Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

I know the question is directed to DB. However, it would be impossible for him to answer a question about why I do something.

 

I do it because I am concerned that borrowers who have run into difficulties in paying their mortgage, will not consider the tried and tested methods as promoted by CAG, in favour of the untried, untested and potentially very expensive methods suggested by this thread - with the implied outcome that the mortgage will be void, the borrower will not have to pay their mortgage and even as suggested the borrower will refunded the mortgage payments they have already made. - This is a very attractive outcome

 

Most mortgages include a term that the borrower will be held liable for all costs the lender incurs protecting its security. - Proof of this can be found in this thread - UNRAM was advised by his lender that costs were to be added to his mortgage even before the hearing, after he followed the suggestions of this thread.

 

The potential dangers are that if someone choses to follow the suggestions of this thread because they are at a point in time where they are having trouble paying their mortgage, if they follow this route, the mortgage debt that they could not already afford will be increased - leaving them with little chance of saving their homes

 

I would love for the ideas in this thread to be right, I would love not having to repay my mortgage each month (my deed also only has my signature). However, personally I think there is more chance of the man on the moon being real, flying down in the middle of the night and singing a lullaby, to each and everyone of us as we drift off to sleep

 

Ben Ben

The court has to agree to costs being awarded, if they say no then it's NO

The lender can not add these to the mortgage as I have proven before!

The banks fiddling the LABRO rates was flying to the moon

The banks fiddling the PPI again was flying to the moon

Then they are found out to lie in court they are flying to the moon

You are a one lol borrowers have found out they have been conned to for far to long and the games are up!

[bigphil61]

I know the question is directed to DB. However, it would be impossible for him to answer a question about why I do something.

 

I do it because I am concerned that borrowers who have run into difficulties in paying their mortgage, will not consider the tried and tested methods as promoted by CAG, in favour of the untried, untested and potentially very expensive methods suggested by this thread - with the implied outcome that the mortgage will be void, the borrower will not have to pay their mortgage and even as suggested the borrower will refunded the mortgage payments they have already made. - This is a very attractive outcome

 

Most mortgages include a term that the borrower will be held liable for all costs the lender incurs protecting its security. - Proof of this can be found in this thread - UNRAM was advised by his lender that costs were to be added to his mortgage even before the hearing, after he followed the suggestions of this thread.

 

The potential dangers are that if someone choses to follow the suggestions of this thread because they are at a point in time where they are having trouble paying their mortgage, if they follow this route, the mortgage debt that they could not already afford will be increased - leaving them with little chance of saving their homes

 

I would love for the ideas in this thread to be right, I would love not having to repay my mortgage each month (my deed also only has my signature). However, personally I think there is more chance of the man on the moon being real, flying down in the middle of the night and singing a lullaby, to each and everyone of us as we drift off to sleep

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

With respect, I can always understand concern for borrowers, but I don't and never will understand your concern for the Lenders.

 

Borrowers are concerned and so they should be, the deed has not been signed by the Lender, why not?

 

Your reference to lullaby's really is not relevent, is it?...BP

[bigphil61]

Sorry Ben you are going to have to translate again for me No second thoughts I will just nod politely

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

With respect to you, I'd rather debate the 'deed' and the formalities surrounding it, not your abilities to understand what is being debated!...BP

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

With respect to you, I'd rather debate the 'deed' and the formalities surrounding it, not your abilities to understand what is being debated!...BP

 

Oh I fully understand the issues with the deed. It is just your comments I have a problem with. Perhaps if you ceased pointing them in my direction ? Then I would not feel the polite need to respond

[bigphil61]

Ben Ben

The court has to agree to costs being awarded, if they say no then it's NO

The lender can not add these to the mortgage as I have proven before!

The banks fiddling the LABRO rates was flying to the moon

The banks fiddling the PPI again was flying to the moon

Then they are found out to lie in court they are flying to the moon

You are a one lol borrowers have found out they have been conned to for far to long and the games are up!

 

 

Hi IsItMe,

 

You have maintained your dignity through out this debate, despite some trying to pad out the thread with nothing more than protests on behalf of the Lender and I for one applaud you for it.

 

 

Your ability to hit a nail right on its head is worthy of a medal IMO....BP

[Peterbard]

Ben Ben !

 

How does the song go, new York new York , so good the named it twice(quite A compliment Ben Ben)

[bhall]

Hi Ben,

 

With respect, I can always understand concern for borrowers, but I don't and never will understand your concern for the Lenders.

 

Borrowers are concerned and so they should be, the deed has not been signed by the Lender, why not?

 

Your reference to lullaby's really is not relevent, is it?...BP

 

Hi BP

 

With equal respect, I am not concerned about the lenders at all.

 

The deed has not been signed by the lender, as it is not a legal requirement as per s.1 of the LP (MP) A 1989

 

The lullaby reference was relevant in the context in which it was used.

[bigphil61]

Oh I fully understand the issues with the deed. It is just your comments I have a problem with. Perhaps if you ceased pointing them in my direction ? Then I would not feel the polite need to respond

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Respond by all means, just remember, the thread has not been closed as you wished and the debate will continue with or without your input...BP

[bhall]

Ben Ben

The court has to agree to costs being awarded, if they say no then it's NO

The lender can not add these to the mortgage as I have proven before!

The banks fiddling the LABRO rates was flying to the moon

The banks fiddling the PPI again was flying to the moon

Then they are found out to lie in court they are flying to the moon

You are a one lol borrowers have found out they have been conned to for far to long and the games are up!

 

 

Hello Is It Me?

 

I am not claiming the banks are angels or anything like that - I am talking about what the actual legal requirements are in regard to deeds

 

In terms of the court saying no to costs, I hope for your friends benefit you are familiar with what your friend is required to do for that to occur - However, I am sure you do know, given the number of times you have helped people in Court.

 

Ben

 

 

This applies to courts

 

 

Halsbury's Laws of England/mortgage (VOLUME 77 (2010) 5TH EDITION)/13. COSTS, CHARGES AND EXPENSES/(1) IN GENERAL/741. Assessment of costs.

 

741. Assessment of costs.

 

The mortgagee does not need to apply for an order for those costs that he has a contractual right to recover out of the mortgage funds, and nor do those costs have to be assessed. The mortgagor may make an application for the court to direct that an account of the mortgagee's costs be taken, and may then dispute an amount in the mortgagee's account on the basis that it has been unreasonably incurred or is unreasonable in amount. Where a mortgagor disputes an amount, the court may make an order that the disputed costs be assessed; and where the court assesses costs payable under the terms of the mortgage, the costs payable are, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, to be presumed to be costs which have been reasonably incurred, and are reasonable in amount, and the court will assess them accordingly. The court may make an order that all or part of the costs payable under the contract be disallowed if it is satisfied by the paying party that costs have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount5.

A mortgagor is also entitled to apply for an assessment of a bill of costs rendered to the mortgagee by his solicitor if the mortgagor is liable to pay it.

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

 

Respond by all means, just remember, the thread has not been closed as you wished and the debate will continue with or without your input...BP

 

The debate ended some pages ago sadly, what we have now is the repeating of information for those who never really understood the argument, Ben has more patience than me for this task so, please I ask again , unless you have something useful or relevant to say please just address your comments to the topic and not to me personally. Many thanks

[caro]

It seems to me that if posts don't make sense, it is reasonable to seek clarity, not just for those posting, but others who may be interested, but too intimidated to post in case they receive an aggressive response or are made to feel stupid.

 

With this in mind, I would remind everyone to keep the thread civil.

 

Personally I can't see any point in further debate without the decision of the chamber, unless of course isitme is prepared to give an account of what happened. If not then we will see the published decision in due course.

[IS IT ME?]

Hello Is It Me?

 

I am not claiming the banks are angels or anything like that - I am talking about what the actual legal requirements are in regard to deeds

 

In terms of the court saying no to costs, I hope for your friends benefit you are familiar with what your friend is required to do for that to occur - However, I am sure you do know, given the number of times you have helped people in Court.

 

Ben

 

YES WIN!!!! Lol and we will

[bigphil61]

Hi BP

 

With equal respect, I am not concerned about the lenders at all.

 

The deed has not been signed by the lender, as it is not a legal requirement as per s.1 of the LP (MP) A 1989

 

The lullaby reference was relevant in the context in which it was used.

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

 

As you and I know, you have discussed this many times with IsItMe and Apple so their is no need for me to go over old ground at this point, the Property Chamber has not struck out the applications!

 

The question logically then is, why have they not struck them out, based on your assertions, Halsbury's, Lamb, Fergus, etc, etc?

 

Could it be, that they do in fact have merit, perhaps?....BP

[IS IT ME?]

Ben please read what you post from your lovely legal database

The mortgagor may make an application for the court to direct that an account of the mortgagee's costs be taken, and may then dispute an amount in the mortgagee's account on the basis that it has been unreasonably incurred or is unreasonable in amount2. Where a mortgagor disputes an amount, the court may make an order that the disputed costs be assessed3; and where the court assesses costs payable under the terms of the mortgage, the costs payable are, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, to be presumed to be costs which have been reasonably incurred, and are reasonable in amount, and the court will assess them accordingly4. The court may make an order that all or part of the costs payable under the contract be disallowed if it is satisfied by the paying party that costs have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount5.

ITS NOT THAT THEY GET IT!,,,,

Ben we all know which side you are on and it's NOT the borrowers lol

[Peterbard]

Hi Ben,

 

 

As you and I know, you have discussed this many times with IsItMe and Apple so their is no need for me to go over old ground at this point, the Property Chamber has not struck out the applications!

 

The question logically then is, why have they not struck them out, based on your assertions, Halsbury's, Lamb, Fergus, etc, etc?

 

Could it be, that they do in fact have merit, perhaps?....BP

 

He He

I am going to give my opinion here.

 

Going of my experience with CCA issues, where many people are making claims due to misinterpretation of statute and common law, I have seen several instances where a court will hold back judgment in order to issue a comprehensive and solid rebuttal of all the offending "arguments"

 

This is an attempt to dissuade others from continuing the mistakes and clogging up the court system with cases which are at best ill founded.

 

I could be wrong in this assumption of course, unfortunately there is to little evidence being provided to form a concrete opinion one way or the other.

[bhall]

It seems to me that if posts don't make sense, it is reasonable to seek clarity, not just for those posting, but others who may be interested, but too intimidated to post in case they receive an aggressive response or are made to feel stupid.

 

With this in mind, I would remind everyone to keep the thread civil.

 

Personally I can't see any point in further debate without the decision of the chamber, unless of course isitme is prepared to give an account of what happened. If not then we will see the published decision in due course.

 

I do agree and accept that my posts can be very intimidating and through expressions of frustration aggressive.

 

I also also agree about what you say about further debate - but for unknown reasons isitme?, is not prepared or is unwilling to give an account - as I said before, I feel that is odd considering he started a thread on a public forum, with everything posted leading up to the hearing and suddenly when the hearing finally happens, nothing much is actually said about it

[bhall]

Hi Ben,

 

 

As you and I know, you have discussed this many times with IsItMe and Apple so their is no need for me to go over old ground at this point, the Property Chamber has not struck out the applications!

 

The question logically then is, why have they not struck them out, based on your assertions, Halsbury's, Lamb, Fergus, etc, etc?

 

Could it be, that they do in fact have merit, perhaps?....BP

 

Hello BP

 

I have answered this exact question a number of times in this thread already but I will do so again

 

As you know upon receipt of Is It Me?'s original application the Property Chamber was minded to strike it out and indeed wrote to his friend to confirm this.

 

With Apple's assistance a submission was made and subsequently the Property Chamber decided to proceed to a hearing.

 

It should be noted that Is It Me? has stated that the Property Chamber has said his was the first such application.

 

Now the question is, did the Property Chamber decide to proceed to a hearing because of the subsequent submission made, which did not address or respond to the points raised by the Property Chamber or did it decide to proceed to a hearing because other similar applications had been made ?

 

I lean towards it is because of other applications being made and that the chamber has not previously made a decision that could be applied to such applications.

 

I say this because

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/23/made

 

Lead cases

 

23. (1) This rule applies if—

 

(a)two or more cases have been started before the Tribunal;

(b)in each such case the Tribunal has not made a decision disposing of the proceedings; and

 

©the cases give rise to common or related issues.

 

(2) The Tribunal may direct that one or more such cases be specified as a lead case, and stay the other cases (“the related cases”).

 

This appears to be what has happened two cases were heard on 20 jan with the other related cases stayed.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/24/made

 

Subsequent applications related to lead case

 

24. (1) This rule applies where a decision has been given in a lead case in accordance with rule 23 and a subsequent application is made which includes any of the common or related issues.

 

(2) The Tribunal may send written notice to the parties to the subsequent application of—

 

(a)the matters which it appears to the Tribunal are the common or related issues in the subsequent application and the previously decided lead case;

 

(b)the decision recorded in respect of the common or related issues in the lead case;

 

©the Tribunal’s proposal to record its decision on the common or related issues in the subsequent application in materially identical terms to the decision in the lead case;

 

(d)the date (being not less than 21 days after the date that the notice was sent) by which any objection to this proposal must be received by the Tribunal; and

 

(e)a requirement that any objection must include the grounds on which it is made.

 

If you read the responses Is It Me? and UNRAM both received from the Property Chamber, it would suggest this is what the Property Chamber is intending to do and why the two applications were heard on 20 jan

 

*EDIT

 

Sorry I forgot to say - the chamber has struck out one such application

[IS IT ME?]

I do agree and accept that my posts can be very intimidating and through expressions of frustration aggressive.

 

I also also agree about what you say about further debate - but for unknown reasons isitme?, is not prepared or is unwilling to give an account - as I said before, I feel that is odd considering he started a thread on a public forum, with everything posted leading up to the hearing and suddenly when the hearing finally happens, nothing much is actually said about it

Ben,

As I have said before and will again,

If and when I can post FREELY then I will you should be asking why I am still unable to do so and I note along with others that you are very silent on this!

I also not the only people asking for information are the same old three and as I fully believe their motives are not what they seem you will have to wait for the chamber as you keep on saying and as you are in contact with them there is no need to worry

[bhall]

YES WIN!!!! Lol and we will

 

Sorry I thought you said you had already won and that the lender now had 28 days to apply for that decision to be set aside - if the lender has 28 days to apply for it to be set aside you must be saying it is a decision in favour of the borrower and against the lender

 

- sorry your conflicting posts confuse me

 

May be you can post to clarify what actually happened - why are you so reluctant ?

[bhall]

Ben please read what you post from your lovely legal database

The mortgagor may make an application for the court to direct that an account of the mortgagee's costs be taken, and may then dispute an amount in the mortgagee's account on the basis that it has been unreasonably incurred or is unreasonable in amount2. Where a mortgagor disputes an amount, the court may make an order that the disputed costs be assessed3; and where the court assesses costs payable under the terms of the mortgage, the costs payable are, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, to be presumed to be costs which have been reasonably incurred, and are reasonable in amount, and the court will assess them accordingly4. The court may make an order that all or part of the costs payable under the contract be disallowed if it is satisfied by the paying party that costs have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount5.

ITS NOT THAT THEY GET IT!,,,,

Ben we all know which side you are on and it's NOT the borrowers lol

 

With respect I have read it, I think there is one or two things that you missed or may have overlooked

 

If I was on the side of the lenders, I would not bother posting in this thread, I would just sit back and watch people proceed and ultimately fail

[bigphil61]

He He

I am going to give my opinion here.

 

Going of my experience with CCA issues, where many people are making claims due to misinterpretation of statute and common law, I have seen several instances where a court will hold back judgment in order to issue a comprehensive and solid rebuttal of all the offending "arguments"

 

This is an attempt to dissuade others from continuing the mistakes and clogging up the court system with cases which are at best ill founded.

 

I could be wrong in this assumption of course, unfortunately there is to little evidence being provided to form a concrete opinion one way or the other.

 

 

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Caro has stated that this thread has not moved on and we should wait for the decision, I agree, it has not moved on, lets wait and see....BP

[bigphil61]

Hello BP

 

I have answered this exact question a number of times in this thread already but I will do so again

 

As you know upon receipt of Is It Me?'s original application the Property Chamber was minded to strike it out and indeed wrote to his friend to confirm this.

 

With Apple's assistance a submission was made and subsequently the Property Chamber decided to proceed to a hearing.

 

It should be noted that Is It Me? has stated that the Property Chamber has said his was the first such application.

 

Now the question is, did the Property Chamber decide to proceed to a hearing because of the subsequent submission made, which did not address or respond to the points raised by the Property Chamber or did it decide to proceed to a hearing because other similar applications had been made ?

 

I lean towards it is because of other applications being made and that the chamber has not previously made a decision that could be applied to such applications.

 

I say this because

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/23/made

 

Lead cases

 

23. (1) This rule applies if—

 

(a)two or more cases have been started before the Tribunal;

 

(b)in each such case the Tribunal has not made a decision disposing of the proceedings; and

 

©the cases give rise to common or related issues.

 

(2) The Tribunal may direct that one or more such cases be specified as a lead case, and stay the other cases (“the related cases”).

 

This appears to be what has happened two cases were heard on 20 jan with the other related cases stayed.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1169/article/24/made

 

Subsequent applications related to lead case

 

24. (1) This rule applies where a decision has been given in a lead case in accordance with rule 23 and a subsequent application is made which includes any of the common or related issues.

 

(2) The Tribunal may send written notice to the parties to the subsequent application of—

 

(a)the matters which it appears to the Tribunal are the common or related issues in the subsequent application and the previously decided lead case;

 

(b)the decision recorded in respect of the common or related issues in the lead case;

 

©the Tribunal’s proposal to record its decision on the common or related issues in the subsequent application in materially identical terms to the decision in the lead case;

 

(d)the date (being not less than 21 days after the date that the notice was sent) by which any objection to this proposal must be received by the Tribunal; and

 

(e)a requirement that any objection must include the grounds on which it is made.

 

If you read the responses Is It Me? and UNRAM both received from the Property Chamber, it would suggest this is what the Property Chamber is intending to do and why the two applications were heard on 20 jan

 

*EDIT

 

Sorry I forgot to say - the chamber has struck out one such application

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

One out of the ten applications that you know of, I'd say that's a very good percentage still going through the system, wouldn't you?...BP

[bhall]

Hi Dodgeball,

 

Caro has stated that this thread has not moved on and we should wait for the decision, I agree, it has not moved on, lets wait and see....BP

 

Why don't we all mutually agree to wait until the decision is issued ? Sounds reasonable

[bhall]

Hi Ben,

 

One out of the ten applications that you know of, I'd say that's a very good percentage still going through the system, wouldn't you?...BP

 

From a numbers perspective, I would agree

 

However, ask yourself this question - if there was any real merit in the application, why would one be struck out on the basis that it is - "frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process"

 

If there is any real merit and the chamber was really going to decide that the deed is void, how can the Property Chamber say it was frivolous and vexatious

[bhall]

Why don't we all mutually agree to wait until the decision is issued ? Sounds reasonable

 

Anyway - how about the above ?

 

I am willing

 

let's all wait until a decision is either issued or until Is It Me? stops playing secret squirrels