Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am trying to follow your advice in post 21 which suggests the kennels T&Cs are over ruled by the CRA As I understood it , even if the kennel felt they good reason to refuse the dog boarding, which would be a difficult point to argue , as I am unable to get the vet to confirm they said the dog “should “ be ok ,the most the kennel  would be entitled to would be reasonable admin expenses due to refusing to accept the dog . Then I read in you last post , which  to me seems a contradiction . Paragraph 3 suggests a Judge would favour the kennel and its stance ,then paragraph 4 says to deny a refund in unenforceable . Surely if to deny me a refund is unenforceable at common law , then a Judge would have to rule in my favour . So if I continue I need to be sure I am citing the correct sections of the CRA
    • To clear this up !This new ccj claim from cabot/Mortimer is  for  a bank i have no account with.And is obviously trying to make out my older debt is not statute barred.They think i will respond and start the six years all over again for a totally diferent debt. I have no debt with the bank they are claiming against me with. Do people not understand this?
    • The site has a drop down for different postal services, implying the exclusions are based on the service you use, yet when you select different services the exclusions appear to remain the same, and certainly in the case of Parcelforce do not tally with the cover included by Parcelforce.   My P2G account still shows the declaration I made.
    • Finally go  a little time to myself, so knocked the defence from your given examples. How does it look?   1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have sent an alleged copy dated 28th Jan 2018 from my cpr31.14 request. this is the first time I have seen this letter.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   If you think it's okay, I'll get it put in today.    Thank you for all your help on this. 
  • Our picks

IS IT ME?

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2108 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Equity does not assist a 'volunteer'.....just one of the many equitable doctrines that come to mind here ; )

 

Apple

 

That wouldn't be relevant, where's the gift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok......Did the Lender advise you that they were appointing that particular firm of Solicitors? .... and are you 100% sure it is YOUR lender that you are dealing with?? no to both

 

Check out the FCA register.... input your lenders details to check if they have regulatory authority (which they should Have) and then check to see if they have any 'approved representatives'.... checked and they have no approved representative

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that it may be the approved representative that you are dealing with here and not the actual lender..ummmm?

 

Check it out... and come back to me on this = ok?

 

Apple

 

I've had 2 emails from these solicitors, one saying they are instructed by my lender, the other with me copied in to the Chamber, requesting further time to oppose the application, due to the hearing being stayed. I have also received a phonecall stating they are from this solicitors, asking if I've received the emails and if I am happy to receive correspondence in this way. A little unprofessional I think?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Applecart, this part of the Statute of Frauds Act 1677 is about one person offering a guarantee for the debts of another person. I don't see how that applies to the current situation or how it is relevant to s2 LPMPA 1989.

 

IVX1No Action against Executors, &c. upon a special Promise, or upon any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lands, &c. unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and signed.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

 

LPMPA stands for Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act.....

 

Statute of Frauds relates to agreements for sale of 'land'

 

Section 2 and the statute of frauds work together.

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That wouldn't be relevant, where's the gift?

 

Sequenci, please consult your legal database on this.....I'm sure you can work this one out for yourself?

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've had 2 emails from these solicitors, one saying they are instructed by my lender, the other with me copied in to the Chamber, requesting further time to oppose the application, due to the hearing being stayed. I have also received a phonecall stating they are from this solicitors, asking if I've received the emails and if I am happy to receive correspondence in this way. A little unprofessional I think?!

 

Ask yourself, does the conduct of the Lender and the Solicitor comply with the Tribunal Rules....if not - then there is a breach...it really is quite that simple ; )

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TimetogoRAM

I’ve been giving some thought to the earlier post UKaviator sent, the one where he/she states the advice they had got from the solicitor before signing, you know the advice the Lender recommends you get before you sign, oh, and your solicitor acting on behalf of your Lender in your case and not to forget the Lenders’ backing off in IS IT ME’s Friend’s case indeed all of them involved.

Well, you would think they would be right up to date with the law especially, in this conveyance stuff, remember, they are giving you Legal Advice, which you are paying for. You could say that’s a little contract right there. Here’s another little nugget I am aware off and you might not know, These Lenders, they have approved panels of solicitor companies, that means they have a list of companies which you must use to handle your conveyance. I suppose that’s how they can make you an offer to help you with your legal costs.

But wait, could there something else here, could they have unknowingly been drawn, you know in the bigger scheme of things, no surely not, that cannot be, after all it’s only a thought. Uuuuummmmmm.


STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IVX1No Action against Executors, &c. upon a special Promise, or upon any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lands, &c. unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and signed.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

 

LPMPA stands for Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act.....

 

Statute of Frauds relates to agreements for sale of 'land'

 

Section 2 and the statute of frauds work together.

 

Apple

 

 

The Statute of frauds has nothing to do with land applecart and it was passed in 312 years before LPMPA 1989. The only bit of the Statute of Frauds which remains in force is the part you posted, which is about giving a guarantee for the debts for another person.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask yourself, does the conduct of the Lender and the Solicitor comply with the Tribunal Rules....if not - then there is a breach...it really is quite that simple ; )

 

Apple

 

Thanks Apple, think the answer is no. Like you say, let them dig further!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi TimetogoRAM

I’ve been giving some thought to the earlier post UKaviator sent, the one where he/she states the advice they had got from the solicitor before signing, you know the advice the Lender recommends you get before you sign, oh, and your solicitor acting on behalf of your Lender in your case and not to forget the Lenders’ backing off in IS IT ME’s Friend’s case indeed all of them involved.

Well, you would think they would be right up to date with the law especially, in this conveyance stuff, remember, they are giving you Legal Advice, which you are paying for. You could say that’s a little contract right there. Here’s another little nugget I am aware off and you might not know, These Lenders, they have approved panels of solicitor companies, that means they have a list of companies which you must use to handle your conveyance. I suppose that’s how they can make you an offer to help you with your legal costs.

But wait, could there something else here, could they have unknowingly been drawn, you know in the bigger scheme of things, no surely not, that cannot be, after all it’s only a thought. Uuuuummmmmm.

 

Totally GHAM, l was offered these incentives on applying for the mortgage, like help with costs and free conveyancer. Now I understand why I was offered these. Not particularly good legal advice when the lender isn't executing the deed to profiteer heavily from the sale of my mortgage. I was led to believe my lender had a charge over my property. I now know that they don't! So who does that is the question? The title says my lender, but HMLR have not updated this because my current ender has failed to tell them.

 

Could you please let me know what you mean by your last paragraph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Statute of frauds has nothing to do with land applecart and it was passed in 312 years before LPMPA 1989. The only bit of the Statute of Frauds which remains in force is the part you posted, which is about giving a guarantee for the debts for another person.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point here Steampowered?

 

Which part of Part IV of the SoFA is referring to 'giving a guarantee for the debts of another person'?

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sequenci, please consult your legal database on this.....I'm sure you can work this one out for yourself?

 

Apple

 

Yup. There is no gift.

 

Also, don't you find it a little bit funny how on one hand you've started talking equity yet you don't identify the possibility in this day of age of an equitable mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point here Steampowered?

 

Which part of Part IV of the SoFA is referring to 'giving a guarantee for the debts of another person'?

 

Apple

 

The bit you posted applecart, which is the only bit still in force.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized

 

It is not referring to charges in in the meaning of the word as a security right and has nothing to do with land. Charges did not exist in 1677.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Apple, think the answer is no. Like you say, let them dig further!

 

Exactly, don't write to them, don't inform them of their errors....they will correct them as and when they realise their error for themselves..... after all with all that legal know how....they should have no problem in interpreting the Tribunal Rules for themselves......

 

They will dig their way to the necessary Rule in due course.... hope they are not too late......might be why they need more time.... crikey..... all you asked the Chamber for was a determination of the deed..... and they need 'more time' to boot???

 

Anyone got a spare shovel?

 

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. There is no gift.

 

Also, don't you find it a little bit funny how on one hand you've started talking equity yet you don't identify the possibility in this day of age of an equitable mortgage?

 

yes, funny that ; )

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bit you posted applecart, which is the only bit still in force.

 

Noe Action shall be brought . . . F1 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person . . . F2 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized

 

It is not referring to charges in in the meaning of the word as a security right and has nothing to do with land. Charges did not exist in 1677.

 

Oh......okey dokey.....cheers ; )

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No worries glad it clarified.

 

yeah....right.... ok

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple,

You got a chance to watch the news yet, The bit about RBS, where Vince Cable has accused the Bank about closing small business down just to get at their assets, now he would have been made aware of the possible implications of this. Well if you haven’t yet, well listen to the report Author, listen even closer to what the small business owner says, very closely on how they went about getting their hands on his assets. They simply loaded him up with some more debt, that’s banksters for ya.

But ney, have I heard that story somewhere before uuuummmmm?.... ha,ha,ha... or should that be....ho ho ho... or maybe ha ho... or what about Hi Ho yes you know the one that goes.... Hi Ho Hi Ho its of to work we go... we work all day we get no pay Hi ho Hi Hooooooooooo.

I can’t believe it, Good on Vince, Good on you Mate.


STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Apple,

You got a chance to watch the news yet, The bit about RBS, where Vince Cable has accused the Bank about closing small business down just to get at their assets, now he would have been made aware of the possible implications of this. Well if you haven’t yet, well listen to the report Author, listen even closer to what the small business owner says, very closely on how they went about getting their hands on his assets. They simply loaded him up with some more debt, that’s banksters for ya.

But ney, have I heard that story somewhere before uuuummmmm?.... ha,ha,ha... or should that be....ho ho ho... or maybe ha ho... or what about Hi Ho yes you know the one that goes.... Hi Ho Hi Ho its of to work we go... we work all day we get no pay Hi ho Hi Hooooooooooo.

I can’t believe it, Good on Vince, Good on you Mate.

 

Hi Ya....

 

Yes, I did.... I couldn't help thinking that the same is happening to Borrowers .....one MP I saw was at pains to emphasis that they only have anecdotal evidence..... and I thought....Is that so... yeah - right?

 

Do you think that maybe, just maybe,..... they are actually going to start flushing out the truth.....?

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ukaviator

Is it the same ones who don't want to play here, as they were the first firm of solicitors!

So you can take what they put up as toilet paper

 

Agreed..... I think it is the 3rd or 4th time that the article from Optima has appeared on your thread ......to get the impression that Optima's Article will defend the fact that the lender has not executed the deed.....

 

 

 

Apple

Edited by ims21

[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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Vince Cable was appointed Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in May 2010......

 

That's the same department that the e-petition is going to by the way....... ; )

 

If you live in Twickenham you can alert him to issues via this email link:

 

enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk

 

You can contact your local MP by searching for him via this link:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/?sort=1

 

Apple

Edited by applecart

[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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Kegi,

What Apple is raising in this post is a senario, the senario being what the Chamber might do when faced with the reality that the deed is found to be void. Now you need to read the post before so that you can get a feel for it.

 

givehim my post was nothing to do with the scenario it was to do with the clap-trap apple had just posted up

here it is again in red and as you seem to be apples spokes person would you not agree with me that's just what it is

..maybe not

 

Oh I forgot to say.... I didn't add the Borrower into the resolution as such...because the Borrower is already providing a solution....the Borrower is paying the 'mortgage '....the Borrower is paying the Bedroom tax.....bailing out the banks etc etc......after all it was the Borrower who caused the 'austerity' by signing that 'approved form of charge'....as a 'deed'....

 

Oh and if the Borrower does not pay the 'mortgage...well, we'll turf him out of his home....and get another Borrower to pick up the tab......80,000+ is no where near the 11.3 million target we have set...got to keep the wheel turning....got to keep the figures correct...... : )

kegi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
givehim my post was nothing to do with the scenario it was to do with the clap-trap apple had just posted up

here it is again in red and as you seem to be apples spokes person would you not agree with me that's just what it is

..maybe not

 

Oh I forgot to say.... I didn't add the Borrower into the resolution as such...because the Borrower is already providing a solution....the Borrower is paying the 'mortgage '....the Borrower is paying the Bedroom tax.....bailing out the banks etc etc......after all it was the Borrower who caused the 'austerity' by signing that 'approved form of charge'....as a 'deed'....

 

Oh and if the Borrower does not pay the 'mortgage...well, we'll turf him out of his home....and get another Borrower to pick up the tab......80,000+ is no where near the 11.3 million target we have set...got to keep the wheel turning....got to keep the figures correct...... : )

kegi

 

'Clap trap'...... now I know that getting to the point is something you do with great vigour......can you explain, why you believe the above is 'clap trap' Kegi?

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2108 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
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...