Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi dx, thanks. Yes actually, that is the case with this one! I've taken tomorrow off work, I need to review the whole binder for each of these and I'll refrain from further questions until I do just that. Just on hold for court ref Claim #2
    • 1. who knows... 2. not the whole A/C vanishes from your file on the DN's 6th b'day ...already carefully explain this. 3.yes 4.already carefully explain this.
    • if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance. then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back .......... dx
    • Potentially it may not even get sold on? Just the default left for 6 years then gone? but if it is sold on ill get a letter from the DCA which is the notice of assignment? Sorry what is the different between a default notice and a default cal marker? yes, i may try and work arrangements out with the OCs after the breathing space but I'll see my circumstances then thank you again for all your help and patience, I really appreciate it and apologies If i am too fast or repeating myself.
    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3709 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok......Did the Lender advise you that they were appointing that particular firm of Solicitors? .... and are you 100% sure it is YOUR lender that you are dealing with?? no to both

 

Check out the FCA register.... input your lenders details to check if they have regulatory authority (which they should Have) and then check to see if they have any 'approved representatives'.... checked and they have no approved representative

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that it may be the approved representative that you are dealing with here and not the actual lender..ummmm?

 

Check it out... and come back to me on this = ok?

 

Apple

 

I've had 2 emails from these solicitors, one saying they are instructed by my lender, the other with me copied in to the Chamber, requesting further time to oppose the application, due to the hearing being stayed. I have also received a phonecall stating they are from this solicitors, asking if I've received the emails and if I am happy to receive correspondence in this way. A little unprofessional I think?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Applecart, this part of the Statute of Frauds Act 1677 is about one person offering a guarantee for the debts of another person. I don't see how that applies to the current situation or how it is relevant to s2 LPMPA 1989.

 

IVX1No Action against Executors, &c. upon a special Promise, or upon any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lands, &c. unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and signed.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

 

LPMPA stands for Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act.....

 

Statute of Frauds relates to agreements for sale of 'land'

 

Section 2 and the statute of frauds work together.

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

That wouldn't be relevant, where's the gift?

 

Sequenci, please consult your legal database on this.....I'm sure you can work this one out for yourself?

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had 2 emails from these solicitors, one saying they are instructed by my lender, the other with me copied in to the Chamber, requesting further time to oppose the application, due to the hearing being stayed. I have also received a phonecall stating they are from this solicitors, asking if I've received the emails and if I am happy to receive correspondence in this way. A little unprofessional I think?!

 

Ask yourself, does the conduct of the Lender and the Solicitor comply with the Tribunal Rules....if not - then there is a breach...it really is quite that simple ; )

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TimetogoRAM

I’ve been giving some thought to the earlier post UKaviator sent, the one where he/she states the advice they had got from the solicitor before signing, you know the advice the Lender recommends you get before you sign, oh, and your solicitor acting on behalf of your Lender in your case and not to forget the Lenders’ backing off in IS IT ME’s Friend’s case indeed all of them involved.

Well, you would think they would be right up to date with the law especially, in this conveyance stuff, remember, they are giving you Legal Advice, which you are paying for. You could say that’s a little contract right there. Here’s another little nugget I am aware off and you might not know, These Lenders, they have approved panels of solicitor companies, that means they have a list of companies which you must use to handle your conveyance. I suppose that’s how they can make you an offer to help you with your legal costs.

But wait, could there something else here, could they have unknowingly been drawn, you know in the bigger scheme of things, no surely not, that cannot be, after all it’s only a thought. Uuuuummmmmm.

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

IVX1No Action against Executors, &c. upon a special Promise, or upon any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lands, &c. unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and signed.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

 

LPMPA stands for Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act.....

 

Statute of Frauds relates to agreements for sale of 'land'

 

Section 2 and the statute of frauds work together.

 

Apple

 

 

The Statute of frauds has nothing to do with land applecart and it was passed in 312 years before LPMPA 1989. The only bit of the Statute of Frauds which remains in force is the part you posted, which is about giving a guarantee for the debts for another person.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TimetogoRAM

I’ve been giving some thought to the earlier post UKaviator sent, the one where he/she states the advice they had got from the solicitor before signing, you know the advice the Lender recommends you get before you sign, oh, and your solicitor acting on behalf of your Lender in your case and not to forget the Lenders’ backing off in IS IT ME’s Friend’s case indeed all of them involved.

Well, you would think they would be right up to date with the law especially, in this conveyance stuff, remember, they are giving you Legal Advice, which you are paying for. You could say that’s a little contract right there. Here’s another little nugget I am aware off and you might not know, These Lenders, they have approved panels of solicitor companies, that means they have a list of companies which you must use to handle your conveyance. I suppose that’s how they can make you an offer to help you with your legal costs.

But wait, could there something else here, could they have unknowingly been drawn, you know in the bigger scheme of things, no surely not, that cannot be, after all it’s only a thought. Uuuuummmmmm.

 

Totally GHAM, l was offered these incentives on applying for the mortgage, like help with costs and free conveyancer. Now I understand why I was offered these. Not particularly good legal advice when the lender isn't executing the deed to profiteer heavily from the sale of my mortgage. I was led to believe my lender had a charge over my property. I now know that they don't! So who does that is the question? The title says my lender, but HMLR have not updated this because my current ender has failed to tell them.

 

Could you please let me know what you mean by your last paragraph?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Statute of frauds has nothing to do with land applecart and it was passed in 312 years before LPMPA 1989. The only bit of the Statute of Frauds which remains in force is the part you posted, which is about giving a guarantee for the debts for another person.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point here Steampowered?

 

Which part of Part IV of the SoFA is referring to 'giving a guarantee for the debts of another person'?

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sequenci, please consult your legal database on this.....I'm sure you can work this one out for yourself?

 

Apple

 

Yup. There is no gift.

 

Also, don't you find it a little bit funny how on one hand you've started talking equity yet you don't identify the possibility in this day of age of an equitable mortgage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point here Steampowered?

 

Which part of Part IV of the SoFA is referring to 'giving a guarantee for the debts of another person'?

 

Apple

 

The bit you posted applecart, which is the only bit still in force.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized

 

It is not referring to charges in in the meaning of the word as a security right and has nothing to do with land. Charges did not exist in 1677.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Apple, think the answer is no. Like you say, let them dig further!

 

Exactly, don't write to them, don't inform them of their errors....they will correct them as and when they realise their error for themselves..... after all with all that legal know how....they should have no problem in interpreting the Tribunal Rules for themselves......

 

They will dig their way to the necessary Rule in due course.... hope they are not too late......might be why they need more time.... crikey..... all you asked the Chamber for was a determination of the deed..... and they need 'more time' to boot???

 

Anyone got a spare shovel?

 

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. There is no gift.

 

Also, don't you find it a little bit funny how on one hand you've started talking equity yet you don't identify the possibility in this day of age of an equitable mortgage?

 

yes, funny that ; )

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit you posted applecart, which is the only bit still in force.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized

 

It is not referring to charges in in the meaning of the word as a security right and has nothing to do with land. Charges did not exist in 1677.

 

Oh......okey dokey.....cheers ; )

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple,

You got a chance to watch the news yet, The bit about RBS, where Vince Cable has accused the Bank about closing small business down just to get at their assets, now he would have been made aware of the possible implications of this. Well if you haven’t yet, well listen to the report Author, listen even closer to what the small business owner says, very closely on how they went about getting their hands on his assets. They simply loaded him up with some more debt, that’s banksters for ya.

But ney, have I heard that story somewhere before uuuummmmm?.... ha,ha,ha... or should that be....ho ho ho... or maybe ha ho... or what about Hi Ho yes you know the one that goes.... Hi Ho Hi Ho its of to work we go... we work all day we get no pay Hi ho Hi Hooooooooooo.

I can’t believe it, Good on Vince, Good on you Mate.

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple,

You got a chance to watch the news yet, The bit about RBS, where Vince Cable has accused the Bank about closing small business down just to get at their assets, now he would have been made aware of the possible implications of this. Well if you haven’t yet, well listen to the report Author, listen even closer to what the small business owner says, very closely on how they went about getting their hands on his assets. They simply loaded him up with some more debt, that’s banksters for ya.

But ney, have I heard that story somewhere before uuuummmmm?.... ha,ha,ha... or should that be....ho ho ho... or maybe ha ho... or what about Hi Ho yes you know the one that goes.... Hi Ho Hi Ho its of to work we go... we work all day we get no pay Hi ho Hi Hooooooooooo.

I can’t believe it, Good on Vince, Good on you Mate.

 

Hi Ya....

 

Yes, I did.... I couldn't help thinking that the same is happening to Borrowers .....one MP I saw was at pains to emphasis that they only have anecdotal evidence..... and I thought....Is that so... yeah - right?

 

Do you think that maybe, just maybe,..... they are actually going to start flushing out the truth.....?

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

ukaviator

Is it the same ones who don't want to play here, as they were the first firm of solicitors!

So you can take what they put up as toilet paper

 

Agreed..... I think it is the 3rd or 4th time that the article from Optima has appeared on your thread ......to get the impression that Optima's Article will defend the fact that the lender has not executed the deed.....

 

 

 

Apple

Edited by ims21

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Vince Cable was appointed Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in May 2010......

 

That's the same department that the e-petition is going to by the way....... ; )

 

If you live in Twickenham you can alert him to issues via this email link:

 

[email protected]

 

You can contact your local MP by searching for him via this link:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/?sort=1

 

Apple

Edited by applecart

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kegi,

What Apple is raising in this post is a senario, the senario being what the Chamber might do when faced with the reality that the deed is found to be void. Now you need to read the post before so that you can get a feel for it.

 

givehim my post was nothing to do with the scenario it was to do with the clap-trap apple had just posted up

here it is again in red and as you seem to be apples spokes person would you not agree with me that's just what it is

..maybe not

 

Oh I forgot to say.... I didn't add the Borrower into the resolution as such...because the Borrower is already providing a solution....the Borrower is paying the 'mortgage '....the Borrower is paying the Bedroom tax.....bailing out the banks etc etc......after all it was the Borrower who caused the 'austerity' by signing that 'approved form of charge'....as a 'deed'....

 

Oh and if the Borrower does not pay the 'mortgage...well, we'll turf him out of his home....and get another Borrower to pick up the tab......80,000+ is no where near the 11.3 million target we have set...got to keep the wheel turning....got to keep the figures correct...... : )

kegi

Link to post
Share on other sites

givehim my post was nothing to do with the scenario it was to do with the clap-trap apple had just posted up

here it is again in red and as you seem to be apples spokes person would you not agree with me that's just what it is

..maybe not

 

Oh I forgot to say.... I didn't add the Borrower into the resolution as such...because the Borrower is already providing a solution....the Borrower is paying the 'mortgage '....the Borrower is paying the Bedroom tax.....bailing out the banks etc etc......after all it was the Borrower who caused the 'austerity' by signing that 'approved form of charge'....as a 'deed'....

 

Oh and if the Borrower does not pay the 'mortgage...well, we'll turf him out of his home....and get another Borrower to pick up the tab......80,000+ is no where near the 11.3 million target we have set...got to keep the wheel turning....got to keep the figures correct...... : )

kegi

 

'Clap trap'...... now I know that getting to the point is something you do with great vigour......can you explain, why you believe the above is 'clap trap' Kegi?

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3709 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...