jimmywx11

[mufc1959]

He did suggest people might put the withheld payments in escrow so they could pay them at some point in the future - which defeats the object of his argument that the mortgage isn't payable anyway.

But even if someone did this for 3 months then bottled out and paid the arrears, their credit rating would be screwed, cutting off access to all forms of mainstream credit in the future. They'd also owe more on their mortgage in arrears fees and extra interest on those fees.

On a BTL mortgage, the consequences could be much more serious - the lender might just send in LPA Receivers to take control of the property and sell it.

[KickahaOta]

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.

That's what I would expect as well, which is why I was confused by this:

(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.)

If this is true, then it would seem that I could go to a cooperative bank and get a mortgage for, say, 10,000 pounds, with a long repayment term and this 'further advances' clause. Then, later on, after a second-priority charge arose that I decided I didn't care for, I could go back to my bank and borrow the remainder of the value of the house, adding it on to the existing mortgage. Suddenly that existing first-priority charge becomes larger and consumes the entire equity of the house, making the second-priority charge essentially worthless.

I would have expected that charges applied to a house would be prioritized by time, regardless of contractual provisions like this -- that if I go back to my bank and borrow additional funds against the existing mortgage, that the additional funds would create a new charge against the house (prioritized behind and existing charges), rather than increasing the existing first-priority charge.

[mufc1959]

The reference to an obligation on the part of the lender allows it to have priority for all further advances. From Lexis:

The priority of registered charges is governed by the order in which they are shown on the register. This can be altered by agreement among the mortgagees, usually by means of a Deed of Priorities, or Postponement. These must themselves be registered.

The proprietor of a registered charge may make a further advance on the security of it ranking in priority to a subsequent charge if:

• the advance is made pursuant to an obligation, or
• the parties have agreed a maximum amount for which the charge is security

The Land Registry will note an obligation to make further advances only if it is contained in:

• form CH1
• an approved form of charge, [like the one contained in the Nationwide legal charge]or
• a separate application in form CH2
If no note of the obligation appears on the register, priority for a further advance may be lost to a subsequent lender.

In the UK mortgage market, if you already have a first charge, then if you want to borrow more money from the same lender, it'll be as a further advance - there's no need for there to be a separate second charge. Generally there would only be a second charge if a new loan is made by a 'second charge lender' - the likes of Firstplus, Blemain, etc..

If your credit's good, you'd just go to your existing lender for extra borrowing, but if they turn you down, you'd have to go to one of the second charge lenders. The loan would have to be within the valuation of the property, so no more than first charge + second charge.

The increased interest rates and fees second charge lenders impose on their borrowers reflects the additional risk to the second charge lender that, if there's a default by the borrower, there's a possibility that there might not be sufficient equity if the property's repossessed and sold to repay their charge in full.

[vampireLOREN]

He did suggest people might put the withheld payments in escrow so they could pay them at some point in the future - which defeats the object of his argument that the mortgage isn't payable anyway.

But even if someone did this for 3 months then bottled out and paid the arrears, their credit rating would be screwed, cutting off access to all forms of mainstream credit in the future. They'd also owe more on their mortgage in arrears fees and extra interest on those fees.

On a BTL mortgage, the consequences could be much more serious - the lender might just send in LPA Receivers to take control of the property and sell it.

I rather hope we don't get carried away in discouraging "SunnyJim" from any of his schemes, the more off the loop he becomes the better........just saying

[ArthurWankspittle]

If this is true, then it would seem that I could go to a cooperative bank and get a mortgage for, say, 10,000 pounds, with a long repayment term and this 'further advances' clause. Then, later on, after a second-priority charge arose that I decided I didn't care for, I could go back to my bank and borrow the remainder of the value of the house, adding it on to the existing mortgage. Suddenly that existing first-priority charge becomes larger and consumes the entire equity of the house, making the second-priority charge essentially worthless.

Basically, yes. But you would only likely to be able to borrow the remaining equity. i.e. value of house minus second charge. Also, and I don't know if anyone does this, I would not be surprised if the second charge holder has a clause in its agreement that says you can't do anything to screw up their charge (better written than that though) or it is repay in full, now, time.

[mufc1959]

Funniest thing I'm likely to read today - plenty of GOODFers have been explaining to our Jimmy the pitfalls of his 'mortgage strike' (i.e. that people will lose their homes). But all is well! That tower of intellect Robswift has stepped into the breach to reasure Jimmy:

You are not stupid.........Do not listen to them.........

[PeanutGallery]

Don't worry I think Jimmy has a plan, what he'll do is take down the numbers from outside his house. That way when the nasty people come looking for it, he can argue it's not 74 Stupid Street because it's "Lost the numbers".

Equally I suppose if you are determined to conceal your postal address from people trying to make you pay things like bills for services received I suppose losing the house would be a massive help. After all, how can they write to you if you are of no fixed address.

That's it Jimmy, the solution to all your debt problems, become homeless, embrace that path because it is the route to the freedom you crave from life.

[Losleones]

Not the sharpest tool in the box is our Jimmy Wyld. He endeavours to lose his name but uses half of it for username on goofy & uploads vids to utube exposing his full name accompanied with his dopey mugshot. His name & face must be known all over Yorkshire by the authorities.

Not the smartest move Jimmy ol son really is it? His dog's car will have a marker on it & our Jimmy is more well known than the QoE. I'd say our lad lives with his mammy or his girlfriend (if she's not walked by now) & defo not a home owner.

[mufc1959]

How does concealing your postal address tie in with Jimmy's previous brainwave of running a mailing service for people who want to put bailiffs off the scent?

[mufc1959]

There are three listings for James Wyld in Yorkshire. All in the public domain, so no subterfuge involved in finding out this info.

4 Teenley Croft, Wigglesworth, Skipton. On a bus route, so handy when the dog's car is crushed.



171 Tom Wood Ash Lane, Wakefield. Ex-council, bus stop nearby. Are either of these the dog's car?



But my money's on this one, as I understand from others on here that he's in the Huddersfield area.

42 Harriet St, Brighouse, HD6 (Huddersfield post code)

[vampireLOREN]

[quote="mufc1959"]There are three listings for James Wyld in Yorkshire. All in the public domain, so no subterfuge involved in finding out this info.


Nicely done, Will phone his local Benefit Fraud Office on Monday.....just 'cos I can

[hanlons razor]

One thing to bear in mind Is maybe he won't be on any listing. Certainly if he's moved and hasn't signed the electoral roll etc

However I've heard him reference Calderdale numerous times in his videos and brighouse does fall within this borough (and as someone with a good amount of knowledge of that area, people from brighouse are much more likely to venture to Huddersfield than to halifax when seeking the amenities of a larger town)

Also knowing the area, I'd imagine most properties around harriet street in Brighouse would be under private ownership, although this doesn't preclude private rentals.

[YiamCross]

At last, makes some sense.

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... ba3LflVhBc

Jimmyw is a being of violet fire. Explains a lot.

[IDIOT]

mmmmm Doesn't exact fill me with confidence when his opening gambit on the GOODF link is this

"bear in mind that you will be saving money immediately SAVE THIS MONEY - KEEP IT SAFE. IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG YOU CAN USE THIS TO BUY YOURSELF OUT OF TROUBLE."

[Losleones]

WHEN EVERYTHING GOES WRONG YOU CAN USE THIS TO BUY YOURSELF OUT OF TROUBLE."

Is this what you meant to type?

[PeanutGallery]

Things have been rather quiet about our favourite plank for a while. Then again I haven't really cared that much about him to check up. But I did notice that in Jimmy's thread regarding clawing back direct debit payments, a new posting has come up from a user called "auroradd"

I managed to clawback funds via my Nationwide Account. They then proceeded to freeze my account for 2 weeks. When I inquired why they told me that they believe that the what took place was fraudulent and required investigating. The next thing I knew was that they told me that they were going to close my account. I still have a few clawback claims that I want to go ahead with, but can I still do this even though my bank account is now closed?

The sheer stupidity on offer here is mind boggling. They have already lost their bank account because the bank, correctly, worked out they were defrauding, the bank closed their account. Now they want to run the same scam and are asking how you can do it without a bank account. Didn't they learn anything from the closure of their account?

[AndyPandy]

Things have been rather quiet about our favourite plank for a while. Then again I haven't really cared that much about him to check up. But I did notice that in Jimmy's thread regarding clawing back direct debit payments, a new posting has come up from a user called "auroradd"

I managed to clawback funds via my Nationwide Account. They then proceeded to freeze my account for 2 weeks. When I inquired why they told me that they believe that the what took place was fraudulent and required investigating. The next thing I knew was that they told me that they were going to close my account. I still have a few clawback claims that I want to go ahead with, but can I still do this even though my bank account is now closed?

The sheer stupidity on offer here is mind boggling. They have already lost their bank account because the bank, correctly, worked out they were defrauding, the bank closed their account. Now they want to run the same scam and are asking how you can do it without a bank account. Didn't they learn anything from the closure of their account?

Do banks share information about account holders 'suspected' of fraudulently using their bank account, presumably you'd have to be convicted. Just trying to think through whether they'd struggle to open an account elsewhere, I guess not ?

[Bones]

Do banks share information about account holders 'suspected' of fraudulently using their bank account, presumably you'd have to be convicted. Just trying to think through whether they'd struggle to open an account elsewhere, I guess not ?

https://www.cifas.org.uk/

If the bank conclude that there was fraud they can out a cifas marker on the persons credit file

[AndyPandy]

So what do we have here, has a legal (?) notice above Tax Disc, but still gets a PCN (£35). Decides to challenge this due to said notice, with non other than that well known Legal brain Jimmyw egging her on and she's now fully with the Strawman (wo) bit!!

Fast forward a couple of months and she's just about to start a small claim against the Council for £5k, again eagerly encouraged by Jimmyw. Do you think someone should point out to her that there is NO legal basis for her claim, the Council will declare the claim Vexatious and will request not insubstantial costs be awarded against her.

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... cixsIZ4WK1

This a lesson on how to turn a £35 fine into a potential liability running into the £000's

[rumpelstilzchen]

Loving this bit from the OP

If I make the presentation that I had given a counter offer, to the council's demand for the PCN payment, on the condition that my demand for payment is met, I take it that would be a valid stance, in contractual terms?

Let me think about that...........er............no.