Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

I am inclined to agree with bhall on this point.

 

Yes, It was nice of Ben to 'congratulate' me.....I think he is looking into getting my honorary MBE sorted..... I'll put it under my kilt....haahahaha..

 

No seriously, without Ben, I have to admit.... we would possibly not have stated and exposed as much as we have done on this public forum....so, Thanks to Ben...and the CaG....more Borrowers have the info they need to frame their applications and get them off to the Chamber.....and use it in court to protect their homes whilst the Chamber consider the bigger picture.....and the best solution in the Public Interest......the Lender believe it or not has rights too......how they will explain to the Chamber why they did not execute the deed will either make or break them....

 

Notably...one of the submissions made by Is It Me's Friends lender was words to the effect of 'we followed common practice'....will that be enough for the Chamber to circumvent the law in their favor?...who's to say??

 

It simply cannot be said that a lenders 'certain activities' are not an 'abuse' of the LAW...so why should we sit back - aware that our HMLR and our Judiciary system; along with our citizens are under excessive financial burden and siege with the threat of losing their homes unlawfully...and we are almost expected to sit back and make no attempt to do something about it.....other than get a suspended possession order that is...lol......I think NOT!!

 

The simple fact is....if more Borrowers do not protest.....it will be swept under the carpet......and the lender will continue to take advantage.....

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

I have received a second notice from the lender's solicitor stating they are deducting and undisclosed sum to pay legal costs for their defense from the sale of my estate which will occur before the Tribunal. Charges have been made before they have even responded to the application, let alone attended a Tribunal. They have reeled off terms from the deed - referring to it as a "contract" and are refusing to disclose or itemize any amounts.

 

My reply (in brief):

 

1. All applications for costs in relation to Tribunal hearing are to be made under jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 and administered by the Tribunal Committee with disposal of the case.

2. The form of charge they have presented as a deed does meet the requirements of LRA2002 Section 91 1, 2(a), 3(b), 3©, 4(b) or 5 and cannot be relied upon.

3. The form of charge's terms and conditions were agreed a priori under terms of a mortgage contract which did not meet the requirements of LPMPA1989 section 2 and can not be relied upon.

4. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 overrides those of a deed that is non-compliant with UK law.

 

Is this a fair and reasonable retort? Amendments? Additions?

Edited October 23, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi Apple on the deed it says, you charge the property by way of legal mortgage with payment of all the money and liabilities mentioned in condition 2 of the mortgage conditions. This mortgage is made with full title guarantee.on the register it says TITLE ABSOLUTE 26.02.1999 PROPRIETOR then my name and address and over the page it is the charges register with the 3 things i said before

 

Hi Marika

 

Essentially, you have charged your entire estate to C & G......who then....sold it 'lock stock and barrel' on to Lloyds..... I can assure you...Lloyds have sold it on...but that's a whole different ball game.....

 

It appears that Lloyds did not bother to get you to sign a deed of variation....hence the reason the deed remains in the name of C & G....and conveniently on the ground....Lloyds refer to you as a 'C & G' customer....

 

Lloyd's charge on your register is not dated until 2007....as party to a 'secured asset'.....by the way...that's your house that they purport to 'own'...

 

The Deed is at fault....it is not executed by C & G.... there is no Deed of Variation signed by you and executed by Lloyds to protect an interest in a right to possession....your home is party to a registered estate of which you are the Absolute Owner...

 

You had no power to charge the 'whole' estate to C & G.... C & G had no LAWFUL power to sell or purport to sell the Whole estate to LLoyds....

 

Your protection is by virtue of the LRA 1925 section 25....

 

HOWEVER... in your case.... The title Register.... has no restriction in favor of Lloyds.... No Restriction in favor of C & G.... the legal estate is not encumbered......

 

In your case, the further advance is noted on the title register.....in 1995.....where is the form CH2....there is unlikely to be one in evidence for it should have come to you with the Deed.....it will not be there because....C & G used the form of charge signed by you and got it approved by HMLR for charging purposes...this avoids the need for the CH2 form....consequently, there will be NO CH2 form executed by C & G.

 

In your case, Lloyds....have noted their interest in the charge dated in 1995.....instead of C & G

 

Yet the DEED is not in the name of LLoyds.....the DEED is not executed by either C & G or Lloyds.....there is NO deed of variation on record....

 

Who brought the proceedings against you? C & G Or Lloyds??

 

Apple

[applecart]

I have received a second notice from the lender's solicitor stating they are deducting and undisclosed sum to pay legal costs for their defense from the sale of my estate which will occur before the Tribunal. Charges have been made before they have even responded to the application, let alone attended a Tribunal. They have reeled off terms from the deed - referring to it as a "contract" and are refusing to disclose or itemize any amounts.

 

My reply (in brief):

 

1. All applications for costs in relation to Tribunal hearing are to be made under jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 and administered by the Tribunal Committee with disposal of the case.

2. The form of charge they have presented as a deed does meet the requirements of LRA2002 Section 91 1, 2(a), 3(b), 3©, 4(b) or 5 and cannot be relied upon.

3. The form of charge's terms and conditions were agreed a priori under terms of a mortgage contract which did not meet the requirements of LPMPA1989 section 2 and can not be relied upon.

4. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 overrides those of a deed that is non-compliant with UK law.

 

Is this a fair and reasonable retort? Amendments? Additions?

 

Hi UNRAM

 

Is your house up for sale at the moment?

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi UNRAM

Is your house up for sale at the moment?

Apple

There is a possibility the estate may be sold privately before a tribunal hearing or a respondent's reply. This has been a long time coming and has nowt to do with any dispute. Life must go on... so to speak...

Edited October 23, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

Apple

I am at a meeting but I agree with your post. I have had words ( nice!) words with the chamber and there are loads of applications before them

God Ben what have you done! lol

I think this has a woken a sleeping giant here and I don't think they going to like it one bit.

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry by the way FULL TITLE GUARANTEE is the whole lot sold not just a bit here and there or any thing like BEN states.

[applecart]

There is a possibility the estate may be sold privately before a tribunal hearing or a respondent's reply. This has been a long time coming and has nowt to do with any dispute. Life must go on... so to speak...

 

Hi UNRAM

 

I hear you.

 

Your response should be in terms of:

 

With reference to your communication dated xxxxxx 2013, I acknowledge receipt, the contents have been noted and filed with the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for consideration along with other matters at issue between us.

 

Yours faithfully

 

UNRAM

 

 

send a copy of their letter to the Chamber along with your reply.

 

NB: should the sale of your home occur before the determination made by the Chamber, me thinks you will find that any acting solicitor will either have to halt the sale due to the tribunal proceedings or will unwittingly pay your lender out of the proceeds of sale......you will be stepping right into their hands.....this will only stand to complicate matters......It is all part and party to the dispute UNRAM........the proceeds of the sale is definitely party to the dispute.....

 

Apple

[TimetogoRAM]

I have received a second notice from the lender's solicitor stating they are deducting and undisclosed sum to pay legal costs for their defense from the sale of my estate which will occur before the Tribunal. Charges have been made before they have even responded to the application, let alone attended a Tribunal. They have reeled off terms from the deed - referring to it as a "contract" and are refusing to disclose or itemize any amounts.

 

My reply (in brief):

 

1. All applications for costs in relation to Tribunal hearing are to be made under jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 and administered by the Tribunal Committee with disposal of the case.

2. The form of charge they have presented as a deed does meet the requirements of LRA2002 Section 91 1, 2(a), 3(b), 3©, 4(b) or 5 and cannot be relied upon.

3. The form of charge's terms and conditions were agreed a priori under terms of a mortgage contract which did not meet the requirements of LPMPA1989 section 2 and can not be relied upon.

4. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal Rules 2013 overrides those of a deed that is non-compliant with UK law.

 

Is this a fair and reasonable retort? Amendments? Additions?

 

 

This does not surprise me at all. They have obviously completely disregarded your reply, your rights to make the application and also the Chamber rules. Surely they are 'shooting themselves in the foot!' - they not only think they have more power to mortgage your estate, but they believe they have more power than the courts too!

 

Just make it continually clear that they are firstly referring to t&c's, a contract, that is not even signed by any party. Even Ben stated that a contract has to be signed by both parties... (S2 LPMPA 89)

 

and secondly also a deed with t&c's attached that is void pursuant to s1 LPMPA 89. As this has only been signed by the borrower and therefore not executed.

 

I would also tell them that it is your right to disclose these costs. I think the sale of your estate will somewhat contradict your application as this will only encourage the lender to execute the deed on payment of full monies? Maybe you should put this sale on hold until this application has been completed?

[applecart]

Apple

I am at a meeting but I agree with your post. I have had words ( nice!) words with the chamber and there are loads of applications before them

God Ben what have you done! lol

I think this has a woken a sleeping giant here and I don't think they going to like it one bit.

 

This will no doubt include applications made by those whose lenders have taken them to court and those who have not got any arrears I presume....All are relevant : )

 

There is NO DEFENCE......the Chamber appear to be taking and handling the issue at hand extremely efficiently so far... we still need to remain vigilant of course : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

This does not surprise me at all. They have obviously completely disregarded your reply, your rights to make the application and also the Chamber rules. Surely they are 'shooting themselves in the foot!' - they not only think they have more power to mortgage your estate, but they believe they have more power than the courts too!

 

Just make it continually clear that they are firstly referring to t&c's, a contract, that is not even signed by any party. Even Ben stated that a contract has to be signed by both parties... (S2 LPMPA 89)

 

and secondly also a deed with t&c's attached that is void pursuant to s1 LPMPA 89. As this has only been signed by the borrower and therefore not executed.

 

I would also tell them that it is your right to disclose these costs. I think the sale of your estate will somewhat contradict your application as this will only encourage the lender to execute the deed on payment of full monies? Maybe you should put this sale on hold until this application has been completed?

 

I totally agree.....you are not obliged to communicate with the lender once the application is with the chamber.....if they write to you for whatever reason...you send it to the chamber...if you reply...send it to the chamber.....

 

They are encouraging UNRAM to hurry up with the sale...they want to 'sign-off' the deed....I'm surprised that they haven't put a 'stooge' buyer in place ...... so that they essentially buy it themselves if you will...it has been known.....so, as before....stop communicating with them.....you do not have one foot in the mud and the other in the stream without muddying the water......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Marika41

 

This is DRAFT only - IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.....let's talk about it before you submit or rely on it...ok?

 

IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXX

 

BETWEEN

 

[ENTER THE NAME OF THE COMPANY SEEKING POSSESSION OF YOUR HOME HERE]

 

V

 

[ENTER THE NAME OF THE DEFENDANTS (BORROWERS) HERE

 

 

DEFENCE

 

[ENTER DATE HERE]

 

[number each paragraph you rely upon as: 1, 2, 3, etc.... and make sure you set it out neatly use 'justified' text...size 11 or 12]

 

It is denied that the Claimant has a lawful claim to possession of the property known as [enter address of the property here] as alleged.

 

It is submitted that it is within the provisions of the LPA 1925 to find that the Defendant is the registered proprietor of the freehold estate and this fact is borne out from the register held at HMLR.

 

For the benefit of doubt, It is the Defendant who has power to secure indebtedness to the favour of [enter lenders name here] by virtue of being the owner of the said registered estate.

 

It is submitted that the only power that the Defendant had to secure the said indebtedness is found within the LPA 1925 section 25, (1) (a); the power relates to the grant of a Charge to secure principle monies with or without interest only.

 

This is not a case of an estate that was being registered for the first time. The Defendant has been the registered proprietor with title [enter either ‘Absolute’, ‘Possessory’ or ‘Qualified’ here] since [enter the date you first became the proprietor of the legal estate here]. A copy of the title register is attached and marked 'exhibit A' [attach a copy of the title register]

 

It is submitted that the Defendant had no power to grant a mortgage of the registered estate to the favour of the Claimant by virtue of the LRA 1925 section 25, (2):

 

“(2) A Charge may be in any form provided that -

 

(a) the registered land comprised in the charge is described by reference to the register or in any other manner sufficient to enable the registrar to identify the same without reference to any other document

(b) the charge does not refer to any other interest or charge affecting the land which –

 

(i) would have priority over the same and is not registered or protected on the register

(ii) is not an overriding interest”

 

In this case the deed grants the Claimant more power than that which the Defendant had to give, according to the LRA 1925 section 25 (3) such a finding would not be valid:

 

“(3) Any provision contained in a charge which purports to –

(i) take away from the proprietor thereof the power of transferring it by registered disposition or of requiring the cessation thereof to be noted on the register; or

(ii) affect any registered land or charge other than that in respect of which the charge is to be expressly registered,

shall be void”

 

The Deed expresses terms such as ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ and 'full title guarantee', both of which would purport that the Claimant has derived more power than the Defendant in this case, against the intent of the Defendant and statutory provision purporting to be a lawful means of securing money with or without interest against the Defendants registered legal estate.

 

It is submitted that the deed in evidence, has been approved by HMLR for charging purposes only. It is the case that HMLR’s approved form of charge does not look to the validity of the underlying agreement between the Claimant and Defendant.

 

Accordingly, the Defendant knows of no statutory provision upon which the court can act to order possession of the property to the favor of the Claimant. It is submitted that it cannot be relied that an approved form of charge by HMLR is enough to assist the Claimants claim for possession.

 

It is the LPA 1925 section 52(1) that provides the statutory provision upon which the Claimants claim relies before it can be said that the deed acts to lawfully secure the property to the favour of the Claimant with the intent of securing indebtedness to the extent that if the transaction is not conducted by valid deed; it is the legislators intent that no interest will be created or disposed of to the favour of the Claimant and no legal right to possession should be party to an order of the court.

 

It is submitted that the Claimants charge is void; and that the cause of action is misplaced, given that a deed in relation to land is a speciality contract to secure indebtednes; for its validity it must a) be signed by the Defendant and comply with LPMPA 1989 section 1 (3) and; b) be executed by the Claimant and comply with section 74 (1) and (5) of the LPA 1925. Contrary to the Claimants beliefs; it is only in relation to un-registered land that the Claimant would be legally entitled to mortgage land and lawfully be entitled to delay the execution of the deed until receipt of the total sum repaid in full.

 

There is also consideration to be given to the Claimants fiduciary duty to comply with its Memorandum and Articles of Association in relation to execution of the deed, yet, in this case there is no space for the Claimant to assume the deed. It simply is not there. An official copy of the deed is attached and marked 'exhibit B' [attach copy of the deed]

 

The Defendant has therefore taken steps in the limited time allowed to make application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination of the deed and determination as to the lawfulness of the purported mortgage. The application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) more fully sets out the issues to do with the deed and the Defendant believes that the deed is apt to be set aside.

 

It is humbly relied that the court do acknowledge the issue in this case along with the steps taken to remedy the issue to the extent that this case be adjourned until a determination is made by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I/We believe that the facts stated herein are true.

 

Name: [enter your name/s here] Date: [enter the date here]

 

Signed: [put your signature/s here]

 

Let me know, if there is anything you think I have missed out or you would like to mention.......??

 

Apple

[steampowered]

This Defence argues that it is impossible for a borrower to grant a charge by way of legal mortgage over their property. If you are correct, every single mortgage granted in the UK will be invalid. The mortgage lending market would cease to exist and noone would be able to buy a house unless they paid the full purchase price up front. I cannot envisages any circumstances in which a court or the Chamber would accept this.

 

I would strongly advise anyone reading through this thread facing repossession proceedings not to put all of their eggs in this basket and seek advice on the more conventional course of suspended possession orders and the like.

[p.j]

Sorry by the way FULL TITLE GUARANTEE is the whole lot sold not just a bit here and there or any thing like BEN states.

 

hi is it me it seems the pm facility is not working to you now?

 

pj.

[TimetogoRAM]

This Defence argues that it is impossible for a borrower to grant a charge by way of legal mortgage over their property. If you are correct, every single mortgage granted in the UK will be invalid. The mortgage lending market would cease to exist and noone would be able to buy a house unless they paid the full purchase price up front. I cannot envisages any circumstances in which a court or the Chamber would accept this.

 

I would strongly advise anyone reading through this thread facing repossession proceedings not to put all of their eggs in this basket and seek advice on the more conventional course of suspended possession orders and the like.

 

Maybe every single mortgage in the UK (who's lender hasn't executed the deed) is invalid?

 

Everyone will be able to buy a house by getting a 'mortgage' as usual. it's just up to the lender to execute the deed and start abiding by the laws that have not been abided by since LPA 1925 and then amended in even more favour of the borrower ever since!

[applecart]

This Defence argues that it is impossible for a borrower to grant a charge by way of legal mortgage over their property. If you are correct, every single mortgage granted in the UK will be invalid. The mortgage lending market would cease to exist and noone would be able to buy a house unless they paid the full purchase price up front. I cannot envisages any circumstances in which a court or the Chamber would accept this.

 

I would strongly advise anyone reading through this thread facing repossession proceedings not to put all of their eggs in this basket and seek advice on the more conventional course of suspended possession orders and the like.

 

Thanks for your input Steampowered... you raised this concern in an earlier post....

 

Forgive me if I am incorrect....but I think you forget, the Borrower is going to court to DEFEND the home that the family live in, the pets, the garden shed and tools....this is not addressed by means of an 'administrative' procedure - there is need for a DEFENCE... the Draft Defence looks to do that....

 

The Borrowers administrative remedy will be posed to the Chamber by way of application to determine the validity of the mortgage against the provision of the LRA section 25 - included within that application will be a request for a determination as to the validity of the deed....to be determined against the relevant legislation accordingly...

 

There is no LAW that says a Borrower cannot submit a Defence......it is a civil right...in fact, in this particular case; the Judge encouraged the Borrower to put in a Defence....even allowed 28 days to do so.....we are not going to waste the opportunity to do so....based on your fears outlined above......no offence..... : )

 

I hope this helps you better understand why this defence will be submitted instead of an income and expenditure sheet at this time?

 

The Borrower is looking to avoid a suspended possession order being granted when there are issues to do with the Lenders right to lawful possession that require due consideration first.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Maybe every single mortgage in the UK (who's lender hasn't executed the deed) is invalid?

 

Everyone will be able to buy a house by getting a 'mortgage' as usual. it's just up to the lender to execute the deed and start abiding by the laws that have not been abided by since LPA 1925 and then amended in even more favour of the borrower ever since!

 

I agree....lenders are in the business of doing just that: Lending.....they just need to start doing so within the LAW : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Marika41

 

Can you look to get yourself a copy of the application form that is required for making application to the Chamber please....have a look through it...if there is anything you do not understand - shout...ok?

 

Apple

[steampowered]

Borrowers can certainly submit a Defence. The problem comes if they end up with a full possession order after the Deed is held to be valid, in circumstances where a suspended possession order might have been obtained if properly argued. I just want to make sure that people following this thread also take evidence from other sources.

[marika41]

Hi Marika

 

Essentially, you have charged your entire estate to C & G......who then....sold it 'lock stock and barrel' on to Lloyds..... I can assure you...Lloyds have sold it on...but that's a whole different ball game.....

 

It appears that Lloyds did not bother to get you to sign a deed of variation....hence the reason the deed remains in the name of C & G....and conveniently on the ground....Lloyds refer to you as a 'C & G' customer....

 

Lloyd's charge on your register is not dated until 2007....as party to a 'secured asset'.....by the way...that's your house that they purport to 'own'...

 

The Deed is at fault....it is not executed by C & G.... there is no Deed of Variation signed by you and executed by Lloyds to protect an interest in a right to possession....your home is party to a registered estate of which you are the Absolute Owner...

 

You had no power to charge the 'whole' estate to C & G.... C & G had no LAWFUL power to sell or purport to sell the Whole estate to LLoyds....

 

Your protection is by virtue of the LRA 1925 section 25....

 

HOWEVER... in your case.... The title Register.... has no restriction in favor of Lloyds.... No Restriction in favor of C & G.... the legal estate is not encumbered......

 

In your case, the further advance is noted on the title register.....in 1995.....where is the form CH2....there is unlikely to be one in evidence for it should have come to you with the Deed.....it will not be there because....C & G used the form of charge signed by you and got it approved by HMLR for charging purposes...this avoids the need for the CH2 form....consequently, there will be NO CH2 form executed by C & G.

 

In your case, Lloyds....have noted their interest in the charge dated in 1995.....instead of C & G

 

Yet the DEED is not in the name of LLoyds.....the DEED is not executed by either C & G or Lloyds.....there is NO deed of variation on record....

 

Who brought the proceedings against you? C & G Or Lloyds??

 

Apple

 

Hi Apple all my letters about arrears, mortgage and threats of court action have come from c & g, all my complaints about my PPI have been from lloyds claims but the court claim is lloyds tsb bank plc so it is lloyds taking me to court, for some reason i assumed lloyds owned c & g

[Ell-enn]

It might be prudent to include a request to the court to suspend possession on terms (i.e. offer something towards the arrears in addition to the normal monthly payment) while the matter of the deeds is concluded. If you don't make an offer to pay the arrears and the judge decides not to give regard to the deeds issue, you will end up with an outright possession(or eviction) order (depending on the stage you are at). Just my opinion for what it's worth

[marika41]

Hi Marika41

 

Can you look to get yourself a copy of the application form that is required for making application to the Chamber please....have a look through it...if there is anything you do not understand - shout...ok?

 

Apple

 

Thank you so much Apple will look at these properly this afternoon, no doubt I will be shouting out as I still have not gotten my head round this properly, x

[applecart]

Borrowers can certainly submit a Defence. The problem comes if they end up with a full possession order after the Deed is held to be valid, in circumstances where a suspended possession order might have been obtained if properly argued. I just want to make sure that people following this thread also take evidence from other sources.

 

Hi Steampowered...

 

Yes, I hear you : )

 

I think the defence is more than clear as it stands. The Claimant is looking for an order for possession..... the Defendant is saying.....Judge, it's not as clear cut as the Claimant is making out.....I want to make an application to the Property Chamber for a determination first.....The Defendant is not looking to the 'District Judge' for any determination as to the legitimacy of the Claimants claim.... or to determine the validity of the deed or mortgage......that would not be within his jurisdiction.... he is not a High Court Judge or Adjudicator......The Defendant looks to the 'District Judge' to act within his jurisdiction which is to adjourn the proceedings until a determination is made by the Chamber (there decisions are just the same as any High Court Judge) as to the validity of the Deed and Mortgage....

 

 

Should it be that the Chamber find in the Defendants favor.....then it is unlikely that the Lender would look to pursue a claim for possession.....

 

Should it be that the Chamber find in favor of the Claimant (which is most unlikely - for there is NO DEFENCE).....then, at that point...the Claimants claim can be re-instated........it would only start from where it left off.....at that point..... the Borrower can consider submitting a statement of means - or even a proposal with a request for time to sell the property....and in the best case scenerio will be able to say to the Lender - 'here is the total sum of missed payments; minus 'charges' and 'interest'......

 

Don't forget also....the Borrower has a right to appeal a negative response from the Chamber....and address any unfounded, un-fair decision.....so, can the Lender.......

 

So, in this regard - there is no real issue for either party is there?

 

Making an application does not remove the courts power to take into account the Administration of Justice Act to suspend the possession order......I cannot see a Judge saying.."oh, well because you got me to adjourn the proceedings....I think you were just stalling...and because of that.... I am going to grant an outright possession!"....that is not what one would consider 'fair justice'....the Borrower is entitled to make the application to the Chamber at ANY time..... even at the point that the Lender manages to get past the suspended possession order stage.....

 

Your posts reads as though you are telling Borrowers NOT to make applications to the Chamber to determine the validity of the mortgage and the deed as party to a Defence seeking an ADJOURNMENT of Proceedings....but to instead..follow the sure fire route to a suspended possession order........and ignore the civil right to take affirmative action in the Borrowers personal interest which after all assists the overall public interest.......apologies if I read your post incorrectly : (

 

Hopefully, this now better outlines the position for you to avert your 'concern'??

 

Apple

[marika41]

Hi Apple, when referring to the lender do I put lloyds who are bringing the claim or c&g who are on the deed?

[applecart]

It might be prudent to include a request to the court to suspend possession on terms (i.e. offer something towards the arrears in addition to the normal monthly payment) while the matter of the deeds is concluded. If you don't make an offer to pay the arrears and the judge decides not to give regard to the deeds issue, you will end up with an outright possession(or eviction) order (depending on the stage you are at). Just my opinion for what it's worth

 

Thanks for your input Ell-enn....

 

In these cases; the Borrower is not looking to the 'District Judge' to make any other than a decision to adjourn proceedings - such request is made on legitimate grounds as set out in the defence to be submitted....there should be no discussion about alleged 'arrears', 'default'...'offers of payment' etc -

 

Similar to my post to Steampowered - I do recognise your concern.....but the Borrower is not 'guilty' if you will until 'proven' to be - the Borrower has the right to defend innocence....and to rely on the LAW to do so....an application to the Chamber assists the parties understand where they stand....as to who is 'guilty' and who is 'innocent'.....before discussions about payment arrangements need come into the picture me thinks : )

 

Apple