Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[JonCris]

I would JonCris. However, are you able to establish the "known facts" from a press article. Hardly a reliable source of facts really.

 

At least I'm basing my comments on something & not on something I conjured up at the last moment such as "It might have tenants" when I'm sure such a fact would have been made evident at the time

[JonCris]

johncris

I suggest you read your mortgage agreement as it has happened very recently in fact

I have read my agreement and three of my kids agreements and there is nothing in them that says they can ask for the money back in full without reason ...They can for a breach of the agreement ie lieing.false info on the application etc taking in tenants without permission drugs den and brothels etc all happen up my end of the woods :pso yes with just cause they can without no ............my last comment on this issue

 

I don't know what your reading but a mortgage like a loan or an overdraft can be recalled at anytime & they don't have to give a reason.........period

[SadButTrue]

What are the "known facts" from that artical ?

[JonCris]

The 'known' facts are the family are going to lose their home unless they can re mortgage despite never missing a payment

 

The bank WILL have been given the "Right to Reply" by the author to put their side prior to it being published so if you believe in innuendo then fine but if your don't where are the banks 'facts'

[SadButTrue]

There are no facts in relation to why. To say why, is at best an assumption, at worst a guess.

 

We don't know the facts

[JonCris]

The only 'known' facts are that they are being evicted & that has not been disputed. If there are any other 'facts' the bank will have had an opportunity to express them if not to the press certainly to the family

 

Of course if you want to make it up as you go fine but please stop trying to justify the unjustifiable .............Better to base your argument on the 'known' facts & not your completely unfounded suppositions....you'll be claiming they're illegal immigrants next

[Smarterchick]

The only 'known' facts are that they are being evicted & that has not been disputed. If there are any other 'facts' the bank will have had an opportunity to express them if not to the press certainly to the family

 

Of course if you want to make it up as you go fine but please stop trying to justify the unjustifiable .............Better to base your argument on the 'known' facts & not your completely unfounded suppositions....you'll be claiming they're illegal immigrants next

 

 

Whooohoo...slow down guys and gals...(what is it about this thread? ) Easy does it...

[JonCris]

Yep lets get back to the main tenet of this thread .......I think Sue may have b*ggered off again............ hope not perhaps waiting for the dust to settle.............heloooo sue you out there:D

[uneverdid]

Hi guys ive been watching this thread with interest even contributing to it at times. Surely we are all on here to help each other not to criticise, i agree a debate can be healthy at times but i dont think some of the comments are necessary. Lets remember our aim and that is to be sure of our own peace of mind and not to let the Cr***y certain mortgage lenders get the better of us.

[Smarterchick]

Yep lets get back to the main tenet of this thread .......I think Sue may have b*ggered off again............ hope not perhaps waiting for the dust to settle.............heloooo sue you out there:D

 

He was in his school holidays but he's back at school now, easter holidays are over for him...he's only 15 after all, give him a break...

[Suetonius]

He was in his school holidays but he's back at school now, easter holidays are over for him...he's only 15 after all, give him a break...

 

Pee Off... Yes sadly, some of us do have to work during the week.

 

Anyway.. I am going to have my Dinner.. It has been a loooooonnnnnnngggggg DAY !!

[JonCris]

Aw! Don't forget to eat all your greens or you won't grow up to be strong lad:)

[Suetonius]

Sue welcome back;) If now't else I got your attention:D - Now to the fray

 

I understand you point of view & the very sound reasons for it - but I do believe like many honest people your missing the bigger picture namely that the banks WILL & HAVE lied & not only about securitization I might add

 

Of course it's beneficial to have the SPV liquidated in order to not only recover what you can by repossession but also to trigger the insurance payout. - also the SPV by it's terms of agreement has no intention whatsoever of honouring the term of the originators mortgage contract usually 25 years

 

 

Lol I am very aware of how much bankers, lawyers and accountants lie.

 

However, no matter what lies they tell to us or to each other, they can't magically change an equitable assignment into a legal/absolute assignment.

 

If the assignment is only equitable, the legal right to commence proceedings would remain with the mortgage provider. If assignment has taken place and a notice has not been given to the borrower, the assignment can only ever be equitable.

 

There are really no if's and certainally no but's, either it is equitable or it is legal. If it is legal, there has to be a notice to the borrower.*

 

Assignment + no notice to the borrower = equitable assignment

Assignment + notice to the borrower = legal assignment

 

(I appreciate it is a little more complex, but the basic's are there:D)

 

Even if behind closed doors, it is nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it is legal assignment really. It really doesn't matter, if there is no notice it can only be equitable and the legal rights remain with the mortgage lender.

 

I still don't understand why a house being repossessed rather than the borrower remortgaging would be more desirable to any of the parties involved. If a borrower was to remortgage, they get all their money back, this may not be the case if the house is repossessed.

 

(*this is if s.136 of the Law of Property Act is applicable)

[Suetonius]

Aw! Don't forget to eat all your greens or you won't grow up to be strong lad:)

 

I always eat my greens

[bustthematrix]

That's right Uneverdid. We need to keep our emotions in check as we debate.

JC for what it's worth, in my view, SadButTrue has a point. A newspaper article alone is hardly worth basing facts on. We all know that generally, they are sensationalists and their business is to sell NEWS, not to diseminate facts! So they tend to mix facts with hype and leave out important tidbits that may hinder their no.1 purpose i.e. to sell copy. I'm not they're incapable of telling the truth, just that they are not wholly dependable.

 

On this particular issue with RBS, on the face of it, it may seem that RBS are simply doing just that, demanding immediate redemption for no apparent justified reason though something tells me it has to do with the ultra low rate they are on + the fact that it's interest only.

 

I'm NOT saying that's grounds for repossession or any such action AT ALL (after all, there are some Halifax, HSBC, C&G clients on trackers on BBR - 0.5% who are now paying 1p per month), simply that this may have irked someone in the bank.

 

Anyway, it'll go to court and we'll see what the judge makes of Natwest/RBS case. No doubt, the troubled borrowers will make sure the outcome hits the media.

 

For me, the fact that Natwest 'may' be doing this does not proove your point, it comes down to each mortgage contract and what it permits.

[Dangermouse]

Hi all

 

I understand what is being stated, i.e that the only difference between an equitable assigment and a legal assignment is that notice has to be given for it to be 'legal'. However, (& I may be a bit thick!) but if that is the only distinction, it is surely clear that not providing a notice is only a 'device' so that the assignment is not registered at the LR.

 

Therefore if equity's 'rule' is that the law considers that "to be done which ought to be done" is it not unlawful for the notice not to be formally given to the borrower?

 

yours confused

 

 

Dangermouse

[foolishgirl]

... it is surely clear that not providing a notice is only a 'device' so that the assignment is not registered at the LR.

 

Therefore if equity's 'rule' is that the law considers that "to be done which ought to be done" is it not unlawful for the notice not to be formally given to the borrower?

 

It would be illegal if this is what has taken place dangermouse, but it is that little word 'if' that is causing the debate. Has the (nudge, nudge) assignment actually taken place & in what form & how do you prove it?

[atwozee]

Assignment + no notice to the borrower = equitable assignment

 

IMO it could also mean absolute assignment has taken place but the assignment is ineffectual until notice is served on the borrower – small difference but important all the same.

[Suetonius]

IMO it could also mean absolute assignment has taken place but the assignment is ineffectual until notice is served on the borrower – small difference but important all the same.

 

Not really no. A notice of assignment is a legal requirement under s136 of the Law of Propert Act 1925.

 

If a legal/absolute assignment is ineffectual because a notice has not been given then it can only be an equitable assignment. It can only be one or the other, either equitable or legal/absolute..

 

It is very black and White with no grey area's

[atwozee]

Not really no. A notice of assignment is a legal requirement under s136 of the Law of Propert Act 1925.

 

If a legal/absolute assignment is ineffectual because a notice has not been given then it can only be an equitable assignment. It can only be one or the other, either equitable or legal/absolute..

 

It is very black and White with no grey area's

 

No - sorry - that is your interpretation – s136 states that an absolute assignment is effectual in law if a notice has been served on the borrower – it does not say that an absolute assignment cannot take place otherwise – just that it would be ineffectual in law – not so black and white really IMO

[Suetonius]

welcome back SS, I see your name down the bottom. I hoe you had a nice holiday

[Suetonius]

No - sorry - that is your interpretation – s136 states that an absolute assignment is effectual in law if a notice has been served on the borrower – it does not say that an absolute assignment cannot take place otherwise – just that it would be ineffectual in law – not so black and white really IMO

 

? if it not effectual in law, how can it therefore be a legal assignment ?

[atwozee]

? if it not effectual in law, how can it therefore be a legal assignment ?

 

It would become a legal assignment once the debtor was given notice – that could be anytime after the sale agreement was made between the assignor and the assignee. As I said – s136 would not prevent an absolute assignment taking place just because notice was not served on the borrower.

A lot of your argument rests on the importance of the NoA – that really only becomes important when the assignee wishes to pursue the legal charge – before they pursue the matter through the court they must ensure that notice of the assignment has taken place.

[Suetonius]

It would become a legal assignment once the debtor was given notice – that could be anytime after the sale agreement was made between the assignor and the assignee. As I said – s136 would not prevent an absolute assignment taking place just because notice was not served on the borrower.

A lot of your argument rests on the importance of the NoA – that really only becomes important when the assignee wishes to pursue the legal charge – before they pursue the matter through the court they must ensure that notice of the assignment has taken place.

 

I mean no disrespect and I am not trying to funny with you. You are aware that an absolute assignment is a legal assignment ?

 

The importance of the notice had been highlighted as the point was raised that the mortgage lender could not take a borrower to court following the securitisation of their mortgage. This is something that I don't agree with

[Suetonius]

An absolute (everything) cannot be equitable as it includes the right to sue