Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[NYGman]

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

Pumice rock? Essentially full of holes?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

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

Pumice rock? Essentially full of holes?

No, Northern Rock. Completely bankrupt

I'll get my coat!

[Penny Wise]

Some may find the below to be an interesting read

John Thomas Waugh (aka Michael's Dad) v xxxx

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2017/270.pdf

6.However, the 2003 charge was defective in that it described the trustees incorrectly and was not witnessed. The trustees applied to alter the register to remove the charge. Proceedings in the High Court followed. On 21 July 2014 HHJ Behrens, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, decided that the 2003 charge was not effective to create a legal charge but that it nevertheless created an equitable charge. That is entirely unsurprising; the charge itself was signed by all parties and was an agreement to charge the property, so that the conditions for the creation of an equitable charge were made out. Accordingly it operated, by virtue of well-known legal principle, as an agreement to create a legal charge. So the trustees’ application to alter the register succeeded; but HHJ Behrens ordered on 13 August 2014 that the trustees must execute a fresh legal charge or that, if they refused to do so, a District Judge should execute one on their behalf.

7.The trustees did not execute a fresh legal charge but a District Judge did, 10 December 2014 (“the 2014 charge”).

8. By a deed dated 3 September 2015 the Bank appointed receivers under the 2014 charge.

9. The receivers have sold the Property to Mr xxx. Matters came to the FTT because Mr Waugh objected to the registration on the grounds that the appointment of the receiver was not valid. So Mr xxx was the Applicant in the FTT; Mr Waugh was the Respondent. He is now the Appellant, but for ease of reference I refer to the parties by name.

18. In the light of the devolution of title to the Property as set out above I see no possible reason why the Respondent’s application to be registered as proprietor should not proceed. Mr Waugh has not been able to put forward any reason why either the 2014 charge, or the subsequent Deed of Appointment, was not valid.

20. Mr Waugh in his skeleton argument has argued that HHJ Behrens’ order is void because it was legally incorrect. He has sought to appeal HHJ Behrens’ order and permission was refused by the Court of Appeal. I can see no reason why there might be any flaw in HHJ Behrens’ decision, but even if there were it would not be open to Mr Waugh to challenge it now. Mr Waugh wisely did not pursue that line of argument at the hearing.

21. Mr Waugh does challenge the validity of the 2014 charge. He points out that it is in very different form to the drafts sent to him by the Bank (and which the trustees did not execute, thereby failing to comply with the order of HHJ Behrens). It is a copy of the 2003 charge amended in manuscript to set out the names of the trustees and to add provision for execution by the District Judge. He says that therefore it is not the new charge ordered by HHJ Behrens. I simply do not can see why the execution of such a copy is not a fresh legal charge as ordered by HHJ Behrens. Mr Waugh also complains that the 2014 charge was not executed by the Bank. But that is immaterial; it is commonplace for charges to be executed only by the mortgagees.

27. Mr Waugh argued passionately that he should succeed in his appeal because of the procedural irregularities in the FTT. That is an unattractive argument in the circumstances. He is trying to escape liability incurred in 2003 when the trustees chose to grant a mortgage to the Bank. They have sought to ride free of that security, first on the basis of the defects in the 2003 charge and later on the basis of procedural errors in the FTT. The fact remains that the trustees incurred a debt and agreed to secure it. They have no valid reason to object either to the 2014 charge or the Deed of Appointment; their appeal is totally without merit and it fails.

And Michael claims it as a win

[Gregg]

Well, I guess no one died...

[aesmith]

Some may find the below to be an interesting read
John Thomas Waugh (aka Michael's Dad) v xxxx
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2017/270.pdf

Nice one, confirming yet again that M of B's historic "win" in 2014 didn't in fact stop the bank from possessing and selling the property. The missing link for me was the change of name from Asquorn House to Walkers Buildings.

[aesmith]

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!

I think the point about compensation is the one that this crowd are blowing up into the purest fantasy. To my mind it's not completely impossible that there are defects in the paperwork of a mortgage. If so then someone might be due compensation for the loss directly caused by that defect, for example addition legal costs in getting it sorted out. I would have thought it self evident that a defect couldn't possibly leave one party entitled to every benefit that they expected from the contract, but none of their liabilities. However the fan club is just lapping it up ..

Matt Richardson
So who's left owning the property? Us? Do we actually win?

Michael O'Bernicia
You bought it with the promissory note that was stolen by the bank, so you are the owner, free and clear.

Matt Richardson
That's amazing. You clever sausage. I shall spread the word. Thank you for your work.

Michael O'Bernicia
Every void mortgagor can claim compensation from the Land Registry for every payment made under a fraudulent registration, plus interest.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The missing link for me was the change of name from Asquorn House to Walkers Buildings.

That caught me out too. The title is for more than Walker Building's though.

1. (22.06.1987) The Freehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the above title filed at the Registry and being 1 to 10 Walkers Buildings, Borough Road, North Shields (NE29 6LL).

2. As to 21 Borough Road the mines and minerals together with ancillary rights of working are excepted.

3. As to 20 Borough Road the land was formerly copyhold of the Manor of Tynemouth and the rights saved to the lord by the 12th Schedule of the Law of Property Act 1922 are excepted from the registration.

4. (05.06.2017) A new title plan based on the latest revision of the Ordnance Survey Map has been prepared.

I haven't posted the full title as the Waugh's seem to have nothing more to do with it, so it's not really relevant apart from proving that they are no longer in possession of it and the previous charges have been paid in full.

[aesmith]

The missing link for me was the change of name from Asquorn House to Walkers Buildings.

That caught me out too. The title is for more than Walker Building's though

I think that all falls under "former Asquorn House". In the 2014 judgement the property was defined as "Asquorn House 20 – 22 Borough Road, North Shields"

[Penny Wise]

It speaks of the strength of Michael's arguments and claims, that not only did the other side not bother turning up, they were not even represented and still won.

Michael would have us believe that the Land Registry has now chosen to ignore the High Court judgement, the refusal to grant an appeal by the Court of Appeal, the decisions of the First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals which all went against Michael.

He wants us to believe that without a shred of evidence, not a single letter or email.

He has lost at every step of the way, yet as he did with poor Tom Crawford, he claims victory when it is very clear that he lost.

[longdog]

If so then someone might be due compensation for the loss directly caused by that defect, for example addition legal costs in getting it sorted out. I would have thought it self evident that a defect couldn't possibly leave one party entitled to every benefit that they expected from the contract, but none of their liabilities.

In Freemanland any error or wrong no matter how trivial entitles you to infinite levels of compensation. You should know this

[SteveUK]

Good grief, he just can't stop winning.

[noblepa]

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.

That's true. Every home I've ever bought involved two things: a title search of the County Recorder's records to try to verify the seller's right to sell, and, as you point out, title insurance.

I've always had to pay for the latter, although my understanding is the same as yours; that it protects the lender, not me. I have been told several times that I could purchase my own title insurance. In that case, if someone came forward with a provable claim to the property, the bank's policy would reimburse them, and my policy would reimburse me. If I chose not to purchase my own policy, which I never have, I would/will be out of luck (and out of a house) if that ever happens.

When reading all these stories from the UK about someone "stealing" a house by convincing the Land Registry to change the ownership, the thought occurred to me that there must be some process similar to our title search, to prevent just such an occurrence. If there is, why wasn't it done in these cases?

[longdog]

When reading all these stories from the UK about someone "stealing" a house by convincing the Land Registry to change the ownership, the thought occurred to me that there must be some process similar to our title search, to prevent just such an occurrence. If there is, why wasn't it done in these cases?

The Land Registry is the search which is why if The Land Registry has cocked up and transferred the entry into the name of the fraudster the bank can sue the crap out of them.

The Land Registry entry is considered to be sufficient proof of title for the purposes of a mortgage but if it's wrong for any reason it doesn't affect the rights of the legal owner of the property.

[aesmith]

When reading all these stories from the UK about someone "stealing" a house by convincing the Land Registry to change the ownership, the thought occurred to me that there must be some process similar to our title search, to prevent just such an occurrence. If there is, why wasn't it done in these cases?

I think the cases I've seen mentioned have all involved some form of identity theft or similar impersonation. In other words the title search would all come up clean, and the buyer (or bank) is under the impression that they're dealing with the owner and therefore the person entitled to make the deal. So it's really the check on the person that's failed, not the title.

In Scotland that process is effectively delegated to the solicitors, and as far as I can see it works by the solicitors trusting each other. If I'm selling a house then my solicitor will carry out identity checks before agreeing to act for me. Then when I sign the disposition effecting the sale (by deed in Scotland) they know that I am entitled to do so.

[hucknallred]

O'Bonkers in the wild

https://www.facebook.com/roland.a.ford/ ... 350487259/

Usual eviction nonsense it seems. Boarded up house with security inside...

Skip to 16 minutes-ish, O'Bonkers appears & goes to the door, with a very high end camera recording him & he starts plugging TGBMS to the security guards inside.

From what I can gather someone sponsored a TGBMS screening in Bournemouth & he's going. THis nonsense I believe is happening in Dorset.

Not sure if you need a FB login or not to view. It's over an hour, who's up for the challenge to view it all?

The pro camera crew videoing O'B intrigues me, but it could be a local news crew.

EDIT: Mrs. Crawford also spotted..

[ArthurWankspittle]

See Elizabeth Watson thread. Are you sure it was Mrs Crawford not Liz?
Watching video - that is Mr and Mrs Crawford hanging around. Posh camera is just someone with more money than sense. I like the we don't have any weapons but someone had a hammer minutes earlier. Also, I like they are offering court docs to the guys in the house. Has it got a wet ink signature? Did you check his oath of office?
This is all supposed to be over £1500 of arrears. There has to be more to it than that. I'd bet the mortgagor hasn't turned up for a few court hearings or went all sovcit in them.

[hucknallred]

After more skimming I have a horrible feeling the former owner has tried the TGBMS approach & been slung out.

[He Who Knows]

All the usual suspects are there; Liz Watson, both Mr and Mrs Tom Crawford, O'Bonkers, Crabbie, Roland is filming (with a short attention span - every time it's gets interesting he moves on!).
All is good film fodder for the sequel to TGBMS.

[longdog]

TGBMS 2. Its a different film Ted. It's a completely different shark.

[aesmith]

O'Bonkers in the wild

https://www.facebook.com/roland.a.ford/ ... 350487259/

Usual eviction nonsense it seems. Boarded up house with security inside...

I haven't watched the video, once I saw it was over an hour long. But I notice that although the video is introduced as "Taking back a house that was illegally taken by the Dorset police", one of the comments from the former owner suggests that it hasn't in fact been taken back .. " i offered to pay in full now theres 2 moslims living in our old house now"