Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[enfircer]

I would guess that there are other issues we are not privy to which take additional consideration, just guessing. Or of course it could just be a procedural delay

 

Ben will know about the cases he should really tell us he as been a commercial property lawyer for 25 years at woodfine solicitors so he will most definitely be privy to the information.

[bhall]

Ben will know about the cases he should really tell us he as been a commercial property lawyer for 25 years at woodfine solicitors so he will most definitely be privy to the information.

 

Lmao

 

You are a right one Enficer

 

So who am I supposed to be today ?

 

logged off already ? lol

[bhall]

As for any reliance put upon the previous link to the Council of Mortgage Lenders -

 

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/about

 

"The Council of Mortgage Lenders is a not-for-profit organisation and the trade association for the mortgage lending industry, and our members account for around 95% of UK residential mortgage lending."

 

And when this trade association asked its members about the mortgage deed -

 

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/handbook/englandandwales/question-list/741

 

Question: 14.1.5. Does the lender need to be sent the original mortgage deed?

 

In the majority of cases the mortgage deed is never even sent back to the lender - if it is not sent back to them, they can't sign it as part of Apples fanciful ideas about delivery of a deed

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball, Why have the Property Chamber not struck out the 9 remaining (as per Ben's FOI) applications, if they have no merit? BP

 

My personal opinion and it is nothing more than speculation is that the decision of the property chamber in regard to the cases heard on 20 Jan will be applied to the remaining 7 applications and any future applications. The purpose of the hearings on 20 Jan is in my view to put a decision in place to apply to subsequent applications - as this is a topic that has not yet previously been determined by the Property Chamber

 

This is based upon what the Property Chamber has said (and as previously posted in this thread) to UNRAM and IS IT ME?

[Peterbard]

Question: 14.1.5. Does the lender need to be sent the original mortgage deed?

 

In the majority of cases the mortgage deed is never even sent to the lender

 

May make it slightly awkward for him to sign in that case

[bhall]

The following is taken from Lamb to show that s.1 of the LP (MP) A 1989 was considered by the court ( I hope this can be considered to be related to the topic of the thread)

 

 

 

[bhall]

check out http://www.192.com and see how many Ben Hall's come up lol

 

10/10 for effort but sadly 1/10 for results Enfircer -

 

So there can be no confusion, I do not work for woodfines and until you posted about them, I had not even heard of them, so a coincidence that someone else has the same first initial and surname as me - eh yes lol

Edited February 10, 2014 by ims21
.

[bhall]

Any other conspiracy theories you want to try ?

 

Enfircer if you spent more than 5 seconds looking at their website, that email address you posted (which has now been removed) belongs to a Brian and not a Ben

 

And for the record unlike Brian, I don't watch rugby

[fletch70]

Yet again I go out for a couple of hours and it takes me ages to catch up.

 

What is going on in this world. Oh and by the way, I am bad, I am very very bad but that's a whole different story

[fletch70]

Ben

Earlier you said 10 applications made, 1 thrown out and 2 to be heard on 20th. I assume that this case is 1 but what of the other. In your email reply it said that only 1 was heard on 20th so do I assume the other for whatever reason was not?

[bhall]

My personal opinion and it is nothing more than speculation is that the decision of the property chamber in regard to the cases heard on 20 Jan will be applied to the remaining 7 applications and any future applications. The purpose of the hearings on 20 Jan is in my view to put a decision in place to apply to subsequent applications - as this is a topic that has not yet previously been determined by the Property Chamber

 

This is based upon what the Property Chamber has said (and as previously posted in this thread) to UNRAM and IS IT ME?

 

These are the posts I was referring too

 

 

the matters raised un this application have been raised in a NUMBER of other applications recently s108 applications made to the chamber. This is the first application( you have to ask why) and is the only one (so far ) a response has been made and filed, as well as an application to strike out by the respondents.

Of the other applications the tribunal would prefer to stay the applications with a view to disseminating a decision once there has ben a hearing, it is possible that a number of cases will be heard at the same time.

Then asks to lists dates to avoid, I will be able to go in January and asked for t 2 day listing.

 

and

 

I have received notice from the Property Chamber my application is going forward and I have been ORDERED to send a copy of the application and all supporting documentation to the lender. The lender is ORDERED to respond within one calendar month. I will scan the documents if there is some way of getting them to you.

 

They have indicated that there is going to be a group tribunal in London in November or December.

 

This is exact wording of the reply...

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

[fletch70]

One last question

To me it is not relevant as I do not subscribe to the more posts=more knowledge theory as such

 

Out of people individual posts what sort of % would you guess are made on this thread.

 

Apple, 80-90%?

[bhall]

Ben

Earlier you said 10 applications made, 1 thrown out and 2 to be heard on 20th. I assume that this case is 1 but what of the other. In your email reply it said that only 1 was heard on 20th so do I assume the other for whatever reason was not?

 

Hello Fletch in the email it refers to two - The decision relates to both of the applications - It would appear by posts in this thread that one was Is It Me?'s friend and the other remains unidentified - I am not interested in anyone's identity, just the decision. Once I receive a copy of it, I will remove any names and any thing that can identify the applicant before, I post it to this thread

 

"The Mortgage dispute Decision is still outstanding with the Judge, so I would advise you to keep checking back with this office after xxx 2014 when a Decision is more likely to have be issued. For your information the mortgage application Case numbers are REC/2013/00xx & 00xx."

 

Two case reference numbers are quoted - I have just edited them with xx

 

I have added a space to the above which was not present in the original email to more clearly show the &

 

 

The tally based upon information received and information posted in this thread is

 

Out of the 10 applications made

 

1 application struck out

2 applications heard

7 applications stayed until an outcome is issued

[bhall]

One last question

To me it is not relevant as I do not subscribe to the more posts=more knowledge theory as such

 

Out of people individual posts what sort of % would you guess are made on this thread.

 

Apple, 80-90%?

 

Be fair, I must have made at least 40% - give me some credit lol

[fletch70]

Hi Ben

I wasn't trying to be clever , I just misread and thought there was only one case heard on the 20th so assumed the other had been struck out as well or stayed .

 

Now i see my error.

 

As you say , identities really do not matter, if the person decides to out themselves so be it as Ms Mayhew has on several occasions (santander v mayhew).

 

The judgements are what matters

[IS IT ME?]

What's happened to your thread Ben?

You're not so interested in it are you

[bhall]

Hi Ben

I wasn't trying to be clever , I just misread and thought there was only one case heard on the 20th so assumed the other had been struck out as well or stayed .

 

I know you wasn't, I am grateful for what you said, as others may have been thinking the same. After you said that I had to double read it, just to make sure lol

 

The confusion was my fault. I posted the email as it was received (minus the date and reference numbers). I should have amended it, to make it clearer

[bhall]

What's happened to your thread Ben?

You're not so interested in it are you

 

lol

 

most of it has been copied here

 

I am very interested in "void mortgage deeds arguments" have you not noticed ?

 

(sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't see your post)

[sequenci]

 

(sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't see your post)

 

Sorry, I didn't see it. We have to read them all and then give them the go ahead to go live on the forum.

[fletch70]

Hello sequenci

 

You are more forgiving than I am after what was said to you much earlier in the thread

[sequenci]

Hello sequenci

 

You are more forgiving than I am after what was said to you much earlier in the thread

 

I don't really get bothered by anything matey

[bhall]

Not sure if I posted this before but as it is related to the thread, I will post it, just in case

 

 

Halsbury's Laws of England/DEEDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/1. DEEDS/(4) EFFECT OF A DEED/64. Accepting benefit without execution.

 

64. Accepting benefit without execution.

 

Where a person named in some deed, whether as a party to it or not, has, without executing the deed, ac-cepted some benefit thereby assured to him, he is obliged to give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was therein expressed to be conferred; and he must, therefore, perform or observe all covenants or stipulations on his part which are contained in the deed, and on the performance or observance of which the benefit conferred was meant to be conditional1. For example, a mortgagee who has made a loan on mortgage, but has not executed the mortgage deed (which has been executed by the mortgagor only), is bound to give effect to a proviso contained in the deed for reduction of the rate of interest on punctual payment, or for allowing the loan to remain on the mortgage for a certain term2. If a person enters into land under an assurance made to him by deed (which he has not executed) for a term of years, for his life or in tail, and it subsequently appears that the grantor who made the assurance had no rightful title to the land, the person who has so entered is estopped from asserting, against the remainderman under the deed, a possessory title to the land as derived from his own wrongful entry and the effect of the Limitation Act 19803, even though he may be able to set up such a title against the original rightful owner4. Where a company takes the benefit of an apprenticeship agreement which it has not executed, it will be taken to have adopted it and will be bound by it5.

 

 

1 YB 38 Edw 3, 8a; YB 45 Edw 3, 11, (pl 7); YB 8 Edw 4, 8b; Littleton's Tenures s 374; Bro Abr, Dette (38, 80), Obligation (13, 14, 27); 1 Dyer 13b, pl 65; Co Litt 230b and n (1); Brett v Cumberland (1619) 2 Roll Rep 63; R v Houghton-le-Spring (1819) 2 B & Ald 375; Webb v Spicer (1849) 13 QB 886 at 893 (on appeal sub nom Salmon v Webb and Franklin (1852) 3 HL Cas 510); Linwood v Squire (1850) 5 Exch 234 at 236; Macdonald v Law Union Insurance Co (1874) LR 9 QB 328 at 330 and 332; Aspden v Seddon (1876) 1 Ex D 496 at 503, CA; Westhoughton UDC v Wigan Coal and Iron Co Ltd [1919] 1 Ch 159 at 174, CA; Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169, [1957] 1 All ER 371. Before 1926, a grantee of land, subject to the reservation of an easement thereover, was bound, if he accepted the grant, to give effect to the reservation, though he did not execute the conveyance (May v Belleville [1905] 2 Ch 605); but now the reservation operates to create the legal estate reserved without execution of the conveyance by the grantee (see the Law of Property Act 1925 s 65(1); and PARA 239 post).

 

2 See note 1 supra; and Morgan v Pike (1854) 14 CB 473 at 483-486.

 

3 See the Limitation Act 1980 ss 15, 17 (as amended), Sch 1 (as amended); and LIMITATION PERIODS.

 

4 Dalton v Fitzgerald [1897] 2 Ch 86, CA; cf the Limitation Act 1980 Sch 1 (as amended) (see LIMITATION PERIODS); and see Littleton's Tenures s 374.

 

5 McDonald v John Twiname Ltd [1953] 2 QB 304, [1953] 2 All ER 589, CA.

[bhall]

I don't really get bothered by anything matey

 

You are a better man than me

[bhall]

Looks like a quiet afternoon, makes a nice change from recent exchanges in this thread. - the site team especially must be enjoying the rest

 

It is probably for the best too, whilst everyone waits for the Property Chamber to issue it's written decision

 

For those interested in keeping an eye out for the decision, it should be available online not long after it is issued

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/tribunal-decisions

[applecart]

I don't really get bothered by anything matey

 

 

That's the spirit Sequenci; It would be nice if others would take your lead ; )

 

Hopefully if they do; we can then get on with the serious issue that is the subject matter of the OP's thread.

 

Apple