Bearing in mind that both Micky O'B and Mickey O'D consistantly lose in court when it comes to mortgages, with Mickey O'B losing his parents properties (and Tom's) and Mickey O'D losing two of his own and those of "friends", I am surprised that the freetards are still behind them so much..
Now even a new fb group has been opened to promote their false claims of successhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/1289423447765721/
This is a group brought together of the back from the extensive time, effort, energy and knowledge of Michael O'Deira and Michael O'Bernicia interaction with the Land Registry and Banksters.
They have carved a path and it is now up to us the people to stand together and enforce our rights.
Some interesting claims.... You can't give a bank a legal charge before you own the property.
Easy to debunk, a charge until it is registered is not a legal charge. When you buy a house, the deeds are put in your name and it is then that the charge you gave to your lender is registered and becomes a legal charge.
Another claim, when you sign a deed to grant a charge, the witness must be present otherwise it is void.
Again, very easy to debunk, as it was confirmed in Micheal O'B's case that this claim was rubbish.
Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors  EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html
Shah v Shah
69. Shah v Shah concerned the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of £1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the presence of a witness. In the event, although the "witness" signed shortly after the defendants, he did so without having been present when they signed. When, therefore, the claimant brought proceedings against them, the defendants disputed the claim on the basis that the "deed" had not been validly executed. The Court of Appeal, however, concluded that the defendants were estopped from denying that they had signed the document in the witness's presence. Pill LJ, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said (at paragraph 33) that "the delivery of the document … involved a clear representation that it had been signed by the … defendants in the presence of the witness and had, accordingly, been validly executed by them as a deed"
They also forget Micheal lost this case and that his parents were liable for the money