Buying a home is for many the single most important and long term financial commitment over a life time and during the repayment period, we all know how difficult it can be to keep up our mortgage repayments.
Over the years we have had many what seem on the surface to be lucrative deals when buying a home, however on further examination we find that they are always in favour of the banks and are a method to extort money.
For the benefit of all the victims of The Great British Mortgage Swindle, here is a summary of the Section 1(3) Point & the unenforceable Power of Attorney clause in the unenforceable mortgage conditions.
The date of mortgage execution is the date of signature, when the deed [the “it” in section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989] must be complete, as per R [Mercury Tax Group] v HMRC and BOS v Waugh & others [The Trustees of Nelson Trust, who are featured in the film].
This means that, absolutely nothing, whether it be terms [as in Mercury], or the correct name of the mortgagor [BOS v Waugh], necessarily including the the correct date of the execution, can be added subsequent to the moment it is signed by the mortgagor, which is almost always at a time when they do not have the legal or equitable right to convey an interest in the property concerned, as per the points laid out in the recent Supreme Court ruling, Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages & Others  UKSC 52
This illegal disposition comprises the actual physical deed which would render the entire transaction void ab initio and fraudulent in nature, even in the seemingly unlikely event that the rest of the mortgage transaction was properly executed, which I am yet to bear witness to. This fraud is entirely the result of the illegal actions of every void mortgagor’s conveyancing solicitor, who should have advised you that you were not either the borrower of the beneficial owner at the time you granted a mortgage over property you did not yet own; a cause of action for a professional negligence claim against their insurance policies is open to each and every one of you, from the moment you suffer any losses as a direct result of being induced into nesciently participating in an entirely criminal institutionalised fraud.
Furthermore, the other point to be taken from BOS v Waugh is that the purported power of attorney granted in the mortgage conditions, under which the conveyancing solicitor illegally adds the date on the day of the purported mortgage advance, is unenforceable without a stand-alone POA deed, which must comply with the terms of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971.
In the event I was one of these islands’ 11.2 million void mortgagors, if possible, I would not fall into default on the void mortgage payments, on the basis that that is the only claim the mortgagee will ever make against a mortgagor. Take that option away from them and they have no identifiable cause of action to issue possession proceedings, which is always their modus operandi from the moment of illegal execution of the void mortgage documents.
If it is impossible for you to keep making payments of what in reality amounts to mafioso-style protection money, I would send the void mortgagee a notice requiring them to confirm whether any arrears have been capitalised, but only once you have fallen into arrears and they have issued a statutory demand for payment of the full balance allegedly due and outstanding.
In all likelihood, the bank’s solicitors will confirm that the arrears have been capitalised, in accordance with standard practice, in which case you can then rely on BOS v McGready & others in your defence of the illegal possession claim, once it proceeds to the county court; on the ground that McGready established the point that the unilateral capitalisation of interest arrears is both unconscionable and illegal, on the basis that the void mortgagee will be claiming an amount which it does not have the contractual, equitable or statutory right to claim, both dishonestly and negligently, for which both the bank’s directors and their unscrupulous, parasitical solicitors are civilly and criminally liable.
In summary, I would also ask them for material evidence which demonstrates that:
- There is a legally valid and enforceable mortgage contract, signed by both parties and containing all of its terms, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989;
- There is a mortgage deed [often known as a charge or legal mortgage] which was signed by the mortgagor in the presence of an independent witness [who attested to the signature], as per the strict formalities laid out in section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, which prescribe that the deed must be complete in every sense [including the date of execution] when it is signed and witnessed.
- The mortgagor had the required proprietary interest to grant a charge over the property concerned on the date it was executed by them.
- The mortgagee had the money it allegedly loaned the mortgagor at the time the bank purportedly loaned it.
- The mortgage has not been securitised by the mortgagee, without disclosure to the mortgagor.
- The mortgage arrears [if any] have not been unilaterally capitalised by the mortgagee.
Whilst there are never any guarantees of justice in a system that has been rigged in favour of the banks and the maintenance of The Great British Mortgage Swindle, the corporatist police state that has been imposed upon the people will not be able to continue its tyrannical extortion racket, in the event that the estimated 11.2 mortgagors currently on these shores refused to pay another penny to their largely nationalised mortgagees, on the ground that there is no evidence that any of their mortgages are legally valid and enforceable. A Mortgage Strike, by another name.
Source: [Michael of Bernicia @ The Dignity Alliance]