The news reports have finally hit the MSM, however, the illegality issues aren't being properly reported.

Nottingham Post:
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Hundreds- ... story.html


Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html



BBC Nottingham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-28459746



These two videos present Tom Crawford's account of events:
https://plus.google.com/108401276859927362556/posts

Given the greed and corruption that the banks are consistently guilty of, I am inclined to believe Tom Crawford's account.

Not sure what to make of this.

Very little detail in the article.
Wife had been informed twelve years after the mortgage was taken out that they wouldn't pay off the balance and did nothing.

Mortgages taken out with endowments attached (very popular in the 70's/80's) are essentially interest only mortgages anyway with the capital paid off from the maturing endowment at the end of the term.

Their bank would have been sending them Monthly statements which would have shown two debits. One for the mortgage interest the other for the endowment cost. Additionally both the mortgage and endowment provider would have sent them annual statements.

If they did have an endowment they must have released they were paying the premium and it should be able to track down the payments from their bank yet it seems the ombudsman has still ruled against them.

As I say it does not make sense, unless of course there is a weight of pressure building up that the next area of mis-selling will be interest only mortgages.

That's where I am at the moment!

I do feel very deep sympathy for the couple, and given their circumstances the bank or whatever it is could show some compassion. And the banks have stolen BILLIONS of pounds off the British people, including me.

I saw a fantastic case in the US a while back; a couple had been struggling to pay their mortgage, their lender had jacked up rates and so on; they were taken to court by the lender who wanted to repossess the house, and the judge was so disgusted by their behaviour, he ordered that the total mortgage debt be wiped clean and the couple could have the house!! I think judges in the US must have a lot more discretion that judges here.

Had a case here on 'Judge Judy' married couple divorced, she wanted the house and belongings, he said it is all yours and signed it over, she goes to sell the house finds out a lean on it regarding his child support payments from his previous marriage, she got $140.00 from the sale, having to to pay for his previous child nonsupport . Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

So what did Judge Judy do?

(Love watching Judge Judy!! Sometimes wish real judges could be like that... except on those few occasions that I think she gets it wrong.)

They have a situation in the US called jingle keys.

If a mortgagee is unable to keep up repayments on the mortgage they can simply go back to the bank and post the keys through the letterbox. Any further debt liability for the property then ends so essentially if the house was in negative equity and all the mortgage payments up to date there the liability would end. If there was $2000.00 owing on the owing mortgage payments it would end there.

Of course pretty much the opposite is true in the UK. If the banks re-possess the property under the established rules they are then at liberty to sell it to clear their debt. Whilst they are supposed to exhibit due diligence (achieve as much for the property as they can) this is not often the case, any shortfall on the selling price against the amount owed on the mortgage plus any owing mortgage payments are still the responsibility of the house owner. The banks will and do chase for the debts for many years afterwards.

In the English courts contract law which all this is based around is paramount, those taking out loans are expected to have read the terms and conditions and be comfortable and understanding of them even though we all know how complicated and ambiguous they often are. Only judges in the bankruptcy courts have the power to cancel out debts or tell creditors to get stuffed and if you find yourself there, then you are pretty much already stuffed.

All that said I think there is a head of steam building up regarding the next round of misselling aggro. IO mortgages (or endowments if you like) taken out in the early 80's ect are now coming to term. If many did not heed the warnings that the insurance element would not pay off the capital sum may now be looking for sympathy and taxpayer funded bailouts.

I had a mortgage from this era, I also had an endowment vehicle running alongside it.

I as I am sure others here received the shortfall letters and took the requisite action to overpay and clear the mortgage asap. This meant a bit of sacrifice, missed holidays, a new car or kitchen ect but it was the right decision and looking back and at the freedom we now have I am glad we took that course.

I now don't see that why as a taxpayer I should be bailing out those feckless enough to keep abreast of the situation. Not saying this case is one of those as there is insufficient facts to judge properly. All I do know is in this case the Ombudsman has ruled and the Bailiffs will be be biding their time.

Tom Crawford and his wife took out an endowment mortgage from Bradford and Bingley on a bungalow when endowment mortgages were all the rage. Many years later, and without informing the Crawfords, the bank claims to have changed the endowment mortgage to a repayment mortgage (of 2 parts – capital and interest). When the Crawfords discovered the apparent change they challenged their local bank manager, who denied the change, and provided an apology backed up with a bottle of champagne and flowers.

Eventually, and at the end of the normal mortgage term the Crawfords completed paying their endowment mortgage and received closure documentation from the bank.

Later, Bradford and Bingley Bank bank claimed the Crawfords owed the bank money for unpaid interest. At which time the bank then claimed that the original mortgage had been changed to an INTEREST ONLY mortgage.

Since closure of the original mortgage, Bradford and Bingley Bank have since produced fraudulent documents to a court appearing to prove that the Crawfords still owed £thousands in unpaid interest.

The court found in favour of Bradford and Bingley Bank, who then issued instruction to their favoured bailiffs to evict the Crawfords and 'reclaim' STEAL the property.

Tom Crawford has taken professional advice, and the advice is that ALL the documents that Bradford and Bingley placed before the court are fraudulent. The court was informed that the documents were fraudulent, but the court continued with support of the claim by B & B.

The eviction for the Crawfords was set for the 24th July 20014. But Tom Crawford widely publicised
the sequence of events on his Facebook page; which resulted in the bailiffs failing to turn up and evict the Crawfords.

Sadly, the Crawfords are far from being alone, other banks have also been issuing fraudulent documents to dodgy courts and claiming wrongful repossession – with success. The banks are bust and desperate for money, and it appears that they are prepared to go to any lengths to steal.


Land Registery
The Land Registery is aware that Fraud has become a serious problem and is offering an email warning service, although it isn't fool-proof:

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/property-fraud

Judge Judy is a real judge, she is limited to busting someone up to $5,000, I know it is a TV show, in this case she dimissed ex-wifey claim and closed the the case. I love it when she find folks screwing the benefit system, gets their details on tape and sends it to congress.

Interesting if you Google her.

_________________
When a crash seems inevitable, try to hit the softest, cheapest object in the vicinity as slowly and gently as possible.

I can't believe how thick some people are, going on about it being fake and a scam because she's not a real judge any more and the TV company pays any amounts she awards, as if we're being conned. I knew that already. Can't remember if I googled it in the past, or read about it somewhere, but I've known for years it worked like that and both parties have to sign a contract agreeing to accept her decision.