Mortgage Express appoint LPA Recievers Walker Singleton to scare tenants off!

[patrickq1]

read this chralie , so that you understand securitisation their is a section i think section 136,,,,

-Quote (Originally by wonderman)---

Hi Suetonius,

 

Generally, to transfer only an equitable title, you must formally separate the legal and equitable titles. So generally, a trustee will be transferred the legal title and the beneficiaries of the trust will have the equitable title. When there has been a transfer of the legal and equitable titles in this formal trust, then s.136 is totally irrelevant to the transfer of the equitable title because, s.136 is only relevant to legal transfers. That is correct isn't it?

 

But you seem to say that there is another way to transfer an equitable title. You say that you can transfer an equitable title using s.136.

 

 

This second method is that you transfer the legal title but do not complete the s.136 requirementof notice to borrowers, in which case, s.136 is relevant. You are saying that using this second method, transfers the equitable title only. Thus, the mere sending of a letter to borrowers would complete the transaction as a legal transfer. In other words, you can use s.136 to transfer an equitable title by not sending the borrowers notice of the transfer. Therefore, s.136 is relevant to an equitable title transfer only when this method of transferring an equitable title is used.

 

 

In answer to your first question, it seems that assignment can be either

 

(1) an incomplete legal assignment (which you say is an equitable assignment until written notice has been given) or

(2) a completed legal assignment or

(3) it can be a formal separation of the legal of the legal and equitable titles where a trust is formed and the legal title is transferred to a trustee and the equitable title is transferred to trust beneficiaries.

 

and in answer to your second question, it seems that an assignment that relies on s.136 but is incomplete for failure to give the borrower's notice, is, an incomplete legal assignment.

 

It may be said that an incomplete legal assignment is subject to the rules of the court's equity jurisdiction, in which equity's principles and maxims may be applied to an incomplete legal assignment. But you don't seem to be saying that the court's equity jurisdiction will operate on an incompleted s.136 legal assignment you seem to say that an incomplete s.136 assignment actually is an equitable assignment. That analysis seem to me to be too simplistic as it ignores the intention of the parties to create a s.136 legal transfer. You agree that the parties intend a s.136 transfer, and intend that the borrowers will be given notice in some future date.

 

Would you agree that if a person expressly relies on s.136 transfer of legal title, then the transferor intends to transfer a legal title?

 

Additionally, you mentioned that the transferors grant the transferee a power of attorney so that the transferee can exercise all the powers that a legal owner can exercise. So the power of attorney is the method used to grant the transferee all the legal powers of a legal owner without having to comply with the s.136 notice to the borrowers.

 

Suetonius, there is a much more important question here. Why all these manoeuvres to avoid a s.136 notice? Why is it so important to them to keep the transfer a secret from the borrowers?

[patrickq1]

reading below you know it may be possible that MX have all the data from your ex solicitor charlie , so you have every right to request all data ...

 

• United Kingdom
  
• December 16 2010
  
• 
  
  

Mortgage Express v Mehrban Michael Singh Sawali [2010] EWHC 3054 (Ch) concerned attempts by Mortgage Express to obtain the entire contents of a solicitor's files created in relation to the solicitor's joint retention by Mortgage Express and a number of its borrowers. The court held that although the borrowers had a prima facie right to privilege and confidentiality in relation to their portion of the file, such a right was overturned by the fact that the borrowers had signed a declaration stating that they consented to their solicitor sending the entire transaction file to the lender upon request. Such declarations are common in mortgage application forms. As such, the files were ordered to be disclosed to Mortgage Express.

This case is significant because it will now be easier for mortgage lenders to investigate the whole circumstances of a loan, in order to attempt to show that the borrowers in question committed fraud or that the solicitors in question breached the standard Council of Mortgage Lenders Conditions. Any claim made against solicitors will land on the doorstep of their professional indemnity insurers.

[charlesGGG]

Hi All,

 

Court date today...did not go as planned - whats so ever.

 

1.

1st thing out of judges mouth was that we are the trespassers because the set aside request was for the tenants to file - not us.

The N244 was the tenants response form and that if we wanted to bring a claim against MX/Templetons for breaches, non disclosure, securitisation, unfair terms ect etc, then we should file a specific claim against that, BUT not as part of the order to evict our tenants. Until a court orders the removal of LPA or lender does it willingly, then they are in charge.

 

2.

So request for set aside of eviction was struct out...and tenants have to fight their own cause.

 

3.

We have decided to file this fresh claim against MX/Templeton as instructed, but this wont be for awhile till we get back the SAR's info and some other docs for further evidence.

 

4.

So we have been flogged and beaten by the system of criminalty and protection of the rich & corrupt.

 

Soon there will be a VICTORY...it must simply lie in wait for now..!

 

Charles out.....(where is the brandy..!!!!!)

[patrickq1]

as Caro has pointed out it may have to be an N1 that is issued ,i did not realise you were going instead of your tennents , so we need Ell-en on here she is an expert in this feild for tennents....

ok Sar first then if the data dont come through then issue the CPR 31.14 ....anyway think about it all after xmas and new year ,lets hope it is better than the dismal one we have all had and hope it improves

Merry Xmas all

patrickq1

[chillinlong]

Oh dear! Sorry to hear about that Charles, but it makes sense though.

 

SAR request you will not get all info straight away so make sure you have your claim ready for failure of full SAR disclosure against them ready. I am filing mine this week, screw them got nothing to lose.

[chillinlong]

Thanks again Patrick Also for all your help. Oh well we get a few weeks now to get organised!

[tonyhuws]

Dear All, hoping that you all had a good Christmas and are getting ready for the New Year,

On the 2nd November I wrote to the Ministry of Justice (Ken Clark) and today 29th December got a reply. I had set out my case detailing the injustice of the 1925 act and the actions of Mortgage Express and the LPA, along with my assurtion they were under selling my properties.

The reply from Charles Stewart, Policy Manager at the Ministry is worthy of a "Yes Minister" script. He sets out the duties of the LPA receiver and the circumstances under which they can be appointed. He also sets out legal bodies I could contact for advice such Citizens advise, or use bodies such as the FSA, CML, or the ombudsman, all toothless tigers and of no use at all.

What was interesting was that he stated " we are of course grateful to you for bringing the detail of your case to our attention and will be alert to any that we see further. However, for the moment, the goverment has no plans for further legislation to protect borrowers in these circumstances."

I would ask that everyone on this site writes to Mr Charles Stewart with details of their own cases highlighting the injustices metted out to them by Mortgage Express and the LPA so appointed. Additionaly any Northern Rock Mortgage Holders now brought into the same portfolio.

His E-Mail address is charles. Stewart @ justice . gsi. gov. uk ( Please join up the spaces as the web site would not allow me to post e-mail address as I have not placed 20 or more postings.) His telephone is 02033343212 and address is Legal policy division, 6th Floor, 102, Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ.

If he has not heard of any other cases we must enlighten him.

Keep up the battle.

[staurtd]

Hi,

 

Been tryin to do some reading about what can be done about these LPA Receivers and how to get control again of these properties.

 

Found a useful book - not able to post a link as i do not have enough posts to be able to do so.

 

Law of Property Act Receiverships: Law and Parctice 2nd ed by John Hughes

 

ISBN13: 9780955283420

 

If you google the ISBN number then you will find the book.

 

I order a copy last night so hopefully it might contain a couple of nuggets that will help the fight.

[patrickq1]

this case has ramifications for all receivers and will help everyone who is considering action against the mortgage co...so read on the judgment ,i know it is Scots law but it does set a precedent and is of use in both English and Irish courts , so get to see a solicitor AsAp....http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0228_Judgment.pdf

 

to every one hope you had a at least worry free Xmas and new year lets hope we see changes this year ,just remember it only takes one case to open the floodgates and then we can see some sort of justice to all landlords who have been put through the scandalous procedures of legalized theft of properties ...so good luck to all of you fighting

Patrickq1

i am now looking at the Insurance angle and repairs carried out by the Receivers to see whether you can put in claims against this and to the legality of this insurance policy as i see it why should you be held responsible for an insurance policy when effectively the properties now belong to others ?

[mungos mum]

Hi Guys

I haven't been on the site for quite some time now but we have been dipping in & out & trying to keep up to speed with what's been going on.

We have spent the last 6 months or so trying to put MX, receivers etc to the back of our minds & get on with the task of earning some money...not easy at the moment!

Just to let you know, we took Templetons to court back in the summer for non disclosure of our subject access request, unfortunately the judge had very little knowledge of the data protection act & told us that we were just using a SAR for a 'fishing exercise' & refused to order Templetons to comply. The only good thing that came out of the whole farce was that the judge refused to award costs against us & Templetons had to pay for their solicitor & barrister, hitting them in the pocket always hurts! Mr David Burgess turned up in person & did have the decency to look like a 'rabbit caught in the car headlights', what a weasel he is!

The ICO have recently been back in touch with us asking how we got on in court, I explained what had happened & they are now contacting Templetons again, God knows why as they have no clout what so ever.

MX are selling our properties 'thick & fast' now & we are not sure what to do next.

We were having meetings last year with a senior employee at MX, we did feel that we were getting somewhere but that person left & we are now back to square one.

Best wishes

Mungos mum

[patrickq1]

nice to see you back MM sorry to hear about the Judge tho,makes you sick to the pit of your stomach tho hearing an incompetent judge had the case you would think that they would get up to speed and read up on case law concerning SAR but alas sounds like the Judge was in it for the Big FAT Salary that comes with being a lawful mediator ,well the ICO have been furnished with some clout in the last few months so perhaps in the coming weeks/months you get a result ,perhaps a complaint to the oft might help with regards to them not complying with the data protection who knows

anyway i will do what i can on here

patrickq1

[MARTIN3030]

Yes a shame that some Judges are not aware of the importance of compliance (or possible consequences for breach)

In contrast we have seen examples of Judges who took a different stand....heres one from 2007 reported on the CAG;

 

Prison Threat to RBS Data Controller!

 

A Consumer Action Group User was granted a CountyCourt order in respect of the failure by the Royal Bank of Scotland to comply with his disclosure request under the Data Protection Act.

 

District Judge Forrester, making the order commented that had the claimant been able to supply him with the name of the data controller at the Royal Bank of Scotland that he would have added a threat of imprisonment for non-compliance.

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland now has until January 2007 to comply with the users Subject access request. The District Judge has indicated that if the Bank has not complied with the order by that time that he may make an order for imprisonment of the RBS Data controller.

[patrickq1]

WELL SAID mARTIN GIVES GROUNDS FOR mm TO APEAL THE JUDGEMENT ON THIS BASIS ALONE ,may be out of time but i can see grounds for another SAR and this time refusal would obviously mean that they will have more trouble coming their way for failure to comply, MM i would be Tempted to write a polite note to the judge reminding him of his Obligations to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Law ...see what comes out of the woodwork after the letter is sent ,this judge needs a gentle reminder that he has failed in law to implement his lawful duty ...

patrickq1

perhaps CAG could manage to put together a letter for MM this way we all have the benefit of knowledge in what to put to this company

[tonyhuws]

That is possibly the better way to write a polite reminder to the judge, however there is always a complaint to the lord justices department alledging that the judge is not adhering to law in his judgments. That would put the cat out of the bag.

[chillinlong]

Hi Guys,

 

Happy new year to you all!

 

Nice to hear your back MM and still going!

 

Well where do we start? Since the turn of the new year, WS have been very aggressively selling the properties that are now becoming vacant!

 

They are not even bothering to try and rent, worst thing about it is on the market for half price and what tops it off they are not even in arrears! But nothing we can do about it now unless a solicitor is willing to back us and action what we are trying to say to start some sort of precedent!

 

I am keeping searching and searching! there has to be a flaw somewhere that allows us to regain control if there is no arrears!

[chillinlong]

Hi Patrick,

 

Just tried reading the above ruling in Scotland, how is this actually related to this case and what would it benefit? Sorry but I am trying to understand hence my asking.

 

thanks

[charlesGGG]

Hello All,

 

Belated Happy New Year...still recovering from drowning my sorrows in festive fruit punch.

 

Anyway, this might give us all hope:- http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=27307

[patrickq1]

just found this case it has some very interesting facts worth looking at and you need to relate this to your agreement

On 30 April 2010 PwC published a LegalTalk article providing commentary on the case of Goodridge v Macquarie Bank Limited [2010] FCA 67 (12 February 2010) (Original Decision) which had important implications towards novation and assignment, particularly in the sale of financial assets. On 18 January 2011, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia reversed the Original Decision in the appeal Leveraged Equities Limited v Goodridge [2011] FCAFC 3 (Appeal Decision).

In summary, the Appeal Decision concluded that:

in relation to novation, a contract may authorise one party to that contract to substitute another party in its place without the need for a further tripartite agreement, and

in relation to assignment, rights under the margin loan agreement were not personal rights, and as such they were capable of assignment.

The facts

Goodridge entered into a margin loan facility with Macquarie Bank. Relevant terms of the facility agreement were as follows:

 

• the agreement purported to allow Macquarie Bank to novate the contract to any new party that it chooses in the future without the prior consent of Goodridge. In that regard, clauses 21.2 and 21.4 of the facility agreement respectively provided as follows:
  

“[Macquarie Bank] may assign, transfer, novate … and can otherwise deal in any manner [with] all or any part of the benefit of this Agreement and any of its rights, remedies, powers, duties and obligations under this Agreement to any person, without the consent of the Borrower …”

…

“Without limiting the previous provisions of this Clause 21, [Macquarie Bank] … is entitled to assign its rights and novate its obligations … to any trustee or manager of any securitisation programme.”

 

• Macquarie Bank as lender had the power to value the security for the loan from time to time and, where the value of the security was sufficient (as per the Macquarie Bank valuation), Goodridge had the right to draw down further funds under the facility. As with a typical margin loan, if the value of the security was insufficient, the lender could require the borrower to provide additional security by way of a margin call.
  

Macquarie Bank then purported to novate the facility agreement to BNY, who in turn purported to novate it to Leveraged Equities. Leveraged Equities then purported to make a margin call on Goodridge. Goodridge did not comply with that purported margin call prompting Leveraged Equities to sell the underlying security. Goodridge then challenged the validity of the calls on several bases, including that the purported novations were not valid.

Original Decision

The Original Decision held that there was no novation of Mr Goodridge’s margin loan, nor assignment of the rights under that loan.

In relation to novation, Rares J held that clause 21 referred to an unidentifiable future transaction on uncertain terms and scope such that it would merely constitute an unenforceable agreement to agree.

“The nebulous words or cll 21.2 and 21.4 … were merely agreements to agree with no contractual effect. Both cll 21.2 and 21.4, to the extent each dealt with novation, referred to a non-existent future transaction on uncertain and unidentified terms.”

Regarding assignment, Rares J explained that rights that are personal or inextricably linked with obligations cannot be assigned.

In the case’s circumstances, the rights were personal as a borrower might have a real interest in the identity of his lender as lenders may have differences in valuation methodologies. Further, Rares J also reasoned that because the right/power of valuation was inextricably linked with the obligation for further lending, that right/power was not capable of assignment and it would be unworkable where Macquarie Bank was bound to make further loans to Goodridge while Leveraged Equities enjoyed the benefit (as the result of the assignment) of receiving the payment from those advances.

Appeal Decision

The Full Court was unanimous in allowing the appeal by Leveraged Equities and Macquarie Bank.

The Full Court disagreed with Rares J’s conclusion that the purported novation was ineffective and clause 21 amounted to an unenforceable agreement to agree. Authorities from Australia, United Kingdom (which criticised the Original Decision as “wholly uncommercial”) and United States were cited before the Full Court concluded that Rares J was in error in forming the view that it was not possible for a contracting party to prospectively authorise a novation to be made by another party unilaterally. The Full Court went on to state clause 21 was sufficiently clear in that, Goodridge as the borrower, was giving prospective consent to all the elements required to give effect to a novation:

“There was therefore no uncertainty about the terms and conditions of the new contract to which Mr Goodridge consented to be party”.

The Full Court did however emphasise the importance of clear drafting if the parties sought to cater for a pre-approved novation. Reference was made to the case of Argo Fund Limited v Essar Steel Limited [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 203 in which the contract in question clearly and expressly set out the means for how the pre-approved novation was to take place and for the assumption of liabilities by the new party and the release of the outgoing party.

The Full Court accepted the general proposition that a benefit of a contractual obligation cannot be assigned where the identity of the person to whom the obligation is owed is a matter of importance to the person on whom the obligation rests. However, in the current circumstances, whether the benefit was assignable is a question of construction of contract. That is, even if rights are not otherwise assignable, the contract may expressly permit the assignment of such rights. The Full Court confirmed that rights under the margin loan agreement were not personal rights incapable of assignment.

The Full Court also disagreed with Rares J in that the rights under the margin loan agreement were incapable of assignment because they were inseverable from Macquarie Bank’s obligation to make further advances. To the contrary, the Full Court suggested that there was a clear division between the rights of Macquarie Bank and Leveraged Equities and saw “no real difficulty in the proposition that Macquarie retained the obligation to lend further funds … while Leveraged Equities held the right to … exercise the power of sale on default”.

Conclusion

The Appeal Decision appears to have sided with the weight of legal authority on the subject of novation and assignment and serves as reminder that when drafting or reviewing novation or assignment clauses, clear language should be used such that there can be no doubt as to the intention of the parties. It remains to be seen whether Goodridge will appeal the Full Court decision to the High Court.

[patrickq1]

At present, many borrowers are struggling to comply with original loan agreements and also compromised or revised arrangements, put in place in good faith and designed to improve the position of the loans and to provide flexibility to facilitate repayment arrangements and/or additional time to achieve realisation of assets.

In the recent case of ACC V Frank Kelly and Ann Kelly Clarke J, 10 January 2011 [2009 No 5503 S] [2010 No. 84 COM] ACC sought to recover substantial loans made to Mr. Kelly and Mrs. Kelly who had developed a large buy-to-let property business. The central issue for consideration by Mister Justice Clarke (“Clarke J”) in the action by ACC for judgment relating to the unpaid balance of the loans was whether an agreement or arrangement had been entered during a series of meetings between the Kellys and ACC. The substance of which was that, provided the Kellys took certain steps designed to improve the position of the loans, ACC would not call in the loans. The defense was also permitted to proceed on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Promissory estoppel is a doctrine that provides if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present. As a corollary, in circumstances where a person seeks to rely on the action of forbearance, then the compliance with the promise is required.

Clarke J held that the Kellys had not provided sufficient evidence that there was such an arrangement which required ACC to forbear in commencing enforcement action against the Kellys in circumstances where they had not acted in compliance with alleged agreement. On the balance of probabilities Clarke J found no agreement was reached either during the series of meetings between the parties to resolve difficulties encountered with the loans, or at any other time whereby ACC agreed that it would not enforce its entitlements.

In addition to the central issue described above, other questions for ruling were:

 

• Whether ACC had wrongfully put a receiver in place and whether the resultant actions of the receiver were wrongful;
  
• Proper execution of the mortgage deed;
  
• Application of surcharge interest to the loan account.
  

Claim of wrongful appointment of a Receiver

Mr. Kelly argued that ACC had wrongfully appointed a receiver, and that the said receiver entering into possession of the mortgaged property without a court order did not comply with the provisions of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 (the “2009 Act”).

It was found to be clear from the mortgage document that ACC are entitled to

appoint a receiver in the event of a breach and that the non payment of the entire sum due when validly demanded, amounted to such a breach.

Clarke J confirmed that the provisions of the 2009 Act requiring a court order for a receiver to take possession applies only to mortgages created after the commencement of the relevant chapter 3 of the Act, being 1 December 2009. The mortgage in question pre dated 1 December 2009.

As such the legal position is clear that there was no barrier to the appointed receiver going into possession.

Proper Execution of the Mortgage Deed

It was determined that ACC were entitled to enforce the terms of the mortgage, despite the fact that it had not executed the mortgage. Clarke J found that this was of no relevance and it was only necessary that the Kellys accepted the facility and executed the mortgage.

Application of Surcharge Interest to the Loan Account

Clarke J held that if a borrower signs a facility letter which states that it is subject to the general terms and conditions of that Bank, the borrower is then bound by those general terms and conditions as much as by what is actually contained in the facility letter itself, subject only to the question of misrepresentation, which was not the case in this instance.

In essence on the findings of the court, ACC was entitled to call in the loan in April 2009, any time thereafter the entire sum due was in arrears and the surcharge as provided for in the general terms of conditions of 6% was chargeable from that date.

Obiter Comments - Nature of Demand Facility

Clarke J raised the question of the legality of a financial institution being entitled under a demand facility for no reason at all to call in the loan. Clarke J went on to suggest that it may be possible to argue that a financial institution needs at least some reason in order to call in the loan (at least in cases where the relevant facility contemplates a term arrangement) even though it may not be a reason which amounts to a breach of a term of the relevant facility. This was not a matter to be ruled on in this case.

Conclusion

Clarke J’s judgment emphasises the importance of clarity of arrangements when undertaking workout or settlement discussions between borrowers and lenders. It highlights the point that the borrower compromise arrangements are conditional on performance and in circumstances where settlement or compromise is not agreed, that lender patience or forbearance does not result in amendment or variation of the contractual terms.

It also highlights that importance for borrowers to read and understand the terms of a facility agreement and related general terms and conditions and where there is any confusion to seek professional advice and assistance. And it emphasis the importance of clear concise records being retained by both the lender and borrower. The judgment also provides some welcome judicial interpretation on provisions of the 2009 Act.

[chillinlong]

Thank you for the post Patrick, some interesting information that clarifies a few points. Looks like the Recieverships and mortgages pre 1/12/09 are irrelevant in terms of court action to get recievers then.

 

Am I correct that the above states that the lender needs to try and arrange agreements to pay off arrears before going down the road of recieverships? Is this the only point that maybe of help from this particular case?

 

Thanks again

[patrickq1]

I thought that might put a mischievous twinkle in your eye lol..

no their are other considerations concerning the whole case ,but the point the judge made was very interesting as it opens the door enough to enable a chink of light at the end of this dark tunnel...so the point raised is the first call for a prosecution the second call is you need to have video evidence as i have pointed out many occasions evidence of receiver damage receiver neglect and proof of recordings of conversations with MX and SINGLE OR OTHERS RECEIVERS...then you can go in guns blazing and also claiming compensations for all losses for all damages etc...

Patrickq1

[mungos mum]

Hi Patrick

 

We have photographic evidence of work the receivers claim to have done (& we've been charged for) but is in fact ficticious, ie replaced washing machine with what receivers claim was new machine costing £650 & in fact there were stickers all over the 'new' machine stating that it was a 2nd hand, re-conditioned machine. We've been charged for replacing guttering,fencing,electrical work that was never done etc etc.

We've also been charged seperately for buildings insurance on leasehold properties, the cost of insurance is included in the maintenence/freehold charges which is paid seperately. We have brought the insurance issues to the attention of the lender but they have ignored us.

One of the more amusing issues was that we were charged for Gas safety certificates being issued on all electric properties, when we brought this to the attention of the lender, the charges were re-credited to our accounts...no expaination, no apology, no nothing! If that doesn't show corruption on the part of the receivers then I don't know what will.

 

But basically my question is this, both ourselves & many others who have found themselves in this same situation have many examples of corruption & illegal/un-ethical practices by both the lenders & the receivers...however nobody seems to have the spare money to employ the services of a decent solicitor/barrister.

Do you have any idea how those of us without legal expertise can move forward in any shape or form?

We've contacted various M.P's but all to no avail.

 

As always many thanks

 

Mungos mum

[patrickq1]

fictitious invoicing is a FRAUDULENT ACT , the dishonesty that has been noticed should be a criminal act as well , if it has been pointed out to the Mortgage Company and they have not acted upon this then they are also culpable and liable for any actions you take , it may be worth a phone call to the FSA and the FOS asking their advice in these dishonest acts ,see what they suggest but remember you need to speak to a senior person at these departments ,they may want to look into this as it seems its prevelant and systematic with the receivers who are knowingly allowing these fraudulent actions to take place

patrickq1

For months now the news has been full of “the credit crunch”. This phrase now seems to be a day-to-day reality and the warnings are of difficult times ahead. Troubles, we are told, never come in “single spies”. Also, rarely out of the news is the information that fraud, in its many guises, is dramatically on the increase. In September 2006 fraud was estimated to cost the UK £40 billion annually. By the following year this had increased to £70 billion with approximately 43% of companies worldwide indicating they had suffered one or more frauds in the previous two years.

So how are these problems connected and what can financiers do to minimise their exposure to loss?

The end of easy money – or is it?

Put very simply, the credit crunch means that it has become harder, and more expensive, to borrow money. Additionally sales are down and costs are rising. How does a company feeling the pinch close the gap? Enter the fictitious invoice.

A cash flow crisis presents the classic three prompts to commit a fraud: incentive, opportunity and a rationalisation for the action, “We need some additional cash to meet the bills this week, let’s just notify some more sales, we’ll be able to pay it back next week”. If that final assumption is wrong, and there is lack of vigilance by the financier, that ‘one-off’ quick fix can quickly snowball into a major habit that can only be maintained by increasingly audacious conduct. Other business pressures can lead to the same false friend.

Then there are the people who are just dishonest.

It is no secret that the financial services sector has

the highest prevalence of fraud. Now is not the time

to ignore the dark warnings but to act to protect your own business.

The classic warning signs

Hindsight being the marvellous tool that it is, it is very easy to put together a list of warning signs for financiers that, if heeded, would alert them to the possibility that a client is conducting a fraud against them. What is instructive is the frequency with which the same elements appear in virtually every fraud we at Hammonds deal with. The most common indicators of a fraud we see are:

 

• An unusual, inexplicable or unseasonal increase in turnover.
  
• Pre-invoicing before contracts are performed.
  
• More foreign debts that are difficult to verify.
  
• An increase in debt turn.
  
• An increase in the value and percentage of credit notes or a significant number of credit notes issued for the full value of invoices.
  
• The fraudster is one of your biggest and best customers.
  
• Someone who has used this type of finance before.
  
• Decision-making and control of the business focused in one (often charismatic) person or members of the same family.
  
• Unlikely trading addresses of debtors eg, in residential areas, different debtors at the same address or only mobile phone numbers to verify debts.
  
• Individual debtor credit limits fully utilised.
  
• Accounts and other financial information are not forthcoming when requested.
  

Whilst good business relations are built on trust, it pays to apply a little healthy scepticism and critical analysis to the information supplied by the client. If a significant number of these signs appear on your client’s ledger, hear the alarm bells ringing and investigate them.

Bigger is not always better

In many aspects of business ‘being the biggest’ or ‘having the largest’ is a desirable selling point. As the victim of a fraud this is not the case. The losses can be substantial and have been known to be the end of the financier’s business. Recoveries are difficult and can be expensive, protracted and incomplete. Nor is it any better to suffer the constant attrition of numerous small frauds. The losses accumulate, damage a financier’s reputation increasing vulnerability to experienced fraudsters and dealing with each incident is a substantial drain on a financier’s resources.

Prevention is always better than cure.

To effectively fight fraud, financiers must have effective and rigorously applied audit and verification processes and well-trained staff who understand how frauds are operated and can recognize and respond to the signs

 

FSA FRAUDULENT CLAIMS

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/search/index.shtml?cx=007702012814746907219%3Avvguzpuphuq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Fraudulent+invoicing&globalsearchsubmit=Search&siteurl=www.fsa.gov.uk%2F#1174

Edited March 1, 2011 by patrickq1

[patrickq1]

ive just found this PDF FILE and it is of concern to the OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING , With regards to fraudulent invoicing , you also need to look at the above section where i put their is a chink of light in taking these companies to court , for the reason of the fraudulent behaviour of the contractor hired through the receiver then both the Mortgage Company and the Receivers are jointly Liable for lapses in their accounting in order to prevent these types of fraud ...

so it needs court action and for you to put a case across to the judge and for the judge to put this right also to try to remove this power of attorney or at least a stay ..and accompanied with a Part 36 offer on the table if they refuse it is highly likely that if it was a reasonable offer to the building society then a judge would be more inclined to look at your offer and think in the light of fairness you stand a good chance of getting the desired result

patrickq1

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/oft-fsa-plan.pdf

Edited March 1, 2011 by patrickq1

[patrickq1]

i hope this helps, the complaints must go in from all of you ,and part of your complaint must address the the complaint only if you have firstly complained to B&B OR MX or others

and your complaint should be of the nature of the Auditing procedures in place between MX B&B and others their failure to have a full investigation despite your complaints you need to show all letters and e mails hopefully you have recorded delivery of all mail..and also need photographic evidence of the fraudulent repairs or should i say fictitious repairs and fictitious invoices and despite MX and others being told of your concerns they have ignored this ,also highlight the fact that the POA they are using single instances of a couple of missed payments on a single property they are applying unfairly a blanket cover of this POA to put all properties into receivers hands so are acting through stealth and deceit in order to obtain all properties you are being denied access to justice contrary to the act of fairness they are refusing to mediate and when they do they are again being deceitful and dis honest

please add this ref in your complaint to the FSA

In the recent case of ACC V Frank Kelly and Ann Kelly Clarke J, 10 January 2011 [2009 No 5503 S] [2010 No. 84 COM] ACC

from the FSA

I can confirm that we would be able to consider a complaint for you if you were a direct customer of either Mortgage Express or Bradford & Bingley as both of these businesses are regulated by the FSA. However we would not be able to accept a complaint for you against Walker Singleton, as they are not regulated by the FSA..

I hope this explanation has been of help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries

Kind Regards

Rose Cox

team manager

Edited March 1, 2011 by patrickq1