I'm not shore if any bookmaker are offering odds on this, but I think it is possible that there will NEVER be a Labour PM again!! OK, I know it is fool hardy to make long term predictions, but, please hear me out, I think a new Political party may emerge and become the main opposition and eventual government before Labour next wins an election.
1. Whether the Conservatives win the next GE will largely depend on the state of the economy, (and how the EU referendum goes). but in all likelihood they can win again, if they do that give 10 years for the main opposition to change.
2. The long-term (even inter-generational) allegiances to political parties are on a long term decline. while Labour can now depend on 25-30% regardless this number is likely to decline, possibly rapidly.
3. New (or revived) movements have never found it so easy to flourish, partly thanks to social media, if your a good salesman hits the right note at the right time you can grow in popularity and organisation much quicker than ever before. e.g. rise of the SNP.
4. Trade Unions, slowly declining in size for a generations, for underlining socio-economic reasons, will probably shrink rapidly over the next 5 years, because of the trade union bill.
5. Trade unions ability to support the Labour party finically will be especially hard hit by the Bill.
6. The currant hard left LP is not going to apple to anybody outside the Hard Left, at least not unless the economy crashes. but with so many Hard Left now in the party and consolidating there positions and power, in a few years it may be to late to remove them or for anybody moderate to win the leadership of the party.
7. The Trotskyist new joiners have a reputation for infighting, and there is no reason to think this will wane, making the party look irrevocably split.
In the past a party could wate until the pendulum swung back in its favour, this time I'm not so shore, I just don't know who the next official opposition or new government will be?
You'd never get paid out though!
Good point, unless I could get odds on the next non conservative PM, also not being from the Labour party?
Looks like we will have a bye election in Edinburgh West soon - a Nat maj of 3k to defend..
Oh? What's the cause?
Interesting I see that the LD vote barely went down in 2015, although it had gone down a lot in 2010 from a high in 2005. Though I think we know what the result would be in the current climate. If there is a bubble at the moment, it isn't bursting yet, and we know who the more dedicated ones to come out for a by-election would probably be.
A LD win could re-energise the whole party and get them up the agenda again. Now they are a party of opposition they should also find it much easier to challenge at by elections, also given that the SNP have almost swept the board in Scotland, there may be some unionist tactical voting, and there is a lot of unionist vote to squeeze. The unionist bloc will be quite motivated to show they can compete with the SNP as well so they may be more motivated than the SNP who have no use for their Westminster MPs.
I'm not shore if any bookmaker are offering odds on this, but I think it is possible that there will NEVER be a Labour PM again!! OK, I know it is fool hardy to make long term predictions, but, please hear me out, I think a new Political p
2. The long-term (even inter-generational) allegiances to political parties are on a long term decline. while Labour can now depend on 25-30% regardless this number is likely to decline, possibly rapidly.
3. New (or revived) movements have never found it so easy to flourish, partly thanks to social media, if your a good salesman hits the right note at the right time you can grow in popularity and organisation much quicker than ever before. e.g. rise of the SNP.
4. Trade Unions, slowly declining in size for a generations, for underlining socio-economic reasons, will probably shrink rapidly over the next 5 years, because of the trade union bill.
5. Trade unions ability to support the Labour party finically will be especially hard hit by the Bill.
6. The currant hard left LP is not going to apple to anybody outside the Hard Left, at least not unless the economy crashes. but with so many Hard Left now in the party and consolidating there positions and power, in a few years it may be to late to remove them or for anybody moderate to win the leadership of the party.
7. The Trotskyist new joiners have a reputation for infighting, and there is no reason to think this will wane, making the party look irrevocably split.
In the past a party could wate until the pendulum swung back in its favour, this time I'm not so shore, I just don't know who the next official opposition or new government will be?
Labour will eventually win again, the LDs are a joke and UKIP are too extreme, eventually Cameron will be gone as Blair was and the pendulum will turn
maybe, but maybe not, UKIP have got some credibility because of their number of votes, perhaps if they adopted some classic economic centre left policies, (tax the rich a bit more) and combined with their anti-EU, pro NATO, anti immigration, Pro Trident. then maybe they could sweep the WWC, or perhaps the LD could rediscover there liberal side and become a socially liberal, economically credible party? or maybe a new force we are not thinking about yet? time will tell, but I would bet on an eventual labour return.
A socially liberal, economically credible party will get 10% at best as Clegg discovered. UKIP are a populist party, they are not going to overtake Labour on the centre left
The value of a property is that between a willing buyer and a willing seller which in the case above is £80,000 and not the £100,000 and the price of £80,000 will be registered as the price and used for comparable values. An asking price is only the sale price when both parties agree.
Looks like we will have a bye election in Edinburgh West soon - a Nat maj of 3k to defend..
Oh? What's the cause?
Interesting I see that the LD vote barely went down in 2015, although it had gone down a lot in 2010 from a high in 2005. Though I think we know what the result would be in the current climate. If there is a bubble at the moment, it isn't bursting yet, and we know who the more dedicated ones to come out for a by-election would probably be.
A LD win could re-energise the whole party and get them up the agenda again. Now they are a party of opposition they should also find it much easier to challenge at by elections, also given that the SNP have almost swept the board in Scotland, there may be some unionist tactical voting, and there is a lot of unionist vote to squeeze. The unionist bloc will be quite motivated to show they can compete with the SNP as well so they may be more motivated than the SNP who have no use for their Westminster MPs.
Lib Dems ought to give a Te Deum to the god of by-elections.
It surely cannot be long before she resigns. Just what one wonders is delaying police acrivity. The article actually says 'Thompson is toast and is suggesting a significant sentence'. We would not know unless she had not been unearthed as Mrs A in the proceedings against the solicitor.
But similarly to appearances made by Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna, there was a distinct lack of detail about Jarvis’ views. We already knew that he is a passionate family man, who has a strong belief in the armed forces. This may appear to be a powerful combination to be Labour leader, but throughout the hour-long event, there were sparse details of what he thinks about the economy, immigration — or any key policy areas for that matter.
Maybe it doesn’t matter right now, as there is no leadership election on the horizon, but many Labour MPs would like to know more about him. Jarvis did say that now he’s returned to the back benches, he will be able to speak his mind more freely, so we might find out soon what Jarvis actually thinks.
Blair and Cameron both became PM on a bland policy free platform. To this day I'm still not sure what either Blair or Cameron really believe. I know Osborne is a liberal with a side of fiscal conservatism and Brown was just a nutter, but after so many years I don't know what the former two believe in. Quite an achievement given my level of interest in politics.
Basically, not having any policy isn't really a bad thing if you can pull off the bland, "I'm not a threat" look like both Dave and Tone. Ed couldn't do the blank sheet of paper because he was weird, Dan doesn't seem to be weird and his background as a family man with a military past and strong values will certainly not hinder him.
The lack of threat is probably key. Cameron may not have secured a big majority and tactically some things set up well for him, but he was able to exploit that because the caricature of him and his government as things to fear never really seemed credible to people. Conversely, the caricature of ed m was deemed credible by more people than many expected, again aided in that case negatively by the particular circumstances.
It's probably harder to pull off than it seems, I'm not sure who of Cameron's successors might manage it.
But similarly to appearances made by Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna, there was a distinct lack of detail about Jarvis’ views. We already knew that he is a passionate family man, who has a strong belief in the armed forces. This may appear to be a powerful combination to be Labour leader, but throughout the hour-long event, there were sparse details of what he thinks about the economy, immigration — or any key policy areas for that matter.
Maybe it doesn’t matter right now, as there is no leadership election on the horizon, but many Labour MPs would like to know more about him. Jarvis did say that now he’s returned to the back benches, he will be able to speak his mind more freely, so we might find out soon what Jarvis actually thinks.
Blair and Cameron both became PM on a bland policy free platform. To this day I'm still not sure what either Blair or Cameron really believe. I know Osborne is a liberal with a side of fiscal conservatism and Brown was just a nutter, but after so many years I don't know what the former two believe in. Quite an achievement given my level of interest in politics.
Basically, not having any policy isn't really a bad thing if you can pull off the bland, "I'm not a threat" look like both Dave and Tone. Ed couldn't do the blank sheet of paper because he was weird, Dan doesn't seem to be weird and his background as a family man with a military past and strong values will certainly not hinder him.
But similarly to appearances made by Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna, there was a distinct lack of detail about Jarvis’ views. We already knew that he is a passionate family man, who has a strong belief in the armed forces. This may appear to be a powerful combination to be Labour leader, but throughout the hour-long event, there were sparse details of what he thinks about the economy, immigration — or any key policy areas for that matter.
Maybe it doesn’t matter right now, as there is no leadership election on the horizon, but many Labour MPs would like to know more about him. Jarvis did say that now he’s returned to the back benches, he will be able to speak his mind more freely, so we might find out soon what Jarvis actually thinks.
Blair and Cameron both became PM on a bland policy free platform. To this day I'm still not sure what either Blair or Cameron really believe. I know Osborne is a liberal with a side of fiscal conservatism and Brown was just a nutter, but after so many years I don't know what the former two believe in. Quite an achievement given my level of interest in politics.
Basically, not having any policy isn't really a bad thing if you can pull off the bland, "I'm not a threat" look like both Dave and Tone. Ed couldn't do the blank sheet of paper because he was weird, Dan doesn't seem to be weird and his background as a family man with a military past and strong values will certainly not hinder him.
The value of a property is that between a willing buyer and a willing seller which in the case above is £80,000 and not the £100,000 and the price of £80,000 will be registered as the price and used for comparable values. An asking price is only the sale price when both parties agree.
This is not true.
If I offer £120k for a property which has a surveyor valuation of £100k, a bank which offers an 80% mortgage will only lend me £80k. In the Scottish property market the valuation is what matters, not the agreed price.
Lib Dems ought to give a Te Deum to the god of by-elections.
It surely cannot be long before she resigns. Just what one wonders is delaying police acrivity. The article actually says 'Thompson is toast and is suggesting a significant sentence'. We would not know unless she had not been unearthed as Mrs A in the proceedings against the solicitor.
You don't appear to know Ian Smart.
He doesn't write "articles". That implies a credibility his past behaviour does not deserve.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
Ah bless. You did not pick up on the fraudulent registration of the price, the real value of the house. You missed the bit about the seller giving the deposit back as part of this back to back resale. You forget all the bits about intermediaries. You forget the activities of this 'bent solicitor'. Thompson was the front for Business for Scotland... no wonder Alex was able to make his oil sums add up.
The value of a property is that between a willing buyer and a willing seller which in the case above is £80,000 and not the £100,000 and the price of £80,000 will be registered as the price and used for comparable values. An asking price is only the sale price when both parties agree.
This is not true.
If I offer £120k for a property which has a surveyor valuation of £100k, a bank which offers an 80% mortgage will only lend me £80k. In the Scottish property market the valuation is what matters, not the agreed price.
If the buyer and seller have agreed £120k then that's still the price. The lender might value it at £100k and only be prepared to lend £80k but as long as the buyer can come up with the rest then the deal is still on as agreed, surely?
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
I'm afraid that is rubbish. When you apply for a mortgage you have to complete a mortgage application form. If you claim on that that you are buying the property for £100K and you in fact purchase it for £80K or with a £20K cashback and don't disclose this then you commit the crime of fraud.
So does your solicitor who will be struck off as happened in this case because he has facilitated the fraud. The explanation in the linked article is accurate.
It may also be a fraud to have the value of the property in the Land Register being higher than you actually paid. It facilitates the avoidance of CGT. Again, if the true facts are not disclosed to the lender then you have induced them to lend money they might not have otherwise have lent.
Back to back transactions, as happened in this case, are a particular problem because it is so easy for a crooked lawyer to facilitate them. As a result the Law Society is particularly hard on a crime that all too often results in claims upon the guarantee fund.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
The value of a property is that between a willing buyer and a willing seller which in the case above is £80,000 and not the £100,000 and the price of £80,000 will be registered as the price and used for comparable values. An asking price is only the sale price when both parties agree.
This is not true.
If I offer £120k for a property which has a surveyor valuation of £100k, a bank which offers an 80% mortgage will only lend me £80k. In the Scottish property market the valuation is what matters, not the agreed price.
If you are saying the property in question was valued by an independent surveyor at £100,000 then a mortgage of 80% ie £80,000 would be correct but the buyer would be required to find the difference of £20,000.
But similarly to appearances made by Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna, there was a distinct lack of detail about Jarvis’ views. We already knew that he is a passionate family man, who has a strong belief in the armed forces. This may appear to be a powerful combination to be Labour leader, but throughout the hour-long event, there were sparse details of what he thinks about the economy, immigration — or any key policy areas for that matter.
Maybe it doesn’t matter right now, as there is no leadership election on the horizon, but many Labour MPs would like to know more about him. Jarvis did say that now he’s returned to the back benches, he will be able to speak his mind more freely, so we might find out soon what Jarvis actually thinks.
A few months back there was an interview with Jarvis. Came across as a pleasant enough fellow, devoted to his children etc. But completely devoid of content when it came to any ideas as to what to do - it was not just a lack of policy but a lack of any sort of story or direction of travel. Good on analysis but short on any sort of solution.
Now some of this may be tactical but it did not come across that way. So Jarvis's appeal seems to be that he is (a) not fond of terrorists, other than fighting them; and (b) is nice to his family. If that's the criteria, there's about 30 million of us who could do the job, frankly.
The next sensible leader will be someone who moves on from, say, understanding the people's anxieties about immigration to, radical idea this, actually proposing some workable policies for addressing those anxieties. Ditto for all the other things that people say they are concerned about. At present all we have is lots of concerned furrowed brows saying that Labour must listen to the people, blah, blah, and then a great big nothingness where some actual proposals and thoughts should be.
Lib Dems ought to give a Te Deum to the god of by-elections.
It surely cannot be long before she resigns. Just what one wonders is delaying police acrivity. The article actually says 'Thompson is toast and is suggesting a significant sentence'. We would not know unless she had not been unearthed as Mrs A in the proceedings against the solicitor.
You don't appear to know Ian Smart.
He doesn't write "articles". That implies a credibility his past behaviour does not deserve.
Do you know Mr Hales? But we can all agree Mrs Thompson does not have a moral leg to stand on.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
That is simply wrong. Whilst you will not get more than the maximum percentage of the value you will not get up to it either if you have paid less. "Offers over" has nothing to do with the duty of the solicitor and the person completing the application form to disclose accurate and truthful information.
On topic, 5/1 is absurdly short for someone who's barely visited the front bench. It's not so much that he can't or couldn't win; it's that there are so many others who could. And of course we have no idea when the next election will be.
That said, you look through the top ten and it's distinctly underwhelming.
The value of a property is that between a willing buyer and a willing seller which in the case above is £80,000 and not the £100,000 and the price of £80,000 will be registered as the price and used for comparable values. An asking price is only the sale price when both parties agree.
This is not true.
If I offer £120k for a property which has a surveyor valuation of £100k, a bank which offers an 80% mortgage will only lend me £80k. In the Scottish property market the valuation is what matters, not the agreed price.
If the buyer and seller have agreed £120k then that's still the price. The lender might value it at £100k and only be prepared to lend £80k but as long as the buyer can come up with the rest then the deal is still on as agreed, surely?
If you're lending against property then you want as conservative a valuation as possible, since if the buyer goes pop then you're left with a house to flog which is going to be gone after by hard nosed investors and may not be anyone's home.
I'd have thought an approach of lower of valuation & agreed sale price would be smart (Either may exceed the other in particular circumstance), so the exposed LTV is not artificially low...
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
Ah bless. You did not pick up on the fraudulent registration of the price, the real value of the house. You missed the bit about the seller giving the deposit back as part of this back to back resale. You forget all the bits about intermediaries. You forget the activities of this 'bent solicitor'. Thompson was the front for Business for Scotland... no wonder Alex was able to make his oil sums add up.
And the fraudulent registration of the price is most likely why the solicitor has been struck off. If you don't have evidence that this was requested and required by Thomson, you are on dangerous legal waters.
Of course, even if it was requested and required by Thomson, it would still not be mortgage fraud if the surveyor's valuation was met by the mortgage requirements. The likelihood is that it was, if this was typical of the distress purchase market.
What it definitely is not, is fraud on the part of Thomson.
The value of a property is that between a willing buyer and a willing seller which in the case above is £80,000 and not the £100,000 and the price of £80,000 will be registered as the price and used for comparable values. An asking price is only the sale price when both parties agree.
This is not true.
If I offer £120k for a property which has a surveyor valuation of £100k, a bank which offers an 80% mortgage will only lend me £80k. In the Scottish property market the valuation is what matters, not the agreed price.
If the buyer and seller have agreed £120k then that's still the price. The lender might value it at £100k and only be prepared to lend £80k but as long as the buyer can come up with the rest then the deal is still on as agreed, surely?
Yes but that's the principle established under Scots Law (probably due to the O/O system). Whether a higher or lower price is paid, the actual value when the mortgage is considered is what the Surveyor puts on the property.
Additionally you do not have to physically pay a deposit to be eligible for a mortgage at x%. Otherwise there would be no ability to re-mortage.
The more we explore space, the more we find out that, in all likelihood, there are hundreds of millions of Earth-like planets in our galaxy capable of sustaining life. And most of those planets are far, far older than this one. So why haven't we found any evidence of even a single advanced civilization sending out signals into the cosmos?
One plausible explanation is that despite the number of good planets out there, such advanced societies are very rare. In the path from Earth-like planet->conditions for life->simple life->complex life->civilization->advanced civilization->space-faring civilization there is a some sort of filter that screens out most planets from developing such a thing.
Maybe the formation of self-replicating organisms is actually an incredibly rare event despite the number of worlds. Maybe life is common place in the galaxy, but it is an evolutionary freak event for it to become advanced enough to create societies. Maybe advanced societies discover some secret to particle physics that creates weapons that inevitably cause them to wipe themselves out. Somewhere along the line this Great Filter exists, that knocks out most habitable planets from fulfilling their potential.
If we're lucky, this Great Filter lies behind us. We've already passed it and there are few like us in the galaxy. If we're unlucky, this Great Filter is in front of us, and we're probably doomed as a species.
The more we learn that the various steps along the chain behind us are actually common (e.g. that planets often have liquid water), the less likely the Great Filter is behind us and the more likely it's in front of us and will kill us all at some point. Thus the discovery of water on Mars could be the worst news we've ever found out as a species.
How monstrous a waste of a universe it would be, to just have us pootling about on one bit of rock in an ever so ordinary part of it.
The 'unfashionable western spiral arm' as the legend that was Douglas Adams described it.
A planetary civilisation can rise and fall and be still lost to us since it happened eons ago but its radio waves have not reached us yet and our world may wither and die before they do. Lots of possible civilisations separated by great distance and all rising and falling over a different time with the still significant speed limit of the speed of light restricting communications.
Or they're waiting for a delivery of lemon scented towels
The next sensible leader will be someone who moves on from, say, understanding the people's anxieties about immigration to, radical idea this, actually proposing some workable policies for addressing those anxieties. Ditto for all the other things that people say they are concerned about. At present all we have is lots of concerned furrowed brows saying that Labour must listen to the people, blah, blah, and then a great big nothingness where some actual proposals and thoughts should be.
I agree with this, but this ironically enough is one of the main reasons Corbyn won: because he was the only candidate who wasn't just saying nothing (Burnham and Cooper), or saying the same as the Tories (Kendall). That is the problem with taking "centre-ground" politics to the absurd extreme that the previous Labour Establishment did, it leaves you with nothing to say.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
That is simply wrong. Whilst you will not get more than the maximum percentage of the value you will not get up to it either if you have paid less. "Offers over" has nothing to do with the duty of the solicitor and the person completing the application form to disclose accurate and truthful information.
Do we have evidence that this occurred?
I mean that genuinely. It is more than possible the price paid was correct on the mortgage application while the valuation was also correct and the lender acted on this basis.
BTW, I'm not defending Thomson. Her involvement in distress purchase is untenable with being an SNP MP and as such the whip should be withdrawn at the very least - this setting a principle that the Libs should pay attention to.
I'm just not convinced fraud occurred based on the actual things we know at this point.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
Ah bless. You did not pick up on the fraudulent registration of the price, the real value of the house. You missed the bit about the seller giving the deposit back as part of this back to back resale. You forget all the bits about intermediaries. You forget the activities of this 'bent solicitor'. Thompson was the front for Business for Scotland... no wonder Alex was able to make his oil sums add up.
And the fraudulent registration of the price is most likely why the solicitor has been struck off. If you don't have evidence that this was requested and required by Thomson, you are on dangerous legal waters.
Of course, even if it was requested and required by Thomson, it would still not be mortgage fraud if the surveyor's valuation was met by the mortgage requirements. The likelihood is that it was, if this was typical of the distress purchase market.
What it definitely is not, is fraud on the part of Thomson.
Definitely not fraud. You know what... I'll go with that if it means Sturgeon and Salmond cheering every speech she makes for the next 5 years.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
That is simply wrong. Whilst you will not get more than the maximum percentage of the value you will not get up to it either if you have paid less. "Offers over" has nothing to do with the duty of the solicitor and the person completing the application form to disclose accurate and truthful information.
Do we have evidence that this occurred?
I mean that genuinely. It is more than possible the price paid was correct on the mortgage application while the valuation was also correct and the lender acted on this basis.
BTW, I'm not defending Thomson. Her involvement in distress purchase is untenable with being an SNP MP and as such the whip should be withdrawn at the very least - this setting a principle that the Libs should pay attention to.
I'm just not convinced fraud occurred based on the actual things we know at this point.
Unless the solicitor pleaded guilty to various offences before the SSDT and agreed a narrative which was inaccurate there is convincing evidence that Thomson was guilty of fraud. I can think of no reason why the solicitor would do this as it is an aggravation of his own faults.
Solicitors dealing with mortgage transactions have to comply with the CML handbook. It requires them to disclose any information which might have relevance to the risk the lender is taking. This is mirrored in the information which the borrower has to supply which the solicitor effectively warrants to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief. If the solicitor becomes aware of any discrepancy between the information provided by the client and the reality he must disclose it and this overrides his duty of confidentiality. On the narrative this solicitor pleaded guilty to failing to disclose multiple inaccuracies in the information provided.
Chatting to lots of MPs and delegates, some impressions:
MPs: a few Corbyn enthusiasts, a few angrily anti, most wary but inclined to give him a fair try - a typical comment from a senior former colleague was, "I didn't vote for him and I probably still wouldn't, but I do see why people did. Maybe it'll work out better than I thought."
Delegates: generally super-enthusiastic, and too cheerful to be in vengeful mood towards dissenters. Typical comment (from a pro-Corbyn constituent of a Kendall supporter): "I don't expect everyone turn on a sixpence, and if my MP wants to disagree on Trident and stuff, OK. But I would feel differently if he started actively slagging off the whole project."
There won't be any early serious trouble except from the obvious one or two hardline dissenters. What happens later depends IMO largely on how the polls develop.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
I'm afraid that is rubbish. When you apply for a mortgage you have to complete a mortgage application form. If you claim on that that you are buying the property for £100K and you in fact purchase it for £80K or with a £20K cashback and don't disclose this then you commit the crime of fraud.
So does your solicitor who will be struck off as happened in this case because he has facilitated the fraud. The explanation in the linked article is accurate.
It may also be a fraud to have the value of the property in the Land Register being higher than you actually paid. It facilitates the avoidance of CGT. Again, if the true facts are not disclosed to the lender then you have induced them to lend money they might not have otherwise have lent.
Back to back transactions, as happened in this case, are a particular problem because it is so easy for a crooked lawyer to facilitate them. As a result the Law Society is particularly hard on a crime that all too often results in claims upon the guarantee fund.
From PB's leading Scottish Lawyer it does all sound very damning. A by election would be fun in such a marginal seat, but does that not require a 12 month sentence? What is the tarif in fraud cases along these lines?
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
That is simply wrong. Whilst you will not get more than the maximum percentage of the value you will not get up to it either if you have paid less. "Offers over" has nothing to do with the duty of the solicitor and the person completing the application form to disclose accurate and truthful information.
I have a feeling that a can of worms has just exploded under the Scottish house purchase system. I'm not having it that this SNP woman is the only one at it.
At present all we have is lots of concerned furrowed brows saying that Labour must listen to the people, blah, blah, and then a great big nothingness where some actual proposals and thoughts should be.
Yes they want to appear to listen and then go on to ignore these concerns as before.
To quote Brian Clough 'We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right'
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
I'm afraid that is rubbish. When you apply for a mortgage you have to complete a mortgage application form. If you claim on that that you are buying the property for £100K and you in fact purchase it for £80K or with a £20K cashback and don't disclose this then you commit the crime of fraud.
So does your solicitor who will be struck off as happened in this case because he has facilitated the fraud. The explanation in the linked article is accurate.
It may also be a fraud to have the value of the property in the Land Register being higher than you actually paid. It facilitates the avoidance of CGT. Again, if the true facts are not disclosed to the lender then you have induced them to lend money they might not have otherwise have lent.
Back to back transactions, as happened in this case, are a particular problem because it is so easy for a crooked lawyer to facilitate them. As a result the Law Society is particularly hard on a crime that all too often results in claims upon the guarantee fund.
From PB's leading Scottish Lawyer it does all sound very damning. A by election would be fun in such a marginal seat, but does that not require a 12 month sentence? What is the tarif in fraud cases along these lines?
If the ST story is even close to being accurate 12 months is not going to be an issue. There has been a number of cases in the High Court in recent times and the going rate for high value cases is nearer 4 years.
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred" and that "the central role of Mrs Thomson and M&F Property Solutions... should have set alarm bells ringing".
So we have multiple accusations of fraud in this thread, when the only evidence implies that they do not know if fraud occurred.
It seems some posters are on a quite fine line between comment and Defamation.
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred" and that "the central role of Mrs Thomson and M&F Property Solutions... should have set alarm bells ringing".
So we have multiple accusations of fraud in this thread, when the only evidence implies that they do not know if fraud occurred.
It seems some posters are on a quite fine line between comment and Defamation.
This is the “new politics” promised by the Corbynistas — radical, authentic and genuinely left-wing. “Straight talking, honest politics” is the conference slogan. The reality, however, is compromise, chaos and confusion.
As one former cabinet minister put it: “Where’s the radicalism? Where are the new ideas? This is turning into another version of Ed Miliband.” The new old Labour party is starting to look remarkably like the old new Labour party — but with less likelihood of winning power.
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
That is simply wrong. Whilst you will not get more than the maximum percentage of the value you will not get up to it either if you have paid less. "Offers over" has nothing to do with the duty of the solicitor and the person completing the application form to disclose accurate and truthful information.
I have a feeling that a can of worms has just exploded under the Scottish house purchase system. I'm not having it that this SNP woman is the only one at it.
I have a case at the moment that touches on this and will involve a High Court case (I am only on the civil side). Nothing political about it but it involves the purchase under value of houses threatened with repossession, essentially for enough money to get the lender off the owner's back. They are then offered a tenancy so they can keep living in the house.
This can look very bad and amount to the exploitation of those suffering hardship but it is legal as long as everything is disclosed and above board. In many cases it is not and the previous owners claim to have been misled. For the avoidance of doubt I am not for a moment suggesting that Thomson has been involved in anything like this.
Nearly fell off my settee then. The Corbynista woman on the panel said 'that bank of England. That's how countries make money'! Ok then go to Zimbabwe. The rampant money printing by Gideo Gono and their central bank worked out well didn't it?! Or did I miss something? !
If the bank offers a maximum of 80% mortgage on the value of the property and you negotiate to buy a £100k property for £80k and pay no deposit, there is no mortgage fraud. You have obtained an 80% mortgage.
If you tell the mortgage company the property is worth £100k, but you only pay £80k for it, that is mortgage fraud.
You don't tell the bank what the property is worth. An independent surveyor does.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
That is simply wrong. Whilst you will not get more than the maximum percentage of the value you will not get up to it either if you have paid less. "Offers over" has nothing to do with the duty of the solicitor and the person completing the application form to disclose accurate and truthful information.
I have a feeling that a can of worms has just exploded under the Scottish house purchase system. I'm not having it that this SNP woman is the only one at it.
I have a case at the moment that touches on this and will involve a High Court case (I am only on the civil side). Nothing political about it but it involves the purchase under value of houses threatened with repossession, essentially for enough money to get the lender off the owner's back. They are then offered a tenancy so they can keep living in the house.
This can look very bad and amount to the exploitation of those suffering hardship but it is legal as long as everything is disclosed and above board. In many cases it is not and the previous owners claim to have been misled. For the avoidance of doubt I am not for a moment suggesting that Thomson has been involved in anything like this.
Isn't this quite important to the accusations. At the moment there is no actual evidence of fraud, merely an implication that a bent solicitor or an incompetent solicitor is involved with purchases that might relate to Ms Thomson (as the ST is paywalled I haven't seen their evidence for a link between "Mrs A" and Michelle Thomson).
Distress purchase sounds appalling but I am sure there are many people who are quite grateful for it, especially if the tenancy is assured and the purchaser acts in a reasonably beneficial manner (which with Housing Benefit, I don't really see a huge reason why they should not).
The Scottish Government themselves run a distress purchase scheme under Mortgage to Rent.
Chatting to lots of MPs and delegates, some impressions:
MPs: a few Corbyn enthusiasts, a few angrily anti, most wary but inclined to give him a fair try - a typical comment from a senior former colleague was, "I didn't vote for him and I probably still wouldn't, but I do see why people did. Maybe it'll work out better than I thought."
Delegates: generally super-enthusiastic, and too cheerful to be in vengeful mood towards dissenters. Typical comment (from a pro-Corbyn constituent of a Kendall supporter): "I don't expect everyone turn on a sixpence, and if my MP wants to disagree on Trident and stuff, OK. But I would feel differently if he started actively slagging off the whole project."
There won't be any early serious trouble except from the obvious one or two hardline dissenters. What happens later depends IMO largely on how the polls develop.
Good to see UK labour always wrong, never learns... If the polls are ok so is jezza. This rings a bell....
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred" and that "the central role of Mrs Thomson and M&F Property Solutions... should have set alarm bells ringing".
So we have multiple accusations of fraud in this thread, when the only evidence implies that they do not know if fraud occurred.
It seems some posters are on a quite fine line between comment and Defamation.
At the moment there is no actual evidence of fraud, merely an implication that a bent solicitor or an incompetent solicitor is involved with purchases that might relate to Ms Thomson (as the ST is paywalled I haven't seen their evidence for a link between "Mrs A" and Michelle Thomson).
All of the 13 transactions for which Hales was struck off involved Thomson or the property venture M&F Property Solutions, in which a tribunal stated she was a partner.
The 53-page Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal ruling states the “central role of Michelle Thomson and M&F Property Solutions in a number of these transactions should have set alarm bells ringing”.
The solicitor was definitely struck off. The documents relating to his dismissal (according to the Sunday Times) show Ms Thompson linked to every one of the transactions that caused him to be struck off
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred" and that "the central role of Mrs Thomson and M&F Property Solutions... should have set alarm bells ringing".
So we have multiple accusations of fraud in this thread, when the only evidence implies that they do not know if fraud occurred.
It seems some posters are on a quite fine line between comment and Defamation.
Yes, the solicitor is guilty. But at this time, Thomson is not yet found guilty of anything. The finding doesn't just fail to state that there is no fraud on Mrs A's part but it actually states that there is no evidence that it was fraud.
Politically, however, if Mrs A is Michelle Thomson which seems correct given that she has issued a statement, she needs to go.
At the moment there is no actual evidence of fraud, merely an implication that a bent solicitor or an incompetent solicitor is involved with purchases that might relate to Ms Thomson (as the ST is paywalled I haven't seen their evidence for a link between "Mrs A" and Michelle Thomson).
All of the 13 transactions for which Hales was struck off involved Thomson or the property venture M&F Property Solutions, in which a tribunal stated she was a partner.
The 53-page Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal ruling states the “central role of Michelle Thomson and M&F Property Solutions in a number of these transactions should have set alarm bells ringing”.
The solicitor was definitely struck off. The documents relating to his dismissal (according to the Sunday Times) show Ms Thompson linked to every one of the transactions that caused him to be struck off
I already linked that quote.
Including the prefix : -
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred"
No need for that as according to McDonnell they are going to have a series of policy reviews.
Labour has reviewed polices for the past 5 years and then elected Corbyn on very clear policy platforms by 60% of the Labour party electorate, so now they need another review.
The Solicitor acts on the instructions of the Client, who is the Principal.
In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
Then the excess taken out as cash.
Then the Solicitor making statements for the Client to the mortgage company that they had owned the property for longer than was actually the case.
And associated signed and witnessed contracts and deeds.
I don't think that even in SNP-land anyone will believe that the Client is as innocent as the day is long.
If whatshername is firmly identified as one of the parties, then a smell of Toast wafts its way down from Holyrood.
Happy to have this analysis shot down in flames if anyone wants to try.
No wonder they want political control of the police force
Hmmm.In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
That is how the Scottish property market works. I'd wager most properties in Scotland sell for more than their independent valuation. But the mortgage is based on the valuation.
It does not mean any false representation has been made to the mortgage company.
Hmmm.In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
That is how the Scottish property market works. I'd wager most properties in Scotland sell for more than their independent valuation. But the mortgage is based on the valuation.
It does not mean any false representation has been made to the mortgage company.
No? I seems to me that such a situation leads it open to fraud. On a grand scale.
Hmmm.In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
That is how the Scottish property market works. I'd wager most properties in Scotland sell for more than their independent valuation. But the mortgage is based on the valuation.
It does not mean any false representation has been made to the mortgage company.
No? I seems to me that such a situation leads it open to fraud. On a grand scale.
Hmmm.In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
That is how the Scottish property market works. I'd wager most properties in Scotland sell for more than their independent valuation. But the mortgage is based on the valuation.
It does not mean any false representation has been made to the mortgage company.
No? I seems to me that such a situation leads it open to fraud. On a grand scale.
That may well be true.
Forget Starbucks and Amazon, Ozzy can raise a few billion by reforming the Scottish housing market. THINK OF THE NURSES!!
Hmmm.In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
That is how the Scottish property market works. I'd wager most properties in Scotland sell for more than their independent valuation. But the mortgage is based on the valuation.
It does not mean any false representation has been made to the mortgage company.
First a correction - below I overstated the mortgage sum (sorry).
The first example of the 13 involves a property bought for £245k by Party A from the original - presumably distressed - seller (Party B ), and a mortgage taken out 2 months later for £236,215 at an alleged valuation of £315k for the property on a resale from Party A to Party C. The mortgage company is Birmingham Midshires.
Now, I have done a BTL mortgage with Birmingham Midshires in the last 6 months, and I have the paperwork in front of me.
I have been required to confirm and sign that:
"I confirm that I am not related to the seller by blood or marriage. I have no business relationship or other form of association with the seller. The purchase from the seller has been negotiated at arm's length".
In this case a relationship/association between A and C is documented by the Investigation Report - cashbacks and also the shared solicitor, leaving aside any joint businesses that may or may not exist.
That means that whatever has been signed as the equivalent of the clause I quote above is, in the case of the second sale, a False Representation, though it may be to a Conveyancer or Solicitor as well as to the Mortgage Company.
I'd suggest that that may well be enough on its own.
I believe that Party A and Party C are the MSP and her colleague.
Rereading that, would Party A really be able to argue that they are an innocent dupe because they aren't the one who took out the mortgage, and that Party C is the only one making a False Representation?
Very technical, and would struggle as a case if they were Partners in a business, perhaps.
Update: No, in other cases Party A did the mortgage.
At that point I am at the end of responsible comment possibilities, so I will stop.
Comments
Probably some Lab to LibDem tacticals as well.
Basically, not having any policy isn't really a bad thing if you can pull off the bland, "I'm not a threat" look like both Dave and Tone. Ed couldn't do the blank sheet of paper because he was weird, Dan doesn't seem to be weird and his background as a family man with a military past and strong values will certainly not hinder him.
The lack of threat is probably key. Cameron may not have secured a big majority and tactically some things set up well for him, but he was able to exploit that because the caricature of him and his government as things to fear never really seemed credible to people. Conversely, the caricature of ed m was deemed credible by more people than many expected, again aided in that case negatively by the particular circumstances.
It's probably harder to pull off than it seems, I'm not sure who of Cameron's successors might manage it.
Good night all.
Basically, not having any policy isn't really a bad thing if you can pull off the bland, "I'm not a threat" look like both Dave and Tone. Ed couldn't do the blank sheet of paper because he was weird, Dan doesn't seem to be weird and his background as a family man with a military past and strong values will certainly not hinder him.
Jarvis might do well as a US Democrat.
Westminster Conservatives 26% (-2%), Labour 42% (+5%), LD 5% (+1%), Plaid Cymru 10% (-2%), UKIP 16% (+1%)
Assembly Conservatives 23%, Labour 39%, LD 6%, Plaid 18%, UKIP 13% constituencies
Conservatives 24%, Labour 34%, LD 5%, Plaid 18%, UKIP 14% List
Projection Labour 29 seats, Tories 12, Plaid 10, UKIP 8, LDs 1
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9481
Same was said of Wesley Clark
If I offer £120k for a property which has a surveyor valuation of £100k, a bank which offers an 80% mortgage will only lend me £80k. In the Scottish property market the valuation is what matters, not the agreed price.
He doesn't write "articles". That implies a credibility his past behaviour does not deserve.
Thompson was the front for Business for Scotland... no wonder Alex was able to make his oil sums add up.
So does your solicitor who will be struck off as happened in this case because he has facilitated the fraud. The explanation in the linked article is accurate.
It may also be a fraud to have the value of the property in the Land Register being higher than you actually paid. It facilitates the avoidance of CGT. Again, if the true facts are not disclosed to the lender then you have induced them to lend money they might not have otherwise have lent.
Back to back transactions, as happened in this case, are a particular problem because it is so easy for a crooked lawyer to facilitate them. As a result the Law Society is particularly hard on a crime that all too often results in claims upon the guarantee fund.
This may be particular to the Scottish property market where the "Offers Over" principle has long established the precedent for banks. The only thing the bank cares about is the Surveyor valuation.
A few months back there was an interview with Jarvis. Came across as a pleasant enough fellow, devoted to his children etc. But completely devoid of content when it came to any ideas as to what to do - it was not just a lack of policy but a lack of any sort of story or direction of travel. Good on analysis but short on any sort of solution.
Now some of this may be tactical but it did not come across that way. So Jarvis's appeal seems to be that he is (a) not fond of terrorists, other than fighting them; and (b) is nice to his family. If that's the criteria, there's about 30 million of us who could do the job, frankly.
The next sensible leader will be someone who moves on from, say, understanding the people's anxieties about immigration to, radical idea this, actually proposing some workable policies for addressing those anxieties. Ditto for all the other things that people say they are concerned about. At present all we have is lots of concerned furrowed brows saying that Labour must listen to the people, blah, blah, and then a great big nothingness where some actual proposals and thoughts should be.
If only...
@ScotNational: Tomorrow's front page ... Scotland is told: 'Come home to Labour' http://t.co/r9x0pbwQi3
That said, you look through the top ten and it's distinctly underwhelming.
I'd have thought an approach of lower of valuation & agreed sale price would be smart (Either may exceed the other in particular circumstance), so the exposed LTV is not artificially low...
Of course, even if it was requested and required by Thomson, it would still not be mortgage fraud if the surveyor's valuation was met by the mortgage requirements. The likelihood is that it was, if this was typical of the distress purchase market.
What it definitely is not, is fraud on the part of Thomson.
Additionally you do not have to physically pay a deposit to be eligible for a mortgage at x%. Otherwise there would be no ability to re-mortage.
I mean that genuinely. It is more than possible the price paid was correct on the mortgage application while the valuation was also correct and the lender acted on this basis.
BTW, I'm not defending Thomson. Her involvement in distress purchase is untenable with being an SNP MP and as such the whip should be withdrawn at the very least - this setting a principle that the Libs should pay attention to.
I'm just not convinced fraud occurred based on the actual things we know at this point.
Solicitors dealing with mortgage transactions have to comply with the CML handbook. It requires them to disclose any information which might have relevance to the risk the lender is taking. This is mirrored in the information which the borrower has to supply which the solicitor effectively warrants to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief. If the solicitor becomes aware of any discrepancy between the information provided by the client and the reality he must disclose it and this overrides his duty of confidentiality. On the narrative this solicitor pleaded guilty to failing to disclose multiple inaccuracies in the information provided.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13789456.Labour_demand__full_transparency__over_SNP_MPs_property_deals/
MPs: a few Corbyn enthusiasts, a few angrily anti, most wary but inclined to give him a fair try - a typical comment from a senior former colleague was, "I didn't vote for him and I probably still wouldn't, but I do see why people did. Maybe it'll work out better than I thought."
Delegates: generally super-enthusiastic, and too cheerful to be in vengeful mood towards dissenters. Typical comment (from a pro-Corbyn constituent of a Kendall supporter): "I don't expect everyone turn on a sixpence, and if my MP wants to disagree on Trident and stuff, OK. But I would feel differently if he started actively slagging off the whole project."
There won't be any early serious trouble except from the obvious one or two hardline dissenters. What happens later depends IMO largely on how the polls develop.
Yes they want to appear to listen and then go on to ignore these concerns as before.
To quote Brian Clough 'We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right'
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred" and that "the central role of Mrs Thomson and M&F Property Solutions... should have set alarm bells ringing".
So we have multiple accusations of fraud in this thread, when the only evidence implies that they do not know if fraud occurred.
It seems some posters are on a quite fine line between comment and Defamation.
This can look very bad and amount to the exploitation of those suffering hardship but it is legal as long as everything is disclosed and above board. In many cases it is not and the previous owners claim to have been misled. For the avoidance of doubt I am not for a moment suggesting that Thomson has been involved in anything like this.
Distress purchase sounds appalling but I am sure there are many people who are quite grateful for it, especially if the tenancy is assured and the purchaser acts in a reasonably beneficial manner (which with Housing Benefit, I don't really see a huge reason why they should not).
The Scottish Government themselves run a distress purchase scheme under Mortgage to Rent.
You can download the full findings.
Should she throw Michelle Thomson "under the proverbial bus" to try and save Fiona Hyslop?
Politically, however, if Mrs A is Michelle Thomson which seems correct given that she has issued a statement, she needs to go.
I already linked that quote.
Including the prefix : -
A ruling by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal stated that Mr Hales "must have been aware that there was a possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud, whether or not this occurred"
'Tough night at rebuttal towers ?'
No need for that as according to McDonnell they are going to have a series of policy reviews.
Labour has reviewed polices for the past 5 years and then elected Corbyn on very clear policy platforms by 60% of the Labour party electorate, so now they need another review.
Oh dear.
The Solicitor acts on the instructions of the Client, who is the Principal.
In this case a lot of mortgages obtained against properties for higher values than the amount of money actually paid for the properties, which involves making false representations to a whole slew of mortgage companies.
Then the excess taken out as cash.
Then the Solicitor making statements for the Client to the mortgage company that they had owned the property for longer than was actually the case.
And associated signed and witnessed contracts and deeds.
I don't think that even in SNP-land anyone will believe that the Client is as innocent as the day is long.
If whatshername is firmly identified as one of the parties, then a smell of Toast wafts its way down from Holyrood.
Happy to have this analysis shot down in flames if anyone wants to try.
No wonder they want political control of the police force
He can go about his business
Move along
It does not mean any false representation has been made to the mortgage company.
So that alone is deception.
Presumably will be popular with most GOP voters - the wider public too?
Q. Where are leaders on the political spectrum?
Scale:
Most left-wing = -100
Most right-wing = +100
Leader ratings:
Corbyn = -80
Cameron = +53
Farage = +62
Doesn't suggest Corbyn is likely to attract many centre ground voters!
Now, a serious reply.
The report is here:
https://www.ssdt.org.uk/media/18436/1644_hales.pdf
The first example of the 13 involves a property bought for £245k by Party A from the original - presumably distressed - seller (Party B ), and a mortgage taken out 2 months later for £236,215 at an alleged valuation of £315k for the property on a resale from Party A to Party C. The mortgage company is Birmingham Midshires.
Now, I have done a BTL mortgage with Birmingham Midshires in the last 6 months, and I have the paperwork in front of me.
I have been required to confirm and sign that:
"I confirm that I am not related to the seller by blood or marriage. I have no business relationship or other form of association with the seller. The purchase from the seller has been negotiated at arm's length".
In this case a relationship/association between A and C is documented by the Investigation Report - cashbacks and also the shared solicitor, leaving aside any joint businesses that may or may not exist.
That means that whatever has been signed as the equivalent of the clause I quote above is, in the case of the second sale, a False Representation, though it may be to a Conveyancer or Solicitor as well as to the Mortgage Company.
I'd suggest that that may well be enough on its own.
I believe that Party A and Party C are the MSP and her colleague.
Very technical, and would struggle as a case if they were Partners in a business, perhaps.
Update: No, in other cases Party A did the mortgage.
At that point I am at the end of responsible comment possibilities, so I will stop.