jimmywx11

[vampireLOREN]

If anything she is younger than Jimmy.[/quote]
Yep, that's her the JahSoldier1 the face that sank a thousand ships, this was at an early attempt to evict Michael O'Deara .[/quote]
Did guru Mark "vindaloo" Ceylon actually open his mouth during that video. I think the dog contributed more. What an intelligent looking bunch of unemployed freeloaders. They always appear stoned or half cut in these amateurish pointless protests.[/quote]


And what makes me very happy is the EnforcementOfficer/Bailiff is the one and only Dave Caress (who must be retired by now), thanks to Jon DERBJD Dow most of the chosen think is me! (Hardcopy has assisted in this.....a lot).

[grixit]

weren't you going to put up that image as your avatar here?

[vampireLOREN]

weren't you going to put up that image as your avatar here?

Hi, when I figure how to do it.....in the mean time it'll do nicely for the tube

[grixit]

1. download the image. you can do that by rightclicking it and selecting save image
2. resize the image to 60 x 60 which is the maximum size alowed
3. upload it to an image site such as photobucket or flickr. copy the direct link
4. click on the downarrow to the right of your name at the top of the page here at quatloos. slect profile
5. from the profile page select edit profile, then edit avatar
6. in edit avatar selest remote avatar and paste the direct link
7. save

if you like, i can handle the image for you, but i can't do the actual edit, as i am not an admin

[rumpelstilzchen]

jimmy has had another one of his fantastic brainwaves. He wants to bring the banks to their knees by organising a "Mortgage Strike" so that the banks will have to come clean and admit to their treacherous behaviour. The idea is to get a group of GOOFs to withhold their mortgage payments at an agreed time. Yeah...that really will work.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... aeL8pXbJdh

Some questions. Does jimmy have a mortgage himself or is he leading this one from the rear? If jimmy does have a mortgage, how on earth does he service it? jimmy has claimed he has "lost the name". The name on the mortgage would have nothing to do with jimmy. The only way jimmy could make payments would be by using cash but if he did do that he would be admitting to the name on the mortgage agreement. He can't use a cheque or debit payment because they would carry a name. If or when the mortgage is paid off he would not be able to claim the house as his own because he does not have a name.

[longdog]

So let me get this right... Jimmy OneCell wants to force the banks to admit we the people straw-men don't have to actually pay the mortgage by not paying the mortgage?

The banks are going to say... "Curses... These people aren't paying us back the money we lent them so to make them pay us back the money we lent them we'll just have to admit that they don't have pay back the money we lent them."

Perhaps I'm missing something but...

This reminds me of a documentary I watched a while back where a British soldier walking through the ruins of Berlin in 1945 was told by a German woman "If only you had surrendered in 1940 none of this need have happened"

[YiamCross]

...

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... aeL8pXbJdh

....

So many shades of stupid I have to question whether these people should be allowed out of doors on their own.

They seem to have the idea they have something in common with Emily Borders who made a stand against the building societies in the 30s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/prop ... anity.html

What they fail to understand is there appears to have been some legal basis for her grievance and in order to make her point she studied the law and took it through the courts. She won some victories but lost her house in the end even though it appears she had good reason to complain.

Jimmyw et al, on the other hand, have some rant cut and pasted from, I'm guessing, that South African bloke who won a famous victory against the banks but somehow lost his home. Another Tom Crawfordesque victory I'd guess, and judging from the argument presented I can see how it would fly as well as a lead balloon.

It doesn't take a brain the size of a planet to work out their theory about how the banks create their loans from a promissory note that has "value for cash" is complete bollocks. If a promissory note has value for cash then just cash it in and buy the house without the loan? To be honest I don't even know if a mortgage agreement counts as a promissory note but it surely does count as a contract to repay monies loaned to purchase a house and the house is put up as security. The only thing which gives the mortgage or "promissory note" value is the commitment to pay back the money lent, with interest, and that otherwise unenforceable promise is made good with the charge on the asset which has been purchased with the loan.

Why do they think that selling the "note" or mortgage pays off the loan? Bank lends me £100K then sells the loan & gets it's £100K back. But whoever paid for the loan is going to be £100K out if it's not paid back so the loan doesn't go away. Am I missing something here?

These people have a special kind of stupid that I've never encountered before and frankly it's quite disturbing to think they're free to walk among us.

[littleFred]

I agree, YiamCross, but would pull you up on a single point:

To be honest I don't even know if a mortgage agreement counts as a promissory note but it surely does count as a contract to repay monies loaned to purchase a house and the house is put up as security.

As I understand it (which means that I don't), a mortgage isn't technically a contract. A mortgage is just a mortgage. It is possible to have a contract to create a mortgage, but that doesn't normally occur. There is a loan, and security on a loan, but that's it.

The only reason I mention this is because some SovCits discover their mortgage doesn't fulfil conditions that would make it a contract, so they scream, "It isn't a valid contract! Therefore it isn't a mortgage and I can stop paying but keep the house!" The first part of that is true. The second isn't.

[PeanutGallery]

I agree, YiamCross, but would pull you up on a single point:

To be honest I don't even know if a mortgage agreement counts as a promissory note but it surely does count as a contract to repay monies loaned to purchase a house and the house is put up as security.

As I understand it (which means that I don't), a mortgage isn't technically a contract. A mortgage is just a mortgage. It is possible to have a contract to create a mortgage, but that doesn't normally occur. There is a loan, and security on a loan, but that's it.

The only reason I mention this is because some SovCits discover their mortgage doesn't fulfil conditions that would make it a contract, so they scream, "It isn't a valid contract! Therefore it isn't a mortgage and I can stop paying but keep the house!" The first part of that is true. The second isn't.

I think the reason a mortgage isn't a contract, in strict terms of law, is that the bank doesn't get any consideration for giving up the money to enable the house to be purchased. It would also seem likely that their are a lot of areas of contract law that might be incompatible with the notion of mortgages or could lead to an unfair outcome for either party. I think that mortgages are kept apart from normal contract law and protections for what are very sensible reasons. Of course people being people will get the terms mixed up and think a mortgage agreement is a contract, because other types of agreements are contracts. But not all agreements are contracts although all contracts are agreements.

[mufc1959]

LittleFred is right, a mortgage isn't a contract for a disposition in land, it's actually a disposition in land.

The mortgage is granted by the borrower to the lender to give security over the property as collateral for a loan. It operates separately to the loan agreement, which is usually called the mortgage offer and is in a form prescribed by the FCA.

This is where the SovCits get their knickers in a twist, when they see that the mortgage deed has only been signed by them and not the lender. That's perfectly normal and valid - a disposition only has to be signed by the party granting the disposition, in this case the borrowers granting the mortgage to the lender. But the idiots demand to see the wet ink signatures from the living man or woman who signed it on behalf of the bank, and mistakenly think it's invalid if only they as borrowers have signed it.

There's been a number of court cases, Land Registry tribunals and FOS decisions on this very point. In the infamous Waugh case, the mortgage deed hadn't been properly signed, which meant that the lender only had an equitable , not a legal, charge, over the property. But the judge sorted that out, saying the Trustees had to sign a fresh legal charge and if they didn't, the court would do so on their behalf.

[IDIOT]

Could somebody please post up a copy of a mortgage agreement up here?

[YiamCross]

I lack the technical knowledge to know the difference between an agreement and a contract. Consideration wouldn't bar a mortgage agreement from being a contract, most mortgages require an arrangement fee and consideration doesn't have to be monetary, only something of value. I'd have thought a loan was something of value but either way it doesn't much matter since it's legally enforceable whether it is or isn't a contract.

I don't understand how a loan agreement can be separate from the mortgage since without the mortgage the loan agreement would be hard to enforce. If money has been loaned to someone who can't pay then, without the mortgage and charge on the property as security, how can any amount outstanding be collected? What stops the mortgagee taking the property even if the loan is repaid?

I can quite understand how people come to wrong conclusions about the law, it has been made deliberately opaque to ensure access can only be gained through by a group of experts and those experts, or lawyers, have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It is a pity that in a legal battle it's almost certain that the person with the deepest pockets will win. It's an even greater pity that idiots like the freemen muddy the waters and distract the rest of us from pressing for changes which would actually be of benefit to all of us (well, those who aren't lawyers)

[mufc1959]

I can't find any templates for mortgage offers online, but the link below contains examples of Key Facts Illustrations, which are basically in the identical format to the mortgage offers.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/other_pub ... gage.shtml

[mufc1959]

Here's an example of Nationwide's mortgage deed. It incorporates the mortgage conditions into the deed, so repayment of the loan is binding on the mortgagor.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Oct_11.pdf

(The reference to further advances is confusing, but it means that any further advance at a later date is included in this mortgage and forms part of the first priority charge over the property, ahead of any second charges.)

[KickahaOta]

(The reference to further advances is confusing, but it means that any further advance at a later date is included in this mortgage and forms part of the first priority charge over the property, ahead of any second charges.)

It seems odd that this approach would be allowed. With a cooperative bank, that would let you create arbitrarily-large first-priority charges at any time, even long after a second-priority charge had emerged.

[IDIOT]

Here's an example of Nationwide's mortgage deed. It incorporates the mortgage conditions into the deed, so repayment of the loan is binding on the mortgagor.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/NR/rdonlyre ... Oct_11.pdf

(The reference to further advances is confusing, but it means that any further advance at a later date is included in this mortgage and forms part of the first priority charge over the property, ahead of any second charges.)

Thanks for that.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It seems odd that this approach would be allowed. With a cooperative bank, that would let you create arbitrarily-large first-priority charges at any time, even long after a second-priority charge had emerged.

What? Unless the second charge was also theirs, which would be a bit odd but not impossible, then surely you need to get permission off the second charge holder to introduce a new first charge.

[longdog]

The only reason I mention this is because some SovCits discover their mortgage doesn't fulfil conditions that would make it a contract, so they scream, "It isn't a valid contract! Therefore it isn't a mortgage and I can stop paying but keep the house!" The first part of that is true. The second isn't.

I think the logic goes... "I can't be forced to do anything unless there is a contract. There is no contract therefore I don't have to do it".

Obviously this is complete nonsense and they don't even abide by the contracts they do make if it's going to cost them money but what other explanation is there for GOOFs like vanreet who lost his benefits because there was no 'contract' between him and the DWP?

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... ajilfmYFja

Was it Einstein who said "The only two infinite things are the universe and human stupidity... And I'm not sure about the universe".

[NYGman]

Just thinking about Jimmy's plan for everyone to stop paying their mortgage, wouldn't the banks just come in and repossess everyones home? While this may take longer, with an increase in cases winding throught hte courts, at the end of the process peopel will be homeless and will have lost much of their equity.

Anyone with a mortgage that is currently paying it would not want to put their equity and home at risk. Obviously Jimmy doesn't own his home, and this idea, like his mail forwarding service is just another idiotic idea from the mind of a mental midgit. (No offence to little people)

[longdog]

Just thinking about Jimmy's plan for everyone to stop paying their mortgage, wouldn't the banks just come in and repossess everyones home?

Jimmy's great idea, as far as I can see, is for the people to force the banks to admit people don't have to pay their mortgage by not paying their mortgage.

Apparently Jimmy's one brain cell can't spot the obvious fault in this master-plan.