Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball, Oh I'm clear and I understand your point of view, although, I don't agree with it. Just to make it clear for you, IsItMe's friend, IsItMe, Apple and all other the posters that have contributed to this thread, that have had the borrowers best interests at heart, have not lost sight of what is being discussed here...BP

 

They (is it me?'s friend, it would appear has never actually posted in this thread, unless they have never identified themselves as his friend and Is It me? only ever posts to agree with something apple has said or to demand answers to his questions) might have the borrowers best interests at heart but by misinterpreting the law - they are not helping anyone

 

I like to think that you also refer to me(being one of the other posters that have contributed to this thread) as having the borrowers best interests at heart, in my long running battle with Apple to post the truth about the law instead of interpretations and fanciful ideas as, has been shown today

 

Besides which, I feel DB has shown an indepth understanding of this thread and the topics that have been discussed

[Peterbard]

I have the best interest of borrowers at heart as I am sure does Ben and the other contributors to this thread.

 

It is not in the best interest of anyone to make argument in court that cannot succeed, it will just incur more costs and create further misery.

 

It is very nice to think that there is a magic pill that will make all our debts and problems go away, and forums like this a breading grounds for half baked ideas like this one.

Usually they are harmless however sometimes people take them seriously and act on them.

[fletch70]

Sadly , and I am not pointing any fingers, not all posters do have the consumers best interest at heart. What they have is a desperate need to be right and to be respected

 

As the saying goes.......Truth will out:lol:

 

I for one eagerly await . At that point someone will have some serious egg on their face . From past experience I have a pretty good idea who it will be which will be ashame .

 

Dodge/Ben when it is all done and dusted I am sure you will be able to explain it to me in words of one syllable

[bigphil61]

They (is it me?'s friend, it would appear has never actually posted in this thread, unless they have never identified themselves as his friend) might have the borrowers best interests at heart but by misinterpreting the law - they are not helping anyone

 

Besides which, I feel DB has shown an indepth understanding of this thread and the topics that have been discussed

 

Hi Ben, Interpretation is available to us all, and that fundimental right, as we should expect, will also be excerised by the Judges at the Property Chamber...BP

[steampowered]

I agree we will have to wait for the chamber's decision. There has been 262 pages of discussion - its clear not everyone is going to agree.

 

 

Any word on when a decision is likely? Are the various cases being heard together?

[sequenci]

I agree we will have to wait for the chamber's decision. There has been 262 pages of discussion - its clear not everyone is going to agree.

 

 

Any word on when a decision is likely? Are the various cases being heard together?

 

We should know about the first cases on the 20th Jan. I would imagine that these decisions will then (potentially) be applied to the other cases that are in the pipeline.

 

Well that's my understanding anyway.

[bhall]

The Property Chamber say a written decision will most likely be issued after 20 Feb 2014 - Is It Me? says that the case has been stayed for 28 days for the lender to provide some unidentified documentation - so we will have to wait and see - however, I do agree with the notion that is best to just wait now until the Property Chambers written decision is issued - to finally conclude matters one way or the other.

 

It is only going to be another 9 or so days, so I think I will wait until then

[fletch70]

I am sure it will be posted as soon as poss. I just hope we get the same interpretation on the outcome.

I imagine if it is a consumer win it will be appealed, not sure what will happen if its a consumer loss

 

I have seen three interpretations to the frost case

1) The judge was a drunken fool (not my opinion)

2) That is the end of no agreement means no enforcement

3) the witnesses were so unreliable the judge didn't really have an option

[bhall]

 

I for one eagerly await . At that point someone will have some serious egg on their face . From past experience I have a pretty good idea who it will be which will be ashame .

 

I have soap and water on stand by, just in case it is me

 

(hope this is not classed as beer garden talk)

[bhall]

I am sure it will be posted as soon as poss. I just hope we get the same interpretation on the outcome.

 

I am hoping that it will be posted without any interpretation - allowing everyone to read it for themselves and form their own views before interpretations start. (I can but hope)

 

may be just a few relevant extracts will be posted to highlight some of the aspects of the decision made

[bhall]

The Property Chamber say a written decision will most likely be issued after 20 Feb 2014 - Is It Me? says that the case has been stayed for 28 days for the lender to provide some unidentified documentation - so we will have to wait and see - however, I do agree with the notion that is best to just wait now until the Property Chambers written decision is issued - to finally conclude matters one way or the other.

 

It is only going to be another 9 or so days, so I think I will wait until then

 

Just called and spoken with the Property Chamber and they say the decision for the case references they previously gave me, is still expected after 20 Feb - It will then take a few days to appear on their website - So hopefully by the end of the month / early next month - we will know what the Property Chamber has to say on this issue, once and for all.

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben, Interpretation is available to us all, and that fundimental right, as we should expect, will also be excerised by the Judges at the Property Chamber...BP

 

I think that when we do it, it is interpretation when judges do it , it is the Law

[Ell-enn]

If the consumer wins - what do they expect the outcome to do for them - are they expecting the money they borrowed to buy their home to be written off ?

[sequenci]

If the consumer wins - what do they expect the outcome to do for them - are they expecting the money they borrowed to buy their home to be written off ?

 

I'm not sure that they will - that's a different entity altogether.

[bhall]

If the consumer wins - what do they expect the outcome to do for them - are they expecting the money they borrowed to buy their home to be written off ?

 

From some of the posts that would appear to be the case, there are some posts also about any payments already made also being refunded etc

[Ell-enn]

I'm not sure that they will - that's a different entity altogether.

 

 

So what is it that they expect a win to do for them ?

[Peterbard]

As a matter of interst

If this were an agreement regulated under the Consumer credit act(which it isn't) section 106 has a feature where the sums borrowed on an invalid security have to be returned.

 

However before anyone gets to excited this does not apply to registered charges ala LOPA, these are exempted form the provision via section 117.

 

I would have to do more research but I have a feeling that the contractual element of the registered charge would still be in effect even if the deed was proven to be void. The lender would just have to recover it in the same way as he would a conventional charge (without a transfer of property rights).

[sequenci]

So what is it that they expect a win to do for them ?

 

I genuinely have no idea.

[Ell-enn]

Perhaps Applecart could explain - I'm really interested to know

[fletch70]

I thought originally it was to keep them in their home . If they can not pay the mortgage that must be unsustainable so the only option would be for them to have the whole loan declared void effectively gifting them the house. That is why I can not see it happening or if it does it will be appealed all the way

[fletch70]

Perhaps Applecart could explain - I'm really interested to know

 

:lol:

[sequenci]

I thought originally it was to keep them in their home . If they can not pay the mortgage that must be unsustainable so the only option would be for them to have the whole loan declared void effectively gifting them the house. That is why I can not see it happening or if it does it will be appealed all the way

 

Why would it make the loan aspect void?

[bhall]

I thought originally it was to keep them in their home . If they can not pay the mortgage that must be unsustainable so the only option would be for them to have the whole loan declared void effectively gifting them the house. That is why I can not see it happening or if it does it will be appealed all the way

 

It gets confusing when you read back the thread

 

Who said he would lose his home just so you know and can tell you bosses there are funds in place to pay the lender off if need be but the lender has to prove they are the ones that own the mortgage and after 4 court orders have FAILED to do so

It's funny that after all this time when asked to stop posting you would not but kept on trying to put people off but you could not so NOW you are leaving well done

See you at the property chamber Ben

[fletch70]

Only in that it seems pointless in going through all this to keep your home when you then face say a SD and lose your home anyway. I wasn't giving any sort of opinion just common sense.

 

I don't know but I also imagine there will be costs involved as well so it seems to me it might well be a lose lose situation.

[fletch70]

Oh good god, if there are funds available to pay the lender off if need be unless the aim is to get the house given over there must be a few picnics missing sandwhiches