Tap News

Who is the Holder of your Mortgage?

Having sold on your mortgage (see below) the Bank is no longer the holder in due course of the void mortgage deed. Thus, the Bankster Boot Boy literally has no Right of Possession over your Mortgaged Home (or any other mortgaged property). None whatsoever.

How the City of London State and its lapdog UK Parliament are Guilty of Industrial-Scale Mortgage Fraud

I have written extensively about how every UK ‘mortgage’ is incurably void for want of compliance with the requirements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989.

Not that this stopped a certain individual falsely asserting on my Facebook page that ‘we’ve known that mortgages are void for 20 years’.

Don’t let your tongue cut your throat (Ancient Persian Proverb)


The fact he has not even bothered to watch the film that blows apart the entire racket meant that I was not prepared to entertain his assertions. Indeed, why should I bother with such individuals who behave in the manner of all gobshites when they insist on placing their rhetoric before their grammar and logic?

The Divoc 91 fraud is huge but let us not forget the Great British Mortgage Swindle. After all, it is a swindle which goes back to the ‘Jewish’ money changers who were brought into the country as financiers to the Norman invasion of 1066. Forbidden to own land, said immigrant financial deceivers introduced their shetar as a means of acquiring wealth,

The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England . . . [or who financed and followed the invasion – Ed.] brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it.


Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement—shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents.


The basis of the shetar, or “Jewish Gage,” was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. . . Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by “all property, movable and immovable” was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding. . . . Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land.”


“Foootnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class). Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469… (alien to English law for creditor not in possession of land to have rights in it).”


The Shetar’s Effect on English Law”, The Georgetown Law Journal; V. 71, P 1179 – 1200); Judith A. Shapiro.


If we now scroll down through the centuries to this year, 2022, we find that the entirety of this millennium-old financial deception is nearing its inevitable collapse. I state this with confidence on the simple basis that the entire racket is literally built on the foundation of worthless pieces of paper: not so much a house of cards as a house of tissue paper.

The following information is incendiary in content – especially at a time when interest rates on mortgages are on the up to levels not seen for decades, further impoverishing an already-brow beaten populace.

The Bank is NOT the Holder-in-Due-Course (HIDC) of your mortgage.

The Elephant in the room is Securitisation – the bank has sold on your incurably void mortgage to a clutch of anonymous investors (pension funds, investment platforms and financial institutions of all hues) in the guise of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV).  As Carmel Butler laid out in her evidence before the UK Parliament,

Following the bank’s True Sale of the mortgages, the bank’s contractual relationship with the borrower is extinguished. The SPV, as assignee, becomes the party that is in privity of contract with the borrower. However, neither the bank nor the SPV inform the borrower of the SPV’s ownership of the mortgage contract.[108]


The SPV will remain concealed. The borrower is unlikely to discover the SPV’s ownership of their mortgage contract because, following the sale to the SPV, the bank and the SPV enter into a contract wherein, the bank agrees to administrate the mortgages on behalf of the SPV and in return, the SPV remunerates the bank for its administrative services.


Consequently, whilst the bank has extinguished all its right and title to the consumer’s mortgage contract, the bank’s connection to the consumer’s mortgage is through its administration agreement with the SPV only. Following these legal manoeuvres: (i) the consumer and the SPV are in privity of contract under the mortgages; (ii) the bank and the SPV are in privity of contract through their administration agreement; and (iii) the world will remain ignorant of these events because, the bank continues to service the loans as if nothing has happened.  Source

Why your mortgage company does not hold your mortgage.

During the course of the last 13 years of this battle for the truth about mortgage fraud committed by the UK banks it has become self-evident that the banks are breaking the law in order to enrich themselves. Both the mortgage deed and agreement/contract for a mortgage are illegal under the terms of parts on and two of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

Whilst this renders every UK mortgage null and void (fraud vitiates all), it does not stop the money changers trading the mortgage charges as financial ‘securities’ and accruing huge profits. Ultimately, this enrichment does not stop with the banks who operate on these shores but goes all the way to the Bank of England as demonstrated conclusively by a recently-leaked purported Deed of Trust made in its favour that has been granted to it by the ‘chargors’ (the licenced banks) – thus, it is the BOE that ultimately is condoning and profiteering from the invidious workings of the Great British Mortgage Swindle. More on this can be read at The Bernician, https://www.thebernician.net/how-the-bank-of-england-controls-profits-from-mortgage-fraud/

The Judges who preside over the rigged system in favour of the money changers will all tell you that securitisation is perfectly legal and, indeed, a common thing. However, they are full of shit. The facts are plain to state and it all flows out of the City of London.

Securitisation is the practice of bundling up into tranches of mortgage charges for sale by the alleged lender. The purported loan is converted into a marketable security which is offered for sale by way of the previously mentioned SPV.

Whilst this practise may be familiar to some, how many readers are aware of another subterfuge utilised by the banks called Rehypothecation?


Rehypothecation is the hypothecation of an already hypothecated asset. In other words, when your creditor bank or financial institution borrows money from another bank by pledging the asset you originally submitted as collateral, your creditor bank is said to have indulged in rehypothecation.


Unlike the US, where the limit to rehypothecation is 140% of the loan amount, there is no limit whatsover in the UK which means the City of London is an attractive haven for those who engage in money changing. It is like a game of Pass the Parcel but when the music stops, who is the one left holding the note? Exactly who is the Holder in Due Course of the purported mortgage?

After all, only the holder of the ‘note’ can make a claim – financial or legal. The Bank has sold on the mortgage along with its Rights of Chose –

Chose (pronounced: /ʃz/, French for “thing”) is a term used in common law tradition to refer to rights in property, specifically a combined bundle of rights.[1] A chose describes the enforcement right which a party possesses in an object.

This industrial-scale fraud is, surprise, surprise, one that the Land Registry is complicit in.

Under section 27 of the Land Registry Act 2002, the Bank’s sale (securitisation, rehypothecation) must be registered as a disposition of the mortgage.

The consequence of this transfer of the mortgage to a new holder in due course (HIDC) is dependent upon a Trust Deed that is secured by the charging instrument (the Deed of Mortgage). Pursuant to which, the originating ‘lender’ no longer holds any financial or equitable interest and is left only in the role of a ‘bare or custodial trustee’. Under the role of which, they no longer have any right of possession to the property, in accord with the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

The Trust Deed must be registered at Companies House within 21 days.

Another point worth noting, and one which draws the Land Registry into the fraud is the fact that  the wholesale securitisation of UK mortgages by the banks MUST be registered as a disposition of a mortgage by way of transfer on the Land Register under the Land Registry Act 2002 section 27 in order that Stamp Duty be paid.

The failure to thus inform the Land Registry and the mortgagor of the transfer results in Stamp Duty being evaded by the false ‘lender’.

In simple terms,

The bank is perpetuating a fraud by misrepresentation. No longer being the holder in due course of your mortgage, it has no right whatsoever to initiate any legal proceedings against you.

What can I do about it?

1. For a start, join the GBMS class action:


If you have a registered UK mortgage, charge or standard security [or you’ve previously had one] that doesn’t comply with the statutory law of mortgages, you can subscribe to our mailing list and join the 1,000+ TGBMS Claimants by signing up at the links below:


Subscribe to the TGBMS Mailing List


Become a TGBMS Claimant


We are also asking every claimant who has provided evidence of mortgage and signature fraud to Operation Meadow and Signature 703 to do the same, since we are bringing together the evidence amassed in each action into a central database and standardizing a non-judicial remedy which will be available to every illegally registered UK mortgage holder at zero cost.


Every TGBMS Claimant will receive free document templates for my long established Common Law Lien process, which takes 90 days to perfect, when it becomes an ‘account receivable’ that is capable of being exchanged for money or monies worth.


This process was sealed by the High Court in August 2010, when HHJ Kaye QC described the lien I served on former Bank of Scotland CEO, James Crosby, as perhaps the most powerful document he had ever had in evidence before him because it required no judicial authority to be legally enforceable under Common Law.


It must also be stressed that liens are treated in law as if they are equitable charges, which are capable of registration as legal charges against the personal property of the Lien Debtors, until such time that the losses they caused the Lien Creditors have been discharged in full.


Hence, the panic we have seen recently in the City of London, as those who have profited from the losses incurred by Britain’s void mortgagors desperately attempt in vain to avert the serious consequences of a myriad of financial wrongdoings.  The Bernician

2. Write to the alleged lender via a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) for all the information it holds in relation to you and your mortgage account(s) – an open source template for which is included below.  (Please note: whilst it is offered freely, it would be greatly appreciated if a minimum of a fiver is offered as a donation in appreciation of the template).

Any reader who is seeking assistance in this matter is encouraged to get in touch via email to roguemale@thinkfree.org.uk

Who is the Holder of your Mortgage?