Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[svezg]

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.

Sure, but the principal of Nemo Dat can and is modified by statute. In the Aussie case of Pyramid v Scorpion the owner of a property (a company in this case) had their property repossessed by a bank who held a mortgage fraudulently created by a person posing as a director who had absconded with the banks money. It was held that since the bank was innocent the fraud exception didn’t apply and statute therefore said that the registered mortgage took priority.

[longdog]

That's a completely different set of circumstances which has no real relevance to the topic at hand.

The company gained from a mortgage and then tried to wriggle out of it when things got tough by claiming procedural irregularities. Not even close to being the same thing as a fraudulent mortgage on somebody else's property with the miscreant doing a bunk with the cash.

https://iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagU ... td-extract

[aesmith]

The company gained from a mortgage and then tried to wriggle out of it when things got tough by claiming procedural irregularities

Sounds familiar. That's exactly what M of B is advising people to do.

He's claiming his class action (representative action) will start this month. I don't think it will, he is always promising some result or other "real soon", but never actually reporting it's happened. However there are apparently real people who've put up his arguments in defence of possession cases, and/or put applications into the Land Registry. Will we start to see them speaking out when his claims prove ineffective? Or will it all just fizzle out quietly?

[Penny Wise]

The company gained from a mortgage and then tried to wriggle out of it when things got tough by claiming procedural irregularities

Sounds familiar. That's exactly what M of B is advising people to do.

He's claiming his class action (representative action) will start this month. I don't think it will, he is always promising some result or other "real soon", but never actually reporting it's happened. However there are apparently real people who've put up his arguments in defence of possession cases, and/or put applications into the Land Registry. Will we start to see them speaking out when his claims prove ineffective? Or will it all just fizzle out quietly?

A real person already tested it in 2014, using Michael's argument and lost

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3081.html

No doubt those that lose, Michael will say they didn't follow his guide to the letter.

[hucknallred]

A real person already tested it in 2014, using Michael's argument and lost

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3081.html

She tried a lot of other arguments too. I only skim read it, she claimed she was appearing on the X Factor amongst other nonsense.

Some nuns from a convent cleared the arrears at one point to the tune of £26k.

She has a thread on here:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 52&t=10230

[aesmith]

A real person already tested it in 2014, using Michael's argument and lost

So that case tried the first of his "grounds"

1. The mortgage deed was not signed by the mortgagor in the presence of an independent witness, in breach of section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989.

That one has several variants of which the argument that the witness signed later seems most bizarre - surely if that had any merit it would the borrower committing fraud by claiming they had the deed witnessed.

I've seen FOS decisions dismissing his second one. I'm sure there are court judgements as well, although I couldn't put my finger on one.

2. There is no mortgage contract containing the signatures of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, along with the terms and conditions, in a single document.

It's the third one that bugs me because I'm sure I've seen that considered in a judgement, but can't find it.

3. The mortgage deed was executed by the mortgagor before they owned the property concerned, as per the Supreme Court decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages [2014].

Personally I think all these could be dismissed citing his own case. That was the most blatant error in the deed, given that the paperwork prepared by the bank had no attestation clause at all so simply could not be properly executed.

[NYGman]

I think I have said this before, but back in the mortgage crisis there were loans that had issues with paperwork that were ultimately thrown out. However I am not sure what the grounds were. Based on these anecdotes this idiot thinks that if he can find any mistake, no matter how small, he has hit gold and can void the mortgage and keep the house. He also loves to make up errors and still believes the court ruling in his favor validated the error and he should have his mortgage voided and get a free house. It is like winning the lottery, playing Monopoly and drawing the bank error in your favor collect $10 card. Unfortunately that isn't reality.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

...drawing the bank error in your favor collect $10 card. Unfortunately that isn't reality.

A very apt comparison. If there is a bank error in your favour, say an ATM giving out too much cash or an mistaken transfer to your account, you do have to pay it back!

[svezg]

That's a completely different set of circumstances which has no real relevance to the topic at hand.

The company gained from a mortgage and then tried to wriggle out of it when things got tough by claiming procedural irregularities. Not even close to being the same thing as a fraudulent mortgage on somebody else's property with the miscreant doing a bunk with the cash.

https://iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagU ... td-extract

My humble apologies, I got my cases mixed up in my head. I meant to refer to Frazer v Walker:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazer_v_Walker

[Penny Wise]

A real person already tested it in 2014, using Michael's argument and lost

So that case tried the first of his "grounds"

1. The mortgage deed was not signed by the mortgagor in the presence of an independent witness, in breach of section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989.

That one has several variants of which the argument that the witness signed later seems most bizarre - surely if that had any merit it would the borrower committing fraud by claiming they had the deed witnessed.

I've seen FOS decisions dismissing his second one. I'm sure there are court judgements as well, although I couldn't put my finger on one.

2. There is no mortgage contract containing the signatures of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, along with the terms and conditions, in a single document.

It's the third one that bugs me because I'm sure I've seen that considered in a judgement, but can't find it.

3. The mortgage deed was executed by the mortgagor before they owned the property concerned, as per the Supreme Court decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages [2014].

Personally I think all these could be dismissed citing his own case. That was the most blatant error in the deed, given that the paperwork prepared by the bank had no attestation clause at all so simply could not be properly executed.

1. Is disproven by his own case and of course by Shah v Shah.

2 and 3 are disproven by the Land Registration Act 2002 and the LPA (misc) 1989.

[longdog]

That's a completely different set of circumstances which has no real relevance to the topic at hand.

The company gained from a mortgage and then tried to wriggle out of it when things got tough by claiming procedural irregularities. Not even close to being the same thing as a fraudulent mortgage on somebody else's property with the miscreant doing a bunk with the cash.

https://iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagU ... td-extract

My humble apologies, I got my cases mixed up in my head. I meant to refer to Frazer v Walker:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazer_v_Walker

Again that hardly comparable to a fraudster mortgaging somebody else's house by altering the Land Registry entry. In that case one of the joint owners took out a mortgage without telling the other which is something else entirely.

[longdog]

Wait until they see this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48870630

Representatives of a government-owned bank are suspected of forging signatures on court documents in repossession cases, the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme has been told.

All mortgages fraudulent and void!!!!

Send me £5000 and I'll get all your money back and a free house!!!*

*May not result in money back or a free house. Fee of £5000 not refundable.

[Gregg]

I think I have said this before, but back in the mortgage crisis there were loans that had issues with paperwork that were ultimately thrown out. However I am not sure what the grounds were. Based on these anecdotes this idiot thinks that if he can find any mistake, no matter how small, he has hit gold and can void the mortgage and keep the house. He also loves to make up errors and still believes the court ruling in his favor validated the error and he should have his mortgage voided and get a free house. It is like winning the lottery, playing Monopoly and drawing the bank error in your favor collect $10 card. Unfortunately that isn't reality.

There were a lot of errors found and not a lot of consistency of what those errors were. But the media failed to emphasize that out of 10s of millions of mortgages, there were hundreds of mistakes found most of them minutia. Of those hundreds almost all of them were not "thrown out" they were settled, or otherwise litigated, some of the big appeals court wins were wins only in that they were remanded back to the trial court for more consideration.

It was the extremely rare case, usually involving the lawyers for the lenders playing games during the trial and not when they were originated, that the judge said "y'all are so terrible, you just lose, mortgage is dismissed and void" and I'm not entirely sure those were not settled short of the free house stage. A bunch of lawyers got rich, a whole lot of investment banks got really really rich figuring out what turned out to be some sloppy record keeping and every once in while a trial judge demanded to see the exact chain of possession for loan that had been transferred a dozen times and the bank couldn't produce it, so he tossed it.

The biggest legitimate headline was Countrywide, one of the largest originators in the US, was found to have typically not done the signing and certifying stuff right, and trying to get all the signatures and stuff right months or years after they were supposed to be, and flat out forging signatures of borrowers that they forgot to get at the closing. This wasn't that the lons were defective, but they were taking stacks of thousands of documents to the person who had to sign it at the bank and having him spend a day giving autographs to documents he hadn't even read, and here and there were wrong.

More headlines than reality, they never even got to the part where the courts tossed an entire bond backed by 1,000 or so mortgages because no one could prove who owned it at any given time. But when it did happen, it was all over the news, and then the scammers crawled out to start saying "you could be too" and here we are.

There were a few problems, they were in a process that virtually loan goes through, securitization, and few people know exactly what that means. Whenever someone finds a defect that when fixed benefits a customer against a big corporation, and that defect is involving some obscure and complicated process that people not in the business don't understand, people not involved at all will find a way to exploit the people who are but don't understand how it works.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Wait until they see this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48870630

Representatives of a government-owned bank are suspected of forging signatures on court documents in repossession cases, the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme has been told.

Just seen it. One thing that will almost never come out is someone getting a house back. There also can't be too many cases or someone would have spotted it. (And I don't mean O'bonkers). Further, I wonder if there is a possibility of the wrong signature being put on but by the "right" (i.e. duly authorised) person. It also won't change mortgage amounts, arrears calculations or anything else the courts would be looking at in possession cases. This is a bureaucratic or expediency wrong within an organisation and will likely result in fines and apologies to courts, not free houses.

[longdog]

If my understanding is right the problem isn't that one person in a company signed on behalf of another, which as far as I can see from personal experience, is the rule rather than the exception, but that they did it on documents they then submitted to a court. That's more than a little bit stupid.

[TheRambler]

I saw a bit if this on the screen in front of my treadmill at the gym this morning (No way shall I admit to watching daytime television voluntarily!) The examples that were shown all appeared to relate to Statements of Truth. To play fast and loose with these is very poor practice as a signatory is the person with whom the buck stops.

Now whilst it seems that serious procedural errors may have occurred the process is not necessarily invalidated. It may however mean that Asset Resolution will have to re-examine a large number of cases and resubmit them. It could also result in some cases being reassessed if the process has been unfair. That could result in compensation, but I very much doubt that it would result in the restoration of ownership of any property.

TheRambler

[noblepa]

What these idiots don't understand is that, even if a court did rule that a mortgage was invalid, they would order that all parties be returned to the state they were in before the mortgage was entered into.

That means that the lender would not be able to place a lien or charge on the property, and the borrower would have to refund the money they were given.

There is no conceivable set of circumstances in which a borrower would be given clear title to a house with no obligation to repay the lender. This is true, even if the lender DID engage in some sort of fraud.

And, yes, the lender did advance real money to the borrower, although it probably was paid directly to the seller. No, the lender did NOT create money out of thin air.

[svezg]

That's a completely different set of circumstances which has no real relevance to the topic at hand.

The company gained from a mortgage and then tried to wriggle out of it when things got tough by claiming procedural irregularities. Not even close to being the same thing as a fraudulent mortgage on somebody else's property with the miscreant doing a bunk with the cash.

https://iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagU ... td-extract

My humble apologies, I got my cases mixed up in my head. I meant to refer to Frazer v Walker:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazer_v_Walker

Again that hardly comparable to a fraudster mortgaging somebody else's house by altering the Land Registry entry. In that case one of the joint owners took out a mortgage without telling the other which is something else entirely.

I’m not so sure. If a fraudster pretended to be the owner and obtained a mortgage on someone else’s land, then absconded, the bank would still have a valid claim over the property because the bank was not itself engaging in fraud, making its registered mortgage indefeasible thanks to the Land Transfer Act, the principle of nemo dat having been overriden by statute.

In Frazer that the fraudster was one part of a two part joint ownership doesn’t change the fact that the mortgage was a fraud and that a completely innocent owner was dispossessed of his home.

Mostly what I’m saying is that the common law principle of nemo dat no longer applies to real estate, so your claim that “You can't give legal title to something unless you have the legal right to do so” is not correct when applied to real estate in a nation that gives priority to entries on the land title registry.

[longdog]

I’m not so sure. If a fraudster pretended to be the owner and obtained a mortgage on someone else’s land, then absconded, the bank would still have a valid claim over the property because the bank was not itself engaging in fraud do so” is not correct when applied to real estate in a nation that gives priority to entries on the land title registry.

No, no, a thousand times no.

The bank would have absolutely no claim whatsoever. In the simplest sense it's exactly the same as somebody buying a stolen car. Totally regardless of other laws you cannot give title to something you don't own. The bank's security would be utterly worthless as it was granted by somebody who had absolutely no right to do so.

Take it to its illogical conclusion and you can see how ridiculous it is... Due to a computer error a thousand properties worth a million pounds each get transferred at the land registry to Dodgy Pete from Deptford. Pete then mortgages all the houses at 100% and pisses of to Outer Mongolia. Do you really think the 1000 real owners of those houses are in any way obliged to give the banks any money or their houses?

If the bank is negligent in failing to ensure the fraudster was entitled to sell then they have lost their money unless the miscreant is apprehended before he has the chance to spend the money. If a lawyer is in some way culpable then the bank could go after them. If the Land Registry fucked up it's their problem.

There is no conceivable way a judge is going to grant possession of a house to a bank that never had a legal charge over it in the first place. Mortgages contain clause which trigger a repossession but a mortgage is a contract between two people. If one of them was a crook you can't just impose the contract on somebody else just because you are pissed off that you've been conned. It would be laughed out of court in a second.

Take the whole mortgage thing out of the equation. Dodgy Pete from Deptford 'sells' the very gullible Briefcase Bertie from Beckenham Buckingham Palace for £10,000,000 because the Queen is hock to a loan shark and she needed the cash. Dodgy has got the exclusive contract to sell it but it all has to be kept super secret which is why he is approaching discerning property investors like Bertie. Now... Bertie pays Pete and Pete fucks off to Addis Ababa (he's bored with Mongolia) with the cash. Who is the rightful owner of Buck House? HMtheQ or Briefcase Bertie?

[svezg]

Totally regardless of other laws you cannot give title to something you don't own.

This appears to be the source of your misunderstanding.

What you appear to be saying is that Parliament does not have the power to override common law, or common sense, or whatever.

They do: “Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam ... overeignty).

So if you’re going to make the extraordinary claim that “totally regardless” of Parliaments laws some previous position of common law reigns supreme, you’re going to need to back that up with a legal source.

Parliament can do whatever it wants, even if the result at its illogical conclusion is absurd.