Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[citizenB]

Folks

When I click on the link, I am taken to the Yorkshire Building Society , which then states "Page not available".

 

Any ideas on how I can check if my mortgage was/is securitised?

 

Doc

 

Righto, yes it does say page not available. Sorry, you will have to wait for the guy who posted the link to look in - I dont know why that is happening.

[bhall]

Righto, yes it does say page not available. Sorry, you will have to wait for the guy who posted the link to look in - I dont know why that is happening.

 

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your-society/treasury/wholesale_funding/securitisation.html

 

The above is a link to all of the documentation. If anyone wants to read the applicable documentation, you have to click on agree and then on transaction documents. You can then select whichever Brass you are interested in and take it from there

[bhall]

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

 

Surprised nothing has been posted about the cases heard yesterday. I hope they went well for those involved and you were successful

[citizenB]

Surprised nothing has been posted about the cases heard yesterday. I hope they went well for those involved and you were successful

 

 

It would be good if we could have an update and yes, it would be brilliant if those involved were successful

[andrew1]

YORKSHIRE BUILDING SOCIETY N/A N/A - - - -

ACCORD MORTGAGES LIMITED UK01804169 02139881 31.12.2012 N 97 £3,300,000 £406,533,000

BCS LOANS & MORTGAGES... UK05537382 05893574 31.12.2012 N 84 £50,000 £1,000

CBS PROPERTY SERVICES... UK02106252 02444145 31.12.2012 N N/R -

CHELSEA MORTGAGE SERVI... UK02105603 02443492 31.12.2012 N 88 £1,000 £13,471,000

FLEXIBLE CHOICE LIMITED UK02452675 02792052 31.12.2012 N N/R -

NORWICH AND PETERBOROU... UK05948071 06304778 31.12.2012 N 77 £6,500 £18,847

NORWICH AND PETERBOROU... UK00375337 00699978 31.12.2012 N N/R -

LYNCH WOOD INSURANCE... UK01559211 01892998 31.12.2012 N N/R -

NORWICH AND PETERBOROU... UK02331591 02670589 31.12.2012 N 95 £60,000 £7,973,000

NORWICH & PETERBOROUGH... N/A N/A - - - -

LYNCHWOOD SERVICES L... UK01975393 02312383 31.12.2012 N N/R -

NORWICH AND PETERBOR... UK01741376 02076474 31.12.2012 N N/R -

NORWICH AND PETERBOR... UK01636965 01971202 31.12.2012 N N/R -

WATERS LUNNISS NOM... UK01668057 02002540 31.12.2012 N N/R -

NORWICH AND PETERBOROU... UK01857891 02193881 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YBS PROPERTIES LIMITED UK01804154 02139866 31.12.2012 N 87 £100,000 £2,386,000

YBS PROPERTIES (EDINBU... UK02395477 02734730 31.12.2012 N 91 £100,000 £160,000

YBS PROPERTIES (YORK)... UK02595414 02935458 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YORKSHIRE BUILDING SOC... UK01804152 02139864 31.12.2012 N 44 £500 £15,000

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD AN... UK01374331 01707146 31.12.2012 N N/R -

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD (P... UK01475622 01808900 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YORKSHIRE COMPUTER SER... UK02241681 02580253 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YORKSHIRE ESTATE AGENT... UK01940162 02276707 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YORKSHIRE INVESTMENT S... UK01804166 02139878 31.12.2011 N N/R -

YBS INVESTMENTS (NO.... UK04222728 04575229 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YORKSHIRE KEY SERVICES... UK02255176 02593849 31.12.2012 N 98 £265,000 £3,413,000

YORKSHIRE KEY SERVIC... UK04504953 04858468 31.12.2012 N N/R -

YORKSHIRE SYNDICATIONS... UK02670079 03010492 31.12.2012 N N/R -

 

 

Accord Mortgages Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yorkshire Building Society as are all these others....

 

A1

[sequenci]

Any news on those cases at all?

[jotho]

Hi. I am new to this debate but the issue here is of specific interest to me. I lost my "offer of loan" which contained all the terms of the loan. I asked my lender to send me a "copy" which they did but it is not a copy of the original one. Some of the terms are different.

 

 

I have disputed it at a possession hearing. The DJ said he believed me that the document was not the original one but gave the possession order anyway. I was only ever sent an offer of loan and never had sight of the "Conditions" (with the hidden Power of Attorney) which they produced in court. I was never asked to sign the offer. The only document in the whole case which is signed is the deed and that only by me

 

So I am now in the position where the DJ has given a possession order based on documents he believes to be questionable and has referred to a future trial for determination. This is so bizarre that I'll just say it again to make it quite clear. He said "I am going to grant the possession order but allow the amount of the arrears to be challenged at trial. I believe you have every chance of success in that challenge".

 

The possession was claimed on the basis of arrears. He ignored s.2 arguments based on the registration gap and my protestations of non disclosure of the mortgage conditions. He refused leave to appeal and so did the CJ 3 weeks later. I now have absolutely nowhere to go with this. I can't get any high court judge to look at it or go to Judicial Review as an appellate judge has made his decision.

 

 

So I lose my house based on a fraudulent document which the same judge has said I have every chance of successfully challenging. By the time it gets to trial and I prove the documents false it will be too late and I'll have lost my house. They have already applied for a warrant.

 

Btw I also applied for the original order to be set aside as it was VOID being based on an error of law thus "Ultra Vires". No joy there either.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions please?

Edited January 25, 2014 by citizenB

[marika41]

i am now back and fighting fit only to find no new information, where has everyone gone? I was hoping for some last minute tips as i am in court next monday but i can only assume things did not go well for the cases recently heard in the chamber,unless this thread has been moved elsewhere while i have been ill? does anyone have any news whats going on please?

[citizenB]

i am now back and fighting fit only to find no new information, where has everyone gone? I was hoping for some last minute tips as i am in court next monday but i can only assume things did not go well for the cases recently heard in the chamber,unless this thread has been moved elsewhere while i have been ill? does anyone have any news whats going on please?

 

No, the thread has not been moved anywhere Marika.

 

We too were hoping for an upate and can only assume, like you that in the absence of any updates, that things did not go well

[honeybee13]

i am now back and fighting fit only to find no new information, where has everyone gone? I was hoping for some last minute tips as i am in court next monday but i can only assume things did not go well for the cases recently heard in the chamber,unless this thread has been moved elsewhere while i have been ill? does anyone have any news whats going on please?

 

Hello Marika.

 

What is the basis of your case please and can you link to another thread where you discuss this?

 

It isn't too late to discuss what to do.

 

HB

[enfircer]

Hi. I am new to this debate but the issue here is of specific interest to me. I lost my "offer of loan" which contained all the terms of the loan. I asked my lender to send me a "copy" which they did but it is not a copy of the original one. Some of the terms are different.

 

 

I have disputed it at a possession hearing. The DJ said he believed me that the document was not the original one but gave the possession order anyway. I was only ever sent an offer of loan and never had sight of the "Conditions" (with the hidden Power of Attorney) which they produced in court. I was never asked to sign the offer. The only document in the whole case which is signed is the deed and that only by me

 

So I am now in the position where the DJ has given a possession order based on documents he believes to be questionable and has referred to a future trial for determination. This is so bizarre that I'll just say it again to make it quite clear. He said "I am going to grant the possession order but allow the amount of the arrears to be challenged at trial. I believe you have every chance of success in that challenge".

 

The possession was claimed on the basis of arrears. He ignored s.2 arguments based on the registration gap and my protestations of non disclosure of the mortgage conditions. He refused leave to appeal and so did the CJ 3 weeks later. I now have absolutely nowhere to go with this. I can't get any high court judge to look at it or go to Judicial Review as an appellate judge has made his decision.

 

 

So I lose my house based on a fraudulent document which the same judge has said I have every chance of successfully challenging. By the time it gets to trial and I prove the documents false it will be too late and I'll have lost my house. They have already applied for a warrant.

 

Btw I also applied for the original order to be set aside as it was VOID being based on an error of law thus "Ultra Vires". No joy there either.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions please?

 

 

jotho all i can say is read read and read again everything that Apple as posted on this thread regarding your situation with your lender

and get an application in to the property chamber your wasting your time with Dj's.

if you know anyone else in the same boat as you tell them too.

[ims21]

Thread tidied.

[jotho]

Hi enfircer. Thanks for your reply. I am very mindful of keeping on thread here and only raised my case as I am fresh out of court having had the Lamb argument (s.2 / registration gap) dismissed. Well ignored actually. It seemed so relevant at the time as I could not see how it could be possible a bank could walk into court waving an unverified, unsigned document claiming I had agreed to mortgage my house to them based on its content. The judge agreed. However he decided they should have my house anyway while we wait to battle it out.

 

My point in posting here is to join the issue of the supporting documents to the debate. They can't repossess without them and yet they are never signed either. It just seems untenable that they can just be switched at any time after the deed is signed but that is what has happened to me. And I am about to lose my house on the strength of it.

 

My apologies if this appears to be off thread. I am just trying to add strings to the bow. I have also had long discussions with LR about why they don't insist on institutional lenders signing the deed to register the obligation to make further advances. They certainly make you if you are a private lender. Their response was woolly in the extreme. Oh we don't need to ask the banks to do that. Why not? We just accept their standard forms.

 

I have read the thread with great interest and recognise much of the research including Garguillo, Bibby and Paragon. I did wonder about the Property Chamber at some point but I would have blown it by not fully understanding how to present the argument. I still am not very confident and would hate to diminish the cause with unworthy representations . Do you think I have a case based on their unverified and undisclosed documents or should I just join in with the thread and apply based on the deed being void? If so can you pleade direct me to the original application to the chamber to give me a framework.

 

I know from personal experience how much energy is required to do the kind of research made so freely available on this site. It is just awesome in the true sense of the word.

 

With thanks to everyone

 

Jo

[andrew1]

From my experience, and the experiences of others I have had the pleasure to meet on the forums since 2006, Judges are not the B all and end all of the Justice system. What we expect them to do given the evidence we go to great lengths to produce (which is not easy to find given the reluctance of companies to send it to us!) does not get given much attention if any and we all come away as LIP's wondering what the meaning of ' The Administration of Justice' actually is.

 

I had a judgement made against me and the Judge actually admitted when asked that she hadn't even read my witness statement. Excuse me? !! Many of my compatriots on here and elsewhere experience Judges in a different world to us, barristers just turning up to earn their fees, win or lose and solicitors with half baked ideas of granduer which beggars belief....

 

That doesn't help you jotho or anyone else, but it might make you realise the effort to find the evidence is one thing, but the effort to find someone ready to argue it even harder and to find a judge to acknowledge your evidence even harder...the system sucks sadly and you need a bucket load of money to try and make it work for you.

 

A1

[applecart]

Thank you IMS......much appreciated..... ; )

[bigphil61]

Hi All, just a little story I noticed on the old internet, might be of interest to those of us wondering how the gov't is going to deal with multiple applications to the First Tier Tribunal...

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffinance%2Fnewsbysector%2Fconstructionandproperty%2F10592869%2FLand-Registry-tipped-for-part-privatisation.html&ei=WQ_lUoz8CI307AawhoCIAw&usg=AFQjCNEBtjbe3pIGXYmvJeaTWPhSmWDxtA

[enfircer]

Hi enfircer. Thanks for your reply. I am very mindful of keeping on thread here and only raised my case as I am fresh out of court having had the Lamb argument (s.2 / registration gap) dismissed. Well ignored actually. It seemed so relevant at the time as I could not see how it could be possible a bank could walk into court waving an unverified, unsigned document claiming I had agreed to mortgage my house to them based on its content. The judge agreed. However he decided they should have my house anyway while we wait to battle it out.

 

My point in posting here is to join the issue of the supporting documents to the debate. They can't repossess without them and yet they are never signed either. It just seems untenable that they can just be switched at any time after the deed is signed but that is what has happened to me. And I am about to lose my house on the strength of it.

 

My apologies if this appears to be off thread. I am just trying to add strings to the bow. I have also had long discussions with LR about why they don't insist on institutional lenders signing the deed to register the obligation to make further advances. They certainly make you if you are a private lender. Their response was woolly in the extreme. Oh we don't need to ask the banks to do that. Why not? We just accept their standard forms.

 

I have read the thread with great interest and recognise much of the research including Garguillo, Bibby and Paragon. I did wonder about the Property Chamber at some point but I would have blown it by not fully understanding how to present the argument. I still am not very confident and would hate to diminish the cause with unworthy representations . Do you think I have a case based on their unverified and undisclosed documents or should I just join in with the thread and apply based on the deed being void? If so can you pleade direct me to the original application to the chamber to give me a framework.

 

I know from personal experience how much energy is required to do the kind of research made so freely available on this site. It is just awesome in the true sense of the word.

 

With thanks to everyone

 

Jo

 

Hi jo its difficult to direct you as you don't mention who your lender is.Andrew1 is correct getting a judge to look at this is difficult as all they see is you had the loan you pay it back so any hard work you have done means nothing to them trying to prove your lender is not entitled to your property as he sold your loan to a third party.

 

the section apple as posted is what you need to read and understand sorry for repeating myself but its true also if you look in your terms and conditions if you have them you will find a section on power of attorney you granted them this is how they can do things under this section without your consent as you unknowingly gave them the power to do so.

 

If you could post up who your lender is it would help in giving you a direction of whats best for your situation.

Edited January 26, 2014 by enfircer
spelling

[IS IT ME?]

No we are still here and watching,

Just waiting, but glad to see they are still up to their old tricks

Can not take PMs so you will have to post details of who the lender is sorry

Then we will look into YOU keeping your home.

Edited January 26, 2014 by ims21

[bigphil61]

Hi Jotho, If your looking for the info regarding the OP's application, I believe its on page 11, #210, please note that #208 is to be added to this. The application form for the Property Chamber can be found at page 21, # 416. Sorry for not posting the link to these pages but I'm having problems adding links at the moment, might be some setting on my PC...BP

[jotho]

Hi. I have just been back and re-read Apple's post #77 where s/he says the Offer has to be signed at least by me under contract law under penalty of fraud This is what I have been trying to bring to the attention of the judges. The irony of it is the first one agreed with me in principle but would not agree it fell in the scope of s.2. He refused leave to appeal the possession order on the grounds that s.2 is irrelevant to legal mortgages and hamstrung me in the upcoming trial by disallowing me to argue my defence using s.2 on the basis that "the Offer of Loan is not a contract". It actually refers to itself as a contract!

 

So this upcoming trial is just going to be a "yes it is" "no it isn't" match between me and their barrister in front of (the same) CJ. Who can possibly decide that one without a legal framework? If they can't prove the document is authentic and I can't prove it isn't (a negative) then what? Is the judge just going to make up a new contract and invite us both to agree it? Denning called this situation "a gap that cannot be filled". If it weren't so serious it would be comical.

 

I would happily give Apple's argument (#77) a go at the European Court if I thought it would have a chance. All I know is that they are nervous about the upcoming trial where they are going to have to verify their evidence. They have sent me estimated costs of c.£16,000. They have sent a barrister down from London from the get go. He couldn't hide his shock when he got the order. He almost fell over in surprise and delight.. I was just too stunned by the illogicality to do anything useful at the time. Barrister 1 : LiP 0

 

I am nervous about posting the lender's name just because no one else seems to do it. No other reason. Suffice it to say we all own a big chunk of them.

 

Do you have any thoughts on whether the Property Chamber might be a way to go? I am led to believe all appeal avenues in our court system are exhausted by the CJ's refusals. I have an oral hearing left at the end of Feb but after that its all over. Incidently, when I applied for permission to appeal I asked for (required) leave to appeal to QB Court of Record, not leave to appeal to him, the CJ. This is called leapfrogging I think and is quite valid. However, he just ignored it and stated he was taking it as leave to appeal to him and refused it. I have reported this to QB but have heard nothing back to date.

 

This is so wrong on so many levels, just basic contract law to start with, never mind inducement, silent fraud, unfair terms etc.etc. How can they get a judge to give them my property based on a contract I haven't signed? In the meantime they have got their warrant. I shall fend off the eviction as long as I can. Of course the DJ never signed the order so I can use that for a while at least. Any suggestions from anyone gratefully received.

 

Jo

[enfircer]

Thanks Is It Me; Thanks GiveHimaMask ; )

 

Yes, there is no hiding place... all transactions (apart from charging orders) to do with securing indebtedness in relation to land must be by deed.

 

As a reminder...

 

no borrower of a registered estate can grant a 'mortgage by demise or sub-demise' and cannot grant any lender a 'legal sub-mortgage'

 

HMLR's 'Approved form of charge' that is accepted by them and relied upon to charge a borrowers registered estate is being challenged to say....it is not a Deed....

 

The application to the chamber makes two points:

 

The lack of statutory power for any borrower to mortgage their registered estate....and.... the lack of any power for any borrower to 'assume' the deed on behalf of the lender by virtue of the amendments made to section 1 (3) and section 1 (2) LPMPA 1989.

 

The Chamber has sent out two un-reported cases to applicants...I have commented on this thread to do with 'lamb' already.... and I will comment to say that I am 100% clear that the case of 'fergus' makes no mention of the amended version of section 1 (3)(b) of the LPMPA 1989 and therefore in that regard - it fails to address the challenge presented to the Chamber....

 

Notably at Para 9 the Judge speaks of how crucial it is to refer to the 1989 Act - but does not refer to section 1 (2) or indeed section 1 (2) (b)..... and makes no mention of the amendments made to that section either... instead he jumps to section 2... in that regard... it is important to re-iterate that the application to the Chamber does not rely on section 2 at all...

 

Further the 'fergus' case speaks of sections 85 at para 7 and also to section 57 of the LPA 1925....and then at para 8 he looks to establishesthat section 85 and its provisions apply to registered land......

 

This is what he says:

 

"The provisions of section 85 of the law of property act 1925 apply to registered land as a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage is a disposition within section 23(1)(a) of the land registration act 2002 and by section 27 and schedule 2 of the 2002 Act a legal charge is required to be completed by registration. By section 74 of the 2002 Act the effective date of registration, when completed by an entry in HM Land Registry, has effect from the time of the making of the application"

 

This case and no doubt the above statement will no doubt be relied upon by lenders to look to defeat the challenge made by the application - the application as we all know says that a Borrower has no power to grant a mortgage by demise-sub demise or legal sub-mortgage....by virtue of LRA section 23 (1).....that section makes it clear that mortgages by demise or sub-demise are not permitted within the general law when the estate is registered.....Yet, here it would appear that we have a District Judge essentially looking to re-write the LAW.....

 

If the Statement made by the District Judge is intended to thwart the applications going forward by means of essentially re-writing the Law ...and Lenders make the mistake of relying on it .....then it will be essential to provide for the Lender the understanding that the District Judge made the decision in a court of no record; was misguided as to what is permitted within the general law and that which is not.......section 85 refers to all that which is not permitted within the general law and is all to do with 'mortgages by demise or sub demise'....oh and section 87 is all to do with charges by way of legal mortgage - which is essentially the same thing.....Non of which a borrower has power to grant to any lender.....sorry...but that's a fact.....

 

Here's what LPA 1925 section 85 says:

 

85 Mode of mortgaging freeholds.

 

(1)A mortgage of an estate in fee simple shall only be capable of being effected at law either by a demise for a term of years absolute, subject to a provision for cesser on redemption, or by a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage:

 

Provided that a first mortgagee shall have the same right to the possession of documents as if his security included the fee simple.

 

(2)Any purported conveyance of an estate in fee simple by way of mortgage made after the commencement of this Act shall (to the extent of the estate of the mortgagor) operate as a demise of the land to the mortgagee for a term of years absolute, without impeachment for waste, but subject to cesser on redemption, in manner following, namely:—

 

(a)A first or only mortgagee shall take a term of three thousand years from the date of the mortgage:

 

(b)A second or subsequent mortgagee shall take a term (commencing from the date of the mortgage) one day longer than the term vested in the first or other mortgagee whose security ranks immediately before that of such second or subsequent mortgagee:and, in this subsection, any such purported conveyance as aforesaid includes an absolute conveyance with a deed of defeasance and any other assurance which, but for this subsection, would operate in effect to vest the fee simple in a mortgagee subject to redemption.

 

(3)[F1Subsection (2) does not apply to registered land, but, subject to that, this section applies whether or not the land is registered land and whether or not]F1 the mortgage is expressed to be made by way of trust for sale or otherwise.

 

(4)Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act respecting legal and equitable powers, every power to mortgage or to lend money on mortgage of an estate in fee simple shall be construed as a power to mortgage the estate for a term of years absolute, without impeachment for waste, or by a charge by way of legal mortgage or to lend on such security.

I have not pasted subsection (5) of the above statute simply because it is added to section 85 in error....by that what I mean is.....subsection (5) was supposed to be entered into section 81 of the LPA 1925 NOT section 85...

 

See this link for clarification: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/schedule/1 - which says:

 

"The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 81—

“(5)In its application to instruments made after the coming into force of section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the words “under seal, and a bond or obligation under seal,” there were substituted the words “bond or obligation executed as a deed in accordance with section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989”.

 

so, there you have it......there is no challenge in 'fergus' any more than can be said of 'lamb'.....

 

Butler in 'lamb' mad it clear - he advised at para 33 that litigants should not rely on it....it is a county court decision...a court of no record...

 

and 'fergus'....well.....there is no disrespect intended to District Judge Blunsdon ....but....his decision looks to have shoe horned section 85 where and when it simply did not and could not ever apply in relation to a registered estate....not within the permitted general law....and further totally ignored the amended version of the LPMPA 1989 section 1 (3)(b) and section 1 (2) (b).....sorry to have to say it; but these are just a few of the glaringly obvious FACTS that I have drawn from it.........

 

It would be remiss of any lender to rely on either of the decisions of 'lamb' or 'fergus'......best to see what else they can pull out of the bag before Is It Me's friends case gets to a hearing .......

 

Apple

 

 

 

Jotho read through this again its there the light will come on.

 

my advice to you is get your application in asap to the property chamber get your warrant set aside.

 

believe me the sub prime lenders are about to be bought to task for their actions..

 

the main offenders have been put up on this thread they are southern pacific mortgages preferred mortgages accord mortgages santander and various others so its of no detriment by disclosing who your lender is.

Edited January 26, 2014 by ims21

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me.... ; )

 

Glad to hear it.....your case has been going on since May?......clearly applications to the Chamber are not taken lightly - especially when they have been 'framed' correctly......

 

This is important for consumers contemplating making applications to understand.....I know I keep say this...but making an application to the Chamber is not a 'template'.....if you do not set and frame your arguments correctly; one of the 'tricks' they deploy is to confuse you....

 

That 'trick' is....same as they did to Is It Me's Friend......what they say is 'the validity of the charge does not generally need to be signed by the lender'........on that sentence - they minded Is It Me that his friends application would be struck out for lack of merit.....yep, the Chamber is VERY strict....so be careful....

 

Some of you will re-call - we had to amend the submission to make them understand that we were not talking about the Deed as an 'approved form of charge' that meets the prescribed form accepted by HMLR......the battle is no doubt on-going - and I applaud Is It Me for 'sticking with it............. 'history in the making'??.... we have yet to see ; )

 

So......it is important to be vigilant, focused - and prepared to 'stick at it'..........; (

 

 

Apple

[jotho]

NRAM

 

Jo

[applecart]

Hi Jotho

 

We have steered away from contentions to do with the 'contract' on this thread - we have as you point out - mentioned it in passing.....

 

However, the main thrust of this thread is to do with the Deed..... and I would not like you to confuse the two different concepts....

 

The issue to do with 'appeals' is that you are limited to a review of the 'decision' - it is not a 're-hearing'.......you have to prove the 'decision' was 'wrong' and support that with oral argument........or that the decision was 'unjust' in some way if memory serves me right on that..?

 

Then, when you get to the oral hearing, if you do not manage to convince the judge that you have a reasonable prospect of success the appeal will go no further......it's a circular system.....and as you know making an 'appeals' is not cheap especially if you are not exempt....

 

I do not re-call all that was previously said of course in relation to 'offers' as 'contracts'....... but there are clearly conflicting arguments as to what an 'offer' represents by way of a binding 'contract' if you will......especially if it has not been signed by either party or only by one party.

 

The Fact is.... where you argue that they cannot re-possess without a signed agreement meeting section 2 is that they do NOT rely on it.... they rely on the Deed....in its prescribed form meeting HMLRs Prescribed form of charge......

 

Now, because we know that to be the case, we do our best on this thread to avoid mention of section 2 or any document that may fall within its re-mit.....

 

Registration Gap and section 2 arguments don't work.....as you know.... before they were throwing 'tilly'.... they threw 'helden' and 'eagle star'.......they are building an arsenal of case law against applications made to the chamber that rely on section 2...... best to avoid it...

 

Issue for you....is this..... you have relied on s.2..... your oral hearing will only consider that what you put before the judge in the lower court.......to prove his decision was wrong... would essentially mean.... that you are arguing that the offer...is an agreement.... it isn't... it's an 'offer'..... brought by the lender as an inducement for you to sign the deed.......

 

If you deem my points incorrect, then I am happy to thrash it out with you (in a nice way of course).....may help to assist you get a better idea of what can be done if anything...or whether the argument is truly flawed from the outset.... what are your thoughts?

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

NRAM

 

Jo

 

Not surprising... Read this thread and Get your application into the chamber ASAP mate!