Not for the first time, I am the bearer of extraordinarily good news, in relation to my family’s long-running battle with Bank of Scotland and its LPA Receivers, who have enjoyed the protection of a mafia-style judiciary, the complicity of their unscrupulous legal representatives and the refusal of two chief land registrars to remove numerous fraudulent entries in the Charges Register; during which time, myself and the trustees of my family’s private property trust were banned from making any applications to the civil courts without first obtaining permission of a judge who stands accused of perverting the course of justice.
Within the space of the last three days, the trustees have received two highly significant pieces of correspondence: one from the high court, the other from the assistant land registrar. The letter from the court states that a district judge, sitting in the Newcastle District Registry, will deal with our most recent application, which seeks to overturn the same court’s most recent decision, in which a different district judge dismissed a new claim filed by the trustees in December 2015, without the claim being properly issued by the court, before the particulars had been duly served on the defendants.
Having responded with a vigorous demand that the order be set aside, on the grounds that the judge did not have the jurisdiction to decide a high court matter, without the express authority of a senior high court judge; and because the reason he gave in support of his judgment – that the trustees were attempting to reopen an appeal against the decision of HHJ Behrens to dismiss the trustees’ previous claim – is entirely erroneous; imagine our incredibly pleasant surprise when the court wrote back, asking the trustees for directions as to how the judge should proceed with the application.
The directions that will soon be issued by the trustees will be perfectly direct and straightforward, to the effect that:
1. The application must be granted on paper, without a hearing.
2. The order dismissing the claim must be set aside.
3. The trustees’ claim must be reinstated, in which case particulars of claim will be served upon the defendants after the claim has been properly issued by the court.
In the event that the high court acts as directed, the claim will proceed to a hearing, which must be presided over by a high court judge who has not yet shown prejudice to our case. In the somewhat unlikely circumstances in which that can be achieved, the bank and its receivers have no sustainable defence to the trustees’ claim that Behrens did not have the jurisdiction to overturn an administrative default judgment, which the trustees were entitled to receive on the 7th of December 2013, on the ground that the defendants failed to file any form of defence to the trustees’ second high court claim, which alleged that both the bank and its receivers had relied upon dishonest statements made under oath, for the purposes of procuring the judgment of HHJ Walton in October 2010.
Such a judgment would be so devastating for Bank of Scotland and its receivers, that it could even directly result in the jailing of the primary parties responsible for the attempted deception, including former and current directors of the bank and the parties’ respective legal representatives.
As if that weren’t akin to lighting a tinder box under the entire conveyancing industry, just three days later, the trustees received a letter from the Land Registry, notifying us that the receivers have been requisitioned to provide the following:
- Evidence that the bank had the power to appoint them as receivers.
Since there is no valid legal mortgage in existence, the bank is incapable of validly appointing receivers, whether under the bank’s standard mortgage conditions, or section 101(iii) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
2. A copy of the Power of Attorney under which their purported appointment was made.
Without a stand-alone Power of Attorney deed, which must comply with the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, the POA purportedly granted in the mortgage conditions is legally unenforceable.
3. A discharge of the trustees from the purported mortgage.
In the absence of a mortgage contract which complies with section 2 of the LPMPA 1989; and a mortgage deed which adheres to the strict formalities of section 1 of the same act; there is no legally valid and enforceable mortgage from which the trustees can be discharged.
The Land Registry has also asked for a statement from the trustees explaining the reasons why the receivers have acted fraudulently – a subject which the crown and all of its institutions have steadfastly refused to confront for the better part of six years.
There is only one way to convey the feeling in the pit of my stomach: