Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Ben

Sorry I can not find any posts from Apple which rely on this at all,Whilst I anticipate that my input will not be welcome, especially by the OP, I would like to add a word of caution - think of it as an argument that you may face that you can consider now, before you return to court.

 

Originally Posted by applecart:

A Barrister does nothing wrong in reminding any DJ or HCJ that 'the title register is conclusive'... What you need to be aware of is ......the Title Register is Conclusive.....this is so regardless of how it got there...regardless of whether the lender has since sold on his interest or not....regardless of whether you can prove the sale or not....... (they will not be flouting the Law in saying this - because, that is exactly what the Law says....it will seem to you that they are flouting the Law against the evidence...but they are not...let me repeat...it is what the law says....so be mindful..ok) Likewise, the fact that you can prove the lender has sold the mortgage is not at issue - the issue is the Title Register.... so long as the Lenders name is on the Title....He has a right to possession in the eyes of the Law....

 

For whilst you and I both recognise that the sale is a means for lenders to make loads of quick money - it is a fact that UNLESS you can evidence that the Deed is void - you will always be met with the same circular contention in any court of law - that the title register is conclusive .....including in a court of Appeal.....

To follow on from what Apple has said above and being something I for once agree with her about, I would just say be aware and be prepared that the Mortgage Sale Agreement for Accord states -

 

6.2 For the avoidance of doubt, prior to the completion of the assignment, assignation, or transfer (as appropriate) of any Loan and its Related Security to the Issuer pursuant to Clause 6.1 , with effect from the Closing Date relating to that Loan and its Related Security legal title to each Loan and its Related Security in the Portfolio shall be vested in the Seller and sole beneficial title and interest shall be vested in the Issuer. Prior to perfection of the transfer of the legal title to Loans and their Related Security pursuant to this Clause 6, the Seller undertakes (to the extent that any of the following is vested in it) to hold all right, title, interest and benefit (both present and future) in and under (a) the Loans and their Related Security, following the acquisition of such Loans and their Related Security by the Issuer and (b) any sums that are or may become due in respect thereof, on trust for the Issuer (excluding from such trust any Loans which have been repurchased by the Seller).

 

Your ember this post?. Can you tell me what the following would mean then ' WITH FULL TITLE GUARANTEE ' after wards on type sale documents please.

[bhall]

I am also surprised given your want/need to prove that I am wrong, instead of ordering a copy, you simply didn't call your friend who is a "high up" legal person. I am sure that person could easily tell you what Halsbury's states.

[bhall]

Ben

Sorry I can not find any posts from Apple which rely on this at all,Whilst I anticipate that my input will not be welcome, especially by the OP, I would like to add a word of caution - think of it as an argument that you may face that you can consider now, before you return to court.

 

Originally Posted by applecart:

A Barrister does nothing wrong in reminding any DJ or HCJ that 'the title register is conclusive'... What you need to be aware of is ......the Title Register is Conclusive.....this is so regardless of how it got there...regardless of whether the lender has since sold on his interest or not....regardless of whether you can prove the sale or not....... (they will not be flouting the Law in saying this - because, that is exactly what the Law says....it will seem to you that they are flouting the Law against the evidence...but they are not...let me repeat...it is what the law says....so be mindful..ok) Likewise, the fact that you can prove the lender has sold the mortgage is not at issue - the issue is the Title Register.... so long as the Lenders name is on the Title....He has a right to possession in the eyes of the Law....

 

For whilst you and I both recognise that the sale is a means for lenders to make loads of quick money - it is a fact that UNLESS you can evidence that the Deed is void - you will always be met with the same circular contention in any court of law - that the title register is conclusive .....including in a court of Appeal.....

To follow on from what Apple has said above and being something I for once agree with her about, I would just say be aware and be prepared that the Mortgage Sale Agreement for Accord states -

 

6.2 For the avoidance of doubt, prior to the completion of the assignment, assignation, or transfer (as appropriate) of any Loan and its Related Security to the Issuer pursuant to Clause 6.1 , with effect from the Closing Date relating to that Loan and its Related Security legal title to each Loan and its Related Security in the Portfolio shall be vested in the Seller and sole beneficial title and interest shall be vested in the Issuer. Prior to perfection of the transfer of the legal title to Loans and their Related Security pursuant to this Clause 6, the Seller undertakes (to the extent that any of the following is vested in it) to hold all right, title, interest and benefit (both present and future) in and under (a) the Loans and their Related Security, following the acquisition of such Loans and their Related Security by the Issuer and (b) any sums that are or may become due in respect thereof, on trust for the Issuer (excluding from such trust any Loans which have been repurchased by the Seller).

 

Your ember this post?. Can you tell me what the following would mean then ' WITH FULL TITLE GUARANTEE ' after wards on type sale documents please.

 

I have posted a number of examples for you, in anticipation of your response that you could not find any.

 

Whilst I have already answered the question about full title guarantee and for that matter so has Steampowered, when I get home, I will post what Halsbury's says too ;-)

[bhall]

Now you have a nice weekend Is It Me? - your copy might arrive tomorrow - you never know ;-)

[applecart]

Something wrong with your googling skills, Apple.. ??

 

 

eeermmm ....No..... they are fine..... However one can not look for detail that simply isn't there..especially when it is only 'referenced' CitizenB

 

 

 

Apple

Edited November 29, 2013 by ims21

[applecart]

Apple

 

If you don't believe what I have posted is accurate or if you think I have added my own words to the extracts posted (as you have implied "shoehorned in") - continue on that premise. I won't be losing any sleep over your concerns over my integrity.

 

Continue to post your thoughts. Don't worry about what I have said is stated in Halsbury's - continue as you were ;-)

 

 

With respect - you leave me no choice.... I assume that was your intention.....

 

 

It is without doubt that you have 'shoehorned' the additional detail in regard to Registered Estates..far be it from me to explode your 'bubble' here on the forum.....

 

 

After all.... the application is not about you.... it is for the Lender.... and should they be foolhardy enough to rely on your purported 'word for word' quote from Halsbury..... Let me be the first to advise .... we remain as 'cool as a cucumber'.... the purported quote is wholly 'shoehorned' and has no statutory basis......and accordingly there remains NO DEFENCE ; )

 

 

Apple

Edited November 29, 2013 by ims21

[applecart]

That's great news, I thought as Apple had said that you was just humouring me.

 

As you have ordered your own copy at an almost unbelievable price (hope you have ordered the correct issue and volume)- you can confirm the page number to Apple and you will also be able to confirm that I quoted it word for word with nothing 'shoehorned in'.

 

look forward to reading your confirmation ;-)

 

I do find it strange that Apple has previously relied upon and quoted Halsbury's but there were no cries from the Apple fan club to post links, page numbers etc to it. If I recall correctly, the application (or one of the defences posted by Apple) even refers to Halsbury's - I hope this was not done without someone actually reading what Halsbury's states for themselves first.

 

 

 

 

 

It may surprise you to know Ben.... I am more than capable of sourcing the information that I need to assist Is It Me with his Application..... there is no need for me to share with you those results.... you are not the Lender..... well, not as far as I know .... if you are .... then .... and only when it is appropriate .... you will be privy ....

 

 

The Apple 'fan club' you speak of is more than aware that there is no issue with my integrity or credibility..... they are happy to rely on the Statute that I provide here for them instead....... I have posted and exposed a number of BHall 'F'LAWS ..... whilst it was not a personal slate....I admit..... I have taken great pleasure in pointing them out....and will continue to do so .... therefore you do not need to rely on statute huh.... lol (no offence) ...... Question is.... will the Lender be afforded the same privileges when it comes to dealing with the application in the Chamber???????. ; )

 

 

 

 

Apple

Edited November 29, 2013 by ims21

[applecart]

No, if you read Apple's previous posts you will note references too and quotes from Halsbury's

 

Such as -

 

 

 

When I get home, I will post what Halsbury's actually states rather than what it "is essentially saying"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above are just a few examples. However, we now discover that even though Apple has repeatedly told us what Halsbury's says, Apple does not actually have access to Halsbury's - Furthermore, you have not once Is It Me? asked Apple for pages numbers and links.

 

 

As for being home, as posted earlier, I won't be until Sunday night, possibly Monday if I don't finish.

 

But you have ordered your own copy, I am sure the index in that will answer your question ;-)

 

I will continue to post extracts from Halsbury's and you can either believe them or not - I have provided you with specific details in terms of issue, volume and section of where the information came from and you have ordered your own copy. So you will soon be able to confirm that I have not "shoehorned" anything in as implied by Apple.

 

Looking forward to you providing confirmation to Apple ;-)

 

 

 

Ben.... What on earth are you on about?

 

 

There is no issue with any sources to Halsbury's Law that I have posted...... funny how I can post Halsbury and no one - not even you asked for page No's..... sources etc........ why? because... I do not look to misguide consumers.... I make it more than clear.... I am on the consumers side...... However with you...... well...... you .... with respect..... you need to be checked... watched.... and validated......nothing personal of course....but, you cannot avoid the finding that your alternative argument is based purely in favour of Lenders...

 

 

You need to understand.... if you want to assist the Lender..... this is not the place to do so...... we have made no pretence about that......as you know ; )

 

 

 

 

 

I'm as cool as a cucumber..... your posts present no threat to any of my posts - the Law - or the fact that the Deed is Void....

 

 

No offence ; )

 

 

 

 

Apple

Edited November 29, 2013 by ims21

[ims21]

Some recent posts have been edited.

 

applecart is now having a break from CAG.

[dx100uk]

Some recent posts have been edited.

 

IS IT ME? is now having a break from CAG.

[Crapstone]

I'm just not sure what this is supposed to lead up to. An unsigned deed is not going to make the whole mortgage null and void is it? It's still a contract and accepted by the money received and the payments made. I haven't read through all the posts but surely a solicitor would have looked at them and it's not just one signature you are relying on that is missing? The danger is getting too involved and ignoring the bare facts. As a consumer you need to strip it back and just keep it as being a consumer rather than trying to puzzle it out and over complicate matters. It's very easy to follow a herd but a lot more beneficial if you act on your own merits and for your own welfare.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Crapstone

[dogdays]

The mortgage deed is not only used for the payments made, it is also used with the LPA act to instruct and give permission for the actions of LPA Receivers, surely, if The Deeds are unsigned then there must be a question regarding the validity of receivers appointed under The Deed?

[bigphil61]

Hi Dogdays, IMO if the First Tier Tribunal finds in January that, based on the applications made by 'Is It Me's Friend' and others, the Deed is void, then it's logical to assume that any repossession based on such a Deed would be found to be un-lawful....BP

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Craptone,

 

This thread is an education, should you get a chance you should read it, at it will answer a lot of the questions you put forward. No one is saying when the deed is void your mortgage is gone, well actually your mortgage is gone also, what you will be left with is an unsecured debt.

My impression of this thread is that it is empowering the individual by providing a test of the Law in relation to Land. It is the individuals decision to take as to whether they take action, although the Test Case would determine that outcome for others.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi dogdays,

 

Not only would it effect repossessions as bigphil61 says, but, it would effect other related security that your lender might hold under that same Deed.

[bigphil61]

Hi dogdays,

 

Not only would it effect repossessions as bigphil61 says, but, it would effect other related security that your lender might hold under that same Deed.

 

Nice one GiveHimaMask...BP

[ims21]

Please do not re-post things that have been removed.

[alisono]

Can someone please tell me why Apple and IS IT ME are having a rest and why you are editing posts.

[ims21]

We will edit posts where they are abusive and/or designed to cause disruption.

 

Moderation is used where people continue to make such posts.

[alisono]

I haven't seen any disruptive or abusive posts on this thread. I thought this CAG was suppose to help.I was under the impression it was an action group with freedom is speech?

[ims21]

I haven't seen any disruptive or abusive posts on this thread. They have been removed or edited I thought this CAG was suppose to help.I was under the impression it was an action group with freedom is speech? It is but we still have rules.

 

 

Section 7 of the following

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?9-Forum-rules.-Please-read-these-before-posting

 

 

ims

Edited November 30, 2013 by ims21

[Crapstone]

GHaM ... I've read through as much as I can and still have no clue! What amount is involved, is it a remortgage and in what year?

 

The intention was a mortgage so even if the deeds were not signed then surely it would stand that it would be reverted to regardless of anything other. All the contractual obligations would have been set out, and accepted, and records will just be rectified to say that. Just because it's not written down doesn't mean you forgo your rights. I own my car but just because my name is as a registered keeper it doesn't mean I have a full title to it.

 

I just feel that a spanner is trying to be thrown in the works when there is sledgehammer waiting in the background.

[bhall]

Hello Is It Me?

 

Sorry for taking so long to reply further to you. As I said before, I may not be back home until Monday and I was right

 

Your ember this post?. Can you tell me what the following would mean then ' WITH FULL TITLE GUARANTEE ' after wards on type sale documents please.

 

You keep asking the same question and it has been repeatedly answered. However, this is what Halsbury's Laws of England states -

 

 

Dispositions made with full title guarantee.

 

350. Dispositions made with full title guarantee.

 

In an instrument effecting or purporting to effect a disposition of property1, and made with full title guarantee2, certain covenants are implied by statute3.

 

There is an implied covenant that the person making the disposition4 (1) has the right (with the concurrence of any other person transferring the property) to dispose of the property as he purports to5; and (2) will at his own cost do all that he reasonably can to give the person to whom he disposes of the property the title he purports to give6. The latter obligation includes: (a) in relation to a disposition of a registered title, doing all that he can to ensure that the person to whom the disposition is made is entitled to be registered with at least the class of title registered immediately before the disposition; and (b) in relation to a disposition which gives rise to first registration of title, giving all reasonable assistance to establish to the satisfaction of the Chief Land Registrar the right of the person to whom the disposition is made to be registered as proprietor7.

 

Subject to the terms of the instrument making the disposition, it is to be presumed (i) where the title to the interest is registered, that the disposition is of the whole of that interest; and (ii) where the title is not registered, that, if the disposition is of a leasehold interest, the disposition is of the whole unexpired term of the lease and, in any other case, is of the fee simple8.

 

There is also an implied covenant that the person making the disposition is disposing of the property free from all charges and incumbrances (whether monetary or not) and from all other rights exercisable by third parties, other than any charges, incumbrances or rights which he does not and could not reasonably be ex-pected to know about9.

 

Where the disposition is of leasehold property, there is an implied covenant that the lease is subsisting at the date of the disposition, and that there is no subsisting breach of a condition or tenant's obligation, and nothing which at that time would render the lease liable to forfeiture10.

 

Where the disposition is a mortgage11 of property subject to a rentcharge, or of leasehold land, there is an implied covenant that the mortgagor will fully and promptly observe and perform all the obligations relating to the rentcharge, or the obligations under the lease, as the case may be12.

 

The operation of any of these covenants may be limited or extended by a term in the instrument of disposi-tion13.

The benefit of a covenant implied by virtue of these provisions is annexed and incident to, and goes with, the estate or interest of the person to whom the disposition is made; and is capable of being enforced by every person in whom that estate or interest is (in whole or in part) for the time being vested14.

 

 

1 'Instrument' includes an instrument which is not a deed: Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 s 1(4). 'Disposition' includes the creation of a term of years: s 1(4). The disposition need not be made for valuable consideration: see s 1(1). 'Property' includes a thing in action and any interest in real or personal property: s 1(4). As to the disposition of registered and unregistered land by transfer see PARA 262 note 2 ante.

 

2 The Standard Conditions of Sale (3rd Edn), condition 4.5.2 provides for a transfer with full title guarantee unless contrary provision is made. See also Special Condition 3. As to the Welsh equivalent of full title guarantee see the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 s 8(4)(a). As to the Standard Conditions of Sale see PARA 1 note 9 ante.

 

3 Ie by ibid Pt I (ss 1-13). The provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 ss 81, 83 (s 81 as amended) apply to a covenant implied by virtue of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 Pt I as they apply to a covenant implied by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925): Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 s 8(2).

As to implied covenants in registered dispositions see the Land Registration Rules 1925, SR & O 1925/1093, rr 76A, 77A (both added by SI 1995/377); and LAND REGISTRATION vol 26 (2004 Reissue) PARA 969 et seq.

 

4 Where in an instrument effecting or purporting to effect a disposition of property a person is expressed to direct the disposition, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 Pt I applies to him as if he were the person making the disposition: s 8(3).

 

5 Ibid s 2(1)(a). The person making the disposition is not liable under the covenant implied by virtue of this provision or by virtue of s 3 (see the text and note 9 infra) or s 4 (see the text and note 10 infra) in respect of any particular matter to which the disposition is expressly made subject: s 6(1). Property is sold subject to a range of incumbrances (see the Standard Conditions of Sale (3rd Edn), condition 3.1.2; and PARA 55 ante), and a transfer has effect as if the disposition is expressly made subject to the incumbrances (see condition 4.5.3; and PARA 343 note 11 ante).

Nor is the person making the disposition liable under such a covenant for anything (not falling within s 6(1)) which at the time of the disposition is within the actual knowledge, or which is a necessary consequence of facts that are then within the actual knowledge, of the person to whom the disposition is made: s 6(2). For this purpose, the Law of Property Act 1925 s 198 (as amended) (deemed notice by virtue of registration: see EQUITY vol 16(2) (Reissue) PARA 577; LAND CHARGES vol 26 (2004 Reissue) PARA 616) is to be disregarded: Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 s 6(3).

 

6 Ibid s 2(1)(b).

 

7 See ibid s 2(2). As to the Chief Land Registrar see LAND REGISTRATION vol 26 (2004 Reissue) PARA 1066 et seq.

 

8 See ibid s 2(3).

 

9 See ibid s 3(1). See also note 5 supra. The covenant extends to liabilities imposed and rights conferred by or under any enactment, except to the extent that such liabilities and rights are, by reason of (1) being at the time of the disposition only potential liabilities and rights in relation to the property; or (2) being liabilities and rights imposed or conferred in relation to property generally, not such as to amount to defects of title: see s 3(2).

 

10 See ibid s 4(1). See also note 5 supra. If the disposition is the grant of an underlease, a reference to 'lease' means the lease out of which the underlease is created: see s 4(2).

In the case of a leasehold property, the operation of this covenant is qualified by the Standard Conditions of Sale (3rd Edn), condition 3.2.2, which provides that the property is sold subject to any subsisting breach of a condition or tenant's obligation relating to the physical state of the property which renders the lease liable to forfeiture. There is a similar qualification where a sub-lease is granted: see condition 3.3.3. See also PARA 174 ante.

 

11 For these purposes, 'mortgage' includes charge, and 'mortgagor' is to be construed accordingly: Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 s 5(4).

 

12 See ibid s 5(1), (2), (3).

 

13 See ibid s 8(1).

 

14 Ibid s 7.

 

As you can see it is subject to the terms of the instrument. You have very kindly posted the terms of the instrument

 

6.2 For the avoidance of doubt, prior to the completion of the assignment, assignation, or transfer (as appropriate) of any Loan and its Related Security to the Issuer pursuant to Clause 6.1 , with effect from the Closing Date relating to that Loan and its Related Security legal title to each Loan and its Related Security in the Portfolio shall be vested in the Seller and sole beneficial title and interest shall be vested in the Issuer. Prior to perfection of the transfer of the legal title to Loans and their Related Security pursuant to this Clause 6, the Seller undertakes (to the extent that any of the following is vested in it) to hold all right, title, interest and benefit (both present and future) in and under (a) the Loans and their Related Security, following the acquisition of such Loans and their Related Security by the Issuer and (b) any sums that are or may become due in respect thereof, on trust for the Issuer (excluding from such trust any Loans which have been repurchased by the Seller).

 

The above is taken from the Mortgage Sale Agreement for Accord and confirms that the transfer is left uncompleted. Therefore, the judgements of Paragon v Pender 2005 would be applicable

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html

 

"109.In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property. I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership. In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV."

[bhall]

With respect - you leave me no choice.... I assume that was your intention.....

 

On the contrary, if you read my post I gave you the choice - either believe what I have quoted from Halsbury's is accurate or not - That is your choice.

 

 

It is without doubt that you have 'shoehorned' the additional detail in regard to Registered Estates..far be it from me to explode your 'bubble' here on the forum.....

 

You claim it is without a doubt that I have 'shoehorned' (your polite way of calling me a liar) the additional information in regard to registered estates

 

here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender&p=4409650&viewfull=1#post4409650

 

and here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender&p=4409652&viewfull=1#post4409652

 

You say that even though by your own admission you have not even read or have access to this edition/volume/ section of Halsbury's Laws of England. You claim it is without doubt for the sole reason that it does not support and disproves your 'fanciful ideas' and your interpretations of the law.

 

If I am honest, I was surprised that it was the Halsbury's extracts about mortgage of a registered estate that has upset you so much. I had expected the Halsbury's extracts about delivery not being what you have claimed that would have upset you.

 

After all.... the application is not about you.... it is for the Lender.... and should they be foolhardy enough to rely on your purported 'word for word' quote from Halsbury..... Let me be the first to advise .... we remain as 'cool as a cucumber'.... the purported quote is wholly 'shoehorned' and has no statutory basis......and accordingly there remains NO DEFENCE ; )

 

 

Apple

 

 

I am more than aware the application is not about me. However, it is also not about you. You have not submitted an application and you are not at risk of incurring costs which could be in the region of thousands of pounds. The costs will be far in excess of those of a possession hearing, as it is a claim brought against the lender and will be a full hearing.

 

Your recent posts (unfortunately I did not read them before they were edited), do not give the impression that you are as' cool as a cucumber' they give the impression that you are anything but.

 

You say there is no statutory basis. That is based upon your interpretation of the Law. For month after month, after month I have told you that the statutory basis is section 23(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002, time and time again you have dismissed this fact - using your mysterious powers of interpretation.

 

Now that I have shown Halsbury's Laws of England confirms and states what I have repeatedly told you - you start to behave like a baby throwing their toys out of their pram.

 

I am sure many others will equally share my disappointment in your recent conduct and behaviour.

 

If you read the applicable explanatory note from the LRA 2002 it states

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/notes/division/4/3/1/1

 

This section states the unlimited powers of an owner. It makes one change to the current law. Under the existing law, there is a presumption that a registered charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage, unless there is clear provision to the contrary, or it is made or takes effect as a mortgage by demise or sub-demise.

 

Mortgages by demise or sub-demise are now in practice obsolete, because of the advantages of a charge (that enables freeholds and leaseholds to be made the subject of a single charge rather than separate demises or sub-demises; the grant of a charge of a lease is not thought to amount to a breach of the common-form covenant against subletting without the landlord’s consent; and the form of legal charge is short and simple). Subsection (1)(a) therefore abolishes them, with prospective effect.

 

The above confirms contrary to what you have previously posted that a charge by way of legal mortgage is different from a mortgage by demise.

 

The above also confirms that it is only a mortgage by demise that has been abolished - a charge way of legal mortgage has not - you continue to confuse the powers of the owner of the registered estate with the powers of the owner of the registered charge.

Edited December 2, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

It may surprise you to know Ben.... I am more than capable of sourcing the information that I need to assist Is It Me with his Application..... there is no need for me to share with you those results.... you are not the Lender..... well, not as far as I know .... if you are .... then .... and only when it is appropriate .... you will be privy ....

 

Do you really consider it wise to source information from wikipedia ? I am not sure if unlike Halbury's, wikipedia is in a court, is considered to be a quotable source

 

 

The Apple 'fan club' you speak of is more than aware that there is no issue with my integrity or credibility..... they are happy to rely on the Statute that I provide here for them instead....... I have posted and exposed a number of BHall 'F'LAWS ..... whilst it was not a personal slate....I admit..... I have taken great pleasure in pointing them out....and will continue to do so .... therefore you do not need to rely on statute huh.... lol (no offence) ...... Question is.... will the Lender be afforded the same privileges when it comes to dealing with the application in the Chamber???????. ; )

 

 

Apple

 

You have a very high opinion of both yourself and the information that you have posted. The 'F'LAWS' you consider you have posted and exposed are based upon your own interpretation of the law. As shown by the recently posted extracts from Halsbury's Laws of England, at best your interpretations can be described as wrong, at worst they are mis-guided, mis-leading and potentially financially damaging to those that decide to rely upon them.

 

You will see in my posts that I have gone to great lengths to post what the applicable legislation actually states, furthermore you will note that Halsbury's includes citations and references to the applicable legislation.

Edited December 2, 2013 by bhall