repo date 21/09/2009

[micko19]

Thanks jansus for providing an ear. Yes i am sound for a roof typical large irish familly very supportive no problems there...On a bit of a de rail bad times is when you find out where the love was and where the meal tickets were...lesson learnt...many thanks jansus...

 

Banker rhymes... could not agree more i was Kind of nievely hoping the judiciary would under stand the threat to their pention pots by the sanctioned behaviour of their banker mates. They will eventually understand where the santioning of theft leads to... Number 3 just requires the next alarm clock which is about to go off with "Wheres all the money gone episode 2"

 

many thanks EIE ...iN THIS RESPECT i KNOW THE ppi claimers are going to try and force me down the route of no further action I must fight this because a couple of years could see some fresh wind of chnge when we start locking up a few of these crooks. I will use my inherit irish stubburness in refusing these offers. If it costs me i do not care...

 

Every morning i see my daughter smile I realise I am richer than all these people that have to steal to make a living.....

 

 

I still see her most days.

 

All your support has been great ... We need to find an experienced cagger to write a book. It will be a serious document of our times and provide a massively accurate historic insight into the credit crunch etc...

 

 

bla bla rant rant

 

micko

[micko19]

Just another bit of good news today. I have claims in on ppi and secret commissions on 3 previous loans that were consolidated into the current mortgage good news IS.

 

1. The barrister is going for the commissions on all 3 loans both against the lender and the broker...double bubble plus interst approx 4- 6 years...(ALL COMMISSION ARE IN THOUSANDS)

2. He is going for 2 PPI's, considering misrepresentation.

3. People who know my history will recaLL the time GE sent a barrister to defend my DPA section 7 in an effort to have my claim struck off . My barrister is going to make a fresh claim for my losses..... over there refusal to disclose..... saying he has a very interesting angle to bring to this....

4. The solicitor said i need to get this in front of my defence people on the repo as it could make a differance.

5. No costs are mentioned bUt i would imagine anything between 5000 an12,000 could be possible....

6. With everthing else thrown into the pot who knows there could be an adjournement.

7. The issues in 3.... mean i was deprived of the information at the time to make the 36,00 loan unenforceable...ie the time I took out this mortgage.... could get interesting folks ...anyway better than emerdale farm...

 

Micko

 

gonna have a few bevvy's tonight and not come on here looking to insult seutonious LOL

[Blossomandebony]

Hi, Micko,

 

Just skimmed through uour thread and will have fingers crossed for you on the 21st.

 

Will you have representation at the repo hearing or are you on your own? I wondered if the barrister who is dealing with your PPI claims was also helping with your repo.

 

BAE

[micko19]

MANY THANKS Blossomandebony The solicitors doing my current loans are entirely differant from those that are defending my repo. In huddersfield i am using an IN house duty silicitor set up to protect my interests. Still not holding out immense hope but the Ifa has forged documents and there may be a chance of voiding the whole loan what happened today adds weight to all the arguments for an adjournement basically

 

thanks for your reply

 

micko

[jansus]

So glad you have at least some good news. A little bit of light at the end of the tunnel.

And I hope it does help to have people to discuss it with.

 

I dont know how some of you cope to be honest. I have two bits of bad family news this week and feel down and quite exhausted- and it is nothing in comparison with what people are going through here.

 

looks like you have a long battle on your hands.Hope you can carry on

[Blossomandebony]

Certainly, I would expect the court to adjourn the repo hearing until the economic crimes unit have investigated, (which will probably take a while!). I don't think the judge would risk aiding and abetting a fraud . . .

 

BAE

[micko19]

I think there is a few very valid points to be considered as a result of my experiences and would ask the experienced caggers to consider seriously.

 

1. My barrister would not be giving me 65% chance in secret commissions without me having used section(!5)2 of the data protection act and issued summonses. I think it is worth reconsidering the typical SAR request to include specifics about what is required and an implicit threat to use section 15(2). MY problem as everyone can see is the race against the clock most if not all sub prime ignore standard SAR like it was a joke. In my case the use of 15(2) has produced immediate effect.

2. GE sent a barrister to make my 15(2) dissappear and as LIP myself they failed. Now my barrister is going to resurect my 15(2) request without hesitation stating he has a very interesting angle on this which further verifies this as the only effective tool available in making sub primers or other banking criminals give out the details you need to prosecute.

 

I hope some people investigate this and understand the reality of dealing with criminals a standard SAR is an invitation to tell lies. YOU must specifically outline informastion you require and in each liste instant request that wher the information is not available a good explanation be given and where not they will be issued after the 40th day with a Section Order under 15(2) of the DPA or at least 7 day leteer before action.

 

All i am trying to say to my fellow caggers is this is a very powerfull tool... and I found about it from other caggers more knowledge able than myself...very gratefull. I just think every reference to SAR on CAG should refer to this highly effeective back up tool and all SAR's should include a reference that you are prepared to use it ...

 

 

thanks for listening

 

bla bla rent rant

 

micko

[micko19]

may be minor.... but my barrister said it looked very good on section 15(2) that there was no specific demand for recompense and that my poc explained clearly thet I was mearly looking for clarification to build a case...

 

 

bla bla rant rant

 

micko

[micko19]

Certainly, I would expect the court to adjourn the repo hearing until the economic crimes unit have investigated, (which will probably take a while!). I don't think the judge would risk aiding and abetting a fraud . . .

 

BAE

 

hope you are right the fraudulent signatures are cast iron thanks

 

micko

[micko19]

So glad you have at least some good news. A little bit of light at the end of the tunnel.

And I hope it does help to have people to discuss it with.

 

I dont know how some of you cope to be honest. I have two bits of bad family news this week and feel down and quite exhausted- and it is nothing in comparison with what people are going through here.

 

looks like you have a long battle on your hands.Hope you can carry on

 

I have lost an aunt and a brother in law in the last two months and thank you big style for your contributions under extreme pressure. Keep up the good work I have learnt this stuff from you guys plus experience but you would be amazed how many pm's I get. I state clearly I am a novice and act on instict and advice from here

 

bla bla rant rant

 

micko

[micko19]

Hi everybody repo got adjourned for 28 days the people from chas are getting me quality legal representtion to go through all the rubbish from redstone. A huge thanks to Dougal my letter stating that the police enquirey had been handed to the economic crime unit was of huge influence.

 

The people now looking at my stuff think there has been profligate use of tippex on date entries with the packagers date been removed entirely. FOS ARE IN DEEP...

However I need to prove some level of complicity between beacon/redstone in wrong doing or he will simply seperate the issues and allow repo to go ahead.

Now i have about 6 difeerant versions of the offer been sent to me 2of them are signe by completely differant people on the covering letter from beacon and both signed... one has our signatures very dark..... the other very light grey.

the photocopying shows the staples have been redone about 4 times on some ...and the page that contaiin our signatures could have been interchanged with any other offer of contract. I still think supersleuths stuff about cosigning is a big issue here because all the docs I have do not prove who cosigned what in any way.

 

Also still have the iissue of 3 unsecured loans that do not belong to me to be a condition of contract . Also the mcob questionnairre documents earnings estimate bears no relationship what so ever to the numbers put on the tippexed riddled application form I have no idea where they came from....Hell of a lot of stuff for a property lawyer to look at. I have moved 90% out and will apply for rehousing(already registered) if the lawyers tell me i have no chance of saving house. I have been told that the solicitors will still seek compensation for all the wrong doings etc... in any event.

 

Strangely internet valuations still show my house to have approx 15% equity..strange??

Big thanks dougal and of course every body else who has helped me on these pages

 

 

bla bla rant rant

 

micko

[jansus]

Well done so far - what was actually said and shown as evidence at the hearing.

 

what are you hoping to find for the evidence you need?

[micko19]

very busy will talk soon

 

cheers

 

mick

[ruinedbynatwest]

8 January 2009 posting by "Supersleuth":-

"Thanks for the tip on the Bennion web-site. Excellent resource. I have made a legal argument (that has never been litigated) regarding the interpretation and construction of CCA s.8. Section 8 is currently interpreted very simply as "under 25K" within the act and "over 25K" outside the act. I have made a CCA argument in my case that my (purported) mortgage is regulated under the act even though it is over £25K. When you read s.8 there are three sub-sections. The simplistic interpretation that has been applied only concerns s.8(b), but if you read that section as a whole, then my argument is that there are some mortgages that are regulated under the CCA even though the mortgage is over £25K (i.e. mortgages that do not fall within the CCA s.16 exemption) . I am going to see if I can send Bennion my legal argument to get his opinion on it. Will let you know what happens ".

 

 

Micko ! Just got your updated thread - I must suss out how to access all of these threads - Good Work Monday last - Don't appear to have any updates on the CCA position - Have I missed something ?

 

Here's what I posted to Supersleuth just this morning:-

 

Good luck with it, Supersleuth !

By all means quote my case Natwest V Story & Pallister because I am attempting to get that case reopened on the grounds that Auld LJ ignored the fact that the multiple agreement there which he found to be unregulated in reality refinanced 3 separate regulated agreements which he described as totalling "about £12000" (Auld LJ) - without drawing the obvious that, in Nov 1986, £12000 was within the £15000 limit that then applied for the protection.

 

Despite Auld LJ's obviously absurd result on the Section 8 CCA point - you might like to know that It was pleaded and, importantly, accepted by7 Auld LJ in my case - it appeared in the ruling - that if the Act applied - it would continue to apply to any agreements which modified, varied, supplemented (S 82(3), or refinanced (S 11(1)©) that regulated agreement.

 

I communicated with Mr Bennion, in the early days and remain grateful to him for putting pen to paper - there is a link to his writings on my website

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

Warm Regards

 

John Story

First Defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister

 

John Story

Edited September 24, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
Typos

[micko19]

Apparently zitalski are too busy too take on my case and huddersfield chas are trying to find an alternative siolicitor. I only have untill 19th oct to get legal support..

 

Yes it sure is tuff out there

 

mick

[ruinedbynatwest]

Thinking of you, Micko.

I do know.........

 

John Story