Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[p.j]

This is again a nun ported case, the chamber sates it was asked by the 'appellant to send this out????

I know of no appellant asking for this to be done and as it is trying to stop the cases going though why would the appellant send it out??? Some thing is going on here me thinks

 

OH no it's only me???? Lol

 

Ummm IS IT ME who is this Applicant ?

 

pj

[IS IT ME?]

That's what I say none of us has asked for it nor even know of it lol

[IS IT ME?]

Can't find it on google thingy so lost there

[TimetogoRAM]

The letter from the chamber says - " I have been asked to send you the enclosed copy decision of HH Judge Blunsdon dated 20th March 2013. This has been sent to us by the Applicant in another case similar to your case..."

 

Has anyone else had this case through? Joseph Henry Fergus (by LPA Receivers P Jardine and GC Davis) and Calvin Matthews and Persons Unknown. - Lambeth County Court..

 

Is there any way this case can be posted if I get it scanned in?

[TimetogoRAM]

What I don't understand is -

1. who is the Applicant who asked this to be sent?

2. Why would an Applicant send a case through that still harps on about section 2 LPMPA 89?

3. Why are the Property Chamber doing the dirty work of the lenders?

 

I think I need to make a call to the Chamber tomorrow. All very confusing!

[applecart]

The letter from the chamber says - " I have been asked to send you the enclosed copy decision of HH Judge Blunsdon dated 20th March 2013. This has been sent to us by the Applicant in another case similar to your case..."

 

Has anyone else had this case through? Joseph Henry Fergus (by LPA Receivers P Jardine and GC Davis) and Calvin Matthews and Persons Unknown. - Lambeth County Court..

 

Is there any way this case can be posted if I get it scanned in?

 

Has anyone remembered to PM Sequenci?

 

He was going to see if he/she could get a link to the case to help out.... that would save a lot of time?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

I don't think so

[applecart]

I don't think so

 

Oh well... hopefully Sequenci will remember and get back to us on this......

 

I can imagine we need to look at it pretty swiftly.....

 

The clock is ticking.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Will have a hunt once I've finished my working day. I *might* be able to find it

 

Sequenci.........any joy???

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Don't think he can find it also,

[caro]

Maybe the chamber are allowing you to see what the lenders would rely on so you can see how you can fight it.

 

Surely it's good that you know what you're up against and enable you to prepare to fight it.

 

If you scan it you should be able to post it up.

[IS IT ME?]

Sequenci was going to post it up if he could find it as I can't find on the inter web lol

[applecart]

Sequenci was going to post it up if he could find it as I can't find on the inter web lol

 

If it is a case sent to the Chamber by the Applicant.....then it is possibly a case that will help other Applicants......I can't see a lender asking the Chamber to send a case that would assist Applicants can you?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Maybe the chamber are allowing you to see what the lenders would rely on so you can see how you can fight it.

 

Surely it's good that you know what you're up against and enable you to prepare to fight it.

 

If you scan it you should be able to post it up.

 

That would be a first........why would the Chamber show all applicants a lenders "hand" before the trial???

 

They sent out 'lamb'.....that was strange also.... got us all in a tizzy on here.....

 

Apple

[caro]

If it is a case sent to the Chamber by the Applicant.....then it is possibly a case that will help other Applicants......I can't see a lender asking the Chamber to send a case that would assist Applicants can you?

 

Apple

 

Whoever it helps it has to be better to know in advance than let them spring any surprises on the day.

 

TimetogoRAM asked if it could be posted if he scans it, and it can by hitting Go Advanced on a new post and using the paper clip to attach the scan.

 

If it's a new case it may not be on the legal databases yet.

[IS IT ME?]

Was it before or after the lame case as I can't find it any where , also why would the chamber send this out.?

It's not from an application as no one on here has asked about it erm some thing fishy here

[caro]

That would be a first........why would the Chamber show all applicants a lenders "hand" before the trial???

 

They sent out 'lamb'.....that was strange also.... got us all in a tizzy on here.....

 

Apple

 

In a court case it's standard practice for both sides to provide a bundle of documents that they intend to rely on in court to enable them to prepare their arguments. I attended a dwp tribunal a while back and received a bundle in advance. I don't see why this tribunal wouldn't ensure parties had the opportunity to prepare in advance too. Often documents submitted on the day are not allowed or an adjournment will be allowed to read and digest the new info. Let's not forget the tribunal should be fair to both parties.

[applecart]

Was it before or after the lame case as I can't find it any where , also why would the chamber send this out.?

It's not from an application as no one on here has asked about it erm some thing fishy here

 

I think TTGR said it was 'March 2013'.......'lamb' was July 2013..... we found 'lamb' ok.....if this case was 'before' 'lamb'.......it must be on the data base by now...surely...??

 

Apple

[caro]

I think TTGR said it was 'March 2013'.......'lamb' was July 2013..... we found 'lamb' ok.....if this case was 'before' 'lamb'.......it must be on the data base by now...surely...??

 

Apple

 

No idea. Just a suggestion. If TimetogoRAM has a copy and can post it, it saves everyone hunting for it.

[applecart]

In a court case it's standard practice for both sides to provide a bundle of documents that they intend to rely on in court to enable them to prepare their arguments. I attended a dwp tribunal a while back and received a bundle in advance. I don't see why this tribunal wouldn't ensure parties had the opportunity to prepare in advance too. Often documents submitted on the day are not allowed or an adjournment will be allowed to read and digest the new info. Let's not forget the tribunal should be fair to both parties.

 

Yes, but it is never the 'court' that send details from the other sides case..it is normally the respondent as party to a trial that would be ordered to disclose any documentary evidence it intends to rely upon.......(the court don't do it for either party) .... yet....we are seeing it is the 'tribunal' (court) sending out particular cases...they are not sending a 'bundle'.....the other side are not sending the 'bundle'.....we are not seeing an 'actual' objection......it is strange behaviour......

 

Ah well.... we haven't yet seen the case...we may not get to discuss it anyway....and if we can't discuss it.... then there is no point it having been sent out in the first place....

 

Surely...if they are looking to prepare both sides.... why not send the complete 'bundle' then... why are they sending it in bits and bobs??

 

Apple

[applecart]

No idea. Just a suggestion. If TimetogoRAM has a copy and can post it, it saves everyone hunting for it.

 

I think we should let Sequenci have a quick look first.... then, if no joy then we may have no choice.....but... I'm not sure I like this case management approach from the Tribunal in sending out bits and bobs at all......it makes it all seem un-professional...almost 'knee jerk; and reactive.... rather than proactive if you will

 

Apple

[p.j]

here's the case from property chamber

 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLUNSDEN -V- MR JOSEPH HENRY FERGUS..

[TimetogoRAM]

here's the case from property chamber

 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLUNSDEN -V- MR JOSEPH HENRY FERGUS..

 

Well done PJ! I didn't have access to a scanner till later.. Saved me a job. Thanks for this.

 

The first line of this document underlined says it all really - County Court unapproved judgement

Edited November 27, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[TimetogoRAM]

Yes, but it is never the 'court' that send details from the other sides case..it is normally the respondent as party to a trial that would be ordered to disclose any documentary evidence it intends to rely upon.......(the court don't do it for either party) .... yet....we are seeing it is the 'tribunal' (court) sending out particular cases...they are not sending a 'bundle'.....the other side are not sending the 'bundle'.....we are not seeing an 'actual' objection......it is strange behaviour......

 

Ah well.... we haven't yet seen the case...we may not get to discuss it anyway....and if we can't discuss it.... then there is no point it having been sent out in the first place....

 

Surely...if they are looking to prepare both sides.... why not send the complete 'bundle' then... why are they sending it in bits and bobs??

 

Apple

 

Really strange behaviour. It's almost as if the Chamber are trying to put a stop to this.

I know the lender are definitely using tactics to put a stop to it...

 

I have again been copied in to a third email to the Chamber, which is again requesting more time to submit objections to the application.

 

What makes me laugh is that they mention requesting more time because the application has been stayed pending the outcome of similar applications and due to "the tight deadline" - what tight deadline? They've had plenty of time to submit objections.

 

I am still yet to receive any notification from my lender that they have instructed a solicitor - contrary to rule 14 (2)

They also again mention saving costs - which they would like to add will be added to the borrowers mortgage account - contrary to rule 13 (1)©

Edited November 27, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[marika41]

Hi Marika

 

If there is stuff you don't understand... you should let us know.....

 

I know GHAM has been posting up stuff to assist...but if it is not 'hitting the spot'....do advise...ok?

 

Apple

 

Thank you Apple will do