Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
    • Gosh mate I've woke up this morning with half the worry I had last night when going to sleep!.  I can't believe how much this forum has helped me over the years and I don't  have the words to explain the gratitude I feel towards you guys -  Now that I've slept on it I feel ready to reject this company and my plan is to make them an offer to accept payments to date as full and final settlement - I will I think write them a letter once my review is completed or maybe just send it now whilst they are reviewing explaining my kids are unwell for which reason I'm struggling to survive and if I can politely request for them to accept payment to date as a full and final - I'll mention I don't have any cash or anyone to borrow from to offer a full or even part amount of the remaining balance of the iva and therfore am unable to make a offer of payment.   If they agree to at least even put my offer to the creditors then I feel it's better I hang in there and that way I won't have to deal with any possibilities of more defaults and ccjs    Right now the only adverse effects on my credit report are the iva that is now 3 years old and 2 Ccj one coming of this July and one thus October.    But I am worried new action will begin and new defaults and Ccj may start to appear because I've paying into an agreement im under the impression the 6 year rules starts again so yes I have lost of mixed feelings about this but I'm not going to lie you guys have put some life back into my breath this week as for the last 3 years I've felt caged like an animal and this morning I feel freer I can't explain how much but certainly my soul feel lighter today thanks to yin because I'm now viewing this review totally different to I do yesterday thanks to you guys 
    • Court name UNKNOWN Case number ********** Amount N/A Confirmed by Insolvency Service Date issued May 2021 Type Voluntary Arrangement Notes If you have questions about voluntary arrangements you should speak to the Insolvency Service.     I started this in 2021. So it's been about 3 years I've been paying. 
    • Thanks @lookinforinfo@Nicky Boyi sent across the agreement earlier in this thread. No mention of financial reward to the MA. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3715 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Ben, Do you have or know of any links to any other lenders securitisation documents? In particular Cheltenham & Gloucester or Lloyds....BP

 

Hello BP

 

This is a link for the Lloyds Banking Group.

 

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/investors/debt_investors/securitisation_terms.asp

 

Unfortunately, it is not as detailed as the one for ybs

 

Ben

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Ben, Thanks for the link, unfortunately I could find no MD references, but as you say its not as detailed as the YBS documentation, I'll keep on digging....BP

Many of life’s failures are experienced by people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. - Thomas Edison

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben, Thanks for the link, unfortunately I could find no MD references, but as you say its not as detailed as the YBS documentation, I'll keep on digging....BP

 

Hello BP

 

The MD reference is a very unreliable way to identify if any individual or specific mortgage has been securitiised.

 

The MD reference is merely the reference given to a standard mortgage deed produced by a lender, that has been both checked and approved by the land registry. Therefore, a MD reference could apply to all of the mortgage deeds used by a lender for a non specific period of time, could be months or even years.

 

By way of an example - say lender x used the same land registry approved mortgage deed between 2004 and 2006 (meaning all of those mortgage deeds would have the same MD reference). say the same lender securitised its mortgages on a quarterly basis, during that two year period there would be 12 securitisation transactions, each with its own documentation and SPV.

 

A Mortgage Sale Agreement for a securitisation that took place in the first quarter of 2004, will detail the same MD reference as a securitsation that took place in the last quarter of 2006. The point I am trying to make is that a mortgage provided in 2004 could have the same MD reference as one provided in 2006. However, say your mortgage was from 2006, the MD reference applicable to your deed could still be detailed in a mortgage sale agreement from 2004 - Despite it obviously being impossible that it relates to your actual mortgage.

 

X securities 2004-1

X securities 2004- 2

X securities 2004 - 3

X securities 2004 -4

 

X securities 2005 - 1

X securities 2005 -2

X securities 2005 -3

X securities 2005 -4

 

X securities 2006 - 1

X securities 2006 -2

X securities 2006 - 3

X securities 2006 -4

 

(the above are example of quarterly securitisation transactions)

 

The Mortgage Sale Agreements for the above example securitisation transactions could all detail the same MD reference numbers - However, it would be impossible for a securitisation transaction in 2004 to relate to a mortgage provided in 2006. Despite the Mortgage Sale Agreement for a transaction in 2004 detailing the MD reference for a mortgage deed used in 2006 (being the same standard deed used since 2004).

 

Reading the above, I have not explained it very well. Basically do not rely on an MD reference to prove that any individual or specific mortgage has been securitised, as it doesn't prove anything.

 

*the above is a very basic example and does not take into account the fact that lenders use more than one type of mortgage deed at any one time

 

 

EDIT

 

As a working example

 

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/Nationwide%20Internet%20Site/pdf/M55_Oct_11.pdf

 

nationwide have used the above mortgage deed since October 2011 with the reference MD921K

 

Every mortgage since October 2011 would have the same MD reference number. One provided on 1 November 2011 would have the same MD reference as one provided on 1 January 2014. However, any mortgage sale agreement (for a securitisation transaction between those dates) would still detail that same MD reference number, even though it could not possibily apply to mortgage deeds with the same MD reference number that were provided after any specific securitisation transaction

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple, Forgive me if I've got this totally wrong, but whilst reading through the thread yet again (personal punishment for being to dense to take it all in first time or even second time around), I noticed that you have referred to the Mortgage Deed as the Agreement! Surely any such Agreement would be covered under the CCA 1974 or CCA 2006. So how could the 'Deed' that creates the disposition be the 'Agreement'. There isn't any agreement, so does'nt it make it impossible for the lender to rely that there is any agreement that relates to the LRA s32? There is NO AGREEMENT...BP

Many of life’s failures are experienced by people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. - Thomas Edison

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben. Can I just ask you an off subject question? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if they need your PoA to securitize your mortgage?

Jo

 

Personally I would avoid the spanish white rabbit arguments like the plague.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello BP

 

The MD reference is a very unreliable way to identify if any individual or specific mortgage has been securitiised.

 

The MD reference is merely the reference given to a standard mortgage deed produced by a lender, that has been both checked and approved by the land registry. Therefore, a MD reference could apply to all of the mortgage deeds used by a lender for a non specific period of time, could be months or even years.

 

By way of an example - say lender x used the same land registry approved mortgage deed between 2004 and 2006 (meaning all of those mortgage deeds would have the same MD reference). say the same lender securitised its mortgages on a quarterly basis, during that two year period there would be 12 securitisation transactions, each with its own documentation and SPV.

 

A Mortgage Sale Agreement for a securitisation that took place in the first quarter of 2004, will detail the same MD reference as a securitsation that took place in the last quarter of 2006. The point I am trying to make is that a mortgage provided in 2004 could have the same MD reference as one provided in 2006. However, say your mortgage was from 2006, the MD reference applicable to your deed could still be detailed in a mortgage sale agreement from 2004 - Despite it obviously being impossible that it relates to your actual mortgage.

 

X securities 2004-1

X securities 2004- 2

X securities 2004 - 3

X securities 2004 -4

 

X securities 2005 - 1

X securities 2005 -2

X securities 2005 -3

X securities 2005 -4

 

X securities 2006 - 1

X securities 2006 -2

X securities 2006 - 3

X securities 2006 -4

 

(the above are example of quarterly securitisation transactions)

 

The Mortgage Sale Agreements for the above example securitisation transactions could all detail the same MD reference numbers - However, it would be impossible for a securitisation transaction in 2004 to relate to a mortgage provided in 2006. Despite the Mortgage Sale Agreement for a transaction in 2004 detailing the MD reference for a mortgage deed used in 2006 (being the same standard deed used since 2004).

 

Reading the above, I have not explained it very well. Basically do not rely on an MD reference to prove that any individual or specific mortgage has been securitised, as it doesn't prove anything.

 

*the above is a very basic example and does not take into account the fact that lenders use more than one type of mortgage deed at any one time

 

 

EDIT

 

As a working example

 

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/Nationwide%20Internet%20Site/pdf/M55_Oct_11.pdf

 

nationwide have used the above mortgage deed since October 2011 with the reference MD921K

 

Every mortgage since October 2011 would have the same MD reference number. One provided on 1 November 2011 would have the same MD reference as one provided on 1 January 2014. However, any mortgage sale agreement (for a securitisation transaction between those dates) would still detail that same MD reference number, even though it could not possibily apply to mortgage deeds with the same MD reference number that were provided after any specific securitisation transaction

 

Hi Ben

 

I agree with you here on the point made about the MD numbers.

 

I also agree that 000's of mortgages registered with HMLR will have the same MD number.

 

I also agree that borrowers do not derive an 'individual' MD Number for their mortgage.......a borrowers MD No could be the same as his neighbours if they happen to have taken a loan from the same lender during the same period.

 

All of which intends that it is easy enough for a Borrower to recognise if the MD No on their deed matches an MD No party to a pool of mortgages sold to an SPV....

 

This is possibly why 'Accord' and many other lenders have taken to abusing 'transparency' Rules in beginning to remove any on-line detail that was previously available to borrowers.....

 

What you have kindly pointed out is that 'mortgages' and the MD No' identify that a borrowers loan/'mortgage' is at all times party to a 'batch' recognised by the MD No and are simply pooled as a 'batch' time and time again and then sold on and on again in a 'batch'.....I suppose it helps keep the administrative costs down for lenders and HMLR when they do not create individual MD No's for individual borrowers.

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple, Forgive me if I've got this totally wrong, but whilst reading through the thread yet again (personal punishment for being to dense to take it all in first time or even second time around), I noticed that you have referred to the Mortgage Deed as the Agreement! Surely any such Agreement would be covered under the CCA 1974 or CCA 2006. So how could the 'Deed' that creates the disposition be the 'Agreement'. There isn't any agreement, so does'nt it make it impossible for the lender to rely that there is any agreement that relates to the LRA s32? There is NO AGREEMENT...BP

 

OMG.....BigPhil61.....I think you make a very important observation here........Boy oh boy, this thread is nothing if not 'progressive'....

 

LRA s.32 does say just because the lenders charge is noted on the register of title is not evidence of its validity....it also says that if the 'agreement' is not valid - then mere notice of the lenders charge does not validate the charge.......

 

I have to agree with you.....in our search for the truth....and our understanding that there must be an 'agreement'...... we have not found one.....I think you may have something here, when you have spotted that in most cases there simply is 'NO agreement'

 

 

I think it is the CCA 2006 section 2 that removed the financial limit of £25k to say that all credit facilities no matter how much the amount of credit is will be regulated under the CCA 1974.......eeerrrmmmm?

 

Just Thinking on my feet here.......if the deed is void because it has not been executed by the lender.....now a finding that there is possibly NO 'agreement' that they can point to......falling within the CCA 1974 (not forgetting the FCA are looking to incorporate the CCA 1974 under their wing)....then....is this just another issue for the lender to have to overcome?.....should applications and 'appeals' include this finding moving forward?.....eeeerrrmmm....... my thoughts are that the 'charge' on the borrowers register of title has no chance of being found to be 'valid'....because there is 'NO' Agreement.....oooh by gum...... its not looking very good for lenders......not looking very good at all..... ; )

 

So there is so far.....NO Defence to the Void Deed........ No Defence to a 'valid charge'....because there is in the vast majority of cases 'NO Agreement'......

 

Please someone tell me my mind has not gone into overdrive........(BigPhil61 It's all your fault) lol

 

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooops....meant to say in post #4535:

 

"So there is so far.....NO Defence to the Void Deed........ No Defence to a 'in-valid charge'....because there is in the vast majority of cases 'NO Agreement'......"

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben. Can I just ask you an off subject question? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if they need your PoA to securitize your mortgage?

Jo

 

yes jotho is the answer to your question if you look in your T&C'S if you haven't already done so you will see you granted irrevocable power of attorney its well hidden this allows them to do what ever under this as if it was you.

 

as for white rabbit for whatever he believes in was and is correct on this subject you need to do a deed of revocation to revoke it.

get your wheels in motion follow whats being done on this thread get your application in to the property chamber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

where did spanish white rabbit appear in jotho's question ?

 

Hello Enfircer, hope you are well

 

El Spanardo also known as the white Rabbit has been a keen promotors of that line of argument for a long time.

 

Thought you might have known that

 

Ben

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like the other freeman types arguments and Apples fanciful ideas those arguments don't hold much weight in a possession hearing.

 

Sorry

 

 

 

Ben

 

I was asking where did spanish white rabbit appear in jotho's question? as far as i can see he was asking you for some advise if you knew?

as for Apple's fanciful ideas i wouldn't know about those the only thing people and I myself are interested in are FACTS no play ground stuff.

not getting into an argument over he said she said whatever the case may be.I don't care to much for the freeman of the land stuff but some of it is interesting to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like the other freeman types arguments and Apples fanciful ideas those arguments don't hold much weight in a possession hearing.

 

Sorry

 

Ben

 

Yes Ben BUT they have stayed in there homes and can you show were white rabbit is wrong ?

Why is the PA there, it's not for the borrowers is it.

We will see what happens

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jotho,

 

I get what you mean that the offer was not the one you say you signed. Unless there is any significant change in the major body of the contract then it would still stand and so would the arrears. Can you say what the difference is? What I meant by 'acceptance' was that you had paid them for x amount of time before now raising the issue that there is a problem. The fact that they agree to a lower payment is at their discretion and doesn't prejudice their claim as should be in the T & C's.

 

Apple,

 

We looked into a lot of that before and found it not to be much help as it wasn't retrospective, or at least not enough as I recall to cover what the discussion is here. It may cover the mortgage now but not the foundations of it and it's making by the unscrupulous. The financial advisors weren't regulated and neither were a lot of the law firms used by them. Well not in my case, and that left a gaping hole of trying to pin a tail on a flea in a wind tunnel!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG.....BigPhil61.....I think you make a very important observation here........Boy oh boy, this thread is nothing if not 'progressive'....

 

LRA s.32 does say just because the lenders charge is noted on the register of title is not evidence of its validity....it also says that if the 'agreement' is not valid - then mere notice of the lenders charge does not validate the charge.......

 

I have to agree with you.....in our search for the truth....and our understanding that there must be an 'agreement'...... we have not found one.....I think you may have something here, when you have spotted that in most cases there simply is 'NO agreement'

 

 

I think it is the CCA 2006 section 2 that removed the financial limit of £25k to say that all credit facilities no matter how much the amount of credit is will be regulated under the CCA 1974.......eeerrrmmmm?

 

Just Thinking on my feet here.......if the deed is void because it has not been executed by the lender.....now a finding that there is possibly NO 'agreement' that they can point to......falling within the CCA 1974 (not forgetting the FCA are looking to incorporate the CCA 1974 under their wing)....then....is this just another issue for the lender to have to overcome?.....should applications and 'appeals' include this finding moving forward?.....eeeerrrmmm....... my thoughts are that the 'charge' on the borrowers register of title has no chance of being found to be 'valid'....because there is 'NO' Agreement.....oooh by gum...... its not looking very good for lenders......not looking very good at all..... ; )

 

So there is so far.....NO Defence to the Void Deed........ No Defence to a 'valid charge'....because there is in the vast majority of cases 'NO Agreement'......

 

Please someone tell me my mind has not gone into overdrive........(BigPhil61 It's all your fault) lol

 

 

Apple

 

 

Hi Apple, Just doing my bit for the borrower....BP

Many of life’s failures are experienced by people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. - Thomas Edison

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enfircer. Thanks for that. As I said to Ben I just like to check everything out myself. I seem to have got myself some fatherly advice from him but no actual answer. I found about the PoA a while ago and have made note of your suggestion to revoke it. I was asking the question because my lender has stated they have not used my PoA. I am aware of another case where this lie cost them the outcome. I only asked Ben as he seemed to be especially knowledgeable on securitisation.

Oh heck here I go off thread again. I do not want to go there and certainly don't want to start any debate at all. It was intended just as a simple one-off question.

 

I am totally focussed on the deed now. It is going to take a while longer for me to get to application stage. As I said early on, I am aware how important this is for everyone concerned and am really worried I might do damage with an unmeritorious application. In the meantime though I've got an oral hearing end of Feb and a multi-track case to prepare for concerning the amount of the arrears. I don't think I can use the deed issue at the oral hearing, not even with a shoehorn, but the upcoming trial is open to anything (other than a s2 defence).

 

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enfircer. Thanks for that. As I said to Ben I just like to check everything out myself. I seem to have got myself some fatherly advice from him but no actual answer. I found about the PoA a while ago and have made note of your suggestion to revoke it. I was asking the question because my lender has stated they have not used my PoA. I am aware of another case where this lie cost them the outcome. I only asked Ben as he seemed to be especially knowledgeable on securitisation.

Oh heck here I go off thread again. I do not want to go there and certainly don't want to start any debate at all. It was intended just as a simple one-off question.

 

I am totally focussed on the deed now. It is going to take a while longer for me to get to application stage. As I said early on, I am aware how important this is for everyone concerned and am really worried I might do damage with an unmeritorious application. In the meantime though I've got an oral hearing end of Feb and a multi-track case to prepare for concerning the amount of the arrears. I don't think I can use the deed issue at the oral hearing, not even with a shoehorn, but the upcoming trial is open to anything (other than a s2 defence).

 

Jo

 

Hi jotho i understand what your saying the lender is not telling you the truth what is the truth is they do not do anything under your name

it is under the POA itself that you gtanted them it is this you need to revoke with them and also if you do do this make sure the insurance and acting solicitors get revoked to.

once this is done you can request to see any document they have then.Don't forget to get it witnessed by a notory public.

Having watched the spanish white rabbit could you please tell me to ben where he is wrong on the POA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Everyone,

 

To clarify my previous response to Jo (apologies for the sharpness of my response)

 

It is not and never was "your mortgage". The problem is that we are used to saying we have a mortgage with such and such bank or I have a mortgage with Bank x etc. The use of term mortgage is used incorrectly and explains why a lot of fanciful ideas are eventually disproven.

 

A borrower grants a mortgage to the lender as security for a loan. To be clear, the borrower gives the lender a mortgage. Once given to the lender, the lender is the owner of that mortgage and as such is recorded by the Land Registry as the proprietor of the charge.

 

As the owner of the charge, the lender is free (subject to any term to the contrary) to sell or dispose of the charge as it sees fit.

 

Case law clearly confirms beyond any possible confusion that a lender is at law also free (subject to the contrary) to assign the debt to a 3rd party.

 

If you look at other websites you start to see the problems with these types of arguments. One site which heavily promoted the whole void deed issue, still provides its members with a copy of the Lamb case from January 2013, in the full knowledge that in a subsequent case Lamb lost.

 

Before it's forum settings changed (recently) there was never any mention of this.

 

If you look at another site that promoted this concept and that of the POA argument. It offers free membership, yet when you sign up, you have to pay for template letters.

 

CAG is far superior to those websites in that it does not charge, merely seeks a donation and to more a degree allows the freedom to discuss loses and potential loses.

 

Least we forget, two cases were heard by the Property Chamber last week. It would appear by Is It Me?'s post (he is still waiting) that neither of the two cases were one of his friends.

 

The chamber has indicated and it's rules permit that the decision of those hearings could be applied to other applications, including that of Is It Me?'s friend.

 

In closing look at some of the other threads - Marika's for example, she tried the deed route and the POA argument. In much the same way as previously posted by PJ the Judge was not interested and dismissed those arguments.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of days ago Enficer posted (since been removed) a memorandum that was submitted to the Treasury Select Committee. Enfircer referred to it as 'interesting reading'.

 

The memorandum was only half of the story, you should google what happened in the outcome of the author of that memorandum's own possession proceedings.

 

The whole picture may not be a nice picture but it is better to look at the whole picture and not just a little part of of it.

 

Ben

  • Haha 1

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ben it's not the full story? Yes your right.

The judges just look at what is owed are rubber stamps the order and moves onto the next one!

As for 3rd party rights you should read those if you quote them, they give ALL the rights AND Benefits to the other party.

 

Any one with an accord mortgage should wait and see what comes next like L p a 23???

I say again without any hesitation apple is right 100%

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3715 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...