Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[Penny Wise]

Again more claims without a shred of evidence to support them.

Michael is a proven liar

He claimed Tom Crawford won (he didn't).

Remember he was Tom's "legal" advisor. All his arguments were found to be flawed.

He claimed his family won (they didn't). The legal charge was removed and replaced by an equitable charge.

However, a new legal charge was then signed by one of the trustees on the order of the Court.

He claims to have invented notices of conditional acceptance (he didn't)

Time and time again, he has claimed success for it only to be found later to be lies.

Now again, he wants people to accept his word. The only person he is kidding is himself.

Reading the GOOF forum, not even they are that stupid.

Considering some of the scams they so easily fall for, to see straight through Michael is saying something for them.

[SteveUK]

More victory claims.

[AndyPandy]

More victory claims.

In other words... she's paid it off. He must all think we're as stupid as he is !!

Notice he's changed his stance from 'they have to refund us the mortgage payments' from 'it's our house and they have to give us it back'. !!

[John Uskglass]

I stand to be corrected, but that looks suspiciously as if he's done a Rekha, and slipped an unjustified amendment to the register under their radar.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It doesn't make sense. "There was no attempt to create another illegal mortgage..." So no one did anything wrong? Or there was an attempt to create another legal mortgage? I bet this is a complete non-sequiter to the rest of the sentence and/or it mean the judgement from 2014 actually stands, so someone does owe £1.85m

Why is the Land Registry paying back money paid allegedly by his family to a mortgage lender?

[John Uskglass]

Why is the Land Registry paying back money paid allegedly by his family to a mortgage lender?

'Due to be paid back...from the Chief Land Registrar'

So not actually paid back then, and the reference to the CLR rather than the Registry as entity makes me think that the CLR has had some worthless 'notice' sent to him, which of course will result in eleventy squillion pounds winging its way to our hero.

Of course if the Registry had really made an error costing £1.85 million, that might just have come to the attention of the govt, the National Audit Office, and the press, but I presume its all been covered up, and death squads sent after any whistle blowers.

[aesmith]

It doesn't make sense. "There was no attempt to create another illegal mortgage..." So no one did anything wrong? Or there was an attempt to create another legal mortgage? I bet this is a complete non-sequiter to the rest of the sentence and/or it mean the judgement from 2014 actually stands, so someone does owe £1.85m

I believe the 2014 judgement referred to Ashquorn House, some sort of commercial property and presumably long gone. It's not clear how that relates to his sister's family home. I also presume the £1.85 million is the eventual shortfall after all the commercial property was repossessed and sold.

[hucknallred]

I believe the 2014 judgement referred to Ashquorn House, some sort of commercial property and presumably long gone.

Is this it?

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-price ... ry=england

[TheNewSaint]

I stand to be corrected, but that looks suspiciously as if he's done a Rekha, and slipped an unjustified amendment to the register under their radar.

That's what it sounds like to me too. Especially since Rekha and David friggin' Ward showed how easy it apparently is.

I wonder if O'Bonkers is actually, well, bonkers enough to try and demand payment from Bank of Scotland as he suggests.

[aesmith]

My mistake - Asquorn House. Address, but not postcode, is in the judgement. It also says they paid £415K for it in 2003, and further describes it as containing 10 units of which 7 had existing tenants at that time. I guess it could be flats, commercial in terms of their ownership rather than the nature of the property.

[John Uskglass]

This article is quite interesting (and worrying if you own property in the UK!). It details how fraudsters have been able to literally steal people's houses by exploiting weaknesses in the Land Registry's security.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2328 ... -be-stolen

And this one says that in the years from 2006-2010 the Registry paid out £26M in compensation for such frauds.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/ ... mpensation

So I guess it is just possible, despite what I said previously, that in those amounts one £1.85M payment would not attract particular interest, but on the other hand, the press are clearly interested in 'Land Registry Fraud' stories. If MOB was really on for £1.85M, he'd surely have been in the Mail or Express by now, they'd love the story, and of course he's not adverse to publicity.

The stories do suggest that Rekha style dishonesty over property ownership is easier than one would hope. So my money's still on that hypothesis.

[longdog]

And this one says that in the years from 2006-2010 the Registry paid out £26M in compensation for such frauds.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/ ... mpensation

Unless I'm reading that wrong the compensation was paid to the lenders on the fraudulently registered property not the owners. I don't see how a homeowner could be on the hook for anything other than legal fees putting the registration back in their name which would 100% be recoverable from The land Registry.

If somebody manages to fraudulently register a property in their name and then take out a mortgage that doesn't have any effect on the legal ownership of the property which remains with the homeowner. As these kooks are so fond of saying 'Fraud unravels everything'

[John Uskglass]

There's a somewhat clearer and more detailed explanation here:

https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/land-a-pro ... rty-alerts

Scammers attempt to transfer your property into their name using false documents, or stolen identities, in some cases, even whilst you are living there.
The scammers then raise mortgages against, or sell, your property without you knowing
Victims can find that they have to leave their home as there is nothing that can be done to get the property back.
Victims are left with having to claim compensation from the Land Registry to replace their home.

[longdog]

Victims can find that they have to leave their home as there is nothing that can be done to get the property back.
Victims are left with having to claim compensation from the Land Registry to replace their home.

Complete and utter bollocks. They should know better than to publish such shite.

A fraudster cannot give title or an interest to anybody else over a property he does not own. That's a basic principle of British law.

If a lender gives a mortgage to a person who has falsely registered as an owner with The Land Registry any charge over the property is completely void from the get go as the person giving it had no legal right to do so. The bank has no right to claim the property and would have to pursue the fraudster or The Land Registry.

Contracts for the sale of land in the UK have to be in writing. No written contract, no sale, no change of ownership. Simple as.

No judge is ever going to issue a repossession order for a fraudulently registered property. The whole idea is ridiculous and just another part of the identity theft hysteria that crops up now and again.

[Penny Wise]

More victory claims.

More claims, designed to draw people to his class action. Which will never see the light of day.

Again, not a single shred of evidence to prove that this isn't just more lies.

Much like when he was drumming up interest into his docusoap, he would make similar claims of success (always later found to be lies)

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, this is the same man that claimed Tom had won. We all know how that turned out.

If he had a two headed coin and called tails, he would still claim it was a success

[letissier14]

Any normal person who having claimed such an impressive victory to his minions would be showering them in page after page of factual documents.

Seeing as this hasn't and never will happen, one can rightly assume that it is complete and utter nonsense.

[TheNewSaint]

I'm not familiar with the UK judicial and legal system, but does the Land Registry overrule court decisions?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Only a higher court can over rule a court decision.

Unless it is the comedy court of common law, everyone can overrule their decisions.

[Tevildo]

I'm not familiar with the UK judicial and legal system, but does the Land Registry overrule court decisions?

No. Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 4, paragraph 2:

The court may make an order for alteration of the register for the purpose of—
(a) correcting a mistake,
(b) bringing the register up to date, or
(c) giving effect to any estate, right or interest excepted from the effect of registration.

An order under this paragraph has effect when served on the registrar to impose a duty on him to give effect to it.

If the court has ordered the register to be altered, the registrar is obliged to make the alteration. That being said, the register entry is equivalent to a traditional title deed (Section 58), and the registered proprietor is the legal owner of the estate until the register is amended.

[aesmith]

I'm not familiar with the UK judicial and legal system, but does the Land Registry overrule court decisions?

Last time I saw something similar to M of B's arguments pursued, the case was heard in the Property Chamber which I think must be about the same status as the High Court. That case was very similar, a direct attack on the mortgage validity with the property owner as applicant and the bank as respondent. Other similarities were the fact that some County Court possession proceedings were stayed until the chamber ruled. Although the exact technical points being put forward by M of B may not be the same, I can't see the outcome being any different. It's also noteworthy that the applicant in this case ended up with £8,500 costs against him, and other applicants had to pay undisclosed thousands of pounds even though discontinuing their claims.

"The Tribunal has received a number of similar applications by mortgagors, and the same, or substantially the same, arguments have been run in the County Court in other cases, some of which are referred to below. At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is, however, an argument wholly without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security for a loan."

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandR ... -0020.html