Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[bustthematrix]

 

:

 

I also asked SS before she went to answer this question:

 

Got you. I guess the caveats were the small print, so not that obvious eh?;-)

[Suetonius]

Forgive my stupidity but wasn't the 1925 Act repealed in full? I only ask because it was!

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith?

 

Erm no the Law of Property Act 1925 was not repealed;)

 

I think you might be getting the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Land Registration Act 1925 a little confused

Edited April 16, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Got you. I guess the caveats were the small print, so not that obvious eh?;-)

 

Without knowing the specifics, we can only go forward based upon assumption.

 

It is only through threads such as this that the specifics can come to light.

 

Hence playing devils advocate reveals things in debates and arguments that people would not think to investigate.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Suetonius

[supersleuth]

Hey guys,

 

I too have been censored. Got a bunch of PMs saying that 4 of my posts were unapproved. Oh what a back handed compliment...it seems that we're too close to the truth and the poor ole bankers can't hack us sharing the information.

 

Onward and upwards...if so many of us are being censored we must be on to something.

 

Supersleuth

[elizabeth1]

Hmmmmnnnn

 

Do court offices normally make personal phone calls? YES they do make personal phonecalls to people when these "mishaps" hapen and cases will not be heard as arranged - I personally had a case hearing last year cancelled on the day (my allocation hearing was 2.30pm) The Judge was ringing me at home himself from his chambers and left me 3 separate messages on my answer phone at home because I had already left home to travel to court he had missed me. As it happened - because I had reached court for the expected hearing the Judge did allow me sometime to talk to me etc.. despite hearing being cancelled. Judge was also ringing the othersides Barrister to warn them not to travel to court as they'd have an hours travel in a wasted journey.

 

Are adjournments normally left this late?...for the same reasons? Cr*p happens and yes adjournments / rescheduling does happen last minute - I am sure many of us in CAG have experienced this type of thing.

 

And are judges normally taken off repossession hearings, to attend to more urgent family matters? I can't comment on repossessions hearings being rescheduled - my case was a CC company hearing - but sometimes "things" crop up and take priority in courts - it's up to Judges to take the most important matters first.

 

Oh well, I suppose they had to at least TRY and make it sound plausible.

 

The question, is what are they possibly planning now.

 

Super, I hope you already have full copies of your defence, together with supporting docs, ready to be released on the net and elsewhere should you suddenly "disappear" without trace...

 

Don't under estimate these bozos.

 

The Matrix is a ruthless place.8-)

 

I think courts are like many places and they do swap and change things as matters arise.

Patience is a virtue!! all becomes clear eventually??

[Suetonius]

Hey guys,

 

I too have been censored. Got a bunch of PMs saying that 4 of my posts were unapproved. Oh what a back handed compliment...it seems that we're too close to the truth and the poor ole bankers can't hack us sharing the information.

 

Onward and upwards...if so many of us are being censored we must be on to something.

 

Supersleuth

 

 

Now I am feeling left out...

 

Not being funny, but could CAG please say which posts have been deleted and at least give some indication as to why.

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Don't feel left out...the bankers/lawyers just love you cos you're the devil's advocate...remember. You're arguing for them (which we commend you for and welcome cos we luv you too), but it just goes to show why you are not being censored. I'm so pleased to hear you're approved by the lender/lawyers. Don't it all just make you feel more confident for the borrowers???

 

Oh please Management team...we'd love to know which posts are "unapproved"

[bustthematrix]

Now I am feeling left out...

 

Not being funny, but could CAG please say which posts have been deleted and at least give some indication as to why.

 

I second that.

[enoughisenough]

WOW!

It miraculously appears. I know that Super will know what I mean!

 

Bustthematrix has got it Absolutely right though. Don't underestimate these peeps - even for a second.

 

Cheers EIE Keep the faith.

[enoughisenough]

I'm feeling left out because I haven't been chalked off.

 

Should I go outrageous or dangerous?

 

Only Joking???!!!

[bustthematrix]

Hello All

 

You may want to look at Mark Wadsworth: "Are securitisation companies above the law?"

when you have a mo.

 

I found this post/excerpt from that forum quite interesting.

A (a bank) agrees to lend B (an individual) an amount of money to purchase a house on the condition that B repays that amount over a fixed period inclusive of interest – if B falls behind with those payments to A then A enforces a charge against the property and a forced sale of that property can be the result.

 

This is the fundamental basis of a mortgage contract as the average layman understands it.

 

A decides to sell their interest in the above contract to C (a SPV) and this is done by way of equitable assignment. B is now automatically (and without their knowledge) contracted into a repayment schedule with C however C does not have the right to sue B should there be a breach of this contract – this would require absolute assignment from A to C of the rights and duties under the original contract.

 

B falls behind with the monthly payments that were being made to A (A now acting as collection agents for C).

 

A accuses B of breach of contract and enforces the charge against the property through the courts and this results in repossession/forced sale.

 

How can B be guilty of breach of contract between A and B when a contract between the parties no longer exists? A has assigned away their right to receive payment from B – B are actually required to make payments to C but they are unaware of this change in circumstances because they were not notified of the equitable assignment.

 

Remember that the terms of the original contract were between A and B.

 

B has actually breached a contract that now exists in theory between B and C but of course this isn’t possible because no contract actually exists whereby B agreed to pay C any monthly payments at all.

 

A have no more right to sue B for breach of contract than C does because A screwed up the contract by virtue of securitisation.

Even on the basis of equitable assignment, does the lender still have the right to sue for breach of contract? They may still 'own' the legal charge (so they say) but if the right to receive payments has been assigned to the SPV, IF the borrower falls behind in their payments, is it not with the SPV that contract has been breached? Under the equitable assigment model, the lender is administrator/collection agent for the SPV so should not be able to sue solely in it's own name but jointly with the SPV?

 

More grist for the mill.

Edited April 16, 2009 by bustthematrix
emphasis

[Suetonius]

Some of the posts look at bit heavy

[enoughisenough]

If the posts are heavy it's because hundreds of thousands of people's, homes, livelihoods and families are riding on these very issues.

 

That, in my humble opinion, is a cause for gravity.

 

Anyway the taxpayer (ie you me anyone still left in work) will just have to pick it up anyway.

 

'Nuff. Keep the faith.

[Suetonius]

If the posts are heavy it's because hundreds of thousands of people's, homes, livelihoods and families are riding on these very issues.

 

That, in my humble opinion, is a cause for gravity.

 

Anyway the taxpayer (ie you me anyone still left in work) will just have to pick it up anyway.

 

'Nuff. Keep the faith.

 

Sorry, I guess I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the post immediately before mine, in relation to a blog.

 

I was referring to the posts on that blog not on CAG. The reason, I said they were heavy was because they appear to be personal attacks on Carmel Butler.

 

 

Sorry for the confusion

[supersleuth]

Hi BusttheMatrix,

 

In reference to two of your posts, no.s 697 and 700

 

Firstly you posed a very pertinent question. You asked 'why would the SPV be happy just to take an equitable assignment'?

 

Instinctively, you know that they would not want an equitable assignment and you're right. The reason why that HAVE TO HAVE a legal assignment is because they need to create a sub-charge. The power to create a sub-charge is a LEGAL power and therefore, they MUST purchase the LEGAL TITLE in order to exercise their LEGAL POWERS to create a sub-charge.

 

See my post no. 162 on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/186867-carmel-butler-house-commons-9.html

 

The only reason the false notion that the SPV has taken an equitable assignment comes into the argument is because the lawyers make people believe that the words "operates in equity" means that there's been an equitable assignment. This is the smoke and mirrors. The words "operates in equity" only means that the court's equity jurisdiction will operate on the transfer of the legal title pending the SPVs compliance with its registration at the LR - which the LAW mandates that it MUST do.

 

But do rest assured, the SPV DOES own the legal title and because if there had not been a transfer of the legal title to the SPV then (1) the SPV would NOT be "entitled" to register at the LR and (2) it would be unlawful for the SPV to create the sub-charge. As the Prospectuses state that (1) the SPV IS "entitled" to be registerd and (2) as the SPV has filed a form 395 (mortgage/charge form) at Companies House - you can rest assured that the SPV does own the legal title and does exercise the powers of the legal owner.

 

The only thing that the SPV HAS NOT DONE - is comply with the law under the LRA 2002 s.27(3) and (4) i.e. register its ownership at the LR and because the SPVs failure to comply with s27 is INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE because they INTEND to suppress and conceal this information and registration from the LR, the SPV is guilty of a criminal offence under the LRA s.123.

 

Thus your instinct is spot on - the SPV is not content to have an equitable assignment - if the SPV only took an equitable assignment - THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO A LAWFUL SECURITISATION.

 

Thus, if they only took an equitable assignment - the securitisation would be entirely unlawful. As it stands, the facts and truth is, the SPV does take a legal assignment but they break the law for failure to comply with s.27 and intentionally conceal the assignment from the LR contrary to s.123.

 

So, when you see the words "operates in equity" the lawyers want you to interpret those words to mean "an equitable assignment". It's poppycock. The SPV's legal title is what is operating in equity and the court's equity jurisdiction will apply equity's maxim that "equity will deem as done, that which ought to be done". Here what ought to be done is that the SPV should comply with the law under s.27 and the court of equity will deem that TO BE DONE.

 

BTW: Thanks for your comments on the repeated court cancellation of my trial. I too find it very bizarre - something seems to be going on in the background - it was a shock the first time it happened - but does lightning really strike twice in the same place???

[supersleuth]

Hi All,

 

Back to my conundrum regarding the repeated cancellations of my trial:

 

The hearing was supposed to be today but the court cancelled the hearing due to "an urgent family law matter". As this is now the second time that my hearing has been cancelled, I decided to check the Daily Cause List to find out what "urgent" family law case had caused the cancellation.

 

Here's the Daily Cause List for the Circuit Judge that was supposed to hear my case today. The cases that are being heard instead are:

 

There are fives cases being heard: three cases are listed for Gas Injunctions, there is one case which is a "Children Act Review" and there is one case that is a "fact finding" under the Children Act.

 

A family act "review" and a "fact finding" ....could be "Urgent" but these cases don't sound too urgent to me...I would have expected something like ....kid needs a protection order...taken into care order...etc type family law case, so "urgent" family law case sounds a bit over the top to me. But hey ho, if the judge/court say it's urgent then that must be true. Right?

 

What would you think? It seems bizarre to me...any thoughts

[midge61]

I appear to have joined the cagbotted club too!

[midge61]

Hi ss welcome back.

 

Considering all the councils that have failed children and been in the news recently the review may be to do with this.

 

As someone that has personal experience of their failures I have to say I am pleased that they are getting their arses into gear and if it helps the children and families that are at risk then that has to be good.

 

Extremely bad luck for you though. Have they given you any idea how long you will have to wait?

[iconoclash]

Hi SS - glad to see you back

Greetings to all caggers! Re the courts - I'd say from my personal experience that Ive had some pretty rough rides over the years and was bitterly disappointed in one case where I had an unenforcebale agreement issue but the court staff themselves, failed to register my counter claim so I applied for a 're-determination' and in that hearing the DJ didnt let me speak but berrated me for: and I do quote: wanting a second bite at the cherry!! Eventually I got permission to appeal but could not go forward due to funds, and a 'technicality' forced the removal of my set aside application also. This technicality was again, the court not registering my application and was thus deemed 'out of time' by another DJ. I complained to the head honchos for the courts but they did not uphold either. The file with its liability order still sits on the cabinet waiting for a DCA to attempt collection - I am not allowed to bring it back into court, however, should they wish to take me to court.....

 

PS: its interesting what you can hear about whilst sitting in the waiting area at the court isnt it

Edited April 17, 2009 by iconoclash
added PS

[supersleuth]

Campari,

 

Thank you for sharing your experience. I too had the same experience where the court office and judges effectively deny and block your right of access to ...well..."justice".

 

I applied for specific disclosure of the sale/purchase agreement between the SPV and the "lender". The DDJ refused specific disclosure on the grounds that - get this - THE CLAIMANT DIDN'T NEED THE DOCUMENT TO PROVE THEIR CASE!!!...the DDJ didn't give any reasons other than that...but when I asked for reasons she TWICE told me I could appeal. Therefore, I had TWICE been given permission to appeal. So I did.

 

I issued the Appeal Notice - in good time - but - the court office (1) did not seal and serve the Appeal Notice (2) the circuit judge wrote a directions order that overturned my permission and (3) gave directions for a "permission to appeal hearing to be listed" BUT get this (4) the order also said that she didn't need either of the parties to attend the permission to appeal hearing!!! This order was made without notice and without a hearing.

 

So I wrote 3 letters to the Judge/court asking them when they would seal and serve the appeal notice. It took TWO months to make the hm court service seal and serve the appeal notice. In the end, because my letters demanded a reply to certain questions, I received a letter saying that the judge had instructed the court office to serve the notice within 7 days - which is really bizarre, because the court office had no less than at least 3 letters demanding that they seal and serve - so either the judge did give the instruction and the court office disrespected the judges instruction despite having three letters from me also reminding them and demanding service OR the judge in fact ordered the court office that they don't seal and serve the Appeal Notice and the court service were respecting her order NOT to seal and serve.

 

Who knows which one is correct, but again, if the judge SAYS she ordered service within 7 days it must be true. Right?? So the hm court service were disrepecting the judge's order. Right? In short, it is obvious that the court service and/or the judge did not want me to have the official court sealed papers of the Appeal and as such, no court seal, no Appeal exists - burried.

 

Oh boy it is interesting what shenanagains you hear whilst sitting in the court...law and order????

 

As expected (which was blatently obvious from the directions order), and contrary to the order saying that the judge didn't need the parties to attent, I did attend the permission to appeal hearing. But as was obvious from the directions order, unsurprisingly they refused persmission to appeal - so like I said before, when the courts want to find for the lender they will assist the lender to bury and conceal the evidence.

 

It is deperately depressing when the courts themselves and the judges rally round the lenders to oppress the litigants in person. Hardly conducive to a fair hearing, justice etc.

[iconoclash]

SS - thats amazing but I shouldnt be suprised should I.

We could have a really interesting thread on here re the courts and their staff and what we have come to know - I think it is a travesty but I'm only a 'mrs piepacker' eh. Ive been given the runaround by ushers, seen them misinform desperate young couples that were physically shaking, listened to their chatter about Cheri Blair and her career, and wonder just who is going to be made accountable anyway?

I have a particular dislike for the young suited-up things that check through the lists with the usher and ask to have this and this case put together pleeeease and oh can we have DJ xxxx for that one next week and oh, can I also stay inside the room with the DJ for the next client since its mine anyway !!!!!!- what:eek:

[supersleuth]

That's the real crux of the problem. The lawyers, solicitors, barristers get star treatment. They get to schmooz with the Judges prior to the hearings where they sort out between themselves what they're going to do to the litigant-in-person - oh and where they get to CHOOSE the judge - well stands to reason that they'll CHOOSE their buddy judge. I truly believe (with good circumstantial reasons), that my lot have hand-picked and schmooze the presiding judge. And as for the court service - when the solicitor phones and asks for an exparte without notice order - it magically appears - that has happened repeatedly in my experience. So don't bother with the right to be heard, solicitors can phone an get a rabbit out the hat order, but LIPs, no you get put through the mill and even then, they won't seal or serve the application.

Edited April 17, 2009 by supersleuth

[bustthematrix]

I appear to have joined the cagbotted club too!

 

In my view, the moderators of course have the right (and duty) to 'sanitize' these environments and keep them useable for those who post here. However, perhaps it can be done in a way that is more educational and transparent for those of us that (I don't know!) are yet to experience being 'botted'!

Just reading that posts have disappeared without having a feel for why can be somewhat unnerving and I don't think it builds trust.

One suggestion I'd make is for the mods to leave the post record itself there but overwrite the content with comments such as "post deleted due to obscenity" or "deleted due to defamatory references" etc as they're the usual reasons posts in forums get removed (but the actual reason would be inserted so we could learn from it. Might also discourage folk from posting rubbish if their posts kept getting overwritten and the reason was given!). This would help the poster and other forum users engage a bit more in the overall process without arousing needless suspicions and rumours as to why posts have been removed.

Perhaps some of this is already happening though, maybe the mods send PMs or emails if they 'bot your post???;-)

[Suetonius]

I have been thinking (yes it is dangerous)

 

Why don't we look at a specifc securitisation and debate equitable v legal assignment.

 

I have attached to this post documentation relation to Arkle Series 2008-2 (Lloyds TSB)

 

 

• The first document is the actual prospectus
  
• The second document is a supplement to the prospectus
  
• The third document is the "Final Terms", something I don't think has yet been posted or discussed.
  

Edited April 17, 2009 by Suetonius
post not past

[Suetonius]

I have been thinking (yes it is dangerous)

 

Why don't we look at a specifc securitisation and debate equitable v legal assignment.

 

I have attached to this past documentation relation to Arkle Series 2008-2 (Lloyds TSB)

 

 

• The first document is the actual prospectus
  
• The second document is a supplement to the prospectus
  
• The third document is the "Final Terms", something I don't think has yet been posted or discussed.
  

 

Or if you prefer HBOS (Permanent Financing (No.2) )

 

Presale Report

Prospectus