Jump to content

Londres

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Londres

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Was your income certified? That would help your case because it would be clear and convincing evidence that they lent to someone whose income they knew definitively.
  2. Why does the Final Notice specifically say arrears management fees charged prior to 31 May 2010? DB Mortgages was charging arrears management fees after this date (I should know). The release does not say anything about the arrears management being unfair or not reflecting true costs of administration. It only makes reference to the solictior's instruction fee being £83 more than it should have but it does not go into that same level of detail about the arrears management fee. All it says is "DBM will refund £50 to every borrower who was charged a £50 monthly arrears management fee p
  3. Looks like Kensington is going back to its securitisation strategy Kensington gears up to launch securitisation | News | Mortgage Strategy
  4. Looks like the muppets at Capstone are changing names. Ascending star | Features | Mortgage Strategy You know what they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Where is the FSA in all this?
  5. Agreed with ryde, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. By the way, Barclays bought the U.S. operations of Lehman, not the European operations, so what you said in that regard is nonsense.
  6. They may be limited by the terms of an administration agreement, but it can't hurt to try. Ultimately, it's a cost benefit analysis for the lender. It's costlier to foreclose on a second lien because there is a first lien involved and if the combined loan to value of the borrower is close to 100%, then it may not be economical to foreclose at all as recovery will probably be next to nothing. If after taking into account the costs of potentially foreclosing on the loan, the lender sees that recovery will be minimal, it may be in their interest to settle for a reduced amount.
  7. Haven't dealt with them but know any Picture loans were probably securitised by Merrill Lynch earlier in the year. The loans would have been sold on to Scannan Finance. Attached is a rating agency report about the deal. Any reduced settlement opportunities may be limited by the terms of the securitisation documentation as the servicer has to act in accordance with the servicing guidelines set forth there. I've attached the prospectus from the Irish Stock Exchange. This deal was done at a time when the securitisation market was completely shut, so it's most likely Merrill ret
  8. Yes, and also, under many lending criteria, lenders wouldn't even count a CCJ that old even if it was on your credit, which it's not.
  9. Thanks for your response. I see what you are saying, but this reference to full title guarantee is a term of art under the Law of Property, it does not mean legal title versus equitable title. Legal and equitable title can both come with full title guarantee. This is standard language under securitisation documents. Some securitisation documents require borrowers notification following certain events like a downgrade or bankruptcy, but failure to notify borrowers upon the intial assignment is not required. This doesn't just go for SPML securitisations, it applies to all securitisations in
  10. I mentioned this in another thread. It's not legal title that is transferred. It's equitable title, which is recognised by the English courts and no registry is required (Registrable dispositions clause notwithstanding. As part of my case against these losers I did months of research and this is how securitisations are done across Europe, with equitable title transfers. I'm telling you, the land registry argument won't work, but I wish you the best in any case.
  11. Kegi you are absolutely right. I dealt with these SPML retards last year, and the case was rejected by the court. Bottom line, SPML do not need to notify the borrower that the mortgage was sold because SPML does not transfer LEGAL title, only beneficial title to the mortgage, therefor the land registry does not need to be notified. Any argument relying on this is doomed to fail. The Paragon case makes this clear. You can try other grounds or try negotiating with Capstone in the first instance. In the end I spent a lot of time writing letters and in court and got nowhere until negotiated
×
×
  • Create New...