Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Reapstar
      SAR distress claim against Parking Eye

      By Reapstar · Posted

      What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • lookinforinfo
      EPC ANPR PCN - St Nicholas Street, Weymouth DT4 8AD

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • dx100uk
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • lookinforinfo
      G24 anpr PCN - Double Dipping - Wigan Robin Retail Park

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • FTMDave
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

IS IT ME?

By IS IT ME?
in Mortgages and Secured Loans

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3716 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

Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
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

 

Wonderful thing Google, the rest of the quote reads

 

`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. The Land Registration Act (NI) 1970 provides that upon registration of this charge he has –

 

the rights and powers of a mortgagee by deed within the meaning of the Conveyancing Acts, including the power to sell the estate which is subject to the charge….

 

Yes I can see, much better :)

  • Haha 1

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Stop this GHAM .... I haven't finsihed my first cup of tea yet...... oh...ok then......Time for more tea me thinks - whether you are in the UK or Ni.....guess what....... it's time for more tea.....:tea:

 

 

Sequenci.... do you have that Chardonnay on ice mate? Only a few days now until the decision you know ; )

 

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
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
Wonderful thing Google, the rest of the quote reads

 

`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. The Land Registration Act (NI) 1970 provides that upon registration of this charge he has –

 

the rights and powers of a mortgagee by deed within the meaning of the Conveyancing Acts, including the power to sell the estate which is subject to the charge….

 

Yes I can see, much better :)

 

Read what you have posted above .....s.l.o.w.l.y...... oh and keep it in context Dodge (remember your forte is CCA not LPA as admitted by you)

 

Whilst the rest of us drink our tea ; )

 

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
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
Read what you have posted above .....s.l.o.w.l.y...... oh and keep it in context Dodge (remember you forte is CCA not LPA as admitted by you)

 

Whilst the rest of us drink our tea ; )

 

Apple

 

It is all in context Apple, perfectly as you well know :) This doesn't have to be my forte, it is just a matter of being ab e to read. :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crapstone

Crapstone

Posted
Posted
Read what you have posted above .....s.l.o.w.l.y...... oh and keep it in context Dodge (remember you forte is CCA not LPA as admitted by you)

 

Whilst the rest of us drink our tea ; )

 

Apple

 

 

They don't seek to 'possess' as an owner. They merely seek to sell in order to claim their charged amount.

 

What do you think they are going to do? Fight over which bedroom they get to sleep in and pop around to meet the neighbours over a nice cup of tea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
GiveHimaMask

GiveHimaMask

Posted
Posted

Hi Dodge,

 

You need to see a little further

 

"I agree with Professor Wallace. The plaintiff has a registered charge to which Schedule 7 applies. The plaintiff does not have a “contractual and legal entitlement” to possession

Sorry, gham

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
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

 

 

That is a lot of asserting there Apple, mind you don't strain yourself and cause an injury

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
It is all in context Apple, perfectly as you well know :) This doesn't have to be my forte, it is just a matter of being ab e to read. :)

 

LOL...good thing I'm only drinking tea Dodge...

 

"mortgagee".....ummmmm.... how do you get to be one of them then...when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant a '.mortgage'?..... you can only be a 'mortgagee' if you have been granted a 'mortgage' ... right?

 

The Borrower has no STATUTORY POWER to grant a MORTGAGE....in registered land.... how has the Lender become a MORTGAGEE Dodge????

 

Now, who's up for another cup of Tea??

 

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
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
They don't seek to 'possess' as an owner. They merely seek to sell in order to claim their charged amount.

 

What do you think they are going to do? Fight over which bedroom they get to sleep in and pop around to meet the neighbours over a nice cup of tea?

 

Yeas as said earlier, different, different, same.

 

Slightly different processes but the same result. Repossession and sale.

 

Come off it why would they miss out the last part of the quote if they were not intending to mislead. silly FOTL nonsense.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
That is a lot of asserting there Apple, mind you don't strain yourself and cause an injury

 

Hi Ya Ben

 

I "assert"..... is the LRA s.23 an 'assertion'...... I do not have to cause myself any injury....LRA s.23 is STATUTE....how would reliance on it cause an injury??

 

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
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
LOL...good thing I'm only drinking tea Dodge...

 

"mortgagee".....ummmmm.... how do you get to be one of them then...when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant a '.mortgage'?..... you can only be a 'mortgagee' if you have been granted a 'mortgage' ... right?

 

The Borrower has no STATUTORY POWER to grant a MORTGAGE....in registered land.... how has the Lender become a MORTGAGEE Dodge????

 

Now, who's up for another cup of Tea??

 

Apple

 

I understand why you have to use this silly method of conversing on these forums, obviously any normal presentation of you ideas would promote instant and justifiable disbelief, using your kind of street sarcasm takes the edge off for the uninitiated, I dare say they have classes at the FOTL conferences on how to talk BS.:)

 

Anyway shortly I dare say we will be seeing the last of you for a while. Shame.

 

Night all

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
Yeas as said earlier, different, different, same.

 

Slightly different processes but the same result. Repossession and sale.

 

Come off it why would you miss out the last part of the quote if you were not intending to mislead. silly FOTL nonsense.

 

WRONG... yet again Dodge/Crapstone.

 

How does a Lender become a mortgagee of registered land when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant it??

 

Answer the question please?

 

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
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
I understand why you have to use this silly method of conversing on these forums, obviously any normal presentation of you ideas would promote instant and justifiable disbelief, using your kind of street sarcasm takes the edge off for the uninitiated, I dare say they have classes at the FOTL conferences on how to talk BS.:)

 

Anyway shortly I dare say we will be seeing the last of you for a while. Shame.

 

Night all

 

LOL.....get yourself a cup of tea before you go to bed Dodge.

 

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
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
Hi Ya Ben

 

I "assert"..... is the LRA s.23 an 'assertion'...... I do not have to cause myself any injury....LRA s.23 is STATUTE....how would reliance on it cause an injury??

 

Apple

 

What you assert it to mean (not what it actually states) will possibly cause further financial injury to those that have followed your advice.

 

It will of course cause no injury, financial or otherwise to you personally, as you have nothing to risk with the Property Chamber rejecting your fanciful ideas.

 

Anyway, 28 days is up soon - let's see what happens then

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
WRONG... yet again Dodge/Crapstone.

 

How does a Lender become a mortgagee of registered land when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant it??

 

Answer the question please?

 

Apple

 

Well the anwer as far as the NI is concerned is in the earlier post, perhaps you should have read it, here it is again:

 

`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. The Land Registration Act (NI) 1970 provides that upon registration of this charge he has –

 

the rights and powers of a mortgagee by deed within the meaning of the Conveyancing Acts, including the power to sell the estate which is subject to the charge…

 

That is how they do it over there apparently :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crapstone

Crapstone

Posted
Posted
Well the anwer as far as the NI is concerned is in the earlier post, perhaps you should have read it, here it is again:

 

`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. The Land Registration Act (NI) 1970 provides that upon registration of this charge he has –

 

the rights and powers of a mortgagee by deed within the meaning of the Conveyancing Acts, including the power to sell the estate which is subject to the charge…

 

That is how they do it over there apparently :)

 

Pigot's case was also repealed for judgement purposes...but Apple would know that don't ya know Dodge.. :-)

 

If anyone needs the luck of the Irish I know who my bet is on..

Link to post
Share on other sites
GiveHimaMask

GiveHimaMask

Posted
Posted

Hi Apple,

 

That Dodge and Crapstone are not they the ones... the judge says you cannot mortgage registered land you can only charge it, you have no common law right to repossession nor do you aquire the status of legal owner and he reiterates this point later on in the decision... not only do they want to argue with you all ady long that you are wrong but now they want to tell this Master he is wrong.... what are they like.

 

gham

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
Hi Apple,

 

That Dodge and Crapstone are not they the ones... the judge says you cannot mortgage registered land you can only charge it, you have no common law right to repossession nor do you aquire the status of legal owner and he reiterates this point later on in the decision... not only do they want to argue with you all ady long that you are wrong but now they want to tell this Master he is wrong.... what are they like.

 

gham

 

No he is right they can evict you :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted

Here it is again ?

 

. The Land Registration Act (NI) 1970 provides that upon registration of this charge he has –

 

the rights and powers of a mortgagee by deed within the meaning of the Conveyancing Acts, including the power to sell the estate which is subject to the charge…

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted

I thought I had read some nonsense on these forums Apple but I must admit that when I read some of your fanciful ideas I was DUMBSTRUCK :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
Hi Apple,

 

That Dodge and Crapstone are not they the ones... the judge says you cannot mortgage registered land you can only charge it, you have no common law right to repossession nor do you aquire the status of legal owner and he reiterates this point later on in the decision... not only do they want to argue with you all ady long that you are wrong but now they want to tell this Master he is wrong.... what are they like.

 

gham

 

 

Yes I know... I give their posts the wide berth they deserve to be honest (looks like they put on 'ignore' the parts of anyone's post that does not suit their fanciful ideas..hahaha)

 

Thank Goodness for the LAW ; )

 

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
Crapstone

Crapstone

Posted
Posted
Yes I know... I give their posts the wide berth they deserve to be honest (looks like they put on 'ignore' the parts of anyone's post that does not suit their fanciful ideas..hahaha)

 

Thank Goodness for the LAW ; )

 

Apple

 

 

Which you choose to interpret in your own unique way and not as was intended or actually written.

 

But let us not forget.

 

It is not Apple that will be evicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
I thought I had read some nonsense on these forums Apple but I must admit that when I read some of your fanciful ideas I was DUMBSTRUCK :)

 

Not in bed yet then Dodge???

 

Guess what... I do not have time for procrastinators .... I wish I was a solicitor... I could then increase my cost/time per hour... you would not be able to afford my time....hahahhaha

 

With respect, go to bed man - sleep on it...come back tomorrow in the cold light of day - that way you will see where the FACTS have been delivered upon you like a ice cold sword.

 

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
applecart

applecart

Posted
Posted
Which you choose to interpret in your own unique way and not as was intended or actually written.

 

But let us not forget.

 

It is not Apple that will be evicted.

 

LOL..... your comments do not thwart the FACTS Crapstone.....

 

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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3716 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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...