Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   Have you sent an SAR to the Revenue?   HB
    • Okay thanks. You can either bring a contract action against Parcel2Go or against Hermes. Additionally you could bring a negligence action against Hermes because clearly the telephone was in their care and they at the very least acted negligently – and I suppose it would be possible to say that somebody in their employ may have acted dishonestly. If you sue Hermes in contract they will try to say that your contract is with Parcel2Go – and that would be correct. However you would then rely upon the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act which confers upon you as a beneficiary of the contract all the rights of a contracting party. You would not enjoy these rights if you are specifically excluded by the contract between Parcel2Go and Hermes – but we have no evidence that this has ever happened so far. Even if you were excluded as a beneficiary of the contract, you would still be entitled to bring an action in negligence. It might be more straightforward to go for Parcel2Go – but in this instance there seems to be some clear evidence of dishonesty. I'm assuming that you can gather written evidence of this activation – the fact that the warranty has been started and that this is a clear indication that the phone has been activated by someone. Because of that embarrassment factor – that element of dishonesty somewhere in the Hermes chain – I would be tempted to sue Hermes directly, relying on the Third Parties Act and bringing evidence of the deliberate tampering with the parcel before the judge if it went that far. Generally speaking Hermes will put up their hands when threatened with court action for a small sum. I think for some of £500 they would probably normally force you to a hearing – but I think that in this case as you seem to have good evidence that there has been some deliberate intervention by somebody working for Hermes, I think that it is very likely that eventually Hermes would back down – and they would do well to do so and start cleaning up their own backyard. I don't know if there are any distinction features about your telephone – but I suggest that you start keeping an eye on eBay. So you decide. You can bring a contract action against Parcel2Go – who will also say that you didn't have an insurance. Or you can bring an action against Hermes who will say that you had no contract with them and you had no insurance. In respect of the no insurance your position would be that if they want insurance against negligence or contractual breaches or against the misdeeds of dishonest employees then they should insure themselves. You have paid the delivery fee and you expect them to carry out the delivery. This argument would apply whether you are suing Parcel2Go or suing Hermes. I suggest that you send an initial letter of complaint. Give them 7 to 10 days. I have no doubt that they will knock you back – then you issue the letter of claim. If you never done this before then you should spend a little bit of time looking through this forum at the steps involved in bringing a small claim in the County Court. It's not difficult but you should be aware of the steps so that you have confidence in what you are doing. When you send the letter of claim – you will given 14 days before bringing a legal action. If you don't really intend to do that then don't send the letter. Don't bluff. You send the letter of claim and on day 15 you issue the good news. In the intervening 14 days, register with moneyclaim and start preparing your claim. You can save your work as you go. Let us see the draft claim before you click it off. Your risk factors include – loss of claim fee, loss of hearing fee if they push you to a hearing, time and money spent travelling – probably to your local court. All of these risk factors are relevant in the event that you lose. If you win then you will get all your money back plus the value of the phone and you will also claim 8% interest on the value of the phone – which is a pretty good rate nowadays. Your chances of success, in my view, are better than 85%. I see that a suggestion has just been made by 🇮🇲 in Exile 😄  that you should try and get a crime reference number. Good idea.  
    • If you think you have clear evidence of theft, I assume you have reported this crime to the police?  (I don't expect the police to be at all interested in this, but you ought to be able to get some sort of crime reference number which may be of assistance later).  If I were the carrier I'd be asking you this question, and if you haven't reported it, I'd want to know why you haven't.  (I'm not sure "Well I know the police won't do anything" would be a satisfactory answer.)   I tend to agree with BankFodder that you, the customer, shouldn't have to pay for insurance to cover the carrier performing the contract as agreed - that should be their problem.  Difficulty is you may have to go to court to get your money back - and the court may not agree.   I see you've just posted while I'm typing.  So you have reliable proof that the 'phone was activated while supposedly in transit?  And you could get something in writing (maybe even a witness statement if necessary) from your purchaser that the package had been tampered with?  Then I'd go back to the carrier(s) with this evidence (plus a crime reference number form the police) and say you want the value of the 'phone back.  (Did you declare it's value at any point, and do you have proof of what you paid for it?)   If they don't play ball, then for £500+ I'd be considering suing them.  I'm not saying you'd win, but what's to lose?   (just a couple of thoughts.  Do you have proof of what you sent?  Did you either video it or do you have a receipt or anything saying what the parcel you consigned weighed?  eg if it weighed, say, 750g when you sent it but was empty on receipt, that indicates it was "missing" on arrival.)
    • Looking for some advice regarding dealing with the Debt Collection Department at Trafford dealing with an 'over payment' from 2005/2006/2009/2010 totaling over £8000.00.    Was in discussion with HMRC back in Early 2017.  Their last letter being April when they listed the years they were claiming for and stating the reason it was an over payment was because we hadn't signed and returned some declaration in 2005 + 2006 + 2009 + 2010.  My last letter to them stating it really wasn't an over payment they were just claiming back every penny we have ever been issued because of 4 unsigned forms went unanswered by them.  Nothing else from them until last month came the letter from the debt collection department.   I immediately issued a letter stating I didn't agree with the amount being claimed. I didn't think it was an over payment.  We were entitled to the money that they had 'awarded' us and to contact the previous person I had been dealing with three years ago.  I requested they obtain copies of all correspondence from 2017 and send me a copy.   On 02/04/2020 I received a telephone call from Trafford to say thank you for the letter, they couldn't obtain the documentation I had asked for, I had to do that myself and then could send to them and due to the virus they were suspending collection of this amount.  The person on the phone couldn't advise me how long it would be suspended for.  I asked him to put it in writing advising me they couldn't get the docs I have requested and that it was temporarily suspended. On 03/04/2020 I received a letter to advise they were applying to my employer to instruct them to adhere to the attachment of earnings order and deduct a percentage of my wage and send to them.  It had a copy of the letter inside addressed to my employers. On 06/04/2020 I received a letter thanking me for my letter of the 17th March.  They attached a sheet detailing the over payments that they were claiming.  Confirmed they could not request the previous correspondence and I should request this direct from HMRC.  In the event of a dispute I had to contact HMRC.  They wouldn't suspend collection until advised by HMRC but under the circumstances they arr temporarily suspending recovery action.  They will write to me soon about paying it back.   2005 £821.53     2006 £1635.14     2009 £390.76     2010 £1298.62   My husband has received an identical letter with the same figures on.   I am unsure what to do now.  I don't  want to sit on it until they start up the recovery again.   Do I now contact HMRC and continue to argue this out with them? Can they legally take money from my wages even though I am disputing this? Does me not signing a form constitute them being able to recover everything I have been paid?   My youngest child left school in 2016 and I never claimed for 2007 + 2008  + 2011 + 2012 + 2013 + 2014 + 2015.   Can anyone advise me of where I go from here? Thanks in advance of any help anyone can give me  
    • OK will try to be succinct. Old prop mgmt agent acting behalf of RTM company messed about last year with bills and could not all 4 leaseholders to agree on their charges. I paid first half of year and was awaiting news re remaining bill. At end of year had letter stating they were stepping down.   January 2020 new agent in charge. Bill for whole year sent, plus arrears. Service charges are due twice yearly, not in one lump, as per the lease. They billed for whole year. I queried it. In the meantime I had some emails requesting payment. In January I decided just to pay the arrears in one payment ( plus an extra £100 on top as part payment for new charges, ) and set up a monthly standing order to pay the rest. The payment was set to start in Feb, but for some reason the bank didnt pay it until march, so I rectified it in March by paying that one one plus one extra. I informed them of this. Payments have been accepted and they have sent a revised statement this week showing such- after I sent them proof I had paid 3 times already.   Come June, I would be fully up to date with all previous bills, they should then send the June- December service charge bill. They keep insisting on payment asap.   In March whilst payments were going on and after the lump sum + 2 payments had been met, they say they sent a letter requesting a payment plan even though one was already in place. I did not get that letter. In March they sent it to the sols for debt collection- I got a letter from the sols + their own £250 charges stitched on. I have not replied to them yet. I have replied to the agent stating I won't be paying via the sols and that payments are still set to continue.   Ultimately, even with the new service charge coming in June, by August the bill I will be paid anyway. I feel their demands are totally unreasonable, given noone can work at present anyway. I have a letter prepared for the sols in reply but i'll wait as long as possible before sending as I have 30 days to reply and by then all arrears will all be paid, plus part of the upcoming bill. The lease is very old and there is no mention of debt collection charges at all. It states the lease service charge is paid in advance at end of June and end of Dec every year.
  • 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 2231 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

Site team,

Are you sure apple can post?? as I know they would do so

I know that all my posts so far have been sent to you before being posted

 

Yes applecart can post but will be checked before going live.

 

There are currently none in the queue so no posts have been made.


If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

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
ims21

 

 

 

How many are in the queue

 

 

There are precisely -> NONE


If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

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

I have been trying to get back to you Is It Me...... hopefully this is now possible ..... as a test ; )

 

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
Haven't the courts already recognized that vexatious litigation en masse to avoid a mortgage contract is not going to be accepted and the only outstanding part is a question of the deed? All the court will seek to do is rectify and remedy flaws to put both parties back to the intended footing. Securitization is also accepted as a mortgage practice which again was pretty much covered by the fact it was stated in the mortgage offer, terms and conditions. They didn't hold a gun to your head to sign it and were free to seek legal advice.

 

1. These cases are not vexatious.

 

2. Many lenders did not ask borrowers to sign a mortgage contract so what do you say to that?

 

3. Perharps on the legal advice you might have something........but hold on Borrowers did get legal advice from their solicitors.....or did they?

 

4. Securitisation has been accepted by whom??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. These cases are not vexatious.

 

2. Many lenders did not ask borrowers to sign a mortgage contract so what do you say to that?

 

3. Perharps on the legal advice you might have something........but hold on Borrowers did get legal advice from their solicitors.....or did they?

 

4. Securitisation has been accepted by whom??

 

I. We will have to disagree on that.

 

2. If the offer and consideration has gone through then it would still be a mortgage contract and accepted by payment.

 

3. That makes no difference. And has no immediate effect on the contract other than to pursue the giver of the advice.

 

4. Looking at the case in Ireland and ones in the US, the problem does not lie within the securitization as a financial practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this. Simply what is to be achieved? There have been lots of previous times were huge impact 'cases' have been made and won or lost. But what came of them?

 

The PPI claims put people back into the position they were in had they not paid it, with a little interest. Bank charges failed but again it put people back into a position to say what was fair and to question that and reclaim upon merit. There isn't a court that will put a person or company into the position that they can make something from a transaction or contract for nothing than can't prove a loss for. They are there to act in fairness to all parties.

 

The only beneficiaries are the lawyers and companies that have since set up and are now of such annoyance.

 

I think you are just over complicating the situation with too many 'what ifs' and not enough of looking at the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Is It Me

 

Do remember......This thread does not look to argue any other than the validity of the Deed.

 

We are looking to ensure that the Lender cannot rely on the deed to secure possession of your friends home......the LAW says we are correct to look to set the deed aside on the grounds submitted to the Chamber.

 

It is peripheral to discuss the debt itself.... and as to whether the lender can stake a claim to it off the back of an un-executed deed...... is a futile attempt to circumvent the law....

 

We have not asked the Chamber to determine the debt.... and neither would we ..... we only want them to determine the deed.... they are doing that ... so long as they too remain focused and deal with only the deed ..... anything else is not for them to determine .....

 

We have seen now that the 4th solicitor is looking to rely that he can get the application dealt with on the basis that the deed can be amended..... no doubt in an attempt to secure the money through the back door.....

 

The lender in your case forgets ..... he sold all rights to the unlawful 'mortgage' to an SPV..... he cannot ask the Chamber to do nothing.....it is a 'bare trustee' on the title to your friends home ..... we want him removed ... we have found the avenue to remove him ...... he will be removed from your title...

 

The fact is ..... the Lender cannot get through the back door the finding and fact that he did not execute the deed.... and that is why I believe and would agree that Is It Me should refrain from allowing the matter be dealt with without a hearing.

 

Garguillo says that this would be no more than a futile attempt to circumvent the law in relation to deeds. Bibby would also agree.

 

If they are relying on 'Halsbury'...... that is not to do with the Deed and the fact that they did not execute it ......as based on the up to date volumes of Halbury's....... here on this thread we have not given sight of volume 84 for example which is to do with the LRA 2002.......the thread speaks of volume 13 (ages ago).......so the Lender would be re-miss to rely on a volume that has been since been updated time and time again since the 2007 re-issue...

 

The mention of the Law Commission and volume 4 is simply because the part referred to remains relevant in relation to the application made in the context it was relied upon.......

 

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's what I said previously but it's no biggie and the rest was struck out. It won't change the facts, just define them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's me done. Nothing more to say and if I'm proved wrong then that would be fantastic news for all concerned. For now it's going around in circles as it has done for years and, as Sequenci said, it's not achieving anything by going over the same ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is It Me you will also note that the case is not a simple consumer one for a 'home' and is for business purposes. They have 6 properties involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi All

 

I'm trying to trace if a particular mortgage has been securitised by tracking a MSA. The details are as follows;

 

Mort Date: Nov 2006

Mort Provider: Preferred Mort

Region: Northern Ireland

 

Obiviously what is of importance is the detailed schedule of addresses contained in the MSA.

Any suggestions.

 

Ta in anticipation.


STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea but I have previously downloaded everything I could find including all the stock index's. They are all on my old hard drive so that may be of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi All

 

I'm trying to trace if a particular mortgage has been securitised by tracking a MSA. The details are as follows;

 

Mort Date: Nov 2006

Mort Provider: Preferred Mort

Region: Northern Ireland

 

Obiviously what is of importance is the detailed schedule of addresses contained in the MSA.

Any suggestions.

 

Ta in anticipation.

 

Hi Ya

 

Can you not have a look through the document posted up for SPML....that included Preferred......it will contain an annexe of all the pooled mortgages.... I do not think they separated them into different areas per se..... just simply bundled and sold the lot...... it might include the one you seek; even though it is in NI.

 

It should be on this thread......when you locate it..... look to the last pages.... that should contain a complete 'list' of mortgages sold

 

It will not matter that the date is Nov 2006..... these companies have a tendency to re-bundle and re-sell .... or at least wait until the bundle is big enough.... so it is still worth looking at the one on this thread I would say....

 

Hope this helps?

 

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

hey all,kinda knew to this,what if the house number and postcode is wrong on my mortgage offer???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mollypockets,

 

This thread is kinda quiet at the moment as we await an application to the Tribunal. However, you would need to check your Deed to see if these errors have been transferred to that document. You can get a copy of your Deed from the Land Registry.

you may or may not beaware that this thread is to do with Deeds, the assertion made is that under Law they have to be signed by you and your Lender, should your Deed not be signed by the Lender then this thread asserts that they are void for want of legal formality.

You could read the first 30/40 pages to get the gist of the Legal argument. From there the remainder of the thread further explores the Legal aspect and subsequent arguments put forward from other contributors. In any case applications have been put forward to the Tribunal Chamber and they await a hearing date. When you obtain a copy of your Deed then you will also witness whether yours has been signed by the Lender.

I have somewhere a record of a court case in the high court which gives a decision in relation to incorrect address, postcode etc., which I will post up for you, you will however need to satisfy yourself through your title Deed that the incorrect address has been used or whether it is just a typo on your mortgage offerwhich could be corrected by a judge.

 

Hope this helps.


STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Apple,

 

An interesting question posed to me today.

 

A second charge, does the same formalities apply to this as for the first charge???

 

Hi GiveHimaMask

 

Good question.....

 

The first thing to remember is this.....first charges can ONLY be entered against un-registered estates - Do remember also that the Objection from Is It Me's friends lender relies that the lender secured a 'first charge' - this is a play on words.....for a FR1 form is required to be completed for any 'first charge'- there will be no such evidence of such a form - the only 'form of charge' used in all cases is those that have been 'approved' by HLMR for Charging purposes....this is done to avoid the necessity of completing the CH2 form and avoid HMLR entering notice of the lenders obligations in relation to 'further advances' being noted on the Borrowers title register

 

The next thing to remember is this.... any 'charge' entered against a registered estate is supposed to be by way of 'Notice'......to secure 'indebtedness' - so it should not be a 'charge' per se - it should be a 'Notice'

 

So, whether the lenders loan is first in line, second in line, third in line etc.....all should be entered as 'notices'.....priority is secured by way of the date that the notice is entered - lenders can further protect their priority by virtue of the obligation to offer further advances and it being noted on the title.......

 

Whether it is a first loan, second or subsequent loan taken by the Borrower - all must be conducted by deed....

 

Just a quickie here......................Remember also....a Legal charge by way of legal mortgage is another way of securing the 'asset' ..... (the house)......

 

Some Lenders very cleverly deriving a legal charge against a borrowers legal estate by way of 'legal sub-mortgage' - these are identified on the title when you do not see a 'restriction' in the proprietorship section..... but what you will see is the words on the 'deed' that say 'a charge by way of legal mortgage' and 'full title guaranatee' - with the Lender showing as the proprietor of the charge.......crafty I know.....but it is what it is.......

 

~Then from there..... understand that a DEED is the only means by which a lender and a borrower can secure any interest in relation to either a registered or un-registered estate.

 

The DEED must be VALID

 

The DEED MUST not only meet the formality required by HMLR's 'Approved form of Charge' ...BUT IT MUST ALSO.....meet the statutory provisions in regard to being both 'ASSUMED' (executed by the Lender) BEFORE the presumption of 'DELIVERY' can be said to be in evidence.

 

The statutory provision in relation to the Borrowers signature is without doubt borne from the 'amended' version of section 1 (3) of the LPMPA 1989

 

The statutory provision in relation to the Lenders execution is without doubt borne from the 'amended' version of section 1 (2)(b) of the LPMPA 1989 and is analogous to the LPA 1925 section 74 (1) as amended....and the Companies Act 2006 section 46.....there is further statutory provision in section 74 (5) LPA 1925 too (in brief)

 

If the Deed only meets HMLR requirement...i.e signed by the Borrower alone....then it is VOID.....for the statutory provisions in regard to 'assume' and 'delivery' will not have been complied with

 

If the DEED does not meet the statutory provision in regard to being 'assumed' (execution) by the Lender then there is no longer any stautory provision to say the deed has been 'delivered' and non to be taken either on sight of the borrowers signature alone....the DEED WILL BE VOID...

 

There is of course the 'charging orders' that can be entered on a borrowers title - this type of secured indebtedness does not need to be created by Deed - these are borne by order of the court only....

 

Hope this helps?

 

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 2231 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...