Gentleman Thank you for your replies however as it can be confirm by the post office I don't think I need your in put. As for an appeal, I can not see any where on the document that it is not allowed. Also as there was other things which were stated at the hearing and will be on the tape I will await a judge to make that decision and by the way If you have a hearing and all parties have documents they rely on but then one side send documents 8 days after the hearing to which you have no knowledge of that justice is it.... If you think for one second that we will not appeal then sorry. I also find your wolf in sheep's clothing funny if it wasn't so serious As for thinking of others who are you kidding????? Lol

Thank you citezenB, There are others which can and WILL be able to PROVE as you keep asking me to do that We have NOT had the chambers ruling, as there is now another party working on this which will come to light later and an appeal will be going in and if you feel that we can not do that then that's what you think!

Thank you Ben for the post but as I have stated and you have made a joke of it I have. NOT had the ruling from the chamber and I for one will be asking where and how you got it. AS for an appeal there is NO. QUESTION that an appeal is going though and I may say at this point and to put it on notice now that what was said at the hearing to what you have posted up is like two different hearings and the tape of that hearing will prove. As for the costs they are not as much as you think! As I have not been able to post as you well know I don't think this one will go up as well but we have a note of them all and will deal with it later D/m 26.

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

Crapstone, You have implied that the chamber have told you what the ruling was by your last post, can you confirm now if this is the case!

I am surprised that Ben does not know? After all he knows every thing lol You will note that there are some cases in N I that deal with the sercur of the mortgages and you will see that they have had more success than us, only because the judges just don't rubber stamp things like here! D/M 13

BUT now they do NOT SIGN THE DEED, THAT IS THE POINT

So that's why The wool /Barclays sign Nationwide sign Halifax sign Old abbey natinal signed I could go on but it is ONLY the lenders who securitised the mortgages that CAN NOT sign because then they would not be able to transfer the mortgages. But as Ben has been busy we will wait only a couple more days D/m11

Or should it be a AP1 form lol they have to sign that D/m10

Crapstone You mean the C H 1 form which has this in it 10 Execution The borrower must execute this charge as a deed using the space opposite. If there is more than one borrower, all must execute. Forms of execution are given in Schedule 9 to the Land Registration Rules 2003. If a note of an obligation to make further advances has been applied for in panel 8 this document must be signed by the lender or its conveyancer. Your not being rude

Hi Jo I have NO prob with giving you any help I can , I would need to know what you said in the first hearing and why the first d/j did not ask questions himself, ounces which are being asked now lol Who is the lender if you can say?

Hi good evening Apple It is my understanding after speaking with the chamber on Friday that the case that was " going to be stuck out " has in fact been appealed against and it is being looked into, as I have also been told that there could be some thing WORNG with why it had been set back???, so again let's not jump the gun here as Ben has lol As Ben has said there is a lot more going on then he knows which by the look of his posts up sets him a little lol

May be that is the game plan, And for your information which you have twisted again the case as I very very clearly stated was the COUNTY COURT can you see now why I do not give you any details as you would only mis inform people again and again. So do every one a favour and leave this thread alone and do your own as it needs it thanks.

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

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