Repossessions are big business

[Series3]

A FMOTL me thinks..

[bellijayne]

To clarify here for you: Statute of Limitation Act 1980 s.32 (1)(a) the time clock in which to sue does not start running until the claimant discovers the deceit or could with reasonable diligence discovered it. Also as a matter of course generally contracts under seal (deeds) 12 Yrs is the allotted time for recovery & Debts unsecured are 6 Yrs. Also the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 c61 Part 2 Forms & Interpretation 3. (3) page 2 makes it very clear as to what the criteria is to refuse a bill... Hope this helps.

[bellijayne]

Some time last year I wrote to the Council of Mortgage Lenders with a simple 5 point scenario. This only applies to Leasehold Repossessions. My point to them:-

1. Freeholder/Managing Agent writes to the Borrower claiming "you owe me money" Borrower says "No I don't"

2. Freeholder/Managing Agent writes to Lender claiming "Your client owes me money"

3. Lender pays out & Borrower falls in to arrears due to the increased Mthly repayments

4. Borrower falls into arrears - facing Repossession

5. Freeholder/Managing Agent sits in the relevant auction house awaiting the favoured Lot with baited breath....

What a lovely way to increase the Property Portfolio. I did get a response basically to say they have 'no regulatory powers' but none the less they did respond. I wonder how many people fit the above who have lost their homes NOT due to an increase in the base rate of lending/borrowing. Can anyone help here in relation to attempting a 'class action' 50 cases are the basic requirement. I have one friend who genuinely fits the above.

[bellijayne]

I'm stunned! Look under the circumstances try this.

1. A hand written letter in the Ct. stating the Ct. has acted on incorrect advice, in that the Golden Rule has been ignored as well as the literal Rule by the opposition applying the Mischief Rule. There are only 3 rules of interpretation: Literal Rule, Golden Rule (the Ct. plea) "First do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and the Mischief Rule (this is what the Ct's tend to apply today) therefore you need to bring the Ct. back to the Golden Rule, in that you've not been heard or listened to. Has anything been withheld? If so then it's called Redaction. Explain that as well & it needs to be brief that this has caused Adacto meaning you've been boxed in to a corner therefore Nunc pro tunc = now for then. This is for Ct. action only

2. Supply the evidence

3. Providing you get this right the brakes are applied & you've a reprieve. Under the Golden Rule you'll have 12 Mths with which to defend your corner or the Judgement stands.

The court will write back to you. This works but only if you fully understand what you're saying. A clever Solicitor/Barrister ties the judge up in advance due to the paperwork submitted. Your ignorance is being played on, the Debt is not equitable in that it does not equate for value for value. The Res (value) is not reasonable, your Property is worth more than the Debt by how much?! This appears to be nothing more than an act of malice therefore 2 Maxims: "One who comes in to equity must come with clean hands" & Ubi jus ibi remedium = where there is a right there must be a remedy. Also you mentioned that the Debt had been paid? therefore surely this is Waiver in that they've accepted the Debt. An elderly retired Administrator of European Law explained this to me. Old law is more powerful especially Maxims!

[meursault22]

Sadly, it is now over one year ago, and the house is long gone. Yes, the alleged debt was paid, but huge costs were awarded and the judge agreed that the repossession could be based on these costs rather than the alleged debt that had been paid. I know that the whole procedure should have been started over for this reason, but it was not. The judge reasoned that the money paid could be used for any reason and could therefore be counted as part payment of the costs (which were not yet awarded at the time of the payment) rather than payment of the debt! My barrister was stunned and very ill prepared as he was so completely sure that it would go my way, considering the evidence and disproportionate action. The very hard and expensive lesson I learned is that judges are in a too powerful position so when they have a vested interest, whatever that may be, the law no longer has any meaning at all. I actually suspect that the main motivation for most judges aspiring to their position is power and extreme greed.

Also, how is it that judges are allowed to reserve cases to themselves? Do they really have so little faith in their colleagues, or are there other reasons for this?

It is obvious to me that the individual cannot stand in the way of big business. the rich will continue to get richer at any cost.

Edited October 6, 2013 by meursault22