#TGBMS: The Twists in the Tale of a Void Mortgage

TGBMS Title Card

Just when one thinks the legal determinations in our long-running dispute with Bank of Scotland cannot get any more bizarre, the Chief Land Registrar [CLR] has written to the trustees of my family’s private property trust [Nelson Trust], confirming that a void legal  mortgage has finally been removed from the charges register. Fantastic news, in and of itself, but that is not the only thing he did.

Simultaneous to the cancellation of the void mortgage, a unilateral notice of a purported equitable mortgage [charge] in favour of Bank of Scotland was also registered; along with a restriction in the names of the beneficiaries of the trust.

In other words, the CLR has granted not one, but three, somewhat contradictory applications relating to a single property:

1: The application of the trustees for rectification of the charges register and the cancellation of the void mortgage as a mistake in the register [AP1];

2. The application of the bank for the registration of a unilateral notice of their purported equitable charge over the property [UN1]; and

3. The application of the trustees for a restriction to be placed on the register, preventing the bank [and its LPA Receivers] from making any further unilateral entries [RX1].

The AP1 Effect

The effect of the AP1 application was to strike from the charges register any reference to the void legal mortgage and its related documents, save for the registered proprietorship of the trustees, who paid for the property in full within seven years of the illegal instrument being invalidly executed, along with every other property which was formerly in its portfolio.

The Land Registry has already accepted that it owes anybody affected by this void entry indemnification against any and all losses incurred as a result of it being invalidly registered for the past thirteen years. This means that it owes an estimated £750,000 to the trust – three times the fire-sale valuation by the LPA Pirates of the property concerned – before we even take into account the other 11 properties subject to this dispute.

The UN1 Effect

The UN1 application had the effect of registering the bank’s notice of a purported equitable mortgage in its favour, pursuant to the disputed aspects of HHJ Behrens’ judgment, given in the high court at Leeds on 21 July 2014, in which he inexplicably claimed that the illegal and void mortgage deed [a nullity at law and in equity] remains good as an equitable mortgage and an equitable mortgage contract.

Behrens effectively contended that the void instrument had somehow become that which it was never intended to be [a legally enforceable equitable mortgage contract which complies with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989], upon it being determined [by the judge himself] that it was void ab initio in the very same proceedings.

This experienced high court judge has therefore taken the view that a nullity is capable of giving legal effect to a valid and enforceable disposition of an interest over land; which is no different to claiming that something [a legal disposition] can be based upon nothing [a nullity at law].

This was undoubtedly a willful act of judicial omission, which was necessarily required to apply the law so selectively, for the purposes of protecting the interests of certain stakeholders in the covertly nationalised and fraudulently bailed-out banking institutions.

The RX1 Effect

The RX1 application prevents the bank from making any further applications to alter the charges register without solemnly demonstrating [under oath or affirmation] in the form of a signed certificate that those affected by said applications have had an opportunity to object to such dispositions being registered, following due notice of such to those parties.

Neither the bank, not its LPA Pirates, Glenn and Murphy, can prove that they had any enforceable legal or equitable right to register numerous dispositions in the names of the trustees, all of which were fraudulently registered without notice, subsequent to the date the RX1 application took effect.


The Powers of Attorney Point

What the vast majority who have become aware of Behrens’ decision are not yet cognisant of is that it was also established in our case that the Powers of Attorney [POA] clause in every bank’s mortgage conditions is unenforceable without a stand-alone POA deed:

The mortgagee cannot rely upon or delegate the authority purportedly granted by the Powers of Attorney clause in the mortgage conditions, without a deed which complies with the Powers of Attorney Act 1971.

This is the clause under which BOS applied to the high court last year for a declaration that it had the right to create a new legal mortgage in the name of the trustees, in the event that the original transaction was found to be void.

The incapability of the bank to enforce the POA clause has dramatic implications for all 11.2 million British mortgagors, since it is the clause upon which the legality of a solicitor dating a mortgage deed is entirely dependent, on the basis that only the mortgagor [or his attorney] has the right to date the instrument creating the mortgage, but only at the moment it is executed and not at a subsequent time.

Confusion, Delusion & Disinformation Abounds

Quite obviously, the reason why many genuine people [and some utterly prejudiced, academic wing-nuts] researching this area of the law still can’t easily comprehend the true ramifications of our summary judgment victory is because it has been obscured by the work of agents, cowards and fools, who have been out in force every time we have made tangible progress in our case.

They all appear to turn a blind eye to Behren’s unscrupulousness, after he so obviously did his utmost to make it look like the bank won the day, by ordering that BOS is entitled to another legal mortgage against the property concerned; despite the incontrovertible fact that the equitable mortgage and bilateral contract he claims exist, in the form of the now cancelled void legal mortgage deed, are legal and equitable impossibilities; on the well-established ground that something [a valid mortgage or contract] cannot be based upon nothing [a void and illegal mortgage], as per Lord Denning’s famous judgment in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).

The only plausible reason Behrens got away with the judgment on appeal was because the Land Registry had not yet cancelled the void legal mortgage as a mistake in the charges register, which temporarily perpetuated a statutory presumption that there was a valid mortgage in place. This is the legal quicksand upon which the disputed aspects of his judgment were founded.

It is also worth stressing that the bank was, in any event, claiming that the legal mortgage being void didn’t affect the equitable mortgage being valid, as its solicitors had been arguing since we originally raised the issue of the bank’s flagrant disregard for sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 [LPMPA 1989], in our appeal of HHJ Walton’s judgment in the winter of 2010.

Behrens, in his approved transcript of the summary judgment hearing of 21/07/2014, acknowledged that the main point of contention in the proceedings was the section 1(3) point, which the trustees did, using his word, “win”, using the same arguments which have previously been dismissed as “totally without merit” for the better part of five years, by him and other high court judges, as well as four lord justices in the court of appeal.

Is the reader starting to comprehend why the legal professions have such grave concerns about the consequences of this case being properly understood by 11.2 million void mortgagors?

The Current State of Play

As previously stated, the Chief Land Registrar has now cancelled the void mortgage over Ashquorn House in North Shields; and registered a restriction in our favour against the property concerned, which has very recently been withdrawn from the market by criminal estate agents, who are acting under the instructions of criminal receivers, who are acting under the instructions of the criminals running Bank of Scotland.

That property, along with two others [my parents’ and sister’s homes] are the only three out of 12 properties which haven’t been illegally fire-sold at an average of 15% of their true market value. However, the trustees made applications to have all the void mortgages [upon which BOS and its receivers are entirely reliant] cancelled on the same grounds in early 2013, before the nine fraudulent conveyances had been illegally registered.

This renders the Land Registry liable for all the losses incurred in relation to the illegal sale of those 9 properties, under the regulations regarding the indemnification of those affected by mistakes in the charges register, at the time the applications for indemnification were originally made by the trustees.

We also have a letter from the CLR confirming the cancellation of the void charge, which proves that there has been no valid mortgage over the property for 13 years, including the period when LPA Receivers, Glenn and Murphy, were illegally appointed under its non-existent terms to steal the property and its substantial income, before running it into the ground by refusing to maintain it.

This letter, we have been told by the legal advisers at the magistrates court, is all we require for our private criminal prosecution against the bank’s pirates [for fraud and trespass with conversion] to proceed to trial. We have already been directed by the district judge who stayed proceedings in July 2013 that we would be required to add the bank’s representatives as defendants, in such a set of circumstances. We don’t require a second invitation.

Material Evidence of Fraud

This rectification of the charges register proves both civil and criminal frauds have been committed by the receivers and the bank’s representatives, since they have claimed since the beginning that Shepherd Wedderburn LLP [BOS’s solicitors] examined and subsequently found that each of the void documents was legally valid and enforceable; the palpable falsity of which vitiates every receivers’ appointment over the 12 properties concerned, since fraud vitiates everything it touches; and renders the fire-sales of 9 properties illegal and void, along with all the judgments which have been given against us since October 2010.

The trustees have therefore demanded that the Chief Land Registrar renews the AP1 applications we made in February 2013 to have the other void mortgages cancelled, on the grounds that:

1. None of the purported mortgage documents comply with sections 1 and 2 of the LPMPA 1989; and

2. The trustees were illegally advised to execute the mortgage documents at times when they were not yet the registered proprietors; and therefore did not have the prerequisite legal or equitable right to convey any dispositions or interests in the properties concerned.

The arguments in each application are virtually identical to the one we have already sustained in relation to Ashquorn House, so the chances of the renewed applications succeeding are significantly high, I am more than happy to state for the record.

Whether that actually transpires is entirely dependent upon our continued refusal to leave the battlefield until we have vanquished all our adversaries, whomsoever they may be. In the absence of this indomitable spirit, our legally fictitious forces would have long since perished on the jagged swords of the ministers of injustice.


Posted in Banking Crimes and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .