Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[p.j]

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

 

No problem TtgR your welcome...

 

 

pj

[applecart]

Yes, brilliant P.J

 

I've downloaded a copy : )

 

Yep, it's definitely a 'county court' decision...and Yep, it''s yet another un-reported case.....ummmm??

 

Before we put it in the Bathroom next to the Andrex......we'd best strip it back like a banana.....lol

 

Maybe it's like Caro says.... another opportunity for applicants to get the chance to be prepared....I can't see how Mr Lender would find that fair...but, it don't sound like he is complaining either.....very strange...very strange indeed??

 

Maybe, the Chamber want us to strip it back...so they can view what we have to say about it here....on the off chance that this will stop applicants moving claims forward??

 

Maybe, the Chamber want us to strip it back....so they can see if we know enough about the topic before they allow applications to go ahead....or before they throw out the lenders objection...which we all know is already in breach of Tribunal rules???

 

Thing is...if we discuss it...and defeat it....(which we will) ......does that mean they will just find some other case to send out in its place.... after all 'lamb' is a non starter...and now applicants are getting this one....How many more are they going to send huh??

 

Just my thoughts...

 

Apple

[applecart]

oooh....just going to watch that morning show on the BBC right now called "The Legalizer".....It is Barrister Gary Bell QC....he helps consumers and guides them through the small claims court - I'm considering sending him an email....see if he wants to take on the lead case.....ummmm??....now that's a thought...

 

Apple

[sequenci]

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

 

Apple

 

Not yet matey. Still working on a few avenues, but it's hiding thus far :/

 

Edit: I can see that you've got it

 

Was it somewhere easy? I was using a university database system!

[applecart]

Not yet matey. Still working on a few avenues, but it's hiding thus far :/

 

Edit: I can see that you've got it

 

Was it somewhere easy? I was using a university database system!

 

 

no idea...the main point is....it's here....Thanks for looking though : )

 

Apple

[sequenci]

no idea...the main point is....it's here....Thanks for looking though : )

 

Apple

 

Well if there is anything you cannot find in the future, I'm happy to try and find it via the academic route

[IS IT ME?]

Apple,

Well I've looked at this and asked the chamber who the applicant was and why they sent it the answer they don't know??

 

I think we should not do there job for them, as its also an unreported case it is of no use to the lenders.

 

I've no doubt some one will be a long in a mo to tell us its the end of the world and we are all wasting our time lol

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi IS IT ME,

 

I note page 10 is missing from this copy.

 

Read the last paragraph....validity executed by him ALONE. and why has he added in the last sentence....Is he pointing something out?

[sequenci]

Hey all. If this was sent under the tribunal's own initiative I guess they are potentially highlighting the outcomes of similar cases. I guess you're going to need to ensure that your arguments are clearly distinguished from those within those cases.

[p.j]

Hi IS IT ME,

 

I note page 10 is missing from this copy.

 

Read the last paragraph....validity executed by him ALONE. and why has he added in the last sentence....Is he pointing something out?

 

sorry missed it out page 10..

[marika41]

while I do not pretend to understand all the legal stuff I have noticed Mr Fergus is the man who spoke for tilly lamb, I do not know if that is relevant in any way shape or form or just coincidence?

[kegi]

i have also seen this chap I believe on a Irish case where it seems he was up against LPA for a total of 41 properties

 

Also found this if not seen before

EMANATING FROM THE FACT OF REGISTRATION

 

LAND LAW [2012], Professor E Cooke, Chapter 3, Page #48 & 49

 

"... A deed must be executed in order to transfer a legal estate or create a legal interest, but the registration system has taken away the power of the deed.

 

In cases where a deed is necessary, it is no longer sufficient.

 

When that deed is sent to the registry and the register is updated, a legal estate or interest is transferred or created, depending on the nature of the transaction ...

 

... And the landowner does not have an estate created or transferred by deed, but a registered estate, emanating from the fact of registration ...

 

... The deeds are irrelevant except for that short period between what the estate agents call completion, when signed documents are handed over, and their registration ..."

 

kegi

[bhall]

while I do not pretend to understand all the legal stuff I have noticed Mr Fergus is the man who spoke for tilly lamb, I do not know if that is relevant in any way shape or form or just coincidence?

 

It is my understanding that he is a moderator of an internet site set up to promote the fanciful idea that a mortgage deed is void - if it has not been signed by a lender. As I understand it, Ms Lamb was/is a member of that particular site.

[bhall]

Something to think about and discuss

 

 

 

(4) EFFECT OF A DEED

 

57. General effect.

 

By executing a deed in accordance with all the requirements for such execution1, the party whose act and deed it is becomes, as a general rule, conclusively bound by what he is stated in the deed to be effecting, undertaking or permitting2. He is, in general, so bound even though another party has not executed the deed3, or he has himself executed it in a false name4. He is, as a rule, estopped from averring and proving by extrinsic evidence that the contents of the deed did not in truth express his intentions or did not correctly express them, or that there are reasons why he should not be obliged to give effect to the deed. This is equally the case whether the deed is expressed to operate as a conveyance of property or as a contract or otherwise5. In a claim founded on the deed, an executing party is also in general estopped from denying the truth of a precise and unambiguous representation of fact contained in the deed where the representation is material to the transaction effected by the deed and appears clearly enough to have been made or adopted by him with a view to the other party's relying on it6. However, to all these general principles there are exceptions, cases where the deed may be a nullity or may be avoided or corrected7.

 

 

1 See PARAS 1 et seq, 27-34 ante. An instrument intended in a certain event to be an effective deed may be delivered as an escrow, ie so as to become the delivering party's act and deed only if the event occurs: see PARAS 37-39 ante.

 

2 See PARA 65 post.

 

3 Lady Naas v Westminster Bank Ltd[1940] AC 366 at 374-375, [1940] 1 All ER 485 at 489, HL. As to the effect of non-execution by a party see further PARA 62 post.

 

4 See PARA 69 note 1 post. A person whose execution of a deed has been forged is also estopped from denying that he is bound by the deed if, after becoming aware of the forgery, he delays in informing the person ostensibly entitled to the benefit of the deed, so causing detriment to the latter: Fung Kai Sun v Chan Fui Hing[1951] AC 489 at 503, 506, PC; and see PARA 72 post. As to estoppel generally see ESTOPPEL.

 

5 Littleton's Tenures ss 58, 693; Co Litt 45a, 47b, 352a, 363b; 1 Plowd 308-309; Whelpdale's Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 119a; Style v Hearing (1605) Cro Jac 73; 2 Bl Com (14th Edn) 295, 446; Xenos v Wickham(1866) LR 2 HL 296.

 

6 See Greer v Kettle[1938] AC 156 at 166-167, [1937] 4 All ER 396 at 401, HL; and ESTOPPEL vol 16(2) (Reissue) PARA 1014 et seq.

 

7 See PARAS 60, 62-63, 67, 88 post.

[TimetogoRAM]

Hi Ben,

Any chance you could answer the following questions?

 

1. Why do you think the Property Chamber are sending out previous cases in this way?

2. Who do you think is making this decision to send these cases out?

3. Why do you think Lenders are constantly breaking Tribunal rules by

a) demanding applicant costs to be added to the mortgage contrary to Tribunal Rule13 (1)

b) failing to send their customer written notice of which solicitor has been instructed contrary to Tribunal Rule 14 (2)

4. Why do you think the Chamber is staying the proceedings pending outcome of similar cases? Tribunal Rule 3 (m) & 23

5. Why do you think the Lender is yet to put forward their written objections?

6. What do you think about the Chamber allowing a Lender to not submit written objections before the deadline, due to the case being stayed, despite nothing in Tribunal Rule 23 or 30 referring to this?

7. Why do you think Is it me's friend's Lender has used 3 solicitors?

8. Why do you think the Chamber has not struck out any case? Tribunal Rule 9

Edited November 27, 2013 by TimetogoRAM

[applecart]

Something to think about and discuss

 

 

We can discuss if and only if you provide us with a 'link'.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple,

Well I've looked at this and asked the chamber who the applicant was and why they sent it the answer they don't know??

 

I think we should not do there job for them, as its also an unreported case it is of no use to the lenders.

 

I've no doubt some one will be a long in a mo to tell us its the end of the world and we are all wasting our time lol

 

Thanks for this Is It Me...

 

Totally agree with you....no need for any Borrower to concern themselves with latest escapade until such time as it becomes an issue.... right now...it presents no such issue : )

 

Apple

[bhall]

1. Why do you think the Property Chamber are sending out previous cases in this way?

 

I think the best thing to do, would be for someone that has made an application and received both of the cases, to call the Property Chamber and ask them. Whilst it may sound like I am avoiding the question, I feel there is no need to speculate when a simple phone call would provide the actual answer

 

2. Who do you think is making this decision to send these cases out?

 

Ultimately, it will be the decision of the Property Chamber as it is the party sending them out.

 

Why do you think Lenders are constantly breaking Tribunal rules by

a) demanding applicant costs to be added to the mortgage contrary to Tribunal Rule13 (1)

 

If we refer to Halsbury's -

 

 

741. Assessment of costs.

 

The mortgagee does not need to apply for an order for those costs that he has a contractual right to recover out of the mortgage funds, and nor do those costs have to be assessed1. The mortgagor may make an application for the court to direct that an account of the mortgagee's costs be taken, and may then dispute an amount in the mortgagee's account on the basis that it has been unreasonably incurred or is unreasonable in amount2. Where a mortgagor disputes an amount, the court may make an order that the disputed costs be assessed3; and where the court assesses costs payable under the terms of the mortgage, the costs payable are, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, to be presumed to be costs which have been reasonably incurred, and are reasonable in amount, and the court will assess them accordingly4. The court may make an order that all or part of the costs payable under the contract be disallowed if it is satisfied by the paying party that costs have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount5.

A mortgagor is also entitled to apply for an assessment of a bill of costs rendered to the mortgagee by his solicitor if the mortgagor is liable to pay it6.

 

 

1 See Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.2(1), (2); and PARA 755. As to the assessment of costs payable pursuant to a contract see CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806.

 

2 See Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.4(2); and PARA 755.

 

3 Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.4(3).

 

4 See CPR 48.3(1); and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806. CPR 48.3 gives effect to the principles cited at PARA 740.

 

5 Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.1.

 

6 See the Solicitors Act 1974 ss 70, 71(1); and LEGAL PROFESSIONS vol 66 (2009) PARA 969 et seq. See further Re Griffith, Jones & Co (1883) 50 LT 434, CA; Re Longbotham & Sons [1904] 2 Ch 152, CA; Re Paice and Cross (1914) 58 Sol Jo 593. If such an application is made after 12 months from the delivery of the bill, or after judgment for recovery of the costs has been obtained or after it is paid, no order can be made except in special circumstances (see the Solicitors Act 1974 s 70(3); and LEGAL PROFESSIONS vol 66 (2009) PARA 974 et seq), including those which affect the mortgagor but not the mortgagee (see s 71(2); and LEGAL PROFESSIONS vol 66 (2009) PARA 973). Such an assessment is on the indemnity basis: see CPR 48.8; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1812.

 

and

 

 

 

(3) COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE MORTGAGEE AND THE MORTGAGOR OR SURETY

 

751. In general.

 

The mortgagee's costs, reasonably and properly incurred, of proceedings between himself and the mortgagor or his surety are allowable1. The classic examples are proceedings for payment, sale, foreclosure or redemption2 but nowadays the most common are those for possession of the mortgaged property preliminary to an exercise of the mortgagee's statutory power of sale out of court3 and those in which the mortgagor contends that the mortgage is void or voidable4.

Where, however, the mortgagee has sold the property, a claim brought by the mortgagor for an account of surplus proceeds of sale is not within the general rule as to costs5. The mortgagee must pay the costs if the proceedings have been occasioned by his refusal to render accounts or by his understating the amount due from him6.

Costs of proceedings relating to two mortgages which the mortgagee is not entitled to consolidate are apportioned rateably between the two estates7.

 

 

1 Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26 at 33, [1990] 2 All ER 588 at 591, CA, per Nourse LJ. See also Millar v Major (1818) Coop temp Cott 550, sub nom Millard v Magor 3 Madd 433; Lewis v John (1838) 9 Sim 366; Sandon v Hooper (1843) 6 Beav 246 at 250; Owen v Crouch (1857) 5 WR 545; and see Horlock v Smith (1844) 1 Coll 287.

 

2 As to foreclosure see PARA 566 et seq. As to proceedings for redemption see PARA 656 et seq.

 

3 Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26 at 33, [1990] 2 All ER 588 at 591, CA, per Nourse LJ. As to the statutory power of sale see PARA 443 et seq.

 

4 Ramsden v Langley (1705) 2 Vern 536; Samuel v Jones (1862) 7 LT 760. See also Clark v Hoskins (1868) 37 LJCh 561 at 569, CA; Re Baldwin's Estate [1900] 1 IR 15. See further Sinfield v Sweet [1967] 3 All ER 479, [1967] 1 WLR 1489; Saunders v Anglia Building Society (No 2) [1971] AC 1039, [1971] 1 All ER 243, HL (legal aid cases).

 

5 See Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 588. See also Millar v Major (1818) Coop temp Cott 550, sub nom Millard v Magor 3 Madd 433; Lewis v John (1838) 9 Sim 366; Sandon v Hooper (1843) 6 Beav 246 at 250; Owen v Crouch (1857) 5 WR 545; and see Horlock v Smith (1844) 1 Coll 287.

 

6 Williams v Jones (1911) 55 Sol Jo 500. See also Tanner v Heard (1857) 23 Beav 555; Charles v Jones (1887) 35 ChD 544.

 

7 De Caux v Skipper, Tee v De Caux (1886) 31 ChD 635, CA (overruling Clapham v Andrews (1884) 27 ChD 679). As to consolidation see PARA 498 et seq.

 

and

 

 

753. Statutory discretion.

 

The mortgagee does not usually require an order for costs since he is entitled to add his costs to the security1. He may, however, wish to seek an order for costs if, for example, the security is inadequate or the mortgagor has obtained an order for costs against him: the court has a statutory discretion to award costs as between the parties to proceedings2. A mortgagee also has the right in equity to reimbursement from the security of his costs, reasonably and properly incurred, of proceedings between himself and the mortgagor or his surety3. The mortgage deed also usually makes provision as to costs. The following principles emerge from the cases as to the relationship between the statutory discretion and the mortgagee's rights4:

 

(1) an order for the payment of costs of proceedings by one party to another party is always a discretionary order5;

(2) where there is a contractual right to the costs, the discretion should ordinarily be exercised so as to reflect that contractual right6;

(3) the power of the court to disallow a mortgagee's costs sought to be added to the mortgage security is a power that does not derive from statute but from the power of courts of equity to fix the terms on which redemption will be allowed7;

(4) a decision by a court to refuse costs, in whole or in part, to a mortgage litigant may be a decision in the exercise of the statutory discretion or a decision in the exercise of the power to fix the terms on which redemption will be allowed or a decision as to the extent of a mortgagee's contractual right to add his costs to the security or a combination of two or more of these things8;

(5) a mortgagee is not to be deprived of a contractual or equitable right to add costs to the security merely by reason of an order for payment of costs made without reference to the mortgagee's contractual or equitable rights and without any adjudication as to whether or not the mortgagee should be deprived of those costs9.

 

 

1 See PARAS 739-740.

 

2 See the Senior Courts Act 1981 s 51; CPR 44.3; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1738 et seq; JUDICIAL REVIEW vol 61 (2010) PARA 681. As to the renaming of the Senior Courts Act 1981 see PARA 220 note 5.

 

3 See Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 588, CA; Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA; and PARAS 739, 751. The right is reflected in, but not extended by, CPR 48.3: see CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806.

 

4 Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA. These principles must be read in the light of the Civil Procedure Rules: see CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 11 (2009) PARA 24 et seq.

 

5 See the Supreme Court Act 1981 s 51; Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 588, CA; Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA; and JUDICIAL REVIEW vol 61 (2010) PARA 681. As to the exercise of the court' discretion in awarding costs and the amount of costs see CPR 44.3; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARAS 1738-1739.

 

6 See Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.3(2). As to the assessment of costs payable pursuant to a contract see PARA 740; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806.

 

7 See Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.3(3); Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 588, CA; Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806. As to the equity of redemption see PARA 302 et seq.

 

8 See Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.3(4); Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 588, CA; Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806. The statements of case and the submissions made to the judge may indicate which of the decisions has been made: see Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.3(4); Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) above; Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) above.

 

9 See Practice Direction about Costs PD 43-48 para 50.3(5); Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc (No 2) [1991] Ch 26, [1990] 2 All ER 588, CA; Gomba Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA; and CIVIL PROCEDURE vol 12 (2009) PARA 1806. See also PARAS 739-740.

[bhall]

We can discuss if and only if you provide us with a 'link'.....

 

Apple

 

Unfortunately it is old school (not literally), in that it is written in a book. Therefore, I am unable to provide a link. However, your local library may have a copy. I am fortunate that I have my own copy to refer too.

 

Discuss or ignore it, that is your choice

 

Apple you are more than free and welcome to sweep Halsbury's under the carpet, as you do with everything else that does not support your fanciful ideas.

 

However, to do so would be foolish even by your standards, given what Halsbury's is and how it is referred to and quoted in cases on a regular basis.

 

Consider the posted extracts as a heads up if you will.

Edited November 28, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

b) failing to send their customer written notice of which solicitor has been instructed contrary to Tribunal Rule 14 (2)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/14/made

 

If you read rule 14(3)(b)

 

(3) Anything permitted or required to be done by or provided to a party under these Rules, a practice direction or a direction may be done by or provided to the representative of that party except—

 

 

(a)signing a witness statement; or

 

(b)sending or delivering a notice under paragraph (2), if the representative is not a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation within the meaning of that Act.

 

The firm of solicitors would be an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation within the meaning of that Act - therefore as confirmed by the rules can send of deliver notice under paragraph 2 (the rule to which you refer)

 

 

4. Why do you think the Chamber is staying the proceedings pending outcome of similar cases? Tribunal Rule 3 (m) & 23

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/23/made

 

 

Lead cases

 

23. (1) This rule applies if—

 

(a)two or more cases have been started before the Tribunal;

(b)in each such case the Tribunal has not made a decision disposing of the proceedings; and

©the cases give rise to common or related issues.

(2) The Tribunal may direct that one or more such cases be specified as a lead case, and stay the other cases (“the related cases”)

 

. Why do you think the Lender is yet to put forward their written objections?

 

It could be for a number or reasons - from dotting the i's and crossing the t's to ensure their response is as strong or as accurate as possible to giving you the applicant less time to consider counter arguments to their defence.

 

6. What do you think about the Chamber allowing a Lender to not submit written objections before the deadline, due to the case being stayed, despite nothing in Tribunal Rule 23 or 30 referring to this?

 

If your case is not one of the ones to be heard (the decision from the case(s) heard could be applied to your application) - The Property Chamber may make allowances in the knowledge that your application may not actually be heard. - This is pure speculation. You can and should contact the Property Chamber for confirmation of what it has permitted and why.

 

7. Why do you think Is it me's friend's Lender has used 3 solicitors?

 

When it comes to the things Is It Me? posts I don't ever know lol

 

Anything I say would be pure speculation. The first solicitor has represented lenders in similar claims (in court not in the property chamber) and even details its position on its website. So your guess would be as good as mine.

 

8. Why do you think the Chamber has not struck out any case? Tribunal Rule 9

 

I would refer you back to rule 23 but also suggest bearing in mind that one case (there maybe more) has been struck out by the chamber.

 

Received a letter toady from the Property chamber letter telling me that they have struck out an application. They have sent this also to my lenders solicitors attached is the whole transcript of the above case.

 

Lamb in question was heard at my local county court for originally possession hearing and she had an order against them given. They appealed case To another DJ same court who said no appeal on your grounds, ground being ad stated above that the mortgage deed was indeed a contract and had never been executed properly so in the terms of contract and not executed it have never then formed a mortgage as both signatures of lender and. Borrow weren't on the deed. Lamb appealed again and was heard only for her Appel to be said they found that the DJ originally was correct even though he had not had the section 27 presented originally , some success may of happened if he had but on reflection no and her appeaL lost. again as not enough merit and would be unsuccessful.

 

I think she had then applied to the property chamber her reference number is newer than mine by 2 and they have struck it out as the DJ has. already litigated on this case.

 

Have you seen the Lamb transcript?

[bhall]

And with that it is time for bed

[IS IT ME?]

I told you!!! why don't you listen lol

Boy some posts there,

The property chamber have been asked more than once

1. Who is the applicant asking for these documents to be sent out ( the applicant being one of us and not the lender!)

2' Where are the other 10 or so case gone?

Why are they bending over backwards to help the lenders?

So far no answers! so there you have it.

[applecart]

Unfortunately it is old school (not literally), in that it is written in a book. Therefore, I am unable to provide a link. However, your local library may have a copy. I am fortunate that I have my own copy to refer too.

 

Discuss or ignore it, that is your choice

 

Apple you are more than free and welcome to sweep Halsbury's under the carpet, as you do with everything else that does not support your fanciful ideas.

 

However, to do so would be foolish even by your standards, given what Halsbury's is and how it is referred to and quoted in cases on a regular basis.

 

Consider the posted extracts as a heads up if you will.

 

Hi Ben

 

Thanks for the ‘heads up’........it’s a clear reminder as to how the Lender will do anything to rely that their manipulations and circumvention of the LAW will continue to assist him.

 

Like you have shown .........a Lender will jump to Rule 14 (3)(b)...long before they take any notice of the Legislators ‘fanciful ideas’ stated in Rule 14 (1) and (2) to make out that they do not exist.....so, yes.....the ‘heads up’ is much appreciated.

 

Those Rules (14 (1) & (2)) as you know say the Lender must advise the Borrower of who it is that he intends to appoint to represent him and also say that the Lender must give the Borrower the appointed representatives name and address....fortunately we accept the Legislators ‘fanciful ideas’ over that of the Lenders...so no worries there.

 

Thanks to for ‘Halsbury’s Law’ in relation to the relationship between Mortgagor and Mortgagee...

 

Borrowers will need to be mindful that they are not misguided by Lenders into thinking that the Lender can Mortgage their registered estates and fooled into thinking that it applies to them or their applications.....so, yes.....this ‘heads up’ is much appreciated too.....

 

For, as you know....LRA section 23 relates to the Registered Estate...and provides that a Borrower cannot mortgage by demise or sub-demise....so, yes...Thanks for the ‘heads up’.....

 

Once again....no Borrower here is misguided...so we will be vigilant to ensure that they do not sneak this tit bit of Halsbury’s Law into the mix.......When it is another piece of Halsbury's Law that actually applies...

 

Again, with regard to those firms of Solicitors that are going AWOL....3 of them so far......even though it is true that Rule 14 (3)(b) applies to them.........It would appear that when it comes to ‘witness statements’.....they must have realised that the Rules do not permit them to submit witness statements on behalf of the Lender...(un-like what happens in the lower courts)...... kinda leaves them a wee bit stumped don’t it?.....

 

.....must be hard to get a Lender who has ‘gone away’ to submit their own witness statements these days.......or to pursue a Borrower when the Borrower has not been advised by the Lender that you are his appointed representative. ???

 

And yes...according to Rule 16 (2)(a)...we understand that the Tribunal can indeed send out documents of its own violation.....hence the ‘lamb’ and the ‘Fergus’ cases no doubt....

 

Rule 16 (2) says:

 

The Tribunal may provide any document (including any notice or summons or other information) under these Rules by—

(a)itself sending or delivering the document; or

(b)requiring a party to do so.

 

So, yes we are delighted that the Tribunal have sent them to us for our consideration. However as you know after consideration....we have put them in the bathroom next to the Andrex for now......

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

while I do not pretend to understand all the legal stuff I have noticed Mr Fergus is the man who spoke for tilly lamb, I do not know if that is relevant in any way shape or form or just coincidence?

 

Yes, well spotted Marika.

 

As you know, both cases are in the Bathroom.... you'll find them next to the Andrex..... until such time they present any issue....right now...they do not .....so we will only refer to them as and if we need to.

 

There is nothing in either of them that we have not already defended on this thread..... i.e they present no NEW issue....

 

Apple

[applecart]

I told you!!! why don't you listen lol

Boy some posts there,

The property chamber have been asked more than once

1. Who is the applicant asking for these documents to be sent out ( the applicant being one of us and not the lender!)

2' Where are the other 10 or so case gone?

Why are they bending over backwards to help the lenders?

So far no answers! so there you have it.

 

Hi Is It Me

 

There is no issue presented by anything that Ben has provided - non of it makes any difference..

 

Remember this:

 

Your friends case is the Lead Case... and until the Chamber directs differently....that is a FACT

 

It is your friends Case that we are all watching here....we are not watching those that are purported as being 'struck out'.... your's has not.....and that is where our focus is...ok?

 

In your friends case....in fact possibly because of your friends case... the Chamber have sent out 'lamb' and 'fergus'....there is nothing in either of those cases that have caused your friends case to be struck out.

 

In your friends Case.....3 firms of solicitors have gone AWOL....you are now dealing with a 4th firm.....we are waiting for them to advise how they wish to pursue the application....and until they make it clear how they wish to proceed....we need do nothing more right now...

 

I have posted up Rule 16....that is the Rule that allows the Chamber to send out documents to applicants....we may yet see some more.... ; )

 

So, don't stress....we are on point.....there remains NO DEFENCE ; )

 

Apple

Edited November 28, 2013 by applecart