Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[Llwellyn]

What I always find interesting, is instead of taking what you stated (HouseofLard) and doing a point to point breakdown, alternatively it is immediately to comment, snipe, and be derogatory. Instead of taking the words for what they are, a statement of your thoughts/opinions/understandings and breaking them down and countering them.

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

[NYGman]

Of course GOODF were going to flame him, they're a bit truth-averse.

I wondered if they were going to delete me instead. I've just clarified a few points for them but suspect they're not interested.

Unfortunately they are not at all interested in having a rational discussion of the facts and reasons why Michael is wrong, or any mention that he had not actually won, as it goes against their narrative and dissenting opinions are just not allowed. They are far happier in a world without counter positions, and make believe laws than they are in hearing there truth and much less debating it. Anyone dare challenge are obviously trolls, shills, or work for the banks.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Anyone dare challenge are obviously trolls, shills, or work for the banks.

Indeed but when houseoflard informs them he is a solicitor they refuse to believe it

[littleFred]

The GOOFies reacted to houseoflard's post in the expected way.

If it had been the usual uninformed post, they wouldn't have reacted. But it was obviously informed, which is a real problem to the GOOFies. As soon as they permit informed opinion, their closed minds would have to accept that their fantasies about the real world don't stand up to scrutiny.

Do you really think anyone will take what you say as the truth ?

if you can see through my jovial banter and see our love for truth and not LIES like you are spurting, [...]

[Michael is] a well respected truth seeker. [...]

[GOODF is] web site geared towards truth.

I find those comments funny but sad. GOODF is mostly not concerned with the truth. Most members don't care tuppence about the truth.

[NYGman]

If you want to actually discuss the finer legal points made by the legal expert Micheal Waugh as posted by the Mortgage Master Tom Crawford, Goofy isn't going to ever be the place that will allow for that to actually happen. The day someone is allowed to post a counter view on any of the material posted there, and is allowed to engage in a real debate on the law, is the day... You know what, just never going to happen. They can just about win a one sided debate with themselves, arguing with someone who has actual legal knowledge they could never win, and putting their lack of knowledge on display will not help their street cred. so everything to lose, nothing to gain for them.

[Bones]

The briefest way to explain what has happened is:

The bank and the trustees both signed a mortgage deed. However, unlike virtually every other mortgage deed, this deed did not have an attestation clause (where a witness signs). The deed was not therefore witnessed and as such was void (s.1 of the LPA MP 1989) and therefore did not create a legal charge / mortgage.

However, is was sufficient to create an equitable mortgage and the court confirmed that the debt was repayable. In a subsequent case, the Court ordered the trustees to sign a new charge, creating a legal charge / mortgage.

Therefore, even if the short hairy one was actually successful, it would not have the outcome he claims - rendering all mortgages as void, as the majority do have an attestation clause.

This has already been demonstrated in Campbell v Redstone Mortgages Ltd [2014] EWHC 3081 (Ch) (29 September 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3081.html

106. As mentioned above in paragraph 79, Mr Brown referred me to a recent decision of Judge Behrens dated 21 July 2014, Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & others [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) and submitted that the facts of that case are indistinguishable from the present case, with the result that no estoppel can arise and the mortgage in this case has to be set aside. I cannot accept that submission. There is a clear distinction between the facts in Waugh and the facts in this case. This case, similar to the Shah case, concerns a document purporting to be a deed regular on its face in that it appears that Miss Campbell's signature was attested by a witness. Miss Campbell's allegation is that the witness was not in fact present when the mortgage was signed and thus the formalities of s.1(3) of the 1989 Act were not complied with. As Judge Behrens pointed out at §72 in Waugh, that situation is factually different from a situation where the document has no attestation clause at all and is thus not even regular on its face (which was the position in Waugh and in Briggs v Gleeds [2014] EWHC (Ch) 1178, a recent decision of Newey J).

107. Accordingly, for the above reasons, claim number A30LS606 issued on 8 September 2014 must be struck out. Miss Campbell has no grounds for setting aside the mortgage.

Furthermore the short hairy one claims about a witness having to be present when a mortgage deed is signed otherwise it is void have already been disproven in the Court of Appeal case of Shah v Shah & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 527 (10 April 2001)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/527.html

30. I have however come to the conclusion that there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in all circumstances or in circumstances such as the present. The perceived need for formality in the case of a deed requires a signature and a document cannot be a deed in the absence of a signature. I can detect no social policy which requires the person attesting the signature to be present when the document is signed. The attestation is at one stage removed from the imperative out of which the need for formality arises. It is not fundamental to the public interest, which is in the requirement for a signature. Failure to comply with the additional formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession an apparently valid deed has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. It should not permit a person to escape the consequences of an apparently valid deed he has signed, representing that he has done so in the presence of an attesting witness, merely by claiming that in fact the attesting witness was not present at the time of signature. The fact that the requirements are partly for the protection of the signatory makes it less likely that Parliament intended that the need for them could in all circumstances be used to defeat the claim of another party.

In summary, in the Waugh case, the legal charge was only void at law because it did not have an attestation clause. However, the documentation was enough to create an equitable mortgage and the debt still had to be repaid.

[PeanutGallery]

I find those comments funny but sad. GOODF is mostly not concerned with the truth. Most members don't care tuppence about the truth.

I think it's not so much that they don't care about the truth, I believe they are being genuine when they think Goodf is a site dedicated to exposing the truth, I think it's more that they have already determined what that 'truth' is and will not willingly listen to anyone who disputes the veracity of their 'truth'.

In many ways it is akin to religious fervour or cultism, they believe in their gods of three letters, void mortgages and third party interlopers, to such an extent that they will not peek behind the curtain. When the god fails they blame the failure on everything but the god, on Dark Forces, Jews, Banksters, it's the fault of anything but the god. This reinforces their 'truth'.

They don't want to have their 'truth' come crashing down, likely because they have a social investment in the group, if they left they would be shunned by former friends and these friends may be their only social outlet. Finally since they know what the 'truth' is, they aren't interested in debating it.

[Bones]

This is the case Michael for obvious reasons has never mentioned and doesn't want people to know about, basically because he fcked up

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh (No.2) [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch)

Mortgage proceedings - finality of judgment - ability to re-open - order for execution of charge
under s 39(1) Senior Courts Act 1981

Despite having handed down judgment, the judge acceded to an application by a litigant in
person to reconsider the contents, but then dismissed the application. The court went on to
grant relief on the bank’s application.

In Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (reported in the July 2014 update) it
was held that a registered charge which did not contain an attestation clause could not take
effect as a legal charge by estoppel and would be rectified, but it could still take effect as an
equitable charge. On handing down judgment , W asked the judge to effectively reconsider his
judgment, and BoS applied for an order requiring the bank’s charge to be perfected under the
mortgage conditions by the execution of a legal charge.

Since W’s application was before the judge before he had handed down judgment, it was felt
appropriate to consider the points he raised. The main point was that the legal charge was not
enforceable as a contract to create a legal charge or as an equitable mortgage however the legal
charge had been signed by both parties and complied with s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1989. W also challenged the account balance but the mortgage conditions
provided that in the absence of manifest error any determination by the bank was conclusive
and binding. There was no realistic prospect of challenge. Next W wanted to rely on a letter
which suggested that [W] may not be personally liable for the debt, but this was insufficient to
give rise to en estoppel. Accordingly the judge was unwilling to reconsider his judgment.
On the bank’s application, the court made an order under s 39(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 that
in default of execution of the charge by W, it shall be executed by a District Judge of the High
Court, Chancery Division.

This is one of those decisions that no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time but was bound
to cause problems. After helpfully directing himself that there is only a limited power of the
court to reconsider a judgment before it is handed down, the judge nonetheless decided that
even after judgment had been handed down, it would be appropriate on an application by a
litigant in person to reconsider it. Note to litigants in person: don’t rely on this!

Please scroll down to August http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/archiv ... 4588131155

[Bones]

For those that are interested this is an overview of the first hearing

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch)

Validity of mortgage deed – estoppel - equitable charge – mortgage conditions

BoS advanced loan facilities to a trust for the purposes of property development, secured by a charge over a property by the trustees whose signatures were not attested. The trustees applied to HM Land Registry for cancellation of the charge/rectification of the register. The application was stayed pending BoS’s application for summary judgment on its claim for a declaration that (1) the trustees were estopped from denying the validity of the charge; alternatively (2) that the charge was effective as an equitable charge.

Since the charge was not attested and failed to comply with s 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, it was void for the purposes of conveying or creating a legal estate under s 52 Law of Property Act 1925. However, the effect of s 51 Land Registration Act 2002 was that on completion of registration the charge took effect as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage. Since rectification under Schedule 4 only operates for the future (there is no power to rectify retrospectively) the various acts carried out by BoS pursuant to the charge were not void.

As to (1) the estoppel claim, the court distinguished the Shah v Shah [2001] EWCA Civ 527 line of cases in which witnesses had signed but not in the presence of the parties so that the document appeared regular on its face and by the act of delivery the parties were estopped from denying its validity, from the Briggs v Gleeds [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch) line of cases in which the document had no attestation at all and in which no estoppel could operate. This case was on all fours with Briggs. It was clear on the face of the charge that it had not been attested. Accordingly, the trustees were not estopped from denying the validity of the charge.

However (2) notwithstanding that the charge failed to take effect as a legal mortgage, it satisfied the requirements of s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 – it was signed by the parties and contained all the terms that had been agreed - and therefore took effect as an equitable charge.

There is quite a lot in this case. W had been subject to a civil restraint order for taking totally without merit points, including (a) that the bank’s facility letter was void because it was not signed by the bank and therefore failed to satisfy s 2 of the 1989 Act (a common, but misguided point), and (b) that BoS couldn’t enforce its charge because it had failed to disclose its perilous financial position at the time it entered into the facility letter, which was a contract ‘uberrimae fidei’.

There is nothing of any real note in the equitable charge point, but the case is helpful in distinguishing the lines of authority on the estoppel point – the short point here being that an estoppel will only operate where the deed is, on its face, otherwise validly executed.

One important point that the court didn’t deal with (it was taken late and was adjourned to be dealt with at the handing down hearing) was whether the bank could rely on its standard mortgage conditions which required the borrower to take whatever steps and execute whatever documents BoS may require for the purposes of perfecting and giving effect to the charge, and included a power of appointment of BoS as attorney to execute and perfect all deeds. This is, surely, a strong point.

Please scroll down to July http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/archiv ... 4588131155

[houseoflard]

Bones - why not copy your above posts into the GOODF thread? I'd be interested to see their reaction.

Predictable responses from the crowd there but I'm surprised at the level of fanaticism from Goldberry and a couple others. I can't be arsed with wading further into that nonsense, especially as they want me to prove I'm legally qualified. By posting my name so the nutters can hound me and my employer?

[Bones]

Do not post your name or any personal details, those nutters will just bombard you - especially the crawfraud fanclub

Colon banned me after I proved that a claim he made in one of his videos was a lie

[houseoflard]

Do not post your name or any personal details, those nutters will just bombard you - especially the crawfraud fanclub

Colon banned me after I proved that a claim he made in one of his videos was a lie

Mind if I put it up on there? I'll mention it was from someone who questioned the facts laid out on GOODF and got banned for his troubles..

[Bones]

Feel free... Goldberry is one of the faithful.. A truthseeker who does not want to hear the truth

[houseoflard]

Well that thread has really blown up since I posted Bones' helpful summary..

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 5DjybgrLIU

[exiledscouser]

Great fun watching the Goofy gang turning on one another. Peaceful Warrior is one of the "your signature creates money" knobheads. "Go sign yerself a million quid then" says Mr Fibble at which the rest resort to base bullying and name calling.

Someone else points out that if a mortgage is a fraud then you'll have to give the house back as "fraud viates everything" as is frequently shouted. This goes down very badly for some reason with the something for nothing faithful.

They are all pretty unpleasant over there, no manners or civility, closed minds and doublethink. Ably demonstrated by their defence of O'Bonkers (probably because Saint Tom started the thread with a ringing endorsement and claiming - yet another - massive win) whilst even the faithful seem to recognise that MOB has in fact won nothing. That of course is reconciled as the Cabal twisting the outcome. But efforts to point this out are howled down as negativity.

If a process doesn't work then give it up and try something else. Don't encourage others to join you in failure. Attack the argument by all means but nasty sniping ad hominem bilge just demonstrates their lack of original thought and true calibre.

[Bones]

Michael as expected has still not released his movie and has still not provided any evidence to support the claims he recently made

[Bones]

Not wishing to dampen Michael's claim of success which regulary occur whenever he wants to promote the release of his film, but it has now been many months since he said he had won and that everyone from the Land Registry to the Property Chamber had confirmed he had won......

Given this ground breaking victory (in his own imagination) - I am surprised that there is no record of it in the database of decisions of the Land Registration Division of the First Tier Tribunal

http://landregistrationdivision.decisio ... 30May.aspx

Indeed, apart from Tom "will promote any old shit" Crawfraud - Michael appears to have gone silent on what he claimed to be a victory - I wonder how many freetards will pay to watch his at least 6th release of his movie all about people that lost their homes, because like Tom they did not pay their mortgage back

[aesmith]

Seeing this thread popped to the top I wondered if there's been some progress regarding his "win". Apparently not. While randomly looking at his web site I got a laugh from the following ...

All of which reminds me of a truly memorable conversation I had in February 2010 with a conveyancing solicitor of more than three decades professional experience, during which I explained to him that there was no other logical explanation for the common practice of his industry, to which he ominously replied:

Michael, if what you’re saying it true…and I’m not saying that it is…but if it does turn out to be the case that you’re right, it will bring down the whole conveyancing industry.

As my father, who was also present at the meeting in question, is very fond of recalling:

I’ll never forget the look on his face when you smiled and said that was exactly what was going to happen, whether he believed it or not.

Funnily enough I don't think the conveyancing industry has in fact been brought down even though we're now six and a half years on.

[mufc1959]

Funnily enough I don't think the conveyancing industry has in fact been brought down even though we're now six and a half years on.

Apart from recent modernisation to take into account the invention of the computer, the conveyancing industry has barely changed since 1925.

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect that the trustees were given the option, by the court, of either signing the documents they had originally signed, and signing them properly this time, or the court would sign them and hold them in contempt. The end result being the same, the document legally and officially signed as per law, the mortgage defaulted on by Waugh et al, and it being officially and legally gone. Just more time and expense for him to pay off.

I don't know if it is standard practice in the UK, but it is here, something called an errors and omissions clause, which plainly put says that if we, or you, forgot to do something that would be/should be covered by this document, we/you have the right to cure it by taking the appropriate actions, which in Waugh's case would have been getting the damn document properly notarized or whatever and no quibbling.