Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[sequenci]

Is It Me posted yesterday at 18.05.

[Peterbard]

I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

Thanks Sequency,and IIM?

 

I wonder could you elaborate for us. You say you have not heard anything, just to clarify, does this mean that the decision has not yet been reached/ handed down ?

 

Was your case one of the ones heard on the 20th Jan?

 

Could you tell us what the status is of your hearing then please, or is there some reason why you cannot say.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Dodgeball
Jan

[bhall]

Is It Me posted yesterday at 18.05.

 

Thanks for the heads up Sequenci, it must have been authorised earlier today, as I did not see it earlier this morning

[sequenci]

Thanks for the heads up Sequenci, it must have been authorised earlier today, as I did not see it earlier this morning

 

Sometimes posts will show up late for various reasons, I'll always try and flag it if there are long delays.

[bhall]

I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

Welcome back to CAG Is It Me?, you have been missed

 

I don't know what you have and have not received from the Chambers.

 

However, Crapstone spoke with the chamber last Friday (so no accusations of 'shoehorning' can be laid at my door) and as posted, the Property Chamber has confirmed that the decision has been sent to the parties concerned. As your friends application was heard on 20 Jan and a decision has been sent out by the Property Chamber, it is strange he/she has still not received anything yet

 

I was told that the decisions had been sent out to the parties concerned Fletch and that it would not be made available online. Anyone requiring a copy of the decision would need to have a direct interest and make a case to the judge for a copy to be disclosed.

 

I am DUMBSTRUCK that your friend has still not heard

[bhall]

Sometimes posts will show up late for various reasons, I'll always try and flag it if there are long delays.

 

Thanks I appreciate it, I have missed some of his previous posts and I know he likes to have a response.

[mollypockets]

this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

[sequenci]

this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

 

Why is it a joke? There is no agenda. No one is working for anyone. Why has it become obvious?

 

The situation, how I see it is this: a decision was sent to the parties. By now, Is It Me? should be able to furnish us with information as to the outcome. For whatever reason, he is not doing so. I hope that clarifies the current position. Now, should we not get the decision via anyone involved directly - there may be the chance to get it via other sources - it just may take a little extra time.

 

So there we have it.

[Peterbard]

this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

 

I think that it would suit certain persons purposes not to have the results, because it would enable them to continue the dangerous fiction.

 

However, this forum has a more responsible attitude towards its members.

 

There are plenty of forums that will promote these silly unsubstantiated ideas so perhaps one of them may be better suited to you.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Dodgeball
unsubstatiated

[bhall]

I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

If you was involved in the hearing Is It Me? today is the day you have to start being full and frank on this thread. This circus has gone on for long enough

[Peterbard]

If you was involved in the hearing Is It Me? today is the day you have to start being full and frank on this thread. This circus has gone on for long enough

 

I think it unlikely that we will receive any reliable information from the OP or Apple Ben, it looks like it is down to others like yourself to find out the facts.

 

You would think that even if the application was unsuccessful they would feel an obligation towards others that they may have encouraged into taking the same course of action.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Dodgeball
spel

[TimetogoRAM]

Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

[bhall]

I think it unlikely that wee will receive any reliable information from the OP or Apple Ben, it looks like it is down to others like yourself to find out the facts.

 

I know what you mean but I would personally prefer those facts to come from IIM?

[bhall]

Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

 

The day IIM? and Apple started posting on a public forum and actively encouraging people to make applications to the Property Chamber based upon fanciful ideas, misunderstandings of the law and risking costs, it became others business.

[Peterbard]

Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

 

If they did not recommend this course on action to others and placed it on a public forum I may agree.

 

Lets not forget this was nor presented as a theory, but a fact. Many would be effected by this.

[steampowered]

We will have to wait and see what the judgment says. I don't think there's a great deal to be achieved in the meantime.

[bhall]

We will have to wait and see what the judgment says. I don't think there's a great deal to be achieved in the meantime.

 

Very true

[bhall]

Oh, is that what Crapstone is implying??

 

She is misguided if she thinks I have a crystal ball.... lol

 

You'd think if she had the decision and it was in the lenders favor - it would make sense to post it up - I know I wouldn't hesitate at all.

 

 

Apple

 

As IIM? is not updating his own thread and as Apple has said that they would not hesitate to post the decision, here it is

 

I have removed names and addresses to protect the identity of those involved

[bhall]

Apple has repeatedly interpreted this and that to mean pretty much anything Apple wanted it to mean. This is what the Property Chamber thought of the 'Apple Arguments'

 

 

"At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is however, an argument without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security, for a loan"

[bhall]

Despite my previous arguments to the contrary and even the provision of the dictionary definition of the word "or" - Apple insisted that a mortgage by demise was the same thing as a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage and that a borrower could not grant a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage

 

 

"it follows, therefore, that the assertion that the Deeds are invalid because they are mortgages by demise is simply unsustainable"

[bhall]

Apple has repeatedly claimed that s.23(2) of the LRA 2002 are the powers of the borrower and not the lender. Is It Me? previously implied that the lender was DUMBSTRUCK during the hearing in regard to s.23(2) and that they are the powers of the borrower

 

 

"The owners of the registered charges, in these cases are the Respondents, not the Applicants. The Respondents may create a sub-charge by charging the indebtedness secured by the primary mortgage."

 

The Respondents were the lenders, confirming that s.23(2) are indeed the powers of the lender, as the registered proprietor of the registered charge.

[bhall]

 

"There is no merit whatsoever in any of the points taken by or on behalf of the Applicants to seek to impugn the validity of the two charges"

[bhall]

Apple has previously asserted that you take a pinch of this legislation and mix it with a bit of other legislation and then hey presto the deed is void.

 

 

"I should add that reliance on section 74 and 74A of the Law of Property Act 1925 is entirely misconceived"

[bhall]

Apple has previously dismissed posts about equity -

 

 

"Southern Pacific and Accord argue that, if they are wrong on their primary case as to the validity of the Deeds, the charges granted by the Applicants would nonetheless be valid as equitable mortgage, I have no doubt that this is correct."

 

 

"it is to be noted that other such case's will also be dealt with on the same basis, and will be dismissed"

[Ell-enn]

Oh dear - I hope no one goes on to lose their home due to reliance on this as a defence