2. However, I signed the mortgage offer letter and then the mortgage deed, without an independent witness attesting to my signature at the moment of execution
Oh, for fuck's sake. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN HIS CASE. That's not going to be true of everyone's mortgage. Then he makes the same arguments that lost in his own case.
TheNewSaint wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:04 am
Oh, for fuck's sake. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN HIS CASE. That's not going to be true of everyone's mortgage. Then he makes the same arguments that lost in his own case.
I can't believe how stupid this is.
Okay, I'm going to have to look back through the old posts and court files, but wasn't his case that the signature was missing, not just that it wasn't witnessed at the same time?
It's all moot as you point out in that he still lost spectacularly and had to stump up, but those instructions to his acolytes appear to say that he is deliberately telling people to lie about whether their mortgage offer and deed were witnessed *live*.
I'm tending to think forwarding those emails to Action Fraud being required, as at the very minimum it looks like a co-ordinated attempt to defraud the Land Registry.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
I would think this would have to go to the Land Registrar, and since they have so kindly done it by the number, pre-set form, that the registrar, or more specifically the lawyers could go through it and knock it out by the numbers and send it back with a nicely phrased and framed DENIED. Then they would have to go to the High Court??? where I would expect it to get equally short shrift by its format. I see a lot of wasted time, and probably court expense, but not much else. It would be nice to see some perjury charges tacked on for good measure, one can dream.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:27 am the lawyers could go through it and knock it out by the numbers and send it back with a nicely phrased and framed DENIED.
For bonus points, they could cite Waugh's own case as precedent.
notorial dissent wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:27 am the lawyers could go through it and knock it out by the numbers and send it back with a nicely phrased and framed DENIED.
For bonus points, they could cite Waugh's own case as precedent.
And we have a winner!!!!
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
2. However, I signed the mortgage offer letter and then the mortgage deed, without an independent witness attesting to my signature at the moment of execution
Oh, for fuck's sake. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN HIS CASE. That's not going to be true of everyone's mortgage. Then he makes the same arguments that lost in his own case.
I can't believe how stupid this is.
No, what happened in his case is that the mortgage deed contained nowhere for the witnesses to sign. The mortgage deed is ALWAYS signed in advance.
I've been over this on this forum before, so I'll just link to a previous comment of mine on this.
Trust me on this when I say that you would not in a million years be able to move house if you insisted on signing the mortgage deed on the day of completion.
AnOwlCalledSage wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:13 am
Not withstanding any privatisation of the Land Registry operations, I think I'm right in saying you can still FOI them. Might try a request for "Please can I have the number of requests to indemnify register entries, and how many were successful?' although I might have to wait a few months to get this batch included.
But it's as I suspected. He's going to ask his narks to lie about whether their signature was witnessed.
Now I did get my mortgage signature witnessed "live" by a neighbour but there is no way Nationwide would know if I had or hadn't other than the form I submitted had a witness signature on it in the correct place.
So one way or another anyone using his pro-forma would be attempting to commit fraud. That could spell jail time rather than a free house.
If I'm not mistaken a witness to a mortgage has to give an address as well and they can probably be traced. The whole "it was never properly witnessed" thing would depend on that person being willing to swear that it's not their signature. If they say it is theirs the whole scheme collapses and if they say isn't then the next question is as to who actually did sign it and why the borrower submitted a mortgage document with witnessing they new to be fake.
Even if this scheme would get you a free house, which of course it wouldn't, it couldn't possibly end well for the borrower. It effectively depends on them claiming a mortgage is invalid not because of a fraud on the part of the bank but because of a fraud they committed themselves.
I don't see any reason why a borrower, faced with one of these "my mortgage was never properly executed by me" claims, can't just says "Fine! If that's your position we'll go with it. Please return the money within 14 days".
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Oh, and get out of the house you say you don't own, we'll take it back and resell it to someone who wants it.
FIFY
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Now I did get my mortgage signature witnessed "live" by a neighbour but there is no way Nationwide would know if I had or hadn't other than the form I submitted had a witness signature on it in the correct place.
Don't forget that in the UK a lot of mortgage forms will be signed in the solicitor's office with another person from the office as witness. So good luck with trying to involve the solicitors with your mortgage fraud.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
I presume this is aimed at those, like Crawford, who’ve actually lost their home (or are about to) let’s face it the majority of home owners wouldn’t even consider this.
It’s only the desperate few, those that have already lost or those that are throughly dishonest who are going to attempt this nonsense.
TheNewSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:26 am
Is it possible Waugh borrowed £4 million to finance his stupid movie, and this is his way of tracking it?
So, what does it cost to produce an actual DVD, there must be a minimum number you can get mastered. Having had a copy of TGBMS in my hands, I can confirm it is a pucker DVD not a DVD-R knocked up by a mate.
I WORK in DVD manufacturing, and we could do 500 units, mastered and pressed (ie not printed at home), inserted into cases and shrinkwrapped all in with delivery for less than £1k... Less if you asked nicely, which I am sure he wouldnt...
mufc1959 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:24 pm
No, what happened in his case is that the mortgage deed contained nowhere for the witnesses to sign. The mortgage deed is ALWAYS signed in advance.
I've been over this on this forum before, so I'll just link to a previous comment of mine on this.
I haven't checked this thread in a long time but for some reason I got a dude in my comments bragging about the great mortgage swindle video being hugely successful and that destroys the critics somehow.
I'm looking forward to seeing their claims for compensation articulated. What I mean is it goes without saying that compensation arising from a default should be for a loss arising from said default, a loss that would not have happened otherwise.
So what loss have they suffered as a result of not getting the deed witnessed properly, compared to what would have happened if the had done so?
Or alternatively if they're claiming that the Land Registry shouldn't have registered the charge, how are they worse off as a result? I assume in that event they'd be in default of their mortgage terms which would be conditional on said charge, so would have to pay back the advance and probably pay default interest rates until they did so.
Unfortunately I suspect these matters won't see the light of day, as the famous "grounds" will be dismissed in the first place.
Hercule Parrot wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:09 pm
It is not wholly inconceivable. PCC Stansfeld is an open-minded chap, perhaps a little naive. He has stumbled into this kind of thing before. Last year he was a star witness for the nutjob ""International Tribunal for Natural Justice" for example. I have dropped him an email suggesting caution in this matter, if he was in fact present as claimed.
Comrades, I have sorely misrepresented PCC Stansfeld. It transpires that he is a leading campaigner against fraud and corruption in the finance industry*, and has been instrumental in progressing criminal proceedings by Thames Valley police during his tenure there. There is of course a difference between the actual and serious scandals he discusses, and the wibble being spouted by Michael O'NoHouses, but I think Stansfeld is capable of seeing that.
ArthurWankspittle wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:20 am
IIRC Noel Edmunds has since reached a settlement with Lloyds.
I was a bit torn on that one. On the one hand the bank were clearly at fault but on the other hand it was Noel Bleeding Edmunds.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
longdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:23 pm
I was a bit torn on that one. On the one hand the bank were clearly at fault but on the other hand it was Noel Bleeding Edmunds.
At the height of his Crinkly Bottomness, I was invited to a corparate gig at Leicester Airport, DHL I think.
Lots of planes & copters flying around..
Noel was the after lunch speaker in the tent. He did the usual stuff, then did a charade saying they needed help in the kitchen to wash up & needed some child volunteers. After getting a few to stand up, he revealed the ruse & took them all for a flight in his helicopter.
He did go up a little in my estimation after that.
