I need help!! Forged secured loan on my house by my EX :(

vetnurse1

Hi,

I dont know if anyone can help me I am in serious need of some advice...

BASICALLY myself and my husband separated in May 2008...I found out last year that in Sep 2008 he forged my signature on a Welcome Finance loan for £22,000 - secured on our house.

Welcome Finance (WF) looked into this when I made a complaint last year and had my name removed from the loan - all well and good - but were not interested in prosecuting my ex because they were still receiving monthly payments on time (typical!)

The issue is now that I want to sell this house (both now living separately in other properties - our joint house is being rented out). There is about £20,0000 worth of equity - so essentially we should get £10,000 each.
HOWEVER because the Welcome Finance loan of £22,000 is still secured on the house, does that mean any equity will go straight to them and I wont see a penny??

I have called WF to question this, as surely as it has been proven that I never signed the loan document in the first place, this agreement is now null and void?? How can a loan be secured on MY house if I never agreed to it? WF will not discuss anything with me, as my name has been removed from the agreement!

I have also asked a solicitor, and a mortgage advisor - both of whom do not know where I stand. PLEASE if anyone can help I would be so, so grateful - I do not think it's fair to sell the house and I end up coming out with nothing, and yet my ex gets all of his debts paid off!

Thanks so much,
Louise

holly_hobby

The lender should have removed the charge when they removed your name from the loan agreement. (and effictively admitted they had processed a fraudulent appliction without sufficient verification measures)

Make a further complaint and demand the same, there is an unlawful charge on your property that requires removing, the situation with regards your ex and the monies advance is a sep issue between Welcome & him.

Seek some free advice from CAB on this - as the lack of guidance from the Solicitor you spoke to is most alarming ...

Hope this helps

Holly

kingstreet

Hi Louise,

In my opinion (and despite the outcome of the complaint) Welcome loaned the money in good faith on the security of your home. In the event of the property being sold it would have as much right to its money back as your mortgage lender.

In fact, it would not release its second charge over the property without a solicitor's commitment to repay, so you'd be unable to sell the property without that.

In a perverse way, you might be better off allowing the mortgage to fall into arrears and having the property repossessed. The mortgage lender would get its money first, leaving Welcome to get the scraps from whatever equity remains. If any debt is left owing to Welcome it would be able only to pursue your former partner as you are no longer party to the agreement.

I think this would be a destructive course affecting your ability to get credit for years to come so I'd not recommend it to you.

Unfortunately, it is what is legal in this situation rather than what is fair. I can't see an obvious solution to this which wouldn't involve lengthy and costly legal action involving a specialist solicitor.

HTH

Ian

DVardysShadow

kingstreet wrote: »

Hi Louise,

In my opinion (and despite the outcome of the complaint) Welcome loaned the money in good faith on the security of your home. In the event of the property being sold it would have as much right to its money back as your mortgage lender.

In fact, it would not release its second charge over the property without a solicitor's commitment to repay, so you'd be unable to sell the property without that.

The opposite take on this is that they have secured their loan on assets which the OP has a significant interest in - to the detriment of the OP - without establishing that they have valid authority. So Welcome should bear the losses of their negligence, for which OP is not the least bit responsible.

They have not put this to the police, I imagine because a custodial sentence would jeopardise their chances of getting the money back, in that the charge would probably not withstand legal action by the OP, so they need OP's OH in work to pay the money back.

As for the charge, I think OP should consult a solicitor who can answer the issue. My own view is that if Welcome accept that the house may be sold, cooperate fully in facilitating a sale and that they are only entitled to reimbursement from the husband's share of the equity, then there is no particular harm done.

Solicitor should negotiate along these lines, but be prepared to challenge the charge with the Land Reg. OP, if she is minded to play hardball should threaten to take the matter to the police and get OH locked up. A nasty game to play, but it may be the threat which Welcome will understand.

kingstreet

This is posted on HBR&S as well.

DVardysShadow

kingstreet wrote: »

This is posted on HBR&S as well.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3498737

vetnurse1, it is bad form to crosspost the same problem on several forums, because it wastes peoples time to give an answer if that answer was given in the other thread. If you can't resist the urge to crosspost, at least edit your opening post to say what you have done.

handytips

Personally i cannot see Welcome lifting any second charge on the property. I would seek legal advice against your ex

holly_hobby

The Welcome charge from outset was improper as the application is proven as fraudulent. When a property is jointly owned, any financial application that results in a charge to the property, must be a joint application - hence why he was forced to forge her signature i.e she had not given her consent.

Accordingly, the OP never actually gave her permission to the charge nor accepted to be bound by the legal ramifications of the same, as she was never (knowingly) party to the Welcome loan (accepted by Welcome in their releasing of her from the contractual loan agreement).

As already stated, this was really a matter for the Police. The fact that Welcome chose to avoid this route, I would suggest primarily because they didn't want to expose their errors in processing re a fraudulent app (together with the fact that they were in reciept of regular payments from the ex, whilst retaining the security of the propery) does not alter the fact that they need the lawful agreement of all property owners (and any mge lender) to secure any charge on a property - of which in this case it is proven they do not have. Therefore I do not believe they have a choice in whether they wish to lift the current charge or not (if necessary and if not performed on a volunatry basis, I believe the courts would do that).

The best I believe Welcome could hope for, is to amend and restrict the charge to the ex, with it wholly levied against his share of equity released on disposal of the property (with a further arrangement with the ex, re any element of the loan which remains unsatisfied at that point).

Legal advice from a dedicted finance/fraud solicitor is urgently reqd.

Holly

DVardysShadow

handytips wrote: »

Personally i cannot see Welcome lifting any second charge on the property. I would seek legal advice against your ex

I am surprised that a Mortgage Advisor does not have a basic understanding of the situation to recognise that it is Welcome who have been defrauded by a criminal act and that a charge which adversely affects the OP cannot legally be placed.

Welcome have acknowledged that the OP is not a party to the loan. They therefore need the OP's explicit authority to palce a charge on the property. They have no such authority

holly_hobby wrote: »

The Welcome charge from outset was improper as the application is proven as fraudulent. When a property is jointly owned, any financial application that results in a charge to the property, must be a joint application - hence why he was forced to forge her signature i.e she had not given her consent.

Accordingly, the OP never actually gave her permission to the charge nor accepted to be bound by the legal ramifications of the same, as she was never (knowingly) party to the Welcome loan (accepted by Welcome in their releasing of her from the contractual loan agreement).

As already stated, this was really a matter for the Police. The fact that Welcome chose to avoid this route, I would suggest primarily because they didn't want to expose their errors in processing re a fraudulent app (together with the fact that they were in reciept of regular payments from the ex, whilst retaining the security of the propery) does not alter the fact that they need the lawful agreement of all property owners (and any mge lender) to secure any charge on a property - of which in this case it is proven they do not have. Therefore I do not believe they have a choice in whether they wish to lift the current charge or not (if necessary and if not performed on a volunatry basis, I believe the courts would do that).

The best I believe Welcome could hope for, is to amend and restrict the charge to the ex, with it wholly levied against his share of equity released on disposal of the property (with a further arrangement with the ex, re any element of the loan which remains unsatisfied at that point).

Legal advice from a dedicted finance/fraud solicitor is urgently reqd.

Holly

The above is basically the right answer. Except on reflection since I first joined this thread, I don't think that Welcome have the necessary authority to place any charge on the property, so their best hope of a charge would only be with the consent of the OP.

holly_hobby

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Except on reflection since I first joined this thread, I don't think that Welcome have the necessary authority to place any charge on the property, so their best hope of a charge would only be with the consent of the OP.

Sorry I did naturally mean with the OPs legally noted (and other connected parties) consent - sorry if that wasn't clear DVS.:o

The main issue (notwithstanding the OPs own thoughts of sale), is that Welcome at the present time could force an order of sale if the ex stops making regular payments (whether the court would agree on the basis of our discussions is debateable - but sometimes odd decisions do come from DJs). So I fear any delay by the OP in sorting this out, may be at her peril.

Holly x

handytips

Have any of you ever dealt with Welcome in the past...............? Exactly....I have.
What is more. This sadly happens on a regular basis, and as secured loans are basically unregulated then lots of fraudulent activity went on in this area and the above scenario is the most common one, believe it or not. If the OP can get somewhere with this then great. But as i said above i doubt it. Welcome finance, Provident loans, same people. Please do not ridicule me again, i have a fine understanding on how things work.