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?

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.

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 ?

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... Much obliged, thank you IS IT ME?

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.

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). 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....

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.

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

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