Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Checking hi-tech with low tech - Wales leading the way Growing Mid Wales, an organisation set up to bring together the private and public sectors alongside the Welsh Government, has launched a mobile mapping project to track areas of poor mobile phone signal Powys and Ceredigion. They will be using bin lorries which have signal detection equipment installed, and thus able to create a comprehensive map of mobile 'not-spots' in the area, since those vehicles will be visiting just about every property in the area on their usual rounds. Just a moment... WWW.THINKBROADBAND.COM  
    • Hi there   thank you for the reply. No, it's not a silly question at all. I am convinced I didn't hit anything with my car. I was going very slowly and it was the guy standing next to his lorry in the road who punched and kicked my car as I went by. It's cause I saw him do it in the mirror.  I initially thought he did it because he thought I was passing him maybe too closely whilst he was messing around with his lorry ?  That's why I stopped and got out and asked what he thought he was doing hitting my car. He then just hurled abuse at me. Not making any accusations such 'you hit me' 'you hit my lorry' or you did this or that. He just swore and shouted at me. At which point I said I would be making a complaint to his company for his threatening behaviour and vandalism for punching my car. I went to my car , got my phone to take a photo of his number plate but then he came towards me again and I thought if he now hits me I am going to come second. I am a woman in her mid 50s travelling on her own and this guy looked like a Millwall football supporter (short, rotund, skin head) so I decided to leave this situation. I got back in my car closed the door and drove off before he could reach me.  I later checked my phone and noticed the photo was too blurred, as I turned and rushed back to my car too quickly before the camera could focus. So I thought it was pointless making a complaint as the guy couldn't be traced anyway, so I forgot all about it until yesterday. But this is all I can think of, it must have to do with this incident as it is in the same street.   
    • Please read the following thread very carefully. It is extremely relevant where you are suing Evri on the basis of a contract which you originally made with Packlink who are domiciled in Spain. A judgement has been obtained and we have applied for transcript and it will be put up on this thread as soon as we receive it probably about the end of July. In the meanwhile, read this thread, see what has been discovered about the Packlink/Evri/customer relationship and look at the witness statement very carefully. It's a long thread but don't give up. Once you have the transcript of the judgement, then I will do a more careful and explanatory post here   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459707-evri-lost-my-ebay-parcel-£844-court-claim-issued-judgment/
    • So if the breach occurred say Dec 2017 (first missed payment) and the default notice was issued Sept 2018 and the claim was issued 7th June 24 the claimant will of course be arguing it is within the limitation period (by 3 months)
  • 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

Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4536 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

Quote [if the securities themselves default, the investor has no recourse to the originator for any shortfall. Secondly, separation allows the security to be rated independently of the originator. This is particularly important for those originators with a poor or no credit rating]unqote

 

Now I'm thinking indemnity principal

 

How so in relation to the borrower ?

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

Hi Joncris,

 

if u go back a couple of pages and click on the photos ive uploaded you can read the full details. Basically it hands over responsibility to Capstone whilst retaining the right to claim it back in the future.

 

Smarterchick, it has been slightly confusing i have tried to post up a new thread but cant figure out how to do it.

 

I appreciate all the responses ive got although i have to say its all kinda mind boggling'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue I think it's clear they cannot meet their obligations under the codes which I think means the borrower was misled at the time of entering into the contract

 

I need to have a read and see exactly what those obligations are. I have edited my post and added some links

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old uneverdid posted up those two letters and everyone's ignored the poor fellow whislt in the depths of this securitisation talk...sorry Uneverdid, but I personally do not know the answers to your question, just so you know I for one am not ignoring you.;).

 

Edit: and as I type up this about uneverdid - suetonius jumps in and answers - typical :p

 

Now, reading littledotty's wonderful finds, it again makes clear that the originators have to be legally remote from the SPV's, but then this Stewart Makura reference says that they may be subsidiaries of the originators to benefit from stamp duty relief. Holmes Financial, the Abbey National SPV has its office in Abbey's headquarters Triton Hse- I haven't been able to check out the directors, but that doesn't sound legally remote to me other than it may be a seperate Ltd company which, perhaps may be enough to make it 'legally remote'. What difference does this make?

 

I think you'll find the reason for remoteness is tax avoidance

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

seu Still the codes covering mortgages & arrears cannot be met by the manager because of securitization therefore the original bargain has been radically altered to the detriment of the borrower without either their consent or knowledge

 

You are most likely correct. However, we would have to say which specific duties under these codes could not be met and why they could not be met.

 

I will have a read through them tomorrow, as we would have to comply a list of the relevent sections

Link to post
Share on other sites

My English is improving rapidly

 

Latin too, if you take note from suetonius :-D

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

How so in relation to the borrower ?

 

According to the securitizarion bargain the original owner suffers no loss even if the borrower defaults................ hence the collapse of AIG;) ........No loss NO liability

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue, Jon and every other mad person on here I have been having night mares about this and woke up last night and just had a though silly I know back please just think,

 

If the mortgages are put into a securitisation pool and the lender gets the full value which they do,

because the bond holders only get some of the interest we pay ie, 7% they get say 3%,

THEN and this is the part, the ERC can NOT be any loss to the lender or the bond holder as they have NOT lost any money in the deal

 

Now I have a letter saying its for there adverts, staff, paperwork etc but nothing about there lost with regard to interest?

 

Or may be I am going the wrong way??? lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue, Jon and every other mad person

 

:confused:

 

Here is a book I think you seriously need to buy..

 

Please don't throw another series of tantrums if I don't answer your question. ;)

 

ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT GUARANTEE DOES THE BOND HOLDER HAVE?

by the way I note that you never answered what security the bond holders have?

but I notice you have not answered the question of how or what security the bond holders

JonCirs,

well no one has answered the post above

But You Have Not Answered The Question What Do The Bond Holders Get For There Millions????

So if your right and the bond holders have nothing for there money, no title, no rights,what do they have?

 

I personally find it a lot more satisfying to find the answer to my questions myself. If you bother to SEARCH ERC's on this very site as previously suggested by Smarterchick, you will find all the information about ERC's that you desire.

 

Yes they are unfair, Yes they are excessive. I am sure no one will disagree.

 

Oh what they hell, I know this will be just like before, so I will post the link for you..(just remember that search option is a wonderful thing;))

 

It was not one case it was four - details here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/62003-important-mortgage-claimants-please.html

 

It was not 'only a county court decision' and the claimant ended up with

£7.5K costs -

 

Judge Kaye QC, in the High Court (Smith v Mortgage Express), addressed the matter as follows (in a case concerning a mortgage early redemption charge) –

 

“In my judgment, looking at the contract as a whole, I have no doubt that this is merely a provision as to what should happen, not if the borrower broke the contract, but if the borrower elected a right to redeem the mortgage at an early stage. It was, after all, part of the package that was being offered to him.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the securitizarion bargain the original owner suffers no loss even if the borrower defaults................ hence the collapse of AIG;) ........No loss NO liability

 

Hello Joncris, sorry I took a day off yesterday.

 

I was under the understanding (more likely misunderstanding) that the indemnity principle was in relation to costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it states that all legal rights have been transferred though.

 

Hello Littledotty, if I am reading it correctly it states that legal rights are transferred as part of a "pure secondary market transaction" and not as part of "securitisation".

 

A "pure secondary market transaction", is similar to the previously mentioned wholesale loan. This is when an actual mortgage (mortgage book) is sold from one lender to another lender. (think Woolwich / Barclays)

 

(for some reason, I can't copy and paste from that document)

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...