Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[alisono]

Price Waterhouse & Cooper also told me that SPML was still trading but had sold most of its mortgages, they were allowing the company to use their registered address as they were part of the bankrupt Lehman Brothers and they were dealing with all their trading.

[IS IT ME?]

alisono.,

What area are you in

 

Apple love your 2840 post LOVE IT! shame the site doesn't answer the questions put to them and dont think they would cover any costs its a case of do as I say not as I do lol

[applecart]

Sorry,

 

Had my letter back today the one instructed by property chamber to serve on my lender, the original address on the deed at HMLR back, return to sender couldn't deliver .. Gone away

 

I haven't heard or had anything back on my defence submitted to lenders solicitors which was filed at court and served on 14th October .

 

Brilliant......

 

When you get to court......rely on your defence .... do not deviate from it

 

You now have in your hand the very letter that will assist your defence further......you tried to serve on your lender as directed by the Chamber.... the Chamber directions have assisted you to find and glean proof that the lender has 'gone away'

 

.......file a copy of the new evidence into court with a covering letter to advise the court that you were directed by the Chamber to serve the application on the Lender - however (surprise, surprise...hahaha) the Lender has 'gone away'!!

 

It will be interesting to see how the DJ deals with the Claimant...considering - we have no idea who this Claimant could possibly be - given that the Lender - who is registered at HMLR - the one who would have updated his address for service at HLMR...(free of charge by the way) did not bother to update the address held in the public domain....(eermm.... because he sold his rights years ago) and for court and claim purposes - the Claimant noted on the 'approved form of charge'......the only official record of any relationship between you and your 'lender'......held in the public domain..... - has gone away!!.....

 

I have to stop typing.... I'm laughing too much.....lol

 

I will come back in the morning.....my tummy hurts ....hahahahaha

 

Apple

[applecart]

I am not sure yet as they also made me send it to new registered address at Companies house, I actually faxed it and a legal solicitor for PW &Copper acknowledged it but said she would only pass it on and not acknowledge the serving if it.

 

I've stopped laughing.....I need to remain focused here....

 

Yes, The Chamber are diligently encouraging whomsoever 'owns' the 'mortgage' to dare to come forward........

 

PW & Cooper can not take you to court.......cannot bring a claim against you...neither can any 'administrator'........let's see if they do forward it on...and let's see who wants to come forward...

 

Apple

[alisono]

Hi IS IT ME

 

Lancashire

[applecart]

Price Waterhouse & Cooper also told me that SPML was still trading but had sold most of its mortgages, they were allowing the company to use their registered address as they were part of the bankrupt Lehman Brothers and they were dealing with all their trading.

 

Bingo......so, try to find out what date they have been using the PWC address as their registered office...ask them where you can confirm this to be the case...or do they have anything that they can put in writing to confirm dates.....

 

Apple

[alisono]

Bingo......so, try to find out what date they have been using the PWC address as their registered office...ask them where you can confirm this to be the case...or do they have anything that they can put in writing to confirm dates.....

 

Apple

 

Hi, first job tomorrow. Thanks

[applecart]

alisono.,

What area are you in

 

Apple love your 2840 post LOVE IT! shame the site doesn't answer the questions put to them and dont think they would cover any costs its a case of do as I say not as I do lol

 

Thanks Is It Me

 

Perspective appears to have gone AWOL along with a number of Lenders....it was necessary to keep the realities in sight.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi, first job tomorrow. Thanks

 

Let me know how you get on...as soon as you know anything ... ok?

 

Apple

[alisono]

Will do, thanks and good night

[andrew1]

Apple, I asked earlier on in the thread if you would be happy to cover the costs of anyone should they lose by using your arguments. Is that something that you would be happy to do?

 

sequenci, I have great respect for you and a great fan of yours as you well know, but irrespective of the arguments of either persuasion on this thread is it really appropriate to ask if someone posting their opinions is asked to put up funds to cover the costs of another's attempts to use these arguments?

 

I know where you are coming from, and it is critical that every one of the readers on here are warned of the perils and that they take their own legal advice before going off willy-nilly on a half-baked journey into the legal costs abyss.

 

The whole history of Cag though and it's campaigns is based upon the accumulation of people's experiences and those who have personally stuck their necks out to test the boundaries of these institutions and case laws and their abuses of the laws. They fought against what was previously accepted as the norm which then encouraged others to use that experience to reap the rewards themselves.. They were all accompanied generally with a warning about the potential liabilities which could be attracted if anyone followed those posters ideas or experiences legally, but people were under no illusions that legal costs or potential losses in court could have devastating results if they didn't know what they were talking about and just 'cut and pasted' thread posts without getting their own legal advice before trotting off to court with them.

 

You are 100% right to continue with those warnings.

 

We did it with the Debt Collection Agencies and Cabot in particular lost over £42 million over 2 years trading as a result. Nobody asked us to pay anyone's legal costs when they challenged them for themselves.

 

Your point is admirable and I can see you are asking apple to suggest he/she is prepared to put his money where his mouth is, but a little unfair to put that particular question to him/her when all that is being done is to post his or hers views on a very debatable issue and I rarely, if ever, see that question elsewhere on the forum.

 

Apple's views are balanced, I might add, by strongly argued counter arguments by Ben, so to any reader who is reading this and likely to want to follow either route, they should not be under any illusions by now of the dangers and potential costs they may face if they end up in court. If they cannot argue these views in court they may or will lose their homes or attract very high costs which potentially could / would run in to tens of thousands of pounds.

 

I have fought many a battle on the information I have derived from Cag and other forums, but I make my own decisions whether to follow the argument through to conclusion using the accumulated details which I then check out for myself so I don't end up down dark alleys which is where most banks and financial institutions send you. But I have also been right and run out of time to keep everything going and ended up paying thousands in legal costs too which effectively, from a pocket point of view meant I'd lost....it is only now I can get pay-back, but many won't have that luxury I enjoy.

 

When I was in hock to the bank with a mortgage and Swift with a 2nd charge, the pressure they put me under whilst I allege they were acting unlawfully had horrendous effect on me and my family and I had no choice but to argue my corner right to the end, but they always held the power of holding the high ground of threat as with most on here defending their homes from being taken. It's a whole different ball-game now I am free and putting them on the spot answering my questions about exactly how lawful they were in doing what they were doing dangling eviction notices at me demanding what was not rightfully theirs to demand...

 

I don't see what people are doing here which is any different and I'd share my experiences again too so that others may, if they choose to try similar tactics suited to their own experiences can benefit, but I wouldn't expect to put up their legal costs because frankly, I wouldn't know if they were capable or competent to argue the way I do.

 

I can't see the acceptability in asking apple to guarantee costs for anyone following his/her views - can you?

 

I don't wish to offend and respect your concerns for the followers here...but,

 

A1

Edited November 5, 2013 by andrew1

[steampowered]

Hi SP

 

Have you got a mortgage SP?..... have you ever ever entered into a mortgage agreement??

 

Just asking....

 

Apple

Hi Apple, no I have not entered into a mortgage agreement. I rented in the early 20s and since then my job has taken me to different locations across the world, and I have never been in one place long enough to justify it.

 

It is relevant - due to the fact that the lender will have benefitted from an un-executed deed....I posted Halsbury's Law to do with this... I know you are busy monitotring more than this thread...so you may have missed it.....but there is no provision in Halsbury's Law which says that a party can be seen to benefit from a deed that they have not either signed or executed....in fact; when we talk of 'specific performance'.... it will be the borrower - who is the party that has signed the deed that can call for specific performance - not the lender; how that will work in practice, I forsee to be .... the lender giving back all benefit...that's cmi payments etc...even the property if they have repossessed it and sold it on...and all the benefit that it derived from the sale.....Halsbury's law is quite specific on this point from what I could see...

 

It follows therefore...that a historic copy of the deed will suffice to show that between the period of inception and sale....(mortgage statements in evidence attached) will evidence the benefits the lender derived from the un-executed deed.....and any other evidences of similar type

 

It will make no difference that the lender thinks he is 'home and dry' after he has sold on the property...the paper trail will be far too much to avoid...as far as I can tell...

The point I'm trying to make is that the lender does not need to benefit from the Deed if he can claim under the loan agreement.

 

In cases where the house has already been sold, you seem to be saying that the borrower could actually sue the lender to recover repayments made to the lender which would mean the borrower would effectively have get full ownership of the house for free ... I think this is quite a tall order.

 

Borrower/lender is not a recognised category of fiduciary relationship. Lenders do not owe fiduciary duties to borrowers. They do, however, owe a contractual duty of care and certain regulatory duties.

 

Now on this, I could do with your guidance......would you mind expanding on this point made please?

Fiduciary duties mean that the principal is required to prioritise the interests of his fiduciary in all respects. There are a set of recognised categories of fiduciary relationship such as solicitor/client, trustee/beneficiary and director/company. Lender/borrower is not one of the recognised categories. The leading case on this is Bristol v Mothew which has a detailed wikipedia page.

 

Lenders are, however, liable for misrepresentation or for breach of their regulatory duties.

 

How can you not speak 'property law'....this whole thread is to do with contracts in relation to land and of course 'deeds' in relation to land....we are not talking 'simple contracts' here....I cannot see how a lender can intend that the Chamber avoid section 2 in relation to an agreement to create a 'mortgage': see Section 2 (5) FSMA 2000

This is a similar point as made in the rest of your post. I think our emphasis is slightly different. You see a mortgage contract as primarily a contract for a charge. I see it as primarily a contract for repayment of a debt plus interest, with a bolted on Deed of Charge to act as security for the debt.

 

If the security is invalid due to improper execution, I think there is most likely still a debt there, albeit it will be an unsecured debt.

 

If both the loan agreement and the deed of charge are invalid (which seems to me unlikely), then the lender would still be able to recover the money through the law of restitution on the basis of mistake (but might not be able to recover charges or contractual interest which would drastically reduce the size of the debt).

[applecart]

sequenci, I have great respect for you and a great fan of yours as you well know, but irrespective of the arguments of either persuasion on this thread is it really appropriate to ask if someone posting their opinions is asked to put up funds to cover the costs of another's attempts to use these arguments?

 

I know where you are coming from, and it is critical that every one of the readers on here are warned of the perils and that they take their own legal advice before going off willy-nilly on a half-baked journey into the legal costs abyss.

 

The whole history of Cag though and it's campaigns is based upon the accumulation of people's experiences and those who have personally stuck their necks out to test the boundaries of these institutions and case laws and their abuses of the laws. They fought against what was previously accepted as the norm which then encouraged others to use that experience to reap the rewards themselves.. They were all accompanied generally with a warning about the potential liabilities which could be attracted if anyone followed those posters ideas or experiences legally, but people were under no illusions that legal costs or potential losses in court could have devastating results if they didn't know what they were talking about and just 'cut and pasted' thread posts without getting their own legal advice before trotting off to court with them.

 

You are 100% right to continue with those warnings.

 

We did it with the Debt Collection Agencies and Cabot in particular lost over £42 million over 2 years trading as a result. Nobody asked us to pay anyone's legal costs when they challenged them for themselves.

 

Your point is admirable and I can see you are asking apple to suggest he/she is prepared to put his money where his mouth is, but a little unfair to put that particular question to him/her when all that is being done is to post his or hers views on a very debatable issue and I rarely, if ever, see that question elsewhere on the forum.

 

Apple's views are balanced, I might add, by strongly argued counter arguments by Ben, so to any reader who is reading this and likely to want to follow either route, they should not be under any illusions by now of the dangers and potential costs they may face if they end up in court. If they cannot argue these views in court they may or will lose their homes or attract very high costs which potentially could / would run in to tens of thousands of pounds.

 

I have fought many a battle on the information I have derived from Cag and other forums, but I make my own decisions whether to follow the argument through to conclusion using the accumulated details which I then check out for myself so I don't end up down dark alleys which is where most banks and financial institutions send you. But I have also been right and run out of time to keep everything going and ended up paying thousands in legal costs too which effectively, from a pocket point of view meant I'd lost....it is only now I can get pay-back, but many won't have that luxury I enjoy.

 

When I was in hock to the bank with a mortgage and Swift with a 2nd charge, the pressure they put me under whilst I allege they were acting unlawfully had horrendous effect on me and my family and I had no choice but to argue my corner right to the end, but they always held the power of holding the high ground of threat as with most on here defending their homes from being taken. It's a whole different ball-game now I am free and putting them on the spot answering my questions about exactly how lawful they were in doing what they were doing dangling eviction notices at me demanding what was not rightfully theirs to demand...

 

I don't see what people are doing here which is any different and I'd share my experiences again too so that others may, if they choose to try similar tactics suited to their own experiences can benefit, but I wouldn't expect to put up their legal costs because frankly, I wouldn't know if they were capable or competent to argue the way I do.

 

I can't see the acceptability in asking apple to guarantee costs for anyone following his/her views - can you?

 

I don't wish to offend and respect your concerns for the followers here...but,

 

A1

 

Thanks for your comments A1.

 

They say if it ain't broke...don't fix it!

 

I agree... However; the housing market is 'broke'.....it needs 'fixing'

 

There is a price to pay to fix it.....the price is being paid every day....82,000 victims so far and no doubt growing....despite reliance on tried and tested routes....

 

You cannot look at figures like that and say - the tried and tested route is truly working ............. : (

 

The Lenders moved the goal posts years ago....they found a means of using the 'tried and tested' route to their own advantage....one by one families are being picked off for the slaughter.....if not today..then tomorrow....

 

They are already looking to find a way to undermine the content of this thread...however, they will fail.... because there is nothing in this thread that is not based on the LAW.

 

I appreciate your comments made....The battle continues ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Thanks for your comments A1.

 

They say if it ain't broke...don't fix it!

 

I agree... However; the housing market is 'broke'.....it needs 'fixing'

 

There is a price to pay to fix it.....the price is being paid every day....82,000 victims so far and no doubt growing....despite reliance on tried and tested routes....

 

You cannot look at figures like that and say - the tried and tested route is truly working ............. : (

 

The Lenders moved the goal posts years ago....they found a means of using the 'tried and tested' route to their own advantage....one by one families are being picked off for the slaughter.....if not today..then tomorrow....

 

They are already looking to find a way to undermine the content of this thread...however, they will fail.... because there is nothing in this thread that is not based on the LAW.

 

I appreciate your comments made....The battle continues ; )

 

Apple

 

I doubt lenders are that bothered by this thread. If I was a lender, I would not have a single concern about this going to the property chamber, infact I would welcome it to bring an end to the matter.

 

You say lenders have tried to undermine the content of this thread. I think you give yourself too much credit, I can't see anything done by a lender to undermine anything in this thread. Lenders don't need to do anything, the law both common law and legislation already does enough to undermine the ideas posted in this thread.

[TimetogoRAM]

I doubt lenders are that bothered by this thread. If I was a lender, I would not have a single concern about this going to the property chamber, infact I would welcome it to bring an end to the matter.

 

You say lenders have tried to undermine the content of this thread. I think you give yourself too much credit, I can't see anything done by a lender to undermine anything in this thread. Lenders don't need to do anything, the law both common law and legislation already does enough to undermine the ideas posted in this thread.

 

Ben please say something positive. I dont believe borrowers would bother coming to this site or thread if they didnt have some kind of problem, whether its threatenedby possession or a way out of a dark hole brought on by their greedy lenders. Borrowers need positivity and a hope, not you spouting off what lenders have tried to make you and me believe for decades. Move on mate, its 2013!! :o)

[bhall]

Hello A1

 

I think there are very different situations.

 

This particular 'campaign' is not based on anyone's actual experiences, let alone an accumulation of people's experiences. It is based on one persons interpretation of the law. For me that is a totally different ball game.

 

Something that would appear to be overlooked is that by making an application to the chamber, you are not defending, you are the applicant.

 

For the purposes of the hearing the borrower is the claimant and the lender is the defendant. As claimant, it is for the borrower to prove their claim.

 

As shown by the publicly available details of each case that has dealt with the topic of does a lender have to sign a mortgage deed, the courts have found on each occasion that the answer is no.

 

As I recently posted the RRO 2005 does not make the changes claimed by this thread.

 

If you look in the baliff's sub forum there are threads about the dangers of following internet advice which on the face of it appear to be based on the law but aren't.

 

Claim Management Companies are regulated by the Ministry of Justice, posters on forums are not regulated by anyone. They aren't held to account for the damage they do.

 

Time and time again the argument that a lender has to sign a deed has failed in court. The law has not been changed. Yet people are being advised in this thread to start an application on the basis that it is free, when in fact if the trend already established in virtually every other level in judiciary they will lose and as effectively as claimant and the losing party they will be held liable for costs.

[bhall]

As shown recently there is no great conspiracy in this thread, the site team have not been lent on by same unnamed lender.

 

There is nothing posted in this thread that should or would cause a single moment of concern to the legal department / legal representatives of any lender.

[sequenci]

82,000 families and children reside in boarding accommodation (Source: Shelter -BBC News - today) - no doubt reliant on the 'tried and tested' continually touted as the only route promoted by the CaG.....is the CaG covering any of those 'costs'? is it a cost that the CaG is willing to pay???

 

Lets be sensible......allow borrowers to take which so ever route they wish to...there is now an alternative.....we know where the 'tried and tested' route leads...for which we are all grateful to those who promote it........Now step back and allow the alternative route a chance ok?

 

Cheers

 

Ta

 

Apple

 

Ansswer the question.

 

If you're so confident that you're right put your money where your mouth is.

[bhall]

Apple how is your application to the Property Chamber, based on your advice progressing ?

 

Sorry I forgot, you haven't made one, so no risk to you of incurring potentially £1,000's of additional debt then.

 

Ben

[applecart]

Hi Apple, no I have not entered into a mortgage agreement. I rented in the early 20s and since then my job has taken me to different locations across the world, and I have never been in one place long enough to justify it.

[/color]

 

 

Do you know something.....I could tell.....that's why I asked; ......I just wanted you to confirm it...from your posts, comments...with all due respect it was clear that you did not have a mortgage SP.......I have found it is best to get involved when you actually 'know'; 'been there'; 'got the T-shirt' so's to speak......it is easier then to relate and engage with your audience....I mean you no disrepect...but, many on here have got mortgages and are commenting based on what they know

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the lender does not need to benefit from the Deed if he can claim under the loan agreement.

 

I understand your point SP.....however, the only way in which a lender can benefit from the deed is if it is 'valid'.....failing that.....the only way in which a lender can benefit from the loan agreement...is if it is 'valid'......this does not mean that the debt 'goes away'.....what it means simply....is that the lender cannot enforce the debt by virtue of the 'security' or the 'agreement' in any court of law.....

 

I am aware of the latest trend where companies of all kinds are now looking to 'charging orders' to 'secure' debt against a consumers estate.....but, a lender who failed to secure by legitimate means the first time...would be hard pushed to try to come via the 'back door' to do so....look up res judicata......

 

The applications made to the chamber give the lender an opportunity to respond...to avoid a defence in the future from consumers of 'res judicata'......regrettably....as posted ..... the Lender has already 'GONE AWAY'.....so, I fail to see who it is that is going to try to claim a right to which they were never 'privvy' to?

 

In cases where the house has already been sold, you seem to be saying that the borrower could actually sue the lender to recover repayments made to the lender which would mean the borrower would effectively have get full ownership of the house for free ... I think this is quite a tall order.

 

Yes, that's what the Law says...look up 'un-just enrichent'...'specific performance'...'Halsbury's Law'......it is the borrower who is the innocent party...it is the Lender who has 'gone away'.... it is the Lender who is in breach of the purported contract and purported Deed......If you had had a mortgage...and you had found that your lender absconded and left your fate in the hands of some unknown entity with draconian, capitalistic un-ethical values......I think you would have no issue with the Law protecting your interests or seeing it as 'quite a tall order'......

 

[/color]

Fiduciary duties mean that the principal is required to prioritise the interests of his fiduciary in all respects. There are a set of recognised categories of fiduciary relationship such as solicitor/client, trustee/beneficiary and director/company. Lender/borrower is not one of the recognised categories. The leading case on this is Bristol v Mothew which has a detailed wikipedia page.

 

Lenders are, however, liable for misrepresentation or for breach of their regulatory duties.

 

[/color]

 

oh, ok... Thanks for this - I will look into it....

This is a similar point as made in the rest of your post. I think our emphasis is slightly different. You see a mortgage contract as primarily a contract for a charge. I see it as primarily a contract for repayment of a debt plus interest, with a bolted on Deed of Charge to act as security for the debt.

 

No, I do not see a 'mortgage contract' as a contract for a charge....where did you get that idea from?......I see a mortgage offer as a mortgage offer, the only condition being to sign the 'approved form of charge'......the LAW says just because I did so...does not mean that I am obliged in anyway unless the Lender 'assumes' the 'approved form of charge' in order to say there is a valid deed......the lender did not 'assume' the deed.....he did not execute it.....there is no obligation on my part what so ever.....of that I am 100% sure.....plus....the Lender has gone away....so clearly he has no intent to 'assume' the 'approved form of charge'.....no intent to cause me to be obligated to him at all.....

 

Whether we want to admit or not....consumers were used...regrettably for the Lender we have found out......we are dealing with it....

 

If the security is invalid due to improper execution, I think there is most likely still a debt there, albeit it will be an unsecured debt.

 

Property Law unlike any other I have come across to date is complex.....but it is clear once you get to grips with it.....no part performance...no specific performance...no section 53 reliance....nothing.....not if the Lender has not executed the deed.....there is no reliance on 'parol'....not when you cannot rely on sight of the borrowers signature alone......

 

As I see it... I see a lender who will have taken upto 25% deposit in hard cash from a borrower up front.....caused the borrower to pay conveyance fees up front.... broker fees either up front or added to the loan.....etc etc....and run off with the entire equity prior to coming to take the house......and in between....after having sold off the 'debt' - authorises some unknown entity to be charging interest on arrears (after having engineered the arrears of course), admin fees etc, etc....before depositing the financial gain into some offshore account so the UK inland revenue cannot get a penny of it......and leaving borrowers to become a burden on the state (82,000 so far and mounting).....

 

If both the loan agreement and the deed of charge are invalid (which seems to me unlikely), then the lender would still be able to recover the money through the law of restitution on the basis of mistake (but might not be able to recover charges or contractual interest which would drastically reduce the size of the debt).

 

oh...ok.....on what grounds?....the lender recovered the 'debt' from selling it on.....what about 'un-just enrichment'? how would that factor into your remedy by way of 'restitution'?......occasioned I might add.... off the back of an un-executed deed??

 

I truly appreciate your input on this thread SP... I can see your attempts made to provide a 'balance'.....Thank you ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

As shown recently there is no great conspiracy in this thread, the site team have not been lent on by same unnamed lender.

 

There is nothing posted in this thread that should or would cause a single moment of concern to the legal department / legal representatives of any lender.

 

No Ben, you are right here.... that's because the Lender has 'GONE AWAY'.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Ansswer the question.

 

If you're so confident that you're right put your money where your mouth is.

 

Why the sudden 'outburst' Sequenci.....

 

When I say 'be sensible'......that's what I mean.....you are not being sensible Sequenci..... how old are you??.....Just asking

 

Apple

[sequenci]

sequenci, I have great respect for you and a great fan of yours as you well know, but irrespective of the arguments of either persuasion on this thread is it really appropriate to ask if someone posting their opinions is asked to put up funds to cover the costs of another's attempts to use these arguments?

 

I was a bit of a tongue and cheek question, but I think it was worth asking. If someone truly had belief in their approach they wouldn't have hesitated.

I know where you are coming from, and it is critical that every one of the readers on here are warned of the perils and that they take their own legal advice before going off willy-nilly on a half-baked journey into the legal costs abyss.

You're absolutely right. I know a couple of solicitors (practicing and academic) who think some of the ideas being banded about are ridiculous.

The whole history of Cag though and it's campaigns is based upon the accumulation of people's experiences and those who have personally stuck their necks out to test the boundaries of these institutions and case laws and their abuses of the laws. They fought against what was previously accepted as the norm which then encouraged others to use that experience to reap the rewards themselves.. They were all accompanied generally with a warning about the potential liabilities which could be attracted if anyone followed those posters ideas or experiences legally, but people were under no illusions that legal costs or potential losses in court could have devastating results if they didn't know what they were talking about and just 'cut and pasted' thread posts without getting their own legal advice before trotting off to court with them.

 

You are 100% right to continue with those warnings.

 

I think when people are dealing with their homes they absolutely need to. It's important to remember that people coming to the forums hide behind a veil of anonymity. I think it's always right that people should seek a second or even a third opinion.

We did it with the Debt Collection Agencies and Cabot in particular lost over £42 million over 2 years trading as a result. Nobody asked us to pay anyone's legal costs when they challenged them for themselves.

Not sure how much of that loss is due to you lot TBH.

Your point is admirable and I can see you are asking apple to suggest he/she is prepared to put his money where his mouth is, but a little unfair to put that particular question to him/her when all that is being done is to post his or hers views on a very debatable issue and I rarely, if ever, see that question elsewhere on the forum.

 

People have been asked similar things before.

Apple's views are balanced, I might add, by strongly argued counter arguments by Ben, so to any reader who is reading this and likely to want to follow either route, they should not be under any illusions by now of the dangers and potential costs they may face if they end up in court. If they cannot argue these views in court they may or will lose their homes or attract very high costs which potentially could / would run in to tens of thousands of pounds.

It's a fanastic thread in that respect. Bare in mind also that there have been people that work in the mortgage industry and also solicitors that have responded on the thread too.

I have fought many a battle on the information I have derived from Cag and other forums, but I make my own decisions whether to follow the argument through to conclusion using the accumulated details which I then check out for myself so I don't end up down dark alleys which is where most banks and financial institutions send you. But I have also been right and run out of time to keep everything going and ended up paying thousands in legal costs too which effectively, from a pocket point of view meant I'd lost....it is only now I can get pay-back, but many won't have that luxury I enjoy.

 

When I was in hock to the bank with a mortgage and Swift with a 2nd charge, the pressure they put me under whilst I allege they were acting unlawfully had horrendous effect on me and my family and I had no choice but to argue my corner right to the end, but they always held the power of holding the high ground of threat as with most on here defending their homes from being taken. It's a whole different ball-game now I am free and putting them on the spot answering my questions about exactly how lawful they were in doing what they were doing dangling eviction notices at me demanding what was not rightfully theirs to demand...

 

I don't see what people are doing here which is any different and I'd share my experiences again too so that others may, if they choose to try similar tactics suited to their own experiences can benefit, but I wouldn't expect to put up their legal costs because frankly, I wouldn't know if they were capable or competent to argue the way I do.

 

I can't see the acceptability in asking apple to guarantee costs for anyone following his/her views - can you?

 

I don't wish to offend and respect your concerns for the followers here...but,

 

A1

 

I don't get offended - and I welcome people to raise their concerns and feelings. I really hope we don't have a bleak day where you all come back having being absolutely stuffed by the mortgage lenders.

[applecart]

Apple how is your application to the Property Chamber, based on your advice progressing ?

 

Sorry I forgot, you haven't made one, so no risk to you of incurring potentially £1,000's of additional debt then.

 

Ben

 

What is this??

 

Ben, Sequenci....do you have any idea of how you are coming across right now??

 

I thought IMS21 advised that this kind of behaviour should stop......it was considered 'childish'...'immature'......

 

I would be grateful for you both to respect IMS21 and make sensible contributions or just stop contributing.....

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Why the sudden 'outburst' Sequenci.....

 

When I say 'be sensible'......that's what I mean.....you are not being sensible Sequenci..... how old are you??.....Just asking

 

Apple

 

What relevence does that have?

 

Why the sudden outburst? I'm just deeply worried that you might cause people to lose their homes. Would you be able to live with yourself if that actually happens? My question was slightly tounge and cheek, but I thought it would be interesting to see just how confident you are. It's probably a bit daft, however, but man yof the learned people I've spoken to feel that there are significant risks with your approach. I was wonder if you have any concerns?