Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Peterbard]

BUT now they do NOT SIGN THE DEED, THAT IS THE POINT

 

See Caros post

[Peterbard]

hey all,

thanks everybody for your advice.

 

It just seems too fishy,the fact that there is no substantive reason why they dont sign,I mean its just as easy for them TO sign as it is to NOT sign.On the deeds ,there are boxes and places asking them to sign,

So they MUST have a good reason for not doing so,,,,,,,i.e,future monetary gain.

 

It seems to be the sub-prime lenders who have a policy of not signing and I think we can all agree,they are a pack of leeches, in that once you enter into any sort of agreement with them,they will suck you dry and then move onto their next victim.One has to consider what exactly our "agreement",for want of a better word,is with these bankrupt lenders,,,,,,,,,when WE sign the deed,,,,,what is it we are doing????????

WE are not signing an agree---ment with them because if it was an AGREEment then both parties would lay ALL their cards on the table,,,,,,,with no hidden agendas,such as selling the "agreement"to a third party for further monetary gain and in doing so creating three very different interests in the "agreement"(that would be my family home,but to the banksters,merely just a folio number or digits on their computer screens) when clearly we are conned into believing that we are entering a fair and balanced arrangement to purchase a property.

Also,when we sign,we are handing them a cash cow on a plate by giving them irrevocable lasting power of attorney.They hide this in the small print of the t+c and it means we give them a get out of jail free card,so they have authority to do anything they want ,in our name!!!!,,,,,,,think about that for a moment ,,,,,,,,,,lasting power of attorney is usually reserved for those poor souls who have succome to some mind destroying disease such as alzheimer`s or people who are not competent enough to look after their own financial affairs,,,,,,,the game is so rigged in their favor ,its just ridiculous .

You have to ask yourself,,,,,is their any innocent reason why they feel they need our power of attorney ,,,,,,,I think not,,,!!!

 

Leaving aside the reason why they do not sign for a moment. This thread is about whether they have to sign, the answer to that is no they do not, the statute is clear deeds do not need to be signed by the lender.

 

Now if you ask why they do not sign anyway, I have no idea. People say it is so they can securitse the loan(or at least the value of the charge.)

 

It seems to me that if they wanted to do so they could do that with or without a signature, i know that unsecured loans like credit card bank loans etc are securitiesd(these have to have both signatures) and form parts of investment portfolios for many of the major lenders, this is enabled by a term in your credit agreement, and it does no harm I can see to debtor, it is merely a business tool and helps the lender stabilize his cash flow and aids liquidity.

 

So frankly I do not see the problem anyway.

[mollypockets]

HELP

 

Im in real need of solid advice.

Lm in court next month for a repossession of my home,due to arrears.

Please bear with me while I make a long story short.

Two years ago,I went to my work as a self employed bricklayer.as I have been doing for the past 20 odd years.Two hours later I was lying in a hospital bed because a gable end wall blew over on top of me.I broke 4 bones in my back,2 bones in my neck,a fractured skull and and some internal bruising to my brain.I think thats a good enough reason for falling behind on my death-pledge,,,,,sorry I meant mortgage,,,,if you didnt have a laugh you would cry.So needlessly to say,I need a new career,something thats a bit easier on the body and great pay,great bonuses,great pension,recession proof,etc,,,,,,,,,,banking industry maybe????,,,

Anyway there is no reason why I shouldnt name (and shame) the lender,,,,,,,,unsurprisingly its good old TMB again,,,,,,,part of RBS,whom we gave billions to so they could keep taking our money on a monthly basses again.I have been on sickness benefit ever since and to me,every pound is a prisoner.

To be honest,I have to say,TMB were ok to deal with in the first year but then things went pear-shaped.My property was valued at just over £200,000 at the hight of the boom,now I would be lucky if I got £65,000.Yes,,, I do live in Northern Ireland.

I am currently going through the process of a compensation claim but unfortunetly these things take time and TMB are not willing to wait any longer.So I am in desperate need of solid advice.

A nice chunky file/letter came in the post from their external solicitors firm and it included my deeds or is it TMB`s deeds or do they belong to the SPV.Hard to tell,especially when you are not allowed to know all the facts in your con-tract,agree-ment,mort-gage or what ever the name pf it is.And sure enough,no signatures.

 

Apple,maybe you could give me some pointers as to keeping my home.

Is there a similar chamber in N,Ireland?,,,,,,,if so,is the process/law/schedule the same?

 

There is another line of defence I have been researching.On my mortgage offer it states that it is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act,witch is odd,because the loan is way more than the CCA covers.

Also it states the "total charge for credit is £££" ,,,,,,,,but the figure is only a couple of hundred when it should be in the thousands.

 

I know that some of the good folk in the admin team might give me a telling off and that I should start a new thread.

I do intend to start a new thread but the question of the CCA and the Total Charge For Credit issue has been raised/started before on its own thread but it came to nothing.

It was very similar to my case,same lender and all but got nowhere.

 

Please advise me on the way forward with this.

 

Any help is greatly appreciated .

 

(by the way,love reading this thread,keep up the banter and the craic)

[Peterbard]

Hi Molly

 

Sounds like you are having it rough mate,I do sympathies.

 

I take it that they are seeking possession under section 103 of the LOPA ? Interested to hear about the credit agreement, as you say it would not be regulated under the CCA on a first mortgage or indeed if over 25K if taken out before 2008, however not to say that it is not a binding agreement on both parties.

 

Would it be possible to have a look.

[sequenci]

Hi Molly,

 

As you're in NI, I suggest seeking advice from the following organisation: http://www.debtaction-ni.net/

[bhall]

Hi Molly,

 

As you're in NI, I suggest seeking advice from the following organisation: http://www.debtaction-ni.net/

 

Hello Molly

 

The above is very good advice, as most of what is discussed in this thread, such as most of the legislation, only deals with the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Unless there is someone, who can post, that is actually familiar with the jurisdiction of N.I and the legislation that applies there.

 

If you go onto the http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ and look up an act of parliament such as the law of property act 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/introduction you will see that it states "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to conveyancing and the law of property in England and Wales."

 

The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/introduction?view=extent is another example

 

If it is not clear by the introductory text, if legislation applies to N.I, if you look on the left hand side you will see an option to select "Show Geographical Extent(e.g. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)" if you select that, it will confirm to which jurisdictions the legislation applies.

 

I am unable to offer any advice about N.I as I am not familiar enough with which legislation applies there, sorry

[bhall]

This might help it is a report produced by the N.I Law Commission

 

http://www.nilawcommission.gov.uk/land_law_report_nilc_8__2010_.pdf

 

Chapter 11 details the legislation application in N.I

 

By way of an example

 

"Due to the fundamental importance of the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18) and the impact of the introduction of the concept of ownership on conveyancing practice, the Commission recommends that the specific textual amendments which it is proposing should be adopted. Suggested amendments to the 1970 Act are set out in Schedule 2 to the LRA Bill."

 

"The doctrine is governed by the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (No. 1339 (N.I. 11) and, where the land is registered, by provisions in the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland 1970 (c. 18)"

 

I have never read or ever looked at the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 - this is a link to it http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apni/1970/18/contents

[IS IT ME?]

Hello Molly

 

The above is very good advice, as most of what is discussed in this thread, such as most of the legislation, only deals with the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Unless there is someone, who can post that is familiar with the jurisdiction of N.I and the legislation that applies there.

 

If you go onto the http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ and look up an act of parliament such as the law of property act 1925 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/introduction you will see that it states "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to conveyancing and the law of property in England and Wales."

 

The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/introduction?view=extent is another example

 

If it is not clear by the introductory text, if legislation applies to N.I, if you look on the left hand side you will see an option to select "Show Geographical Extent(e.g. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)" if you select that, it will confirm to which jurisdictions the legislation applies.

 

I am unable to offer any advice about N.I as I am not familiar enough with which legislation applies there, sorry

 

I am surprised that Ben does not know? After all he knows every thing lol

 

You will note that there are some cases in N I that deal with the sercur of the mortgages and you will see that they have had more success than us, only because the judges just don't rubber stamp things like here!

D/M 13

[Crapstone]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2005/1452/contents

 

Also useful.

[Crapstone]

Hi Molly,

 

As you're in NI, I suggest seeking advice from the following organisation: http://www.debtaction-ni.net/

 

 

 

Other agencies are available and you should be able to find one that can help you move forward MollyPockets.

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/northern-ireland.php

[bhall]

I am surprised that Ben does not know? After all he knows every thing lol

 

There is something else that I don't know about which may be you can help me with

 

You have posted that in the property chamber hearing, it was stayed for 28 days for the lender to provide some unidentified documentation

 

Apple talks about the lender having 28 days to set aside the the decision of the Property Chamber

 

The Property Chamber says " Please note the cases have been heard on 20th January but the decision has been reserved by the Judge"

 

They can't all right as they say three different things - as you was at the hearing, which one is right ? I am sure other readers of this thread would be interested to know

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2005/1452/contents

 

Also useful.

 

This is interesting from the above

 

rticles 3-9 relate to the changes to the law relating to deeds and other instruments.

 

18.Article 3 sets out the law relating to the formalities that must be undertaken for deeds which are executed by individuals. This Article abolishes the requirement for a deed to be sealed by an individual and sets out the new requirements dealing with the designation of a document and the requirements for signing and witnessing the execution of a document.

 

19.Article 4 deals with the execution of instruments by a liquidator. This Article amends the relevant provision of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and provides that the powers of a liquidator should include a power to execute deeds on behalf of a company and gives a power for the liquidator to use the company’s seal.

 

20.Article 5 amends section 7 of the Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Act 1971 making it clear that a deed properly executed by a donee is as effective as if executed in a manner which would constitute due execution of the deed by the donor.

 

21.Article 6 clarifies the legal position in relation to the delivery of deeds by abolishing the requirement that the authority given by one party to deliver an instrument must itself be evidenced in a deed. Where a solicitor, or an agent or employee of a solicitor, purports to deliver an instrument on behalf of a party to the instrument, this Article states that it should be conclusively presumed in favour of a purchaser that he is authorised to deliver the document.

 

22.Article 7 deals with escrows and makes it clear that a party delivering a deed in escrow should be entitled to revoke that escrow at any time prior to the fulfilling of any conditions on which the escrow depends. It also clarifies the law to the effect that a corporation is and always has been capable of delivering a deed in escrow in the same way as an individual.

 

23.Article 8 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Pigot’s Case. A statutory declaration is also provided to the effect that a material alteration to a deed or other written document evidencing a contractual intention does not by itself invalidate the document or render it void or otherwise affect any obligation under the deed.

 

24.Article 9 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Bain –v- Fothergill.

 

25.Articles 10-15 relate to changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That Order contains, amongst other provisions, civil protections for those people who are suffering from domestic violence and Articles 10-15 contain amendments to these civil protections.

[bhall]

You will note that there are some cases in N I that deal with the sercur of the mortgages and you will see that they have had more success than us, only because the judges just don't rubber stamp things like here!

D/M 13

 

Are you still referring to Santander (UK) Plc v Carlin & Anor [2013] NICh 14 (19 September 2013) as you often have before ?

 

You might just want to recall everything that was said in the judgement and not just the part in regard to Santander's conduct - that is if you want to give an accurate comment about the relevancy of this case.

 

"[2] It is clear law, as has been recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in England in Paragon Finance v Pender and Another [2005] 1 W L R 3412 that a legal owner of a charge can part with the equitable interest in it without losing their right to enforce the charge. Therefore, this point in many cases is likely to prove a short-term gain for any borrower because it is simply a matter of the right person establishing that they are entitled to assert what had been agreed between the parties under the mortgage would happen in default of the payments agreed. Nevertheless, it is essential that the court is making an order in favour of the correct party who has the right to enforce a legal charge, as much as any other contract between parties. "

 

The reason Santander lost was not because they did securitise the mortgage (the effect of securitsation of the mortgage did not play a part in the judgement of this case and was never considered) but because the previous court order was granted on, as stated in the case 'a misrepresentation to the Court'.

 

[4] Here we have the situation where, it is now admitted that paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Miss Valerie Gibson, solicitor, for the lender Santander plc of 6 December 2012 is simply wrong. Mr Carlin would say it is a lie and at the moment I do not see how that can be clearly gain said; it is not Ms Gibson's lie but when somebody told her that the mortgage had not been assigned they were either being careless or untruthful and at this precise moment in time I do not know which is the case. And what is more Mr Carlin asserts and Mr Gibson with his customary and proper candour does not dispute that the Master was told that there had been no assignment here and so that these issues did not arise. So the Order of the court below was obtained improperly by a misrepresentation to the court, misrepresentation put by the advocate for the lender to the Master and put in a sworn affidavit.

[bhall]

This is interesting from the above

 

rticles 3-9 relate to the changes to the law relating to deeds and other instruments.

 

18.Article 3 sets out the law relating to the formalities that must be undertaken for deeds which are executed by individuals. This Article abolishes the requirement for a deed to be sealed by an individual and sets out the new requirements dealing with the designation of a document and the requirements for signing and witnessing the execution of a document.

 

19.Article 4 deals with the execution of instruments by a liquidator. This Article amends the relevant provision of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and provides that the powers of a liquidator should include a power to execute deeds on behalf of a company and gives a power for the liquidator to use the company’s seal.

 

20.Article 5 amends section 7 of the Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Act 1971 making it clear that a deed properly executed by a donee is as effective as if executed in a manner which would constitute due execution of the deed by the donor.

 

21.Article 6 clarifies the legal position in relation to the delivery of deeds by abolishing the requirement that the authority given by one party to deliver an instrument must itself be evidenced in a deed. Where a solicitor, or an agent or employee of a solicitor, purports to deliver an instrument on behalf of a party to the instrument, this Article states that it should be conclusively presumed in favour of a purchaser that he is authorised to deliver the document.

 

22.Article 7 deals with escrows and makes it clear that a party delivering a deed in escrow should be entitled to revoke that escrow at any time prior to the fulfilling of any conditions on which the escrow depends. It also clarifies the law to the effect that a corporation is and always has been capable of delivering a deed in escrow in the same way as an individual.

 

23.Article 8 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Pigot’s Case. A statutory declaration is also provided to the effect that a material alteration to a deed or other written document evidencing a contractual intention does not by itself invalidate the document or render it void or otherwise affect any obligation under the deed.

 

24.Article 9 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Bain –v- Fothergill.

 

25.Articles 10-15 relate to changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That Order contains, amongst other provisions, civil protections for those people who are suffering from domestic violence and Articles 10-15 contain amendments to these civil protections.

 

This is why I am cautious when it comes to N.I, the laws are very similar but not exactly the same to those in England and Wales and indeed some legislation applies to both jurisdictions. Molly needs someone that is familiar with N.I, ideally as posted by Seq and Crapstone

[Peterbard]

This is why I am cautious when it comes to N.I, the laws are very similar but not exactly the same to those in England and Wales and indeed some legislation applies to both jurisdictions. Molly needs someone that is familiar with N.I, ideally as posted by Seq and Crapstone

 

Yes indeed, interesting to see the slightly different approach though I thought.

[bhall]

Yes indeed, interesting to see the slightly different approach though I thought.

 

Exactly, reminds me of the saying.. same same but different

[ims21]

Thread tidied.

 

Off topic posts which are not relevant to the subject matter have been removed.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Mollypockets,

Haven'y been on here for a while as I await the outcome of the Property Chamber but pop in from time to time to check for progress.

However, your pending issue re repossession hearing, as a fellow countryman you should contact the Housing Rights Service, 4th Floor Middleton Building, 10-12 High Street, Belfast, Tel: 028 9024 5640.

This is a free service to you and they will represent you at your hearing, their expertise is in property law and mortgages. So contact them as soon as you can and arrange an appointment.

 

For you own information as the folks on here explain there is a difference in the Laws here in relation to property, hey. are underlying law is the Conveyancing act 1881, you would need to dig someone up to interpret that for you and our Land Rigistration Act (NI) 1970 is frankly 44 years behind the times so the use of the arguement in relation to Deeds is of no use to you currently. However, what is of use is the Judges who read the Law and apply it as it should be, you see, here in NI all matters in relation to Land are heard in the High Court and in that respect we are probably years ahead of England & Wales hence the decisions which excite IS IT ME.

[applecart]

There is something else that I don't know about which may be you can help me with

 

You have posted that in the property chamber hearing, it was stayed for 28 days for the lender to provide some unidentified documentation

 

Apple talks about the lender having 28 days to set aside the the decision of the Property Chamber

 

The Property Chamber says " Please note the cases have been heard on 20th January but the decision has been reserved by the Judge"

 

They can't all right as they say three different things - as you was at the hearing, which one is right ? I am sure other readers of this thread would be interested to know

 

Hi Ben

 

I moved on the 'premise' that the lender has 28 days to consider his position.

 

I think you are confused because you did not understand the point I made to Fletch70 (post copied at #5721)..it appears Fletch didn't either - oh well.... it's no bother....Is It Me understands and that's the main point....this is afterall Is It Me's thread ; )

 

The 'reserved judgement' is exactly what it says......on that point, as I understand it .....the Judge will reserve Judgement for '28 days' or if you will '4 weeks'.......

 

I pointed out that you and others (and LENDERS) have that period of time to consider the merit of LRA s.23 - I assert that they have NO DEFENCE to LRA s.23 and that on that point - there is nothing they can do.......I assert that the Judge cannot and will not be expected to avoid the protection it affords any Borrower - IT IS STATUTE....stated simply and FACTUALLY.

 

so, in that regard, when I say the Lender has 28 days to set aside the decision... it is based on the 'premise' that the Lender who was 'dumbstruck' will get 28 days to appeal what I assert to be the Judges acceptance of the merit of LRA s.23....

 

 

Hope this helps you see where it is at?

 

Apple

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi IS IT ME / APPLE

Here is another little nugget from NI, you can read the full decision of Swift Acvances PLC & Justin Heany 2013 NIMaster 18, but here is an extract as the Masterstates "In this jurisdiction, as I have indicated, there is a wider discretion to defer or deny a secured lender’s claim to possession under Schedule 7 where, as in the present case and in the vast majority of cases I have heard over recent years, the mortgage is a charge on registered land. Over a decade before the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted, Professor Wallace wrote this in his article Mortgagees and Possession (1986) NILQ Vol. 37 at 336:-

`Unlike a legal mortgagee of unregistered land, the owner of a charge on registered land does not have a common law right to possession of the land charged nor does he acquire the status of a legal owner". Is this not what you and Apple been arguing for the last 285 pages and hey, given the fact that a Lender needs the status of Legal Owner to securitise your Loan what does that say to you. Geeeezzzzzz are these not exixiting times ?

By the way, the best of luck for the comong days although I don't think its down to luck at all.

gham

[GiveHimaMask]

hi All,

Re my earlier quote from the NI Master and so there is no confusion by way of interpretation it means, you cannot mortgage registered land.

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben

 

I moved on the 'premise' that the lender has 28 days to consider his position.

 

I think you are confused because you did not understand the point I made to Fletch70 (post copied at #5721)..it appears Fletch didn't either - oh well.... it's no bother....Is It Me understands and that's the main point....this is afterall Is It Me's thread ; )

 

The 'reserved judgement' is exactly what it says......on that point, as I understand it .....the Judge will reserve Judgement for '28 days' or if you will '4 weeks'.......

 

I pointed out that you and others (and LENDERS) have that period of time to consider the merit of LRA s.23 - I assert that they have NO DEFENCE to LRA s.23 and that on that point - there is nothing they can do.......I assert that the Judge cannot and will not be expected to avoid the protection it affords any Borrower - IT IS STATUTE....stated simply and FACTUALLY.

 

so, in that regard, when I say the Lender has 28 days to set aside the decision... it is based on the 'premise' that the Lender who was 'dumbstruck' will get 28 days to appeal what I assert to be the Judges acceptance of the merit of LRA s.23....

 

 

Hope this helps you see where it is at?

 

Apple

 

 

I see so this means that the case was heard on the 20th Jan and we are awaiting the decision(in ordinary person speak)

 

 

I guess we will know any time now then .

[applecart]

Are you still referring to Santander (UK) Plc v Carlin & Anor [2013] NICh 14 (19 September 2013) as you often have before ?

 

You might just want to recall everything that was said in the judgement and not just the part in regard to Santander's conduct - that is if you want to give an accurate comment about the relevancy of this case.

 

"[2] It is clear law, as has been recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in England in Paragon Finance v Pender and Another [2005] 1 W L R 3412 that a legal owner of a charge can part with the equitable interest in it without losing their right to enforce the charge. Therefore, this point in many cases is likely to prove a short-term gain for any borrower because it is simply a matter of the right person establishing that they are entitled to assert what had been agreed between the parties under the mortgage would happen in default of the payments agreed. Nevertheless, it is essential that the court is making an order in favour of the correct party who has the right to enforce a legal charge, as much as any other contract between parties. "

 

The reason Santander lost was not because they did securitise the mortgage (the effect of securitsation of the mortgage did not play a part in the judgement of this case and was never considered) but because the previous court order was granted on, as stated in the case 'a misrepresentation to the Court'.

 

[4] Here we have the situation where, it is now admitted that paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Miss Valerie Gibson, solicitor, for the lender Santander plc of 6 December 2012 is simply wrong. Mr Carlin would say it is a lie and at the moment I do not see how that can be clearly gain said; it is not Ms Gibson's lie but when somebody told her that the mortgage had not been assigned they were either being careless or untruthful and at this precise moment in time I do not know which is the case. And what is more Mr Carlin asserts and Mr Gibson with his customary and proper candour does not dispute that the Master was told that there had been no assignment here and so that these issues did not arise. So the Order of the court below was obtained improperly by a misrepresentation to the court, misrepresentation put by the advocate for the lender to the Master and put in a sworn affidavit.

 

It will be interesting to see how the Lender will rely on the above, when he gets to understand that the Borrower had no statutory power (in the UK) to grant a 'mortgage' by virtue of LRA s.23

 

Apple

[applecart]

I see so this means that the case was heard on the 20th Jan and we are awaiting the decision(in ordinary person speak)

 

 

I guess we will know any time now then .

 

Yep ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi IS IT ME / APPLE

Here is another little nugget from NI, you can read the full decision of Swift Acvances PLC & Justin Heany 2013 NIMaster 18, but here is an extract as the Masterstates "In this jurisdiction, as I have indicated, there is a wider discretion to defer or deny a secured lender’s claim to possession under Schedule 7 where, as in the present case and in the vast majority of cases I have heard over recent years, the mortgage is a charge on registered land. Over a decade before the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted, Professor Wallace wrote this in his article Mortgagees and Possession (1986) NILQ Vol. 37 at 336:-

`Unlike a legal mortgagee of unregistered land, the owner of a charge on registered land does not have a common law right to possession of the land charged nor does he acquire the status of a legal owner". Is this not what you and Apple been arguing for the last 285 pages and hey, given the fact that a Lender needs the status of Legal Owner to securitise your Loan what does that say to you. Geeeezzzzzz are these not exixiting times ?

By the way, the best of luck for the comong days although I don't think its down to luck at all.

gham

 

Nice one GHAM...nice one!!.....the LRA bill correlates to say exactly the same thing....here you go - lets have a cup of tea

 

Apple