Exposing Fraudulent Property Management: A Call to Action

In a shocking incident, an unidentified and unauthorized individual breached the security of a residential property, attaching a counterfeit document to the door of a home occupied by vulnerable individuals and children. This act, allegedly sanctioned by former solicitor Stuart Jones and Sue Joy under the supposed authority of Topaz Finance, raises serious legal and ethical concerns. The document, which threatened to change the locks if the occupants did not contact a non-geographic number, lacks any legal signatures, names, company registered address, or company number, making its validity highly questionable.

Unlawful Acts and Lack of Proper Authority

The counterfeit document is purportedly based on a Deed of Assignment from Bradford and Bingley T/S Mortgage Expressto Topaz Finance, yet no such assignment or appointment exists. The absence of critical details such as a signature, name, and company information further undermines its legitimacy. According to the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, for a deed to be valid, it must be executed as a deed by the parties involved and must clearly indicate on its face that it is intended to be a deed.

Fraudulent Representation and Potential Legal Implications

This incident constitutes fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006, which defines fraud as dishonestly making a false representation with the intent to make a gain for oneself or another, or to cause loss to another. The fraudulent nature of the document and the threat to change locks without proper authority exemplify this illegal conduct.

Video Link

Involvement of Topaz Finance and Savills PLC

The number provided, answered by Sam Stacey claiming to be a “Property Consultant” for Savills PLC, adds another layer of deception. Savills PLC, a publicly traded company, is implicated in this fraudulent scheme, allegedly participating in the counterfeiting of receivers' appointment instruments and resulting falsified court orders and warrants. The lack of professional liability insurance coverage for such actions could expose Savills PLC to significant financial and legal repercussions.

Shareholders and Public Warning

Given the involvement of Savills PLC in these activities, shareholders are placed on critical notice. The potential for insurance companies to refuse payouts or even cease coverage due to the fraudulent activities could severely impact the company's stock value. This scenario presents a golden opportunity for short-selling the stock of companies engaged in such fraudulent practices.

Legal Recourse and Community Action

As a Trading Standards Practitioner, it is imperative to bring attention to this matter and mobilize community action. Victims of such fraudulent activities should be aware of their rights and the legal provisions that protect them. Engaging with legal professionals to challenge these unlawful acts and seeking compensation for damages is essential.

Conclusion

The fraudulent actions described in this case not only violate property laws but also undermine trust in financial and property management institutions. Immediate action is required to hold the responsible parties accountable and to safeguard the interests of the affected individuals and the wider community. For more detailed information and to support this cause, visit ScamBuster.TV.

This report was published via Actifit app (Android | iOS). Check out the original version here on actifit.io

Walking