Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

Can anyone, post anything to show that the legal title has legally been assigned as a result of a mortgage being securitised ?

 

So Is IT ME?

 

The answer to my question is no then. You can't show me anything.

 

That is all you had to say... Just one word NO

[Suetonius]

have told them send mortgage charge that is reg against you at companies house....

 

that was 3 weeks ago but still nothing back

 

You do know, you can do this yourself and recieve a copy instantly

 

Just to show, how helpful I am IS IT ME? here is a link

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/2c0c917bc5cb2796daa69a8b534519e8/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo

Edited July 14, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

You will to excuse my confusion IS IT ME?

 

OH GOD I HAD TO ASK!!!! (LOL)

We are still in court and have asked that very question, the DJ god bless him did not know so set another date. The lender solicitor did not know(??) so he asked for time to find out.

Then we get a letter saying ' they are here to help and wish to do so so please let us know how we can help' have told them send mortgage charge that is reg against you at companies house and ' just put in writing that you own the mortgage FULLY and without any one else' that was 3 weeks ago but still nothing back why? and that is why I believe what I do and you believe what you do and never the twain shall meet:)

 

Is the above what happend or was it:

 

SC,

no that is what I am saying and its clear

THEY DID NOT WISH FOR THIS DOCUMENT TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN COURT AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS DONE.

which until I asked for it no deal or remortgage could be done or offered by ANY other lender.

But when it was asked for and agreed that it should be part of the documents when we had a re mortgage with an other lender at rates lower. All I will add a able to do is look at the details I gave.:-|

 

or was it....

 

In our case we where 2 TWO months in arrears and went to claim on our insurance policy with the lender because of an illness but OHHHH not covered sorry but went into court gave the Norgan case and the D/J could do nothing and case dismissed'NO REPO' and they where NOT awarded their costs but are now 8 months down the line trying to claim them plus £100 arrears charges and you say how wounderful they are

 

So Is It Me? Was it securitisation or the Norgan case ?

 

I do apologise as I do get slighty confused in my old age

 

I have asked you this before, but you did not answer. Which I personally found very interesting, considering how you throw your toys out of your pram when people do not answer your questions...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2141104.html

Edited July 14, 2009 by Suetonius

[JonCris]

My advice is don't do their work for them, let them find out who 'owns' the mortgage they should have done that before coming to court. Any lawyer worth his salt always makes sure as to who his client is. Also the fact that you might know thanks to Sue ain't relevant keep sh'tum

[Suetonius]

My advice is don't do their work for them, let them find out who 'owns' the mortgage they should have done that before coming to court. Any lawyer worth his salt always makes sure as to who his client is. Also the fact that you might know thanks to Sue ain't relevant keep sh'tum

 

Totally agree JC, he doesn't have to do it for them.

 

However, I would suggest he at least does it for himself. He might be surprised by what the form (I presume he is referring to 395) actually or rather doesn't say

Edited July 14, 2009 by Suetonius

[IS IT ME?]

Sue,

I said before you harp on about things should be and NOT really how there really are

DO YOU REALLY THINK THE LENDERS WOULD MAKE EASILY FOR ANY BROWER?

WOULD THEY REALLY PUT SUCH A DOCUMENT IN ANY ANY PALCE WE COULD USE IT?

YOU AGAIN HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE FACT, AS YOU SAY THE BOND HOLDERS HAVE NOTHING, NOTHING FOR THERE MONEY AND AGAIN I SAY MILLIONS FOR WHAT?

WHY NOT LOOK FOR WAYS IN WHICH TO HELP THESE PEOPLE OR IS THAT NOT YOUR AIM?

[Suetonius]

Sue,

I said before you harp on about things should be and NOT really how there really are

DO YOU REALLY THINK THE LENDERS WOULD MAKE EASILY FOR ANY BROWER?

WOULD THEY REALLY PUT SUCH A DOCUMENT IN ANY ANY PALCE WE COULD USE IT?

YOU AGAIN HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE FACT, AS YOU SAY THE BOND HOLDERS HAVE NOTHING, NOTHING FOR THERE MONEY AND AGAIN I SAY MILLIONS FOR WHAT?

WHY NOT LOOK FOR WAYS IN WHICH TO HELP THESE PEOPLE OR IS THAT NOT YOUR AIM?

 

Here we go again... toys and pram.. I will give it to you, you do love your CAPS....

 

I will put this as simply as I can for you.

 

For there to be a legal assignment, you would of have had to have been sent a notice of assignment.

 

If you was not sent a notice of assignment, than the assignment was equitable.

[Suetonius]

Here is some constructive feedback.

 

Instead of posting what you think, or what you believe...

 

Why not post evidence to support your view, add a little weight to it

[IS IT ME?]

Not toys and prams but some one looks for ways in which to help not as you do,

by the way I don't think any one has been given a notice and you have not shown any were why the 'good honest lenders would send one' as you think they are so good.

I said before I think you work in there some where

AND ITS THE MORTGAGE SALE AGREEMENT you need to get not any thing reg under the land reg act, oh I forgot you have one of these!

THAT will show who owns what and what should be reg at land reg office.

Looking back at the cases you have quoted I can not find any reference to this document in any case?

Look at the account for RFC then GMAC a company who had debts of £770K to one that has a book loan of some £300 million and the bond holders have nothing wake up and smell the coffee :mad:

[IS IT ME?]

oh so I should post my defence and give them the way to do me in court,

what a surprise

you know they read these as will as I do.

I REALLY, REALLY believe you work for these people.

AS I say you don't do any thing to help any one here

[Suetonius]

Ok, I will try again

 

You say:

 

I don't think any one has been given a notice and you have not shown any were why the 'good honest lenders would send one' as you think they are so good.

 

So there is no confusion, you say no one has been sent a notice. I completely agree with you that lenders do not send notice of assignments.

 

Ok, we have established a fact and something that we both can agree on

 

stay with me on this..

 

Now lets take this fact and point of agreement and look at it further. Let's consider the legal implications of a borrower, not being sent a notice of assignment

 

s.136 Law of Property Act 1925

 

"136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—"

 

The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003

 

 

PART 2

 

Modification of law requiring formalities

 

Certain legislation requiring formalities not to apply to financial collateral arrangements

 

"(3) Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (legal assignments of things in action) shall not apply (if it would otherwise do so) in relation to a financial collateral arrangement, to the extent that the section requires an assignment to be signed by the assignor or a person authorised on its behalf, in order to be effectual in law."

 

So it would appear that that the assignment does not need to be signed by the assignor. However, the requirement for "express notice in writing has been given to the debtor" is still a requirement.

 

If the legal requirement of a Notice of Assignment being sent to the borrwer is not met the assignment can only be equitable.

 

Therefore, the right to commence legal proceedings remains with the original mortgage lender.

IS IT ME? Can we agree on the implications of the above legislation and the implications of a Notice of Assignment not being sent to a borrower ?

 

I said before I think you work in there some where

 

Just for the record, I don't. However, what difference would it make.

 

Would it make any of the legislation, case law and the other sources I have quoted incorrect or wrong in some way?

 

 

AND ITS THE MORTGAGE SALE AGREEMENT you need to get not any thing reg under the land reg act, oh I forgot you have one of these! THAT will show who owns what and what should be reg at land reg office. Looking back at the cases you have quoted I can not find any reference to this document in any case? Look at the account for RFC then GMAC a company who had debts of £770K to one that has a book loan of some £300 million and the bond holders have nothing wake up and smell the coffee :mad:

 

Now this is getting a little boring IS IT ME? I have been telling you for months. However, to prevent any further confusion I will tell you again.

 

Originally Posted 1st May 2009

 

I will put this in capitals to avoid any confusion

 

I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE MORTGAGE SALE AGREEMENT

 

I CANNOT TELL YOU WANT IT STATES

[Suetonius]

you know they read these as will as I do.

I REALLY, REALLY believe you work for these people.

AS I say you don't do any thing to help any one here

 

Would you rather I say yes, securitisation means that the legal title has been transferred by legal assignment, so the mortgage lender cannot take you to Court.

 

Every part of me says that the above is wrong.

 

If I was to say that you was right, how would that be of help to anyone ?

[JonCris]

Agreed Sue There's no problem in the poster finding out for themselves just in case the other side tries to be creative however were you to suddenly reveal in court that you did know the Judge would probably take a very dim view of your actions & may even award adverse costs

 

As for the rest & whilst I do understand your arguments I also believe that they can be overturned & apposing precedent's set but also that it may take time

 

However I once again come back to the unfair relationship argument, this is where our greatest chance lays in defeating the lenders & their agents particularly as the FSA have now addmitted by their own words that securitization IS unfair to the consumer/borrower - so hows about discussing that instead

[Liz Southern]

the unfair relationship argument, this is where our greatest chance lays in defeating the lenders & their agents particularly as the FSA have now addmitted by their own words that securitization IS unfair to the consumer/borrower - so hows about discussing that instead

 

Hi JonCris,

 

Would you happen to know where it's written by the FSA that they think securitization is unfair. I'd like to use it in court. I'm writing my defence for my repo hearing. I happen to think that a defence need not take one path only. It can have strength in challenging a claimant on multiple points. Where one fails, another may succeed.

 

Regards

Liz

Edited July 14, 2009 by Liz Southern
spelling - again!!!

[JonCris]

Returning to assignment I think the only reason the borrower is not avoid the transfer of title but to avoid notifying him the unpalatable truth about his mortgage

 

After all not transfering title/ownership has no other benefits to the lender or bond holder other than keeping their transaction secret from the consumer & it's on these arguments that I think we could win - After all if everything is fine why conceal it from any kind of public scrutiny

[JonCris]

Hi JonCris,

 

Would you happen to know where it's written by the FSA that they think securitization is unfair. I'd like to use it in court. I'm writing my defence for my repo hearing. I happen to think that a defence need not take one path only. It can have strength in challenging a claimant on multiple points. Where one fails, another may succeed.

 

Regards

Liz

 

No problem Here’s the link to this week’s oral evidence from the FSA, Lord Myners and Rt Hon John Healey MP

 

http://www.publications.parliame nt.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc766-ii/uc76602.htm

 

“Lord Myners: The FSA has been very clear that in future the securitisation process and documentation should not in any way inhibit the ability of the lender or the lender's agents to enter into negotiations with borrowers to help them cope with distress in terms of servicing their obligations. In practice, even when there is a documentary restriction, there are waiver processes, and I believe it is appropriate for the agent, on behalf of the securitisation vehicle, to persuade the lenders, the funders of those schemes, that it is in their interests to support borrowers and that to not do so is actually probably to put the market under more pressure which has consequential collateral negative outcomes for them. Therefore, I believe, Chairman, that there has been an issue in the previous form of securitisation documentation and I believe that that could be addressed by constructive engagement, but the FSA is very clear that in future it will not accept forms of securitisation documents which do not allow appropriate forbearance engagement.”

[Suetonius]

As for the rest & whilst I do understand your arguments I also believe that they can be overturned & apposing precedent's set but also that it may take time

 

I agree it will take time and with the right arguments, it is likely that one day, as with any argument it will be overturned. However, as yet it has not been overturned and apposing precedents, have not been set.

 

However, at the same time to build a case that could go before a Judge we have to move away from the position that some posters are in at the moment.

 

As you know, you can't go to a judge and say I believe this or I think that.. There has to be more weight to the argument.

 

It is not so much about what people know, or in some cases what they think they know, It is more about what they can prove.

 

At the present time, going by this and they over securitisation threads, there does not appear to be anything to over come the equitable assignment paradox

 

However I once again come back to the unfair relationship argument, this is where our greatest chance lays in defeating the lenders & their agents particularly as the FSA have now addmitted by their own words that securitization IS unfair to the consumer/borrower - so hows about discussing that instead

 

Whereas, I can't support the legal title argument as I personally feel there are to many holes in it. I do agree and support the "Treating Customers Fairly" approach.

 

In the short term, this will be far more successful than going to Court and telling the judge that the mortgage lender cannot instigate proceedings as the mortgage has been securitised.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Hi JonCris,

 

Would you happen to know where it's written by the FSA that they think securitization is unfair. I'd like to use it in court. I'm writing my defence for my repo hearing. I happen to think that a defence need not take one path only. It can have strength in challenging a claimant on multiple points. Where one fails, another may succeed.

 

Regards

Liz

 

There is also this:

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/newsletters/MLB1.pdf

 

Fair treatment of customers with securitised mortgages

 

We found that fewer tools are usually available for resolving arrears for securitised loans.

 

For example, securitisation covenants could prevent borrowers being offered the option of extending their mortgage term or switching to interest-only for a short period.

 

We expect all customers to be treated fairly and to be offered a relevant range of options for resolving arrears.

 

New securitisation should not contain provisions that could lead to less fair treatment of borrowers.

 

As, I have also previously posted..

 

most prospectuses include a condition stating something along the lines of:

 

"Risk factors

Loans subject to product switches and further advances will be repurchased by the seller from the mortgages trustee, which will affect the prepayment rate of the loans, and this may affect the yield to maturity of the issuer notes and Assignment of the loans and their related security."(1)

 

Therefore, it could be argued that the lender would have to comply with the above requirement before providing either a product switch (which could include conversation from repayment to interest only) or a further advance (which could include capitalisation of arrears).

 

Taking into consideration the current economic climate and that the majority of subprime lenders are in the process of reducing with the intention to close their loan books, would they be want to repurchase the loans ?

 

Admittedly the right to a product switch or a further advance, may not be technically given to a borrower under a standard mortgage agreement. However, the effect of arrears not being capitalised and mortgages not being switched from repayment to interest only, is having a negative impact upon some consumers.

 

Lenders are obligated to treat consumers fairly (2). The effect of securitisation may have a negative effect on a lenders ability or desire to do that.

 

(1) HOLMES FINANCING (NO. 5) PLC prospectus - page 78 (as attached)

(2) Mortgage Code - Section 1.1 (Mortgages provided between 1 July 1997 - 31 October 2004)

FSA Handbook section PRIN 2.1.1 (6) & MCOB 13.3 (Mortgages provided after 31 October 2004)

Edited July 15, 2009 by Suetonius
Added Links

[Suetonius]

Returning to assignment I think the only reason the borrower is not avoid the transfer of title but to avoid notifying him the unpalatable truth about his mortgage

 

After all not transfering title/ownership has no other benefits to the lender or bond holder other than keeping their transaction secret from the consumer & it's on these arguments that I think we could win - After all if everything is fine why conceal it from any kind of public scrutiny

 

I am glad at least we can agree that the title/ownership has not been transferred.

 

Isn't it really the case that it is more of a risk for the investors that the legal title has not been transferred / assigned as it directly restricts their rights

 

Is it really any more concealed than anything else within the Financial Industry. For example, if you were to ask them for a copy of the contract between say NatWest and their toilet cleaners. It is just as unlikely that a copy of this contract would be given to you.

[Liz Southern]

if you were to ask them for a copy of the contract between say NatWest and their toilet cleaners.

Subject a little "off-piste"??:grin::grin:

(Meant in the best possible taste.)

Liz

[Suetonius]

As of today 15 July 2009, I do not think that securitisation (at least with regard to legal title) is the Golden egg that is has previously been protrayed to be in this thread and others by some posters.

[Suetonius]

Subject a little "off-piste"??:grin::grin:

(Meant in the best possible taste.)

Liz

 

lol

 

I was trying to think of the most innocent contract possible and as I am always told my mind is in the gutter, toilet was the first thing that sprang to mind;)

[JonCris]

Yes sue but the toilet cleaners never ever contracted with me at anytime so I would'nt expect to see their contract anymore than I would expect to see any other contract that didn't remotely involve me - whereas the securitization contract most certainly does have affect on me

[Liz Southern]

Many thanks, JonCris and Suetonius, for the website links. They're both very useful.

 

Regards

Liz

[Suetonius]

Yes sue but the toilet cleaners never ever contracted with me at anytime so I would'nt expect to see their contract anymore than I would expect to see any other contract that didn't remotely involve me - whereas the securitization contract most certainly does have affect on me

 

I think is is fair to say that you could ask a financial institution to provide you a copy a contract relating to pretty much anything and the answer will be the same.

 

Not saying that is right, just don't think any extra emphasis is placed upon securitisation.