TGBMS: The Time Is Nigh

What you see is what you get, whether you love it, loathe it, or it leaves you stone cold with abject ambivalence. Nevertheless, be certain of one thing – the “it” in the case of The Great British Mortgage Swindle, perhaps above almost all others, simply cannot be ignored, for the simple reason that the shocking crimes it exposes affect more than 40 million people currently living in void mortgaged properties on these islands alone. The time is most definitely nigh.

As most, if not everybody who follows my work, already knows, my father and I have spent the better part of the past six years engaged in a legal dispute with Bank of Scotland and its illegally appointed LPA Receivers, during which time we were banned from virtually every one of her majesty’s courts for two years, under the terms of an illegal order for civil restraint, for nothing more than demanding the statutory law of mortgages be applied correctly, rather than selectively, in favour of what is left of the largely nationalised UK banks.

 What few people know, however, is that, whilst we infamously lost our first claim against the bank and its pirates in the high court in Newcastle, a little over five years ago, we actually went on to win the right to an administrative default judgment over the same issues, in the same court, in early December 2013, after the defendants to the claim [that they lied under oath to procure said original judgment] failed to file any kind of defence in the allotted time, despite having acknowledged service of the claim, stating that it would be vigorously defended with an application to have the claim form and particulars of claim struck out as being totally without merit.

However, in the week it became incumbent upon the high court to issue that default judgment upon the application of the trustees, an unscrupulous man called Behrens, acting as a high court judge, made “an order of the court’s own motion”, striking the claim out as totally without merit, even though the bank and its receivers had emphatically forfeited the claim to the trustees, under the Civil Procedure Rules relating to default judgments.

In other words, if any order of the court’s own motion was to be made, it could only have rightly been an order granting default judgment to the trustees.

How convenient it was for that same judge that the terms of the illegal extended civil restraint order, issued by Norris J at “a hearing for directions only”, meant that we had to seek the former’s permission to challenge his own criminal decision, which he refused repeatedly on paper and without a hearing.

Whether he realised the veracity of the following facts or not, since my sister, as a beneficiary of the trust, is a tenant for life in her property and cannot be removed, even if it is illegally sold to an innocent third party, the value of her home, which comes with a sitting tenant in the form of a family of four, knocked 85% off the receivers’ original valuation of £235K. My mother is in exactly the same position with regard to my parents’ home, which has been valued in excess of £750K.

As a direct result of taking these legal and equitable precautions before any dispute arose, the threat to their properties gradually abated, during which time the following things also transpired:

1. A private criminal prosecution, initially against the receivers for fraud by false representation, was stayed after two preliminary hearings before two district judges, on the grounds that the civil courts had dismissed our allegations as “vexatious” and none of the mortgages had at that time [July 2013] been canceled as void and illegal by the chief land registrar.

2. My father then won summary high court judgment in the bank’s claim against the trustees, which entirely vindicated our persistent argument that a mortgage deed does nothing if it is not properly executed and witnessed, under the provisions of section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. This was also the main point in our Fraud Upon The Court claim, which was routinely dismissed by Norris J, on the day he issued an illegal extended civil restraint order against us, the day after we filed the claim.

3. Behrens, whom Norris appointed gatekeeper of the extent of our civil restraint, ordered that the void and illegal mortgage in question was still good as an equitable mortgage and an equitable mortgage contract, despite the fact that something cannot be based upon nothing IE a valid mortgage cannot be founded on an invalid one. This resulted in a retired trustee and a district judge, neither of whom were authorised to act, executing a new void mortgage, which could not be backdated to cover the terms of the illegal receiverships, but was negligently registered by the chief land registrar, who refused to accept that it was an entirely unlawful disposition when his position was legally challenged by the trustees.

4. In the light of this highly contradictory judgment, the property chamber, who were adjudicating over our application to the land registry to have the mortgage over the property canceled as a mistake in the register, ruled that the registrar had to give effect to our application, almost two years after it was originally made in the spring of 2013 – three months before the issue of the restraint order and nine months before Behrens dismissed the Fraud Upon The Court claim.

5. The void and illegal mortgage in question was finally removed from the charges register a little under a year ago, thereby providing sufficient grounds for the stay of our criminal proceedings to be lifted, since there was no mortgage under which receivers could be appointed on the date they were illegally appointed by the bank to manage the portfolio of void mortgaged properties.

6. The receivers foolishly failed to provide an offer of compensation for their illegal receiverships over the property concerned and illegally disposed of the building at a fire-sale auction in the autumn of 2015, after twice withdrawing it under the constant and unrelenting pressure of the trustees.

7. The trustees then applied for the stay of the criminal proceedings to be lifted and for the bank’s representatives to be added as defendants, on the basis that the one condition the presiding district judge laid down for lifting the stay had been satisfied – one of the mortgages the defendants claimed under oath they had legally certified as being valid, had been canceled by the chief land registrar for failing to comply with the law on its face.

8. Following the expiry of the illegal  civil restraint, the trustees filed a fresh claim at the high court in Newcastle, in an application to have the bogus order of the court’s own motion set aside and for default judgment to be issued to the trustees, as is their right, which would result in the reversals of every high court and court of appeal order that has gone against them since the 22nd of October 2010.

9. Last week, we received notification that the receivers have resigned from their illegal receiverships of my sister’s property, which, finally, means that my family is free from the threat of losing their homes, as the bank does not intend to appoint any other receivers over either of the remaining properties [the other one being my parents’ home].

10. We have not received any sort of threatening correspondence or demands, whether from the solicitors for the bank or their receivers, since the summer of 2014, despite the fact that they emptily threatened us all with bankruptcy for refusing to pay ten of thousands in illegal costs, more than twenty months ago.

Suffice to say, white collar criminals tend to run for the hills at the first sign they might lose all their ill-gotten gains, especially when our defensive actions have been far more potent than the flagrantly dishonest aggressions of the bank’s solicitors, who specialise in destroying the lives and businesses of their clients’ legal adversaries.

There is simply no purpose in allowing such professional guttersnipes to continue trading their treachery for financial gain, whether on these shores or anywhere else upon the Earth, except to knowingly or unknowingly let them act as a deflective shield for the aristocratic criminal hierarchy they protect. Is this really the type of world you want to leave to your children?