Mortgage Fraud 101

Mortgage Fraud 101: The Conditional Acceptance Process

Posted on 17th June 2019 by The Bernician

Mortgage Fraud 101: The Conditional Acceptance Process

In the event I was beginning a process of discovery, in relation to ascertaining whether my mortgage was illegal and void, I would begin with the following conditional acceptance process.

Notice of Conditional Acceptance

Dear Mortgage Bandit [Add Real Name].

Re: Account Number ##########

With reference to your claim for mortgage monies in relation to the above account, I hereby conditionally accept the alleged debt and agree to settle it in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items:

1. A mortgage deed which was properly executed in accordance with section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

2. A mortgage contract which complies with section 2 of the LPMPA 1989.

3. A certified copy of both sides of your accounting ledger, verifying that the funds for the purported loan were not created by the deposit of the signed Mortgage Offer Letter in the bank’s account.

4. A letter from your solicitors explaining why mortgages are exempt from the effect of the Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages judgment – nobody has the right to grant any legal of equitable interest over a property before they own it.

5. A letter from your solicitors explaining why adding the date to the deed after it was executed did not constitute a material alteration.

Please provide these items to the address related to this account within the next 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

[Add Real Name]

Once served by recorded mail, it is highly likely that you don’t receive a response of any nature, save for the usual correspondence you receive from the bank.

In which case, I would reply as follows:

Notice of Opportunity To Cure

Dear Mortgage Bandit [Add Real Name].

Re: Account Number ##########

Following your failure to reply to my Notice of Conditional Acceptance dated [Add Date], I hereby serve Notice of Opportunity To Cure, requiring you to provide me with the following items without any further delay:

1 A mortgage deed which was properly executed in accordance with section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

2 A mortgage contract which complies with section 2 of the LPMPA 1989.

3 A certified copy of both sides of your accounting ledger, verifying that the funds for the purported loan were not created by the deposit of the signed Mortgage Offer Letter in the bank’s account.

4 A letter from your solicitors explaining why mortgages are exempt from the effect of the Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages judgment – nobody has the right to grant any legal of equitable interest over a property before they own it.

5 A letter from your solicitors explaining why adding the date to the deed after it was executed did not constitute a material alteration.

Please provide these items to the address related to this account within the next 14 days.

Failure to do so, for any reason whatsoever, will result in the legal presumption that the alleged debt cannot be verified or validated.

Yours sincerely,

[Add Real Name]

This time you will almost certainly receive a response, which will not include any of the items required to legally verify the fraudulent debt.

At which point, I would issue the following notice:

Notice of Default

Dear Mortgage Bandit [Add Real Name].

Re: Account Number ##########

Following your repeated failures to legally verify or validate the alleged debt associated with the above account, I hereby serve Notice of Default.

Please be advised that the purported mortgage is a legal and equitable nullity, for the following reasons:

1 There is no mortgage deed which was signed in the presence of an independent witness, in breach of section 1(3) of the LPMPA 1989, as per Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014].

2. There is no mortgage contract that was signed by both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, containing all of the terms and conditions in a single document, in breach of section 2 of the LPMPA 1989, in accordance with the Court of Appeal judgment given in Sahib v United Bank of Kuwait [1996].

3. The purported funds for the loan were created by the deposit of the signed Mortgage Offer Letter in the bank’s account.

4. The mortgage deed was signed before completion of purchase, as per Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages judgment – nobody has the right to grant any legal of equitable interest over a property before they own it.

5. The conveyancing solicitor materially altered the deed by adding a date that was subsequent to its execution, since an undated deed is incapable of registration as a legal mortgage by the Land Registry.

I will now commence any and all necessary proceedings to claim back the losses I have incurred by way of this plainly fraudulent transaction.

Yours sincerely,

[Add Real Name]

Did you receive the money?

As those on the front line will already know, this is the most common reaction from banksters, their lawyers and the Land Registry, when faced with the TGBMS Grounds:

"Did you get receive a loan of monies after signing the mortgage deed?"

In which case, this is how it can be dealt with:

1. No, I did not receive a loan of monies, as proven by Professor Werner's empirical research into the subject of money creation. In fact, the deposit by the bank of my signed mortgage offer letter [promissory note] created the funds, which the mortgagee then pretended to loan to the mortgagor.

2. In any event, the deed is void because I signed it before I possessed the proprietary right to do so, as per the binding Supreme Court decision, Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages - nobody has a legal or equitable right to grant an interest over a property before they own it.

3. The mortgage deed is illegal and void under section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, for failing to comply with section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, as per the binding high court decision in Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh& Others [2014].

4. As there is no valid mortgage contract which complies with section 2 of the 1989 Act, no mortgage was capable of arising, as per United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib & Others [1996].

5. The LR must therefore cancel the mortgage as a mistake in the register, under the provisions of section 6 of schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 - actions that can be taken without a court order.

6. The Chief Land Registrar must also indemnify the void mortgagor for all the losses incurred, as a direct result of the fraudulent entry in the register, as per the Swift 1st Ltd decision - the CLR must indemnify anybody who suffers losses as a direct result of an entry [or omission] in the register.

In short:

  • a. There was no loan.
  • b. There is no valid deed.
  • c. There is no enforceable contract.
  • d. There is no equitable or legal mortgage.
  • e. The bank fraudulently registered the transaction.

If possible, never go into default, so that there is no chance that your property can be stolen during mortgage possession proceedings.

In any event, stand your ground, stay calm and repeat the grounds like a mantra, until all resistance falls away and no matter how long it takes.