Jump to content


Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2793 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

That must be it :flypig:

 

LOL ; )

 

I'm not quite sure what on earth you intend me to say to that hey 'big boy' ; )

 

Apple

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

'

 

I do grasp the concept of delivery - Just accept; like the big boy that you purport to be (given you refer to me as a little apple) and take on board that my opinion is different to yours.

 

You stick to what you know Ben; and I'll stick to what I know - ok?

 

Apple

 

Nothing wrong with having an opinion Apple, perhaps it would have been an idea to keep it to yourself, or at least present it as a theory, not a fact. That way no one would follow your advice and come a cropper.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever see the bit from the "holy Grail"(Monty Python) where the knight is getting his arm and then his legs chopped off, "only a flesh wound he says".

 

Brought it to mind, don't know why.

 

ooooh look - another 'biiiigggg boooyy' ; )

 

All this big boy bovver - bit much for me I think - I'm sure there was NO DEFENCE - but, they've started to spell it the USA way 'DEFENSE' - scarey huh!!! - LOL

 

Enough of this you two - I've other important stuff to do - you two go ahead and have a few more pints in your beer garden - I hear if you drink enough beer pigs do indeed start to fly......LOL

 

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooooh look - another 'biiiigggg boooyy' ; )

 

All this big boy bovver - bit much for me I think - I'm sure there was NO DEFENCE - but, they've started to spell it the USA way 'DEFENSE' - scarey huh!!! - LOL

 

Enough of this you two - I've other important stuff to do - you two go ahead and have a few more pints in your beer garden - I hear if you drink enough beer pigs do indeed start to fly......LOL

 

 

Apple

 

Ahh is this the thrust of your new argument, spelling. :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The Transfer dated .......... attached hereto was validly executed under a power of attorney dated .......... by the donee of the said power on behalf of the donor.

 

Hey Apple,those quotes I made earlier are the general principals of the Land registry here in NI,,,,,,

does noone take issue as to regards the so-called power of attorney,,,,,,,which nobody in their right mind would KNOWINGLY grant to these people,,,,,,,

just that one line above shows the unfairness and arrogance of these agreements,,,,,,,the "donee" means one who has been gifted a gift and the "donor" is the vast

majority of us who were deceived into signing these unenforceable deeds.DONOR,,,,,who the hell do these people think they are,,,donor,,,

Link to post
Share on other sites

PRECEDENT 45

 

CERTIFICATE RELATING TO A POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

LAND REGISTRY

 

Folio: County:

 

Registered Owner:

 

I the undersigned .......... a partner/solicitor in the firm of .......... of .......... hereby certify as follows:

 

1. The Transfer dated .......... attached hereto was validly executed under a power of attorney dated .......... by the donee of the said power on behalf of the donor.

 

2. The donor of the said power is the same person as .......... named in the said Transfer.

 

3. The power of attorney has not been revoked.

 

OR

 

There is a conclusive presumption under Section 4 of the Powers of Attorney Act (NI) 1971 as to the validity of the transaction.

 

OR

 

There is a conclusive presumption under Article 11 of the Enduring Powers of Attorney (NI) Order 1987 as to the validity of the transaction.

 

Dated:

 

Signed:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certificate: Land

A Land Certificate is the Registered Owner's Deed of Title to registered land. It must be lodged with any dealing by the registered owner and most other registrations. Although it is a copy of the Folio, it may not be up to date and it must be updated, if necessary, whenever it is lodged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooooh look - another 'biiiigggg boooyy' ; )

 

All this big boy bovver - bit much for me I think - I'm sure there was NO DEFENCE - but, they've started to spell it the USA way 'DEFENSE' - scarey huh!!! - LOL

 

Enough of this you two - I've other important stuff to do - you two go ahead and have a few more pints in your beer garden - I hear if you drink enough beer pigs do indeed start to fly......LOL

 

 

Apple

 

Oh that is what I have been doing wrong for all these months, I need to go to the beer garden and have a few pints before Apple's fanciful ideas even start to be believable. I think on that basis for me to believe half of what you posted in this thread, I would have to become an alcoholic and even then, I doubt it would help :crazy::crazy:

 

As for big boy.... sorry I didn't realise my trousers were that tight in that department :jaw:.

 

I will sit in a different position. I do apologise :shock:

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple - what are your personal views about IsItMe's lack of contribution on the thread? As Ben has said, I'm sure they would have been all over this thread should there have been a successful outcome. I hope they're OK. Genuinely.

 

Indeed, I also hope Is It Me? / his friend and the other applicant are all ok

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread for a long time. I think it was Molly who suggested there maybe a non disclosure clause but would there be a non non disclosure clause. If not why couldn't someone just say yes there has been a decision but I cant discuss it.

 

Will you please stop talking about bigboys, makes me come over all unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread for a long time. I think it was Molly who suggested there maybe a non disclosure clause but would there be a non non disclosure clause. If not why couldn't someone just say yes there has been a decision but I cant discuss it.

 

Will you please stop talking about bigboys, makes me come over all unnecessary.

 

Hello Annie

 

The information coming from the Property Chamber - being that two applications were heard on 20 Jan and that a decision has now been sent to the parties involved, would suggest that there isn't a non disclosure clause. Such clauses are usually found in tomlin order's etc and not judgements (unless there were special circumstances and the court / chamber feel it is necessary) or in this case decisions. Given that there are a number of other applications in the pipe line (7 as of 7 Jan) non disclosure of the decision would not make sense, as the purpose of the first two applications being heard was for the Property Chamber to reach a decision on the topic of the application, which it could then take into consideration upon the receipt of further applications

 

Is It Me? has previously posted that before the hearing he was contacted by the representative of the lender, to discuss a potential settlement. However, Is It Me? rejected that attempt to settle.

 

There are in my view only a few reasons why Is It Me? has not posted about the decision.

 

1) His friend has not yet received the decision - unlikely as we know it had prior to last Friday been sent to the parties involved

2) Is It Me?'s friend was successful and they have been celebrating ever since. Unlikely given what the applicable legislation actually states

3) Is It Me?s Friend was unsuccessful. A real possibility

4) Is It Me?'s friend's application was not one of those that were heard on 20 Jan.

 

Is It Me? has logged into CAG (so we know being unable to access CAG is not the problem) and did not post to either confirm or refute that a decision had been issued, so we are left in the dark until such a time more information is posted. However, Is It Me? didn't post to inform followers of his thread that a date had been set for the hearing and he only posted very vague comments about the actual hearing, so we don't have any real detail apart from what others have been able to obtain from the property chamber.

 

Given his previous posts, I feel that if his friend was successful and that the property chamber did declare the deed void, as it had not been signed by the Lender, we would have heard about it within 5 seconds of him receiving the decision. I would also imagine that such a ground breaking decision would have by now been reported in the press but not so much as a whisper.

 

No more bigboy comments, I promise

 

I am hoping that whatever the decision is, Is It Me?'s friend is still in a position to save their home, putting the banter to one side for a moment that is all that is really important - it is after all peoples homes that are at risk here

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it Me hasn't logged in for a few days. They may have viewed the thread without logging in - that's a distinct possibility. Obviously I cannot possibly comment on whether or not a connection to CAG has been made from their IP address. I wouldn't know how to find *that* out.

 

As regards the decision from the 20th January, I've a sneaky suspicion that the outcome will become known at some point soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it Me hasn't logged in for a few days. They may have viewed the thread without logging in - that's a distinct possibility. Obviously I cannot possibly comment on whether or not a connection to CAG has been made from their IP address. I wouldn't know how to find *that* out.

 

As regards the decision from the 20th January, I've a sneaky suspicion that the outcome will become known at some point soon.

 

Hi Seq

 

I was referring to the last time he was logged in as stated on his profile - Last Activity 22nd February 2014 12:16 - this was after Crapstone had posted that she has spoken to the Property Chamber and it has confirmed that a decision had been sent to the parties. In terms of my comment that Is It me? is still reading this thread, whilst not being logged on, that is pure speculation on my part

 

I do hope your right that the outcome will be known soon

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cool, thanks for that. Given the amount Is It Me? has contributed to the thread, and given how they've conducted themself upon it - I would imagine that they've probably had a look as a guest. That's pure speculation on my part. But if you are there, Is It Me. Hello. Please let us know your thoughts and feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Annie

 

The information coming from the Property Chamber - being that two applications were heard on 20 Jan and that a decision has now been sent to the parties involved, would suggest that there isn't a non disclosure clause. Such clauses are usually found in tomlin order's etc and not judgements (unless there were special circumstances and the court / chamber feel it is necessary) or in this case decisions. Given that there are a number of other applications in the pipe line (7 as of 7 Jan) non disclosure of the decision would not make sense, as the purpose of the first two applications being heard was for the Property Chamber to reach a decision on the topic of the application, which it could then take into consideration upon the receipt of further applications

 

Is It Me? has previously posted that before the hearing he was contacted by the representative of the lender, to discuss a potential settlement. However, Is It Me? rejected that attempt to settle.

 

There are in my view only a few reasons why Is It Me? has not posted about the decision.

 

1) His friend has not yet received the decision - unlikely as we know it had prior to last Friday been sent to the parties involved

2) Is It Me?'s friend was successful and they have been celebrating ever since. Unlikely given what the applicable legislation actually states

3) Is It Me?s Friend was unsuccessful. A real possibility

4) Is It Me?'s friend's application was not one of those that were heard on 20 Jan.

 

Is It Me? has logged into CAG (so we know being unable to access CAG is not the problem) and did not post to either confirm or refute that a decision had been issued, so we are left in the dark until such a time more information is posted. However, Is It Me? didn't post to inform followers of his thread that a date had been set for the hearing and he only posted very vague comments about the actual hearing, so we don't have any real detail apart from what others have been able to obtain from the property chamber.

 

Given his previous posts, I feel that if his friend was successful and that the property chamber did declare the deed void, as it had not been signed by the Lender, we would have heard about it within 5 seconds of him receiving the decision. I would also imagine that such a ground breaking decision would have by now been reported in the press but not so much as a whisper.

 

No more bigboy comments, I promise

 

I am hoping that whatever the decision is, Is It Me?'s friend is still in a position to save their home, putting the banter to one side for a moment that is all that is really important - it is after all peoples homes that are at risk here

 

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

Edited by sequenci
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why Apple wasn't the one to represent IIM's friend at the hearing as no one understands the argument better than Apple, it follows that Apple would have been the best man for the job.

 

I also hope that the applications were successful, but just as well we were not holding our breath for the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why Apple wasn't the one to represent IIM's friend at the hearing as no one understands the argument better than Apple, it follows that Apple would have been the best man for the job.

 

I also hope that the applications were successful, but just as well we were not holding our breath for the outcome.

 

 

Indeed, I would go further and say that Apple is the only one who fully understands his argument. :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why Apple wasn't the one to represent IIM's friend at the hearing as no one understands the argument better than Apple, it follows that Apple would have been the best man for the job.

 

I also hope that the applications were successful, but just as well we were not holding our breath for the outcome.

 

Is It Me? logged in again yesterday - "Last Activity Yesterday 19:04", hopefully for the sake of the other people that have made an application to the chamber and for those that may be thinking about making an application, he has finally posted something about the decision and it is just waiting to be approved by the site team. I am sure given how much he has posted about him helping people, he will not now keep such important information to himself.

 

You do raise a very important point and a valid point about Apple, it would have made sense, not that I think it would have had any bearing on whatever the decision is though.

 

I guess, we must all continue to hold our breath until IIM's decides to break his self imposed silence :bored:

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is It Me? logged in again yesterday - "Last Activity Yesterday 19:04", hopefully for the sake of the other people that have made an application to the chamber and for those that may be thinking about making an application, he has finally posted something about the decision and it is just waiting to be approved by the site team. I am sure given how much he has posted about him helping people, he will not now keep such important information to himself.

 

You do raise a very important point and valid point about Apple, it would have made sense, not that I think it would have had any bearing on whatever the decision is though.

 

I guess, we must all continue to hold our breath until IIM's decides to break his self imposed silence :bored:

 

Maybe it's got lost in the postal system and they are still waiting for the decision to land in the letterbox? Or their dog ate it before they could get to it or the lender stole the posties bag.

 

 

Either way there will be a perfectly plausible explanation for the absence of any information forthcoming I'm sure. :suspicious:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Annie

 

The information coming from the Property Chamber - being that two applications were heard on 20 Jan and that a decision has now been sent to the parties involved, would suggest that there isn't a non disclosure clause. Such clauses are usually found in tomlin order's etc and not judgements (unless there were special circumstances and the court / chamber feel it is necessary) or in this case decisions. Given that there are a number of other applications in the pipe line (7 as of 7 Jan) non disclosure of the decision would not make sense, as the purpose of the first two applications being heard was for the Property Chamber to reach a decision on the topic of the application, which it could then take into consideration upon the receipt of further applications

 

Is It Me? has previously posted that before the hearing he was contacted by the representative of the lender, to discuss a potential settlement. However, Is It Me? rejected that attempt to settle.

 

There are in my view only a few reasons why Is It Me? has not posted about the decision.

 

1) His friend has not yet received the decision - unlikely as we know it had prior to last Friday been sent to the parties involved

2) Is It Me?'s friend was successful and they have been celebrating ever since. Unlikely given what the applicable legislation actually states

3) Is It Me?s Friend was unsuccessful. A real possibility

4) Is It Me?'s friend's application was not one of those that were heard on 20 Jan.

 

Is It Me? has logged into CAG (so we know being unable to access CAG is not the problem) and did not post to either confirm or refute that a decision had been issued, so we are left in the dark until such a time more information is posted. However, Is It Me? didn't post to inform followers of his thread that a date had been set for the hearing and he only posted very vague comments about the actual hearing, so we don't have any real detail apart from what others have been able to obtain from the property chamber.

 

Given his previous posts, I feel that if his friend was successful and that the property chamber did declare the deed void, as it had not been signed by the Lender, we would have heard about it within 5 seconds of him receiving the decision. I would also imagine that such a ground breaking decision would have by now been reported in the press but not so much as a whisper.

 

No more bigboy comments, I promise

 

I am hoping that whatever the decision is, Is It Me?'s friend is still in a position to save their home, putting the banter to one side for a moment that is all that is really important - it is after all peoples homes that are at risk here

 

There is a 5th possibility. Settlement outside of the PC with the case dropped and the arrears settled by the borrower. If I were the lenders council then I'd be DUMBSTRUCK if that happened. :faint:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever see the bit from the "holy Grail"(Monty Python) where the knight is getting his arm and then his legs chopped off, "only a flesh wound he says".

 

Brought it to mind, don't know why.

 

Lol. I remember that. Can't beat those films! I just keep thinking we are being treated as mushrooms! Kept in the dark and fed on ..... (Insert a word as appropriate)

Link to post
Share on other sites

When is registration compulsory?

 

When there is a sale of property, within Northern Ireland (whether by conveyance, assignment or lease) the title must be registered in the Land Registry.

 

When is registration not compulsory?

 

Registration is not compulsory in the following circumstances:

 

transactions where no money consideration is paid (eg gifts, Assents, etc.)

mortgages and Charging Orders

leases for a term not exceeding 21 years

exchanges or partitions of land, provided there is no monetary consideration

surrenders of Leases

Advantages of registering land

 

legal title is guaranteed and an accurate plan of the extent of ownership is created

an up-to-date public record of ownership is created

rights of way are clearly identified

covenants and mortgages are recorded

risk of fraud is greatly reduced

simple forms replace complicated deeds

repeated examination of title deeds is unnecessary

disputes can be resolved more easily

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello IS IT ME?, I see you are on line. Is there anything you feel you would like to contribute ?

 

How did you get on ? Do you have any thoughts or advice for others considering making these applications to the chamber ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2793 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...