Quatloos!

The thing is is they had a Warrant of Possession (Presumably on the back of a Possession Order), which means this has been to Court at least twice. If you sincerely thought you can a case for fraud you'd have applied for a suspension of both the Order and the Warrant pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings, to do otherwise would be frankly idiotic.

I suspect they did try this and it was firmly rejected by the Judge on the day as being irrelevant to the civil possession proceedings.

Their argument is stupid.
They applied to borrow £x and they received £x.
If the broker managed to get the mortgage by using a bit of jiggery-pokery it does not alter the fact that they asked to borrow £x and they received £x. They got exactly what they asked for.
Any argument they have is with the broker, not with the mortgage company.

Yes but there's a tippexed copy of the deed which means it's invalid because a four hundred year old law. It's all in the latest video they've done which may be the most important video you see in your life.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Their argument is stupid.
They applied to borrow £x and they received £x.
If the broker managed to get the mortgage by using a bit of jiggery-pokery it does not alter the fact that they asked to borrow £x and they received £x. They got exactly what they asked for.
Any argument they have is with the broker, not with the mortgage company.

Exactly.

By the looks of it it was a remortgage and not a new purchase, they (over??) valued the property at £100k and offered them a £100k loan.

They redeemed the existing mortgage of £64k and took the rest, not sure what for - certainly not home improvements - and were left paying a £100k loan on a property, possibly on minimum income, that probably wasn't worth that much.

They shouldn't have been loaned that amount but they shouldn't have applied for or accepted it either, they must have known they couldn't afford it.

The issue about the 'version date' on the bottom of the key facts is wrong as well, that's the date the document was last updated NOT the date it was printed and as pointed out it's irrelevant to the fact that they received the funds and then defaulted which eventually led them to the forced eviction.

Isn't a mortgage broker 'employed' by the borrower rather than the lender and therefore doubly irrelevant when it comes to not paying the mortgage?

Gregg wrote:

He Who Knows wrote:

Scrolling through Watson's posts, she's independently disproved evolution because apes are still around. Yeah... she's the first numpty to think that ever.

Okaaaaay. That's right because Noah included a pair of apes on his ark. He also included a pair of zebras and a pair of horses that didn't evolve down any branchlines either. Elementary my dear Watson...

But what happened to the two dinosaurs?

They're at Ken Ham's Ark Encounter in Kentucky.

longdog wrote:Isn't a mortgage broker 'employed' by the borrower rather than the lender and therefore doubly irrelevant when it comes to not paying the mortgage?

That's what I thought - isn't the fraud in the borrower's favour as it's defrauding the lender?

It's a Criminal offence to falsify any loan / mortgage application, if they signed the loan application they are equally liable.

It wouldn't surprise me if the CPS took over the criminal prosecution and added these idiots in as Defendants, now that would be funny !!

AndyPandy wrote:They redeemed the existing mortgage of £64k and took the rest, not sure what for - certainly not home improvements - and were left paying a £100k loan on a property, possibly on minimum income, that probably wasn't worth that much.

Living expenses and an eBay business?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =546367700

New vid

Any chance of a quick summary for non FB users?

Siegfried Shrink wrote:Any chance of a quick summary for non FB users?

Certificate of Title - His has not been completed and signed by his solicitor, but by MoneyPartner's (the lender) solicitor. And the time frame between the certificate of title being filled in and completion isn't correct, should be sent 5 working days minimum to lender before the funds will be release.

Some 2014 case law, relating to completion of contract, but I can't see what it has to do with his case.

Right, apparently his deed was added into the fake deed (wtf?) predates completion by one or two days. Is his deed valid?

Does this matter in the big scheme of things?

As should be obvious everybody, IANAL, so make of all that what you will.

Angolvagyok wrote:Certificate of Title - His has not been completed and signed by his solicitor, but by MoneyPartner's (the lender) solicitor. And the time frame between the certificate of title being filled in and completion isn't correct, should be sent 5 working days minimum to lender before the funds will be release.

Some 2014 case law, relating to completion of contract, but I can't see what it has to do with his case.

Right, apparently his deed was added into the fake deed (wtf?) predates completion by one or two days. Is his deed valid?

Does this matter in the big scheme of things?

As should be obvious everybody, IANAL, so make of all that what you will.

From my limited knowledge I can't see that anything there is relevant. Certificate of Title is for the lender to assure them that the title is OK and safe as security for the loan. Lender's solicitor might have signed it to show he had seen it and OK'ed it. The five days bit is so that the lender has it in time to check before completion. Sending it less than five days in advance (if even that was done here) isn't fraud, it isn't even an offence. This is bullshit of the order of magnitude of gold fringed flags.

Another exciting update

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =546367700

Is it great news? I don't do Facebook.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:Is it great news? I don't do Facebook.

It's too stupid to bother trying to explain.

I have confidence in that reply/

Burnaby49 wrote:It's too stupid to bother trying to explain.

Too stupid to explain?! What kind of excuse is that? From a man who has done nothing but bring and explain stupidity from the four corners of the globe for the last 6 years? And now that a new Illuminati probationer is asking for further enlightenment, you just shut him off? If Quatloos was a religion, good sir, we would charge you with heresy.

So I will explain the video to Siegfried:

Purcell has found something very significant in the fact that the loan information documents were printed at 7:40 AM the morning that the forger (his name for the mortgage broker) brought them over to him. What the significance of this something is I do not understand since he seems incapable of tying his observations together into a logical conclusion. But he did make this video while wearing a smoking jacket, so I am sure everyone will agree, this at least adds a certain je ne sais quois to his pointless analysis of whatever he thought he stumbled upon.

The Observer wrote:

Burnaby49 wrote:It's too stupid to bother trying to explain.

Too stupid to explain?! What kind of excuse is that? From a man who has done nothing but bring and explain stupidity from the four corners of the globe for the last 6 years? And now that a new Illuminati probationer is asking for further enlightenment, you just shut him off? If Quatloos was a religion, good sir, we would charge you with heresy.

So I will explain the video to Siegfried:

Purcell has found something very significant in the fact that the loan information documents were printed at 7:40 AM the morning that the forger (his name for the mortgage broker) brought them over to him. What the significance of this something is I do not understand since he seems incapable of tying his observations together into a logical conclusion. But he did make this video while wearing a smoking jacket, so I am sure everyone will agree, this at least adds a certain je ne sais quois to his pointless analysis of whatever he thought he stumbled upon.

I've just admitted that I failed miserably in explaining sovereign stupidity in another discussion solely because I was too lazy to bother going through a video;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9423&start=20#p249928

The evidence just keeps piling up that I'm simply not fit for the job anymore. I've read, heard, seen, and written too much. If I can point to any one thing that pushed me over the edge, Michael Millar broke me.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834

Read that and ask yourself; How could he sit in court day after day listening to this lunatic nonsense? I have days of the court hearing I didn't even report on Quatloos because when I got home I was too demoralized to even open up my notebook and review it. So I took the easy, cowardly choice and went pubbing instead.

And yes, the whole point of that mercifully short video seems to be that if a form is prepared before it is needed rather than at the exact moment it is needed this is somehow proof of fraud of some kind and it means your mortgage is invalidated, or something.