Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Dodgeball

Originally Posted by IS IT ME?:

Ben, dodgeball.

Thank you for your posts which have been answered more than once and just to confirm to you once again THIs FIRM OF SOLICITORS WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS CASE even though they are the ones dealing with the case in the county court lol

So much for having the upper hand then???

Would I rely on this NO WAY. I could put up what I want it does no mean any one should follow it lol

 

I am happy to see you wasting your time trying to put people off for no other reason I can see than working for the lenders as there is no other reason for trying to lose those thread with long long posts which have been answered but you FAIL to answer the questions so simple lol

 

As I have posted any one who needs help and is a GENUINE case then help is here but I don't do solicitors job for them or tell them what we are or will do lol

Do they tell us?????

As it is clear you do not really read the posts put up or in deed reply to them so thanks but no thanks I'll stick with the one that's HELPING borrowers lol

[Crapstone]

Dodgeball

Originally Posted by IS IT ME?:

Ben, dodgeball.

Thank you for your posts which have been answered more than once and just to confirm to you once again THIs FIRM OF SOLICITORS WOULD NOT TOUCH THIS CASE even though they are the ones dealing with the case in the county court lol

So much for having the upper hand then???

Would I rely on this NO WAY. I could put up what I want it does no mean any one should follow it lol

 

I am happy to see you wasting your time trying to put people off for no other reason I can see than working for the lenders as there is no other reason for trying to lose those thread with long long posts which have been answered but you FAIL to answer the questions so simple lol

 

As I have posted any one who needs help and is a GENUINE case then help is here but I don't do solicitors job for them or tell them what we are or will do lol

Do they tell us?????

As it is clear you do not really read the posts put up or in deed reply to them so thanks but no thanks I'll stick with the one that's HELPING borrowers lol

 

IIM. I don't think Bhall has put anyone off anything. Quite the opposite really as they have inspired people to look at the law and understand a lot of things they would not have usually looked at. All in a way that's pretty clear, concise and interesting without ambiguity or rudeness. If people do want to apply to the Chamber they are free to do so and, depending on the outcome, they just might.

[Peterbard]

Is it me

 

Speaking for myself, there is nothing I would like more that some protection or action which could make lenders think hard before foreclosing on peoples homes.

 

In fact over the past months we have been considering the effects of the oncoming and unstoppable increase in interest rates, which although being delayed are. and make no mistake, going to descend on the British public in the next couple of years, many are going to be in your unhappy condition and real measures are needed to help.

 

People who are in good jobs, have regular income or savings may be OK jsut a bit of belt tightening , but what about those who are just barely scraping by now. These people need to be thinking about taking realistic and sometimes drastic action now.

However they see your thread and there is no need to bother, there worries are over , because all we have to do is stop paying our mortgage and there is nothing they can do because the lender has not signed the deed.

 

So the next thing is that there are homeless people that you have "helped" to be homeless, Do you begin to see what harm un-supported and dangerous claims like this can do.

 

So to be frank, if there is anything that can help state it, because we have not heard it so far, stop giving half stories an half truths which make no intelligible sense.

 

In short either put up or shut up for everyone's sake.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Dodgeball
may

[caro]

Is it me

 

Speaking for myself, there is nothing I would like more that some protection or action which could make lenders think hard before foreclosing on peoples homes.

 

In fact over the past months we have been considering the effects of the oncoming and unstoppable increase in interest rates, which although being delayed are. and make no mistake, going to descend on the British public in the next couple of years, many are going to be in your unhappy condition and real measures are needed to help.

 

People who are in good jobs, have regular income or savings will be OK jsut a bit of belt tightening , but what about those who are just barely scraping by now. These people need to be thinking about taking realistic and sometimes drastic action now.

However they see your thread and there is no need to bother, there worries are over , because all we have to do is stop paying our mortgage and there is nothing they can do because the lender has not signed the deed.

 

So the next thing is that there are homeless people that you have "helped" to be homeless, Do you begin to see what harm un-supported and dangerous claims like this can do.

 

So to be frank, if there is anything that can help state it, because we have not heard it so far, stop giving half stories an half truths which make no intelligible sense.

 

In short either put up or shut up for everyone's sake.

 

To be fair dodgeball, many people in work are struggling too due to years without cost of living increases.

[Peterbard]

To be fair dodgeball, many people in work are struggling too due to years without cost of living increases.

 

Indeed and this makes the point even more relevant. It is surprising how people will grasp at any ,even unlikely cure rather than face their problem, giving unsound advice is not helping.

[Crapstone]

Is it me

 

Speaking for myself, there is nothing I would like more that some protection or action which could make lenders think hard before foreclosing on peoples homes.

 

In fact over the past months we have been considering the effects of the oncoming and unstoppable increase in interest rates, which although being delayed are. and make no mistake, going to descend on the British public in the next couple of years, many are going to be in your unhappy condition and real measures are needed to help.

 

People who are in good jobs, have regular income or savings will be OK jsut a bit of belt tightening , but what about those who are just barely scraping by now. These people need to be thinking about taking realistic and sometimes drastic action now.

However they see your thread and there is no need to bother, there worries are over , because all we have to do is stop paying our mortgage and there is nothing they can do because the lender has not signed the deed.

 

So the next thing is that there are homeless people that you have "helped" to be homeless, Do you begin to see what harm un-supported and dangerous claims like this can do.

 

So to be frank, if there is anything that can help state it, because we have not heard it so far, stop giving half stories an half truths which make no intelligible sense.

 

In short either put up or shut up for everyone's sake.

 

 

And we all know the lenders aren't going to be the ones to lose out even if a win were to happen. If the security goes then it's just another case of being propped up by the public again with another financial mess and even tighter belts!

[Crapstone]

I will be open and honest and post what I know - well at least what I have been told by the Property Chamber

 

In an email shortly after the hearing, the Property Chamber said that decisions usually take 28 days.

In a subsequent email, the Property Chamber said that the decision is with the Judge and should be issued after 20 Feb

This was also confirmed during a subsequent telephone conversation

 

After it has been issued it will take a few days to be added to their website, for people to view. So if what I have been told is accurate within the next two weeks the decision should be in this thread. They gave me this link to check for the decision

 

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

 

They also gave me the reference numbers for both applications and said that I should contact them again after the 20 Feb, by which time the decision should be issued and quote the reference numbers

 

However, Is It Me? has said that it has been stayed for 28 days, so I don't know where that leaves things now. I have emailed the Property Chamber for clarification and await their response.

 

I'll do the same and between us we should be able to figure out what stage it is at and we can't all be wrong or right can we? If you could pm the ref. numbers that would be helpful

Edited February 16, 2014 by Crapstone
Adding

[bigphil61]

/'/#

 

 

When someone takes out a loan with a bank there is a thing called a loan agreement. This sets out the agreement for the repayment, interest to be charged default charges etc, in case of default the lender usually pursues the debtor for liabilities under it, this forum is full of em.

 

I rely on applicable case law and statute this is not applicable common law.

 

Edit, i get a feeling that someone is trying to make some kind of point here not sure what it is though

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

The OP has not been talking about loans on this thread, unless I missed something!

 

The Adjudicator in 'Garguilo', understood the difference between a loan and a 'Deed'.

 

You don't have to understand the points being made on this thread, hopefully others will...BP

[bigphil61]

Hello BP

 

I don't understand, which principle are you referring to in garguilo that can be applied to an application made to the chamber to determine if a lender has to sign a mortgage deed

 

If you mean that a deed can be found to be void, that is not a principle set by Garguilo - it is just a fact of life, it can and does happen

 

Apart from that I struggle to see any relevance in regard to Garguilo with the applications made, you have to remember that Apple has conceded that he/she misunderstood the meaning of the word "it" in that case.

 

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

I'm a little worried that, after all this time and 280 + pages into this thread where, in your own words you have contributed at least 40% of the posts, you are now asking what the principle is in 'Garguilo'?

 

Ok, just for you, Its the formality the formality associated with 'speciality contracts', such as a 'deed', hope this helps....BP

[Peterbard]

You seem to have a problem, as I said I am not sure what it is.

 

For your information a mortgage is a loan, it is a loan of money secured on the property(via a deed), this is what draws interest.

 

The OPs situation is not currently engaged in questioning the repayment of the loan, but this will be an issue. Indeed this was the initial question prompted byEll-enn if you remember(ie what happens to the loan if the charge is void)

 

Irregardless this was not the point you raised, the Garguillo case was a loan secured on property.

 

Now if you will stop these silly attempts to try and score points off me , it would be greatly appreciated as , I do not have the time and inclination to keep pandering to them, (many thanks)

 

Oh and again This case is of no help to the OP(just a gentle reminder

Edited February 16, 2014 by Dodgeball
via a deed

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben,

 

I'm a little worried that, after all this time and 280 + pages into this thread where, in your own words you have contributed at least 40% of the posts, you are now asking what the principle is in 'Garguilo'?

 

Ok, just for you, Its the formality the formality associated with 'speciality contracts', such as a 'deed', hope this helps....BP

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "principle" perhaps if you tell us, we will be able to tell you if it is anything to do with the OPs case specifically or just a general principle that applies to all deeds.(ie as described by the statute as discussed as you say in the last umpteen pages.)

[bigphil61]

I am not sure what you mean by the "principle" perhaps if you tell us, we will be able to tell you if it is anything to do with the OPs case specifically or just a general principle that applies to all deeds.(ie as described by the statute as discussed as you say in the last umpteen pages.)

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

The title of this thread says it all really, 'Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed', it refers to a 'principle', which some of us have now come to understand forms part of the formalities associated with the 'Deed'...BP

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

The title of this thread says it all really, 'Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed', it refers to a 'principle', which some of us have now come to understand forms part of the formalities associated with the 'Deed'...BP

 

Hello BP

 

Every single publicly available case that has been posted in this thread, including Eagle Star, Helden, Lamb and Fergus (which unlike Bibby and Garguilo) dealt with the specific issue of "is a mortgage deed void if it has not been signed by the lender" have all returned the exact same Judgement -

 

No the deed is not void and it is enforceable - Garguilo and Bibby are unrelated to that precise topic. Neither case was about the topic of this thread or the subject of the application.

 

It is not just me telling you that, if you read the thread, it is what the Property Chamber said.

 

In my opinion the only reason that Bibby and Garguilo have been latched onto is because in both cases the deed was void and for no other reason.

 

However, in both cases the reason the deed was found to be void, do not occur in regard to mortgage deeds.

 

So no need to worry ;-)

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

The title of this thread says it all really, 'Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed', it refers to a 'principle', which some of us have now come to understand forms part of the formalities associated with the 'Deed'...BP

 

Sorry still not with you. The subject of the thread is general and relates to the validity of a deed, it asks specifically if it has to be signed by the lender if that is what you mean, but this applies to all deeds, and the answer is no it doesn't.

[bhall]

I'll do the same and between us we should be able to figure out what stage it is at and we can't all be wrong or right can we? If you could pm the ref. numbers that would be helpful

 

That is an excellent idea and should help break through all the smoke and mirrors that have recently sprung up in this thread.

 

I am using my phone at the moment, but when I go on my computer later, I will send you the details.

 

Thanks, it is exactly what is needed to progress this thread.

 

Ben

[bigphil61]

Hello BP

 

Every single publicly available case that has been posted in this thread, including Eagle Star, Helden, Lamb and Fergus (which unlike Bibby and Garguilo) dealt with the specific issue of "is a mortgage deed void if it has not been signed by the lender" have all returned the exact same Judgement -

 

No the deed is not void and it is enforceable - Garguilo and Bibby are unrelated to that precise topic. Neither case was about the topic of this thread or the subject of the application.

 

It is not just me telling you that, if you read the thread, it is what the Property Chamber said.

 

In my opinion the only reason that Bibby and Garguilo have been latched onto is because in both cases the deed was void and for no other reason.

 

However, in both cases the reason the deed was found to be void, do not occur in regard to mortgage deeds.

 

So no need to worry ;-)

 

 

Hello Ben, No need to worry, sorry, who are you referring to that does not need to worry, the Lender or the Borrower?...BP

[bhall]

Hello Ben, No need to worry, sorry, who are you referring to that does not need to worry, the Lender or the Borrower?...BP

 

 

Hello BP

 

I was referring to you and your post to me

 

Hi Ben,

 

I'm a little worried that, after all this time and 280 + pages into this thread where, in your own words you have contributed at least 40% of the posts, you are now asking what the principle is in 'Garguilo'?

 

Ok, just for you, Its the formality the formality associated with 'speciality contracts', such as a 'deed', hope this helps....BP

[bigphil61]

Sorry still not with you. The subject of the thread is general and relates to the validity of a deed, it asks specifically if it has to be signed by the lender if that is what you mean, but this applies to all deeds, and the answer is no it doesn't.

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Surely, logically, if what you state is correct, because, 'the Lender does not need to sign', why do you and Ben protest so much?...BP

[bigphil61]

Hello BP

 

I was referring to you and your post to me

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

Thanks but no thanks, I will continue to worry, I'm a borrower too!...BP

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Surely, logically, if what you state is correct, because, 'the Lender does not need to sign', why do you and Ben protest so much?...BP

 

I know I am probably being dense, but I no idea what you mean here

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Surely, logically, if what you state is correct, because, 'the Lender does not need to sign', why do you and Ben protest so much?...BP

 

I know the question is directed to DB. However, it would be impossible for him to answer a question about why I do something.

 

I do it because I am concerned that borrowers who have run into difficulties in paying their mortgage, will not consider the tried and tested methods as promoted by CAG, in favour of the untried, untested and potentially very expensive methods suggested by this thread - with the implied outcome that the mortgage will be void, the borrower will not have to pay their mortgage and even as suggested the borrower will refunded the mortgage payments they have already made. - This is a very attractive outcome

 

Most mortgages include a term that the borrower will be held liable for all costs the lender incurs protecting its security. - Proof of this can be found in this thread - UNRAM was advised by his lender that costs were to be added to his mortgage even before the hearing, after he followed the suggestions of this thread.

 

The potential dangers are that if someone choses to follow the suggestions of this thread because they are at a point in time where they are having trouble paying their mortgage, if they follow this route, the mortgage debt that they could not already afford will be increased - leaving them with little chance of saving their homes

 

I would love for the ideas in this thread to be right, I would love not having to repay my mortgage each month (my deed also only has my signature). However, personally I think there is more chance of the man on the moon being real, flying down in the middle of the night and singing a lullaby, to each and everyone of us as we drift off to sleep

[Peterbard]

Oh I see,I think I gave my reasons for questioning unproven theories when it comes to debt yesterday on here , is that what you mean ?

[bigphil61]

I know I am probably being dense, but I no idea what you mean here

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

You nor I, are obligated (within the context of this thread) to understand anything, we either get it or we don't, that's just a fact...BP

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

You nor I, are obligated (within the context of this thread) to understand anything, we either get it or we don't, that's just a fact...BP

 

Sorry Ben you are going to have to translate again for me No second thoughts I will just nod politely

[bhall]

Sorry Ben you are going to have to translate again for me No second thoughts I will just nod politely

 

Sorry you are asking the wrong person, I leave translations for others:roll:

 

Personally I feel that it is obvious why we post in this thread and it is clearly detailed in my previous post.

 

If anyone for any reason, has an objection to reading our posts, they do have the option to put us on ignore (the instructions to do this have been posted in this thread) - this will allow them to read the thread without our continued interruptions