Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[enoughisenough]

Hi SC

 

It's called ' digestion', chewing it all over and working it through the system before we deposit the resulting 'load' onto an unsuspecting bank

 

A metaphor worthy of BRW! And...

 

That's probably why things have gone a bit quiet, the arguments have been laid out by supersleuth, ravaged by Suetonius, digested by many and are still being considered and waiting until someone gets in front of a judge to test it...what more to do then than keep exploring, keep arguing (nicely ) and debating the for's and againsts so we can be prepared..

 

You are of course right. This is exactly what we are doing. Only digging will illuminate the hitherto 'dark arts' of our foes. Much light has already been shed otherwise they wouldn't keep coming back to have a peek!

 

Good to hear from you again. Cheers KTF. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced.

 

No. It's not against the disclosure rules you will have up to about 72 hours before the hearing but you must submit your N244 with the defence appended by the due date. The submission comes later so plenty time to get your head around all that stuff.

 

Have you already been given a hearing date? Don't say what it is on open forum though. Just a yes or no will suffice!

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

[scedminc]

I forgot to ask but think the answer is self explanitory that the solicitors fees that i am being charged as a result of the initial hearing should be added to the end of the mortgage account and not the arrears balance as they are not actually arrears?

 

SC so what you are saying is that should I blow the lid on the securitisation thing and that Preferred have no right to bring a claim then Preferred (albeit they no longer exist) could buy the mortgage back and continue with action?

 

When they originally got the suspended order Preferred still owned my mortgage. It was after that they sold it off so does this mean that the order would pass over to the new owners or would the order no longer exist and the new owners would have to start all over again?

[scedminc]

Hi Sced.

 

No. It's not against the disclosure rules you will have up to about 72 hours before the hearing but you must submit your N244 with the defence appended by the due date. The submission comes later so plenty time to get your head around all that stuff.

 

Have you already been given a hearing date? Don't say what it is on open forum though. Just a yes or no will suffice!

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

 

No not got a hearing that yet as I am still working on the defence i wish to attach i.e your first email. I am hoping to submit this tomorrow. I assumed that I must submit my defence with the N244 before I could get a hearing date?

[Smarterchick]

I forgot to ask but think the answer is self explanitory that the solicitors fees that i am being charged as a result of the initial hearing should be added to the end of the mortgage account and not the arrears balance as they are not actually arrears?

 

SC so what you are saying is that should I blow the lid on the securitisation thing and that Preferred have no right to bring a claim then Preferred (albeit they no longer exist) could buy the mortgage back and continue with action?

 

When they originally got the suspended order Preferred still owned my mortgage. It was after that they sold it off so does this mean that the order would pass over to the new owners or would the order no longer exist and the new owners would have to start all over again?

 

 

My understanding from a JonCris quote which I latched on to as I thought it quite succinct was that a claimant has to have suffered a loss to enable them to bring a claim for compensation such as repossession. Now if the company standing before the court claiming to be the Claimant has been paid in full by an SPV for your mortgage then they have suffered no loss and therefore are in no position to make this claim. That's not to say the spv can't claim, but then the spv are not in court are they? So what would a Judge make of that?

 

Now I have absolutely NO legal training and I haven't a clue from giving advice on any of this, so I am not the one to be telling anyone anything and you should take no notice of what I say from a legal perspective. I'm just telling you how I read this, nothing else so perhaps someone with more knowledge about these things can help you. I just know that if and when I find out exactly who my spv is and I end up in court defending a repo action I might, just might use this as a last resort if I were to be losing my home .

 

SC

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

Yes. My word this thread has burst into life again! Get your N244, sorted first.

 

In all likelihood when preferred commenced action your mortgage had already been securitised. This is the ruse - it was securitised in pretty damn short order - they just didn't tell you. Their being named as the claimant in the original action has got bugger all to do with it. They had no rights and they knew it. They were abusing the civil process by hoodwinking both you and the courts into believing they still had 'true ownership'.

 

As for blowing the lid - even a gentle prising open and a smidgen of cast doubt could do it. There is a legitimate difference of opinion amongst caggers on this. My view is and always has been that at the moment it's bloody difficult to go into court on the securitisation stuff alone. Not saying it's impossible mind you. As they have flouted all manner of consumer regs and laws these are worth raising also. But it's an interesting question to put to the court.

 

1. They sold the mortgage and received full consideration for it. They have therefore suffered no loss resulting from your alleged breach. They therefore have no entitlement to bring a claim against you.

 

2. their continued presence on the land registry, having sold the mortgage, is the result of their deliberate failure to do that which they are mandated to do BY the LRA 2002 and amend the register accordingly.

3. hence the LRA is no longer adequate proof of ownership. Where there is doubt, the court will not want to be found to be making an error in law in their favour. Better to hold off will be most judges thinking.

 

Hope that has come across correctly.

 

Cheers.

[scedminc]

Indeed EIE it full of life now.

 

Your points have come across fine thanks.

 

When I ask that the claimant should prove that have the legal right to make a claim. What if they say we have the right due to the Land Registry and contract etc. If I argue that the LR is no longer adequate proof then out of interest how would they prove they have a legal right and surely a judge will think the same? Just trying to think about how they would be expected to prove their ownership.

 

Also if the court ordered that Preferred disclose the sale and that the SPV disclose there ownership then would it not be that the SPV would simply deny the ownership on the basis of blowing the lid?

 

Am i starting to make my own problems now asking this cos if i am then ill shut up?

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

In all probability they can't prove it - they can't prove it because they no longer have the right.

 

1. You need the prospectus that preferred's spv issued for the date roughly 3 months after you took out your mortgage. This details the whole transaction process and runs to about 200-250 pages normally. Have you got this? If not You have to go down to the FSA. It may be better to see if someone else on this thread was with preferred. They might already have it. The prospectus is useful because it lays bare their intention not to amend the LR in accordance with the law. So in their own words they say they are not going to do this, even though they have to, it raises two issues. a) Why not? So they can 'prove' in court they still own the mortgage when they don't b) their a la carte approach to the law. Judges don't like that!

 

2. There should be a map of the transaction structure. That will lead you to the trustee. The trustee's role is to 'guarantee' the security of the notes investors investment. They do this by registering under form 395 at companies house. Once the trustee has made this entry this can be used to say to the judge why does this entry appear if preferred still hold legal title? Simple answer it can't. Either preferred are then lying or the SPV lied to investors.

 

That's my reading of it!!!

 

If the clock is ticking - and it is - I seriously suggest you get your defence sorted out. This stuff can wait - right?

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

Who is the legal firm acting for 'preferred'?

[scedminc]

Indeed this stuff can definately wait.

 

As i previously stated in the thread I thought my mortgage was sold off to Eurosail in 2007 about 4months after I took the mortgage out. I thought this only because of the general rule of when they usually sell them off. For this i had both the prospectus and the form 395 from companies house which i was of course happy to have this info. Now the problem is that they wrote to me about the buildings insurance and mention that the mortgagee is Mortgage Funding 2008 1-BL. This company does not exist with the -BL on the end but i assume the company listed at companies house it these idiots as the address is the usual Wilmington Trust SP. I have downloaded the Form 395 which states that the charge was created on 19th March 2008. Unfortunately i have not found the prospectus and think i may not online as the terms 'Mortgage' and 'Funding' are too broad to return anything usual and will just consist of lots of useless info on mortgages and funding in general. Therefore I am left with the conclusion that either Preferred sold my mortgage in 2007 to maybe Eurosail and then bought it back and resold it again to Mortgage Funding or they did not sell it at all until almost a year later. This will probably be a mistery. I would like to get the prospectus but again fear that due to time I am not going to be able to get to the FSA in London to get it.

[scedminc]

Hi Sced

 

Who is the legal firm acting for 'preferred'?

 

The legal firm is Optima Legal but originally it was erm i cant remember the name but it the other lot that Preferred and SPML etc use or used as the case may now be.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

I'm just thinking that there must be one Preferred expert here who can nail this stuff far more quickly than I. So a general call to preferred veterans - can you point Sced in the right direction?

[JonCris]

Sced many of us read our notification emails WITHOUT coming onto the forum which of course means it looks like it's gone quiet. It ain't there's stuff going on which for the moment is best left off the forum - Also Confucius he say "slowly slowly catchee monkey"

[scedminc]

Does this mean that my mortgage is having to be bought back by Preferred?

 

Market News

[JonCris]

Look lets be frank it's doubtful that your going to get their claim thrown out in it's entirety the court may well offer them a fig leaf such as registering the name with the LR then resubmitting an application in the correct name & if that happens then there are all kinds of other avenues to follow (not least taxation) - in the meantime you need to throw everything at them - this should at least, & even the court doesn't understand it, muddy the waters sufficient to stop possession

 

Of course it may be that you go before a Judge who does indeed understand in which case you may find him/her very sympathetic to your cause but even if you do & win it may well only be the 1st round as the SPiVs ain't gonna go down without a fight

[JonCris]

Does this mean that my mortgage is having to be bought back by Preferred?

 

Market News

 

 

Looks like they may be unbundling but I'll wait until SS comments before saying more

[scedminc]

Look lets be frank it's doubtful that your going to get their claim thrown out in it's entirety the court may well offer them a fig leaf such as registering the name with the LR then resubmitting an application in the correct name & if that happens then there are all kinds of other avenues to follow (not least taxation) - in the meantime you need to throw everything at them - this should at least, & even the court doesn't understand it, muddy the waters sufficient to stop possession

 

Of course it may be that you go before a Judge who does indeed understand in which case you may find him/her very sympathetic to your cause but even if you do & win it may well only be the 1st round as the SPiVs ain't gonna go down without a fight

 

Hi JC

 

I can quite believe that they will fight but Im afraid I will fight too. This is my house we are talking about so i will do everything and anything I can. See these people are saying my arrears are over £5k where infact they are more like £1700. Massive difference. If it come to the crunch I could borrow the money and pay the £1700 but not the alleged £5k. Now the way i see it is that there is no way i want to borrow the money to pay the arrears just to keep these idiots at bay as im sure they would come back at me another time.

 

Sorry JC just read it back and may come across as an attack on you but it not i just have a terrible way of wording things sometimes.

Edited May 11, 2009 by scedminc

[enoughisenough]

Sced

 

You can bet your last they will keep coming back.

 

This is very very serious stuff. Bank charges? Teddy bear's picnic compared to this. Of course they exaggerate the arrears. Of course they delay SARs. Of course they don't comply with CPR's. Of course they break the effing law with virtual impunity. THEY HAVE TO TAKE YOUR HOUSE. It is their only logic, their only purpose and their sole raison d'etre.

 

Screwing you over with vastly inflated interest rates was only the opening of the game. This is the end game. You have got to keep on fighting it off.

[scedminc]

Sced

 

You can bet your last they will keep coming back.

 

This is very very serious stuff. Bank charges? Teddy bear's picnic compared to this. Of course they exaggerate the arrears. Of course they delay SARs. Of course they don't comply with CPR's. Of course they break the effing law with virtual impunity. THEY HAVE TO TAKE YOUR HOUSE. It is their only logic, their only purpose and their sole raison d'etre.

 

Screwing you over with vastly inflated interest rates was only the opening of the game. This is the end game. You have got to keep on fighting it off.

 

I think all these people behind this stuff which obviously have too much money to ever have to worry about stuff like losing there house should all be stripped of everything in life then dumped on a remote island to rot!!!!

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sced

 

I think all these people behind this stuff which obviously have too much money to ever have to worry about stuff like losing there house should all be stripped of everything in life then dumped on a remote island to rot!!!!

 

Agreed. But in this case the remote islands in question are merely tax remote. Geurnsey, Jersey and the Cayman Islands to be precise.

 

As a previous cagger has already observed - a near perfect [problem]. It is our hard work our overtime (precious little of that left) and our taxes that fund this shower's luxurious lifetstyle.

 

SPiVs. Never was an entity so well named. George Orwell couldn't have invented this.

[Helford]

Just a little contribution!

 

I had a mortgage with the sharks at PML from May 2006 until September 2008, extortionate interest rates, lost my job in the interim and got royally scr*wed by PML with charges. Obstacles put up by PML/Capstone at EVERY opportunity to all proposals, even down to refusing to prepare redemption statements when we finally sold up. I have now just discovered that the sh**s have put a default on my file, albeit never issued us with a default notice!

 

Anyway I have sent them a nice little DPA SAR letter today, so they can look forward to getting that in the morning! Hey ho!

 

H

.

[enoughisenough]

Hi H

 

Yeah right. and wait for their (none) reply. They have a policy of NOT complying in any way shape or form they can. Crapstone are Wasters. Contact the Information Commissioner in 40 days time when they haven't responded. Useless.

 

The IC is a bit tame but have promised to beef things up. Good luck.

[uneverdid]

Hi,

 

Well i am now completely gobsmacked and confused i too recently had a letter querying my building insurance policy. I have just read through the last few posts and went to find the letter it quotes that my building insurance should quote "note the interest of Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL as mortgagee" I only took this mortgage out in April 2007 so what is going off ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I recently went to court but it got adjourned whilst preferred or whoever sorted out their paperwork. They then decided to go for a liberty to restore if i default again before Feb 2010. Are you saying that this was all out of order.

 

Your comments are very much appreciated

 

N

[enoughisenough]

Hi Uneverdid

 

I recently went to court but it got adjourned whilst preferred or whoever sorted out their paperwork. They then decided to go for a liberty to restore if i default again before Feb 2010. Are you saying that this was all out of order.

 

 

Of course it's all out of order. IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY. Why? Pure greed and extortion. Pay us what we demand, when we demand or we will take your house.

 

I bet if you check your statements a horror show will unfold. In fact I guarantee it. Do not be confused - you are the victim of a [problem] - pure and simple.

 

You were lucky to get a whole 9 months. Watch them like hawks. They will tell you you need to pay X and then will allege a shortfall when you pay x. They will tell you you have missed payments when you haven't. They will reinstate at the drop of a hat without even telling you. They will refuse to comply with any disclosure requests you make under CPR 31.6 or under the DPA. They will eff you over, by fair means OR foul (usually the latter).

 

They HAVE NO CHOICE. They Must do their SPiV Master's bidding. And that I'm afraid is summed up in one simple word. REPOSSESS.

 

Note the interst of Eurosail basically means they don't even have the right to bring a claim against you.

 

As it is liberty to restore you must resist any further attempt with full force any subsequent suspended order as if it were a full repo order. A suspended order can be easily converted and rubber stamped by the court. YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THESE DISGUSTING PARASITES. Keep on the posts. Blase resignation is not the way to go. Not suggesting you are BUT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.

[uneverdid]

I have no intention giving up, on or around p.28 of this thread i posted copies up of notice of power of attorney giving Capstone power by Preferred but i am sure these are dated after suposedly Eurosail become the mortgagee.

Confused i am but a quitter i am not so fear not i will fight everything they throw at me. My fixed rate is up next month and they have asked me to go on another fixed rate with them at the same rate as now plus 1% which would make it 7.9% however at the end of my fixed my rate is only 3.79% plus the current 3 month libor rate which is currently 1.1% making a total of 4.8%. They got quite arsey (for want of a better word) with me when i said no thanks i would take my chances, they kept going on about how interest rates are going to go up rapidly within the next 6 months.

I despise these peoples they prey on vulnerable people, cus lets face it we wouldnt be with them if our circumstances allowed us to go elsewhere.