Start QUOTE='owdoUdo;3666352

Finish /QUOTE

When you quote someone, you will see the above enclosed in [ ] at the start and finish of their comment.

If you want to quote seperate parts, just copy and paste (highlight with a mouse) the relevant start and finish at the start and finish of the section you want to quote, not forgetting to to keep [ ]

Why is this so easy to do but do hard to explain... In my mind, I can just do it but with words no way lol...

Have a play around with it... You can't do any damage

Thanks to you both...

Thank you

It's nothing really.. Just seemed seemed strange the list of people they were sent too, weren't in alphabetical order or anything, it was sent to you and also alan...

Goes straight to my spam box now, so nothing to worry about

Hello all

Has the list of consumeractiongroup.co.uk email addresses for members ever been provided to 3rd parties or been compromised in someway ?

As an example on 3 January 2012, I received an email from prime winners with the title '300% Bonus on your first deposit.'

This email was also sent to 9 others all with consumeractiongroup.co.uk email addresses including sales, donations, bankfodder, alan and sequenci.

My consumeractiongroup.co.uk emal address is not my cag username - tbern123 but my actual real name. So I am unsure of how it was obtained by a third party. Also I am used to receiving spam to other addresses but usually they are sent on mass in alphabetical order to a list of receiptants.

I also received a similar email from prime winners of 1 January to the same list of people of peoples excludings donations and sales @ consumeractiongroup.co.uk

It is not a major deal, as spam is the curse of the internet and I now have the sender emai addresses directed to my spam folder... Just curious how they obtained my email address and the random order of names the emails were sent to..

Any news IS IT ME?

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

Any update on this IS IT ME?

Please excuse my impatience, as you might know in the past we have been promised everything from an opinion of a Barrister to a report from a Forensic Auditor and nothing ever comes of it.

I will amend the long post, when I have the opportunity later to include the new books, I have come across which further confirm the equitable sale by the mortgage provider and the subsequent equitable ownership by the SPV.

For me, it seems that members of the CAG site team have forgot the fundamental reason for providing this forum - to help consumers defend themselves against these extortioners.

 

Supersleuth

Surely, it can be said that a way in which to help consumers defend themselves is to identify and highlight flaws in suggested defences so that these flaws are identified here (and possibily overcome) rather than in a Court, at which time it will be to late...

Surely, it can also be said that it is equally important not to use the wrong defence as it is to use the right one ?

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

Could you also ask this some one to take a look at these books too, as these should be added to the other sources previously provided...

Hello Tifo

 

As confirmation of the above, read from (bottom of page 21 and continued on page 22 & 23 ) 2.19 Assignments and 2.20 Title Perfection Events

 

Securitisation Law & Practice in the Face of the Credit Crunch

This relates to commercial mortgage loan securitisation but further confirmation of equitable assignment (page 400) True Sale Transactions

 

The handbook of European fixed income securities

 

By Frank J. Fabozzi, Moorad Choudhry

Also with regard to s.136 of the LOP & securitisation

 

The Law of Corporate Finance ... - Google Books

 

Under English law.......

 

This one applies to Australia but I am sure you will get the point

 

Salomon Smith Barney guide to mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities

Much obliged, thank you IS IT ME?

And as you have previously posted in the prospectus it is suggested that securitisation restricts the lenders/ 3rd party administrators ablilty to convert from repayment to interest only etc, this could be used...

quote tbern

 

So this is the way forward,the effects of securitization create an unfair relationship between the contracting parties.

1)The borrower is not made aware from the outset that their loan has been securitised,in fact the spv states that even though the loan has been sold to them they do not intend to perfect the sale by the issue of the statutory s136 notice.

2)The reasons being Land registry fees,tax,the spv is in most cases not licenced by the FSA so any agreement would be unenforceable if a full transfer took place.

3)The spv controls the terms of the mortgage through its contractural arrangements with its administrator,specifically the administrator despite the pre action protocols and FSA guidelines is prohibited in changing the terms of the mortgage in any way that would alter for the worst the regular cash stream to the spv.

4)The originator plays no part in the administration of the mortgage only its enforcement which is in fact executed in its name by the administrator.

5)A question would be who actually receives the charges levied on a defaulting account and as purportedly published in the originators scale of charges.I would guess the administrator who it would appear has actually no contractural agreements with the originator,or none that anyone has ever seen.

6)The originator states in its original contract with the borrower that it is regulated by the FSA,it also states it subscribes to FSA guidelines,a borrower could reasonably expect that in the situation of unforseen hardship the guidelines and pre action protocols would be employed.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

None of these options are available and this protocol cannot be observed due to the effects of securitization and contractural agreements between spv and administrator,the relationship between the parties is thus unfair as unbeknown to the borrower a third party has been added without their consent or knowlegde to the original contract which significantly changes the relationship of the contracting parties.

They may as well in fact write a proviso:s7 does not apply in the case of securitized mortgages.

To strengthen an argument with regard to unfairness, I would play a little game of chess. I would write four letters to the lender and in each one individually ask

(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

You want them to respond to each request, thus demonstrating to the court your willingness and the unwillingness of the lender.

Even putting securitisation to one side, you could then demonstrate for whatever reason the lender is not complying with 7.1. I wouldn't limit it, just to securitisation though.

There is also the matter to make sure that the amount of reported arrears is correct.

tbern123 - I don't need you to keep asserting who you are not. In fact, I don't care who you are either. Hence, you don't need to keep posting your assertions as to who you are not. Your identity is boring and irrelevant to the discussion.

I do sense a certain animosity towards me in your posts since your return. There is no real need is there Superslueth,

You believe in one argument and post what you think is the correct postion, Where as, I believe in a different argument and post what I think is the correct postion (with supporting evidence).

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

Hello again IS IT ME? you appear to be someone else that has a fixation with Suetonius. I left because it was a sunny Saturday and I went to a bbq.

I look forward to you writing up later, the errors in my "long and thankful" post. I trust that any arguments will be supported by crediable supporting evidence and not just personal opinions and interpretations. Personally, I can't wait for you to tell me how and why Halbury's, a cambridge professor, those authors and the other sources I have quoted directly got it wrong. After all that post is mainly direct quotes from crediable 3rd party sources rather my own personal opinion or interpretation...

I am going to have to disappoint you again though. I will not be unhappy, angry or have any negative feelings if I am proved wrong. In fact I would go so far as to say that I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. To a degree that is the point...

In addition to not being Caro or Andrew1, I am also not tifo...

Just wanted to make that clear before I am accused....

No offence Tifo, it is just if anyone says anything similar to me, it is suggested it is me using a different username...

Good Morning ANW

My posts about s.140 were incorrect.. The only exception to s.140 is a regulated mortgage agreement.. So any mortgage before 31 Oct 2004 (introduction of mortgage regulation) is unregulated... Thus s.140 applies..

So anyone who has had a mortgage for more than 6 years (pre 31 Oct 04) can use it...

And as you have previously posted in the prospectus it is suggested that securitisation restricts the lenders/ 3rd party administrators ablilty to convert from repayment to interest only etc, this could be used...

As you also say, s.140 places the burden of proof on the lender.. They have to prove it is not unfair..

Just wanted to add that I am not Caro or Andrew1....

Suetonius has been around for a long time on CAG and personally I would concur with andrew1.

 

It's important to look at both sides of an issue, and better to investigate them now than face them head on in a court room against a hard nosed barrister.

Thanks Caro and I have learnt so much since I started using this site... CAG is like the University of Life..

Thanks Crapstone, I do realise I am guilty as charged with regard to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut though

As for IT skills.... All I did was to cut & paste directly from each source (unamended) which is easy to do. I did it that way so people could read what is actually said without to much of my person spin (opinion/interpretation) blurring what it says with what I want it to say..

I will make more of an effort to leave the sledgehammer at home though

If I am wrong and all of the sources of information that I have provided are wrong, prove it.

Quote one source (excluding your personal opinion/interpretation) that expressly says that the legal title has been sold to the SPV.

And that's just a simplified version

Lol you should see the unabridged version, it is shocking ;-)

The ball is firmly in your court, prove that I am wrong and that all of the sources I have quoted have unlike you, it would appear misunderstood the securitisation process, within the UK

Mmmmmm.....

I can that it is open season on Suetonius (me) and everyone is taking potshots..

Feel free to make any comments that make you feel better or give you any comfort.

However, I have noticed that the information I have posted is not being disproved.

So Halbury's got it wrong, the authors of those books, the Cambridge Professor and all the other sources I have quoted and linked too directly have all got it wrong.. Are they all part of the great securitisation conspiracy..

How about instead of taking swipes at the person, disprove the argument. (that is also an open invitation to others posting on other sites/blogs)

Instead of telling people what things mean, link to it and let them decide what it means... provide actual supporting evidence..

Do not let Cabot get you down.

Trust me, you can beat them. Just pick your fights carefully and read through some of the Cabot threads for inspiration.

Save yourself a bit of time and send an email to Ken Maynard at Cabot, carefully explain that 2 (2002) + 6 (statue of limitations) = 8 (2008)

Therefore, by Cabots own admission the debt is statue-barred.

P.S also wish him a Happy 2010 from the CFC

I hear at Cabot, Mr Maynard is called Thrush..

Because he is an irritating C word

Sorry for the blatant hijack

well I'd just tell them to go lose themselves

a.k.a go fourth and multiple...

If cabot call, ask the helpful advisor if he or she likes sex and travel.. If they say yes say, good fcuk Off.. If they say No, tell them they don't know what they are missing and hang up:D

happy 2010