Specifically in relation to your concerns with regard to sold assigned. When something is sold, it implies that a price has been paid for the item purchased (also referred to a consideration). Whereas as with an assignment a consideration does not but often is paid. Of course there is also the two types of assignment to consider. It could be that only the right to repayment has been assigned.

As for question 4 If notice has not been given to the borrower, the assignment is not effectual in law. It is equitable and not legal... Therefore, the legal title (legal rights, including the right to sue) do not pass to the assignee until the date of that notice.

The scenario of the charge not being registered, is it purely a "what if" scenario or an actual situation. If it is an actual situation, can you please provide more information, such as 1st or 2nd charge etc... Many Thanks Sue

Now I am confused... If the charge has been registered... I don't understand your question about what if it wasn't registered. Anyway... This may shed some light on the situation Barclays Bank v Buhr, 25 July, 2001 (Court of Appeal). A second legal charge over unregistered land is enforceable as between the original parties even if the charge has not been registered as a class Ci land charge at the Land Charges Department. The Court of Appeal confirmed that, as a legal principle, security in an asset will almost invariably carry through to the proceeds of an unauthorised sale of the charged property by the borrower. This principle gave the bank in this case (as second chargee) a proprietorial interest in the proceeds of the sale of the property. The borrowers' solicitors were liable to the bank as constructive trustees because they had not applied the proceeds of sale in discharging the bank's second charge. It made no difference to their liability, or the bank's entitlement, that the charge had not been registered as a class Ci land charge. The solicitors had facilitated payment of the proceeds from their client account to unsecured creditors in the knowledge of the second chargee's interest.

Hello Peter, I see this thread has not been updated in a while..... How are things going ? Have you had a response to your complaints from either the FOS or Land Registery ?

Hello Peterjm You should drop ryde a pm, if memory serves me correctly he/she was in an almost identical situation as the one suggested by your question. You will have to excuse my confusion Peterjm, Have you made a complaint to the land registry about the transfer of a charge that has not been registered ????????? Are you saying that SPPL did not register a charge and that your loan has now been sold to 3rd party being either mortgage funding or eurosail ?????

Sorry to have to be the one to shoot the argument down in flames again

In was my intention to stay away from this but.... What does it actually say? "(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor," The notice of assignment is not the assignment itself Peter. The notice only makes the assignment effectual in law. An agreement to assign a contract, often called a ‘Deed of assignment’ allows one party (the assignor) to transfer ownership of something they own. To be effective (effectual in law), there must be notice of the assignment to the other original contracting party (in this instance the borrower) Without a notice, the assignment is equitable but is still an assignment. It is my understanding that the reference to under the hand of the assignor relates to the Deed of Assignment rather than the Notice of Assignment itself. Technocrats Ltd v Fredic Ltd [2004] EWHC 692 (QB) 53. "An assignment is only a legal assignment if it complies with s.136 of the 1925 Act. What that section requires is that there should be an "absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action." As I have said above, none of the assignments executed before November 2003 was signed by Mr James personally; instead they were all signed in his name by his wife with his authority. Were those assignments "under the hand of the assignor"? In my judgement, they were not. In my opinion, these words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and so construed, they require that the assignor himself should sign the assignment. They do not admit of the possibility of someone other than the assignor signing in the assignor's name." Your confusion is understandable Peter, I have also previously reached the same incorrect conclusion as your goodself. This book (please see reference 127) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uLd4qy7LJJYC&lpg=PA175&ots=rP0DakPBNt&dq=Durham%20Brothers%20v%20Robertson%20%5B1898%5D&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false Lists a number of cases that apparently confirm that the notice does not have to be come specifically from the assignor and that notice can be provided by the assignee, as you have stated that in this case it has with the assignee being Eurosail.

The answers to the above appear to have been posted on the site you refer to as "the other place" ryde says: September 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm "Hate to be a damp squib but looking at the spml accounts in detail. . 1)The 45 loans they own are the ones not securitised. 2)They sold the mortgage pools to the various securitisation vehicles this shows clearly in the accounts as funds in and out. 3)As would be expected the financiers of the loans mable/storm will not call in intercompany debts whilst securitised operations are continuing. (It would break spml/pml and simply entail legal transfer of the mortgage pool titles to the spvs as in sppl’s case anyway) The conclusion is that spml/pml hold the legal titles on trust for the spvs,so the argument that they are not legally entitled to repo peeps again swings down to the old cherry,legal v equitable assignment. THe **** do have a written agreement in many contracts especially so with spml to bring the claims on their behalf.(have never seen such an agreement with pml) .. So where’s the complaint realistically? .. I honestly don’t think they can be nailed on the 45 loans although doubt could certainly be cast and explanations demanded but they will simply say they are trustees for the spvs,a sympathetic court may even order disclosure."

If it is secured against you house (via a 2nd charge) it is secured.. I think with your loan, it is unregulated rather than unsecured However, secured or unsecured does not effect your ability to claim back late payment charges or admin fees etc

If you have not made a complaint to the FOS yet, when you do make sure you make it against SPPL. Otherwise they might reject your complaint (after many months) because it is against the wrong company. From what I have read, sometimes they change it for you and sometimes they don't

According to the Information Commissioneer's Office the address for the data controller is 2 GRESHAM STREET LONDON EC2V 7QP

Friendly piece of advice, don't believe everything you read, this equally applies to my posts.. Always investigate and double check facts for yourself. A classic example is that a criminal offence is being committed under the LRA 2002. Sadly, I have seen this often said and sadly often quoted. However, when looked at what the legislation actually states, the argument just does not stand up to scrutiny... Both the template letter and the article you posted from another place, were both filled with inaccuracies but worryingly given as advice. (not by you but the person that originally wrote them) This has always been my biggest bug bear... People give advice, without for a moment considering the responsibilities they have to ensure it is correct or the liabilities of giving incorrect advice... They are dealing with peoples homes and lives..... I have never been here to win friends or a popularity contest, I just try to ensure people (as you said) don't use arguments that make them look like idiots..

At last... someone else has seen the light:-D All I would add is, only fight the fights you have a chance of winning..

Without wishing to sound negative I think unenforceable arguments will be a very hard fight, but as you say worth arguing.. Nothing to lose and if you don't ask, you don't get

From reading all of your posts, it appears as if you have the answers to your own questions peterjm

Both the Pender case in 2003 and more recently the Eurosail case were both held in the High Court and the subsequent Pender case in 2005 was held in the Court of Appeal and a petition to the House of Lords was refused. I have seen it said that s.136 of the LOP 1925 is "outdated", "archaic" etc etc etc... However, this ignores the fact that the relevance was confirmed relatively recently by the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003. However, as you have said until something happens to change the way things are, this is how things are.... That of course doesn't mean that something will happen to change the way things are.... So moving away from the hyperthetical discussions, what is happening with your dealings with capstone etc ? Anything back yet from the Land Registry or the FOS ? I did bump your thread but no response...

When you say you are a 2nd charge, do you mean that this is a joint 1st charge mortgage with both you and your wife named as joint borrowers ? You say that she is now your ex-wife, this would suggest that divorce proceedings have concluded.. What was agreed to happen to the house...

Good Morning LD, Have you heard anymore from them yet or are they still delaying things for you.. Hope they have finally pulled their finger out

Peterjm.... ? Anyone.....?

The debates with regard to securitisation, especially the title to sue (which is the given by the legal title), have gone on since almost when this thread was first created.. There have now been 6736 posts.. Out of those 6736 posts, not a single post contains any actual evidence, not even a single weblink or a single quote from a 3rd party source that supports the legal assignment of the legal title. Don't get me wrong, we have had plenty of translation, interpretation and personal opinion.. We have also had countless promises of evidence.. But time and time nothing is ever produced... In the cold hard light of day, I think it is fair to say that clearly speaks for itself...

Joncris has posted about this before and personally I think this is where people should be concentrating... It is easy enough to show that in the case of SPML they breach MCOB (as previously posted by Peter) and both SPML and SPPL breach the pre action protocol's.... http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_mha.htm#IDAYAOVB 5.4 The lender should consider a reasonable request from the borrower to change the date of regular payment (within the same payment period) or the method by which payment is made. The lender should either agree to such a request or, where it refuses such a request, it should, within a reasonable period of time, give the borrower a written explanation of its reasons for the refusal. 7 Alternative dispute resolution 7.1 The court takes the view that starting a possession claim is usually a last resort and that such a claim should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored. Discussion between the parties may include options such as: (1) extending the term of the mortgage; (2) changing the type of a mortgage; (3) deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or (4) capitalising the arrears. As a borrower all you have to do is write individual letters covering these points and get the usual rejection responses.

Why isn't anyone posting suggestions for Peter... Come on everyone, he has come here for help

I know that the majority of the following has been posted previously but the answer to your concerns is ownership and what it means and the different types. In the end it all comes to benefit and rights... Who owns the benefits and who owns the rights and taking into consideration what the owner of the benefits actually owns and what the owner of the rights actually owns. Pender: And...... Halsbury's "586. Securitisation of mortgages. Securitisation is the sale of a package of mortgage debts to a corporate vehicle (the 'issuer') established for the purpose of issuing securities usually in bearer form such as bonds1. One or more mortgagees (the 'originator') may agree to sell debts and related security to the issuer. This effects an equitable assignment of the mortgages which is not perfected by notice to the mortgagors or by registration. The issuer is entitled to call for a legal transfer of legal title to the mortgages in certain circumstances such as the persistent default or insolvency of the originator. The issuer is given an irrevocable power of attorney to effect the transfer and for certain other purposes2. The originator retains the powers of the mortgagee, including the right to possession3 but agrees to act in accordance with the instructions of the issuer in relation to matters such as interest rates and enforcement. The undertaking and assets of the issuer, including the mortgages, are in turn charged in favour of a security trustee for the benefit of the holders of notes or bonds issued by the issuer4. The security trustee is given custody of the charge certificates or, in the case of unregistered land, mortgages and title deeds, and is given an irrevocable power of attorney to effect a legal transfer of the mortgages." Ownership Ownership is the determining factor (remember there is only more than one trust within the uk securitisation structure)

It is of significance Peterjm, I appreciate with you being new here you have not had the opportunity to read all of the posts but a while ago there was a discussion in relation to the SPV's setting the interest etc. This confirms who has ultimate control of the SPV I consider that asks more questions than it answers because with regard to SPML there is no real new news...