Window cleaner gets 1.4m loan in 2006

jay-me

So a window licker from Blanch lied to get 1.4m loan in 2006 to refinance 6 properties. Uses 800,000 for the properties and uses the rest to get cars and holidays and then goes bust.. What the hell were the banks thinking and how is he not in jail for fraud?

A couple who borrowed €1.4m to refinance property investments have lost their High Court action alleging their lender had not validly appointed a receiver over their assets when they went into arrears.

Anthony Freeman, who owned a window cleaning business, and his wife, Miriam, Willow Wood Lawn, Blanchardstown, Dublin, borrowed €1.4m in 2006 from Bank of Scotland Ireland (BoSI) to fund re-financing and refurbishment of six Dublin houses.

Of that sum, €800,000 was used to re-finance existing loans on the properties held with First Active with the remainder released to the Freemans. Following the financial crisis in 2008, they went into arrears in 2009 and a receiver was appointed over the properties in 2011. They claimed the receiver was invalidly appointed because BoSI had been dissolved.

They argued, its successor, Bank of Scotland plc (BoS), was not legally entitled to appoint a receiver because it had transferred the mortgages on some properties to a third party as a means of raising capital, a process known as securitisation.

In proceedings against BoS and the receiver, they also claimed BoS breached a voluntary Central Bank code in relation to the securitisation. They further claimed it was not entitled to appoint a receiver because, under the Registration of Title Act 1964, registration of title from BoSI to BoS was never completed.

They also alleged the admitted overcharging of €20,700 in interest by BoS contributed to them defaulting on their loans.

The claims were denied.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Brian McGovern ruled the couple had failed to prove their case on any of the issues raised.

The Freemans’ argument that overcharging contributed to them defaulting “did not stand scrutiny“, he said. They were overcharged some €20,000 but that must be set against the surplus of approximately €600,000 available to them after they acquired the loans.

The couple could have used that money to reduce the principal or re-invest in their business “but chose to do neither” and went on a “spending spree” where substantial money was spent over 16 months on expensive vehicles and at least one holiday to the US, he said.

There was compelling evidence they gave BoSI misleading information when they applied for the loans, including grossly inflated figures about the net profit of Mr Freeman’s window cleaning business, he said.

He ruled the securitisation of the loans was properly effected by BoS and rejected the claims BoS’ title to the loans was affected by the cross-border merger of Bank of Scotland Ireland Ltd and Bank of Scotland Plc. After the merger took place BoS “stood in the shoes” of BoSI and was the proper body to appoint a receiver over the properties.

The Freemans also failed to establish BoS breached a voluntary Central Bank code in regards to securitisation. Non-compliance with the statutory code would not relieve a borrower from their obligation under a loan to repay the lender or deprive the lender of its rights and powers under the loan agreement, he added.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/couple-lose-court-action-against-lender-270406.html

RDM_83 again

It just makes it extra ironic that they are called "Freeman" :P

jay-me

http://www.gofundme.com/6lrs8w

Unbe-fkn-lievable

Karl Stein

Surely it's the 'expert' 'professionals' (failed speculators) who thought they'd profit from him who should be punished?

Like every other scenario that caused this crash we are asking just how the fúck did the banks decide to hand over the money that easily?

roadsmart

Did he go back in time?

jay-me

roadsmart wrote: »

Did he go back in time?

???

The Aussie

jay-me wrote: »

So a window licker......

LOL.

I will use that line at some stage.

anto9

jay-me wrote: »

http://www.gofundme.com/6lrs8w

Unbe-fkn-lievable

That guy has a hard neck .

Banjo String

Good lad George.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmAeijj5cM

Arthur Beesley

jay-me wrote: »

???

The thread title suggests he just got the money by the use of 'gets'. I thought I was listening to a footballer describe a goal in that strange 'tense' that only footballers (and I guess you) use to describe something that happened in the past.

jay-me

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

The thread title suggests he just got the money by the use of 'gets'. I thought I was listening to a footballer describe a goal in that strange 'tense' that only footballers (and I guess you) use to describe something that happened in the past.

In 2006.. Did you miss that part?

Tail Docker

Deleted User wrote: »

Like every other scenario that caused this crash we are asking just how the fúck did the banks decide to hand over the money that easily?

Because they are thick and short-sighted. If a viable business goes in looking for money, they slam down the shutters - be a tool with big plans and big dreams, they lap it up.

Also "window cleaner" is ambiguous - he could have had 200 people out cleaning windows for all that we know. But possibly not..

Grayson

Tail Docker wrote: »

Because they are thick and short-sighted. If a viable business goes in looking for money, they slam down the shutters - be a tool with big plans and big dreams, they lap it up.

Also "window cleaner" is ambiguous - he could have had 200 people out cleaning windows for all that we know. But possibly probably not..

FYP

lets face it, it was probably just him and maybe one other. And he might have not even have been the boss.

riclad

Say you borrowed 200k, on a house ,
the bank would take it the house is worth 190k,
you earn say 40k per year.
SO where s the risk.
IT looks safe enough on paper.
The banks were reckless and stupid.
There was a case where a solicitor got 3 mortgages on 1 house.
SO he owes 600k plus, on a house thats worth 200k approx.

When someone runs their own business , they can make up their own accounts if they so wish.
BY reducing the expenses they have on the accounts.



The bankers get a bonus, and promotion by giving out loans,
not by turning them down.At least in the boom.

DID they not look at his cash flow ?banking transactions etc
A bloke selling chips out of a van runs a business,
but should he be able to borrow 1 million euros?
IF i make 100k a year , i should be paying at least 10 k tax.
They could have asked for his tax returns .

jay-me

Grayson wrote: »

FYP

lets face it, it was probably just him and maybe one other. And he might have not even have been the boss.

The fact that it alludes to it in the article where it says he was grossly over cooking the books and the fact he went on a crowd funding site for legal fee's leads me to the conclusion he was a chancer who got caught.. Being one of the unlucky one's it makes me wonder how many made it through with quick buy quick sell cash out!

Captain Chaos

riclad wrote: »

Say you borrowed 200k, on a house ,
the bank would take it the house is worth 190k,
you earn say 40k per year.
SO where s the risk.
IT looks safe enough on paper.
The banks were reckless and stupid.
There was a case where a solicitor got 3 mortgages on 1 house.
SO he owes 600k plus, on a house thats worth 200k approx.

I'm currently on 36k a year and went looking for a mortgage recently. Banks would only offer me 160k tops, no outstanding loans, debts and never missed a payment on anything ever. I will be on 43k within 2 years and my job situation is 100% safe for the next 10 years and know I'm am very lucky to be in such a situation. Banks just don't want to give money anymore. I'd love the old days back so I could get myself a place to live knowing well I can afford it.

ahnowbrowncow

jay-me wrote: »

http://www.gofundme.com/6lrs8w

Unbe-fkn-lievable

The biggest problem with this is that the commas and decimal points are all the place in those figures.

I don't know if he's looking to raise €100 or €100,000.

Gmol

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'm currently on 36k a year and went looking for a mortgage recently. Banks would only offer me 160k tops, no outstanding loans, debts and never missed a payment on anything ever. I will be on 43k within 2 years and my job situation is 100% safe for the next 10 years and know I'm am very lucky to be in such a situation. Banks just don't want to give money anymore. I'd love the old days back so I could get myself a place to live knowing well I can afford it.

You might not agree but that's what they should be doing.

shruikan2553

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

The biggest problem with this is that the commas and decimal points are all the place in those figures.

I don't know if he's looking to raise €100 or €100,000.

Its the German way where they replace "." with "," (Makes engineering/science fun)

Santa Cruz

jay-me wrote: »

So a window licker from Blanch lied to get 1.4m loan in 2006 to refinance 6 properties. Uses 800,000 for the properties and uses the rest to get cars and holidays and then goes bust.. What the hell were the banks thinking and how is he not in jail for fraud?



http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/couple-lose-court-action-against-lender-270406.html

The bank wasn't at fault It did accept his bicycle, ladder and bucket as part colateral. And he had developed two new rounds in the estate down the road

Sure we all partied!

riclad

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'm currently on 36k a year and went looking for a mortgage recently. Banks would only offer me 160k tops, no outstanding loans, debts and never missed a payment on anything ever. I will be on 43k within 2 years and my job situation is 100% safe for the next 10 years and know I'm am very lucky to be in such a situation. Banks just don't want to give money anymore. I'd love the old days back so I could get myself a place to live knowing well I can afford it.

Thats good news.
You can buy a house or apartment for 140k.
SO banks are actually careful now,
not so in the boom.
They did not do basic checks on peoples finances .
Especially self employed people could make up accounts and borrow crazy amounts for property investment.
I hope they have detailed rules re lending to business people .
AS to checking out their finances before lending them 1million euros.
OTHER countrys have rules ,
you can borrow 3-4 times your salary to buy a house .
And you need to have 10- 20 per cent of house value saved up.
This prevents boom and bust cycles in the property market.

kowloon

jay-me wrote: »

http://www.gofundme.com/6lrs8w

Unbe-fkn-lievable

I'm going to crowd fund a project to get me things I can't afford.

NegativeCreep

riclad wrote: »

Thats good news.
You can buy a house or apartment for 140k.
SO banks are actually careful now,
not so in the boom.
They did not do basic checks on peoples finances .
Especially self employed people could make up accounts and borrow crazy amounts for property investment.
I hope they have detailed rules re lending to business people .
AS to checking out their finances before lending them 1million euros.
OTHER countrys have rules ,
you can borrow 3-4 times your salary to buy a house .
And you need to have 10- 20 per cent of house value saved up.
This prevents boom and bust cycles in the property market.

I love the way you always post in the form of a poem!

Tail Docker

riclad wrote: »

Thats good news.
You can buy a house or apartment for 140k.
SO banks are actually careful now,
not so in the boom.
They did not do basic checks on peoples finances .
Especially self employed people could make up accounts and borrow crazy amounts for property investment.
I hope they have detailed rules re lending to business people .
AS to checking out their finances before lending them 1million euros.
OTHER countrys have rules ,
you can borrow 3-4 times your salary to buy a house .
And you need to have 10- 20 per cent of house value saved up.
This prevents boom and bust cycles in the property market.

Doubtful.

On an unrelated matter - LOL at the OPs "window licker..."

Typo or whatever - apt.