Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Why oh why

Be careful apple they don't try and draw you in to a row

 

They can do all they like.....the information and the 'F'LAWS will be corrected as and when they post them up....there are certain posts that are just ignored of course ; )

 

We're on the right track.....this thread remains worth it's weight on point......the Deed remains void - no matter what they do to try to persuade otherwise....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi All

 

Just to say; I have posted a link to every single MP in the UK......it makes sense to post a link to this thread to every single one of them....I think it's about time they got to grips with what is about to happen on their watch.........

 

It's yet another means of getting the message out - for if they think it is only small business's that have been affected by the draconian treatment then they need to consider the actual detriment that the banks and lenders have bestowed on Borrowers countrywide.....

 

We want to know what each and every local MP is going to do about it too?

 

Apple

[sequenci]

need to consider the actual detriment that the banks and lenders have bestowed on Borrowers countrywide.....

 

 

An interesting point.

 

What is the detriment?

 

A borrower borrows money at a rate that they are made aware of prior to entering into their contract to buy a property at a price they formally agree. On the face of it, that's your typical mortgage arrangement. 99%+ of people will never have any problems whatsoever. Of course we all know that the real problem is where people fall in to arrears - and some lenders are incredibly heavy handed with the way they treat people - we can all agree on that fact.

 

Quick question then, Apple, what happens if the deed is declared void? How would a lender require repayment of their money?

 

Ta,

 

Seq.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Sequenci,

I would question your percetage of those who do not have any mortgage repayment issues given that various news reports over the last six months were suggesting an average of around 40% for the UK, with some regions reaching as high as 60%.

 

Good question Seq, for should this be the senario, then, I think this thread with with its 200+ pages would pale into insignificance with a 'what happens next senario' thread, but I think were are going to go their soon, soon just for the discussion.

 

Oh, did you get a chance to look at what I asked for earlier, you know the one about the database, if you get a chance.

 

Ta.

[sequenci]

Hi Sequenci,

I would question your percetage of those who do not have any mortgage repayment issues given that various news reports over the last six months were suggesting an average of around 40% for the UK, with some regions reaching as high as 60%.

 

Do you have a source for your data? That would be really cool, thanks!

 

I guess, as far as I'm concerned, there are different situations with mortgage repayments.

a) the folks in arrears that can bring those arrears back up-to-date within a reasonable period of time

b) the folks with no realistic way of repaying their arrears due to a significant change in their circumstances - e.g. loss of income, seperation, ill health. That sort of thing.

 

In the majority of cases I've seen, the majority of people can save their homes - generally by prioritising mortgage arrears over non-priority debts such as credit cards and unsecured loans etc.

 

Good question Seq, for should this be the senario, then, I think this thread with with its 200+ pages would pale into insignificance with a 'what happens next senario' thread, but I think were are going to go their soon, soon just for the discussion.

 

Oh, did you get a chance to look at what I asked for earlier, you know the one about the database, if you get a chance.

 

Ta.

 

What outcome are you looking to achieve, and what would that mean for homeowners?

What was the question? ta

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Kegi,

 

I know, I know all that clap-trap, and look you can do it in multi colors as well. How do ya do that.

[sequenci]

In the grand scheme of things, I think the UK is actually doing quite well: http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3731

 

I guess low interest rates account for much of this, however.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi IS IT ME,

 

I thought the OPTI post looked familiar, I wonder if they have amended their advice, you know, in view of their involvement here. I might just later take me a glance, just to see if they've had a chance, but maybe they're to busy going round and round, 'cause so one here is leading them on a merry dance.

 

Ho Ho Hoooo, IS IT ME, what do you want for Christmas.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi TimetogoRAM,

 

Soryy I didn't get back to you sooner, I was kinda AWOL today.

 

I can see why you cannot understand the last paragreph as I've left a few words out, that's these old fingure there not so quick anymore.

 

What I assert here is that your solicitor or conveyancer, they could have been selected for you, remenber they will come from a Lenders list of approved providers (that is solicitors or conveyancers) just to help you with your costs or it might even be free in some cases. Now consider the implications of this, in the context of this thread, could they also have been drawn in unbeknown to them.

 

Remember TimetogoRAM, There is nothing free in this life, you will be paying for this somewhere and you may not realise.

So as we go down the rabbit hole we will find some more, we are pulling back the corporate vail, that thing they hide behind, we have exposed the moral hazzard and we'll use it in our defence.

 

So there you go, hope this helps, put it up on your fridge also, just to remind us.

Edited November 26, 2013 by GiveHimaMask
left out word

[IS IT ME?]

GiveHimaMask,

well christmas I think it may come early this year lol

 

As for your post Sequenci

A borrower borrows money at a rate that they are made aware of prior to entering into their contract to buy a property at a price they formally agree. On the face of it, that's your typical mortgageicon arrangement. 99% IS that the one that they have all got fined for??? fixing the rate??

Who does fix the rate not the borrowers!

Edited November 26, 2013 by ims21

[applecart]

An interesting point.

 

What is the detriment?

 

A borrower borrows money at a rate that they are made aware of prior to entering into their contract to buy a property at a price they formally agree. On the face of it, that's your typical mortgage arrangement. 99%+ of people will never have any problems whatsoever. Of course we all know that the real problem is where people fall in to arrears - and some lenders are incredibly heavy handed with the way they treat people - we can all agree on that fact.

 

Quick question then, Apple, what happens if the deed is declared void? How would a lender require repayment of their money?

 

Ta,

 

Seq.

 

Detriment?....read around the threads on the CaG.....

 

I’m intrigued...you always ask about the Lender....as you know, I am not here to assist any lenders case; the scenario posted is full of holes...purposefully put together to encourage each and every lender to jump into it....yes, cruel I know... but I couldn’t help myself.....I’ve made no secret of the fact that this is Is It Me’s friends thread – he is a borrower....so forgive me if I come across as totally biased ; )

 

I am not concerned about the Lender per se – I do not believe he has any right to claim any money for reasons already posted....as based on the law....

 

If the Lender cannot find a way to get his money within the law... then; the Lender will just have to write the debt off I’m afraid.... ; )

 

Apple

Edited November 26, 2013 by ims21

[sequenci]

 

As for your post Sequenci

A borrower borrows money at a rate that they are made aware of prior to entering into their contract to buy a property at a price they formally agree. On the face of it, that's your typical mortgageicon arrangement. 99% IS that the one that they have all got fined for??? fixing the rate??

Who does fix the rate not the borrowers!

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Apologies.

Edited November 26, 2013 by ims21

[sequenci]

Detriment?....read around the threads on the CaG.....

 

Because I simply cannot see any based upon the application of the rules that I was trained in.

I’m intrigued...you always ask about the Lender....as you know, I am not here to assist any lenders case; the scenario posted is full of holes...purposefully put together to encourage each and every lender to jump into it....yes, cruel I know... but I couldn’t help myself.....I’ve made no secret of the fact that this is Is It Me’s friends thread – he is a borrower....so forgive me if I come across as totally biased ; )

 

Hey it's cool. Believe it or not I actually work on the borrower's side in my day job. I've been taught, though, to question everything and to remain objective to everything also. These questions I ask are not designed to catch you out or to try and dismiss what you're saying - but to view the bigger picture. Anyone that instantly dismisses any alternative views or opinions could set themselves up for a massive fail.

I am not concerned about the Lender per se – I do not believe he has any right to claim any money for reasons already posted....as based on the law....

As you see it, of course. Others may see it differently.

If the Lender cannot find a way to get his money within the law... then; the Lender will just have to write the debt off I’m afraid.... ; )

 

I can't see the non-signing of a deed negating the ability of a lender to get their money back. not in a million years.

Edited November 26, 2013 by ims21

[applecart]

ab.

Because I simply cannot see any based upon the application of the rules that I was trained in.

 

What??.....'rules'... 'training'.....are you a robot?....the members of the CaG are all human beings Sequenci; the majority of whom come to the CaG complaining about the real 'detriment' that is .... some lender somewhere is looking to turf them out of their home.......that's them, the kids, the dog, and the goldfish!!......and you refer to your 'training' and the application of the 'rules'.....what rules are those?....is it part of your training to .... as a rule to be 'blinkered' to the real detriment perpetrated against fellow human beings?

 

Hey it's cool. Believe it or not I actually work on the borrower's side in my day job. I've been taught, though, to question everything and to remain objective to everything also. These questions I ask are not designed to catch you out or to try and dismiss what you're saying - but to view the bigger picture. Anyone that instantly dismisses any alternative views or opinions could set themselves up for a massive fail.

 

Really?.... and how many have you saved from eviction then?......you may be surprised to know..... sometimes, just sometimes... others views are instantly dismissed because there is No Defence.....200+ pages which include 'alternative views'....and still NO Defence.....if anone has considered others and their views... you can bet we have had to on this thread ....and then some.............

 

As you see it, of course. Others may see it differently.

 

As Above....

 

I can't see the non-signing of a deed negating the ability of a lender to get their money back. not in a million years.

 

You have not been trained to .... that's why....

 

Apple

 

[applecart]

Here you go Sequenci.....

 

Start off with getting yourself back to humanity with a copy of the Human Rights Act 1998...here's the link:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

Hi TimetogoRAM,

 

Soryy I didn't get back to you sooner, I was kinda AWOL today.

 

I can see why you cannot understand the last paragreph as I've left a few words out, that's these old fingure there not so quick anymore.

 

What I assert here is that your solicitor or conveyancer, they could have been selected for you, remenber they will come from a Lenders list of approved providers (that is solicitors or conveyancers) just to help you with your costs or it might even be free in some cases. Now consider the implications of this, in the context of this thread, could they also have been drawn in unbeknown to them.

 

Remember TimetogoRAM, There is nothing free in this life, you will be paying for this somewhere and you may not realise.

So as we go down the rabbit hole we will find some more, we are pulling back the corporate vail, that thing they hide behind, we have exposed the moral hazzard and we'll use it in our defence.

 

So there you go, hope this helps, put it up on your fridge also, just to remind us.

 

I think I know where you are coming from. I believe that what you say about this whole issue be unbeknown to the solicitors though is naive. I believe they knew exactly what they was doing and are partly to blame for this. If I instruct a solicitor I expect a service within the law and anything which is outside of the law then the client should be made aware. They aren't bothered as long as they get their cash as agreed from the lender. The fact that the lender offer incentives such as free conveyancer just shows that they aren't working for the borrower at all. The lender, HMLR and the instructed solicitor knew exactly what was going on!

 

What worries me is that lenders still offer free legal fees paid with most remortgages and some mortgages. What's in it for them? Because as you say nothing is for free!

[TimetogoRAM]

Because I simply cannot see any based upon the application of the rules that I was trained in.

 

 

Hey it's cool. Believe it or not I actually work on the borrower's side in my day job. I've been taught, though, to question everything and to remain objective to everything also. These questions I ask are not designed to catch you out or to try and dismiss what you're saying - but to view the bigger picture. Anyone that instantly dismisses any alternative views or opinions could set themselves up for a massive fail.

 

As you see it, of course. Others may see it differently.

 

 

I can't see the non-signing of a deed negating the ability of a lender to get their money back. not in a million years.

 

Sequenci,

 

Most of your posts are about what you feel the implications would be of a void deed. You have asked the question many a time relating to if the borrower would receive anything. You believe nothing at all and that the debt would remain repayable at the same level etc...

 

Are you for real? I can't believe you actually think that if the deed is deemed void that there would be no restitution for the borrower. There has to be, because the borrower has been mis sold and misguided into signing a deed with terms attached that the lender knowingly knew was a complete lie.

 

Have you ever seen any terms stating - "we will not sign or execute your deed and your mortgage will be sold off to the open market. You are entering into a mortgage by demise, a charge by way of legal mortgage and that we hold your title but we will not actually own your mortgage"

 

Not to mention the complete profit that they have made off the back of our mortgages. There has to be heavy penalties against the lender and all interest payments for the length of the mortgage term, arrears, court costs and injury to feelings compensation to the borrower at various levels. Remember some borrowers have gone through the stress of constant hounding and harassment from their lender at various levels... What about the potential compensation due from HMLR in registering a void deed? What about the conveyancer that was instructed by the lender and supposed to be completing the mortgage for the borrower and in the borrower's interest.

 

Sorry mate but there's absolute no doubt, and I work in this field, that the borrower would be compensated heavily if a void deed is determined and this compensation would not just come from the lender!

 

Sequenci - do you work for a lender and maybe you're counting your future costs?

Edited November 26, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[applecart]

Sequenci,

 

Most of your posts are about what you feel the implications would be of a void deed. You have asked the question many a time relating to if the borrower would receive anything. You believe nothing at all and that the debt would remain repayable at the same level etc...

 

Are you for real? I can't believe you actually think that if the deed is deemed void that there would be no restitution for the borrower. There has to be, because the borrower has been mis sold and misguided into signing a deed with terms attached that the lender knowingly knew was a complete lie.

 

Have you ever seen any terms stating - "we will not sign or execute your deed and your mortgage will be sold off to the open market. You are entering into a mortgage by demise, a charge by way of legal mortgage and that we hold your title but we will not actually own your mortgage"

 

Not to mention the complete profit that they have made off the back of our mortgages. There has to be heavy penalties against the lender and all interest payments for the length of the mortgage term, arrears, court costs and injury to feelings compensation to the borrower at various levels. Remember some borrowers have gone through the stress of constant hounding and harassment from their lender at various levels... What about the potential compensation due from HMLR in registering a void deed? What about the conveyancer that was instructed by the lender and supposed to be completing the mortgage for the borrower and in the borrower's interest.

 

Sorry mate but there's absolute no doubt, and I work in this field, that the borrower would be compensated heavily if a void deed is determined and this compensation would not just come from the lender!

 

Sequenci - do you work for a lender and maybe you're counting your future costs?

 

Hi TimetogoRam

 

Yes, in a nutshell.....your post is spot on.....

 

So, when we are asked in future...what is it that the Borrower wants?....they can refer to your post above......Let's hope they stop asking the question over and over again...for if they could not work it out for themselves.... you have certainly provided the answer for them now ; )

 

This could be the reason why we are seeing very little; if any support from any solicitor....they are afraid they will be sued for professional negligence.......

 

However, the RRO 2005 does offer every single firm of solicitors a get out of jail free card.....if they actually read it....they would see it.......so, why they do not come forward and assist borrowers who may need their help is beyond me......must be because the majority of them are sitting pretty on a panel waiting to be appointed by the Lender to complete on yet more unlawful mortgages of registered land....??

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Hi Apple.

 

When I mentioned the term 'detriment', it's not from a socio-economic point-of-view, it's from a legal point of view. You keep banging on about the LAW, surely you must understand the difference, well at least I hope you do. I can't say I'm a robot. Are you?

I have saved hundreds of people from eviction, maybe in to the thousands by now. Yourself?

Without going into too much detail I would like to say I'm pretty well versed in these areas, probably more than most - although there are a couple of people that have posted within this thread that are way, way more qualified than I am.

Appreciate a copy of the HRA, I'm pretty well versed with that, too. Appreciate it all the same, though

[sequenci]

 

Sequenci - do you work for a lender and maybe you're counting your future costs?

 

Nope. I don't. I work for the other side

 

Are you for real?

Yes, are you?

 

I can't believe you actually think that if the deed is deemed void that there would be no restitutionicon for the borrower.

On the face of it, what difference would it make?

The lender has given them the loan, on terms that have been agreed, the borrower gets their house. If the borrower wasn't happy with the mortgage they should have either gone elsewhere or not contracted at all.

There has to be, because the borrower has been mis sold and misguided into signing a deed with terms attached that the lender knowingly knew was a complete lie.

What damage/loss has the borrower suffered by a lender not signing the deed.

Also, what are your own views on equitable, rather than legal, mortgages?

[applecart]

Hi Apple.

 

When I mentioned the term 'detriment', it's not from a socio-economic point-of-view, it's from a legal point of view. You keep banging on about the LAW, surely you must understand the difference, well at least I hope you do. I can't say I'm a robot. Are you?

I have saved hundreds of people from eviction, maybe in to the thousands by now. Yourself?

Without going into too much detail I would like to say I'm pretty well versed in these areas, probably more than most - although there are a couple of people that have posted within this thread that are way, way more qualified than I am.

Appreciate a copy of the HRA, I'm pretty well versed with that, too. Appreciate it all the same, though

 

Hi Sequenci

 

I hear you...but to be honest; from your posts - it is difficult to believe you...no offence.

 

Oh, and the HRA.... your welcome.... ; )

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Hey it's cool. I know law can be a tricky area to understand.

 

Take care

[applecart]

Hey it's cool. I know law can be a tricky area to understand.

 

Take care

 

Yes....clearly...... ; )

 

you take care yourself too.

 

Apple

[andrew1]

What damage/loss has the borrower suffered by a lender not signing the deed.

 

 

Whilst we are all taking care of one another can I just add, that from my perspective in all of this, and a battle I am still having with a lender myself over this very issue, if they, the lender, throughout the term of the loan/mortgage have used the law to try and repossess a home then they should be held to abide by those same laws before being given the right to go and take that home.

 

A Judge once said to me when I presented a counterclaim against a repo and she saw how much I was asking for (or what a successful claim might bring me) " do you realise what you are asking here MrA1 ? and I responded " Yes your Honour, I appreciate the moral aspects of this..." and before I could go on she cut in and said " We are not here to judge the morals Mr A1, just the facts"!, ( and for the record I got that settled out of court in my favour (handsomely I might add)).

 

I did this with the DCA's and them abiding by the CCA (or not as the case was) and I see the same thing here which is being fought...the facts as the law states and if the lenders have messed up in not abiding by the laws they use to repossess people then sorry, that's tough on them, but they are staffed by trained professional banking and credit people and bursting with legal advice before drawing these contracts up trying to cover their ars*s....so why shouldn't Joe Public expect them to do things according to the law too?

 

It just takes the odd one like these rebels on here to dig outside the box and digging is something I know all about with my own exploits and what it finds.

 

Simples!

 

Prove them wrong.

 

The loss? - Our homes. If they are wrong, well at least they tried and the law has quelled the potential storm.

 

I'm all for digging because these companies are complacent, lazy and greedy and they slip up thinking nobody like us exists or have any right to question them...Wrong! If the law say's they shouldn't or didn't then tough. If anyone has some kind of moral issue by not paying then fine, pay them. Live with that clean conscience, but don't let them walk all over you just because they say they are right...make them prove it.

 

Mornin all....

 

A1

[TimetogoRAM]

Whilst we are all taking care of one another can I just add, that from my perspective in all of this, and a battle I am still having with a lender myself over this very issue, if they, the lender, throughout the term of the loan/mortgage have used the law to try and repossess a home then they should be held to abide by those same laws before being given the right to go and take that home.

 

A Judge once said to me when I presented a counterclaim against a repo and she saw how much I was asking for (or what a successful claim might bring me) " do you realise what you are asking here MrA1 ? and I responded " Yes your Honour, I appreciate the moral aspects of this..." and before I could go on she cut in and said " We are not here to judge the morals Mr A1, just the facts"!, ( and for the record I got that settled out of court in my favour (handsomely I might add)).

 

I did this with the DCA's and them abiding by the CCA (or not as the case was) and I see the same thing here which is being fought...the facts as the law states and if the lenders have messed up in not abiding by the laws they use to repossess people then sorry, that's tough on them, but they are staffed by trained professional banking and credit people and bursting with legal advice before drawing these contracts up trying to cover their ars*s....so why shouldn't Joe Public expect them to do things according to the law too?

 

It just takes the odd one like these rebels on here to dig outside the box and digging is something I know all about with my own exploits and what it finds.

 

Simples!

 

Prove them wrong.

 

The loss? - Our homes. If they are wrong, well at least they tried and the law has quelled the potential storm.

 

I'm all for digging because these companies are complacent, lazy and greedy and they slip up thinking nobody like us exists or have any right to question them...Wrong! If the law say's they shouldn't or didn't then tough. If anyone has some kind of moral issue by not paying then fine, pay them. Live with that clean conscience, but don't let them walk all over you just because they say they are right...make them prove it.

 

Mornin all....

 

A1

 

 

I like it!

All who are taking their lender to the Chamber, either because they are facing repossession, they are fed up of being dictated to by these lenders or cos they can just simply see the facts and the law that protects them, the onus is now on the lender to prove it has a right to our homes cos as I see it so far, certainly with mine, they don't!