Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[longdog]

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.

That's not what I am saying at all. None of the examples you have cited have anything to do with the situation where a fraudster has managed to get the Land Registry to list a property in his name and sell it or mortgage it. In those circumstances the bank or new 'owner' doesn't have a leg to stand on with regard to the property. They've been conned and their only option is to go after the people responsible through either negligence or criminality. No legal relationship exists between the bank and the owner of the house. There's no contract and no obligation on the part of the home owner to do anything other than say... "Oh... Tough life innit?"

If Granny mortgages the house without telling Grandad and blows the money on bingo and Werther's Originals the bank arguably does have a claim as the person did actually have an interest in the property. Fraudsters don't and never did have.

Selling Tower Bridge to American tourists? Same thing.

Yes parliament can change any law they like but in the circumstances we're talking about they haven't so it's irrelevant.

[svezg]

Yes parliament can change any law they like but in the circumstances we're talking about they haven't so it's irrelevant.

OK so your claim is that Parliament COULD enact legislation that means a victim of fraud loses their house, now it's a question of whether they have. That's a step in the right direction, because it means that your earlier statement "Totally regardless of other laws you cannot give title to something you don't own" was wrong. Other laws CAN in fact make it so that someone can give title to something they don't own, thanks to the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy.

So, let's now address whether or not they have.

None of the examples you have cited have anything to do with the situation where a fraudster has managed to get the Land Registry to list a property in his name and sell it or mortgage it.

That is true, but we don't need to find case law on the exact scenario, we only need to find case law that establishes the relevant principles, and we can extrapolate from there.

Now we know that in Frazer, the mortgage was a fraud, but it was registered anyway. We know that the bank, an innocent party to the fraud, sold the house to another innocent party. And we know that the buyer of the house was successfully able to bring a claim against an owner of the house, another innocent party, to have them ejected.

You claim that it's different because the person perpetrating the fraud were a partial owner. So let's see if that's relevant.

In that case it was said that "The appellant invoked these sections, and regulation 24 of the Land Transfer Regulations, 1948, in support of an argument that the forged mortgage could not be received for registration or validly registered and consequently that the mortgagee never became entitled to the benfit of registration. Their Lordships cannot accept this argument, which would be destructive of the whole system of registration."

Importantly, there is no limit in the above statement restricting such a principle to frauds perpetrated by people with an interest, a forged mortgage is a forged mortgage regardless of who forges it.

So what of the fact that the Act contains an exception for fraud? "It is to be noticed that each of these sections excepts the case of fraud, section 62 employing the words 'except in case of fraud,' and section 63 using the words 'as against the person registered as proprietor of that land through fraud.' The uncertain ambit of these expressions has been limited by judicial decision to actual fraud by the registered proprietor or his agent."

In other words, if a fraudster fraudulently registers a mortgage for his own benefit, he is the registered interest holder, and his fraud invalidates it. If the fraudster fraudulently transfers property to himself, again he is the registered interest holder, and the fraud invalidates it. This all makes sense.

But the problem arises when there's an innocent party involved. If the fraudster sells (or mortgages) someone else's property to an innocent person, the new registered proprietor has not engaged in any fraud, and the fraud exception therefore does not extend to them. The new innocent owner gains indefeasibility of title, and the old owner who might be none the wiser about this entire process is out on their arse. The old owner has an equitable interest, sure, but they no longer have legal title since "it is in fact the registration and not its antecedents which vests and divests title", the fraud exception doesn't apply, so it is in fact the old owner that is, to use the legal parlance, shit out of luck.

Again, there is nothing in the judgment that suggests that fraud committed by a joint owner is to be treated any differently to fraud committed by someone with no interest at all, so at the present time the law does not support your assertion.

Now I'm not saying that the Privy Council has the CORRECT interpretation of the fraud exception. In fact I tend to think they're wrong. But at least at this point in time the highest court of the land has interpreted Parliaments laws such that victims of fraud can, without their knowledge, lose their house.

Yes, they can claim compensation. Maybe the innocent buyer will now sell it back to them. Or maybe they won't and they'll have to go buy some other house. It's shit, I know, but it's the law.

[svezg]

Oh, and here's an Australian example of this very thing happening: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... pensation/

[Penny Wise]

Two observations.

1) This thread is in the UK section, without wishing to down play the applicability of Persuasive precedent

2) This thread is about Michael and his claims

To draw the current direction of this thread to a close, so that it can return to it's intended topic, please refer to:

https://www.mortgagefinancegazette.com/ ... 5-03-2018/

Current remedies for the lender
As matters stand, lenders have the following potential remedies in cases of property title fraud:

Right of subrogation
If a previous lender’s charge was redeemed using the (new) lender’s funds, the lender may have a right of subrogation. The amount for which the lender will be secured will be limited to the amount redeemed under the previous charge, while they will also be subject to any contractual limitations under the previous charge. Whether or not such a right arises will depend on the particular circumstances. When available, and depending on the sums involved, it can be an effective way to mitigate loss.

A claim against the lender’s solicitors

The possibility of making a claim for negligence or breach of contract against the lender’s solicitors will depend on the facts of the case. Whether or not section 61 relief is available for breach of trust will often turn on the discretion of the court. In Dreamvar, the fact that the purchaser’s solicitor was an insured professional, whereas the purchaser had no insurance, was an important consideration.

However, it does not necessarily follow that the outcome would have been the same if the claim had been brought by a lender. That said, in many cases, it may be possible to point to some conduct by the lender’s solicitors to contest a claim for section 61 relief.

A claim against the fraudster’s solicitors and estate agents

Following P&P and Dreamvar, and pending clarification by the Court of Appeal, a claim against the fraudster’s solicitors and estate agents will be much harder to prove, but not necessarily impossible. The current position is that the fraudster’s solicitors give no warranty as to the identity of their client, only that they act for a client of a certain name.

However, there might be circumstances which mean that the fraudster’s solicitors or the estate agents are liable to the lender (or purchaser) and each case will need to be considered on its own facts.

The mechanics of the transaction, including the undertaking given, the edition of the Code used and the representations made, should all be carefully assessed in considering such a claim. Also, if there has been any dishonesty by those parties, claims for dishonest assistance and/or knowing receipt may be available.

A claim against the Land Registry

Where the fraudulent transaction is successfully registered at the Land Registry, the lender might well have an indemnity claim against the Land Registry. The registrar has previously vigorously resisted such claims, but following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Swift 1st Ltd v The Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330, the Land Registry now faces a more difficult task in doing this.

To put it as blunty as possible, the innocent party will not lose their home.

Swift 1st Ltd v The Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 7f57eab6c5

[Penny Wise]

Returning to Michael, the important facts are:

Following his case, the original legal charge, was amended to an equitable charge.

By order of the Court, a new legal charge was then signed and registered against the property.

This remained in place until the property was sold.

Michael argues that his case sets a precedent that can be used by one and all (but he argues it is only the parts he chooses/misinterprets and not the rest of it).

In Michael's case, on the mortgage deed there was no clause for a witness to sign. That is the sole reason he won - not really a win as a new legal charge was subsequently signed and even without that it was confirmed by the Court that the debt still had to be repaid.

His argument that all deeds are void, as they may not have been witnessed when the borrower signed the deed is a lie.

This is confirmed by not only shah v shah and the Campbell case but more significantly by Michael's own case.

Michael has at different times over the years claimed success for different and at times conflicting reasons. This in itself points to more lies.

If he had really won before as he has claimed over and over again, why was the matter still on going and why was there any need for him to "win" again, over and over again.

I hope that makes sense, I know what I am trying to say there.

He has never been able to provide any evidence of success. All we have is his claims.

I can claim to have won the lottery, doesn't mean I actually did.

If his claims had even the remotest chance of success, claim management companies, especially with the pending PPI deadline would be all over it like a rash.

Instead we are left with Michael trying to make as much money as he can, selling tickets to watch a film that has been released in even more different cuts than Bladerunner.

Personally, I can't wait for the Directors cut.

He is also trying to make money by selling DVD's of the same film.

Michael could have made his film freely avaliable but instead chose to try and make money.

The irony, given their arguments about "money", make his attempts to charge people even more comical.

Whenever it has come to the crunch (his own case and Tom's as just two examples) he claims victory, when he in fact lost and his knowledge has been found to be very much wanting...

[longdog]

Oh, and here's an Australian example of this very thing happening: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... pensation/

The Land Titles Act doesn't apply in the UK and if you read the article it's clear that the fraud was perpetuated by manipulating the owner's property agent. The key think being that the agent was her AGENT and therefore legally presumed to be acting on her behalf. Therefore the transfer of title was legally valid.

Yet again you are citing cases that are not even relevant.

[exiledscouser]

Returning to Michael, the important facts are:

Following his case, the original legal charge, was amended to an equitable charge.

By order of the Court, a new legal charge was then signed and registered against the property.

This remained in place until the property was sold.

Michael argues that his case sets a precedent that can be used by one and all (but he argues it is only the parts he chooses/misinterprets and not the rest of it).

In Michael's case, on the mortgage deed there was no clause for a witness to sign. That is the sole reason he won - not really a win as a new legal charge was subsequently signed and even without that it was confirmed by the Court that the debt still had to be repaid.

His argument that all deeds are void, as they may not have been witnessed when the borrower signed the deed is a lie.

This is confirmed by not only shah v shah and the Campbell case but more significantly by Michael's own case.

Michael has at different times over the years claimed success for different and at times conflicting reasons. This in itself points to more lies.

If he had really won before as he has claimed over and over again, why was the matter still on going and why was there any need for him to "win" again, over and over again.

I hope that makes sense, I know what I am trying to say there.

He has never been able to provide any evidence of success. All we have is his claims.

I can claim to have won the lottery, doesn't mean I actually did.

If his claims had even the remotest chance of success, claim management companies, especially with the pending PPI deadline would be all over it like a rash.

Instead we are left with Michael trying to make as much money as he can, selling tickets to watch a film that has been released in even more different cuts than Bladerunner.

Personally, I can't wait for the Directors cut.

He is also trying to make money by selling DVD's of the same film.

Michael could have made his film freely avaliable but instead chose to try and make money.

The irony, given their arguments about "money", make his attempts to charge people even more comical.

Whenever it has come to the crunch (his own case and Tom's as just two examples) he claims victory, when he in fact lost and his knowledge has been found to be very much wanting...

^^^This^^^

[Gregg]

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.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even claim to know what the law is in a given jurisdiction. Over here in the US its 50 times more complicated because these are state laws and there is no real Federal law.

That said, what OUGHT to be true is that if the bank gives away £1 million pounds Mortgage on a property to someone who doesn't own it or have any other right to pledge it, the bank should be out of luck for more than a few reasons. First, they ought to look into it before they go handing out checks. Second, they are almost certainly the one who can best bear the loss. Third, See number one.

When I have bought real estate, I have had to not only pay sets of lawyers from several places money to research the title proving the person selling ti to me has the right to, or if I was selling it, that I had the right to. Sometimes the seller pays that, sometimes the buyer pays that, somehow it seems to me that I always have to do that. We also have what is called Title Insurance, which I think would pay the bank back their money in the sad situation that whoever sold me the house didn't own it. I think that's what it pays for, but people trying to sell me any number of things they say does just that say thats not what it does. No one has ever stolen a house from me yet, so I live with what I have and trust in the Dachshund Security Forces.

Okay, I'ma gonna shut up now, but that's what I think.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

This is the thing I don't really understand.

Let's say the bank "fraudulently" lend you the money. A court strikes out the mortgage. It rolls back the transaction. It fines the mortgage company heavily for criminal activity. It jails the miscreant for making false representations to the court. It may even award significant compensation. You still owe the seller the money!

[Gregg]

There you go again, over thinking the stuff.

When we get to we own the house and we don't owe the bank, just quit. Nothing good can come from thinking any more.

[doublelong]

This is the thing I don't really understand.

Let's say the bank "fraudulently" lend you the money. A court strikes out the mortgage. It rolls back the transaction. It fines the mortgage company heavily for criminal activity. It jails the miscreant for making false representations to the court. It may even award significant compensation. You still owe the seller the money!

And it is at that point their argument fall flat you can look at it the same way as financing a car. Does not matter whose name is on the log book. It belongs to the finance company until the debt is cleared. There are many stories of people financing a car, selling it privately then not paying the loan. Then the finance company finds the car and tows it away and does not matter what documents the new owner waves at them.
This happened to someone I worked with in the mid-1990s, and in his defence it did happen to a greater extent back then before online checks. When he protested to the two men towing it away they turned to him and said if he still wanted the car he would have to ask the seller for his money back then buy it off the finance company.
Now same situation if the finance company was at fault, let’s say they were using promissory notes, WeRe checks or unicorn poo, then the garage who should have been payed from the finance company would be towing away the car.
So it does not matter if it is a house, car or a shiny new fridge you don’t get to keep it.
Maybe I am wrong but that’s the way I see it. Well the freeloaders tell me I am wrong when I post comments in the videos, but they never tell me why.

[Gregg]

Didn't one the the early WeRe Checks failing involve an auto mechanic?

I work with auto mechanics, you don't want to make them really mad, because if one were to snap, they have a lot of tools that would really hurt if they decided to misuse them.

[Arthur Rubin]

OK, this is pushing the attribution rules for this site, as a simple google search doesn't find it, but, I recall....

A thief steals a car in California, forges a Kansas (or it could have been yet another state) title and sells it to a Kansas used car dealer. The dealer sells it to a Minnesota resident. Apparently, the new buyer has a clear Minnesota title, and the original owner cannot (legally) collect the car in Minnesota.

If the car is ever found in California....

[AnOwlCalledSage]

OK, this is pushing the attribution rules for this site

Correct. This is the UK threads. Don't really care what rules the ex-colonies want to come up with!

[Gregg]

Yes, yes, but there are quite a few yanks here, the subject has come up and the UK Forum gets away with much more relaxed rules than anywhere else.

Please politely indulge the occasional tangent. Please?

[Gregg]

and as by polite, please remember, we all have a basement full of machine guns over here, its a law, we have to have them.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If the Lord of the Manor decides he'd like to sleep with a virgin bride before marriage then the President is permitted to rape at will.

Okay, I may have gone over the jurisdiction of separation of countries laws and politics on this forum but it may be a relevant tangent

Narrator's Voice: It wasn't a relevant tangent.

Topic has moved off the applicable UK law!

Boy, was I in a ratty mood last night or what!

[morrand]

OK, I'm confused. We're towing away virgin brides to where, now?

[exiledscouser]

Me too.

And why is the President setting a precedent?

[Penny Wise]

On Michael's FB page

John Dow asks:

"Can’t wait for some solid case law that secures all our houses from the greedy fraudulent claws of the banksters."

In reply Michael states:

"No need to wait: s1 point - Bank of Scotland v Waugh; section 2 point - United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib; no mortgage can be granted before ownership - Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages. Solid as rock."

Bank of Scotland v Waugh only assists anyone that has a mortgage deed that does not have a clause to be signed by a witness.

Hands up, anyone that has a residential mortgage and their deed, did not have somewhere for it to be signed by a witness..

Anyone? No ? Thought so.

United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib. Now this is an interesting case. However, as confirmed by Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green (I will provide a link below) it is of no help to anyone that has a mortgage deed.

As confirmed by in the Court of Appeal by Lord Judge Mummery:

"In my judgment the case in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib does not help Mr Green, because that was a case where there was no deed, unlike this case"

Anyone have a mortgage but not a mortgage deed ?

Anyone ??? No ? Thought so

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1389.html

Finally Michael claims

"no mortgage can be granted before ownership"

Sadly, for Michael s.27 of the LRA 2002 confirms that a disposition of land, does not operate at law until it is completed by registration.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/27

Registration only takes place after the sale has been completed, so by the time the disposition (granting of the mortgage) operates at law, the property is owned by the person granting the mortgage.

Michael claims his arguments are, as solid as a rock.

A claim much like his claims of success is nothing more than more lies.

To conclude, if you have a mortgage deed that has a clause for a witness to sign, none of the arguments proposed in Michael's pending Class Action are of any help at all, except I suspect to generate money and attention for Michael.