Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Banks have different limits above which they require Probate. So it may be Probate is not needed, although as he died with no Will that could complicate things. Is all the £28k with Virgin Money? Your wife should contact all banks who hold his money with the death certificate and ask them what they need to release the funds to her. Most banks have a central "bereavement department". Check their websites. Use that department rather than general call centre or bank branch. Your wife may also have to provide evidence that she is his daughter. When his wife died it sounds like they had a joint bank account so that's why her money just went across to him. But as it isn't a joint account now transfer to your wife won't be quite that simple.  
    • That explains it then. MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed.  'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky? The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.
    • She's an only child and he as a brother and sister. He has no will and we have done a check on this to find out if he had left one and nothing has come up. He has savings of around 28k His sister and brother are well off so 28k is nothing to them and aren't interested in his money. This just leaves my wife/his daughter. Would this still need to go to probate there is no estate e.g house or business to sell and the amount left in his bank is just small? When his wife died they just closed her bank account and moved her money across to his account and we just assumed that once my wife has handed in the death certificate and shown evidence of who she is the same would apply to her? We don't know yet the council have only just written to us today with a guide of what to do next.  
    • Did your FiL leave a Will and if so who is the Executor? Strictly speaking banks could refuse to take instructions until Probate is granted but In practice I would expect the bank to take instructions to cancel the DD if the Executor presents the death certificate and a certified copy of the Will
    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
  • 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 4512 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

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

ITS THE SALE DOCUMENT WHICH WOULD CLEARLY SHOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED but will the companies show you that documents NO WAY becuase it will show that they the bond holders have FULL title and every thing that comes with it.

 

As I have previously asked SS, under what legal process has the legal title been transfered ?

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

smarterchick re post 392 I agree with the all the good comments you make yet i am of the view no one on this forum or site are prepared to take this lot on re this issue unless they have a deep pocket and a top wack lawyer .Ask yourself the ?who in this country be it banks ,lawyers,cc judges ,appeal judges, LR,MPs police are even interested in this issue none that I know off ...

Your post should have ended with , Because I'm worth it :D

I now

Pronounce you are to be called superchick:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

smarterchick re post 392 I agree with the all the good comments you make yet i am of the view no one on this forum or site are prepared to take this lot on re this issue unless they have a deep pocket and a top wack lawyer .Ask yourself the ?who in this country be it banks ,lawyers,cc judges ,appeal judges, LR,MPs police are even interested in this issue none that I know off ...

Your post should have ended with , Because I'm worth it :D

I now

Pronounce you are to be called superchick:cool:

 

 

Flattery will get you everywhere :p... thank you, but no one was interested in Bank charges once upon a time, we were all the so called 'down and outs' and 'won't pays' so no-one took any notice. Look what happened to that.

 

I have seen many counter arguments on other sites to this securitisation issue, this Mark Wardsworth fellow, Bigfatbigot and a few others and Carmel Butler seems totally aware of their criticisms, there's one who even states he'd worked in the same practice as her, so she knows what's she's doing, knows the criticisms and seems determined to make her stand against what she sees as an injustice within the banking world. Brave lady, don't write it off quite yet, if she's challenging this I think she is very brave indeed.

 

Go ask Mark Gander (Bankfodder) and Dave who started this CAG forum what they were told initially about claiming bank charges and see what they have to say - I bet they are watching these threads like hawks, what CB says, and apparently supported by Supersleuth is a massive counter to bank practices, but just because it says in the terms and conditions what happens does not mean it's legal or lawful - wind back to bank charges.

 

This forum is here to explore and empower, so long as people don't start going gung-ho and going it alone into a black hole of litigation before knowing EXACTLY what's at stake - (your home for one - massive legal bills for two) then it is sensible to watch, learn, research, ask, explore, test before taking it on and of course, none of those people you mention want to know because think of what is at stake - it all seems too incredible and bigfatbigot seems to believe it to be so...but there were plenty of BFB's in the banking charges forums too...so lets give this a chance to be proved wrong..keep up the debate, respect others rights to their opinions even if you beg to differ challenge like seutonius irritatingly does quite regularly and peice by peice the truth will unfold.

 

Superchick :p I could get carried away with that!

Edited by Smarterchick
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Superchick :p I could get carried away with that!

 

You could be carried away SC!! :D

 

Seriously, you're absolutely right. If we never challenge, we never move forward, not just in consumer issues like this but in general.

 

BTW, did you know the world's not flat?!

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

the Easter Bunny don't exist...

 

Oh no, I KNOW the Easter Bunny exists - who else would bring my Easter eggs? :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

Hi

 

Sorry if I am having a senior moment but I don't quite understand Seutonias on the following:

 

The essence of a trust is that the concept of ownership is divided: the trustee is given the legal title to the property which gives them the duty to manage and control the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries who are exclusively entitled to the benefit of the property.

 

If the trustee has the legal title then surely they own the mortgage so our mortgages have been sold to them in a true sale. In my prospectus on page 9 it shows that SHARE TRUSTEE Capita Trust Nominees No. 1

Limited have 100% ownership and PARENT Southern Pacific Securities

05-3 Parent Limited have 100% beneficial ownership.

 

Sorry but can you explain this in laymens terms as I am getting very confused.

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Sorry if I am having a senior moment but I don't quite understand Seutonias on the following:

 

The essence of a trust is that the concept of ownership is divided: the trustee is given the legal title to the property which gives them the duty to manage and control the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries who are exclusively entitled to the benefit of the property.

 

If the trustee has the legal title then surely they own the mortgage so our mortgages have been sold to them in a true sale. In my prospectus on page 9 it shows that SHARE TRUSTEE Capita Trust Nominees No. 1 Limited have 100% ownership and PARENT Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 Parent Limited have 100% beneficial ownership.

 

Sorry but can you explain this in laymens terms as I am getting very confused.

 

thanks

 

My previous post was not specific to an individual securtisiation. It was an attempt to explain why I had previously refered to the law of trusts and the different between legal and equity ownership. I am sorry, it was an attempt to clear the confusion, not to add to it.

 

Can you post a link to your prospectus, as it is easier to respond after reading the document as a whole rather than selected quotes.

 

Many Thanks

 

Sue

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why you are confused and that is why it is always best to look at the document in its entirety, rather than just at certain extracts.

 

If you continue onto page ten, it makes the process a little clearer.

 

"The Issuer has been established to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans (individually the "Loans", collectively and, together with the Collateral Security (as defined in Condition 2(f)) relating thereto, the "Mortgage Pool") originated by Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited ("SPML")"

 

"The Issuer has been established to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans"

 

If this extract was to be read by itself, I would consider that this would imply that the legal title would be sold to the Issuer.

 

However,

 

Page 68 of your prospectus states:

 

"The Issuer will grant a first fixed equitable charge in favour of the Trustee over its interest in the Loans and the Collateral Security"

"The sale of the Loans and their related Collateral Security to the Issuer will take effect in equity only"

The only interest the issuer has in your mortgage is in equity. This equity interest is secured by a fixed equitable charge in favour of the trustee.

 

which leads onto:

 

 

In English law distinction is drawn between ownership at law and that which subsists in equity. These types of ownership as they operate in English law are very different, but that nevertheless they are capable of simultaneous existence, and will often arise simultaneously in respect of property.

 

 

Therefore, the ownership of your mortgage has only been transferred in equity and not in law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the Issuer is not the trustee and that still does not explain your earlier quote :

 

The essence of a trust is that the concept of ownership is divided: the trustee is given the legal title to the property which gives them the duty to manage and control the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries who are exclusively entitled to the benefit of the property.

 

Does the trustee own the mortgage or not?

 

Sorry but to me if you own something then you have bought it to do so or am I really missing something.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the Issuer is not the trustee and that still does not explain your earlier quote :

 

The essence of a trust is that the concept of ownership is divided: the trustee is given the legal title to the property which gives them the duty to manage and control the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries who are exclusively entitled to the benefit of the property.

 

Does the trustee own the mortgage or not?

 

Sorry but to me if you own something then you have bought it to do so or am I really missing something.

 

 

 

As I have previously said, my previous explaination in relation to trust's was posted to explain why I had previously mentioned the law of trusts. So please do not base any conclusions in relation upon the securitisation of your mortgage upon it.

 

My previous post was not specific to an individual securtisiation. It was an attempt to explain why I had previously refered to the law of trusts and the different between legal and equity ownership. I am sorry, it was an attempt to clear the confusion, not to add to it.

 

After reading your prospectus, it would appear that your mortgage effectively has two owners.

 

Legal Title: SPML (mortgage provider / lender)

Equitable Title: Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc

 

The equitable title, is secured by a fixed equitable charge in favour of the Capita Trust Company Limited (the trustee)

 

 

However, the above is based upon my understanding

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issued share capital of the Issuer comprises 50,000 ordinary shares of £1.00, of which 49,999 are held by the Parent and one is held by the Share Trustee, as nominee for the Parent under the terms of the Share Trust. The entire issued share capital of the Parent is held by the Share Trustee under the terms of the Charitable Share Trust. The Issuer has no subsidiaries. The Issuer has been established as a special purpose vehicle or entity for the purpose of issuing asset backed securities

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate boils down to a few simple legal principles.

 

What legal process was used to transfer title ?

 

If it is as per s.136 of the Law of Property Act, it does not matter what the presale documents, prospectus or even the sales agreement say.

 

Without a notice being sent to the borrower, the assignment can only ever be equitable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a good Easter Supersleuth, I'm sure you'll appreciate the rest given the great work you've been doing on here (and long hours) and in preparation for the coming weeks.

 

Oh and sorry Seutonius, I was typing up when you posted - great work! :D

 

I'd just like to add something here which concerns me a little just now with people reading over these securitisation threads. This is no reflection upon any poster whatsoever - it is just a warning I think people should take on board:

 

The debate is getting quite deep, very informative, but - very dangerous. It is important to take on board the implications of reading too much into what is being said just yet and I'd just like to add this warning to anyone reading these threads.

 

All secured financial products carry a rider:

 

" Your property is at risk if you do not keep up payments on your mortgage or loan"...and so too must these threads

 

Be very aware, that what you are reading on these securitisation threads IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, but merely OPINIONS from people who have some knowledge of the practices of securitisation and there are others who are TESTING THESE THEORIES being discussed. Bank charges and Unenforceable Agreements have all gone through this process, but there have been many casualties along the way of people reading from these forums claiming or presenting this to a judge without taking proper legal advice first and they have paid, and continue to pay, an extremely heavy price for not doing so. This action could cost you your home and the last thing anyone wants on here is for anyone to lose their home as a result of not being fully prepared or legally represented. It is far too early to even begin to think there is any mileage in these arguments and Carmel Butlers memorandum to the Treasury is precisely that - a Memorandum from a 'Consumer and Taxpayer' - it says so on the report.

 

It was not, as far as I am aware and I could be wrong, commissioned by the Treasury - it is a brilliant insight, very informative, explosive if confirmed peice of researched evidence from a distinquished and experienced individual with an obviously thorough knowledge of the industry - but it is Not Legal Advice, not given or purported to be as legal advice and there are many legal hurdles, case laws and counter arguments being put forward to test the theories being proposed which is an extremely healthy exercise to be going through prior to any kind of action plan being put forward for the greater public use, so do tread carefully. All contributors are doing what this forum is so good at -acheiving through its collective might - analysing peoples ideas, peoples knowledge, challenging the laws, case laws, potentials and pitfalls and we are only but scratching the surface yet.

 

SO PLEASE.... everyone, by all means and I encourage you to join the debate, carry on this wonderful research, keep on unearthing as much as you can, but PLEASE do not put your homes at risk by thinking this is some kind of "get-out of paying your mortgage or loan scheme" on the basis of what you are reading. If you wish to take up any part of these arguments get a thorough and proper legal opinion specific to YOU. As with the Credit Agreements scenario, everyone's mortgage and loan is different and the circumstances behind these securitisations are as we have seen very, very complex and thank goodness for Supersleuth and the likes of Suetonius and others who barter thoughts so professionally without taking things personally - these issues on CAG are not personal - they are for the benefit of the public good. - If we all agreed with one another debate would die.

 

Lets keep digging, debating and uncovering, but keep your eyes strictly on your own family's personal financial safety. Good searching, good luck and thank you-all of you. We have done it with Bank Charges - this is a new challenge - but it could amount to nothing - always remember that and protect that which is most precious first. If not - Get proper legal advice.

 

Smarterchick - you know it makes sense.

 

 

I could not agree with this more. Please do not base any legal decisions upon anything that I post or for that matter anything that anyone else post's in a forum.

Even if it appears that an individual is knowledgeable, that may not be the case. They may think the know more than they do. (including moi;))

Link to post
Share on other sites

But You Have Not Answered The Question What Do The Bond Holders Get For There Millions???? If The Company Goes Belle Up Then But Your Quotes They Loss All There Money, I Don't Think So.

Do You Work For One By The Way?

No Company Is Going To Show Any One The Sale Agreement And Why Is This, Don't Ask Because Ive Tried To See This And Asked A Court To Force The Company To Show This But They Screamed Like A Pig Not To Show It Giving Every Reason Not To Again Why?

Have You Paid A Erc Of £20k No Then Ask Some One Who Has Where This Moneys Gone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a good Easter Supersleuth, I'm sure you'll appreciate the rest given the great work you've been doing on here (and long hours) and in preparation for the coming weeks.

 

Oh and sorry Seutonius, I was typing up when you posted - great work! :D

 

I'd just like to add something here which concerns me a little just now with people reading over these securitisation threads. This is no reflection upon any poster whatsoever - it is just a warning I think people should take on board:

 

The debate is getting quite deep, very informative, but - very dangerous. It is important to take on board the implications of reading too much into what is being said just yet and I'd just like to add this warning to anyone reading these threads.

 

All secured financial products carry a rider:

 

" Your property is at risk if you do not keep up payments on your mortgage or loan"...and so too must these threads

 

Be very aware, that what you are reading on these securitisation threads IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, but merely OPINIONS from people who have some knowledge of the practices of securitisation and there are others who are TESTING THESE THEORIES being discussed. Bank charges and Unenforceable Agreements have all gone through this process, but there have been many casualties along the way of people reading from these forums claiming or presenting this to a judge without taking proper legal advice first and they have paid, and continue to pay, an extremely heavy price for not doing so. This action could cost you your home and the last thing anyone wants on here is for anyone to lose their home as a result of not being fully prepared or legally represented. It is far too early to even begin to think there is any mileage in these arguments and Carmel Butlers memorandum to the Treasury is precisely that - a Memorandum from a 'Consumer and Taxpayer' - it says so on the report.

 

It was not, as far as I am aware and I could be wrong, commissioned by the Treasury - it is a brilliant insight, very informative, explosive if confirmed peice of researched evidence from a distinquished and experienced individual with an obviously thorough knowledge of the industry - but it is Not Legal Advice, not given or purported to be as legal advice and there are many legal hurdles, case laws and counter arguments being put forward to test the theories being proposed which is an extremely healthy exercise to be going through prior to any kind of action plan being put forward for the greater public use, so do tread carefully. All contributors are doing what this forum is so good at -acheiving through its collective might - analysing peoples ideas, peoples knowledge, challenging the laws, case laws, potentials and pitfalls and we are only but scratching the surface yet.

 

SO PLEASE.... everyone, by all means and I encourage you to join the debate, carry on this wonderful research, keep on unearthing as much as you can, but PLEASE do not put your homes at risk by thinking this is some kind of "get-out of paying your mortgage or loan scheme" on the basis of what you are reading. If you wish to take up any part of these arguments get a thorough and proper legal opinion specific to YOU. As with the Credit Agreements scenario, everyone's mortgage and loan is different and the circumstances behind these securitisations are as we have seen very, very complex and thank goodness for Supersleuth and the likes of Suetonius and others who barter thoughts so professionally without taking things personally - these issues on CAG are not personal - they are for the benefit of the public good. - If we all agreed with one another debate would die.

 

Lets keep digging, debating and uncovering, but keep your eyes strictly on your own family's personal financial safety. Good searching, good luck and thank you-all of you. We have done it with Bank Charges - this is a new challenge - but it could amount to nothing - always remember that and protect that which is most precious first. If not - Get proper legal advice.

 

Smarterchick - you know it makes sense.

 

Excellent advice Smarterchick:).................however if anyone is already being seriously threatened with repossession then I suggest they have nothing to lose & everything to gain by introducing these arguments as part of their fightback;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCirs,

well no one has answered the post above and that is what we did in court and the judge went quite, because he knew what Ive said all along the bond holders own the mortgages as security for there money loaned to the lenders BUT their NOT going to tell the borrowers of this are they can you see every court claim needing the bond holders to be named on the claim and coming to court, all the tax questions etc. etc.,

 

 

(did you get my mail re log book by the way)

Link to post
Share on other sites

because of company going under had arrears and just wanted to re mortgage but company wanted house so after I stated the facts and showed mortgage sale listing to judge. he broke for lunch were barr/solicitor for the company offered re mortgage with a new co was going took this but then found out ERC was added

which is what I am on here for.

BUT STILL ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION I PUT ON HERE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But You Have Not Answered The Question What Do The Bond Holders Get For There Millions???? If The Company Goes Belle Up Then But Your Quotes They Loss All There Money, I Don't Think So.

Do You Work For One By The Way?

No Company Is Going To Show Any One The Sale Agreement And Why Is This, Don't Ask Because Ive Tried To See This And Asked A Court To Force The Company To Show This But They Screamed Like A Pig Not To Show It Giving Every Reason Not To Again Why?

Have You Paid A Erc Of £20k No Then Ask Some One Who Has Where This Moneys Gone!

 

1) They receive the repayment of the money that they have previously provided and interest. They don't just do it for fun.

 

2) To which company going belle up are you referring to ?

 

Do you mean the original lender or the SPV, or one of the other companies involved ?

 

If you are refering to your mortgage provider "going belle up", then this should answer your question:

 

Bankruptcy remote

 

A key concern in securitisation transactions to ensure that the transfer of assets of the originator to the investors' representative or SPV is not affected by bankruptcy or distress of the originator.

 

This necessitates certain legal precautions in structuring the assignment of receivables, as also so constituting the SPV that it can neither be taken to liquidation by the shareholders of the originator, nor by those of the SPV itself. Further, the structure should also ensure that the SPV would not be treated as the subset of the originator by substantice consolidation. Such a structure is called bankruptcy remote structure.

 

3) And who do you think I work for ?

 

Mortgage Lender, SPV ?

 

Why is it when someone posts unpopular information (which I have supported with fact) they are always accused of working for the bad guys.

 

4) And no, I have not had the misfortune to pay anyone an ERC of £20k.

 

5) If you have any further questions that you need an answer, I suggest you try Google. It is amazing the things that you can find. For example, everything that I have posted on this thread has been found via a google or yahoo search.

 

So in future you can save me the trouble and do it yourself :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent advice Smarterchick:).................however if anyone is already being seriously threatened with repossession then I suggest they have nothing to lose & everything to gain by introducing these arguments as part of their fightback;-)

 

If you have nothing more to lose then I'd agree JC - half these Judges would be suprised at these kinds of evidence being presented, if nothing else, it buys time while lawyers and judges scurry off to explore what's been put before them, but if you lose it just increases costs of course.

 

 

Seutonius - cold shower :D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS,

WELL CHILL MAN,

but I notice you have not answered the question of how or what security the bond holders have and I take it you have read the document from one company with C and ending i (lol) which IF YOU HAD GOOGLED you would find is behind most of these with chase Manhantten New York.

As in these times is the SFV goes broke then they have nothing as that is what has happened in the sub prime market in the US L/B for one ( look at GMAC-RFC for one)

If you feel or think there is nothing in this way do you not get a sale agreement then? as the companies can say what they like, you and I can say nothing else and they know it they work the LAW to what they need and its smoke and mirrors. smoke and mirrors my friend and that is why they will never EVER give you or any one else these details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...