Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[AnOwlCalledSage]

OC41 3387 0005
Created 27 September 2017 Delivered 2 October 2017 Status Satisfied on 11 September 2018
Transaction Filed Registration of a charge (LLMR01)
View PDF for Registration of a charge (LLMR01) (6 pages)
Persons entitled Together Commercial Finance Limited
Brief description
Freehold title registered under title number TY202264*.
Contains fixed charge.

There's another PDF, with not much in it apart from, ahem:

Satisfaction of the charge: In full

!!!success 1!!

*TY202264 is now called Walker Buildings which I why I failed to track it down yesterday.

[He Who Knows]

John Uskglass wrote
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

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.

I agree with John Uskglass. We've all seen how Rekha Patel was able to sell her property to her parents for £2, and later to Tunkashila Ltd for £100 and kept Tunkashila Ltd's name on the deeds of her cottage for 18months despite the Charges Register having restrictions relating to the outstanding monies owing for legal fees. So the reason she was never charged for the numerous break-ins up until the cottage was sold (and got off her criminal damage and squatting charge even after the cottage was sold) was because the police and courts wrongly saw Tunkashila Ltd as the bona fide owner of Patel Cottage right up to the point that "Macca's" name belatedly entered the Land Registry. So yes, John Uskglass, property ownership is easier than one would hope.

[SteveUK]

OC41 3387 0005
Created 27 September 2017 Delivered 2 October 2017 Status Satisfied on 11 September 2018
Transaction Filed Registration of a charge (LLMR01)
View PDF for Registration of a charge (LLMR01) (6 pages)
Persons entitled Together Commercial Finance Limited
Brief description
Freehold title registered under title number TY202264*.
Contains fixed charge.

There's another PDF, with not much in it apart from, ahem:

Satisfaction of the charge: In full

!!!success 1!!

*TY202264 is now called Walker Buildings which I why I failed to track it down yesterday.

The folk mentioned, together personal finance, seem to specialise in 'unique' mortgages / bridging loans, read - probably sub prime. Have the family obonkers just taken out a new mortgage and paid off the debt?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Land Registry entry:

Title Number : TY202264
Address of Property : 1 to 10 Walkers Buildings, Borough Road, North Shields (NE29 6LL)
Price Stated : Not Available
Registered Owner(s) : NORLAND ESTATES LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 08787581) of 18 St. Swithin's Lane, London EC4N 8AD.
Lender(s) : Prudential Trustee Company Limited

[aesmith]

I can't see any reference to M of B's family, or "The Nelson Trust" which I believe was their trading name, in those Land Registry extracts. However that title number matches Asquorn House as described in the court case, address was then given as "20 – 22 Borough Road, North Shields". Land Registry search shows it as sold for £800K in September 2017. To me it looks more like this all refers to the new owners, after the LPA receivers seized the property from the Trust/Family. I can't see that being his sister's family home.

https://goo.gl/maps/Uy5Z9FjzV5jANisG7

[ArthurWankspittle]

I agree with John Uskglass. We've all seen how Rekha Patel was able to sell her property to her parents for £2, and later to Tunkashila Ltd for £100 and kept Tunkashila Ltd's name on the deeds of her cottage for 18months despite the Charges Register having restrictions relating to the outstanding monies owing for legal fees. So the reason she was never charged for the numerous break-ins up until the cottage was sold (and got off her criminal damage and squatting charge even after the cottage was sold) was because the police and courts wrongly saw Tunkashila Ltd as the bona fide owner of Patel Cottage right up to the point that "Macca's" name belatedly entered the Land Registry. So yes, John Uskglass, property ownership is easier than one would hope.

Hanover Cottage had the advantage though of not having a charge against it. O'Bonkers must have mortgages on them or why would he be involved?

[He Who Knows]

Hanover Cottage very much DID have a charge on it - not a mortgage charge but one in the name of Plexus Law/the neighbour

[aesmith]

From M of B's Facebook, someone thinking they'll be able to claim around 1/2 million in total. Plus a free house of course.

John Smith My friend has sent his answers to LR based on this news, your case, Pacific Mortgages ruling and TGBMS ruling. He will be due 13 years of £1300/month with statutory interest from the bank and is also suing for £250k damages for nervous breakdown caused by the bank, loss of earnings (he was a top level Engineer but now can only handle simple jobs). His wife is, also suing separately as she was forced into bankruptcy in order to help make the extortionate payments of 5.75% (when boe rate was 0.25%).
He has also volunteered to help other mortgagors with that bank FREE OF CHARGE, just to shaft the bank

[Penny Wise]

Michael Waugh has failed to post a single letter/document from

Bank of Scotland
Land Registry
First Tier Property Chamber

Or from anywhere else to support or prove any of his claims of success for that matter.

Interestingly, when you check the decisions of the Property Chamber their are none for Waugh and Bank of Scotland.

He has claimed that his family trust were successful in relation to all of the properties and most recently that his sister was successful.

Are we really to believe that this was all done and agreed via telephone calls, without a single letter.

He always claims a success when he has a scheme to promote. This time the class action. Time and time again it is proven to be more lies.

I wonder how he is planning on making money out of the class action scam.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Hanover Cottage very much DID have a charge on it - not a mortgage charge but one in the name of Plexus Law/the neighbour

But didn't she do the owner shuffle before it was registered? Whatever the dates anyway a court decided money was owed and IIRC ignored all the name shuffling.

Back to O'Bonkers. Those links to articles are all about people pretending to own properties and raising mortgages or selling them. O'Bonkers goes on about fake mortgages. He is not going to get compensation out of the Land Registry to get out of a mortgage his "customers" signed up for in the first place. Nor, like his own case, is he going to get out of a mortgage because of an oversight concerning a signature in the paperwork.

[He Who Knows]

ArthurWankspittle wrote:

He Who Knows wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:24 pm
Hanover Cottage very much DID have a charge on it - not a mortgage charge but one in the name of Plexus Law/the neighbour

But didn't she do the owner shuffle before it was registered? Whatever the dates anyway a court decided money was owed and IIRC ignored all the name shuffling.

No, she did the 'owner shuffle' 3 years after the Plexus Law/neighbour charge was first registered in 2013 (see page 79 of the Rekha Patel thread).

My point being that the Charge was worthless in this case as it was ignored by conveyance solicitors in the 'owner shuffle'; it was ignored by police who for over a year didn't arrest Rekha Patel and Freetards until the Land Registry was updated to Macca's name; it was ignored by the Mags court who accepted the argument that Tunkashila owned the property when Rekha Patel broke in, damaged Macca's property and squatted during the weeks between Macca buying the property and the land Registry updating. Neither police nor the court saw the High Court Order for Sale as superseding a Land Registry fraudulent entry of an undervalue sale of £100.

John Uskglass's point is correct about it being easier than ever for fraudsters to change property ownership on the newly computerised system before the hard-pressed Land Registry picks up on it - even when there is an equitable charge or unilateral notice registered on the property.

Un-mortgaged properties are more vulnerable to fraudsters hence...

John Uskglass wrote:
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.

[aesmith]

I'm not sure Rekha's sham sales actually had any affect. If they hadn't gone through the Land Registry would have still shown her as owner, wouldn't it? Which would have had the same result in terms of confusion about whether or not Macca had any rights. I don't think an order for sale, or a mortgage possession for that matter, update the Land Registry until the property is actually sold to a new owner. I guess someone with access could look at Crabbie's house for example.

What I don't understand though is why the Order for Sale doesn't put a restriction on the title at the LR, or why that was ineffective. Were the sham sales definitely after the order for sale, and not in between the final charge order and the order for sale?

Of course the real disappointment was that her fake buyers didn't each get hit with a bill for Stamp Duty.

[longdog]

Victims can find that they have to leave their home

WRONG

as there is nothing that can be done to get the property back.

VERY WRONG

Victims are left with having to claim compensation from the Land Registry to replace their home.

TOTAL BOLLOCKS

If a fraudster takes out a mortgage on someone else's property the bank has no legal charge over it because the fraudster never had title to the property in the first place. The bank don't get to claim the house and they don't get to demand payment from the owner. They are, to use the legal parlance, shit out of luck.

The esteemed Ross Martin are just trying to scare people so that they'll waste money employing Ross Martin to protect them against something they don't need protecting against. It's hysterical bullshit to drum up trade.

Seriously.... I can't believe people are believing this garbage. This is on page one, book one, of Teach Yourself Law. You can't give legal title to something unless you have the legal right to do so. Stolen property remains the property of the person from who it was stolen. Fraudulently mortgaged properties belong to the rightful owner not the fraudster, the bank or anybody else.

[aesmith]

I recall a case where someone fraudulently sold a property that they didn't own. In that case if I remember rightly he trousered the proceeds and disappears, but it was the buyers who were screwed over not the rightful owner. Although again I seem to remember he discovered the fraud by visiting what should have been an empty property and finding renovation works in progress. In that case wasn't the claim against the conveyancing solicitors, not the land registry?

[He Who Knows]

This guy got his house stolen by fraudsters - he was more vulnerable because he'd got no mortgage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-38080102
Shit happens.
And you don't have to waste money on "the esteemed Ros Martin" you can sign up for FREE property alerts with the Land Registry to prevent this happening to your property.
So it must be a very real problem rather than "Total bollocks"

[Comrade Sharik]

Anecdote alert! Some thirty years ago I sold a house doing all the legal work myself, using a book called something like 'DIY Conveyancing'. I remember that it did say that although the author was not going to go into details, that it was possible to steal a house.

Longdog, you seem very confident that it is not possible. Can I ask if this is because you have specialist knowledge?

[aesmith]

This guy got his house stolen by fraudsters - he was more vulnerable because he'd got no mortgage

It didn't actually get stolen as the fraud was discovered before it could be sold. If the house had actually been sold I very much believe it would be the buyers who'd have lost out.

[longdog]

This guy got his house stolen by fraudsters - he was more vulnerable because he'd got no mortgage

It didn't actually get stolen as the fraud was discovered before it could be sold. If the house had actually been sold I very much believe it would be the buyers who'd have lost out.

Correct.

I do wish people would actually read the whole of the articles they link to.

[longdog]

Longdog, you seem very confident that it is not possible. Can I ask if this is because you have specialist knowledge?

I don't need specialist knowledge. As I said previously, you cannot transfer title to something you don't own. It doesn't matter if it's a DVD player you nicked from Patel's Discount Electrical Emporium or a house. This is a basic principle of British law.

Think of it this way... Person A falsely changes the Land Registry entry for a property into his name and then sells the house in his local Wetherspoons for a pint of lager and an eighth of skunk to Person B. Does Person B have any legal claim on the house? No... Of course he doesn't. The same thing goes for a fraudulent mortgage on property the fraudster doesn't own. He never had title so he never had the right to give it to the bank in exchange for the loan. The bank wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court and they'd have lost their money.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I recall a case where someone fraudulently sold a property that they didn't own. In that case if I remember rightly he trousered the proceeds and disappears,

I also read the report of this, it was linked to a thread some time ago. A quite well known law firm was involved and basically the case was between two law firms over who faced the bill for the cockup. Someone who seemed a bit dodgy on the face of it sold a vacant London property, vanished with some or all of the money, and the buyer was stuffed unless he could show the solicitors were negligent, the solicitors were fighting to claim to be the least negligent.
No one came out of it looking good, or, indeed, competent.