Shelley5428
Registered User
- Messages
- 3
My loan was transferred from Governor & Company of BOI to BOI (UK) Plc without my knowledge or consent. In Feb 2013 receivers were appointed. Two signatures appeared on the deed of appointment. I objected to the receivership immediately, they went ahead and changed locks, locks were changed back and then we were taken to court by alleged new mortgage owner. A 4 year High Court case followed where I claimed the receiver was appointed invalidly. it was found the the receivers appointment was valid! Facts from the case:
1. All evidence brought into the case(Affidavits & Witnesses) were from the original lender and not BOI (Uk) Plc which is a separate legal entity.
2. The plaintiff claimed for three and half years that the appointment was by deed then on the first day of trial said to Judge, by the way we are not relying on the appointment as a deed it was a writing under hand. I objected to this. Case went on for 4 days where I Cross examined 2 bank managers a solicitor and a receiver. Managers said they signed the appointment as a deed, receiver said he accepted it as a deed, I argued that bank could not claim at this late stage that it was a writing under hand and I used caselaw Mercury V HMRC where judge said that if it started out as a deed then it's validity must be judged on that.
3. Bank managers contracts stated they were employees of Governor Co BOI and not the plaintiff.
4. An authorised signature list was brought before the court as evidence to prove the two signatures were authorised. This list was clearly from GovCo BOI and was dated before the plaintiff was incorporated.
5. 6 months after the trial, judge used court rules and allowed plaintiff to make an application to amend it's pleadings(plaintiff did not ask to amend it’s pleadings) to say appointment was by writing underhand which they did..I objected but judge allowed the application.
7. Judgment went against me
Judge still found that receivers were appointed validly.
1. All evidence brought into the case(Affidavits & Witnesses) were from the original lender and not BOI (Uk) Plc which is a separate legal entity.
2. The plaintiff claimed for three and half years that the appointment was by deed then on the first day of trial said to Judge, by the way we are not relying on the appointment as a deed it was a writing under hand. I objected to this. Case went on for 4 days where I Cross examined 2 bank managers a solicitor and a receiver. Managers said they signed the appointment as a deed, receiver said he accepted it as a deed, I argued that bank could not claim at this late stage that it was a writing under hand and I used caselaw Mercury V HMRC where judge said that if it started out as a deed then it's validity must be judged on that.
3. Bank managers contracts stated they were employees of Governor Co BOI and not the plaintiff.
4. An authorised signature list was brought before the court as evidence to prove the two signatures were authorised. This list was clearly from GovCo BOI and was dated before the plaintiff was incorporated.
5. 6 months after the trial, judge used court rules and allowed plaintiff to make an application to amend it's pleadings(plaintiff did not ask to amend it’s pleadings) to say appointment was by writing underhand which they did..I objected but judge allowed the application.
7. Judgment went against me
Judge still found that receivers were appointed validly.
