Viral Facebook Eviction - Wales

[mufc1959]

The FB page has had contributions from, amongst others, Emily 'Love-Light' Davies (erstwhile of this parish)

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10855&p=225215#p225215

and Cindy Harris (ditto) - viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10855&p=239316&#p239289.
and
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11140&p=239319#p239303

Both claimed to have had their debt eradicated by WeRe Bank (wrong!), and Cindy Harris also tried the 'void mortgage' argument with the FOS, and was later evicted herself by her lender. On the Viral FB Eviction page she claims (a) that being evicted was the best thing that ever happened to her, she's happy as Larry in a new house living debt-free and, a short while later (b) she's leaving the UK because there's nothing here for her and the entire country is a corrupt cesspit.

[John Uskglass]

Its pretty clear that they thought they'd found a way of getting out of paying the mortgage, and were greedy enough not to stop either to think or take qualified advice. The idea that they had to stop paying to avoid being party to a crime is specious in the extreme.

Note the shouty man in the third eviction video, who has clearly been influenced by FMOTL ideas (and possibly alcohol!)

Oh, and the bit where one of the supporters chunters about child abuse while holding a fag in front of the kid's face....

[Wakeman52]

I think that this is the person being referred to in the FB comments on the eviction videos:

https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/issu ... onviction/

A brief search reveals other similar, more local to this eviction, mortgage broker fraud cases in the last few years; for example:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... r-10103819

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser ... 00/a315844

I still don't have any sympathy; they stopped paying on their mortgage. That can't have been the advice they would have had from any professional source.

[ArthurWankspittle]

right ok i think lots of people have seen what happened today so i just want to make everyone aware if i can about what its about, bear with me though, my head is mashed, its been an ordeal to say the least.........................this has been going on since march 2015 and i dont even know where to start, but i will try and keep it short as much as i can, we "defaulted" on our mortgage because we found out that the mortgage was fraudulent, they have forged the deed.........

But that doesn't invalidate your mortgage. You can't stop paying the lender because the deed has been messed with. The lender is probably as interested as you are in getting the deed issues sorted out. They are the victim here, they paid commission and lent money under false pretences. One of the least worst options would have been to go to a solicitor and say we'll pay our mortgage into a client account until this is sorted. But no - it's free house time.

.......anyway we have the material evidence of BOTH copies of the same deed, one with a date, and the other with tippex on and another date......

So you have two copies of a deed one of which has been changed. And this means what exactly?

...........went through the civil courts and they ignored it so we got an SAR (subject access request) and up jumped out the even bigger fraud...................................darren was a postman at the time and he gave all his payslips to prove it, as you do, but in the SAR was a document that was filled out by the broker saying that darren had his own business DJR business services and he had tripled darrens income and forged his signature, along with another 3 documents including the DD mandate, he didnt even try, its a shit attempt...................................some background work into the broker company and it turns out that the CEO of it had served 3 years for fraud against his bank (obtaining property by deception & a money transfer by deception) but he failed to tell the FSA when he applied for his licences......................................the FSA found out and questioned him......he lied again, and then they further investigated, found out he had lied and stripped him from his licence, never to work in finance again, this is a public document, anyone can read it - so we brought a private criminal prosecution which is still ongoing,

What for? I fail to understand their (the mortgagors) loss here. What happens if Mr Naughty Broker gets prosecuted for fraud and says they knew all about it and insisted he put the application in? Whatever Mr Naughty Broker has done it one, doesn't justify stopping paying the mortgage and two, gets them a free house. A cynic might think that they only started looking at the mortgage deeds after they realised they couldn't afford the mortgage and were getting behind with the payments.

[John Uskglass]

forged his signature, along with another 3 documents including the DD mandate

This is where one suspects at least passive collusion by the borrowers. If the DD mandate had been altered without their knowledge to reflect the payments due on a mortgage based on inflated income, surely they'd have noticed this the first time they got a bank statement? At which point, presumably, if they challenged it, the whole thing would unravel.

Unless the broker was completely brazen and/or stupid, they'd realise that increasing the DD without the borrower's knowledge was bound to raise questions pretty soon, and they'd be in trouble. That's a considerable risk, unless you're pretty certain that the borrower will keep schtum.

[aesmith]

This is where one suspects at least passive collusion by the borrowers. If the DD mandate had been altered without their knowledge to reflect the payments due on a mortgage based on inflated income, surely they'd have noticed this the first time they got a bank statement?

As far as I'm aware, based on any that I've completed, the DD mandate doesn't specify the payments expected to be taken. That's one of the reasons for all the Direct Debit protection stuff.

[John Uskglass]

the DD mandate doesn't specify the payments expected to be taken.

Ah. Shows how long it is since I set up a DD! I obviously confused it with a Standing Order. In which case, I'm not sure what the point of the alleged forging of mandate was?

In any case, I think the base point still stands. They must surely have known from the repayment amounts, and certainly from from the annual statement (the loan was taken out in 2005), that the amount borrowed was greater than their incomes would permit?

[Wakeman52]

forged his signature, along with another 3 documents including the DD mandate

But...

i) The broker must have had your account details correct, otherwise a DD would not have been set up.

ii) You presumably rec'd bank statements over the years, but didn't question the amounts being taken from your account by the lender.

iii) One of you is an accountant (or used to be); did it not occur to you that the repayments, from the start, were substantially reducing your net income by more than you thought, to the point of being unaffordable? [Later edit] Or perhaps it did. Eventually.

iv) How exactly does suing the broker for his fraudulent behaviour (bearing in mind that he's already been convicted of same) invalidate the agreement between you and your lender? Especially since you paid said lender under the agreed terms for quite a few years. You express surprise and indignation that, after stopping those payments, you were eventually evicted.

Come on, you can't be that naive.

[Boll Weevil]

New video: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =546367700

Haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but I warn you, it's gonna be 15 minutes of monotone.

[NYGman]

I have said this before about other idiots, and still don't understand why they act this way, but if you think you have a claim, go to court and prove it. Get a judgement for the previous amounts paid and enforce it, returning the money you wrongly paid. Why they think stopping payment because they believe a fraud went on, is a valid option?

I think the whole lets stop paying this fraudulent mortgage, stems from some of the actions that took place around the financial meltdown, where some people were able to eventually nullify their mortgage, because of document defects, or have the bank write them off as uncollectable. As this did happen, and these people didn't get any relief, they feel owed. The mindset is along the lines of "why would the bank cancel/write off their loans not mine?" It probably wasn't helped by those click-bait ads promising loan forgiveness.

I think these folk feel they are owed a bit of loan forgiveness as they feel wronged in some way.

[Boll Weevil]

I think it's a combination of narcissism (I am always right, I am responsible for my successes and others are responsible for my failures) and paranoia (there is a corrupt system controlling everything, it is against me and I am omniscient and intelligent enough to perceive it).

There's no consistency but there is predicablity. If a judge rules against me, they're a corrupt hack. If they rule in my favour they are exemplary and a fine testament to our justice system. See also: the police are contemptible pigs except when I need them, and I don't owe money to my mortgage lender because of reasons, but if someone tried that on with me I'd have the screaming abdabs.

[Boll Weevil]

I think these folk feel they are owed a bit of loan forgiveness as they feel wronged in some way.

It seems more like entitlement. They're voluntarily unemployed, voluntarily homeschooling a child and now voluntarily homeless. There's a pattern.

Scrolling through Watson's posts, she's independently disproved evolution because apes are still around. Yeah... she's the first numpty to think that ever.

[He Who Knows]

Scrolling through Watson's posts, she's independently disproved evolution because apes are still around. Yeah... she's the first numpty to think that ever.

Okaaaaay. That's right because Noah included a pair of apes on his ark. He also included a pair of zebras and a pair of horses that didn't evolve down any branchlines either. Elementary my dear Watson...

[Gregg]

Scrolling through Watson's posts, she's independently disproved evolution because apes are still around. Yeah... she's the first numpty to think that ever.

Okaaaaay. That's right because Noah included a pair of apes on his ark. He also included a pair of zebras and a pair of horses that didn't evolve down any branchlines either. Elementary my dear Watson...

But what happened to the two dinosaurs?

[Dr. Caligari]

But what happened to the two dinosaurs?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... -funny.jpg

[NYGman]

What people tend to forget us they the Bible says that God told Noah to take on the Ark two of every kind of animal, and seven pairs of the clean animals and flying creatures. (Actually still that quote from Ark encounters web site or all places). Clean animals are viewed as those that are kosher, per Jewish law. Which would mean 14 Cows, for example, but only 2 pigs (yet we still have plenty of Bacon, hmm). It would also mean 14 locusts as they are the only kosher insect, so I would also include 2 mosquitoes, then the question is why save the mosquito, or perhaps as a flying bug, they were able to bring 12 more, of those disease spreading insects. Not to mention ticks, fleas, wasps, this boat is starting to look like a horror movie.

Anyway tangent over. Point is, many more animals than people think.

[Burnaby49]

No, no, you've got it all wrong. Never mind trying to fit them into the bible narrative. There's a simple scientific reason why they went extinct;

[ArthurWankspittle]

Scrolling through Watson's posts, she's independently disproved evolution because apes are still around.

Got to be true though as creationists are still around too.

[Boll Weevil]

https://www.facebook.com/Mortgage-fraud ... 732682209/

GoFundMe is still off its goal by a couple of hundred quid...

[Hercule Parrot]

ii) One of you is an accountant (or used to be); did it not occur to you that the repayments, from the start, were substantially reducing your net income by more than you thought, to the point of being unaffordable? [Later edit] Or perhaps it did. Eventually.

iv) How exactly does suing the broker for his fraudulent behaviour (bearing in mind that he's already been convicted of same) invalidate the agreement between you and your lender? .

Exactly. This whole thing is bogus. I remember being a young family house user, as I'm sure many other UK members do. It was all about money -

How much did your desired home cost
How much would you need to borrow
Which lenders might be willing to lend
If there was a choice, which terms were best
Would the repayments be affordable

Conservative lenders offered lower ratio to earnings, and required a bigger down-payment, but were cheap and safe. Other lenders would take more risk, lend you more, but at a higher interest rate.

Young buyers would routinely obtain a mortgage calculated to dual income, even though they intended to start a family soon. They usually borrowed at the higher end of their ability, because they wanted a nice house and it was assumed to be a constantly rising market.

It defies belief that any moderately intelligent adult (especially an accountant!) would be unaware of how much they had chosen to borrow, on what terms.