23/08/2026
This is not legal advice……….. it is an observation, only.
From The Masters of the High Court: Edmund Honohan.
Tailte Éireann is not fit for purpose: and so say all of us, look behind the conclusive of the lien and the Vulture Funds are gone…. gone… gone. The Courts, Vulture Funds, Solicitors and Barristers are trying their best to maintain this ‘stand’……. “you can’t look behind the title”.
Why not? If it proves that the Vulture Funds own nothing.
As confirmed by Deputy Registrar of Land Registry retired: “registration of a charge as a burden on registered land is not evidence of its ownership, it is evidence only that the charge is an encumbrance on the estate of the registered owner”.
You cannot be the Legal Title Holder of the mortgage charge unless you are the owner. The credit servicer doesn’t have ownership, it just has a contract for services.
The servicer is not the beneficial owner ‘in due course’. That interest belongs to the Note Holder.
The party entitled to possession is the party whose capital is at risk. In accountancy terms, those, on whose balance sheet does the charge appear.
In order to expedite prosecution, many of the credit sericers have falsely represented themselves as owners of the loans. The existence of funders who are the true owners is concealed from the courts.
Land And Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009:
(1) Subject to section 98, a mortgagee shall not take possession of the mortgaged property without a court order granted under this section, unless the mortgagor consents in writing to such taking not more than 7 days prior to such taking).
The entity that has me in court is not the Mortgagee in possession: they are the servicing agent, only. By implication, a possession order is unavailable to any other application than a mortgagee. The Plaintiff is not the mortgagee.
The credit purchaser as the owner is the only entity to be the Plaintiff in possession proceedings and no one else.
A Possession Order is to pay the Plaintiff monies due and owing under the Registration of Titles Act 1964, section 62 (7); the Plaintiff is looking for a Possession Order not to pay themselves but to give it to an unrelated 3rd party and receive a fee for doing so.
The Plaintiff is no more than a collection agent for an unrelated 3rd party.
The Plaintiff has changed the Legal Infrastructure of our Mortgage: We were consumers, but the business transaction between the seller and the purchaser has changed the dynamics of our contract with the Plaintiff. We are now under a commercial contract between the Plaintiff and the purchaser. We are no longer the subject of a consumer and the entitlements as a consumer.
The Plaintiff has no beneficial interest in the Property; other than receiving a fee for a Possession Order.
The Plaintiff does not seek a Possession Order to pay themselves but to pass that Order on to receive their fee.
The Registration of Titles Act 1964, 62 (7) requires a Possession Order for the power of sale to satisfy the Plaintiff's charge: in this case, our case the Possession Order will be given to somebody else and the Plaintiff will be satisfied by a simple Fee.
The Plaintiff is claiming Legal Title, they have not shown the proofs before this Honourable Court.
As confirmed by Deputy Registrar of Land Registry retired: “registration of a charge as a burden on registered land is not evidence of its ownership, it is evidence only that the charge is an encumbrance on the estate of the registered owner”.
The Plaintiff has shown no proofs that they are the owners of the mortgage and are entitled to a possession order.
Registration of Title Act, 1964.
31. (1) “The register shall be conclusive evidence of the title of the owner to the land as appearing on the register and of any right”, is no longer fit for purpose, it is now not conclusive that the Plaintiff is the owner of the mortgage or the charge.
Price gouging by the Plaintiff: the rate they are being charged is “excessive” and “out of proportion with any legitimate rate they should be charged”. The Plaintiff must abide by the terms of the loan agreements they entered into with the original owner.
The rate, is being “driven exclusively” by the Plaintiffs desire to obtain “the maximum amount it can extract from me base with a view to making a profit.”
I declare that the Plaintiff charging me an interest rate on my mortgage that is higher than the corresponding rate they were being charged by mainstream banks and my original lender is unlawful and in breach of EU regulations on consumer contracts.
The vulture fund on the mortgage is charging interest rate / s out of all proportion to any legitimate rate allowed under the loan contract, and that the Vulture Fund has been unjustly enriched at the couple's expense.
Extracts from the article:
They also want the court to declare that Pepper charging them an interest rate on their mortgage that is higher than the corresponding rate being charged by PTSB is unlawful and in breach of EU regulations on consumer contracts.
They further seek orders for damages for alleged breaches of contract, statutory duty and of codes of contact guaranteed in the 2013 Central Bank Supervision and Enforcement Act.
In their action the couple, who dispute Pepper's justification, claim the rate they are being charged is "excessive" and "out of proportion with any legitimate rate they should be charged". They claim that Pepper must abide by the terms of the loan agreements they entered into with PTSB.
The rate, they alleged, is being "driven exclusively" by Pepper's desire to obtain "the maximum amount it can extract from its consumer base with a view to making a profit."
Read the first line of our motto………….
Fight the Banks & the Vulture Funds; Don’t give up your home.
Nothing in this post can be construed as legal advice.
Email: [email protected]
00353 89 229 3665
We don’t give advice, we are free of charge.
Tax Haven Ireland.
Ireland: commonly known as the wild-west.
“the government against the people”
