What was the Norgan case about ? Could I use it, when they take me to Court ?

Thank you Superslueth I was reading the Carmel thread last night and I thought someone had said that they had checked on the SPV and it was the SPV that had completed or signed the s.395

Thank you for all your help Enoughisenough I have been thinking about this all night. In relation to securitisation (in general) Who owns the mortgage ? Is it the SPV or the trustee ? Who owns the charge ? Is it the SPV or the trustee. ? The reason I am so confused is that when I think about my house and mortgage, I own the house and the bank own the mortgage. So does the SPV own the mortgage and the trustee owns the charge ? I thought a charge, like the one on my house was to secure lending. Why does either the SPV or Trustee get a charge if they are buying a mortgage ? The whole process is confusing. It is ok for people like you Enoughisenough but I don't understand what actually happens, not just with my mortgage but with securitisation as a rule of thumb. Could someone, please take a few moments to help me and I am guessing many others to understand what is going on. What is the process ? i.e. Does the bank sell the mortgage to the SPV, who then sells it to the trustee Who owns what. Many Thanks in advance people

I am sorry, I did not mean to hijack this thread. I thought this thread was for discussion about securitisation. Sorry for all the questions about securitisation

But if the Trustee owns my mortgage, how can the SPV take me to court. I am really sorry, I just want to get the basics straight in my head before I go too deep Thank you for the info. I am still dazed and very confused

So my mortgage goes from Natwest, to the SPV and then to the trustee ?

2 months behind and counting So it is not the SPV but the trustee that should really take me to court, god forbid things go that far

So it is not the SPV that owns my mortgage but the trustee

NatWest 2004

I will go back to reading. I am dazed and confused

Who is the trustee then EIE ? It it a person or another company ?

Ok Is It Me says the SPV has the charge at companies House and Enoughisenough says it isn't the spv it the trustee. Which one of you two is correct ?

I will get my head around this I thought s.395 was the registration of a charge at companies house by the SPV

Does the spv have a charge on the mortgage ? Just like my mortgage company has on my house, So a charge on a charge ?

? Even more confused I was reading earlier that the SPV registers a charge at companies house

No what I mean is, Is a charge proof of ownership ? Isn't a charge just security. As my mortgage company have a charge on my house but they don't own it. I am getting myself in a muddle

I am getting even more confused If they own the mortgage and not my house, why do the SPV own the mortgage, if they have a charge ??

What I don't understand is if the SPV owns my mortgage why does it need a charge. I am thinking like my house. I am the registered owner but the bank has a charge on it

Thanks BTM Still don't get the charge and ownership thing

Anyone considered the possibility that Sue could be right ? Can someone please answer my question about charge's and ownership I DON'T UNDERSTAND

With merit and a hell of a lot of supporting documentation and explanation. Come back Sue, I need an answer about charges and ownship !!! I will ask it here as I don't understand If a SPV owns my mortgage, why does it need a charge ? Aren't charges to do with security and not ownership ?

I think I may be looking at this in a far to simple way. My bank has a charge on my house. However, I am the registered owner Does a charge mean ownership ? PLEASE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE !!!!!

Something I have never understood and hopefully either SS, EIE or Sue can answer for me, If the SPV owns the legal title to the mortgage pools, why does it need a charge ? I ask because this is an explainantion of a charge that I have found "A charge is a type of burden or liability registered against a property in order (usually) to secure a loan of money by the owner of the property [the borrower] to another person [the lender]. The borrower remains the owner of the property itself, but is only free to deal with the property - by way of sale, transfer or other transaction - once the rights of the lender have been fully satisfied (usually, only once the lender has been repaid in full). The lender has certain rights in the event of the borrower’s failing to comply with the terms of the charge ; in particular, the lender has a right to sell the property to recover any outstanding monies, subject to the terms of the charge document and to various legal rules. " Wouldn't the lender be the SPV and the Owner be the mortgage lender

This could interest you Campari, I think this might also be of some relence to the ongoing securitisation debate. Oakwood apes edeus' golden goodbye - 18 August 2008 The broker-introduced mortgages Oakwood is trying to offload stem from investments made by Credit Suisse. It is understood that Credit Suisse bought buy-to-let assets from GMAC-RFC, Kensington and edeus and placed them in Oakwood. It has taken the decision to encourage borrowers to redeem their mortgages early or refinance with other lenders rather than sell the assets at a loss. As a result, Oakwood has written to 250 borrowers offering to waive 15% of their outstanding mortgage balance if they choose to take their mortgages to other lenders before their fixed rate terms expire. The amount waived will be calculated from the date the letters were sent. Oakwood will also waive early repayment charges and its £120 exit fee. Oakwood is serviced by Homeloan Management, part of the Skipton group. In its letter to borrowers, Oakwood recommends they contact Pink Home Loans, also part of Skipton, to source alternative deals. Pink was unavailable for comment. Oakwood is using specialist servicer Engage Credit to notify clients. Jason Miller, chief executive of Engage Credit, says: "At the direction of Oakwood Homeloans, Engage Credit has deployed a strategy to target selected borrowers which will allow them to redeem their outstanding mortgage balances at a discount. "This strategy will allow Oakwood to deleverage its exposure to the housing market while giving selected borrowers incentives to refinance." Credit Suisse's decision to offload assets in this way follows a £5.6m fine from the Financial Services Authority for failures to conduct its business with due care and diligence and for failing to organise itself effectively. Credit Suisse declined to comment

Mortgage Solutions - GMAC-RFC announces portfolio sale to Oakwood GMAC completes second sale to Oakwood - Daily news - Mortgage Introducer UK GMAC sells third portfolio to Oakwood - Daily news - Mortgage Introducer UK