Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

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

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just a thought whilst reading what you have found Suetonius.

 

When last in court we questioned the assignment from matlock to spml.

Spml's legal reps stated and I quote 'The borrowers where sent a letter and a copy of the assignment on 20th May 2006'

DJ asked if a copy was available,the answer was no but one can be obtained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just found this on search engine as a pdf file under council of mortgage lenders website.

 

Residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS)

Lenders can raise funds from issuing mortgage-backed securities via the process of securitisation.

A specific group of mortgages from an existing portfolio is identified as collateral for a financial

instrument. These assets are transferred from the balance sheet of the mortgage lender (the

originator) to a company that is legally distinct and remote from the mortgage originator, called a

special purpose vehicle (SPV). The SPV acquires legal title to these assets and issues the RMBS.

Payments to investors are derived exclusively from the performance of that specific pool of

loans.

Separation is important for three reasons. First, so that these loans are protected should the

originator go bankrupt. This makes the securities more attractive to investors but, if the

securities themselves default, the investor has no recourse to the originator for any shortfall.

Secondly, separation allows the security to be rated independently of the originator. This is

particularly important for those originators with a poor or no credit rating. The third reason is so

that the lender no longer has to set aside regulatory capital for these assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my details through on libor staing that it is 5.00% above BoE base rate,so paying 5.50%. LMC stated that it has been that rate since mar 2007 when our discounted rate ended.

Does that sound about right?

Edited by littledotty27
more info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ryde

 

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

 

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

 

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

Good luck in your case :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...