Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Liz Southern]

Hi BRW,

 

I'm trying to find the Treasury Select Committee link regarding securitization. I'm going to court later re Amex and I'd like to give the DJ a copy of it. Would you know where it is by any chance please?

 

Regards

Liz

 

Never mind. Found it.

 

No, everything except the front cover has been deleted from photobucket!!! Ha ha ha.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Liz Southern
Found doc.

[Liz Southern]

Hello Liz!

 

Or this...

 

UK Parliament - Bankingcrisis

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Thanks BRW,

 

Found it. It's this one.

House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence

 

With Part II and the whole shebang.

Bye

Liz.

[Liz Southern]

Hi all you lovely people!

 

The sun is shining where I am. It's a luvverly day. I'm going to post on my Amex Newmans Stat Demand thread and report on my Set Aside app.

 

Bye

Liz

[Liz Southern]

OK I admit it. I'm a muppet.

 

No muppets today!!

 

Just quicker fingers than me.

 

hee hee

Liz.

[Liz Southern]

How wonderful it would have been if the governement had had the foresight, rather than paying all that money to the banks, had given it to people in any kind of debt, be it mortgage loans or credit cards, to pay the banks off and wipe out personal debt. That way we would have money to spend in shops, businesses would have thrived, the banks would have received their money in the same way, personal debt would have been all but wiped out and the Labour government would have been assured of re-election even if they had Gordon Brown at the helm and not mickey mouse. Too easy I guess?

 

I told Gordon Brown that. He sent me back four pages of, "We had to save the banks, blah blah blah." Yes, well, coming from a banker like him, he would say that.

 

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

The £2000 off a new car for trading in your old one is a first very minor tentative step in this direction.

 

And it's all very well for them to take a grand off the price of a car but the industry will just hike the price before telling us they've taken the other grand off.

 

That £2K will buy the front two wheels. Who's going to pay for the rest of the vehicle?

 

And if you get made bankrupt, keep your old banger, as the bailiffs won't want it!

 

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

Be careful how you use this one Liz. The sympathy of your DJ may well depend on whether he has spoken to Chester CC recently.

 

Chester County Court or Council? What have I missed?

 

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

Hello Mephistopheles, and all & any barristers and lawyers who are reading this,

 

I would like to ask; if a mortgage has been securitized, (which I understand to be the selling on of the mortgage debt), does this mean in the eyes of the law that the mortgage debt has been sold on, and that the original building society no longer owns the debt? If this is so, then the contract is invalid, surely, and the debt has been gifted to the mortgagor (me).

 

I am thinking along the lines of; under the tort of contract, a contract has to be agreed between two parties, and a contract cannot be assigned or ended without the knowledge of one of those parties, without breach of contract taking place and the contract being invalid. And by invalid, I don't just mean unenforceable - I mean as if it never existed.

 

For a building society to write the option of later securitising the mortgage into the mortgage contract, the mortgagor must have been made aware of this by the mortgagee in the Main Mortgage Terms Information, or surely FSA regulations have been broken.

 

As well as breaching contract law, surely if the mortgagee no longer owns the debt, they cannot repossess the object of the debt, ie the property.

 

All comments welcome. I do intend to take on my building society about this. Someone has to create precedent.

 

Regards

Liz

Edited July 10, 2009 by Liz Southern
spelling.

[Liz Southern]

Analogy It's like an allegedly respectable lender passing your loan onto a back street loan shark & you only discovering this unpalatable fact when the loan shark turns up

 

Exactly - and that's my point. There's the weakness. It goes back to tort of contract. Can a mortgagor (little 'ol peasant customers us) be expected to know about a clause written in such a fashion, or understand it if we do know about it, and if it's hidden in the small print that one day someone else will "own" our debt, surely it's an unfair business relationship, and can be challenged in the High Court? If not contract law, then Human Rights? I have to go and look up the HRA. I'm at work.

 

I'm not dropping this. Their tactics have annoyed me. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the repossession hearing - I'll deal with that. And in the meantime I'll carry on with their downfall.

 

Bye

Liz

[Liz Southern]

I sincerely think that won't happen.

 

 

Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant!

Liz

Edited July 11, 2009 by Liz Southern
wording

[Liz Southern]

But the lender is still the owner of the legal title (at least in my view). You would first have to establish, which as far as I am aware has not been proved thus far that the legal title does not remain with the lender

 

Forgive me, I have yet to read back through the thread.

 

So, I ask the judge to put the mortgagee to strict proof that it owns the mortgage. The action then cannot proceed without proving ownership, and it cannot proceed in the County Court, as the amount in dispute is the entire mortgage - so I apply for a transfer and a prelim in the High Court.

 

Then I get myself a pro bono barrister wanting to make a name for himself, or a silk wanting to be bigger - because then I make it very public.

 

Just thinking out loud here, peeps. A few like-minded people - class action - umm.

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

What proof would you require that the lender still owns your mortgage?

 

Another way to look at the situation, is to ask is there any there any evidence that it does not own the legal title ?

 

When you put your opponent to "strict proof" the onus is on them to prove something - in this case that they do own the mortgage. I don't speak first to specify to the judge what proof I consider acceptable. The opponent must first prove ownership (strict proof) to the satisfaction of the court, during which I can challenge the "proof". The matter will then hopefully be tied to ownership, not repossession, and should end up in a higher court.

 

Asking "is there any evidence that it does not own legal title" puts the onus on me, and the idea is to put them in the hot seat and make them prove they have the right to be taking the action they are taking.

 

"Strict proof" works in the same way as asking a company to provide a CCA agreement. "Prove it if you want to proceed", basically. (Otherwise get the hell out of my court and stop wasting my time.)

 

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

Hi peeps, nice lively debate.

 

BRW - Astute as ever.

 

Can a building soc proceed to repossession hearing if the borrower has mortgage protection? Apparently I have this, but the building soc hasn't mentioned it to me.

 

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

Hi Suetonius

 

I have to search through the mortgage docs for that. I was reading through them and saw it written once, somewhere. All it said was "mortgage protection".

 

I'll revert to you.

Regards

Liz

[Liz Southern]

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

 

Hi JonCris,

 

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

 

Regards

Liz

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

[Liz Southern]

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

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

(Meant in the best possible taste.)

Liz

[Liz Southern]

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

 

Regards

Liz