Jump to content


Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3682 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

Thanks . I eagerly await the decision and to be honest I just want to know whatever it is.

 

Worst comes to worst Fletch, one of the solicitors representing one of the lenders, will no doubt write an article on their website about it, just as they did with Lamb.

 

One way or the other, the outcome will come out

 

However, I am sure IIM? will post it to his thread, won't he

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Do we know who the solicitors were? Or has that all been covered over as well?

 

I don't think it has ever been said. However, both optima and walker Morris have previously written articles about unsigned deeds, so I would expect them to be involved, somewhere along the line.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they now refuse, I will simply request a judgement summary :-)

 

Shame it won't be online, when I spoke to them before the decision was issued they said it would be. I guess there is nothing special in the decision - so doesn't meet the criteria to be posted online, as per your earlier post.

 

Progress at last

 

Even though they were dumbfounded!!!

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

DUMBSTRUCK get it right !

 

 

LOL yes that was it :)

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

The sad thing is that if as seems expected the decision goes for the lender then the loser will be Is It Me's. friend and we should not like sight of that.

This may sound strange but i am nite 100% sure of the consequences either way. From what i understand if IIM's friend wins in all likelihood it only delays the inevitable as the money is still owed. If they lose it is the last barrier against repossesion.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing is that if as seems expected the decision goes for the lender then the loser will be Is It Me's. friend and we should not like sight of that.

This may sound strange but i am nite 100% sure of the consequences either way. From what i understand if IIM's friend wins in all likelihood it only delays the inevitable as the money is still owed. If they lose it is the last barrier against repossesion.

 

If it has gone the lenders way, IIM said his friend would not be repossessed as funds are in place to pay the lender.

 

My concerns would be for the other people that were relying on this argument.

 

However, we don't as yet know which way it went. May be IIM will confirm tomorrow which way it went, if possible

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems odd to me as it seems like a lose lose situation for IIM's friend. Of course if it has been done on principle to challenge a vague point of law it is good someone is standing up and being counted. As you say though unless the actually debt is voided i can not see how any consumer can benefit. Time will tell.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just occurred to me, may be IIM and Apple aren't posting tonight because IIM received the decision today and it was a win for the borrower. - IIM posted something before about throwing a party - they could be both celebrating - you never know.

 

If it is a win for the borrower, I would like to congratulate them both on a job well done.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do hope isitme's friend does have the funds as my impression at the start of the thread was that he didn't and hoped to avoid repossession. Obviously a lot has been posted since then and there's been so many different things posted which have seemed contradictory it's hard to keep track.

 

I also hope the exercise hasn't proved too costly for him.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do hope isitme's friend does have the funds as my impression at the start of the thread was that he didn't and hoped to avoid repossession. Obviously a lot has been posted since then and there's been so many different things posted which have seemed contradictory it's hard to keep track.

 

I also hope the exercise hasn't proved too costly for him.

 

I share all of your hopes.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being under the threat of losing your home is never a good thing and, for all the banter, I wish the people involved well.

 

I do wonder if it could have a sting in the tale if the property were to be sold at some future point? On the points raised and the argument against the lender would that have to be declared to a future buyer and lender? Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being under the threat of losing your home is never a good thing and, for all the banter, I wish the people involved well.

 

I do wonder if it could have a sting in the tale if the property were to be sold at some future point? On the points raised and the argument against the lender would that have to be declared to a future buyer and lender? Just a thought.

 

Yes lets hope that any chance of using the more conventional methods of staving off re-possession have not been passed up on the hope that this argument would save the day.

 

Also lets hope also that now these absurd ideas have been aired they can be relegated back to the FMOTL website where they belong. (just my opinion obviously)

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

I am DUMBSTRUCK by how quiet it is today. Only 2 posts in over 12 hours, now that has to be a record for this thread.

 

19 guests though

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

Well Apple must be having a day off as hasn't been online since yesterday lunchtime, just after Crapstone had that interesting conversation.

IIM has been online, maybe we are waiting for a post to be authorised

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Apple must be having a day off as hasn't been online since yesterday lunchtime, just after Crapstone had that interesting conversation.

IIM has been online, maybe we are waiting for a post to be authorised

 

I hope for his friends sake and the others that have made applications, it is good news

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a message to the site team to take a look, not sure if it is something that belongs in this thread. I have a sense of humour but if Is It Me?'s friend has lost it might be inappropriate.

 

I think even through all the little arguments, hissy fits and tantrums, this is still at the end of the day about peoples homes. It could well be that the Property Chamber has not upheld the application and for some that could result in them losing their homes

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks site team and sorry fletch may be on a different day, nothing against you or anything, just another time may be -

 

I just hope if the decision didn't go Is It Me?'s friends way, there is still time for everyone that made an application to consider the alternative and more traditional responses to possession procedings, as found in the repossession section of CAG. The site team and people like Lea_th, give excellent advice there that works - as much as I disagree with pretty much everything Apple has said in this thread, I would never wish or want anyone to lose their homes - no matter what

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Apple must be having a day off as hasn't been online since yesterday lunchtime, just after Crapstone had that interesting conversation.

IIM has been online, maybe we are waiting for a post to be authorised

 

I just had a quick flick through the last couple of pages and I couldn't see anything from IIM. Usually, his posts show up late but show in the thread at the time he made them (I think)

 

Doesn't look like there is anything new today unless the site team have still not authorised the post. Anyway if Apple is having a day off, I hope they are having a good one - nice bit of sunshine today

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has already been posted or not relevant....I have been looking at this thread but due to work commitments not followed thoroughly.

 

UBK v Sahib & others

 

LL:-)

 

Hello LL

 

Sahib is an often quoted case on other sites in support of the argument that a deed must be signed by both parties.

 

However, as confirmed by the subsequent Eaglestar case, Sahib is not relevant.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1389.html

 

"14.Mr Green relied on that for the proposition that the same should apply to this case because there was, in this case, within the mortgage deed a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star. So, he said, if the mortgage in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib was governed by section 2 of the 1989 Act, so should this mortgage with similar results for its enforceability.

 

15.In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts. Section 1 makes alterations to the law about the execution of deeds. For example, they are no longer required to be written on any particular kind of substance and a seal is not required for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual. There are a number of detailed provisions in section 1 relating to deeds. Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land, one other kind of disposition being a transfer by way of security over what is commonly called a mortgage or charge."

 

 

The reason that sahib is not relevant is confirmed in the Eagle Star case

 

17.In my judgment the case in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib does not help Mr Green, because that was a case where there was no deed, unlike this case. There was in that case a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. That had no effect because, as a contract, it was required to comply with section 2 and it did not comply. In my judgment His Honour Judge Jones was right to reject the submission that Mr Green made on the effect of section 2. Having referred to the point that it was unarguable, he said:

 

"Section two applies to a contract for the sale of an interest in land or a contract for some other disposition in relation to land. A contract to create a mortgage would obviously have to comply with section two and if it did not then it would not be a valid contract.

 

However, in this case there was no contract for the mortgage, there was simply the execution of the mortgage deed. That mortgage deed is a mortgage deed. It is not a contract to create a mortgage. I need really say no more than that about it."

 

Sahib is on many sites quoted and referred to, in support of the argument that a mortgage deed must be signed by both parties. However, in Sahib there was no mortgage deed, signed or otherwise.

Edited by honeybee13

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

A much more recent case as food for thought.

 

http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/court-appeal-considers-detail-required-unilateral-notices

 

I've yet to read the full judgement but the terms used and the distinctions are worth a look.

 

Hello Crapstone

 

I think this is the case

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/28.html

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3682 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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...