Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[alisono]

She's a solicitor.....I thought she had a 'mcKenie friend' assisting HER......???

 

Is It possible to send it to the site team?

 

I've been looking here to see if I can find it: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/high-court-lists-results.php

 

Could I be looking in the wrong place?

 

Apple

 

Sent to site member for you it's been scanned up 17 pages of the transcript.

 

;-)

[applecart]

Chitty on Contracts 31st Edition, Oct 2012 (para n.4- n.13 sub section n.70) relating to mortgages states, "contract is contained in a deed.

 

LPMPA 1989 S.2(3) The document incorporating the terms must be signed by both parties.

 

So, given that my mortgage deed which makes reference to the terms (mortgage conditions) only has my signature and, the mortgage conditions has neither signature, to me equates to no contract.

 

MUTT1

 

Hi Mutt1

 

This is where 'lamb' went wrong as far as I can surmise so far....so, don't go down that route.....

 

Take on board... this thread looks at the Deed...pure and simple....we are not looking for a 'contract' and applications to the Chamber are not being done to 'set a-side' the 'Deed' due to being or not being a 'contract'...

 

This thread looks to advise the setting aside of the DEED.....we tell the Chamber it is a 'speciality contract', to give them a heads up that a 'specialty contract' has more formality than a 'simple contract'.....to give them a 'heads up'....that they are not to misconstrue necessary formality in relation to 'delivery' with that of meeting the required formality of HMLR's 'approved form of charge'.....or with anything to do with Section 2...for to do so .... would be tantamount to a circumvention of the LAW.......

 

Do not fall into the 'trap' of missing the above very valid point ; )

 

There is nothing - nowhere - in Section 2 that applies to the DEED ..... see Helden, EagleStar....

 

There is no Borrower since the coming into force of the LPA 1925 or the LRA 1925 that has power to 'mortgage' a 'registered estate'.......

 

It is ONLY an UN-REGISTERED estate that can be MORTGAGED.....

 

Your estate is 'registered'...... ; )

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

Sent to site member for you it's been scanned up 17 pages of the transcript.

 

;-)

 

Great......I'll look out for it.....Thank you hun : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Did I read this correctly.....'she has a possession order so they've struck it out'........What???

 

Why?......just a quick question here......is 'PRESTON Crown Court'.....a criminal court?...why would she take a civil matter to a 'criminal court'?

 

Apple

 

Decisions made at the Chamber are supposed to have the same effect as if the matter had gone to a High Court.... why are they sending her around in circles?

 

She has a right to go back to the Chamber surely to appeal to ask them to re-consider their decision...... there is a 'podcast' on this thread from the Chamber.....they say...First Tier can be asked to reconsider their own decisions......

 

The Lender will not take any further action whilst she is pursuing due process.....she needs to sit down and think this thing through properly me thinks......

 

Goes to show whatever your profession... we are all Consumers at the end of the day ...

 

If I lived nearby... I would most definitely knock on her door for a cosy chat and a cuppa...... she's only trying to get justice.....since when was it a crime to do that....??

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

I think we need to send in the reinforcements

[p.j]

Decisions made at the Chamber are supposed to have the same effect as if the matter had gone to a High Court.... why are they sending her around in circles?

 

She has a right to go back to the Chamber surely to appeal to ask them to re-consider their decision...... there is a 'podcast' on this thread from the Chamber.....they say...First Tier can be asked to reconsider their own decisions......

 

The Lender will not take any further action whilst she is pursuing due process.....she needs to sit down and think this thing through properly me thinks......

 

Goes to show whatever your profession... we are all Consumers at the end of the day ...

 

If I lived nearby... I would most definitely knock on her door for a cosy chat and a cuppa...... she's only trying to get justice.....since when was it a crime to do that....??

 

Apple

 

Hi Apple it does look like she is on a merry go round.Its good to see alisono wasn't eaten by the other side lol and got her stay one thing i am puzzled with here is,we are asking them to show the validity of the deeds with the application to property chamber we are getting a stay in some cases but where their is a stay why is the borrower is still being made to pay the CMI payments why is this ?as i see it they have got to prove they are entitled to them along with the proof of validity of the deeds being signed by the lender to continue to get their payments.I am not saying i want to get out of paying my mortgage but until they prove they have everything signed and sealed why should they get them..

 

They should make an holding place of each and everyone who as an application in to put their payments in and either way it goes at the chamber they are ready to pay out or be returned if the judges are scared to put there neck on the line instead of letting the crooks continue to get our money.

 

We know already they have NO DEFENCE .

 

pj

Edited November 11, 2013 by p.j

[applecart]

I think we need to send in the reinforcements

 

Yes, I think it is time to send in our own 'reinforcements'........things appear to be getting completely out of hand.....

 

I will scrutinise, analyse and pull the 'lamb' case apart....looks like we have no choice other than to do so.....the findings e thinks will be debated 'openly' on this thread.... .....

 

The site-team have been sent a copy of the 'lamb; case...I'm going to compare it with the one on Scribed......(just to make sure....it is the same case)

 

I'm waiting for it to get to me......let's hope they don't take too long....

 

The battle goes on....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Apple it does look like she is on a merry go round.Its good to see alisono wasn't eaten by the other side lol and got her stay one thing i am puzzled with here is,we are asking them to show the validity of the deeds with the application to property chamber we are getting a stay in some cases but where their is a stay why is the borrower is still being made to pay the CMI payments why is this ?as i see it they have got to prove they are entitled to them along with the proof of validity of the deeds being signed by the lender to continue to get their payments.I am not saying i want to get out of paying my mortgage but until they prove they have everything signed and sealed why should they get them..

 

They should make an holding place of each and everyone who as an application in to put their payments in and either way it goes at the chamber they are ready to pay out or be returned if the judges are scared to put there neck on the line instead of letting the crooks continue to get our money.

 

We know already they have NO DEFENCE .

 

pj

 

The Lenders agent was instructed to get the claim 'stayed'....that what was granted......I'm just hoping that the 'stipulation' made in orbiter comments does not end up on the Order itself.....can't be too careful....

 

The idea behind a 'stay'.....is so that no further action is taken by either party until the outcome of the application made to the chamber.....

 

I make no comment as to whether an individual pays or not.... it has to be upto the individual really....

 

I take your point - yes we ask them to show that the deed is valid.....they say the approved form of charge is valid...

 

We say....the approved form of charge is not a deed.... they say, yes it is .....look at section 53 LPA

 

We say....section 53 don't apply in this case..... they say, yes it does look at the LPMPA s.1

 

We say...section 1 LPMPA is amended....they say....not in the way you think 'under-dog'.....(sorry, that advert came into my head...you know the one...lol )

 

We say....The RRO amended section 1....they say....ah...not for you...that was all done for us......

 

WE say....I want the claim 'stayed' whilst I exercise my civil right to make application to the Chamber..... they say 'yes' ok subject to this undercover 'stipulation'.....which is ...so long as you keep paying.....and we strongly advise you to observe the findings in 'lamb'....when you have finished .... come back here and pick up all the costs.....I am the DJ that granted the original possession order in that case...don't you know... I have friends in alll the right places.......so, you hurry and get back here.....so as I can dispense with this order for possession......

 

Circles??? more like RINGS....lol

 

I think the Chamber are hearing about 'internet folk',,,,,and assuming that it is us.....I think they are more looking out for the 'internet folk'.....who are following the 'lamb' case.....and we are being 'clothed' in the same blanket.....

 

Don't you worry.....they will soon come to see....we are not 'internet folk'......we are 'Caggers' ......they will come to see the difference ; )

 

You are right, when they are dealing with a Cagger.....They have NO DEFENCE

 

Apple

[caro]

Were you advised how much today's cost were alisono?

[alisono]

No, except I am to pay them all

[caro]

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[applecart]

No, except I am to pay them all

 

Not if you win at the Chamber....you won't...... ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

 

Hi Caro

 

If we are to ensure that it does not get to that - I need to look at the 'Lamb' case in depth....We don't want them confusing us Caggers with the 'internet folk' we keep hearing about : )

 

I am waiting for a member of the site team to send me a copy.....any idea where it might have got too..??

 

Can you help?

 

Apple

[kegi]

Ooohhh ..... touchy???

 

Apple

 

Not touchy apple sad that someone can post on this site more than once and blatantly lie

as to what a BBC article was about to suit your own agenda and get away with it... that's shame on you, and shame on this site for allowing it .

 

You know what they say about liars I assume .

 

Alarmingly; according to Shelter; (BBC News, 4th Nov 2013) there are some 82,000 families with children who are living in boarding accommodation due to the repossession of their homes by lenders who have not signed the ‘mortgage deed’

 

I really do hope you have still included this in your cracking petition[ only joking] can't wait to see it out in the open

 

Don't bother replying to this apple [ I wouldn't know whether to believe you]

 

kegi

[alisono]

Ok I have sent the Lamb to site member over an hour or so ago , also sent to someone else if the wish to post up that's fine.

[ims21]

Ok I have sent the Lamb to site member over an hour or so ago , also sent to someone else if the wish to post up that's fine.

 

Yes I have it and am assembling the jpg. files.

 

Please bear in mind that some of us do have day jobs so the expectation of an immediate response is unlikely to be met.

[TimetogoRAM]

Hi Apple it does look like she is on a merry go round.Its good to see alisono wasn't eaten by the other side lol and got her stay one thing i am puzzled with here is,we are asking them to show the validity of the deeds with the application to property chamber we are getting a stay in some cases but where their is a stay why is the borrower is still being made to pay the CMI payments why is this ?as i see it they have got to prove they are entitled to them along with the proof of validity of the deeds being signed by the lender to continue to get their payments.I am not saying i want to get out of paying my mortgage but until they prove they have everything signed and sealed why should they get them..

 

They should make an holding place of each and everyone who as an application in to put their payments in and either way it goes at the chamber they are ready to pay out or be returned if the judges are scared to put there neck on the line instead of letting the crooks continue to get our money.

 

We know already they have NO DEFENCE .

 

pj

 

PJ I'm totally with you. That is why I am only paying a lower payment each month to my lender. I have been hounded with calls every single day but so what! Prove that you are entitled to my money. Produce to me that you have a valid deed! Why should I prove that it is valid. I did my bit by signing it. You failed to do yours!

 

Mutt1 your point re the contract is completely the same as mine, but concentrate on s1 and the non valid deed for now. That is the application we have produced to the Chamber and now we have the lender squirming for a way out by presumably using the Chamber to come up with this irrelevant Lamb case.

 

Apple, did you get a copy posted up that has been sent from the chamber? If not I'll try and scan my copy this evening and post up. If you have seen it - Is it the same transcript as the previous link? Is there anything subtly added to it to try and deter us 'internet folk?' I might have to have another read tonight to analyse properly and post up my points..

[applecart]

Not touchy apple sad that someone can post on this site more than once and blatantly lie

as to what a BBC article was about to suit your own agenda and get away with it... that's shame on you, and shame on this site for allowing it .

 

You know what they say about liars I assume .

 

Alarmingly; according to Shelter; (BBC News, 4th Nov 2013) there are some 82,000 families with children who are living in boarding accommodation due to the repossession of their homes by lenders who have not signed the ‘mortgage deed’

 

I really do hope you have still included this in your cracking petition[ only joking] can't wait to see it out in the open

 

Don't bother replying to this apple [ I wouldn't know whether to believe you]

 

kegi

 

'Don't bother replying to this apple'.......??

 

Of course I will reply - please don't encourage me to be 'rude'....I may be many things...but 'rude' is not one of them ; )

 

Where is it that you deem I have told a 'blatant lie'?

 

Shelter reported that there are 82,000 families living in board on the BBC News on the 4th November 2013, there is no untruth in that statement..

 

I consider that you are concerned about the part where I say 'due to the repossession of their homes by lenders who have not signed the 'mortgage' deed'....??

 

Perhaps you have not had opportunity to understand the topic of this thread......I'm conscious that the thread is more than 1 or 2 pages and I can appreciate that some Caggers do not have time to read the entire thread....

 

But, that is no excuse for you to make the assertion that you do.....I have told no untruth in the statement made....

 

Whilst you may find it as alarming as I do.....It is a FACT....Lenders do not sign the 'mortgage' deed.....

 

You do not have to take my word for it....have a word with Ben... he has lots of copies of deeds of practically every lender in the UK (it would seem)...and he openly advises that non of them are signed by lenders....

 

So, with all due respect.... I fail to see why you felt so compelled to advise one and all on this thread that you feel 'sad that someone can post on this site more than once and blatantly lie...'

 

I am of course overjoyed to note that I was of course wrong in my assertion that you were being 'touchy'......

 

'Sad'... we can overcome......, now that I have broken it down for you ...... 'touchy'......well, that would have been a little tougher to overcome......glad, we didn't have to go there ; )

 

Now that you better understand where we are coming from on this thread... you can take on board that the e-petition includes the detail - more or less exactly the same as the 'draft' e-petition that was posted a few posts back.....

 

WE do our best to avoid making wild statements or assertions without due consideration of the Facts before we make them here Kegi..... ; )

 

Now, I don't encourage anyone to be 'rude'....but I will say..... I will not take it personally should you decide not to respond to this reply to you.

 

so, just in case you decide not to respond....May I be one of the first to Thank you for your contributions so far : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Yes I have it and am assembling the jpg. files.

 

Please bear in mind that some of us do have day jobs so the expectation of an immediate response is unlikely to be met.

 

Thanks IMS21.....

 

Can you do it in both word and pdf??

 

I know adobe is free...but not all users bother with it.......

 

Thanks in advance......no rush; I appreciate you have a day job....

 

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

PJ I'm totally with you. That is why I am only paying a lower payment each month to my lender. I have been hounded with calls every single day but so what! Prove that you are entitled to my money. Produce to me that you have a valid deed! Why should I prove that it is valid. I did my bit by signing it. You failed to do yours!

 

Mutt1 your point re the contract is completely the same as mine, but concentrate on s1 and the non valid deed for now. That is the application we have produced to the Chamber and now we have the lender squirming for a way out by presumably using the Chamber to come up with this irrelevant Lamb case.

 

Apple, did you get a copy posted up that has been sent from the chamber? If not I'll try and scan my copy this evening and post up. If you have seen it - Is it the same transcript as the previous link? Is there anything subtly added to it to try and deter us 'internet folk?' I might have to have another read tonight to analyse properly and post up my points..

 

Yes...it's the sheer thought of any 'subtle' changes that concern me too.....but... I doubt that it will/should be different.... but then... it is an un-reported case.... I suppose it could have been amended to suit...(dread the thought....).....but there is one thing for sure...once it gets onto the CaG......it is no longer - un-reported......they will have to stick to whatever it is that it says from there on in.....

 

IMS21 is on the case as you know......very reliable he/she is too.....so, we'll have it in due course......we will look at it more closely from there.....

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

alisono

well done today not too bad was it lol

I know apple is looking into it for you and will get back asap but their very busy at the mo.

 

Any help I can give let me know OK.

[applecart]

alisono

well done today not too bad was it lol

I know apple is looking into it for you and will get back asap but their very busy at the mo.

 

Any help I can give let me know OK.

 

Is It Me.... where have you been?

 

I've been waiting for you to post......have you been and got yourself one of them there day jobs huh?. ; )

 

In your absence we are looking to get the reinforcement sorted........

 

Yes, Alisono did do well today......she must be 'relieved' ; )

 

If she hadn't come to the CaG...... I dread to think what might have happened today......She was before the same Judge as Mrs Lamb.....

 

Apple

[alisono]

I've had a better day off now after the court I was so nervous.

Glad you've got the Lamb transcript it's a lengthy 17 pages.

I have spoken with the Property Chamber and I have to send them details of my stay plus they gave me a direct dial number for lady who sent me the Lamb transcript and letter so I can ask her why it came to me and for what purpose.

I want to thank you, Apple and pj for help and support.

I will DSAR the lender this week at their registered office at PWC , I has also requested a full file copy from the solicitors who acted for both parties in the mortgage in 2007, they have said they will have this. I also have a letter from HMLR as I requested that they notify me of any changes to the LR on my title in case the try and add something.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Apple,

sorry had to do paper work from last week, not a very good thing to do. But needs must.

[p.j]

PJ I'm totally with you. That is why I am only paying a lower payment each month to my lender. I have been hounded with calls every single day but so what! Prove that you are entitled to my money. Produce to me that you have a valid deed! Why should I prove that it is valid. I did my bit by signing it. You failed to do yours!

 

Mutt1 your point re the contract is completely the same as mine, but concentrate on s1 and the non valid deed for now. That is the application we have produced to the Chamber and now we have the lender squirming for a way out by presumably using the Chamber to come up with this irrelevant Lamb case.

 

Apple, did you get a copy posted up that has been sent from the chamber? If not I'll try and scan my copy this evening and post up. If you have seen it - Is it the same transcript as the previous link? Is there anything subtly added to it to try and deter us 'internet folk?' I might have to have another read tonight to analyse properly and post up my points..

 

This is what i am saying timetogoRAM it is for them to prove they are entitled to them if i get the proof then i shall put up and shut up but on the many requests they have had chance to do so they haven't.

 

pj