Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[enoughisenough]

Can you post a link to thread Liz?

 

Ta.

[Smarterchick]

Can you post a link to thread Liz?

 

Ta.

 

 

Come on EIE, we're slow today http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/amex/193706-amex-newmans-statutory-demand.html

[enoughisenough]

OK I admit it. I'm a muppet.

[Liz Southern]

OK I admit it. I'm a muppet.

 

No muppets today!!

 

Just quicker fingers than me.

 

hee hee

Liz.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello EIE!

 

Not that we need telling this. Just nice to see it in e-print. You have a lovely way with words. Why don't you submit an article to love money.com

 

Banks are still a bunch of parasites

Letting the banks fail may well have been the better option than trying to prop them up. Indeed, inverse decimation would've got my vote...not 1 in 10 killed off, but 9 out of 10 should've been killed off to leave just 10% on a low standard wage, living in constant fear for their jobs, homes and family's well being.

 

Nothing brutal there, because it's simply what we all have to put up with every day.

 

Right now, the bankers are taking the pish. Propping them up has simply earned us their contempt. They must think we are all incredibly stupid, ineffectual and collectively weak. They are gagging to get back to their greedy old unregulated ways, inventing more and more number-money for themselves, on the back of the junk-heavy debt-based economy starved of real money they have engineered. The twisted show must go on, gobbling up scarce resources at an exponential rate, whilst its other end craps all over the planet upon which we all depend.

 

The bankers just do not get it. Increasing numbers of people now hate them with an absolute, total and utter passion.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[enoughisenough]

H! BRW

 

I was about to quote from above and then comment on it but... it's all quotable so I'll just select your sign off.

 

The bankers just do not get it. Increasing numbers of people now hate them with an absolute, total and utter passion.

 

couldn't agree more.

 

Cheers, EiE.

[Smarterchick]

How wonderful it would have been if the governement had had the foresight, rather than paying all that money to the banks, had given it to people in any kind of debt, be it mortgage loans or credit cards, to pay the banks off and wipe out personal debt. That way we would have money to spend in shops, businesses would have thrived, the banks would have received their money in the same way, personal debt would have been all but wiped out and the Labour government would have been assured of re-election even if they had Gordon Brown at the helm and not mickey mouse. Too easy I guess?

[enoughisenough]

They probably could still be reassured of winning. One sure fire way would be to enforce the regulations that exist. It was a golden opportunity and they fumbled it. The banks would have just had to like it or go to the wall. The pre action protocols are a joke. Just enforce the regulations that exist.

 

After quantitative easing (printing money - billions of it) there is only one option left if that doesn't work. The economy must be in the most serious doo-doo if all this doesn't trigger inflation. They are now scared witless that that this is what they are going to have to do.

 

I've heard it's called the parachute drop - they give us the money and they don't like the thought of that one bit. The £2000 off a new car for trading in your old one is a first very minor tentative step in this direction. But I guess they are so scared that people will wipe off their debt and are now so wizened up to sharp practices by the finance industry that they will never again be able to extract so much cash out of us. Poor things. Actually if they went a bit easier on us instead of trying to eat us (as BRW put it), they would probably still make obscene profits.

[Liz Southern]

How wonderful it would have been if the governement had had the foresight, rather than paying all that money to the banks, had given it to people in any kind of debt, be it mortgage loans or credit cards, to pay the banks off and wipe out personal debt. That way we would have money to spend in shops, businesses would have thrived, the banks would have received their money in the same way, personal debt would have been all but wiped out and the Labour government would have been assured of re-election even if they had Gordon Brown at the helm and not mickey mouse. Too easy I guess?

 

I told Gordon Brown that. He sent me back four pages of, "We had to save the banks, blah blah blah." Yes, well, coming from a banker like him, he would say that.

 

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

The £2000 off a new car for trading in your old one is a first very minor tentative step in this direction.

 

And it's all very well for them to take a grand off the price of a car but the industry will just hike the price before telling us they've taken the other grand off.

 

That £2K will buy the front two wheels. Who's going to pay for the rest of the vehicle?

 

And if you get made bankrupt, keep your old banger, as the bailiffs won't want it!

 

Regards

Liz

[underdog13]

The £2000 off a new car gimmick is another sharp practice - when you factor in all the VAT and taxes the government rakes off, they stand to raise far more than they are giving away.

Edited June 29, 2009 by underdog13

[enoughisenough]

Hi Liz. I'm in total agreement. A daft scheme if you ask me.

 

Point being that they will do anything to avoid actually placing power back in the hands of the consumer, and at the same time would rather encourage us to go and spend what little we have on a never ending cycle of new gizmos, plasmas, cars and god knows what else. If we don't consume our beautiful way of life will surely end.

 

Work harder, do overtime, get a second job, borrow if it helps, just don't fall behind the 'others'. Fall behind on your payments by all means because then they can really get the funny money flying into their hands.

[Liz Southern]

Be careful how you use this one Liz. The sympathy of your DJ may well depend on whether he has spoken to Chester CC recently.

 

Chester County Court or Council? What have I missed?

 

Regards

Liz

[foolishgirl]

Chester County Court or Council? What have I missed?

 

Regards

Liz

 

 

The long story is here Liz but guess it doesn't now concern you too much!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/198059-unenforceability-cases-hold-until.html

[Hungryforinfo]

If anyone has any thoughts on what if anything I can do after Oakwood Homeloans repossessed some buy to let properties, sold them for about half price and now are coming after me for the difference. Seeing the posts earlier on in this thread (4thFeb09) makes me wonder if there are any angles as Oakwood may well have sold securitised the debt before repossessing. Hopefully, this post doesn't knock the thread off course. They have not sent me any documents in reply to my SAR which makes me suspect the debt was securitised.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi all been busy have we???

has any one got any where yet with this, any court papers on it as I am now thinking that Kens did this and made me sell and did not own the mortgage and there fore had no right to do so.

So lets get the guns out!;-)

[gustavius rex]

l've been so busy with bailiff problems that l completely missed out on this thread and the appeal re. sub-prime mortgages, this to my great sorrow.

l or rather my wife has a mortgage with preferred and we have experienced a lot of problems with them. The latest incident came on the 3:rd of this month when we were overdue with our payments for 3 days and received a letter advicing us that if we did not pay up within 21 days they would re-possess. We were, further, adviced to contact the local council for alternative housing! This for a total arrears of £525.00!!!!

 

Preferred like most of these sub-prime lenders do no longer own my or your morgages. All, and l mean all mortgages have had their beneficial part sold off to ''investors''. That means that your morgage is owned by some dodgy outfit registred in Jersey or Cayman Islands. These outfits own the beneficial part and thereby the control of the actual mortgage. Preferred only owns the legal title which in this case means nothing. There is a company called Eurosail and they own a large chunk of preferred and south pacifics mortgages. They are located in Jersey and collect your payments through Capstone. Not only do they control your mortgage and your life, but, as they are off-shore they do not pay any taxes on the income. Billions in lost tax revenues and irresponsible practices, all supported by our government. You should ask yourselves why on earth we are paying for all this as the risk for these mortgages are still carried by preferred and the banks that supported them. lt's all nothing, but, a tax [problem] and in reality another ponsy sceam created to enrich a very few and [problem] the rest of us.

Gustavius

[ryde]

hello,i need help and quick i am involved in an active case with preferred and will put all your posts to the test.

background:i have a form a restriction registered at the land registry

preferred ignored this and in 2006 august gave my ex £10600 remortgage even though she and her new partner were on the dole!!!

because of my restriction preferred cannot register their charge and repossess the property

the matter is now with the land registry adjudicator as there is a big question as to whether the restriction stops registration of the charge

what i need to know is A)WOULD PREFERRED HAVE SECURITISED this mortgage to eurosail?how can i get evidence that they have sold the legal and beneficial title and are not nominees for eurosail(if this is who they have sold it to)I NEED TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC TRANSACTION DETAILS which are not contained in any of the prospectus i have seen via the irish stock exchange and their is no way preferred are going to give me this info

I will then put it to the adjudicator that as preferred do not legally own the mortgage they should not be involved in this litigation,i will use the riley case as a point of reference and ask for summary disposal

These proceedings are time limited i have about a week to get this evidence'HOW CAN THE TRANSACTION DETAILS BE OBTAINED????

THIS HAS TAKEN 5 YEARS OF MY LIFE AND I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE PREFERRED A BLOODY NOSE.

A SMALL TIP IF ANYONE GETS INVOLVED WITH A TRIBUNAL PUT ON YOUR LETTER COPY TO YOUR MP AS YOU GET A MUCH BETTER RESPONSE these judiciary bodies are all smug barristers on huge salaries living in a different world to most of us and usually make up there own rules as they go along they certainly don't follow their own statutory rules but that is another story.please post a quick reply if you have any info.thanks

[littledotty27]

Ryde

 

We have all been fighting Preferred/Capstone/spml/Lmc for a long time,if you can get a judge to sit down and listen and understand then please pass on his name and court details and we will all be there like a shot!!!

 

It doesn't seem to matter how much evidence you have they always side with the bigger fish.

 

If there is arrears on the account then you could take them for unfair charges etc.

Good luck in your case

[Mephistopheles]

If you want to know about securitisation please ask, I was the audit manager for it so I know it back to front.

 

In short, it doesn't matter who owns your mortgage, they can't change the terms and conditions.

 

What does everybody want to know?

 

Meph

[ryde]

thanks littledotty27 for quick reply,mortgage is not mine but my exes and the arrears are colossal it hasn,t been paid for two and a half years! my ex says she signed the deed under duress which is always a good defence i have an interest in the property protected by a restriction but it is as you say like some cliquey club the judiciary absolutely hate litigants in person what happened to the woolf reforms justice for all etc if you employ a solicitor the costs eat up what youve won anyway unless the other side stump up and they usually want money on account.

i have spent hours and hours on the civil procedure rules have been to the appeal court in the strand and have always met the same resistance,most judges are too pig headed to admit theyre wrong in anycase

the behaviour of pml is outrageous they can take on any mortgage with impunity as they know they can bundle it up with others and get away with it anyway next week will be a cruncher just hope i can find who the mortgage was sold on to by then,thanks again for reply

[ryde]

dear meph,re securitization what i have got to find out is a)has preferred sold the mortgage took out in august 2006 and if so who to(i suspect eurosail) and where would i get evidence of the transaction? i have looked at the eurosail prospectus for 2007 via the irish stock exchange and have noticed that there is a clause that preferred still hold the legal title to the mortgage and only sell the equitable title on,as their charge has never been registered they would only be equitable mortgagees in any case i would have thought?

[gustavius rex]

If you want to know about securitisation please ask, I was the audit manager for it so I know it back to front.

 

In short, it doesn't matter who owns your mortgage, they can't change the terms and conditions.

 

What does everybody want to know?

 

Meph

 

l am sure there's securitisation and securitisation. Most, if not all, lenders securitise their mortgage portofolios as they borrow money to fund the loans (mortgages). The money advanced normally comes from the money market and institutional investors. However, mortgage companies like preferred and spl etc. operates a bit differently as they are lending arms of investment banks. The securitisation is nothing else than trading in papers and that has completely changed the mortgage business. There are some very interesting threads in this forum regarding mortgage securitisation and the problems associated with this practice.

GR

[Liz Southern]

Hello Mephistopheles, and all & any barristers and lawyers who are reading this,

 

I would like to ask; if a mortgage has been securitized, (which I understand to be the selling on of the mortgage debt), does this mean in the eyes of the law that the mortgage debt has been sold on, and that the original building society no longer owns the debt? If this is so, then the contract is invalid, surely, and the debt has been gifted to the mortgagor (me).

 

I am thinking along the lines of; under the tort of contract, a contract has to be agreed between two parties, and a contract cannot be assigned or ended without the knowledge of one of those parties, without breach of contract taking place and the contract being invalid. And by invalid, I don't just mean unenforceable - I mean as if it never existed.

 

For a building society to write the option of later securitising the mortgage into the mortgage contract, the mortgagor must have been made aware of this by the mortgagee in the Main Mortgage Terms Information, or surely FSA regulations have been broken.

 

As well as breaching contract law, surely if the mortgagee no longer owns the debt, they cannot repossess the object of the debt, ie the property.

 

All comments welcome. I do intend to take on my building society about this. Someone has to create precedent.

 

Regards

Liz

Edited July 10, 2009 by Liz Southern
spelling.

[tifo]

Hi Liz,

 

You're thinking along good lines but it has always been said here that the bank only sells the benefit and right to collect the money from us, it does not sell legal ownership. It must then be checked to see if it can do this and apparently it can.

 

As for breaking FSA rules, an SPV should only be able to sell mortgages to investors if it owned them and if it makes this assertion in the prospectus then it has broken trading rules.

 

The bank and the SPV take benefit of whatever suits them at any time. To allow the bank to repossess it owns the mortgage and to allow the SPV to offer investments it owns it. They both own it when it suits them.