|
||||||||
Update : Chris Farrell admits fraud charges |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
What a random comment! We're talking about someone who HAS committed a crime and why they have asked for other crimes to be taken into consideration! No approval of crime is implied!
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
How do you alter a P60?
Unless you produce a new one on a computer. Anyway, I don't see how the clients are innocent bystanders. They would have known the info the broker submitted when signing the mortgage contract. Why aren't they in court?. Bit like Mandelson not disclosing an existing loan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 646
|
I notice that he's living up the road from me, has all of this caused him to split up from his wife?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
How do you alter a P60?
Unless you produce a new one on a computer. Anyway, I don't see how the clients are innocent bystanders. They would have known the info the broker submitted when signing the mortgage contract. Why aren't they in court?. Bit like Mandelson not disclosing an existing loan. And no the clients can be innocent, most people don't read what they sign. The first question they as you is how much money do you want to borrow. So he was probably just giving the clients what they wanted whilst maximising his income. Affordability of loans is not the same as how much a lender will give you. It's riddiculous that someone without dependants can only afford the same mortgage as those who don't. So I can see why people stretch the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
Quote:
Why would he alter/produce a new P60? I would expect that he either certified their income higher (lender never saw the wage slips etc) or put them down as self employed and inflated their income.
And no the clients can be innocent, most people don't read what they sign. The first question they as you is how much money do you want to borrow. So he was probably just giving the clients what they wanted whilst maximising his income. Affordability of loans is not the same as how much a lender will give you. It's riddiculous that someone without dependants can only afford the same mortgage as those who don't. So I can see why people stretch the truth. Not reading what you sign is not a defence in law. Many people don't read what they sign. They are stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 16,761
|
Quote:
If you read the press report, the link above, you will see that he "altered P60s".
Not reading what you sign is not a defence in law. Many people don't read what they sign. They are stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Not reading what you sign is not a defence in law.
I think you may be confusing contract law with criminal law. Quote:
Many people don't read what they sign. I find it hilarious when people make blanket statements like this.They are stupid. Are we to believe that they read every clause and sub clause of every paragraph of every document they sign? More importantly, if they do, do they really believe that they have understood what they've read? Do they really understand how certain innocuous pieces of wording interact with case law to render the actual, legal, meaning of some clause somewhat different to what it appears? |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
Most mortgage fraud is commited by people giving false information.
Simple as that. I believe there is a warning on Mortgage contracts that to do so is a criminal offence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
Quote:
Surely he could have altered the applications after they had completed them? He sends them off to the lender and the customers think everything is above board. Perhaps this is how he was caught out?
Merely pointing out what he actually did, that is, altered P60s. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Most mortgage fraud is commited by people giving false information.
What other sort of mortgage fraud is there? Quote:
Simple as that.
Yeah, it would be simple as that's the definition of mortgage fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 16,761
|
Quote:
I wasn't speculating about what he could have done.
Merely pointing out what he actually did, that is, altered P60s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
If you read the press report, the link above, you will see that he "altered P60s".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
Quote:
How can you have mens rae if you don't know what you're signing?
I think you may be confusing contract law with criminal law. I find it hilarious when people make blanket statements like this. Are we to believe that they read every clause and sub clause of every paragraph of every document they sign? More importantly, if they do, do they really believe that they have understood what they've read? Do they really understand how certain innocuous pieces of wording interact with case law to render the actual, legal, meaning of some clause somewhat different to what it appears? Failure to understand etc. clauses or to read the small print is no defence. So, many smart arses try "duress" to get out of it. Unsuccessfully. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Civil law - in many cases I've dealt with in the County Court where a creditor wishes to enforce a debt with a CCJ, the Judge has invariably ruled that signing a contract - Mobile Phone, Broadband, all forms of Insurance eg employment protection tied to a credit card - still makes the debt enforceable.
Failure to understand etc. clauses or to read the small print is no defence. Fraud is a criminal offence and the rules are somewhat different to contract law which is civil law. This thread is about a possible criminal act so civil law is not really relevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,325
|
actually, fraud can be a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence - if a person has been defrauded, they have a civil right of redress and the state is also wronged. in some systems, there is no disitnction between civil and public law and I recently read that the English legal system did not originally see crime as a crime against the state, but only an offence against the offended. the system changed after the Norman conquest when William the Bastard decided that he wanted to centralise power, yet also made communities responsible for crime committed in the local area.
in the case reported here, mortgage fraud is an offence under the criminal law (even if nobody makes a loss) and a civil wrong suffered by the lenders. years ago, I remember pointing out a serious and blatant fraud to a lender - a purchase in the name of somebody who was not the real owner and using falsified documentation - but because on the (forced) sale, they did not lose out, they did not care one iota. not one payment had been made on the mortgage in the time it existed, but they didn't care - they got their payments plus interest on sale and were not bothered that a fraud had adversely affected their cash-flow. I think that was about 1990. most borrowers sign what the broker produces, whether it has gaps or not - brokers are notorious for getting deals through, but they are not the only ones. just this morning I got asked to advise in a lettings case where there were £50k of arrears - the tenant had lied when seeking the tenancy, but the law still protects them from 'unlawful' eviction. cheats do often prosper. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,282
|
Quote:
actually, fraud can be a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence - if a person has been defrauded, they have a civil right of redress and the state is also wronged. in some systems, there is no disitnction between civil and public law and I recently read that the English legal system did not originally see crime as a crime against the state, but only an offence against the offended. the system changed after the Norman conquest when William the Bastard decided that he wanted to centralise power, yet also made communities responsible for crime committed in the local area.
in the case reported here, mortgage fraud is an offence under the criminal law (even if nobody makes a loss) and a civil wrong suffered by the lenders. years ago, I remember pointing out a serious and blatant fraud to a lender - a purchase in the name of somebody who was not the real owner and using falsified documentation - but because on the (forced) sale, they did not lose out, they did not care one iota. not one payment had been made on the mortgage in the time it existed, but they didn't care - they got their payments plus interest on sale and were not bothered that a fraud had adversely affected their cash-flow. I think that was about 1990. most borrowers sign what the broker produces, whether it has gaps or not - brokers are notorious for getting deals through, but they are not the only ones. just this morning I got asked to advise in a lettings case where there were £50k of arrears - the tenant had lied when seeking the tenancy, but the law still protects them from 'unlawful' eviction. cheats do often prosper. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,280
|
The thing that annoyed me more about Chris was that he insisted he was 'a nice person' constantly on the your fired show.
My experience is nice people do not insist they are nice, it is more how others view you. nice people are not sleezy like Chris, and also nice people do not commit fraud. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,325
|
Quote:
Why would anyone take legal or financial advice from someone who doesn't even know how to use capital letters?
or when I can be arsed. this is a discussion board, not an article for publication or paid-for advice, however - if you send me £100, then I will re-print it with the capital letters in place. FWIW, I note that you attack the form, not the substance. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55.


