The Mortgage Monkey

The Great British Mortgage Swindle in Real Time.

This Rogue Cast (070) is a condensed exposition of the various components that comprise the multi-levelled racketeering operation which is revealed in the Great British Mortgage Swindle (TGBMS) the eviscerating documentary that was released in late 2018.

Whilst I have written extensively about TGBMS, this episode stands as a real-time expose of how the entire racket is predicated on the ignorance and common practice of the conveyancing solicitor.

The viewer is encouraged to read this essay on how, in 2015, I sued the conveyancing solicitor who advised me that the mortgage agreement I entered in 1994 was Lawful, along with this Rogue Cast, ‘the Knight Who Shut Down My Negligence Claim.’

Both illustrate exactly how and why the courts of the British Isles are engaged in covering up the swindle to the point of rolling out a Knight of the Realm to assist them in their manifest support of what is an industrial-scale racket.

For those who haven’t’ watched TGBMS, it can be viewed here for free.

The podcast stands as an exposition of how a current application for a loan to buy a house (secured by a mortgage) is unfolding and is laid out in in a step-by-step account of the role that is played by the conveyancing solicitor.

Regular readers will not be surprised by the various deceptions that take place during the process of the application and what is laid out is the demonstrable professional negligence of the solicitor who is, in effect, wholly reliant upon the common practice of those who specialise in these matters. The appeal to common practice is, of course, a logical fallacy on the simple basis that just because a practice is done commonly, that does not necessarily make it Lawful.

The entirety of the racket is predicated on the false notion that a loan is made. This essay explains exactly how and why it is false.

It is to be noted that all of this applies to each and every mortgage application, whether in the Isles of Britain or elsewhere in the world.

The swindle is wholly dependent upon the ignorance of the duped individual who, in reality, is the one who funds the purchase of the property in its entirety.

As stated previously, the licenced brokers (the ‘banks’) are in the business of wheeling and dealing in securities – they do not make loans but only extend credit and in this industrial scale fraud, the creditor (the mortgagor) is the one who provides the funding by way of his signature on a deed to a property he does not own at the time he signs the incomplete deed (it is not dated).

This is in contradiction of s1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989.
The agreement for a loan for the disposition of an interest in land (which includes mortgages) is, as a matter of fact, illegal in every case as it is not in writing and is never counter-signed by a duly appointed officer of the fake lender, which is a breach of s2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989 (the LPMP Act  1989).

The issue of a valid contract can be read in this essay,  TGBMS – No Contract?

In this current situation, which is developing right now in Nottingham, we can see how, like a conjuring trick, the deception is dependent upon the ignorance of both the ‘punter’ and his legal advisor.

Naturally, it is largely dependent also upon the false notion that a loan has been made from the fake lenders’ coffers when, in accord with the monetary mechanics of modern finance, the credit is created by deposit of the fake mortgage deed in an account from which it is streamed.

Agreement means contract and in this essay, I explain exactly how a valid contract requires the agreed terms, conditions and performance of both parties. At most, the lender should be paid an administrative fee only.

In this situation, at the behest of the conveyancing solicitor and because there is no performance (loan) made by the bank, then it is what is known as a nudum pactum, literally, a naked agreement.

As an interesting aside, the question may be reasonably asked, how is it that virtually no one who leaves the public fooling system understands what actually constitutes a valid contract?

 

 

 

 

A valid contract will contain the following elements:

1. The agreement of the parties to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions – this can be oral, or in writing, as is required under s2. of the 1989 LPMP Act.
2. Consideration by both parties (the duped individual is promising to pay via the credits he earns but the bank’s performance is an illusion – no loan is made).
3. A written contract will contain the terms of the agreement and will be signed by the parties.
   In short: the fake lender is in breach of these stipulations. It is also worth noting that without full disclosure as to where the funds originate, then any agreement becomes null and void.

As the podcast shows, the former Nottingham Bank was located in the magnificent building on Thurland Street in Nottingham. Said building has two monkey statues fixed to the stone work: commonly recognised as a mortgage monkey.

The solicitor in each and every case is being paid for his professional knowledge and from this it naturally follows that he should know the Law of Mortgages.

However, he does not for he has been miseducated during the course of his years of study in the legal system, which is, in essence, a mirror of the Talmudic system which has formulated a series of complex ‘get out’ clauses to ‘permit’ any and all unlawful stratagems.

In 2014, the case of Scott vs Southern Pacific was ruled upon by the Supreme Court, with Justice Lady Hale issuing a (unheeded)  warning that there is no right to grant a charge unless you are the owner of the property –

Without exception, the conveyancing solicitor will instruct the client not to date the deed – in line with the bait and switch deception whereby the individual goes into the arrangement as the creditor and ends up as debtor.

All of which is predicated on the credit system which controlled by the financiers to their advantage and to the detriment of everyone else.

The 1989 Act makes it plain that there has to be a contract signed by all parties.

The questions which arise from this current real time expose of the duplicity of the conveyancing solicitor are straightforward:

1. Is it lawful for me to sign a mortgage deed over a property which I do not own?
2. Where is the contract as per the Act?
3. Can you confirm that the ‘Bank’ will be making a loan of moneys from its own coffers?

The Kuwait Bank vs Sahib case, which was between 2 banks, not between a mortgagor and a bank made it plain  as long ago as 1996 –

UNITED BANK OF KUWAIT V SAHIB & OTHERS
(1996) Times, 13 February
Deposit of deeds does not create charge

COURT OF APPEAL
Published 13 February, 1996

Before Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Lord Justice Phillips

Judgment February 2, 1996

Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, which provided that a disposition of an interest in land had to be in writing in a document signed by both parties incorporating all the terms of the agreement, abolished the long established rule that a mere deposit of title deeds relating to a property by way of security created a valid equitable mortgage or charge of the property without more.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the third defendant, Societe Generale Alsacienne de Banque SA (“SoGenAl”), from part of the judgment of Mr Justice Chadwick (The Times July 7, 1994; (1995) 2 WLR 94) in the Chancery Division when he granted a declaration that, as between SoGenAl and the plaintiff bank, United Bank of Kuwait plc, SoGenAl did not hold any equitable mortgage or charge over the undivided share belonging to the first defendant, Hadi Haji Sahib (“S”), in the proceeds of sale of the property known as 37c Fitzjohn’s Avenue, Hampstead, London… continued here

All of which may add up to the refrain,

One rule for thee but another for me.

and the selective application of the Law of Mortgages.

It is hard to escape the fact that the solicitor is acting simultaneously for the bank as well as the individual punter – is this ever disclosed? No. The conflict of interest is another element of TGBMS.

Is there any aspect of the transaction which is lawful?  I would argue not in the least.

To reiterate this essential point, these are the most salient questions an indivdual can ask of his conveyancing solicitor,

1. Is it lawful for me to sign a mortgage deed over a property that I am not the owner of?
   Where is the agreement for the loan?
2. Can you confirm that there does not need to be a written contract, signed by both parties as per the LPMP Act 1989?
3. Can you confirm that I will be receiving the loan from the bank’s own funds?

Common practice is what they will rely upon but that does not make it lawful.

How competent, therefore, are these conveyancing solicitors?

Both the separate documents that the husband and wife are being asked to sign – one for him promising to continue working into his 70s and one for her to relinquish her spousal share of the equity in the house are manifestly void and fall as fatal breaches  of the Consumer Rights Act – as soon as an individual is disadvantaged, that’s a breach of the act.

At Law, the statutory regulations listed here and elsewhere have to followed by the licenced lenders but they are not. Why? Because it is a criminal racket.

In short, the conveyancing solicitors know nothing about the Law, let alone the statutory regulations they are legally required to comply with.

The notion that the LPMP Act does not apply to individuals is fallacious
There is no mortgage contract containing the signatures of both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, along with the terms and conditions, in a single document.

This offends Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, in accordance with the Court of Appeal decision in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib & Others [1996] –

a mortgage or charge will not arise without a section 2 compliant contract.

This is the dilemma posed in the Rogue Cast – being furnished with the facts of the matter, what would you do?

---

Thank you for listening and reading the accompanying essay. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the  Buy Me a Coffee button and/or take out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.

All the very best, Michael.