Hi all, I appreciate what is being debated up here but does it all not refer back to subrogated rights? I.E., whatever the assinment, notice or not, the originator is exerting rights for and behalf of whomever. This princliple of law balances the threat of 2 parties obtaining more than what they are entitled to but elso ensures they do not claim more, for example double recovery from the same party for the same debt. To refer to the Land Registry, I have an extremely basic example. 1 property is registered with one owner, no charges. However, within that property lives husband and wife (or whatever similar relationship given these times). 1 party is not listed on the register but that does not deminish their interest should there be a dispute and the 'other' party would quite successfull argue they hold a monetary interest in the value of the property. Not trying to be objectionable, just playing devil's advocate. CPS

It is nice to see this thread 're-appear' having been lost all day long. It would be even better to have the rest of the posts put back as well. Have we offended someone?

It would be nice to see 1 less shark in the pool, defunct or not. CPS

LOL, unfortunately not. I am afraid I am caught up in this farce of finance as well, well sort of. I do know the avenue of securitisation has been explored before and what a lot of people have not even realised is all of the so called sub-primed loans were backed up with insurance to protect not only the originators but also the ultimate investors for the SPV's. Then you really start to have ask the question of who owes what if anything but that is a whole nother thread, which may for all I know, have been discussed before my time here. It is entirely valid for the borrower to attempt to understand who is bringing enforcement action but it is most likely the originator 'on behalf' of any number of other people within the loop. It was stated earlier that this lot would have convered tracks on the legalities of their actions. This is not strictly true to be honest, and given the scale of greed involved, it is hardly surprising! CPS

But are CH doing anything about thier flagrant non-disclosure of Company Accounts overdue since August 2011. Last I heard = NO. I wonder why that is.... CPS

That is absolutely fair enough. This is a new forumn for me. I have been much more vocal on alternate sites, for a few years now. I am new to participating on this site but I can absolutely verify my position off the radar. CPS

I would actually call it the calm before the storm Zither.