Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Crapstone]

Sadly Crapstone, common sense in courtrooms is not very common.

 

A1

 

For sure but why leave it so late? I am oh so very much on the side of the consumer but if you can't pay after taking on a debt you have to see both sides and address it. I'm not saying it's not difficult and it all seems so unfair at the time if you are living in housing that is just suitable for your means. If you're with one of the sub-prime numpties you should be able to get enough together to have them eating out of your hand without going to court.

[andrew1]

For sure but why leave it so late? I am oh so very much on the side of the consumer but if you can't pay after taking on a debt you have to see both sides and address it. I'm not saying it's not difficult and it all seems so unfair at the time if you are living in housing that is just suitable for your means. If you're with one of the sub-prime numpties you should be able to get enough together to have them eating out of your hand without going to court.

 

If only that were true Crapstone. I do believe you are on the side of the consumer, fortunately I have been around long enough to know some of your postings to acknowledge that and one has to be pragmatic about arguments posted up when we see things from slightly different perspectives, but there is still not sufficient on the whole of these forums to yet pick-off these 'numpties' as you call them via the County courts. I have tried at my cost, I have tried assisting others, and seen them lose, not because the evidence is not there, but court cases are not sufficiently well represented in most cases by legal professionals a) that one can trust to deliver or b) not on some agenda which excludes speculative arguments in court......we never seem to clear the goal line. It will come, but it's just awaiting the next case we can include things in or get some lawyer to include who represents the family concerned...it ain't easy.

 

Each and every one of the defendants have a unique journey of their own to travel as I experienced on my own cases and a wife/partner to consider or console during this process of defending against repossession and there's more to consider than just our agenda to kill these companies off. The emotion, fear, sadness, hurt, all wrapped into one has to be bourne in mind too.

 

I had the hard evidence in my own and what happened? - the barrister I paid £900 to turned up an hour late for his briefing leaving 4 minutes to prepare before being called, the Judge hadn't even read my Witness statement and admitted so when asked so my case wasn't argued and the Judge knew feck-all about it and still found it satisfactory to make judgement - naturally against me - that's not justice it's professional negligence on a grand scale, but still the finance company were granted eviction four days hence - the numpties won again - and it seems to happen all the time and there's seems no way out.

 

As for your comment about paying : "but if you can't pay after taking on a debt you have to see both sides and address it" I had this conversation this very afternoon with my wife who believes exactly the same....we borrowed the money, thought we could service it, should pay it, BUT, (and I'm a great one for the 'BUTS').......

 

The arrears which arise in most people's accounts, going by what you read on here, are caused not because the debtor is unable to pay the contractual amounts, but's because they can't pay the 'inflated' amounts in charges, higher 'variable' interest rates which have shot up despite B of E and Libor crashing (and in my case rising 5 times) and meeting extortionate charges which nobody in their wildest dreams would have factored into their repayments schedules. Had they known, they wouldn't have taken the loan at all in most cases, so my 'BUT' is that the amounts asked for when repossession begins or arrears have accrued for 2 or 3 months is to do with the hidden costs added and monies not lawfully owed.

 

So from my evaluations having read so many posters scenarios, are that most repossession cases I have come across from these mainly sub-primers are unlawfully obtained.

 

However, as the saying goes ' We have to prove it' - and that's the hardest thing for the LIP against such organisations as these companies win 99 times out of 100 through stealth and arrogance - but that doesn't make it right - does it? That's the fight we face, getting the 'right' across and winning.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat and that's where I'm at right now since paying these morons off - I was fortunate not to have been evicted but it could have happened.

 

My time will come, but this time - it's going to be done my way and in my own time, no longer is the arrogance and stealth around on my shoulders - I am free and these people who have crossed me will pay..I only believe in transparency, the truth, the facts and honesty. If they cannot pass that then they're dead, but in my time and in my way will I make sure they pay.

 

Happy new year and good luck all of you in your renewed 2014 quests for similar goals.

 

A1

Edited December 27, 2013 by andrew1

[Crapstone]

You will have your day Andrew. I know all to well about the inflated costs, mystery payments taken, the insurance scams.. but what did we really expect? We were well and truly had and on reflection we knew it must be to good to be true to be offered these mortgages. And sadly we didn't read the small print. Their confidence in us made us feel confident enough that those fees would never apply.

 

When I was going through it all I couldn't find a single thing about SMPL. No complaints, no forums, no nothing.

 

I can understand people employing solicitors of barristers but a person I spoke to gave me some sound advice when I asked for help. All she said is that, 'the best person you can ever have to represent yourself is you'.

 

It was hard work and took up all my time, just sitting with sheets and sheets of paper cross referencing everything, adding things up and then doing it all over again. My OH thought I'd gone mad and kept asking why I was even trying as we wouldn't have a cat in hells chance of finding anything to our advantage. They may be stealthy and arrogant but if you dig deep enough you can find and expose their lies.

 

My wish for the New Year is that everyone digs deep inside themselves and finds the strength and courage to confront their fears and make a stand against these companies.

[Crapstone]

Just another thought. I'm wondering why LIBOR fines are going to charities such as the injured armed forced. Not that I begrudge them anything, but what have they got to do with the rate fixing scandal? It just seems to me, that it's one government **** up going to pay off another government **** up and the people that the scandal has affected get nowt. Any views on that?

[andrew1]

I don't want to divert from the thread theme here, but in answer to your two posts crapstone

 

a) I can 100% confirm, as we have done with Swift, do not give up-dig. There are serious legal discrepancies, but you need to dig and research. People should be aware though of legal costs of taking these people on. I paid a seriously heavy price for doing so and the system is not there for us, it's to keep the wheels of the legal profession well paid, not for dirty debtors looking for justice.

 

b) I am a believer that remedies, once a scandal has been exposed should primarily go to the victims. Anything left over can go to charities or back into the public purse.

 

They use tracing agents and DCA's to find us when monies are owed, they should use them to find us to repay us. Simple.

 

A1

[Crapstone]

A brilliant post Andrew!

[mollypockets]

hey givehimamask,

thanks for your reply,

am I allowed to say openly who the lender is

[dx100uk]

yes ofcourse

 

dx

[mollypockets]

my original lender was Prefered ,then I remortgaged to TMB (The Mortgage Business ),,,,

I also have a buy to let with TMB and WAVE

[citizenB]

When is the hearing date, please ?

[bhall]

When is the hearing date, please ?

 

Hello CitizenB, hope you had a good Christmas and New Year.

 

According to the property chamber, 2 cases are due to be held on 20 January 2014.

 

The property chamber has in total (as of 7 January 2014) received 10 applications.

 

"1 of those 10 applications has been struck out on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 9(3)(d) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 but the other applications continue (as of 7/1/2014)."

 

The Property Chamber sent the previously posted cases to applicants because -

 

"4. Copies of the court judgments referred to in 4 and 5 were sent to the Tribunal by parties to applications to set aside charges and copies were sent out on the Tribunal’s instructions to other parties in similar cases with covering letters explaining that the judgments were sent for information as they might deal with issues arising in those other parties’ cases"

 

To summarise 10 applications have been submitted, out of them one has been struck out (reading posts in this thread that would most likely be Lamb), out of the remaining 9 applications 2 are due to be heard on the 20th.

 

Ben

[sequenci]

Hey Ben,

 

Thanks for the update. It's a shame the original contributors haven't been back to update us in several weeks.

[citizenB]

Yes, thank you for the update Ben. Hopefully the main posters will update the thread at some point.

[bhall]

Hey Ben,

 

Thanks for the update. It's a shame the original contributors haven't been back to update us in several weeks.

 

 

Yes, thank you for the update Ben. Hopefully the main posters will update the thread at some point.

 

I made a FOI request to the Chamber, to both clarify events and to keep followers of this thread uptodate.

 

I received a response to that FOI request earlier today and I have now attached it to this post - (minus personal information and unanswered questions not covered by the act)

 

I agree, hopefully Is It Me? and co will update this thread as things happen.

 

Ben

[alisono]

Hey Ben,

 

Thanks for the update. It's a shame the original contributors haven't been back to update us in several weeks.

 

 

Dear All,

 

I think it's quite apparent why we havent been on this site to tell you what has been going on as we dont have to as Ben who either works for the property chamber or one of these devious and under handed lenders ? who we all know dont own our mortgages anymore as they have been paid in full yet keep their names on our deeds, ask Ben he wiil know everything you want to.

[sequenci]

Hi Alisono,

 

Thank you for taking the time to post. To be honest it isn't apparent to us at all, hence the enquiry. Surely it matters not as to who Ben works for - or not as the case may be. I can't see any relevance at all.

 

It always breaks my heart when people start a discussion thread yet seem not to have the fortitude to see it through to conclusion.

 

CAG is a discussion forum, all opinions are welcome and discussed within the confines of the site rules.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[alisono]

Nope no retraction and when this is done and dusted I will report to you all frank and honest, so what will be will be and you wont have to wait too long will you acccording to BEN -- Ben I will see you soon no doubt.

[sequenci]

Ok, take care. Say hi to the others. Kindly inform them that I miss the discussion.

[applecart]

I think it is more than apparent that for those who are making applications to the Chamber to remember - it is not a 'template'.....Is It Me's case has been with the Chamber for more than 8 months.....as we all know a possession hearing takes 10 - 15 minutes......!!!

 

Given that applications can take a long time.....borrowers need to be prepared to stay the pace......and make sure they do not lose their focus......or give up for that matter.

 

It remains important to swot up on the Statute that applies to Deeds and the lenders duty to execute it.....

 

This threads contents has a link to the CML website..... it tells Lenders....execute the deed!

 

There is information about the lenders obligation to execute the deed if the loan secures 'further advances'.....

 

This threads content includes the legislation to be relied upon to back up the CML and HMLR Land Registration Rules 2003 to do with 'further advances'

 

Sure, there is no 'template'.....so, those making applications need to remain vigilant and focused....

 

Yes, some will fall by the wayside......but there are far too many borrowers out there for all of them to be wrong......it's a matter of making sure you 'frame' your argument and deal with any issue that arises as and when it is presented I would suggest ; )

 

Like I have said before... if we get it wrong this time round.... the Chamber will let us know where we have gone wrong........we will tweak and tweak again until we get it exactly right!

 

This thread remains worth its weight in gold : )

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

Although this a public forum and, FOI is available to anyone, I think I'd get annoyed by what Ben has posted if were one of the OP's. I'm sure one of them would have posted when they were ready and when the time was right without someone wading in and digging. Maybe it's just me but there seems to be an unseen line of trust between taking the word of the poster on trust that's been overstepped.

 

Time will tell eventually and all we can do is wish the guys and girls luck in the next chapter and remind them that it's worth the effort and the fight and that we'll be here for them no matter what.

[mollypockets]

why the hell,anybody would post(make public )on this site,something like "here`s a bit of free advice" is totally beyond me.

 

There is only contempt and bad acting.

 

Has anyone ever heard,sorry I should say red,something like this,,,,,,,,,,I will have a look over the weekend but can`t promise anything as I am extreamly busy ,,,,,,,,,,,,,apple!why are you being human?why are you not conforming?have you some sort of hidden agenda???????????????????

 

Im sorry but I was under the impression that forums like this,are to help and advise people,not for a kick in the teeth,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[bhall]

Hi Crapstone

 

I understand and appreciate what you have said. As a long term Cagger, you must know more than most about threads being left with no conclusion - be it the OP has lost, the OP has agreed to some form of deal that includes a confidentiality clause or the OP simply stops posting.

 

Threads are continually left with no conclusion, which I feel on such an important issue as this - which could lead to thousands of pounds in costs is unacceptable.

 

The purpose of the FOI was merely to answer questions raised and assertions made in this thread. The response detailed within the FOI request includes no confidential or personal information related to any individual.

 

It has been asserted in this thread that so many applications had been made that the Property Chamber was overwhelmed. It now transpires that only 10 applications had ever been made

 

It had been asserted in this thread that the Property Chamber had not struck out an application in regard to the lender not signing the deed issue. It now transpires that the Property Chamber has in fact struck out, one such application, leaving the other 9 to progress.

 

The FOI also provided an explanation as to why the Property Chamber had sent copies of two cases to people that had made an application - a question that was raised by contributors to this thread that had submitted an application.

 

The only other information within the FOI response is in terms of when the first hearing of two of the nine cases is due to be heard.

 

I apologise if the disclosure of the above information - none of which is personal or confidential information has caused any upset or offence to anyone. However, I strongly feel that it should have been posted to keep the followers (including anyone contemplating a similar course of action) fully informed and up to date with events.

 

As I said I am sorry if the posting of the publicly available information has caused any upset/offence but I do not apologise or regret posting it, for the benefit of the followers of this thread.

 

This is one thread that followers will not be left to wonder the outcome.

 

Ben.

Edited January 11, 2014 by bhall

[sequenci]

The FOI also provided an explanation as to why the Property Chamber had sent copies of two cases to people that had made an application - a question that was raised by contributors to this thread that had submitted an application.

 

I think this bit is really important - as it was a question which was debated for yonks on the thread.

[bhall]

I think this bit is really important - as it was a question which was debated for yonks on the thread.

 

I agree, especially when we remember -

 

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.

 

and

 

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

 

Whereas now we do have an answer

 

 

"4. Copies of the court judgments referred to in 4 and 5 were sent to the Tribunal by parties to applications to set aside charges and copies were sent out on the Tribunal’s instructions to other parties in similar cases with covering letters explaining that the judgments were sent for information as they might deal with issues arising in those other parties’ cases"

 

 

If nothing else, we now know it was not done as part of some conspiracy - more than likely the "parties to applications" are either one or more of the lenders involved in the 10 applications made or their legal representatives. Now we know copies were sent on the instructions of the tribunal 'as they might deal with issues arising in those other parties cases'.

 

We also now know that this matter will be decided within a matter of days - it will be interesting to learn what the chamber decides and its reasons for reaching its decision whatever it will be.

 

Despite everything that I have posted I do wish the two people being heard next Monday the best of luck and that it does work out for them.

[sequenci]

 

Despite everything that I have posted I do wish the two people being heard next Monday the best of luck and that it does work out for them.

 

Ditto that.