Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • PAPLOC = Pre Action Protocol Letter Of Claim. Heres a handy guide to sme of the acronyms you'll see on the forum... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/147286-posting-in-this-forum-and-a-z-of-motoring-terms/#comment-4399743  
    • Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout   Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout, report claims – business live | Business | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Britain’s largest water company is trying to avoid a potential multibillion-pound taxpayer bailout   despite giving out large dividends to shareholders and large bonuses to senior management UK water company dividends jump to £1.4bn despite criticism over sewage outflows WWW.FT.COM Payments include internal transfers between complex web of holding companies   In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers | Utilities | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Decades of underinvestment and bumper dividends have left the firm debt-laden and under investigation   ‘The whole thing stinks’: water firms to pay £15bn to shareholders as customers foot sewage bill | Water bills | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM With cost of cleanup to be passed on to bill payers, analysis shows they will also pay £624 more by 2030 to fund investor payouts    
    • Are you still claiming Tax Credits / Universal Credit? They will likely take a small monthly amount off , if you are
    • So much for protecting our borders - Guv all just dog whistles   Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to have budget slashed - Neal The Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration will have its budget cut by five per cent year on year, David Neal has revealed, Holly Bancroft reports. Mr Neal is giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in a one-off session on immigration after being sacked by James Cleverly. The home secretary said Mr Neal had “breached the terms of appointment and lost the confidence of the home secretary” after Mr Neal warned of “dangerous” failings by border force that he claimed were allowing “high-risk” aircraft to land in Britain without security checks. The Home Office had “categorically rejected” the claims, saying that Mr Neal “has chosen to put misleading data into the public domain”. You can read more here: Home Office sacks immigration chief after criticism of border security
    • "In an explosive revelation, Mr Staunton also alleged that the current Post Office CEO threatened to resign over a HR investigation into his own conduct. Mr Staunton said Post Office chief executive Nick Read had fallen out with the HR director “and she produced a document that was 80 pages in length” and there was just one paragraph in there about his own conduct and use of “politically incorrect comments”. Mr Staunton said Mr Read was “really quite upset” and threatened to resign a number of times. But just an hour before Mr Staunton’s testimony, Mr Read had denied - under oath - that he had ever having tried to resign."   I’m victim of smear campaign says sacked Post Office chair as he accuses CEO of lying WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Henry Staunton, sacked by business secretary Kemi Badenoch, gives evidence to Commons committee     see also from the post above "Carl Creswell, an official from the Department for Business and Trade said Tidswell had told Ben Tidswell that some board members might resign if Henry Staunton were not sacked)" Tidswell says he was right (See 11.14am.)"   So baden-ouch seems to be at the very least twisting the truth - no surprise there    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Deed query


HP Mum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 122 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

Hi

I'm going through historic docs to do with a property on which there is  a repo and debt claim.  Am doing this w/o lawyers - but lawyers were involved at points. I have a query. I did notice the query a while ago and asked the then-appointed lawyer to investigate and respond within my court papers (1.5y ago).  The lawyer was inept. Messed up so many issues.  Counsel never dealt with the query. I've been dealing with so many issues that I had forgotten the query.  But I've been triple-checking all the papers again this week as I have important deadlines looming.

There were 2 charges on the flat - 2 different (ltd co) lenders (under the umbrella of a parent lender).

On a Friday the lawyer (with poa) allegedly wrote 2x Lba stating that both loans had needed to be redeemed the day before, Thursday.  The letter gave figures on redemption and stated must redeem in full within 30 days.  However, on the following Tuesday - so just 2 working days later - the lawyer executed a Deed of Assignment.  To be clear - I never received the 2x Lba or the DoA (I think not receiving the DoA is normal as its considered a 'confidential' doc?).  The first I knew about either was a few months later in a PoC.

I believe there must have been an issue with dates from default to issuing the Lba to assignment?  Irrespective, it's the DoA that's wrong: the lawyer assigned the wrong sum from Assignor to Assignee.  They registered the wrong sum at Land Reg.  The Assignee then made a claim against me (still ongoing) for a large sum. But this sum includes £s that legally have never been assigned from the Assignor. 

I've done a bit of reading this week. Seems that one can't part-assign a loan.  That the assignment switches from a legal to an equitable assignment?  That the Assignor must join in court proceedings?  If they still exist.  This is interesting as the parent company got bought out almost 2y ago.  The Assignor is still registered as a ltd co but the new parent co has added a page to their recent y/e accounts about consolidating subsidiaries, including the Assignor.  The Assignor name is on another subsidiary website, but if one follows the links one always gets led to pages pertaining to the website subsidiary.   A completely separate unassociated company in a different part of the UK has been using the Assignor's name to trade since start 23, which seems to correspond with the parent co y/e accounts date/ consolidating subsidiaries.

I'm not sure what to do next?   I'm not a lawyer. No lawyers/ counsel have spotted this error.  And the error is in my favour.   If the Assignor does still legally exist I guess the otherside will try and add them to the proceedings?  And try change Land Reg?   They can try argue that I had 2 loans of x & y £ value and it was a clerical error.  But companies assign loans/ debts at discounted levels all the time.  And in this instance the error was perpetuated in LR docs.  And has gone unnoticed for 6y.   On the face of it - whether they say I borrowed/ they loaned x&y - the DoA states the sum assigned - and that assigned sum makes the total sum with the Assignee much lower than the value of their claim!!   I have no idea what this error will do to the overall claim?  Might it mean the claimant has to go back to the drawing board and start a new claim including the assignor? 

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • HP Mum changed the title to Deed query

I've been thinking about this issue.  I missed out there was another legal step to get to where I am now.

The lender originally issued a claim for repo.  That was paused by a consent order and a payment on account.  The lender did eventually repo, tried bankruptcy, but that was struck out due to errors.  They then re-opened original repo claim as a money/debt claim.  Lawyer appointed by me at the time got it adjourned - but there's never been another hearing.  It is still "live" in the court.  Meanwhile lender issued a new money/ debt claim in a different court (currently defending).   I complained their new claim was disputing the same issues, just in different court.  They advised they were/are entitled to do so.   So we've both been filing amended claims/ defences etc ever since.   The problem now is my defence in new claim refers to the consent order (£s paid/ balance owed) - and a judge ruled its relevance in the new claim.  But, as post #1, if the £s were wrong then that impacts what judge ruled.    If the lender is entitled to issue a new money/ debt claim in different court, am I entitled to reapply to the court under original claim to reconsider the deed, balance owed, and recalculate £s??   How would/ will this impact the new claim proceedings?  (heading to trial next summer).   Its all so complicated.  

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...