Jump to content


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 2086 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

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

 

Thanks Sequency,and IIM?

 

I wonder could you elaborate for us. You say you have not heard anything, just to clarify, does this mean that the decision has not yet been reached/ handed down ?

 

Was your case one of the ones heard on the 20th Jan?

 

Could you tell us what the status is of your hearing then please, or is there some reason why you cannot say.

Edited by Dodgeball
Jan

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is It Me posted yesterday at 18.05.

 

Thanks for the heads up Sequenci, it must have been authorised earlier today, as I did not see it earlier this morning


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the heads up Sequenci, it must have been authorised earlier today, as I did not see it earlier this morning

 

Sometimes posts will show up late for various reasons, I'll always try and flag it if there are long delays. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

Welcome back to CAG Is It Me?, you have been missed

 

I don't know what you have and have not received from the Chambers.

 

However, Crapstone spoke with the chamber last Friday (so no accusations of 'shoehorning' can be laid at my door) and as posted, the Property Chamber has confirmed that the decision has been sent to the parties concerned. As your friends application was heard on 20 Jan and a decision has been sent out by the Property Chamber, it is strange he/she has still not received anything yet

 

I was told that the decisions had been sent out to the parties concerned Fletch and that it would not be made available online. Anyone requiring a copy of the decision would need to have a direct interest and make a case to the judge for a copy to be disclosed.

 

I am DUMBSTRUCK that your friend has still not heard


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes posts will show up late for various reasons, I'll always try and flag it if there are long delays. :)

 

Thanks I appreciate it, I have missed some of his previous posts and I know he likes to have a response.


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

 

Why is it a joke? There is no agenda. No one is working for anyone. Why has it become obvious?

 

The situation, how I see it is this: a decision was sent to the parties. By now, Is It Me? should be able to furnish us with information as to the outcome. For whatever reason, he is not doing so. I hope that clarifies the current position. Now, should we not get the decision via anyone involved directly - there may be the chance to get it via other sources - it just may take a little extra time.

 

So there we have it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

 

I think that it would suit certain persons purposes not to have the results, because it would enable them to continue the dangerous fiction.

 

However, this forum has a more responsible attitude towards its members.

 

There are plenty of forums that will promote these silly unsubstantiated ideas so perhaps one of them may be better suited to you.

Edited by Dodgeball
unsubstatiated
  • Haha 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

If you was involved in the hearing Is It Me? today is the day you have to start being full and frank on this thread. This circus has gone on for long enough


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you was involved in the hearing Is It Me? today is the day you have to start being full and frank on this thread. This circus has gone on for long enough

 

I think it unlikely that we will receive any reliable information from the OP or Apple Ben, it looks like it is down to others like yourself to find out the facts.

 

You would think that even if the application was unsuccessful they would feel an obligation towards others that they may have encouraged into taking the same course of action.

Edited by Dodgeball
spel

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it unlikely that wee will receive any reliable information from the OP or Apple Ben, it looks like it is down to others like yourself to find out the facts.

 

I know what you mean but I would personally prefer those facts to come from IIM?


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

 

The day IIM? and Apple started posting on a public forum and actively encouraging people to make applications to the Property Chamber based upon fanciful ideas, misunderstandings of the law and risking costs, it became others business.


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

 

If they did not recommend this course on action to others and placed it on a public forum I may agree.

 

Lets not forget this was nor presented as a theory, but a fact. Many would be effected by this.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We will have to wait and see what the judgment says. I don't think there's a great deal to be achieved in the meantime.

 

Very true


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, is that what Crapstone is implying??

 

She is misguided if she thinks I have a crystal ball.... lol

 

You'd think if she had the decision and it was in the lenders favor - it would make sense to post it up - I know I wouldn't hesitate at all.

 

 

Apple

 

As IIM? is not updating his own thread and as Apple has said that they would not hesitate to post the decision, here it is

 

I have removed names and addresses to protect the identity of those involved


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has repeatedly interpreted this and that to mean pretty much anything Apple wanted it to mean. This is what the Property Chamber thought of the 'Apple Arguments'

 

Screenshot_85_zps0f4332cb.jpg

 

"At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is however, an argument without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security, for a loan"


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite my previous arguments to the contrary and even the provision of the dictionary definition of the word "or" - Apple insisted that a mortgage by demise was the same thing as a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage and that a borrower could not grant a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage

 

Screenshot_86_zpsb8c16070.jpg

 

"it follows, therefore, that the assertion that the Deeds are invalid because they are mortgages by demise is simply unsustainable"


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has repeatedly claimed that s.23(2) of the LRA 2002 are the powers of the borrower and not the lender. Is It Me? previously implied that the lender was DUMBSTRUCK during the hearing in regard to s.23(2) and that they are the powers of the borrower

 

Screenshot_87_zps3d29520e.jpg

 

"The owners of the registered charges, in these cases are the Respondents, not the Applicants. The Respondents may create a sub-charge by charging the indebtedness secured by the primary mortgage."

 

The Respondents were the lenders, confirming that s.23(2) are indeed the powers of the lender, as the registered proprietor of the registered charge.


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot_89_zps06aae82b.jpg

 

"There is no merit whatsoever in any of the points taken by or on behalf of the Applicants to seek to impugn the validity of the two charges"


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has previously asserted that you take a pinch of this legislation and mix it with a bit of other legislation and then hey presto the deed is void.

 

Screenshot_88_zps71f76d19.jpg

 

"I should add that reliance on section 74 and 74A of the Law of Property Act 1925 is entirely misconceived"


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has previously dismissed posts about equity -

 

Screenshot_90_zps06aae82b.jpg

 

"Southern Pacific and Accord argue that, if they are wrong on their primary case as to the validity of the Deeds, the charges granted by the Applicants would nonetheless be valid as equitable mortgage, I have no doubt that this is correct."

 

Screenshot_91_zpsc341a324.jpg

 

"it is to be noted that other such case's will also be dealt with on the same basis, and will be dismissed"


 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear - I hope no one goes on to lose their home due to reliance on this as a defence :(


Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

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 2086 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...