Forged signature on mortgage; does Sheffield vs. Barclays still apply?

#1
In summary; joint mtg of about 90k. Husband had a gambling problem, forged his wife's signature to obtain further advance, mortgage now about 200k.

Lender saying "Not our problem" as they would.

My brane remembered the case of Sheffield Corporation vs. Barclays which indicates it is their problem - is it still the case that counts? Or has it been superseded?

The forgery occurred about ten years ago, trying to found out when it was discovered.

TIA

BB
 
#2
I am pretty sure that the person that has allegedly uttered a false instrument (signed the forms with fraudulent intent) would go to court and if found guilty would ultimately be jailed.

The increased mortgage would still stand and the other (right and proper) signatory would have to sue the lender proving that they were careless.

A bit difficult.
 
#3
I am pretty sure that the person that has allegedly uttered a false instrument (signed the forms with fraudulent intent) would go to court and if found guilty would ultimately be jailed.

The increased mortgage would still stand and the other (right and proper) signatory would have to sue the lender proving that they were careless.

A bit difficult.
The way I see it is that the forged signature is not what it purports to be. The person whose signature was forged can say "I have not signed that document, and so you have released funds to A N Other without my proper authority - and so you must reduce the mortgage by the amount of the money you have mistakenly released to the other party"

AIUI from a legal POV, the fake signature does not exist...
 

Rod924

LE
Kit Reviewer
#4
Look mate, you're fhacked!
 
#5
Aye, that would be the common sense laymans view. But this is heavy duty, big money legal shit.

If the lender knew that the loan had been obtained fraudulently, sure, it's their loss, however if the lender thought that the signatures were pukka and were not concerned at the time and had carried out due diligence the problem isn't theirs anymore.

Now, the lender will obviously have copies of all manner of paperwork with genuine signatures of all concerned. The trick is getting them to admit that the false one is definitely a wrong 'un. That's where the difficulty lies.

Even if the lender is aware that one of the signatories has been convicted of fraud, it doesn't naturally move that they are in the wrong. Sure, if the signature actually says 'Micky Mouse' in a Disneyesque scrawl they can easily be held to have been incompetent and not showing good care...However...Not mortgage related but in other fraud matters, I have arrested folk along with retrieved evidence consisting of forty practice sheets of a signature. That's why there are super expensive Graphology experts in the Forensic Documents office.

I know what you're saying and I agree but, you really need competent legal advice.

But you know that. :smile:
 
#6
Is this before the whole photocopies of your passport and witness signatures and actually taking in the photocopies themselves,came into place ?
 
#7
First step is to check whether the mortgage is "joint tenancy" or "tenants in common".

If they are "joint tenants", then your question is moot insofar as each "tenant" acts as de facto guarantor of the other "tenant". Thereby, a fraudulent act by one tenant that creates a liability for the other tenant is, unfortunately, a problem for the "other tenant". This would not be so were the fraud a third party (non-tenant).
 
#8
Marital status might also come in to it. I'm guessing he might have become an ex husband somewhere along the line.

Surely one for a professional, lots of questions about due diligence, new or existing customers....
I also suspect it'll come down to divvying up what's left and recovering as much a possible from the Donald Pleasence walting hubby.
 
#9
First step is to check whether the mortgage is "joint tenancy" or "tenants in common".

If they are "joint tenants", then your question is moot insofar as each "tenant" acts as de facto guarantor of the other "tenant". Thereby, a fraudulent act by one tenant that creates a liability for the other tenant is, unfortunately, a problem for the "other tenant". This would not be so were the fraud a third party (non-tenant).
Naughty little banker, you’ve conveniently forgotten the lender is put on notice requiring them to confirm, within reason, that the information on the application is correct.

Because why wouldn’t you bother phoning both people to confirm details?
 
#11
Indeed, was mulling this over while taking a dump, if you deem it necessary to ask for both signatures, then argue automatic joint liability, are you not arguing against your own policy? Two signatures means individual agreement so due diligence owed to both parties. Chuck in that, if you know they share an address, then it's obvious one party is in a special position to misrepresent/defraud/whatever the other.

You could start with a complaint to the FSA as a cheap way to chuck a spanner in the works of any attempted repossession.
 
#13
Indeed, was mulling this over while taking a dump, if you deem it necessary to ask for both signatures, then argue automatic joint liability, are you not arguing against your own policy? Two signatures means individual agreement so due diligence owed to both parties. Chuck in that, if you know they share an address, then it's obvious one party is in a special position to misrepresent/defraud/whatever the other.

You could start with a complaint to the FSA as a cheap way to chuck a spanner in the works of any attempted repossession.
To be honest he has many avenues he can explore, but ultimately it will be a Judge that decides if a charge should be removed and to get to that, it's a long and expensive road to travel on.

It makes for an interesting discussion though.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
The way I see it is that the forged signature is not what it purports to be. The person whose signature was forged can say "I have not signed that document, and so you have released funds to A N Other without my proper authority - and so you must reduce the mortgage by the amount of the money you have mistakenly released to the other party"

AIUI from a legal POV, the fake signature does not exist...
I would imagine that the lender's opening gambit would be to challenge your hero to prove it's a forgery particularly given that, on the face of it, they've been benefitting from the arrangement for ten years and someone other than the lender gets to trouser 100K odd if the complaint is successful.
 
#16
To Do List

1. Report it to dibble as fraud.
2. Get a solicitor
3. Lodge a formal complaint with the FCA. And possibly the PRA. Lack of due diligence, insufficient money laundering practices, etc etc
 
#17
I would imagine that the lender's opening gambit would be to challenge your hero to prove it's a forgery particularly given that, on the face of it, they've been benefitting from the arrangement for ten years and someone other than the lender gets to trouser 100K odd if the complaint is successful.
It sounds as if the only ones to benefit from this were William Hill and Paddy Powers.

It might help if Arthur Groggins had signed a form as Maureen Groggins, especially if the signature was witnessed.
 
#18
I have just asked Mrs Effendi, who whilst having done her time in Mortgage, was their Chief HR personage.

She maintains that when signing a mortgage application document you ordinarily need to offer some proof of ID. The lady just needs to ask to see a copy of the document she allegedly signed and the copy of the proof of ID.

Further, the lady should just tell the mortgage provider: Nope, sorry, didn't sign that it is fraud go chase him.

They will keep bothering her, but it is their responsibility to show she did sign and she can get them told to desist. Otherwise we could all go out and fraudulently get mortgage extensions for that once in a lifetime viagra fueled holiday in Thailand.
 
#19
The way I see it is that the forged signature is not what it purports to be. The person whose signature was forged can say "I have not signed that document, and so you have released funds to A N Other without my proper authority - and so you must reduce the mortgage by the amount of the money you have mistakenly released to the other party"

AIUI from a legal POV, the fake signature does not exist...
I think it falls apart on the fact that a marriage is a partnership, one partner can run up debts but both are liable. Weren't the signatures witnessed?

Lawyer time.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#20
To Do List

1. Report it to dibble as fraud.
2. Get a solicitor
3. Lodge a formal complaint with the FCA. And possibly the PRA. Lack of due diligence, insufficient money laundering practices, etc etc
What are the Parachute Regiment Association going to do about it?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top