Jump to content

kegi

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kegi

  1. i have also seen this chap I believe on a Irish case where it seems he was up against LPA for a total of 41 properties Also found this if not seen before EMANATING FROM THE FACT OF REGISTRATION LAND LAW [2012], Professor E Cooke, Chapter 3, Page #48 & 49 "... A deed must be executed in order to transfer a legal estate or create a legal interest, but the registration system has taken away the power of the deed. In cases where a deed is necessary, it is no longer sufficient. When that deed is sent to the registry and the register is updated, a legal estate or interest is transferred or created, depending on the nature of the transaction ... ... And the landowner does not have an estate created or transferred by deed, but a registered estate, emanating from the fact of registration ... ... The deeds are irrelevant except for that short period between what the estate agents call completion, when signed documents are handed over, and their registration ..." kegi
  2. givehim my post was nothing to do with the scenario it was to do with the clap-trap apple had just posted up here it is again in red and as you seem to be apples spokes person would you not agree with me that's just what it is ..maybe not Oh I forgot to say.... I didn't add the Borrower into the resolution as such...because the Borrower is already providing a solution....the Borrower is paying the 'mortgage '....the Borrower is paying the Bedroom tax.....bailing out the banks etc etc......after all it was the Borrower who caused the 'austerity' by signing that 'approved form of charge'....as a 'deed'.... Oh and if the Borrower does not pay the 'mortgage...well, we'll turf him out of his home....and get another Borrower to pick up the tab......80,000+ is no where near the 11.3 million target we have set...got to keep the wheel turning....got to keep the figures correct...... : ) kegi
  3. apple as a doctor [only kidding ] you really should have a lie down if you believe what you have just posted is for real or should I say based on fact kegi:lol:
  4. apple care to explain to us mere mortals how you arrive at that statement :you surely can't be saying the mortgage goes away kegi
  5. quick question is there anyone on this thread who have a copy of their title deed which shows the lenders name along side theirs in the owners section kegi
  6. apple are you saying that the house i bought which was 30 years old could be classed as a new build i cannot see how that could be right registered for the first time or not .Having said that I should have explained better that we bought it first with a council mortgage and then applied for a mortgage with high street lenders couple of years later so it was registered prior to Abbey in my case kegi
  7. IS IT ME are you saying now that this thread only concerns securitised mortgages and no one else has anything to worry about in relation to the points apple has been making I thought it applied to all mortgages securitised or not ,if so that shines a whole new light on the subject matter and in my view needs clarifying in quick time [ apple] kegi
  8. It certainly does and in language I can understand I won't comment anymore till I re-look at the deeds I have in my keeping thanks kegi
  9. apple like steam I can't get my head round of not being able to charge registered land does there have to be something showing on LR details to prove that this is the case or are you only referring to the charge deed because it says by way of legal mortgage that make it invalid leaving aside the signing of it argument kegi
  10. It doesn't matter to me that you didn't see the point I made because the point I made did not concern you, as to the real estate since when were you made estate manager this is an open forum in case you've forgot already only site team have a say in who can walk on this estate.You can also if you wish explain to me what was the point in your last few posts other than to up your score or score a point whichever. Feel free also to ask apple to fill you in with any more details of my point and maybe just maybe she will also point you in the directions of IMS21 REQUESTS that she refers others too. kegi
  11. What does it matter there is no defence no defence lol lol kegi
  12. Not touchy apple sad that someone can post on this site more than once and blatantly lie as to what a BBC article was about to suit your own agenda and get away with it... that's shame on you, and shame on this site for allowing it . You know what they say about liars I assume . Alarmingly; according to Shelter; (BBC News, 4th Nov 2013) there are some 82,000 families with children who are living in boarding accommodation due to the repossession of their homes by lenders who have not signed the ‘mortgage deed’ I really do hope you have still included this in your cracking petition[ only joking] can't wait to see it out in the open Don't bother replying to this apple [ I wouldn't know whether to believe you] kegi
  13. applecart;4393899]With respect; 82,000 families have tried your tried and tested route.There are 2 videos on the thread showing exactly what those tried and tested routes lead to....... The tried and tested route GUARANTEES the BANKS an ORDER FOR POSSESSION!! That Order for Possession is all the Banks need.....your tried and tested route is being advised to Consumers whom you know 9 times out of 10 cannot truly afford the CMI or to pay anything on top....(did you have anything personally to lose when you guided them...with templates to grant the lender an order for possession suspended on template terms??) The Tried and Tested route encourages and shows consumers how to 'fudge' their income to make out that they have more money than they can comfortably afford ..... all in the 'illusionary' 'fanciful' 'idea' that they will not lose their homes..... When in reality SHELTER confirm that 82,000 families HAVE GONE ON TO LOSE THEIR HOMES....(BBC NEWS 4th Nov) I think it's about time, you consider the 'fanciful', 'illusionary' 'ideas' that have been honed in as 'tried and tested'.....and see what you can do to revert some of the damage already done........ There is no issue that the 'tried and tested' route will and does work for some..... however, I'm sure 82,000 families and children will disagree with you......and as time goes on..... as that figure increases......many more families may also come to disagree with you...... The CaG has a reputation to protect...82,000 families living in board and lodgings tells one and all that we are clearly not doing enough!! It is a crying shame that here on the CaG we have alleged 'fellow Caggers' condemning those on this thread simply because we do not agree that the 'tried and tested' route is working for ALL families and children.....and would look to condemn this thread for relying on the LAW to assist those families and children from losing the roof over their heads unlawfully.... You must understand that until the 'tried and tested' route finds that ALL families can stay in their homes......we will continue as we are.... to put before them the necessary legislation to assist them to protect themselves against unlawful possession of their homes.... The DEED is VOID for want of delivery.......For that.....This thread makes no apology......When a Consumer gets to grips with the way forward as reliant on the content of this thread......For that.... This thread makes no apology......The BANKS have NO DEFENCE. Each and every time you look to divert any viewer of this thread to the 'tried and tested' route.....please remind yourself of the 'risk' you bestow upon them and remind yourself of the 82,000 families living in board and lodging..... So, again; with respect....which so ever route a consumer chooses is entirely up to them..... What they have now.... is an alternative route...... You may not like it.... you clearly do not agree with it.....but then, let's be honest here... it's not your risk any more than the 'tried and tested' route has shown to be.....right???? Apple how many times are you going to be allowed to refer to this article along with your blatant misuse of what it actually is about and what it says , in fact with regard to the so called great petition you put up downright lies as to what that article and its content says . I challenge any one to go and read that article and tell me it refers to anything to do with 82,000 families being repossessed let alone using the tried and tested approach that she continues to slag off or even mentions houses being repossessed at all . Mortgaged properties are also not even mentioned so to infer that it does is also untrue apples quote from above post When in reality SHELTER confirm that 82,000 families HAVE GONE ON TO LOSE THEIR HOMES....(BBC NEWS 4th Nov) Totally untrue so leave it alone or it may come back and bite you on the ar..e kegi
  14. JC I will ignore the bit in bold then and leave such things to your good self and of course SS ,as to the rest of it which I think is a bit lopsided I agree if it was not for the credit crunch and Lehmans etc you would have never known about securitisation [or maybe you did] the point is who cares then or now .Answer not many of the 11 million borrowers out there give a toss . It has not nor will it bother them at all they carry on as always paying their mortgage until its paid off or they decide to end it themselves I will go so far to suggest most have not nor will do even look at the LR to see who is on it .Securitisation in itself has had no effect on millions of mortgages and thats a fact .Securitisation is way past your doomsday scenerio of 5 years fact And I include in that the 1 to two million subprime mortgages .So to answer Tifo's question for you instead of where you been the answer Tifo is nothing will happen to your mortgage if you carry on paying what you should. All securitised mortgages will end in five years IS NOT A FACT its rubbish those who still believe that are members of the cast of Alice in wonderland Where I do come on board is when borrowers [mostly subprime I would say]find themselves in trouble for what ever reason and then cannot make heads or tails of who they are supposed to be dealing with in regards to their problem or do not it seems adere to the T&C THAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR WITH THE NOW IT APPEARS DEFUNCT ORIGINAL LENDER IN SOME CASES.Or with charges etc no one I believe would deny this is a big problem but I have to ask myself the question would this be happening [let alone the credit crunch]if Lehmans for instance had not gone down. Or put it another way would the same problems they are having now with the likes of SPML ie capstone be any different if SPML had not securitised those mortgages ,or back even to LMC etc etc.My own view is they would.Draw your own conclusions from that. kegi
  15. I can only say to TIFO JEBIDIAH AND J STRAP beware of even suggesting when other posters on this thread state all securitised mortgages will be gone in five years and that is a fact and other such crap is wrong.you will be slagged off [sorry thats are being]already ] You must except that all securitised mortgages will end in 5 years that was the intention in the lenders thinking when he signed up to an agreeement with you for a 25 year term [silly me for not seeing that]. Funny though they never stated when the five years started and as those in the real world know that millions of mortgages are already long past five years whats happened to the clock is it running fast or running slow. But then again they could say thats only because you have had no problems with yours but it will happen at some point [remind myself never to forget to pay on time] or they will force me to remortgage if not invent an excuse to repo me . I have said it before anyone who believes that is living in cloud cuckoo land and that was some 2 year ago and they still haven't got it .The fact that an apple Orchard is an Orchard and I invest in the apples in it , wether they turn out to be good apples or bad apples has no effect on the Orchard. It remains the same. By the way any investor who justs sits there waiting for his ill gotten gains tofall into his lap is no investor in my eyes Even talking subprime I have no hesitation in stating that most of those some 2 million are already past their sell by date To try and equate the problems that some have on these forums with certain lenders and impose that with with the view its all to do with securitisation is wrong Quote from previous post A SPV is no more than a money box come cash machine end of lets have more drival I say kegi
  16. There is no way in my mind that investors were not aware of what they were putting their money too when it states openly in the prospectus the pool of mortgages /loans they were buying into .ie SPPL SPPL LMC PML ETC all subprime,the rating agencies also state the higher risk of defaults in such pools in the event of a downturn in the economy which is taken into account and from what I have read lead the investors to barter a better deal with the SPV based on that. As to the rating itself again from docs published on the net it would appear that when the O/L sold on the beneficial interest to the SPV it was with the intent of getting a better rating in so much as the rating was given based mostly on the income coming from the pool of mortgages ignoring the sh..te who sold it [can't speak for prime or near prime in that] Also [don't take my word for it] the pools of mortgages according to secritization setup had to be of the same sort in terms of years to maturity ie 10 yrs 15yrs.25 yrs and if in a pool a mortgage defaulted ie repoed it had to be replaced ASAP by another of the same type so as not to effect the income flow and performance of the notes ,hence as said before such default happenings were not to the benefit of the investors . So where I differ slightly to JS AND NOT BEING PRIVY TO ANY OF THE INVESTOR AGREEMENTS [and only talking subprime]there must have been a number of various notes set up, short term, medium ,and long term based on the maturity date of the pool of mortgages.One doc I read I believe from MERRILL LYNCH set out the way it would work . All notes had to mature before the pool of mortgages so in a ten year one say you could have a six year note + maybe a short one, or 2 three year ones + another something along those lines. One of the eurosail pdf\s shows a pool ,all of which are in the region of ten years to maturity .Another one I saw was of all fixed rate mortgages for whatever term they were set at, maybe thats where this idea of 5 years and gone comes from . Its certainly not the actual mortgage thats for sure . thats my take on it so fire :paway kegi
  17. It shouldn't Sue [trouble you] that is, it’s a fact and still is and securitization as not brought about their demise kegi
  18. Fully agree with your comments jebediah at last someone else see's the light its never been about the actual mortgage only the notes in terms of maturity, those who bought short term ie 3,5,6 years were aware of the risks involved. That does not turn a 25 year mortgage into a 5 year one or any other for that matter. kegi
×
×
  • Create New...