The full story

This is in response to the petition "Parliament, The Financial Services Authority, Age UK, The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales: Investigate unscrupulous way Capstone Mortgages prey on vulnerable members of society. Restore to Rita Greenaway what belongs to her." at change .org

Why?

Because, the thing online stories have is that they only have one side of a story. Firstly, thank you to those how have questioned the original post  that was made and the petition and wondered if there was more to this “story”. Sometimes, someone can hate a member of their family SO MUCH that they spend a LONG TIME doing their best to damage them, their reputation and their children!

UPDATE: I noticed that after leaving our names on the website for the last few months and having done the best that they could to publish our names... in full... they have now called us "daughter and son-in-law"... very interesting! So rather than refer to our names I have also amended our details!

Here is the other side.

This whole affair began 11 years ago in 2001. Mrs G may now be 73, but 11 years ago she was not.

Throughout her adult life, Mrs G has been involved in the sale and the purchase of properties and knows fully well how the law goes. 

So in response to the statement online:

THEY CLAIM: 

“The background is that the pair approached Mrs. G********, a pensioner and pleaded with her to sell her home in Peckham and buy a bigger place in Harrow where they would all live together. After they had badgered her for a while she reluctantly agreed. She sold her house and added some of her savings to the proceeds to buy a house in Harrow.”

THE FULL FACTS ARE:

At the time we were all living TOGETHER in Peckham. Her daughter was pregnant and did not work locally to her home. With this in mind and the fact that her husbands family lived nearer to her work the daughter felt that it was best to move. Mrs G was ASKED IF she wanted to remain in Peckham or move with them.

Mrs G had the choice and she CHOSE TO MOVE!

The solicitors involved in the move were solicitors of Mrs G whom she had used on numerous occasions in the past. The other point left out of this is that her daughter also owned a property and at the sale of the property sums were given to Mrs Greenaway (which incidentally showed up on her bank account statement and in court denied that it was there). Mrs G mentions the mortgage here in her online statement, but in court denied that a mortgage existed.

THEY CLAIM:

“The daughter and son-in-law however managed to remortgage the house and obtained the sum of £178,000 from Capstones Finance which was paid into their account. At no time did Capstone Finance speak to Mrs. G******* or exercise necessary due diligence although she was named on the form as third borrower and guarantor. Mrs G******** maintains that she was not aware of the remortgage, and that the signature on the form is not hers.”

THE FULL FACTS ARE:

Yes the house was remortgaged, but Mrs G was FULLY AWARE OF ANY TRANSACTIONS, and Mrs G did receive funds and DID BENEFIT FROM FUNDS. As is customary with things like refunds, loans and re-mortgages, monies are paid into the account that the initial payment is taken out of. 

Mrs G  was never a guarantor, but a named party on the mortgage, as she had been from day one. 

Also, Mrs G had a second place of residence in Halifax. 

The mortgage company were in possession of, and used her address in Halifax and CORRESPONDED WITH MRS G DIRECTLY TO HER AT HER HOME IN HALIFAX. (Mrs Greenaway lost her right to reside in the home in Halifax in 2010, due to an ongoing dispute with her the neighbours, which could not be resolved by mediation, went to court and was lost! The consequence of which, was that the home had to be sold to pay off court costs… this dispute greatly hurt family and friends in Halifax in ways that many of you would not believe).

THEY CLAIM:

“The daughter and son-in-law run into arrears, and the mortgage company contacted Mrs. G******** who had no knowledge of the loan, and had not received a penny of it. Capstone Finance then sued the daughter and son-in-law and Mrs G******** to repossess the house.”

THE FULL FACTS ARE:

Sometimes, parents can ask things of their children and expect them to agree no-matter-what!

In August 2009, Mrs G approached her daughter and suggested that between them they remove her husband’s name off the deeds. Her daughter did not agree to this request and this probably began the start of the downfall. Mrs G then began her campaign to do her utmost best to break up her daughter and her family!

In order to ease the extreme tensions in the house and how Mrs G was treating the children of her daughter and son-in-law and the constant attendance by the police at the home, the daughter and son-in-law took the hard decision (for the sake of sanity) and moved out of their home in 2010 and left Mrs G in situ. 

At the time of leaving the property there were NO ARREARS.

During the 3 years Mrs G was in the property:

• Mrs G , after supposedly paying rent at the property in Halifax, paid no money towards neither the upkeep of the property or the mortgage on the property;
• In 2010, moved someone else in the property and subsequently received rent, via way of Housing Benefit, for the entire property even though she was living there (!!) and during the 3 years paid NO MORTGAGE payments.

Possession proceedings were brought due to these non payments. 

By the time of the 3-day hearing in March 2013, there were over 3 YEARS WORTH OF ARREARS & SOLICITORS COSTS.

THEY CLAIM:

"The daughter and son-in-law teamed up with Capstones against Mrs. G******** Sadly, Mrs G********'s side of story was not properly heard, and Mrs G******* lost the Court Case. The Judge awarded all proceeds from the house to the daugher and son-in-law and Capstone Finance Company."

THE FULL FACTS ARE:

Capstone and others did not join forces. The daugher and son-in-law had no argument with Capstone and did not dispute that a mortgage existed, Mrs G did. 

Mrs G was represented in court by her own appointed team of Barristers, Lawyers and Solicitors; the daughter and son-in-law were represented by themselves. Contrary to what you are being led to believe, Mrs G’s case was clearly heard.

The Judge did not award all proceeds of the home to the daughter and son-in-law and Capstone. In fact, after 3-years of court proceedings, solicitor's costs on behalf of the mortgage company, and unpaid mortgage payments, the Judge ordered that these costs of the case were allocated to Mrs G's share of the property.

Mrs G did not agree with the decision of the Judge and made 2 appeals before the Court of Appeal... and both were rejected.

THEY CLAIM:

"An investigation must be carried out to find out how Mrs G********'s signature came to be on a document she had not seen or signed resulting in the loss of her home, stress and financial loss"

THE FULL FACTS ARE: 

The documents in question were looked at by an independent hand writing expert, appointed on behalf of Mrs Greenaway and the mortgage company. The daughter and son-in-law knew that the signatures on documents were that of Mrs Greenaway, and were no party to this appointment. The result was that the only signatures that they could not confirm were because they were photocopies and not originals. In fact, in the court hearing Mrs Greenaway's solicitors requested that transcripts of conversations with the police and her solicitors were not disclosed in the hearing. I have since understood the reason for this as there are many things that Mrs Greenaway admits to... that she denied in Court, including signing documents on her own, in her home in Halifax.

"Rita G********, a 73 year old woman, was thrown out of the home she bought with her money on a cold November morning by her daughter and son-in-law "

Mrs G was not thrown out of her house. Mrs G was currently under a COURT ORDER not to be in residence in the property as of April 2013 - 7 months prior to November. Mrs G was therefore living in the house Under Contempt of Court. Mrs G was written to numerous times, by both her own solicitor (to advise her of the situation that she was in), the solicitor for the mortgage company and her daughter and son-in-law.

The choice that her daughter & son-in-law had was either

• allow the house to be repossessed as mortgage payments had still not been made,

• have Mrs G locked up for Contempt of Court or

• move back into the property.

They opted for the latter. And without picking… the day was not a cold November day!

Mrs G state of homelessness, sadly, has come about by her own actions and vindictive campaign against her daughter and son-in-law and their children. She has spent the last few years, along with a couple of her friends, to do her best to damage to good name and character of her daughter and son-in-law and to cause as much emotional damage and distress to the remainder of their family. Their children have been abused by others in the community based on the one sided opinion this woman and others around her.

Do I wish that we had to reply to this nonsense? 

For years we have been silent about all of this. 

This was our own business and our own burden that we have had to carry, but putting a version of the story online, has meant that we have had to answer and be part of this nonsense in the open. 

...At some point, ask Mrs G if you can see the transcript of the Judge's summing up and realise what this family has been through... and is STILL GOING THROUGH!

So after all this, it has taught me many things. That…

• When you hear a story, take time to look at it carefully and see what the other side of the coin has to show.
  
• Do not be judgemental when you are unaware of ALL OF the facts.
  
• Do NOT take pleasure in spreading malicious information.
  
• Remember, when you are out casting the parents you have out-casted the child.
  
• REMEMBER THE EFFECT THAT YOU HAVE ON OTHERS, particularly the children.
  
• When you judge others, judge them on your OWN MERITS and not the word of others.
  

Thankfully for us MONEY SAVING EXPERT have withdrawn the thread, but thank you to those who read the thread and replied that there had to be more to this statement that was being made.