Particulars of Claim Served on Chief Land Registrar

TGBMS Class Actions Update | Particulars of Claim Served on Chief Land Registrar

The first TGBMS Class Action against the Chief Land Registrar of England and Wales has moved to the next stage of proceedings.

After receiving the CLR’s initial response to the draft claim form alleging that every registered mortgage is fraudulent, on the ground that the deeds were all signed by the mortgagor before the proprietary right to grant a mortgage had arisen upon the completion of the purchase of the property concerned, we now know that he has pretty much accepted that the points of law we rely upon are correct.

Unsustainable Defence To Fraudulent Registration

However, the defence he has put forward is founded on two infinitely refutable assertions:

1. That the claim cannot possibly succeed because the allegations will be trumped by an appeal to the common practice of the conveyancing industry.

In other words, it must be okay because everybody’s doing it.

2. That the mortgagors represented do not have losses to indemnify.

Or, more specifically, they all got their properties, so no losses can be said to have accrued.

Simple Rebuttal

Needless to say, the CLR has now been served the Particulars of Claim, which precisely decimate the position he has taken, on the following basis:

1. An appeal to common practice is no defence to institutionalised frauds, which unravel all [including the presumption of valid registration], as per the 2019 Supreme decision in Takhar.

2. The demonstrable losses include every fraudulent mortgage payment documented on the bank’s own statements, as well as the value of the stolen promissory note [signed mortgage offer and acceptance letter], which created the funds to purchase the property concerned, plus interest and costs.

Furthermore, we have sincerely urged the CLR to concede every aspect of the claim in the name of fairness and justice.

We have done so on the ground that we have in excess of five hundred examples of fraudulently registered mortgages, which he has the statutory duty to rectify to correct or update the Charges Register, under section 6 of schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

Catch 22

Whilst he, his advisers and the Treasury [which would have to foot the bill for any compensation paid out] will obviously do all they can to avert the inevitable, with no legal argument capable of being sustained, they would only increase their losses by incurring legal costs, which they will have to cover themselves when the claim succeeds.

For these reasons, it is clearly in the best interests of everybody except the banksters and their parasitic minions for the CLR to concede, rather than fight the claim, knowing the Treasury can immediately claim back their losses from the banks and their complicit solicitors, after paying compensation to every void mortgagor.

Suffice to say, if I was the Chief Land Registrar, I might well conclude that I have been caught by Catch 22, since my best possible outcome requires me to concede every aspect of the claim.

I therefore very much look forward to bringing you news of further developments in the next TGBMS Class Actions update, once we have received the CLR’s response to the Particulars of Claim.