Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

S there you have it CAGers there seems to be some thing not right about this and as 85,000

YES 85,000 people have viewed this thread some one at the site team is worried very worried as that is the only reason apple has been took of site.

and because apple has come so close, within walk distance of showing her right and that's what the likes of Ben and the others who come under diffident names to the forum.

 

As I've said I have printed off the thread in FULL and when the s''''''t hits the fan I hope you will stand by the lack of help ims21 or Mark or is it David???

[p.j]

I may ask why I can not PM any one and no one can PM me????

 

If you say apple can come on line why not send her a email asking for her to comment on this matter

 

why can't i pm is it me but i can everyone else good job i can communicate other ways then ?

 

pj

[IS IT ME?]

me

 

Message from The Consumer Action Group

IS IT ME?, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

 

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation. You may not have sufficient posts to permit you to carry out your intended action

[andrew1]

Apart from the request to send your e-mail address to applecart. This will not happen...we do not pass member's details on to anyone.

 

With the greatest of respect, that is not true. Cag passed all the details of posters, (including their email addresses) who were investigating and chasing Cabot to their then Chief executive Ken Maynard when he threatened legal action against the site six weeks before telling the individuals concerned they had done so.

 

Whilst recognising that the site is bigger than any one group of poster and legal positions must be protected, it did not make for good relations with those posters who had contributed a significant amount of assistance to fellow caggers en route and they left the site.

 

Cag do when cornered and I could see a very heavy resistance building by lenders against the general theme of this discussion here and whilst there is no specific named company target as there was with Cabot and what we were all doing against them, Cag none the less have form for disclosure. Sorry, just ask BankFodder.

 

 

Also, I really wish people would all calm down and just let this whole thread run without all this back and forth bickering. Stick to the issues, let everyone post, this is all blowing out of proportion.

A1

Edited October 27, 2013 by andrew1

[IS IT ME?]

Yes i know it has been some thing like that here

[IS IT ME?]

And the form is?????

[andrew1]

Form on passing details to someone else! - Cabot and their solicitors...

[p.j]

With the greatest of respect, that is not true. Cag passed all the details of posters, (including their email addresses) who were investigating and chasing Cabot to their then Chief executive Ken Maynard when he threatened legal action against the site six weeks before telling the individuals concerned they had done so.

 

Whilst recognising that the site is bigger than any one group of poster and legal positions must be protected, it did not make for good relations with those posters who had contributed a significant amount of assistance to fellow caggers en route and they left the site.

 

CAG do when cornered and I could see a very heavy resistance building by lenders against the general theme of this discussion here and whilst there is no specific named company target as there was with Cabot and what we were all doing against them, Cag none the less have form for disclosure. Sorry, just ask BankFodder.

 

 

Also, I really wish people would all calm down and just let this whole thread run without all this back and forth bickering. Stick to the issues, let everyone post, this is all blowing out of proportion.

A1

 

A1 thanks for the heads up maybe this is why they have been holding people back and using different names to pose as members to cause this bickering so they can get rid of certain members as they don't want a repeat of cabot.its obvious to me there being lent on.

this is why they wanted everything on the forum...passing members details on that don't bode well to its members why couldn't they just be upfront instead of trying to divert people off track and making them believe the lenders will linch them if they proceed TUT TUT CAG.

 

pj

Edited October 27, 2013 by p.j
spelling

[IS IT ME?]

PJ

you are so right

the silence is deafening!!!

I for one am not go away nor going to let it go so the answers WILL COME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

[p.j]

PJ

you are so right

the silence is deafening!!!

I for one am not go away nor going to let it go so the answers WILL COME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

 

is it me can you imagine all those people not knowing which way to turn and finding this thread which gave them a little hope to finally get the lenders for all there underhanded tricks to take there homes and already took there homes jeez it don't bare thinking about those poor people.we all run into trouble at some point in our lives and need help looks like they couldn't careless just like the lenders..Should of just let it run as A1 said without the bickering.

 

pj

[ims21]

I believe all questions have already received a reply.

[andrew1]

A1 thanks for the heads up maybe this is why they have been holding people back and using different names to pose as members to cause this bickering so they can get rid of certain members as they don't want a repeat of cabot.its obvious to me there being lent on.

this is why they wanted everything on the forum...passing members details on that don't bode well to its members why couldn't they just be upfront instead of trying to divert people off track and making them believe the lenders will linch them if they proceed TUT TUT CAG.

 

pj

 

TBH IS IT ME;p.j.. I don't think you'll find any kind of conspiracy going on here. We were pretty miffed when it happened although for some reason I was left out, but I don't doubt there are many who read this thread and reporting back to their masters who would gladly see the whole thread cut off at the knees.

 

I have great respect for the site-team, they do a very hard job in policing the site and there's a lot of it, not just this thread... and they do get tetchy about personal mud slinging and quite rightly, debate can continue without that, but it often creeps in when you have diametrically opposing views. Do you ever watch Question Time or debates in the HOP? - that should tell you how stupid things become with people talking down others LOL

 

I personally have great respect for all the parties, you included, for pushing the boundaries of areas as Winged Piglet stated which have become accepted as the norm. I've challeneged many a finance institution on aspects of their businesses which must have sent shock waves through their legal departments and sent them off to the NOTW to find a hacker to see what I was up to, but I don't get paranoid about it - the truth will come out one day. So I would ask you to just settle and apple will return I am sure. Then we can get back on to the real stuff again...

 

A1

Edited October 27, 2013 by andrew1
god, my spelling is bad -hic!

[IS IT ME?]

Ism21,

 

This is not the way to go and you know it, truth is what is needed here and you and the site have not given it and all those looking and reading this thread can see it.

 

So you say Andrew1 post is NOT correct??? or is he too not telling the truth and get banned??

[p.j]

I believe all questions have already received a reply.

 

ok so if that's the case let Apple proceed with no interference from CAG but only to give your views not try to divert people off the issue give the pm's back and lets continue with the thread..??

 

contact Apple and lets get on with it.if you can't do that it proves your being lent on...

 

pj

[IS IT ME?]

Andrew1

Many thanks for your posts, however as this AGAIN affects another family who are facing a court hearing and needed help, which they are now not going to be able to have.

 

I would also say that all those who have made application which are in the 100's are in the same boat!

[p.j]

TBH IS IT ME;p.j.. I don't think you'll find any kind of conspiracy going on here. We were pretty miffed when it happened although for some reason I was left out, but I don't doubt there are many who read this thread and reporting back to their masters who would gladly see the whole thread cut off at the knees.

 

I have great respect for the site-team and they do get tetchy about personal mud slinging and quite rightly, debate can continue without that, but it often creeps in when you have diametrically opposing views. Do you ever what Question Time or debates in the HOP? - that should tell you how stupid things become with people talking down others LOL

 

I personally have great respect for all the parties, you included, for pushing the boundaries of areas as Winged Piglet stated which have become accepted as the norm. I've challeneged many a finance institution on aspects of their businesses which must have sent shock waves through their legal departments and sent them off to the NOTW to find a hacker to see what I was up to, but I don't get paranoid about it - the truth will come out one day. So I would ask you to just settle and apple with return I am sure. Then we can get back on to the real stuff again...

 

A1

 

Thanks A1 your absolutely right truth will come out one day..respect to you mate..

 

pj

[ims21]

applecart is free to post whenever they wish.

 

applecart will receive e-mail alerts for the updates to this thread so can make their own decisions.

[IS IT ME?]

Do you think people will believe that until she does,

 

 

 

sorry caps locked on again lol

[ims21]

I am telling you a fact. If you choose not to believe it then that is a matter for you.

[andrew1]

Time for a break IIM, come back in the morning when the dust has settled. I think you'll find the site team are behind you, not against you...they are doing their best to keep everything on track and have far more to deal with than us. Let them go police someone else by not attacking them..let this thread continue as before without more questioning of who's out there to kill us off. LOL

 

They've heard you, now let's move on...I'm off to bed too....night folks.

 

A1

[IS IT ME?]

Goodnight,

[p.j]

Time for a break IIM, come back in the morning when the dust has settled. I think you'll find the site team are behind you, not against you...they are doing their best to keep everything on track and have far more to deal with than us. Let them go police someone else by not attacking them..let this thread continue as before without more questioning of who's out there to kill us off. LOL

 

They've heard you, now let's move on...I'm off to bed too....night folks.

 

 

 

A1

 

 

night

 

 

pj

[UNRAM]

Without wanting to cause any upset

 

The legislation you quoted states that it applies to a document in electronic form. As your mortgage deed has a MD and not an E-MD reference, the legislation quoted does not apply as your mortgage deed is not in electronic form.

 

Besides which 4b doesn't denote a bilateral signature, it is only regarded as signed by whoever electronic signature it has - if the lender does not have to sign it, his electronic signature won't be there.

 

Remember companies can grant deeds too

 

Sorry, I thought you would want to know

not in electronic form. now i think your making this up as you go along. is this intended to be a joke? does HMLR keep a big folder of official copies carefully ensuring of course they dont make it on to a hard drive at any point that they may be deemed electronic. or is the title register simply an entry in a database? Where was it registered in the first place - on some sort of shelf? Regarding your comment on 4(b) - i dont want to cause any upset but you clearly don't understand very simple boolean logic.

Edited October 28, 2013 by UNRAM

[UNRAM]

Hello Andrew1

 

Your mortgage deed does not unfortunately say that the lender is obligated to make a further advance, it only says that it secures a further advance.

 

This enables the lender, if it were to provide you a further advance to what is called "tack" that loan onto this first charge. As a result if you were to apply for a secured loan with another lender, your first charge lender would receive notification.

 

The is now governed to s.49 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

 

My battery is literally going to go at any second, so I will respond in more detail once I get home.

 

my mortgage deed does. it says "obligation". what's your view on this situation?

[bhall]

Hello Andrew1

 

I have just read your follow up question. I need to check on a couple of things first and then I will come back to you