UK Regulators Face Criminal Prosecution For Failing To Regulate Mortgage Industry


Class Action

UK Regulators Face Criminal Prosecution For Failing To Regulate Mortgage Industry

In the first of a series of posts outlining the steps that are being taken by the Trustees of the People’s Union of Britain to end institutionalised mortgage fraud, the following Notice of Conditional Acceptance was served today by email upon the parties named below.

The urgently drafted missive was sent by senior lobbyist for mortgage fraud victims, Sebastian Leslie, banking expert Professor Nigel Harper, David Laity and myself, for and on behalf of every illegally registered mortgagor named in the Operation Meadow, Signatures 703 and TGBMS Class Action evidence files.

Those bundles of evidence contain more than a decade’s worth of emphatically substantive documentary proof that the accused parties have conspired to commit crimes which fall under the Serious Crimes Act 2015.

Hence, we gave them three days to provide material evidence to the contrary.

FAO: ANDREW BAILEY – FORMER CEO OF FCA

JAMES CROSBY – FORMER DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF FSA

ADAIR TURNER – FORMER CHAIRMAN OF FSA

LISA OSOFSKY – DIRECTOR OF SFO

GRAEME BIGGAR – DIRECTOR GENERAL OF NCA

SAM WOODS – CEO OF PRA

NIKHIL RATHI – CEO OF FCA

Served by email on 06 July 2022.

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Dear Sirs,

RE: MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS CRIMES

Following your receipt of copious substantiation of allegations of multiple civil and criminal frauds against every UK commercial bank since 2011, the undersigned parties, for and on behalf of every current or former registered mortgagor in the Operations Meadow, Signatures 703 and TGBMS Class Action evidence bundles, hereby conditionally accept that you have not conspired to commit crimes that fall under the Serious Crimes Act 2015, provided you promptly deliver to us the following reasonably requested items:

1) a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that it is not the corporate policy of every UK mortgage provider to ignore the statutory obligations placed upon them by section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and has been since the statute was enacted.

b. Namely, to make sure that every mortgage deed is signed by the mortgagor in the presence of an independent witness, as per the decision in Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014] – a mortgage deed shall be void under section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925, if it bears a signature which has not been properly witnessed in accordance with section 1 of the 1989 Act.

2. a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that it is not the corporate policy of every UK mortgage provider to ignore the statutory obligations placed upon them by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and has been since the statute was enacted.

b. Namely, to make sure that the proper execution of each mortgage deed is preceded by a mortgage contract [a contract for a mortgage in the future, in accordance with Lord Neuberger’s judgment in Helden v Strathmore (2011)], which contains all of its individually negotiated terms and conditions and is signed by both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, as per the Court of Appeal decision in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib & Others [1996].

3. a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that it is not the corporate policy of every UK mortgage provider to instruct their conveyancing solicitors to advise every mortgagor [excluding remortgages] to grant a charge [mortgage] over a property before the right to do so arises with registration as the legal proprietor at the Land Registry.

b. Which comprises a material breach of the rule affirmed in Lady Hale’s Supreme Court judgment in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages [2015] – no equitable or legal right to grant an interest over land or property arises until ownership is established by registration in the Proprietorship Register.

4. a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that it is not the corporate policy of every UK mortgage provider to instruct their conveyancing solicitors to advise every mortgagor [excluding remortgages] to sign their mortgage deed without dating it at the moment of execution.

b. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that it is not the corporate policy of every UK mortgage provider to instruct their conveyancing solicitors to register their mortgages after adding a false date of execution to every charge deed, on the date the illegal transaction is registered at the Land Registry, rendering it a forged and fraudulent instrument falling within the provisions of section 1 of the Forgery Act 1913 and comprising a mistake in the register that is capable of rectification by the Chief Land Registrar.

c. Which automatically renders the deed a false document, purporting to be a genuine one registered in the public domain, since the adding of the date is a material alteration, given that an undated deed is incapable of being protected by registration.

6. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that you are not both civilly and criminally liable for your abject failure to diligently regulate and govern the entire UK Mortgage Industry, resulting in a multitude of institutionalised civil and criminal frauds being perpetrated, covered up and perpetuated under your emphatically complicit supervision.

7. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that you are not both civilly and criminally liable for failing to act in accordance with the law and the regulations governing your respective offices, when substantial bundles of evidence documenting a veritable multitude of wrongdoings by every UK mortgage provider named as a defendant have been provided to the FSA, FCA, Action Fraud, the SFO, the NCA and former government officers by the undersigned, over the course of the past twelve years.

8. a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that you are not both civilly and criminally liable for failing to disclose to the British public and the business community that every UK bank steals credit from its customers by depositing loan agreements [promissory notes] and pretending to loan its own money to the person who created the funds for the bank’s deposit.

b. As confirmed by the Bank of England in two of its published quarterly bulletins – the UK commercial banks are not in the business of lending money, they are in the business of [fraudulent] securities, which they use to create credit upon the deposit of their customers’ loan agreements.

9. a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that you are not both civilly and criminally liable for knowingly ignoring evidence of the serious crimes alleged by the undersigned, including widespread document and signature forgery and the absence of a single copy of a registered UK mortgage which complies with the provisions of the 1989 Act.

b. Having literally examined thousands of sets of mortgage documents over the course of more than a decade, we are yet to assess a single case in which there was a deed that complies with section 1 and a contract that complies with section 2 of the 1989 Act.

10. a. Material evidence, not mere hearsay or professional opinion, that you are not both civilly and criminally liable for doing nothing to abate, prohibit or prevent the industrial scale registration of plainly fraudulent and forged mortgages at the Land Registry.

b. As affirmed by 1,803 mistakes that have been made in the Charges Register by the Chief Land Registrar, documented in the Operation Meadow, Signature 703 and TGBMS Class Action evidence files, all of which have been directly caused by decades of institutionalised mortgage fraud and forgery by every UK mortgage provider and their legal representatives, under your supposed regulatory and governmental supervision.

Wherefore, in the absence of signed undertakings from yourselves that you will unreservedly cooperate and comply with the undersigned parties’ civil and criminal proceedings to end institutionalised financial crimes on these shores; you have three days to provide us with the foregoing items.

Failure to do so, for any reason whatsoever, will result, without further notice, in you all being prosecuted for knowingly conspiring to commit serious crimes for your own material gain and to the monumental detriment of the British public.

Please be advised that, in any event, we are urgently seeking the enclosed declaration from the Attorney General, given the seriousness of the charges alleged and your repeated failures to provide what we have reasonably requested for more than a decade.

Without malice of mischief, in sincerity and honour,

David Laity

Ambassador for the UCT Alliance | Trustee of The People’s Union of Britain

Michael O’Bernicia

Ambassador for the UCT Alliance | Trustee of The People’s Union of Britain

Professor Nigel Harper

Chartered Banker | Chairman Ethical Banking Standards Council

Sebastian Leslie

Chief Lobbyist for Victims of Mortgage Fraud

Next Steps in TGBMS Class Action To End Mortgage Fraud

As the prima facie evidence continues to pile up, we will be adding more defendants to the list above, who will over the course of the next few weeks receive the missive above, along with various enclosures.

In the almost certain event we do not receive the reasonably requested material evidence that the accused have not conspired to commit crimes which are caught by the Serious Crimes Act 2015, criminal proceedings against them will be issued without further notice.

We take this legal position on the ground that the recipients of the notice have already been repeatedly presented with the evidence which shows that there is not one single example of a legally registered mortgage out of 1,803 mortgages in our case files.

Moreover, we are yet to see one mortgage registered with a valid deed and preceding mortgage contract which comply with the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 in more than a decade of examining registered mortgage documents.

Furthermore, the timing of the resignations of ex-bankers, Rishi Sunak and Savid Javid, yesterday, speaks silent volumes more revealing than mere words could ever be, given that they coincided with the initiation of criminal proceedings which have the City of London stakeholders who pull their strings locked in their sights.

Meanwhile, look out for my next blog post, which will feature the demand we are about to serve on the boards of directors of every UK mortgage provider named in our case files.

Speakeasy Tour Hits Wales

Those of you who book tickets to see me perform stand-up comedy this Sunday evening in Caerphilly might well hear some of the details relating to these proceedings which can’t currently be made public.

But you will also see two of the very best Welsh comics on the comedy circuit – the wonderful story-teller, Andrew Rutledge and the hilariously surreal, Noel James.

Noel and I did a few gigs together in 1991 and 1992 when I first started out, when he was already headlining top notch London stand-up venues, including Screaming Blue Murder, the venue where we last performed on the same bill, in a packed room above a pub in Hampton Wick.

So I am delighted to be all set to work with him and Andrew at Speakeasy Caerphilly this weekend, as well as at Speakeasy Swansea in a couple of weeks.

Below you can book tickets for both gigs, in addition to the opening night of Speakeasy London at the end of the month and the premiere of my one man show, The Problems, The Reactions & The Solutions, which is set to open at Speakeasy Birmingham next weekend.

Speakeasy Box Office

Read More in Banking Crimes

Source

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)