Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If anybody has any advice here, it would be greatly appreciated, I already suffer with pre-existing disabilities & have struggled with this so far. 
    • so return of goods order etc etc read upload  scan pages to jpg, redact in mspaint. the convert to and merge to one mass PDF  read upload and use the online listed sites for all 3 stages. do you want to keep the car? i will guess this was a manual paper claimform direct from the co.court or was it org sent from salford bulk processing and has just got reaq ssigned?      
    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4523 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

"Such rights may include the right of

a Borrower to redeem its Loan and related Collateral Security by repaying his Loan directly to the relevant

Legal Titleholder. These rights may result in the Issuer receiving less monies than anticipated from the Loans."

 

So as spml purport to be the legal titleholder and shows as such does this mean that when I (hopefully!) pay mine off I can pay it to spml direct i.e miss out the spv. Whether or not it would get to them of course I would never know but would be nice to think it didnt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So as spml purport to be the legal titleholder and shows as such does this mean that when I (hopefully!) pay mine off I can pay it to spml direct i.e miss out the spv.

 

Hello Mercy, when you pay your mortgage, as far as you are concerned the SPV does not exist and you don't pay them directly one single penny.

 

All the payments you make are made to spml, then it is for spml to fulfil any contractual obligations to the SPV directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a seperate note, I am in possession of a presale report for a Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS), which was intended for potential investors. This presale report confirms in black and white that the SPV, objectives were to "aquire the equitable title to a mortgage portfolio, to issue the notes"

 

I have added it to this post. The section I am refering to, is at the bottom of page three.

 

It does raise the question, if as you say the legal title passes to the SPV, then why would this report say the SPV's objectives were to aquire the equitable title.

 

 

I also have another one for Abbey, which would also appear to confirm that the original mortgage provider retains legal title.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/189177-smarterchick-securitisations-2.html#post2081479

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suetonius,

 

So you are saying that a pre-sale report to investors, which is a private and confidential document, trumps a publicly filed prospectus at the UK Listing Authority or at the Irish Stock Exchange, which prospectuses are actual details the actual transaction....and that on the basis of your pre-sale report to investors we should all shut up and hand over our keys to our lenders. Correct?

 

So if you are so right, and let's face it, you've already admitted that YOU DON'T KNOW, nonetheless, we should all just give up and go home i.e. to our little spot on the street. Best we all get cardboard boxes eh.

 

Perhaps you would care to comment on Midge's post from the Prospectus and tell us why you think that confirms there has been an assignment of the equitable interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suetonius,

 

So you are saying that a pre-sale report to investors, which is a private and confidential document, trumps a publicly filed prospectus at the UK Listing Authority or at the Irish Stock Exchange, which prospectuses are actual details the actual transaction....and that on the basis of your pre-sale report to investors we should all shut up and hand over our keys to our lenders. Correct? .

 

Did I say that ? Erm don't think so.

 

I have not read the the information posted by Midge, I must have missed that I will go and take a little looksee ;)

 

So if you are so right, and let's face it, you've already admitted that YOU DON'T KNOW, nonetheless, we should all just give up and go home i.e. to our little spot on the street. Best we all get cardboard boxes eh.

 

Perhaps you would care to comment on Midge's post from the Prospectus and tell us why you think that confirms there has been an assignment of the equitable interest.

 

I freely admit that I don't know, I also don't see that as a bad thing. Do you really think that this matter is really so cut and dry ?

 

We can all learn from each other. I consider that there has been an assignment of the equitable interest because of s.136 of the LOP.

 

I don't think you can hope that a judge will ignore the legal requirements for absolute assignment.

 

Furthermore, I am not suggesting that people pack up, what I am doing is raising points that will most likely also be raised in Court. Would it not be best to be prepared to defend these points, rather than just day to the judge I know.

 

With the upmost respect SS, I am not making this personal against you so please don't take it personally. I am just responding by providing supporting evidence in the form of legislation, case law and other documentation. I am sorry if that is in some way wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suetonius,

 

So you are saying that a pre-sale report to investors, which is a private and confidential document, trumps a publicly filed prospectus at the UK Listing Authority or at the Irish Stock Exchange, which prospectuses are actual details the actual transaction....and that on the basis of your pre-sale report to investors we should all shut up and hand over our keys to our lenders. Correct?

 

What I actually said was:

 

 

On a seperate note, I am in possession of a presale report for a Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS), which was intended for potential investors. This presale report confirms in black and white that the SPV, objectives were to "aquire the equitable title to a mortgage portfolio, to issue the notes"

 

I have added it to this post. The section I am refering to, is at the bottom of page three.

 

It does raise the question, if as you say the legal title passes to the SPV, then why would this report say the SPV's objectives were to aquire the equitable title.

 

I personally consider the above question to be valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suetonius,

 

You have raised a question regarding whether there was an equitable or a legal assignment - that's good. You cite as evidence some random pre-sale report for "potential" investors on a deal that may or may not have occurred.

 

But the statement from the Prospectus that Midge posted is an actual transaction that has been publicly declared and filed at the Irish Stock Exchange - so, the question is:

 

What is in that publicly declared and filed Prospectus that is directly on point in relation to the SPML securitisations that cause you to believe that the assignment was merely an equitable assignment.

 

Your analysis of an alleged equitable assignment in relation to SPML's SPV is called for. Can you comment directly on the point of the SPML sale and the SPV's securitisation with reference to Midge's post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say thank you to both Supersleuth and Suetonius for bringing these issues to our attention and debating this. I can detect this could challenge the patience of a saint, but without the combined questions and answer bantering you two are doing this would not have progressed like this.

 

Takes me back to the early days of bank charges where opinions, whilst divided drew out the truth and aided people going into court-rooms - we have to remember everyone on this forum apart from the odd troll (who can be spotted a mile off and dispensed with) are here to learn from those with specific knowledge or expertise who come here..so please don't anyone think these arguments are personal in any way...this is the route to success for so many if the detail can be thrashed, challenged and drawn out. The researchers amongst us provide the fodder for people like Superslueth and Suetonius to pull apart and long may they reign.

 

Thank you - both of you. Keep it up.

 

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say thank you to both Supersleuth and Suetonius for bringing these issues to our attention and debating this. I can detect this could challenge the patience of a saint, but without the combined questions and answer bantering you two are doing this would not have progressed like this.

 

..so please don't anyone think these arguments are personal in any way...this is the route to success for so many if the detail can be thrashed, challenged and drawn out.

 

Thank you - both of you. Keep it up.

 

SC

 

Well said, smarterchick.

 

I, for one, respect the opionions of both of you & you have both brought valued addtions to CAG threads.

 

So please don't fall out on this issue guys, it's so important to work together even if you differ on your thoughts as to how each clause etc. should be interpreted. :)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis of an alleged equitable assignment in relation to SPML's SPV is called for. Can you comment directly on the point of the SPML sale and the SPV's securitisation with reference to Midge's post?

 

As for an analysis, even for a layman like my good self, it would appear to be quite straight forward. A notice to the debtor is one of the formalities that must be completed to establish a legal / absolute assignment.

 

However, I will respond in relation to the prospectus ;)

 

 

As previously posted by Midge61

 

Hi

 

The following is page 34 of my prospectus............

 

Title of the Issuer

 

Legal title to the Loans and their related Collateral Security will be transferred to the Issuer only in the limited circumstances described under "Title to the Mortgage Pool" below. Prior to the Issuer or the

Trustee obtaining legal title to the Loans and their related Collateral Security in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, a bona fide purchaser from SPML or SPPL (which remain the legal owners of the relevant Loans and Collateral Security),

 

This would also appear to imply the legal title remains with SPML or SPPL.

 

The actual prospectus goes onto say (and this is the important part and is also on page 34)

 

"In order for legal title to the Mortgages over registered land in England and Wales and any land in Scotland to be transferred, transfers and assignations would have to be registered or recorded at The Land Registry of England and Wales or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be given to the Borrowers."

Link to post
Share on other sites

a publicly filed prospectus at the UK Listing Authority or at the Irish Stock Exchange, which prospectuses are actual details the actual transaction

 

The actual prospectus goes onto say (and this is the important part and is also on page 34)

 

 

"In order for legal title to the Mortgages over registered land in England and Wales and any land in Scotland to be transferred, transfers and assignations would have to be registered or recorded at The Land Registry of England and Wales or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be given to the Borrowers."

 

So the prospectus, which as you say details the actual transaction, says that a notice would need to be given to borrowers.

 

The notice is required under s.136, otherwise the assignment can only be equitable

Link to post
Share on other sites

So please don't fall out on this issue guys, it's so important to work together even if you differ on your thoughts as to how each clause etc. should be interpreted. :)

 

lol we won't fall out.

 

I repect her opinions and I am sure she respects mine

Link to post
Share on other sites

a publicly filed prospectus at the UK Listing Authority or at the Irish Stock Exchange, which prospectuses are actual details the actual transaction.

 

The Prospectus also states:

 

Page 68

 

"The sale of the Loans and their related Collateral Security to the Issuer will take effect in equity only or, in the case of Scottish Loans, by means of declarations of trust by SPML or (as applicable) SPPL, as Originator and legal title owner of the Scottish Loans, in favour of the Issuer (such declarations of trust, together with any declaration of trust supplemental thereto, the "Scottish Trusts"), until such time as transfers and assignations of such Loans and the related Collateral Security in favour of the Issuer have been completed and, in respect of the registered or registerable titles to land, registered at The Land Registry of England and Wales or the Registers of Scotland (in the circumstances mentioned below) and notice has been served on the Borrowers."

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so what is the difference between the ' Prospectus' and the 'Agreement' which is drawn up between the Bank and the SPV? Is it one of the same or, like the point raised earlier, is there one which is published for the investors 'prior' to sale giving the intention of the sale and another which is the 'actual' agreement which actually differs in its terminology? mmm??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so what is the difference between the ' Prospectus' and the 'Agreement' which is drawn up between the Bank and the SPV? Is it one of the same or, like the point raised earlier, is there one which is published for the investors 'prior' to sale giving the intention of the sale and another which is the 'actual' agreement which actually differs in its terminology? mmm??

 

You have hit the nail on the head. I think we really need a copy of the sales agreement. Much like the sales agreement between Banks and Debt Collections Agencies, it will shed some light and hopefully clear some of the smoke;)

 

I will do some digging and see what comes up

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suetonius,

 

Also you will see that the prospectuses confirm that the SPVs legal title is said to "operate in equity". This phrase does not mean that there is a separation of equitable and legal titles, it means that during the registration gap, equity will operate on the new owner's legal title. It is the SPVs legal title that is operating in equity pending its registration at the LR.

 

The words "operating in equity" have been misconstrued to become conflated with the concept of a separation of the equitable and legal interest. Again, it is the SPVs legal title that is operating in equity and under the equitable maxim that "equity deems as done, that which ought to be done" - what ought to be done here is that the SPV register its legal interest at the LR, but the SPV has unlawfully neglected to do that, which the law requires that it do!

 

Do you see the smoke and mirrors strategy at play? - remove the smoke and you'll see just what confusions these lawyers are playing.

 

 

 

Suetonius dear Suetonis.... re your post no. 361...

 

we've already been through that one. (see quote above). "operates in equity" does not mean that there's been a transfer of the equitable interest only - what is "operating in equity" in the SPV's legal title.

 

You are asserting the precise smoke an mirrors of the lender - you may have confused the words "operating in equity" to mean that there has been a separation of legal and equitable titles and that a trust has been created.

 

An example may make the point clearer: if you sell your house today - and the new owner doesn't register at the LR as the new owner for another two months hence, would you consider that you only transferred an equitable interest in the house and that you were entitled to retain the legal title? Would you consider yourself to be a Trustee with all the attendant responisibilites of a Trustee? No, of course not...(or maybe you would). The new owner's legal title is "operating in equity" until the new owner's registration is complete. Equity would not change the fact that you sold the legal title to your house today, and allow you to assert that you retained the legal title even though the new owner is not registered as the legal owner for another 2 months. Do you get it?

 

Hmmm, Mr Suetonius...you appear to be too reluctant to admit that there has been a transfer of the legal title....but conversely it is interesting that you are very quick to state unequivocally that your pre-sales documents CONFIRMS that it's only an equitable interest that's transferred.

 

Interesting sparring with you Suetonius - look forward to your analysis on the no. 323 and 327 posts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smarterchick,

 

The Prospectus is a statement of truth that makes representations to the investors to state the terms of the underlying transaction document. The prospectus summarises the underlying transaction documents and give an account of the pertinent terms of those document.

 

Therefore, e.g. if the Prospectus states that the SPV is entitled to be registered at LR, then you can take it that the transaction documents will also state that SPV is entitled to be registered at the LR.

 

Now it is unlikely that the SPV have lied in the Prospectus, because if there is an untruth in the prospectus, that would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation and the Investors would sue the butt off the SPV - so, the Prospectus can be taken as a true account of the underlying transaction documents. Accordingly, the Prospectus is good evidence of the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am slightly confused.

 

You placed emphasis upon the prospectus. You asked me to

 

Suetonius,

But the statement from the Prospectus that Midge posted is an actual transaction that has been publicly declared and filed at the Irish Stock Exchange - so, the question is:

 

What is in that publicly declared and filed Prospectus that is directly on point in relation to the SPML securitisations that cause you to believe that the assignment was merely an equitable assignment.

 

Your analysis of an alleged equitable assignment in relation to SPML's SPV is called for. Can you comment directly on the point of the SPML sale and the SPV's securitisation with reference to Midge's post?

 

 

In response to you request I posted:

 

The actual prospectus goes onto say (and this is the important part and is also on page 34)

 

 

"In order for legal title to the Mortgages over registered land in England and Wales and any land in Scotland to be transferred, transfers and assignations would have to be registered or recorded at The Land Registry of England and Wales or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be given to the Borrowers."

 

The Prospectus also states:

 

Page 68

 

"The sale of the Loans and their related Collateral Security to the Issuer will take effect in equity only or, in the case of Scottish Loans, by means of declarations of trust by SPML or (as applicable) SPPL, as Originator and legal title owner of the Scottish Loans, in favour of the Issuer (such declarations of trust, together with any declaration of trust supplemental thereto, the "Scottish Trusts"), until such time as transfers and assignations of such Loans and the related Collateral Security in favour of the Issuer have been completed and, in respect of the registered or registerable titles to land, registered at The Land Registry of England and Wales or the Registers of Scotland (in the circumstances mentioned below) and notice has been served on the Borrowers."

As you know, to comply with s.136 a notice does have to been sent to the borrower. The above extracts from the prospectus that you placed emphasis upon, clearly demonstrate that no such notice has been sent.

 

I responded to you and provided the supporting extracts.

 

However, in response you post :confused:

 

Hmmm, Mr Suetonius...you appear to be too reluctant to admit that there has been a transfer of the legal title....but conversely it is interesting that you are very quick to state unequivocally that your pre-sales documents CONFIRMS that it's only an equitable interest that's transferred.

 

Interesting sparring with you Suetonius - look forward to your analysis on the no. 323 and 327 posts

 

lol, I can assure you that it is not the case that I am in anyway reluctant to admit that there has been a transfer of legal title. I thought, my previous posts (including legislation, case law and supporting documentation, include the prospectus that you placed emphasis upon) made my position very clear.

 

However, for the avoidance of doubt, I will take this opportunity make my position crystal clear to avoid any further confusion.

 

I do not consider that the legal title has been transfered.

 

I can post several prospectuses all of which mirror the previously posted prospectus in that the legal title remains with the original mortgage provider.

 

The content of the presales document (not mine, I found it on google) appears to be supported rather than contradicted by the prospectus that you have placed the emphasis upon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it is unlikely that the SPV have lied in the Prospectus, because if there is an untruth in the prospectus, that would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation and the Investors would sue the butt off the SPV - so, the Prospectus can be taken as a true account of the underlying transaction documents. Accordingly, the Prospectus is good evidence of the facts.

 

"The Prospectus is good evidence of the facts"

 

But the prospectus confirms that the legal title is not transferred until notice has been given to the borrower.

 

To clarify, I have posted two more.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoke and mirrors are everywhere and can be used by everyone including us.

 

However, through the smoke and mirrors, two points still remain

 

1) The implications of the judgements made in the 2005 Pender Case

2) The requirement for a notice to be sent to the debtor / borrower (as per s.136 of the LOP)

 

How do you intend to overcome these two obstacles ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS

How are you getting on with your case? its with G mac I think and after reading this all night I think I am going after them.

What you say IS right and they have lied in court or the judge just did not want to deal with it.

Looking at this clearly and standing back, would you inverse in some thing like this without any form of security??? just think on that.

I is very clear they have as you say had us over a barrel for too long and the courts have allowed it.

I have the full securitisation papers for Gmac who when they started had £700,000 debt and within 6 months had a pool of £135 Million mortgages and if you look at a lot of these company the same names keep coming up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...