For the last 6 months, a claimant in the Representative Action against all UK mortgage companies (“V”) has been demanding that Barclays Bank Plc (trading as The Woolwich) provide her with the legal contract that complies with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989 (LPMP Act). In accord with the Law of Mortgages, said agreement must be signed by all parties.
They have repeatedly failed to provide it, which is not surprising as none exists – a fact which is endemic to every purported UK mortgage company.
On top of that, the mortgage deed they are attempting to rely upon is a forgery on the basis it was materially altered after she had executed it, when the conveyancing solicitor added a false date before registering the instrument at the Land Registry. All of which renders it illegal under Section 1 of the LPMP Act.
Ironically, given the mortgage in question is an interest only one, whose period is up (there are no arrears), the bank’s solicitors went ahead last month and filed a possession claim at Nottingham County Court on the grounds that it was a “contractual claim” and not a monetary one. This was in spite of the fact that there is no valid contract in existence.
A Cease and Desist Notice served on the lawyers, ‘Dentons’, informing them of the facts, was ignored. They went ahead and the possession hearing was listed for 16 December, 2019.
In the meantime, V wrote to the Bank Signature Forgery Campaign and James Ventress, Senior Policy Adviser to APPG on Fair Business Banking:
“Dear Mr Ventress
I write to you on the basis I have material evidence that the Woolwich/Barclays have committed signature forgery against me in regard to my purported mortgage with them. In the examples provided, the documents pertain to a remortgage with the Woolwich in 2006. As can be seen, the same signature has been used by multiple named individuals and multiple unnamed signatories, dates ranging from November 2005 to present.
Further to this, I have now been asking Barclays for documentary evidence that my mortgage is valid, in accord with the law of mortgages for many months. Barclays have refused to respond to the issues raised and handed the matter to their solicitors who have issued a County Court possession claim. Their response each time was to issue a copy of “Your Mortgage Offer”, each one with a covering letter signed by a different individual with the same signature. Each mortgage offer had an otherwise blank page at the back with only an unnamed signatory using the same signature. None of these was requested by me in my specific request for other documents proving a legally valid contract, as required at law by S2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. In addition, I have material evidence that my mortgage deed has been forged on the basis it was materially altered following execution.
A notice of conditional acceptance requesting proof of claim was ignored by Barclays and along with a further Notice of No Response, they were deemed to have no legal standing by their solicitors. A Notice to Cease and Desist was issued pending the outcome of a Representative Action lawsuit, by the group, BanksterBusters, to which I am a claimant. This was ignored and the solicitors representing the bank have filed a court claim for possession, with a hearing date of 16 December 2019 issued.
I attach some of the signatures from documents and letters and look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency. Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely”
Mr Ventress wrote back to ask for her consent to use the forged signatures that are contained in her mortgage documents and she has now been added to the investigation.
Yesterday, the solicitors in question wrote to her, stating:
“[…] We refer to the possession hearing listed for Monday, 16 December 2019 at 11.30 AM.
Our client has decided that a moratorium on possession hearings will be in place over the Christmas and New Year period in relation to its mortgage accounts.
We have therefore written to the court asking that the above possession hearing by adjourned to a date after 5 January 2020. You will receive notice of the new hearing date in due course. However, in the meantime, you do not need to attend the hearing […]”
Should the possession hearing be re-listed it naturally follows that an application to have it struck out will be made on the basis it would be a Fraud Upon the Court. An affidavit of truth will be composed in support of which.
Conclusion:
The net is tightening for all UK mortgage companies and their lying lawyers. Anyone in a similar position should follow the example of V and remember, at all times, taking action will have positive effect. It is #TgbmsEffect.
TGBMS LINKS
Join the Representative Action: www.forgedsignatures.com
Buy the DVD (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=3aa64175f0&e=483727ac6f)
Watch on Amazon Prime (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=d173e8fbab&e=483727ac6f)
Book Cinema Tickets (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=588e7d8966&e=483727ac6f)
Download Free PDF of TGBMS: Next Steps (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=464b61d3d1&e=483727ac6f)