I Was on the Telly Today - Horrible Fraudulent Eviction Story.

Without reading ALL of this thread and the links, I am left wondering about one point:

If any documents are presented by the bailiffs that are not 100% legal, are they not perpetrating a fraud ?

"Put simply, fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party. 

The general criminal offence of fraud can include:

• deception whereby someone knowingly makes false representation
• or they fail to disclose information
• or they abuse a position.

Most cases of fraud will be dealt with by the police, and occasionally other agencies." (http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/what-is-fraud.aspx)

Why have the Police not been involved, if there is a criminal action taking place ?

The issue I have is you have presented items as fact and you have said that at least the amount is inaccurate.

On what basis should we take at face value the rest of the points you have raised, or at least question them?

If you want people to support your stance then it should be based on facts that can be demonstrated and not emotion

What comes across is your raging against Banks, the legal system, bailiffs and anyone else who doesn't seem to agree with you or your opinions

This seems like a really simple case to me.

What was the original mortgage agreement and at what point, if any did it change. If it did change, were correct procedures followed.

Looking from the outside you would expect a paper trail of all this information and can't quite understand if this was the case and he could demonstrate this why he didn't win the original verdict. Perhaps you should have been on-board with your 11-0 winning record and this would have been all done by now

Jon Dow said

ICU Photos said

According to the article he owes 43k and 500 people turned up to blockade "from all over country". How many of those people would put money where their pride is for him? If each person donated £40 that would HALF his debt and appease the banks keep his home and so on? Ironic that majority would have spent in region of £40 to get there.

Sorry, dude. But you are completely missing the point. This man paid in full for his mortgage, which was a fixed mortgage, set at a fixed rate for 25 years, with possibly a small fluctuation in interest rates per year, and he paid it all, no gaps. The bank changed his mortgage to an endowment, then to an interest only mortgage and did not consult him or tell him! Then when he was ready to pay his final installment, in June 2014, the bank told him they want the same again!

Why the hell should WE THE PEOPLE pay the gangsters a single penny?!! Oh NO! Not a single penny to those fraudulent terrorists! No Sir-ee !!

WE ARE THERE TO STOP THEM!

Not having a go, just passionate :)

Edited by Jon Dow

A fixed *what* ? What was fixed? The term? Probably, they usually are. The rate? Not very likely - a friend of mine got a fixed rate for 10 years, which was possible at the time but he's regretted it since (there was a bit in the middle when the numbers were good and he got piece of mind but in the last four or so years, he's kind of wished he hadn't)

It sounds like he arranged an endowment mortgage but then either failed to arrange a repayment vehicle or cancelled it but you're going to have to be clearer what happened here I think.

If the mortgage was changed 6 years ago, after 19 years of paying off his house and the interest why does he still owe the full amount?  I don't quite understand that aspect of it.  Surely in the circumstance that you're describing there would have been a considerable chunk from his original loan that would be reflected in any resettlement sum?

Jon Dow said

Sorry, but not any more. "We, The People" , remember?

Jon, you are obviously passionate about this and other issues, and feel strongly the "system" is broken. I am not sure I fully agree with you, but surely that is the point of debate.

From your language though, you seem to indicate you want to take action and achieve change. Serious question, why not run for parliament and actually try and achieve change, rather than getting into arguments on a photographic website?

This is not a sarcastic attempt to wind you up, genuinely. But it is easy to stand on the fringes and moan about the state of our country. We live in a democracy (although I am sure many would suggest differently), so if you really want to achieve change, you could run as an independent and do something about the broken system you feel so strongly about.

Potr said

Jon Dow said

Sorry, but not any more. "We, The People" , remember?

 

Jon, you are obviously passionate about this and other issues, and feel strongly the "system" is broken. I am not sure I fully agree with you, but surely that is the point of debate.

From your language though, you seem to indicate you want to take action and achieve change. Serious question, why not run for parliament and actually try and achieve change, rather than getting into arguments on a photographic website?

This is not a sarcastic attempt to wind you up, genuinely. But it is easy to stand on the fringes and moan about the state of our country. We live in a democracy (although I am sure many would suggest differently), so if you really want to achieve change, you could run as an independent ...................

Or for the Monster Raving  Loony Party?  :)

Edited by mph

Based on the Telegraph report:

Mr Crawford and his wife Susan, 54, took out an endowment mortgage to buy the bungalow for £41,800 in 1988.

He and Susan expected to own the property when the mortgage came to an end in 2013.

But he claims the bank told him 2007 that he would never pay off his mortgage because there was no record of him taking out the endowment mortgage.

He then says a bank manager assured him this was incorrect and even sent his wife champagne to apologise for the blunder.

But he was soon embroiled in a court battle over the mortgage, which he says the bank converted into an interest only loan without his knowledge.

If he took out an endowment mortgage - it was an interest only mortgage so the story is not accurate - or at least not as told here.

Interesting (!) report from roguemale.org

THE ROTHSCHILD CONTROLLED ‘UK’ ZIONIST GOVT. SPONSORED GENOCIDE AGAINST INDIGENOUS FOLKS OF THE ISLES OF BRITAIN.

AGENTS OF GENOCIDE: THE CROWN HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD

The time for pussyfooting is over.

The fake state is attempting to kill off Tom Crawford and his family The real threat of this action amounts to state-sponsored terrorism.

Any and all evictions over fake debts are acts of genocide and they are being carried out by the phony ‘UK’ government which, in turn, is a front for the Crown House of Rothschild

The very same forces were at work behind RM’s unlawful eviction in 2010.

RM has first hand experience of this fact as the very same forces attempted to kill him too in 2010 and 2011, by way of the Crown House of Rothchild’s policy of genocide. It is factual and accurate.

Twenty years ago RM entered into a void mortgage agreement with the Bradford and Bingley Building Society.

The bank used a duplicitous ‘conveyancing solicitor’ to trick him into believing it had made a loan of £34,000.

For a period covering September 1994 to January 2009, RM paid the bank some £67, 747 pounds from moneys he had earned through his labour (his sweat equity) – almost twice what it falsely claimed to have ‘loaned’ him.

It was his home for over 16 years and he owned it – both in Equity and at Law.

Upon discovering the fact that the B&B had not made a loan, between January and August 2009, he repeatedly challenged Richard Pym, the CEO of the company, to provide him with the lawful contract and the accounting proof that RM had borrowed any moneys from them.

The Great British Mortgage Swindle begins and ends with the deception that one is loaned any thing from a Bank.  All that is created is a credit facility which is streamed from the deposit of the fatally defective mortgage deed with the Bankster.

The bank failed, upon repeated request, to provide a lawful contract and any proof that it loaned any of its own moneys.

As a matter of accounting fact, the ‘mortgagor’ is the CREDITOR of the Bank.

The success of the Swindle requires that this position is switched and that he falsely believes himself to be the debtor.

This creation of credit, the illusion of debt and the consequent enslavement of the individual to paying off a loan that never existed, is the modus operandi of the MON-EYEchangers.

Thus, the scam begins and ends with the agreement for a mortgage and the (void) deed of mortgage.

All of this was contained in a notarized Affidavit that was entered into evidence as a Defence and Counter Claim to the B&B’s fraudulent possession claim as heard on 26 August 2009 by Richard Inglis, a man who formerly was the acting High Court Judge (HHJ) at Nottingham County Court.

In what was a void order, said Judge falsely ruled that RM’s defence and counter claim had “no merit” and should be dismissed.

In what is taken as a gross miscarriage of justice, Richard ruled that the B&B be granted possession of RM’s home, with no substantiation of a loan having been made, no proof of contract and no rebuttal of RM’s affidavit.

The Bradford and Bingley PLC (B&B) and Northern Rock (NRAM) were two of the British fronts for the House of Rothschild controlled financial system.

In 2008, when they ‘crashed’, the Rothschild Zionist Government stepped in to ‘bail’ them out with moneys it had stolen from the British people.

Subsequent to that, the B&B and NRAM were subsumed under the UNITED KINGDOM ASSETS RESOLUTION, a private company run by the organisation known as HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY. Richard Pym, the former CEO of the B&B who had personally failed to provide any evidence that RM had a valid and enforceable contract for a mortgage with the B&B, was appointed CEO of UKAR.

So - now you know!

I'm very confused. The article says that he took out "an endowment mortgage", but the OP is saying that it was changed to an endowment mortgage against his knowledge. Which is correct? He either took one out or not. Either which way, it's a but shit, but I rather suspect the bank is entirely within it's rights.

I have to wonder if the supposed change in terms happened at the same time as the Santander acquisition? Might it be that Santander changed the terms of the mortgage? I work for a large financial organisation (used to be Santander - they sold us) and when we acquire other companies we write to their clients to inform them of new terms on their products. The client is given a window of time to find a new product provider and leave us, penalty free if they do not agree with the new terms. If the client is still with us at the end of that term, they are deemed to agree. This situation sounds scarily similar to a lot of complaints we receive when clients suddenly realise several months/years/decades (a surprising amount of people don't open or read letters it seems) later that they have a new product provider with new terms.

That explains a lot.

J by Jinks (Jewellery designer) said

I'm very confused. The article says that he took out "an endowment mortgage", but the OP is saying that it was changed to an endowment mortgage against his knowledge. Which is correct? He either took one out or not. Either which way, it's a but shit, but I rather suspect the bank is entirely within it's rights.

 

Technically of course - there is no such thing.  There is a repayment mortgage where one pays off interest and capital and the debt is therefore paid off at the end of the term and an interest only mortgage where the debt is still outstanding at the end of the term - but you (should) have a repayment vehicle in place to pay this off.  This typically used to be an endowment policy (an insurance linked savings plan) with the hope that it would generate sufficient to be enough to redeem the loan.  It is possible to use other methods - lump sums from pensions, ISA savings, inheritances - or just hope for the best!!!

Many, perhaps 40-50 years ago when a mortgage company - usually then a building society sold such an interest only mortgage they insisted you had an endowment policy.  This was assigned to and held by the lender to make sure that you had a plan in place.  They relaxed these rules to the point where they were non existent and it became not uncommon for people to rely on the "hope for the best" method through ignorance or stupidity.  Originally such policies were guaranteed to pay off the loan but due to the expense of such plans (and the fact that historically they did very well) they became reliant on bonuses to reach the target - which were not of course guaranteed.  Typically a policy intended top pay off £30,000 might well have had a guaranteed value of only around £12,00 with the balance expected to come from bonuses)

The rules have once more been tightened up and it is unlikely you will now get an interest only mortgage without a plan to repay the loan.

It sounds - though I can't be certain - as though he took out an interest only plan without a method of paying off the loan and this came to light in 2007 at which point he took the view they had "converted" it to interest only - which of course if this is the case it already was.  The original mortgage may have been badly sold/explained if he was not bright enough to understand what he had but again rules at the time were not strong enough for this to be adequately documented.

mph said

Interesting (!) report from roguemale.org

THE ROTHSCHILD CONTROLLED ‘UK’ ZIONIST GOVT. SPONSORED GENOCIDE AGAINST INDIGENOUS FOLKS OF THE ISLES OF BRITAIN.

 

 

AGENTS OF GENOCIDE: THE CROWN HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD

The time for pussyfooting is over.

The fake state is attempting to kill off Tom Crawford and his family The real threat of this action amounts to state-sponsored terrorism.

Any and all evictions over fake debts are acts of genocide and they are being carried out by the phony ‘UK’ government which, in turn, is a front for the Crown House of Rothschild

The very same forces were at work behind RM’s unlawful eviction in 2010.

RM has first hand experience of this fact as the very same forces attempted to kill him too in 2010 and 2011, by way of the Crown House of Rothchild’s policy of genocide. It is factual and accurate.

Twenty years ago RM entered into a void mortgage agreement with the Bradford and Bingley Building Society.

The bank used a duplicitous ‘conveyancing solicitor’ to trick him into believing it had made a loan of £34,000.

For a period covering September 1994 to January 2009, RM paid the bank some £67, 747 pounds from moneys he had earned through his labour (his sweat equity) – almost twice what it falsely claimed to have ‘loaned’ him.

It was his home for over 16 years and he owned it – both in Equity and at Law.

Upon discovering the fact that the B&B had not made a loan, between January and August 2009, he repeatedly challenged Richard Pym, the CEO of the company, to provide him with the lawful contract and the accounting proof that RM had borrowed any moneys from them.

The Great British Mortgage Swindle begins and ends with the deception that one is loaned any thing from a Bank.  All that is created is a credit facility which is streamed from the deposit of the fatally defective mortgage deed with the Bankster.

The bank failed, upon repeated request, to provide a lawful contract and any proof that it loaned any of its own moneys.

As a matter of accounting fact, the ‘mortgagor’ is the CREDITOR of the Bank.

The success of the Swindle requires that this position is switched and that he falsely believes himself to be the debtor.

This creation of credit, the illusion of debt and the consequent enslavement of the individual to paying off a loan that never existed, is the modus operandi of the MON-EYEchangers.

Thus, the scam begins and ends with the agreement for a mortgage and the (void) deed of mortgage.

All of this was contained in a notarized Affidavit that was entered into evidence as a Defence and Counter Claim to the B&B’s fraudulent possession claim as heard on 26 August 2009 by Richard Inglis, a man who formerly was the acting High Court Judge (HHJ) at Nottingham County Court.

In what was a void order, said Judge falsely ruled that RM’s defence and counter claim had “no merit” and should be dismissed.

In what is taken as a gross miscarriage of justice, Richard ruled that the B&B be granted possession of RM’s home, with no substantiation of a loan having been made, no proof of contract and no rebuttal of RM’s affidavit.

The Bradford and Bingley PLC (B&B) and Northern Rock (NRAM) were two of the British fronts for the House of Rothschild controlled financial system.

In 2008, when they ‘crashed’, the Rothschild Zionist Government stepped in to ‘bail’ them out with moneys it had stolen from the British people.

Subsequent to that, the B&B and NRAM were subsumed under the UNITED KINGDOM ASSETS RESOLUTION, a private company run by the organisation known as HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY. Richard Pym, the former CEO of the B&B who had personally failed to provide any evidence that RM had a valid and enforceable contract for a mortgage with the B&B, was appointed CEO of UKAR.

 

So - now you know!

Always the Jews,typical! Gotta love conspiracy theories;)

As Ive previously stated where will those 500 supporters be if it turns out he is in the wrong and does owe £43,000? I think we know the answer.

*bolding mine"

Edited by ICU Photos

ICU Photos said

mph said

A very informative article.

So - now you know!

Always the Jews,typical! Gotta love conspiracy theories;)

As Ive previously stated where will those 500 supporters be if it turns out he is in the wrong and does owe £43,000? I think we know the answer.

I rather fear they'll still be behind him, they absolutely believe this stuff.

They all believe in all this stuff about how mortgages are a scam etc. Watch the video Jon posted earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvay6gSNOOI 

it's absolutely full of the most incredible errors and statements that are just plain false.

Have a look at this site if you want to see the sort of stuff they base their beliefs on:

http://www.yourstrawman.com/Strawman.pdf

EdT said

ICU Photos said

mph said

A very informative article.

So - now you know!

Always the Jews,typical! Gotta love conspiracy theories;)

As Ive previously stated where will those 500 supporters be if it turns out he is in the wrong and does owe £43,000? I think we know the answer.

I rather fear they'll still be behind him, they absolutely believe this stuff.

They all believe in all this stuff about how mortgages are a scam etc. Watch the video Jon posted earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvay6gSNOOI 

it's absolutely full of the most incredible errors and statements that are just plain false.

Have a look at this site if you want to see the sort of stuff they base their beliefs on:

http://www.yourstrawman.com/Strawman.pdf

 

 

Oh im very familair with conspiracy loons ,not regards banks etc but 9/11 onwards. :)

Watching his video has me in doubt from the offset, 5.00am bailiffs visit was so loud it woke the people next door and across the street, which made him call the police for breach of the peace, yet he slept through the whole thing because his wife "eventually woke him up"

He also says it terrorism !

He says his original mortgage was an endowment, yet he paid three time the original loan?

Imho he had an endowment mortgage and cannot pay it for whatever reason, this is a simple situation, he should be able to explain the facts.

Most of the stuff he spouts is to do with the eviction and how's it's illegal.