Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[JonCris]

Hi Sced,

 

Re the confusion about whether Eurosail or the 2008-1 company owns your mortgage. Don't get bogged down in feeling that you have to prove who owns your mortgage -THE MAIN REAL POINT IS that you can prove that Preferred DO NOT OWN YOUR MORTGAGE.

 

You can prove that Preferred do not own your mortgage because you have been informed in writing that the 2008-1 company are your mortgagee. That is enough to cast doubt on Preferred's assertion to the court that they are the legal mortgagees. That has to be nonsense if Preferred are telling you that for buildings insurance purposes that the 2008-1 company are your mortgagee. Therefore, Preferred are misrepresenting themselves to the court as the legal mortgagees when they know that the legal mortgagees is the 2008-1 company.

 

It is then up to Preferred to rebut your evidence and prove that they do still own your mortgage and that they are your legal mortgagee entitled to possession (which they are NOT).

 

So keep it simple Sced, just show the court that you've been told in writing that the 2008-1 own your mortgage now and as the 2008-1 company are your legal mortgagees, then Preferred are NOT lawfully nor legally entitled to take possession of your property.

 

 

Quite SS Demonstrate to the court what it is NOT not what it is cos to demonstrate what it is is to do their work for them

[JonCris]

UNILATERAL NOTICES

Has anyone had any dealings with Land Registry to remove a unilateral notice on their property. I bought my flat from a developer (who are also my freeholder & managing agents) and they gifted me with a 15% deposit, however it has just come to light that they have applied for a unilateral notice for the 15%, despite no-one (including mortgage company) receiving 15%. Now the Land Registry have advised that I need to prepare a statement to the developers and LR advising why I feel this notice should be removed. The only evidence developers have sent is one piece of handwritten paper with my signature, that they have input my address on it. I did sign a piece of paper when I first approached the developers for a different property and not the one I eventually bought.

Recently, I have started receiving letters from the developers advising that they are adding interest on the 15% and also charging me for sending letters / phone calls.

I am not sure what else I can tell the LR in my defence other than I did not sign a piece of handwritten paper agreeing to any charges / loans to be secured / attached to my property. Apparently anyone can apply to LR to apply a notice against a property. What I don’t understand is that if they did lend me 15% why was this not applied as a secure loan.

 

 

I suggest you speak to your neighbours & ask them to confirm if they were given the same offer & if so warn them what may have happened & that you intend to fight the developer who you feel has deceived you. Then get their & any other neighbours statements to be presented in court if necessary - you never know once they, assuming they don't already know, may join you in your fight:D

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

Apologies for the unposted absence tonight. However I have been ploughing through this latest offering and it certainly is the case that they are not shy about the ever expanding securitisation universe.

 

This can only lead to one conclusion. We are all being royally screwed, and will continue to be so screwed until we get this set of unlawful circumstances dealt with under equity

 

As such it is beholden upon all of us, myself included, to tear this latest drivelling 'prospectus' apart. The financial and legal klingonspeak should provide no significant obstacle.

 

It is in essence a facsimilie of previous 'circulars' except in a few important respects which update us as to how they themselves are updating their stuff. Good. I have read it from pillar to post and can see that they are ploughing full steam ahead for yet further securitisation, further breaches of law, further breaches of regulatory stipulations and yet MORE untold and UNLAWFUL repo action.

 

It's all there. As I have said already, by fair means or foul - more usually (nay exclusively) the latter - they merely do the bidding of their SPiV masters.

 

Oh and how much do the legal servants of these Masters of the Universe get paid for drawing up and photocopying this dog-pile of drivelling contradictory nonsense? I reckon the investors are being royally screwed as well - too many 'you may not get your money' clauses for my liking. Any investor feeling screwed by these SPiVs want to clean their conscience and launch an action?

 

Anyway off thread here. I will offer my considered digest tomorrow. As SS has already indicated some superlative stuff in there is evident for all to see...even a District judge with a satnav....etc.

 

Cheers. EIE. Keep the faith

[supersleuth]

Hi JC and Myboyelvis,

 

JC, that is an excellent suggestion. Myboyelvis, JC is right, your neighbours will be in the same position. You can all put your heads together and you'll all have been duped with the same "gift" representation, so you'll have an abundance of evidence between you all. Get together and also, start a thread on this site on this topic to seek advice and suggestions on how to defend and fight this extortion.

 

Supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

Hi All.

 

I have broken it down for further bit by bit discussion.

 

Before we even get into the page numbers

 

The Instruments will be obligations solely of the Issuer and will not be guaranteed by, or be the responsibility of, any other entity.

 

Also

 

In particular, the Instruments will not be obligations of, and will not be guaranteed by, Mortgage Funding 2008-1 Parent Limited (the “Parent”), Preferred Mortgages Limited, Southern Pacific Personal Loan Limited, Langersal No. 2 Limited, Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited, Alliance & Leicester plc, Matlock London (formerly Matlock London Limited), any Branded Lender, any Remote Processor, Preferred Mortgages Collections Limited (“PMCL”), the Collection Account Banks, Vertex Mortgage Services Limited, Lightfoots Solicitors, Homeloan Management Limited, Capstone Mortgage Services Limited

 

 

p.1. THE TRANSACTION OVERVIEW – this differs from previous prospectuses I have seen but the set up is recognisably the same. Note that the Trustee is not identified on the transaction overview. This doesn’t matter though as the Trustee is clearly identified later on.

 

p.2. In this Prospectus:

 

(i) each of SPML and PML, in their respective capacities as sellers of the Loans to the Issuer are referred to as a “Seller” and together the “Sellers”; and

 

(ii) each of SPML, PML, SPPL, Langersal, A&L and Matlock (in their respective capacities as an originator of the Loans), are referred to as an “Originator” and together the “Originators”.

 

No concern should arise from the differentiation between originator and seller. In the common parlance category (ii) were’ flipped’ over to SPML for further sale.

 

p.3. Capstone Mortgage Services Limited (“Capstone”) will be appointed as mortgage administrator (in such capacity, the “Mortgage Administrator”, which expression includes any other the terms of the Master Securitisation Agreement (as defined below) and the mortgage administration agreement set out in schedule 3 of the Master Securitisation Agreement (the “Mortgage Administration Agreement”) to administer the Mortgage Pool as agent for the Issuer and the Trustee (see “The Mortgage Administrator” below). Under the terms of the Delegation Agreements, Capstone will delegate certain of its duties under the Mortgage Administration Agreement to Vertex Mortgage Services Limited (“Vertex”), Homeloan Management Limited (“HML”) and to Lightfoots Solicitors (“Lightfoots”).

 

Watch out for Vertex, HML and Lightfoots appearing over the horizon in the next couple of months.

 

Also p.3: BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited, whose registered office is at One Canada Square, London E14 5AL, will be appointed as trustee for the Noteholders and as trustee for the Residual Certificateholders in relation to their entitlement to RC Distributions (in such capacity, the “Trustee”) pursuant to a trust deed (the “Trust Deed”) to be entered into on or about the Closing Date between the Issuer and the Trustee. The Trustee will hold the security granted by the Issuer under the Deed of Charge for the benefit of, among others, the Instrument holders.

 

p.11: Payments made by Borrowers under the Loans will be made to the Issuer in sterling. As at 5 March 2008, the aggregate Principal Balance of the Loans and their related Collateral Security, to be purchased by the Issuer from the Sellers on the Closing Date, is £999,999,768.44 (the “Initial Mortgage Pool”).

 

p.15: On issue, the A Notes are expected to be rated by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“S&P”) and by Fitch Ratings Ltd. (“Fitch” and, together with S&P, the “Rating Agencies”) as specified on the first page of this document. The B Notes and the Residual Certificates will not be rated

 

p.16.: The Issuer understands that each of the Sellers intends to apply all or part of the amount it receives from the Issuer on the Closing Date in or towards repayment of secured loan facilities granted to its affiliates by an affiliate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

 

p.17: General economic conditions and other factors (which may not affect property values) have an impact on the ability of Borrowers to repay Loans. Loss of earnings, illness, divorce and other similar factors can lead to an increase in delinquencies and bankruptcy filings by Borrowers, which may result in a reduction in payments by such Borrowers on their Loans and could reduce the Issuer’s ability to service payments on the Notes and may reduce the RC Distributions on the Residual Certificates.

 

p.18: The Issuer may not have any rights (under general or contract law) against any solicitors or valuers who, when acting for the Originators in relation to the origination of any Loan, may have been negligent or fraudulent.

 

In the Initial Mortgage Pool approximately 5.81 per cent. of the Loans have characteristics that do not comply with, amongst other things, the Lending Criteria and the standard mortgage documentation referenced in the Mortgage Sale Agreement (such Loans being, the “Non-Compliant Loans”). These Non-Compliant Loans fall broadly into one or more of the following categories:

 

(a) Loans that do not comply with the applicable Lending Criteria;

 

(b) Loans in respect of which inconsistent information was provided to, and/or discovered by, the Originator following the origination of the Loan;

 

© Loans in respect of which certain of the standard documentation, books, records and/or accounts in respect thereto have been destroyed and/or are currently not in the actual possession of the Originator and/or its agents;

 

 

To the extent that any Non-Compliant Loan is determined by a Court to be unenforceable, the Issuer may not be entitled to receive any amounts with respect to principal and/or interest and/or other amounts with respect to such Loan, and may, in circumstances where a Court finds that the Non-Compliant Loans are unenforceable due to an act or omission of the Originator and/or its agent, be required to make payments to Borrowers out of its own funds in an amount determined by a Court.

 

p.20. Monthly payments in respect of Part & Part Loans are comprised of the interest due on both portions of the Loan and the principal repayable on the portion in respect of which the borrower is required to pay both interest and principal. There is no scheduled amortisation of, in relation to the Interest Only Loans, the principal amount, and in relation to the Part & Part Loans, the portion of the principal amount on which the Borrower elects not to repay principal. Consequently, upon the maturity of an Interest Only Loan or a Part & Part Loan, the relevant Borrower will be required to make a “bullet” payment that will represent the entirety of the principal amount then outstanding. The ability of such a Borrower to repay an Interest Only Loan or a Part & Part Loan at maturity frequently depends on such Borrower’s ability to refinance the Property or obtain funds from another source, such as pension policies, personal equity plans or endowment policies. The ability of the Borrower to refinance the Property will be affected by a number of factors, including the value of the Property, the Borrower’s equity in the Property, the financial condition of the Borrower, tax laws and general economic conditions at the time.

 

p.22. Under the terms of the Loans a Borrower will, in certain circumstances, have to pay prepayment charges upon prepayment of a Loan. In certain circumstances, notwithstanding that these prepayment charges are due, no Prepayment Charges Receipts would be received by the Issuer and no additional amounts would be paid to the Residual Certificateholders. Additionally, there are situations where it may not be possible to collect in full the amount of the prepayment charges.

 

ALSO P22 SUPER JC SC ETC TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING AS IT NEEDS DEBUNKING!

 

Legal title to the Mortgages in the Mortgage Pool has remained since origination and will remain: (i) in the case of the SPML Loans, with SPML and in the case of Loans originated by SPPL, with SPPL, as the case may be; and (ii) in the case of the PML Loans, with PML. Subject to the completion of applications to the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Registers of Scotland or the Registers of Northern Ireland, as applicable, for registration of the transfers in favour of SPML, the legal title to the A&L Loans will remain with A&L. On the Closing Date, it is expected that legal title to the majority of the A&L Loans shall have been transferred to SPML.

 

ALSO

 

For so long as neither the Issuer nor the Trustee has obtained legal title, each relevant Legal Titleholder will, pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, undertake for the benefit of the Issuer and the Trustee that it will lend its name to, and take such other steps as may reasonably be required by the Issuer or the Trustee in relation to, any legal proceedings in respect of the Loans originated or acquired by it and their related Collateral Security. In order for legal title to the Mortgages over registered land in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and any land in Scotland to be transferred, transfers and assignations would have to be registered or recorded at the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Land Registry of Northern Ireland or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be given to the Borrowers.

 

P.23: In order to enforce a power of sale in respect of a property, the relevant mortgagee (which may be the relevant Legal Titleholder, the Issuer or the Trustee) must first obtain possession of the Property. Possession is usually obtained by way of a court order although this can be a lengthy and costly process and will involve the mortgagee assuming certain risks. See “Title to the Mortgage Pool - Enforcement Procedures” and “Repossession Procedures” below. If obtaining possession of property in such circumstances is lengthy or costly, the Issuer’s ability to service payments on the Notes would likely be reduced.

 

P24: Following the occurrence of an Event of Default (THE ISSUER NOT THE BORROWER) in relation to the Notes while any of the Loans are still outstanding, the ability of the Issuer to redeem all of the Notes in full will depend upon whether or not the Loans and Collateral Security can be realised to obtain an amount sufficient to redeem the Notes. There is not, at present, an active and liquid secondary market for secured residential mortgage loans of this type in the United Kingdom.

 

P.35 WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY GO?

 

Payments by Borrowers in respect of amounts due under the SPML Loans and the A&L Loans will be made, in the majority of cases by direct debit, into (i) the Mortgage Funding 2008-1 SPML Trust Collection Account; (ii) the Mortgage Funding 2008-1 SPPL Trust Collection Account; (iii) the SPML-NR Specific Collection Account; (iv) the First Mortgage Collection Account; or (v) the Second Mortgage Collection Account.

 

All cleared amounts received from Borrowers will be transferred daily from the Collection Accounts (other than the First Mortgage Collection Account and the Second Mortgage Collection Account) into an account denominated in sterling held in the name of the Issuer at the Account Bank (the “Transaction Account”). Cleared amounts received from Borrowers into the First Mortgage Collection Account and the Second Mortgage Collection Account will be transferred by a nightly automatic transfer into the First Mortgage Redemption Account.

 

PAGES 46 AND 47 – ALL THE COMPANY INFO. REGISTERED ADDRESSES FSA REGULATION OR OTHERWISE AND SO ON.

 

P.50: The Issuer has been established specifically to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans originated by: (i) Matlock (trading as the London Mortgage Company by itself or in association with a Remote Processor); (ii) Langersal; (iii) SPML (by itself or trading as the London Mortgage Company or in association with the Branded Lenders, Correspondent Lenders or Remote Processors); (iv) SPPL (by itself or trading as London Personal Loans); (v) PML (by itself or in association with a Remote Processor); and (vi) A&L, in each case, such acquisition financed by the issue of the Instruments.

 

The Issuer will publish annual reports and accounts, has applied for a consumer credit licence under the CCA and has applied to be registered as a data controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Issuer has not prepared audited financial statements as of the date of this document.

 

p.60 Sale of Loans and Collateral Security

 

Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement, the Sellers will sell and the Issuer will purchase the Loans and Collateral Security comprised in the Initial Mortgage Pool for consideration equal to the aggregate of:

 

(a) an amount equal to £994,169,768, representing:

 

(i) the aggregate Principal Balance of the Loans comprised in the Initial Mortgage Pool as at the Closing Date (excluding, for the avoidance of doubt, the “Aggregate Accrued Interest” being the aggregate amount of interest accrued at the Closing Date but not yet due from each Borrower), which is expected to be approximately £999,999,768

 

As Superseluth has already indicated:

 

This proves two points. Firstly that Preferred have sold the mortgages to the 2008-1 company and secondly, that Preferred have suffered NO LOSS and therefore, as JC advises, there is NO LOSS for the court to remedy and thus, Preferred have NO CLAIM. They have been fully paid for the FULL amount of the balance on your account.

 

p.92: Neither the Issuer nor the Trustee currently intend to effect any registration at the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Registers of Northern Ireland or any registration or recording in the Registers of Scotland to perfect the sale of the Loans and the Collateral Security to the Issuer or the charge of them by the Issuer in favour of the Trustee nor, save as mentioned below, do they intend to obtain possession of the title deeds to the Properties and the Loans and their related Collateral Security.

 

Also

 

notice of the assignment to the Issuer of the Loans and Collateral Security and their subsequent charging or assigning to the Trustee will not be given to the Borrowers.

 

AND FURTHER

 

Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement and the Deed of Charge, each of the Issuer (with the consent of the Trustee) and the Trustee will be entitled to effect such registrations and recordings and give such notices as it, acting in its absolute discretion, considers necessary to protect and perfect the interests respectively of the Issuer (as purchaser) and the Trustee (as chargee) in the Loans and the Collateral Security, inter alia, where (a) it is obliged to do so by law, by court order or by a mandatory requirement of any regulatory authority, (b) an Enforcement Notice (as defined in Condition 9(a) (Events of Default)) has been given, © the Trustee considers that the Charged Property (as defined in the Deed of Charge) or any part thereof is in jeopardy (including due to the possible insolvency of any of SPML, SPPL or PML in each case as Legal Titleholder of the relevant Loans) or (d) any action is taken for the winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation of SPML, SPPL or PML. These rights are supported by irrevocable powers of attorney given by, among others, the Issuer, SPML, SPPL and PML.

 

The effect of (i) not giving notice to the Borrowers of the sale of the relevant Loans and their Collateral Security to the Issuer and the charging of the Issuer’s interest in the Loans and their Collateral Security to the Trustee and (ii) the charge of the Issuer’s rights thereto in favour of the Trustee pursuant to the Deed of Charge taking effect in equity (or extending over the Issuer’s beneficial interest) only, is that the rights of the Issuer and the Trustee may be, or may become, subject to equities as well as to the interests of third parties who perfect a legal interest prior to the Issuer or the Trustee acquiring and perfecting a legal interest.

 

Until the legal interest of the Issuer or, as the case may be, the Trustee, has been perfected, the Issuer, or as the case may be, the Trustee may also need to join the relevant Legal Titleholder in any legal proceedings taken against the relevant Borrower. The Borrower is also entitled to set-off (or exercise any analogous rights in Scotland) any amounts owing to the relevant Legal Titleholder in respect of such Loan against any other amount owed by the relevant Legal Titleholder to such Borrower.

 

The risk of such equitable and other interests leading to third party claims obtaining priority to the interests of the Issuer or the Trustee in the Loans and the Collateral Security is likely to be limited to circumstances arising from a breach by the relevant Legal Titleholder or the Issuer of its or their contractual or other obligations or fraud or mistake on the part of the relevant Legal Titleholder or the Issuer or their respective officers, employees or agents (if any).

 

p.98: Save in respect of certain of the Non-Compliant Loans, each relevant Originator has procured that since the making of any Loan full and proper accounts, books and records have been kept showing clearly all material transactions, payments, receipts and proceedings relating to such Loan and its Collateral Security as a Prudent Mortgage Lender would keep and all such accounts, books and records are up to date, accurate in all material respects and have been kept to standards acceptable to a Prudent Mortgage Lender and in the possession of the Mortgage Administrator or held to its order (subject to the provisions of the Deed of Charge).

 

p.100A court order under Section 126 of the CCA is necessary to enforce a land mortgage or heritable security securing a credit agreement to the extent that the credit agreement is regulated by the CCA or treated as such or is a regulated mortgage contract under the FSMA that would otherwise have been regulated by the CCA or treated as such.

 

P.102 The Block Buildings Policies are underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc (registered number 93792) whose registered office is at St. Mark’s Court, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1XL or Sterling Insurance Company Limited whose registered office is at Ambassador House, Surrey, TW9 1SQ.

 

p.105: Any person carrying out a regulated activity, unless an exemption is available, must be authorised by the FSA, with specific permission required from the FSA to engage in the activity. If requirements as to authorisation and permission of lenders and brokers or as to issue and approval of financial promotions are not complied with, a regulated mortgage contract will be unenforceable against the borrower except with the approval of a court.

 

p.106: In January 2007, the FSA published a statement of good practice on mortgage exit administration fees (“MEAF”). The FSA articulates some principles of fairness and states that the practical application of those principles goes to (a) clarity in contract terms, (b) evidence of justifiable increases and relevant costs and © avoiding the use of terms that put the “burden of proof” as to whether a MEAF is unfair onto customers. In other words, FSA authorised persons are responsible themselves for determining what is fair as would be judged from the stand point of a reasonably minded customer.

 

Under Section 150 of the FSMA, a private borrower is entitled to claim damages for loss suffered as a result of any contravention by an authorised person of an FSA rule. In the case of such contravention by an originator, a borrower may claim such damages against the originator, or set off the amount of such claim against the amount owing by the borrower under the loan agreement or any other loan agreement that the borrower has taken from the originator. Any such set-off may adversely affect the ability of the Issuer to make payments to Instrument holders

 

The Non-Status Lending Guidelines for Lenders and Brokers (the “Guidelines”) issued by the OFT in July 1997 and revised in November 1997 apply to all secured loans made to “non-status borrowers”, defined for the purposes of the Guidelines as borrowers with a low or impaired credit rating or who might otherwise find it difficult generally to obtain finance from traditional sources on normal terms and conditions. Most of the Borrowers would be so regarded.

 

However, where the lender is FSA authorised, the FSA has said that “if we become aware of unfair practices in a non-regulated area of a firm's business, we would then question whether fairness is part of a firm's corporate culture and look at the regulated areas of the firm”.

 

p.107: The Guidelines are designed to promote transparency in all dealings with borrowers, requiring clear contract terms and conditions to be provided promptly with full explanations of all fees and charges payable by the borrower in connection with the mortgage.

 

The actions of any broker or other intermediary involved in marketing a lender’s products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, and the Guidelines make clear that lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that such brokers and other intermediaries comply with the Guidelines and all relevant statutory requirements. This is so even if the lender has no formal or informal control or influence over the broker.

 

Charges payable on any early redemption (in whole or in part) are also dealt with in the Guidelines. Essentially, partial repayments must be permitted and any early repayment charges must do no more than cover the costs reasonably incurred by the lender in processing the payments and cover reasonable losses arising from the prepayment.

 

The Guidelines state that lenders should discontinue the use of the “Rule of 78” in non-status loans unregulated by the CCA on the basis that it can be unfair and oppressive and should not apply it rigidly to existing loan agreements without a cap to ensure that payments on early redemption are not excessive. The “Rule of 78” was a method of apportioning interest in a way that front-loaded interest payments to the detriment of borrowers making early repayments.

 

The Guidelines also state that inclusion of an annual flat interest rate, in cases where the amount of interest component of the payment made by the borrower on each payment date under the loan is calculated on the basis of the full amount drawn under the loan, rather than the principal amount outstanding from time to time under the loan, should be avoided.

 

In addition, the Guidelines discourage lenders from charging a higher interest rate on default on the basis that it is unfair and oppressive. Any administrative charges incurred on default (or as a result of a partial repayment of principal) must be reasonable, covering the lender’s administrative costs only, and must be set out in the documentation.

 

Arrears must be dealt with sympathetically and positively and monitored closely, with repossession taking place only as a last resort. Additionally, the requisite court proceedings should not be instituted unless all other avenues have failed.

 

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “1999 Regulations”) and (in so far as applicable) the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (together with the 1999 Regulations, the “Regulations”) apply to agreements made on or after 1 July 1995 and apply to all or almost all of the Loans.

 

The Regulations provide that: (a) a consumer may challenge a standard term in an agreement on the basis that it is “unfair” within the Regulations and therefore not binding on the consumer; and (b) the OFT, the FSA and any other “qualifying body” (as defined in the 1999 Regulations) may seek to enjoin (or, in Scotland, interdict) a business against relying on unfair terms, although the rest of the agreement will remain enforceable if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

 

P.109: Any credit agreement that is wholly or partly regulated by the CCA or treated as such has to comply with requirements under the CCA as to licensing of lenders and brokers, documentation and procedures of credit agreements, and (in so far as applicable) pre-contract disclosure. If it does not comply with those requirements, then to the extent that the credit agreement is regulated by the CCA or treated as such, it may be unenforceable against the borrower:

 

(a) without an order of the OFT, if the lender or any broker does not hold the required licence at the relevant time;

 

(b) without a court order in other cases and, in exercising its discretion whether to make the order, the court would take into account any prejudice suffered by the borrower and any culpability of the lender.

 

 

p.110: From 6 April 2008, for agreements made (or changed such that a new contract is entered into) the £25,000 limit under the CCA will be removed. However, loans made wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on by the debtor will remain subject to a £25,000 limit. It will also be possible for high net worth borrowers to opt out of the protections (except as regards unfair relationships) under the CCA.

The CCA 2006 also amends the CCA by: (a) strengthening the licensing regime; (b) changing the grounds for challenging a credit agreement, from “extortionate credit bargain”, to “unfair relationship” between the lender and the borrower (with retrospective effect on existing agreements from 6 April 2008); © extending the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to licence-holders under the CCA; and (d) extending post-contract transparency requirements.

 

pp113-114: Under the Unfair Practices Directive, a commercial practice is to be regarded as unfair if it is: (a) contrary to the requirements of professional diligence; and (b) materially distorts or is likely to distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer who the practice reaches or to whom it is addressed (or where a practice is directed at or is of a type which may affect a particular group of consumers, the average consumer of that group). In addition to the general prohibition on unfair commercial practices, the Unfair Practices Directive contains provisions aimed at aggressive and misleading practices and a list of practices which will in all cases be considered unfair.

[littledotty27]

Watch out for Vertex, HML and Lightfoots appearing over the horizon in the next couple of months.

I have had a letter today stating that from 1st may 2009 lightfoots have become a limited liability partnership known as lightfoots LLP,which now act in place of lightfoots solicitors.

[enoughisenough]

mmm...maybe a couple of months was optimistic. Of course this prospectus was last March so maybe on the other hand...

 

Cheers EIE. Sorry I haven't replied to your PM Dotty. I'll have a look in a mo!

[uneverdid]

Hi all,

 

I rang Capstone yesterday to ask why i had not received a response to my complaint dated 6th April. They didnt know. Whilst i was on the phone i also asked who my mortgage was with i was told Preferred do oh i said so thats who i need to put on my buildings insurance. YES i was told. I queried the letter id had saying i needed to put Eurosail on it and the line went quiet. So this is what i said So lets get this straight my mortgage is with Preferred, administered by Capstone, but my building belongs to Eurosail yet on my bank statements i am apparantly paying the money to SPML. Well she did not know what to say. I also queried why i had to wait till July before my monthly payment went down when my fixed rate expires on 1st June, because you always pay in arrears by 1 month. Is this true i am not sure. She also said again they would be contacting me to arrange a further fixed rate and i said i didnt want one because my mortgage was going down £200 a month anyway because of the libor rate. Oh its going up on 1st June by a lot. mmmmm really i dont think so i feel very fortunate that i will only be paying 3.30% plus libor which is currently about 1% i know it will go up in time but i am currently paying 6.84% so hopefully it will be a while before it gets back to that.

I was promised a phone call back by close of business yesterday and guess what yep im still waiting ????????????????????????????

[enoughisenough]

Well that's more than I ever get out of them. I'm getting the silent treatment on my complaints as well. And I'm still on 10%.

 

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.

[Dangermouse]

Hi uneverdid

 

You need to check the Libor that applies to your mortgage, I imagine it is the 3 month Libor rate which is probably 3% more or less not the base rate.

 

Not sure though....I would be interested to know myself!

 

Dangermouse

[uneverdid]

Hi Dangermouse, it is the 3 month and that is also now at todays rate 0.87% although my rate will be the one from 1st June but to be honest i cant see it going up much. I spoke to Capstone and they said that on May 1st it was 2.05%. I think they are pretty miffed with me because i wont go on a fixed rate because obviously 2 years ago when i took out the mortgage the libor rate was about 5% so therefore my mortgage would be about 8.3% but alas they are not going to get that, not for a while yet anyway yeah yippee stuff you Capstone, Preferred, Eurosail, SPML whoever you are lol

[scedminc]

Hi EIE,

 

Excellent work and again a massive help. I am really busy at the moment as you know gathering my evidence in a workable order. That made excellent reading. Just so the whole lot is available to all interested I am going to post the Form 395 that i download from companies house.

Edited May 13, 2009 by scedminc

[scedminc]

Hi All,

 

I have attached below the Form 395 downloaded from companies house for all those interested in Mortgage Funding 2008-1.

 

Sced

Form 395 - Mortgage Funding 2008-1.pdf

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

Will keep this one short, or shorter anyway. I think I've used and abused any posting rights I once enjoyed! LOL!

 

Just keep sifting. The aim is not for you to prove anything. Evidence your arguments by all means and the stronger the better. They are bringing claim against you and so the aim is to put THEM to a burden of strict proof.

 

It's your asset, your house, your home and the family residence, and the parties have to be on an equal a footing as possible before the court.

 

It is not unreasonable therefore to submit to the court that the LR entry and title Deeds are insufficient to strictly prove anything concerning charges against your property and right to bring claim.

 

Given that they have been fully compensated by the SPV/ Issuer it is difficult to see how they COULD prove it.Also their letter about the insurance is a brutally brilliant own goal! It crystalises all the issues in a few short words from their own mouths.

 

Sew sufficient doubt in the DJ's mind using the statement in the prospectus that super identified AND the very revealing insurance letter. That should be enough. However their wagons are closing and all you, your family (and us and ours) can hope for is enough room to fight again.

 

 

 

Remember emotion and morality will not wash in a court - not much anyway - but legal argument and evidence will. Keep it short though. The DJ will probably side with you IF you can do this.

 

The downside of all of this of course is that we are saddled with these shenanigans for the rest of our days, or at least until the rule of law is once again observed. The GREAT EQUITY GRAB [problem]. If you remember it 30 years hence, unlike the 60s, you almost certainly WERE there.

 

Good night and good luck.

[scedminc]

Hi EIE,

 

Your posts are very informative and briliant as far as I am concerned so your posting rights are to continue lol.

 

In respect of the above my intention is not to disclose too much evidence at this hearing but hopefully enough to pursuade the judge to order an adjournment so Preferred can prove their legal right. I want to keep back alot of info for another hearing if it happens incase they try something on.

 

They will probably think that being a stupid layman that i will have played all my cards when i questioned their right to bring a claim.

 

Take a look at this attachement. Not sure if it means much?

 

Sced

Preferred Mortgages Charge Form 395.pdf

[enoughisenough]

That seems like a good strategy Sced. Always keep some reserve fire.

 

However given the serious nature of your situ I would welcome other caggers' opinions on your position and strategy. Would others please come to the fore on this - if necessary by PM to Sced? 7 Month old Daughter and all.

 

Many thanks.

 

EIE. Keep the faith.

 

PS SCED will need to look at your attachment later. Hope that's ok!

[scedminc]

Thanks EIE,

 

No problem take a look when you like.

 

Goodnite & Take Care.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

Having read your post again it seems like an EXCELLENT strategy. You're one smart dude. But be advised by others also. That is always smarter!

 

(Definitely) Good Night and Good Luck. I have to be up at 6.

[uneverdid]

well surprise surprise no phone call back so rang them and told them what i thought today. Again queried buildings insurance and the man said well if you'd rather put preferred as the mortgagee thats fine, eurosail is just where the funding came from WHAT FUNDING ???? I am well confused now asked them about capitilization of arrears one man said no we never do it a woman tells me they need my I & e and then they will decide if i can apply for this. I also told them i wanted to rent my house out in August, they told me that i need to apply in writing, IF they agree i will have to clear all my arrears, show them copy of tenancy agreement (maximum 6 months at a time) and they will charge me an additional 1% yippee

[Smarterchick]

well surprise surprise no phone call back so rang them and told them what i thought today. Again queried buildings insurance and the man said well if you'd rather put preferred as the mortgagee thats fine, eurosail is just where the funding came from WHAT FUNDING ???? I am well confused now asked them about capitilization of arrears one man said no we never do it a woman tells me they need my I & e and then they will decide if i can apply for this. I also told them i wanted to rent my house out in August, they told me that i need to apply in writing, IF they agree i will have to clear all my arrears, show them copy of tenancy agreement (maximum 6 months at a time) and they will charge me an additional 1% yippee

 

Well that makes sense uneverdid, Eurosail do provide the funding, but this twit didn't realise what he said did he? The funds come from the securitisation, he's talking like it comes from barclays or a.n.other bank..As for them charging 1% more just because you rent your property I think that's extortionate...I've never come across this proceedure personally in renting but the moral? Charging another 1% is for what exactly?

[enoughisenough]

Hi Uneverdid

 

Eurosail is the source of their funding. Eurosail is/was their SPiV master. Where did Eurosail get their funds? From the now defunct Lehmans that's where. How did Eurosail pay Lehman's back? BY flogging your mortgage and tens of thousands of others. That then gave preferred more lending power, to carry on 'helping' those with 'adverse' credit. Helping themselves daily from the pig trough more like.

 

Why? Because that's what they are. I bet half of them still wear their Gordon Gecko white collars on pink pin stripe shirts and braces. Desperate wanabees who think they are 'winners'. So, retro/macho boys and girls, why don't you grow up and behave? Are you proud of what you do?

 

As Blackadder once said to Baldrick: I fear there's a flaw in your cunning plan. What's that Sir? says Baldrick. And Blackadder replies: "It's bollocks"

 

The evidential bollocks of it all is in Lehman's collapse, and the ever increasingly desperate GREAT EQUITY GRAB [problem] perpetrated by these wickless wonders. Who knows EVEN THEY and their families could be next. What a mess.

 

 

BLOW THE WHISTLE

 

Cheers. Keep the faith. EIE.

[Crapstone]

I'm fairly sure that the copies of building insurance requests sent by SAR to me are not the ones they actually sent out at the time. This is the first time I have seen Mortgage Funding 2008 mentioned as mortgagee and my insurance, checked by Capstone after trying to apply the usual block insurance every year without fail, still has SPML or similar noted and has been accepted for the last few years and we changed insurers last year.

 

I'll have to sift through the mountain of paperwork we have and cross reference.

[enoughisenough]

Hi uneverdid

 

Consider this. That's where preferred got the funding - Eurosail, right? OK as super says follow the money.

 

1. Eurosail got their funding from Lehmans.

 

2. Eurosail as SPV then use that dosh to purchase the mortgages from Preferred who then have more lending power, right?

 

3. Eurosail then flog the mortgages on as a securitised pool, usually in the form of notes, the investor cash rushes in to Eurosail who then pay Lehmans back.

 

4.Preferred received FULL CONSIDERATION. (i.e Full payment) and therefore no legal standing to be compensated over any breach of yours in relation to the mortgage. They are no longer in Privity of contract with you. Another entity is. Only the SPV can bring claim.

 

5. In pursuit of these securitisation exercises a whole host of consumer regulations and even the criminal law is breached.

 

6. The beneficiary on the insurance actually in one important respect DOESN'T MATTER - revealing though it is. They don't really care who is on the buildings policy, as they're statistically unlikely to ever need to use it. You'll have been repo'd well in advance of any future buildings claim you may want to make.

[enoughisenough]

As if to prove my point

 

Dramatic rise in home repossessions - Yahoo! News UK

[Smarterchick]

If, like some, you have had repossession procedings before and managed to fight the situation off - either through refinancing, or paying off arrears from another source then legal costs would have been added to your mortgage wouldn't they? - I did. Now surely, if those legal charges were brought about by a company who had no right to repo in the first place (as a result of securitisation for example ) then one would imagine one could claim those charges + interest back? This is a little like the bank charges issues where charges could also cause further arrears or default charges too...think about it..