Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Crapstone]

For me it comes down to one thing. Would I have taken out the product if I knew what was going on? Not at all.. By Jeez a lot of us knew what was going to happen before it all came to the fore. These go back to at least 03 and when I searched then there was nothing to find.

 

Since then then the whole lot has opened up and Andrew is right in everything he has said. Play with them, challenge, but don't go to far. They have enough rope so don't give them anything that they could use against you. You are smart? Right? Well if you let that be known then you should have known better than to buy into it! But we know that is all bull from how these mortgages were sold. Usually a guy on your sofa refusing to move past midnight without you signing and telling you that you won't get a mortgage other than with 'xyz' as you are 'sub-prime' even if you aren't. Catching you at your at your lowest point.

 

Only you can represent yourself and tell it like it is. You are the closest person to the situation and have the emotion to do it. And it can be done.

 

But knowledge can be a dangerous thing and playing on facts just baffles judges that just rubber stamp everything. They don't have a clue and trying to explain to them in minutes isn't going to happen. I'm sure Andrew knows what I mean ..... we didn't get here in a day.

[Crapstone]

Everything to do with SPML has always been through Capstone, now Accenden. It's in the T & C's of the original mortgages that they are managed by these off shoots.

 

Although they ask every year for proof of insurance, and to have their interest stated, they back down when you refuse. For a costly amount they will under insure your property and knowingly do so at your expense. From an insurance point of view to under insure....... Fill in the blanks.

[Crapstone]

GiveHimaMask.. of course they knew. If I knew it, and I'm by no means any economic expert then, they must have known with their resources. If not then it was an epic failure to oversee the markets or a collaboration to ignore it. Which anyone on the right side of a bubble would tend to do.

 

The dots join up and show that both parties have been abused by the middle man. How do you restore that? You pretty much do the same as the US and fine the tramps that did it and take away their profits to be distributed among those that were misled.

 

If the FSA couldn't understand it then what hope in hell would an investor have had let alone a consumer to what they were signing? Despite the glossy brochures it was all hidden in the small print and something that advisors brushed under the carpet.

 

BTW PJ Crapstone is a she..lol and been dealing with these morons since 2003. You live and learn as they say.

[Crapstone]

Apple- Life is too short to be reading through all the law of deeds. It's not going to change the existence of a debt and has no weight to it. I could sell a million pound car and not declare a change of keeper but the result would be the same as a car costing twenty quid. Just because it's not declared doesn't mean I still own it. That's a simplified version and it's just paperwork but doesn't distract from the fact the person that purchased it doesn't rightfully own it.

 

If you dig too deep then there is a temptation to use that knowledge. Do it for your own peace of mind to understand but don't forget you are still the consumer that didn't have this to hand when you needed it. Keep your cards close and only say what you have to say to them.

[Crapstone]

I'm just not sure what this is supposed to lead up to. An unsigned deed is not going to make the whole mortgage null and void is it? It's still a contract and accepted by the money received and the payments made. I haven't read through all the posts but surely a solicitor would have looked at them and it's not just one signature you are relying on that is missing? The danger is getting too involved and ignoring the bare facts. As a consumer you need to strip it back and just keep it as being a consumer rather than trying to puzzle it out and over complicate matters. It's very easy to follow a herd but a lot more beneficial if you act on your own merits and for your own welfare.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

GHaM ... I've read through as much as I can and still have no clue! What amount is involved, is it a remortgage and in what year?

 

The intention was a mortgage so even if the deeds were not signed then surely it would stand that it would be reverted to regardless of anything other. All the contractual obligations would have been set out, and accepted, and records will just be rectified to say that. Just because it's not written down doesn't mean you forgo your rights. I own my car but just because my name is as a registered keeper it doesn't mean I have a full title to it.

 

I just feel that a spanner is trying to be thrown in the works when there is sledgehammer waiting in the background.

[Crapstone]

I'm still not convinced. The absolute intention was security and all loans over 25k are that. All the courts or tribunal will do is refer to what was intended and not what the mortgagee hopes for. In reference to the car ...I am the registered keeper but I did not buy it and neither did I take out a loan and there is no loan on it. But it doesn't mean it's mine? Unless the person can prove they actually own the house and land, regardless of the deeds, then it's just going to be altered to what the initial intention was when they signed the mortgage. You don't really think a judge is going to say that it's void do you? What then? One expensive hurdle should it fail. Full of bright ideas and even Bankfodder had his fingers burnt remember.

[Crapstone]

Your home is your home, your name is on the title register as the 'absolute owner' and wil remain their until your property is sold, irrepective of repossession, oh and the same would apply to your car. Remember, your Lender did not buy that for you, he merely loaned you some money with interest to help you purchase it.

 

Would you care to argue that under proceeds of crime? If it can be taken away when you don't pay then that is pretty fair. Don't get me wrong, I hate these lenders with a passion but I wouldn't go digging a hole for myself without fully understanding what can happen. Just the stress gets you down and then to be turfed out would be awful. Some sensible thought has to be put in other than the need to argue something that seems futile.

[Crapstone]

Hi Crapstone,

 

To help you maybe understand what is being said here on this thread, are you willing to expand on the following;

 

Where do you perceive a crime.

Are you currently under threat of repossession.

What would be your worst case senario should you make an application to the Chamber

Why do you think it futile to argue the Law and its application in relation to Deeds.

 

No crime just a comparison that ownership is not 'ownership' in the true sense that is given here by the emphasis on signed deeds.

Not now but have been several times via a charge and a sub-prime mortgage.

The worst case is to lose and know you don't have a leg to stand on and wasted all that time on grabbing at straws.

It's futile in the sense that the purpose of the contact was to form a mortgage and that was agreed by both parties. It won't discharge the mortgage or its security just as I've exampled that ownership of a car is not so simple. Indeed just an unregistered loan can lead an unaware motorist losing a vehicle even though they have nothing to do with the loan.

 

You argue this and talk about the law but what do you expect will be the outcome? When you can answer that for sure then people will listen. It's not you having to face it and neither is it me but I know which side of the fence I'd stay on and what I'd be willing to stake. I've spent the best part of almost 10 years trying to nail them so I guess I know what I'm talking about by now.

[Crapstone]

GHaM,

 

No I haven't had any bad experience with a car and it was for example only. Neither am I, 'war weary after ten years of fighting without success'. Quite the contrary and have had the good fortune of turning the barrel on them.

 

If the charge were void then it would be at their liberty to reinstate it again as per the contract. A simple signature or mistake would seem to make no difference if the fact remains that the mortgage is in arrears and payments cannot be maintained.

 

What in the case of a compulsory purchase order? You may have an absolute title with no charge at all but does that mean you ultimately retain the right to the land? Do you have a right to be paid in full your asking price, compensation or to refuse completely as the title owner?

 

I just can't see this getting anywhere other than prolonging the agony and ending up back at square 1 with very little to show for it. It's worth a try, anything is, but to rely on this alone and keep going over it is just madness.

[Crapstone]

Haven't the courts already recognized that vexatious litigation en masse to avoid a mortgage contract is not going to be accepted and the only outstanding part is a question of the deed? All the court will seek to do is rectify and remedy flaws to put both parties back to the intended footing. Securitization is also accepted as a mortgage practice which again was pretty much covered by the fact it was stated in the mortgage offer, terms and conditions. They didn't hold a gun to your head to sign it and were free to seek legal advice.

[Crapstone]

1. These cases are not vexatious.

 

2. Many lenders did not ask borrowers to sign a mortgage contract so what do you say to that?

 

3. Perharps on the legal advice you might have something........but hold on Borrowers did get legal advice from their solicitors.....or did they?

 

4. Securitisation has been accepted by whom??

 

I. We will have to disagree on that.

 

2. If the offer and consideration has gone through then it would still be a mortgage contract and accepted by payment.

 

3. That makes no difference. And has no immediate effect on the contract other than to pursue the giver of the advice.

 

4. Looking at the case in Ireland and ones in the US, the problem does not lie within the securitization as a financial practice.

[Crapstone]

Let me ask you this. Simply what is to be achieved? There have been lots of previous times were huge impact 'cases' have been made and won or lost. But what came of them?

 

The PPI claims put people back into the position they were in had they not paid it, with a little interest. Bank charges failed but again it put people back into a position to say what was fair and to question that and reclaim upon merit. There isn't a court that will put a person or company into the position that they can make something from a transaction or contract for nothing than can't prove a loss for. They are there to act in fairness to all parties.

 

The only beneficiaries are the lawyers and companies that have since set up and are now of such annoyance.

 

I think you are just over complicating the situation with too many 'what ifs' and not enough of looking at the whole.

[Crapstone]

http://awakenlongford.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/freeman-judgement-31052013.pdf

 

This is one of the things I was looking through.

[Crapstone]

That's what I said previously but it's no biggie and the rest was struck out. It won't change the facts, just define them.

[Crapstone]

Well that's me done. Nothing more to say and if I'm proved wrong then that would be fantastic news for all concerned. For now it's going around in circles as it has done for years and, as Sequenci said, it's not achieving anything by going over the same ground.

[Crapstone]

Is It Me you will also note that the case is not a simple consumer one for a 'home' and is for business purposes. They have 6 properties involved.

[Crapstone]

I've no idea but I have previously downloaded everything I could find including all the stock index's. They are all on my old hard drive so that may be of use.

[Crapstone]

I hope you have started your own thread mollypockets so you can be assisted.

 

Sometimes it feels like everything is against you but it's a free market

and even though the little idiots employed by these people annoy the hell out of me

at least they are just trying to do a job and support their own families.

 

Like any job that involves dealing with people in hardship or ill health they have to harden themselves to it

and do what they are employed to do.

 

It's very easy to lay blame at the feet of everyone but you should also accept that you could lead an alternative life

and live in a system that provides nothing but what you can manufacture yourself.

[Crapstone]

GiveHimaMask.

 

I've pondered quietly over what you've posted and can't see what that has to do with anything. How does that relate to the deeds? It's just suspended until there is equity. I had the same thing with a Charging Order and Order for Sale. It was not enforced because of the lack of equity and they were NOT given liberty to restore. It took some doing, some engineering and a sprinkle of fairy dust to play it to my advantage and be as savvy as they were.

[Crapstone]

I know you have seen it Sequensi, day in and day out by nature of what you do. I can see the issue with the deeds but not the clouding and needing to keep digging over. It's pretty simple and people tend to overthink instead of going with the basics. What has been raised will be judged and until then it's no good pulling it apart.

 

If the guys on here have so much faith in what they believe is true then they would just let it be and await the outcome. What more can you add to a deed being unsigned? That's the be all and end all. And if you look at cases that have gone into detail everything has been struck out apart from the matter in hand. If need be change the equity by fair means or foul.

[Crapstone]

hi Crapstone,

 

The signifance of this case is that it is a High Court judgement, you could say case law, now in the public domain. It will help people in similiar circumstances with a 2nd charge on their home.

No need, to go digging around, wrecking your brain, trying to find a way out. Given that this is a NI case and reports state that at least 75% of homes are in negative equity there, then this has a substantial impact for those who seek the time necessary to find a rebalance in their lives and the removal of one element of stress helps greatly I would have thought.

 

I can see your point but it's hardly ground breaking and just follows common sense. You can't enforce something when there is nothing to enforce against other than to the detriment of another interested party. It's hardly a win win situation and you'll also note that they have liberty to restore if there is an improvement in equity. And of course there will be if they maintain the mortgage but I guess it buys them some time.

[Crapstone]

Sadly Crapstone, common sense in courtrooms is not very common.

 

A1

 

For sure but why leave it so late? I am oh so very much on the side of the consumer but if you can't pay after taking on a debt you have to see both sides and address it. I'm not saying it's not difficult and it all seems so unfair at the time if you are living in housing that is just suitable for your means. If you're with one of the sub-prime numpties you should be able to get enough together to have them eating out of your hand without going to court.

[Crapstone]

You will have your day Andrew. I know all to well about the inflated costs, mystery payments taken, the insurance scams.. but what did we really expect? We were well and truly had and on reflection we knew it must be to good to be true to be offered these mortgages. And sadly we didn't read the small print. Their confidence in us made us feel confident enough that those fees would never apply.

 

When I was going through it all I couldn't find a single thing about SMPL. No complaints, no forums, no nothing.

 

I can understand people employing solicitors of barristers but a person I spoke to gave me some sound advice when I asked for help. All she said is that, 'the best person you can ever have to represent yourself is you'.

 

It was hard work and took up all my time, just sitting with sheets and sheets of paper cross referencing everything, adding things up and then doing it all over again. My OH thought I'd gone mad and kept asking why I was even trying as we wouldn't have a cat in hells chance of finding anything to our advantage. They may be stealthy and arrogant but if you dig deep enough you can find and expose their lies.

 

My wish for the New Year is that everyone digs deep inside themselves and finds the strength and courage to confront their fears and make a stand against these companies.

[Crapstone]

Just another thought. I'm wondering why LIBOR fines are going to charities such as the injured armed forced. Not that I begrudge them anything, but what have they got to do with the rate fixing scandal? It just seems to me, that it's one government **** up going to pay off another government **** up and the people that the scandal has affected get nowt. Any views on that?