to defend it in that knowledge...

 

Every single consumer that visits this thread knows that when they make an application to the Chamber...they can put into evidence a deed (official copy) that has not been executed by the Lender...

 

Every single consumer visiting this thread knows that a 'first registered charge' applies to an un-registered estate that is being registered by HMLR for the first time......NOT to a Registered Estate....

 

No Lender can say that at the time they got you to sign the 'approved form of charge' that they did not know that your estate was registered land.....what they say is......'oh, it's 'common practice'.....Which immediately entitles you to tell them ...'common practice is NOT the LAW'

 

They cannot overcome the fact that section 2 does not apply to deeds......doh!

 

They cannot overcome the fact that 'lamb' was a circuit judges decision...not binding and of no authority on any Judge sitting in the Chamber

 

They cannot say that 'Lamb', 'Helden', EagleStar' or any of the cases that they wish to bring forward are similar to the applications being made to the Chamber.....because the defendants in those cases all relied that they could 'shoehorn' section 2 to fit.....WE DO NOT DO THAT HERE....

 

and so on and so on......

 

Consumers should feel and be empowered in the knowledge....there truly is no defence......

 

Stick this on your fridge too ; )

 

Speak soon....

 

Apple

[sequenci]

I still think they'll be able to use the equitable mortgage argument. And forget part-performance, what about full performance?

[applecart]

Many Thanks, IS IT ME,

 

I'm sure this will seem daunting to some folk, but, do not worry, help is at hand. After all this is the CAG and we are not jjust some internet folk.

 

GiveHimaMask

 

Hi Ya

 

Once the 'penny drops'..... no consumer should find dealing with the lender different from taking a claim against anyone who affronts you and your belongings.....

 

There is nothing daunting about applying for a copy of your deed from HLMR..or your title register......and putting them both into evidence to the Chamber

 

The 'finer' detail we can assist with....there's plenty of info here on the thread.....

 

Everyone has a duty to protect their own.....it's is up to each and everyone to sing from the 'same hymn book'.......

 

Once that is happening...as soon as a consumer steps into a court room.....to defend any claim for possession......Judges will be rubber stamping those orders in the Borrowers favor....NOT the Lender.....

 

That's what will become the 'order of the day'....as we move and sing the same tune....... ; )

 

Nothing daunting about that at all......

 

Apple

[applecart]

I still think they'll be able to use the equitable mortgage argument. And forget part-performance, what about full performance?

 

I thought you were away at weekends??... ah well never mind - your here now...so.... Hi Ya ; )

 

Yes, I think they may do......but before you can claim an 'equitable mortgage'......it would first have to be LAWFUL to 'Mortgage'.....hope that makes sense?

 

They have yet to overcome that part of the application....saying that 'i have a first legal charge'...does not overcome the fact that such a charge does not and is not intended to apply to any registered estate.... hope that makes sense?

 

What do you mean when you refer to 'Full performance'?

 

Apple

[kegi]

Kegi

Im mainly working from memory here....but, I do not see any point to your posts here.... do you have a point?.... if so will you please make it for the benefit of all.... cause your taking up a lot of real estate here....or is that land, registered land.... and you know what they say about that.... you can't mortgage it and they stopped making it along time ago.

 

GiveHimaMask

It doesn't matter to me that you didn't see the point I made because the point I made did not concern you, as to the real estate since when were you made estate manager this is an open forum in case you've forgot already only site team have a say in who can walk on this estate.You can also if you wish explain to me what was the point in your last few posts other than to up your score or score a point whichever.

Feel free also to ask apple to fill you in with any more details of my point and maybe just maybe she will also point you in the directions of IMS21 REQUESTS that she refers others too.

kegi

[sequenci]

I

Yes, I think they may do......but before you can claim an 'equitable mortgage'......it would first have to be LAWFUL to 'Mortgage'.....hope that makes sense?

 

Are you aware of the subtle differences between 'law' and equity?

 

Yup, I'm usually mega busy at the weekends but I try and pop in if and when it's possible. Not always though. I'm a busy man.

[marika41]

Thank you givehimamask, apple very much appreciated, i needed that because I had completely lost my focus

[IS IT ME?]

Are you aware of the subtle differences between 'law' and equity?

 

Before that it has to be LAWFUL and even as equity has to be LAWFUL which way do you want to go??

[applecart]

Are you aware of the subtle differences between 'law' and equity?

 

Yup, I'm usually mega busy at the weekends but I try and pop in if and when it's possible. Not always though. I'm a busy man.

 

Hi Sequenci

 

Yes, There is a difference between LAW and Equity........of course there is....

 

I would go as far as to say....Deputy Adjudicator McAlister in 'Garguillo' would not and did not dare consider 'equity'.....even though, the deed was duly executed........but, if yu re-call.....the 'it' was not attached......(the terms and conditions).......no doubt she could have said....'oh, don't worry about that.....I can see that the Borrower singed it....Borrower must have had an intention to be bound...and llook...the Lender executed too....so, it is clear.... this deed is valid.......plus, I can rely on 'equity' to give the 'Lender' a chance to get his money back.......HOWEVER.......for she had the LAW.....and in relying on the LAW .....she relied that..... 'if and only if' .......to find that the 'it' was not complete.......So, again.....Whilst she could have relied on 'Equity'......The Law is the LAW and it's clearly a lot more reliable and like in that case.....the LAW prevailed......and quite rightly too.....she no doubt believed that if she relied on 'equity'......she would 'circumvent' the LAW.....

 

I would further this point and say that in 'Bibby'.....The Judge in that case also did not dare consider 'equity'......in fact, again...the formality of delivery is so important.... that he went back 400 years to make the point that the LAW will protect even on a 'technicality'.......Again, the LAW prevailed....

 

Now....let's consider the Lenders who have not even bothered to execute the Deed...and who have mortgaged registered land....with an objection to the application that says......it's common practice.....it is so common that even in 'Helden'....'Eaglestar' ..... and look at the un-reported case decided in a court of NO record of 'Lamb'......non of those cases considered that 'common practice is wrong..... they got away with it......why can't we....???

 

Compare the differences for yourself.......Courts of RECORD...verses....County court....Circuit Judge Decisions and courts of NO Record.......

 

The Chamber is a court of Record............I cannot see that any court of record would look to Equitable grounds to circumvent the LAW ; )

 

and Yes.... given the above.... the question remains..............What now Mr Lender??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Thank you givehimamask, apple very much appreciated, i needed that because I had completely lost my focus

 

That is not surprising considering the 'tactics' that are being deployed here..... We will do our best to keep you focused......

 

Stick to the same page ...... sing the same tune......stick the FACTS and the LAW up on your fridge at Home..... and sing away...... : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me....

 

Yes, the Main Points are there.....they are the points that have the Lenders worried....Why?....because....

 

You now know that every single consumer that visits this thread knows that they are the absolute owner of the Registered Estate.....Empowered to defend it in that knowledge...

 

Every single consumer that visits this thread knows that when they make an application to the Chamber...they can put into evidence a deed (official copy) that has not been executed by the Lender...

 

Every single consumer visiting this thread knows that a 'first registered charge' applies to an un-registered estate that is being registered by HMLR for the first time......NOT to a Registered Estate....

 

No Lender can say that at the time they got you to sign the 'approved form of charge' that they did not know that your estate was registered land.....what they say is......'oh, it's 'common practice'.....Which immediately entitles you to tell them ...'common practice is NOT the LAW'

 

They cannot overcome the fact that section 2 does not apply to deeds......doh!

 

They cannot overcome the fact that 'lamb' was a circuit judges decision...not binding and of no authority on any Judge sitting in the Chamber

 

They cannot say that 'Lamb', 'Helden', EagleStar' or any of the cases that they wish to bring forward are similar to the applications being made to the Chamber.....because the defendants in those cases all relied that they could 'shoehorn' section 2 to fit.....WE DO NOT DO THAT HERE....

 

and so on and so on......

 

Consumers should feel and be empowered in the knowledge....there truly is no defence......

 

Stick this on your fridge too ; )

 

Speak soon....

 

Apple

 

Hi Marika

 

I hope you saw the post above......like I say copy it and stick it on your fridge ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Sequenci

 

I don't think you answered my question.... ; (

 

Can you tell me what you mean when you speak of 'Full performance' please?

 

Apple

[ims21]

Off topic posts removed.

 

Stick to the matter in hand please.

 

Just for clarity, apple's views in my eyes are not the alternative views to which I refer. The alternative views to which I refer are the ones posted by those who take an alternative to those which applecart and others present on this thread.

[sequenci]

Hi Sequenci

 

I don't think you answered my question.... ; (

 

Can you tell me what you mean when you speak of 'Full performance' please?

 

Apple

 

You mentioned that an equitable mortgage couldn't be possible due to part-performance, I was asking what about full performance? Does that make sense?