Jump to content


Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred


scedminc
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3659 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

I must admit I did think it was the hearing as to vary an order but just thought i'd ask seeing the person at the court disagreed. After all to strike out the original order because it was not lawful would still be a vary of the original order.

 

 

Heres the form I was pointed at Scedminc: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244_e.pdf

In knowledge lies wisdom

 

Mo - not even a bar-stool lawyer, but I'll help where I can...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If anyone want to find a full list of the mortgages packaged up with your mortgage you can ask the Land REgistry. Here's what to do.

 

We all know who the SELLER of our mortgage was. The Seller of our mortgage is the company that is currently registered as the mortgage owner at the Land Registry. That Seller, (when it first acquired the mortgages) would have filed a TR4 (which is the transfer form that enabled them to be registered as the owner on YOUR register).

 

The Land Registry use the information on the TR4s to update the register with the new owner. Therefore, as the property owner, you are entitled to ask the Land Registry for a copy of the TR4 that the lender submitted to the LR when they became registered as the proprietor of your mortgage. You are entitled to the information, because firstly the LR is a PUBLIC REGISTER and secondly, you are asking for information that relates to your personal title number.

 

The list of title numbers, first line of address, and date that the mortgage was originated will be listed on that TR4. You will find your particular title number and first line of address as one of the items listed on that form too.

 

That way, you will know a large chunk of mortgages that were securitised with you.

 

BUT the form will not tell you to which SPV subsequently bought your mortgage because as we know, the company registered as the mortgage proprietor illegally fails to tell the LR that there has been a further transfer to the SPV.

 

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to but in guys, as you know i am watching this thread with great interest, as we are in the same situation as most with these (words cannot describe what i feel at this moment in time)

Supersleauth refering to missy06 post #76 and your reply post #80. We to have received a reply this week to our SAR, sent from cust services dept i might add and not the compliance manager as posted to, "Thank you for your letter, before we are able to proceed with your request we require you to provide all the account holders written authority to release this information."

This is all that has been put onto this letter, nothing like missy06's letter ???

This is in joint names, we have had 2 suspended repossesion orders, so all correspondance has been served on both of us at one time or another, although the SAR was not signed by us in pen, it was printed names only. What is my option now with replying back to these morons, in relation to the joint and severally clause...as i do believe they really are holding back some vital information and are stalling because of the amount of their own incriminating evidence they will have to release to us....

Any help you can give with the correct wording for a reply letter would be really appreciated.. My gloves are on, and they are not going to take my home as easily as they thought, ive been in constant battle with them from day one, in 2005 there are too many issues with these people to go into all at once on here. And if there is anyway i can get an outcome for any of their underhanded ways, then i am only too willing to share it with the other caggers, and anyone else who wants to listen.

 

Thanks in advance

B-O-2

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

These shysters are just pulling a ruse to annoy you and avoid answering the question - it is not worth rising to their irritation on this point as there will be bigger battles ahead of you. So on this point, just accomodate the request with the knowleged that that the SAR is putting them in a tight corner.

 

Say something to the effect that:

 

It is noted that your letter of XX date serves to assist your attempt to avoid compliance with your legal obligation to provide the information properly and lawfully requested.

 

Nonetheless, for the avoidance of all doubt this letter serves as confirmation that the SAR that was served on you on XXX date was sent with the full authority of all account holders.

 

If you are still in any doubt, then this letter will serve a further confirmation that all account holders have requested this information and also serve as the written authority that you have requested.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

[and then state all account holder names and sign under your printed names]

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Thank you for your letter, before we are able to proceed with your request we require you to provide all the account holders written authority to release this information."........

 

Gosh - gladly confirm you've given your permission but alas cant speak for the Issuers, investment agents, dealers, custodian of notes et al......:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SS, you are a gem.

Your correct in what you say about them trying to irritate me, well they do, especially when the other letter i opened after this one, is telling me the arrears have now reached £7,000 + because of another administrative error they have made on the account, and yet again they give no explanation as to what or why. They seem to have this problem off to a fine art, every 3 months on the same day as the cmp is due.GGGGRRRRRRRRR!!!!

 

THANKS AGAIN,

AND KEEP UP THE GOODWORK EVERYONE ON THE SECURITISATION ISSUES.

tALKING OF WHICH I AM AT A LOSS WITH MINE, I HAVE A FEELING MINE WAS IN THE EUROSAIL 2006-1 THAT I SEEM TO HAVE READ SOMEWHERE THAT SPML HAD TO REPURCHASE IT...BUT NOT 100% ON THIS YET...

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see you have a sense of humour at this daft o'clock hour Campari2, or have you had a glass or two of your namesake...have 1 for me too:D...

But i am tempted to add your replys in there too !!!!:D

 

b-o-2

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SS, you are a gem.

Your correct in what you say about them trying to irritate me, well they do, especially when the other letter i opened after this one, is telling me the arrears have now reached £7,000 + because of another administrative error they have made on the account, and yet again they give no explanation as to what or why. They seem to have this problem off to a fine art, every 3 months on the same day as the cmp is due.GGGGRRRRRRRRR!!!!

 

THANKS AGAIN,

AND KEEP UP THE GOODWORK EVERYONE ON THE SECURITISATION ISSUES.

tALKING OF WHICH I AM AT A LOSS WITH MINE, I HAVE A FEELING MINE WAS IN THE EUROSAIL 2006-1 THAT I SEEM TO HAVE READ SOMEWHERE THAT SPML HAD TO REPURCHASE IT...BUT NOT 100% ON THIS YET...

Hi - this is from Standard & Poors web site:

Breach of warranty: SPML

On November 14, Southern Pacific Securities 04-2 PLC, Southern Pacific Securities 05-1 PLC, Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 PLC, Southern Pacific Securities 06-1 PLC, Eurosail 2006-1 PLC, Southern Pacific Financing 05-B PLC, and Southern Pacific Financing 06-A PLC, notified the market that there had been a breach of warranty in each transaction. The warranties were breached because the LTV ratio conditions for certain loans were not satisfied when the loans were sold to the issuer. These loans were related to one particular counterparty.

Under the mortgage sale agreement terms, the LTV ratio for each loan was to be no higher than 95%, based on the lower of the purchase price and valuation. As a result of the breach, Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd. (SPML), in its capacity as seller of the mortgage loans, is required to repurchase these loans.

We concluded that the repurchase of the loans did not have an affect on the ratings of the notes. See ("Breach Of Warranty Affects Seven Transactions Originated By Southern Pacific" published on RatingsDirect on Nov. 20, 2006).

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks C2

 

So in laymans terms, does this mean, that i could still be with spml, or am i not as spml are no more, which in that case who am i with? crapstone? which has been my suss****ion, due to the way they keep trying to force us further and further into arrears/repossession, which is why they are reluctant to pass the info?? inmo

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All!

 

I would like to add by saying:

 

 

1.It looks like from campari2's last post that SPML had to repurchase the loans that were above the 95% LTV mark and there were only 7 transactions of this particular type.

So in my view,unless your mortgage was one of these particular 7 transactions,consider

the fact that SPML did actually sell your mortgage.

 

2.In lay terms this means for example that if a property was bought for 100k pounds the maximum mortgage allowed would be 95k pounds.

 

3.I believe this would mean if you had any other lower LTV(Loan to Value) mortgage,this would mean that there would be no breach of warranty and therefore SPML would not have to/need to repurchase.

 

4.In plain figures - based on a 100k pounds purchase price or valuation which ever is the lowest a 90% LTV mortgage would mean that the maximum mortgage would be 90k pounds and an 85% LTV mortgage would be 85k pounds and so forth.

 

5.All this makes sense because should there be defaults,there is that safety gap cushion to

be able to repossess and sell the properties at a lower price to grab the money as fast as possible - motivated of course by one factor - greed!

 

Anyway,I hope this helps.

Edited by Nightmare4banks
Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need someone whos done it to compile a brief step-by-step on how to get hold of a prospectus someone suspects may hold their mortgage!

The more aplications there are, the more mortgages found directly equals the number of Land Registry Charges provable beyond reasonable doubt to be false and illegally unchanged.

A good number - 20 plus for arguments sake is an absolute certainly that theres "no smoke without fire" - thats the first step to making the media aware and getting something done.

 

LOTM,

I agree with you. Is anyone up to compiling a step-by-step brief?

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think a lot of advice depends on the luck of the draw as to who you speak to. I will dig out the form I was advised on later...

 

In the meantime, if you have a repo against your from a company calling itself Rooftop Mortgages Ltd and pruporting to be a chargeholder, the judge might be interested in seeing this little beauty:

 

Rooftop_Rirep_06_2a.jpg

Rooftop_Rirep_06_2b.jpg

Right click, save and view or print out ... enjoy :)

 

Interesting!:p

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

this would be SUCH a good idea :)

 

I agree.

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to but in guys, as you know i am watching this thread with great interest, as we are in the same situation as most with these (words cannot describe what i feel at this moment in time)

Supersleauth refering to missy06 post #76 and your reply post #80. We to have received a reply this week to our SAR, sent from cust services dept i might add and not the compliance manager as posted to, "Thank you for your letter, before we are able to proceed with your request we require you to provide all the account holders written authority to release this information."

This is all that has been put onto this letter, nothing like missy06's letter ???

This is in joint names, we have had 2 suspended repossesion orders, so all correspondance has been served on both of us at one time or another, although the SAR was not signed by us in pen, it was printed names only. What is my option now with replying back to these morons, in relation to the joint and severally clause...as i do believe they really are holding back some vital information and are stalling because of the amount of their own incriminating evidence they will have to release to us....

Any help you can give with the correct wording for a reply letter would be really appreciated.. My gloves are on, and they are not going to take my home as easily as they thought, ive been in constant battle with them from day one, in 2005 there are too many issues with these people to go into all at once on here. And if there is anyway i can get an outcome for any of their underhanded ways, then i am only too willing to share it with the other caggers, and anyone else who wants to listen.

 

Thanks in advance

B-O-2

 

If they've requested the written authority of all parties, why not give it to them?.......can't u contact the other 3rd parties?

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - yes, I also think it would still be securitised somewhere as they would appear to do this full-time - cant see them hanging on to it - have also posted another link (below) showing the same repurchase with SPML/Eurosail but this is in 2006. It takes some chasing around after there moving things around (which seems to be pre-designed) as I also noted that Beacon then changed its name to Galleria - just need to check if thats the same company -

InvestEgate, Eurosail 2006-1 PLC - Repurchase of Mortgage Loans

 

InvestEgate, Galleria CDO V Ltd - Notice of Event of Default

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually every one in the UK has been securitised - even those borrowers who think that they haven't been securitised - have been securitised. That is the way our mortgage system runs in this county. The Paragon Group (a major nasty outfit) reported that 80% of mortgages in the UK are securitised. The other 20% are probably commercial mortgages and/or mortgages waiting to be securitised. - that is, until the banking crisis started!

 

At least the CAGgers have wised up and are smart enough to find ways to suss out what's going on.

 

When SPML repurchased loans from the SPV (as a result of a breach of their representations and warranties clause in the contract of sale), then SPML repurchased them - but we don't know whcih particular mortgages. Nonetheless, SPML would have re-sold them on in their next securitisation - they wouldn't keep them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually every one in the UK has been securitised - even those borrowers who think that they haven't been securitised - have been securitised. That is the way our mortgage system runs in this county. The Paragon Group (a major nasty outfit) reported that 80% of mortgages in the UK are securitised. The other 20% are probably commercial mortgages and/or mortgages waiting to be securitised. - that is, until the banking crisis started!

 

At least the CAGgers have wised up and are smart enough to find ways to suss out what's going on.

 

When SPML repurchased loans from the SPV (as a result of a breach of their representations and warranties clause in the contract of sale), then SPML repurchased them - but we don't know whcih particular mortgages. Nonetheless, SPML would have re-sold them on in their next securitisation - they wouldn't keep them.

 

So if 80% of mortgages are securitised in the UK then I suppose we can assume they are all illegal. If that is the case and someone exposed the whole [problem] it and it became public knowledge then the government would most probably step in and do something to make what they have done legal in someway otherwise the whole market would collapse and 80% of the UK's mortgagees would claim against there mortgage company. This would just not be allowed. Don't get me wrong though I'm not saying in anyway that they should not and wont be exposed. Just from the point of view of people reading these threads thinking they will get some kind of financial or other gain then it must be realised it highly unlikely. Use the bank charges test case for example. The courts will probably deem them unlawful but will not allow anyone to claim.

 

Sorry for the negativity here. The fight will go on though.

Edited by scedminc
.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So if 80% of mortgages are securitised in the UK then I suppose we can assume they are all illegal. If that is the case and someone exposed the whole [problem] it and it became public knowledge then the government would most probably step in and do something to make what they have done legal in someway otherwise the whole market would collapse and 80% of the UK's mortgagees would claim against there mortgage company. This would just not be allowed. Don't get me wrong though I'm not saying in anyway that they should not and wont be exposed. Just from the point of view of people reading these threads thinking they will get some kind of financial or other gain then it must be realised it highly unlikely. Use the bank charges test case for example. The courts will probably deem them unlawful but will not allow anyone to claim.

 

Sorry for the negativity here. The fight will go on though.

 

I hear your pizz-offdness with the way "democracy" is in the UK these days Sced, and raise you ... but - to do so in this case (non-registration with LR, deciept in contract to borrowers on a massive scale) would require OPENLY re-writing not only the Law as regards the Land Registry, but ripping down a bastion of Common Law that has been there for centuries. I doubt any government could get away with that - let alone one as wretchedly unpopular as New (cough) Labour.

 

Remember a fight is seldom one punch - its about who can land the best ones quickest :) The important thing is to remain focused on what CAN be achieved by way of punches in a real setting, our repossesion hearing:

 

Show the charges, the penalties, the unfair interest. Show the judge how the plaintiff is always after a repossesion, not an equitable solution. Then show him WHY there cant be an equitable solution: because the "plaintiff" isnt the "Charge holder" - he's a PERJURER.

 

1) Explain and describe in the clearest possible terms what securitisation is, and what it entails to the "plaintiff", his business, you the decieved borrower and the court in terms of dispensing justice - which is what its there for. Back up your description with documents - Carmel to the House of Commons etc

 

2) Prove that the "mortgage company" set out to sell on the charge they claim to still hold from the outset (eg: See the Rooftop Accounts elsewhere - use them even if you arent with Rooftop - Rooftop are typical of the company you're probably dealing with!)

 

3) Prove - if possible - that a given title number is included in a raft of other titles sold by that company, or if that definitive information is not available... prove beyond reasonable doubt that the "mortgage company" IS LIKELY TO HAVE sold on the charge they are claiming. (Again - see the Rooftop Accounts which are a legal document in the public domain - what cant talk, cant lie - tell it to the judge: "what cant talk, cant lie"

 

The difficulty is "Proving a negative" of course - that is why we need to prime the judge with enough information for him to want to look BEYOND a bland presentation of your title deed by the plaintiff - which remember covers the Judges actions *in the normal course of events*

 

The ABnormal course of events is that you rock up and explain it to him, offer him proof enough to create "reasonable doubt" and yet he STILL dismisses your claim. Then the storm breaks and its proved.

Suddenly, the Judge dont look so good... clear miscarraige... you laid it all before him and he found for the "plaintiff", the perjurer - even though you TOLD him it was perjury.

 

The task therefore is to *educate* the judge to the point where he notes to himself that dismissing what you say WILL IN ALL PROBABILITY bite him on the arse - NOT worry about what some polititian will want to do under pressure from some bank somewhere down the road.

In knowledge lies wisdom

 

Mo - not even a bar-stool lawyer, but I'll help where I can...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear your pizz-offdness with the way "democracy" is in the UK these days Sced, and raise you ... but - to do so in this case (non-registration with LR, deciept in contract to borrowers on a massive scale) would require OPENLY re-writing not only the Law as regards the Land Registry, but ripping down a bastion of Common Law that has been there for centuries. I doubt any government could get away with that - let alone one as wretchedly unpopular as New (cough) Labour.

 

Remember a fight is seldom one punch - its about who can land the best ones quickest :) The important thing is to remain focused on what CAN be achieved by way of punches in a real setting, our repossesion hearing:

 

Show the charges, the penalties, the unfair interest. Show the judge how the plaintiff is always after a repossesion, not an equitable solution. Then show him WHY there cant be an equitable solution: because the "plaintiff" isnt the "Charge holder" - he's a PERJURER.

 

1) Explain and describe in the clearest possible terms what securitisation is, and what it entails to the "plaintiff", his business, you the decieved borrower and the court in terms of dispensing justice - which is what its there for. Back up your description with documents - Carmel to the House of Commons etc

 

2) Prove that the "mortgage company" set out to sell on the charge they claim to still hold from the outset (eg: See the Rooftop Accounts elsewhere - use them even if you arent with Rooftop - Rooftop are typical of the company you're probably dealing with!)

 

3) Prove - if possible - that a given title number is included in a raft of other titles sold by that company, or if that definitive information is not available... prove beyond reasonable doubt that the "mortgage company" IS LIKELY TO HAVE sold on the charge they are claiming. (Again - see the Rooftop Accounts which are a legal document in the public domain - what cant talk, cant lie - tell it to the judge: "what cant talk, cant lie"

 

The difficulty is "Proving a negative" of course - that is why we need to prime the judge with enough information for him to want to look BEYOND a bland presentation of your title deed by the plaintiff - which remember covers the Judges actions *in the normal course of events*

 

The ABnormal course of events is that you rock up and explain it to him, offer him proof enough to create "reasonable doubt" and yet he STILL dismisses your claim. Then the storm breaks and its proved.

Suddenly, the Judge dont look so good... clear miscarraige... you laid it all before him and he found for the "plaintiff", the perjurer - even though you TOLD him it was perjury.

 

The task therefore is to *educate* the judge to the point where he notes to himself that dismissing what you say WILL IN ALL PROBABILITY bite him on the arse - NOT worry about what some polititian will want to do under pressure from some bank somewhere down the road.

 

 

Sorry don't get me wrong the fight must and will go on. I was just trying to state the probable reality of the outcome once all this is out in the open. I was just thinking that some people may think they will get away with not having to pay there mortgage or will get a massive compensation payout but I just think this will never happen. I know what you say about how the law has been broken etc but if 80% of the UK is in the same boat then once out something will be done or changes will be made so to stop anything happening to these criminals. Just my opinion of course but I think these criminals should be locked up or thrown in a dirty pit and left there for good after all the misery they have caused to millions of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SuperSlueth - re these you posted elsewhere... I confess I find it hard to get my head around them, but I *think* a couple of them could apply to a repossesion hearing on a securitised property?

 

I've bolded the ones I mean...

From the Interpretation:

Interpretation

3. (1)

In these Regulations

consumer" means any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession;

Unfair Terms

5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

Then:

 

 

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

icon_closed_level.gif

1. Terms which have the object or effect of (a)

excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;

 

(b)

inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

 

©

making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

 

(d)

permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

 

(e)

requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

(f)

authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

 

(g)

enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so;

 

(h)

automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;

 

(i)

irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j)

enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(k)

enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

 

(l)

providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

 

(m)

giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

 

(n)

limiting the sellers or suppliers obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

 

(o)

obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his; (ie, purposely not notifying of change of title)

 

(p)

giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latters agreement;

 

(q)

excluding or hindering the consumers right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

 

 

icon_closed_level.gif

2. Scope of paragraphs 1(g), (j) and (l) (a)

Paragraph 1(g) is without hindrance to terms by which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to terminate unilaterally a contract of indeterminate duration without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof immediately.

 

(b)

Paragraph 1(j) is without hindrance to terms under which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to alter the rate of interest payable by the consumer or due to the latter, or the amount of other charges for financial services without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof at the earliest opportunity and that the latter are free to dissolve the contract immediately.

Paragraph 1(j) is also without hindrance to terms under which a seller or supplier reserves the right to alter unilaterally the conditions of a contract of indeterminate duration, provided that he is required to inform the consumer with reasonable notice and that the consumer is free to dissolve the contract.

 

©

Paragraphs 1(g), (j) and (l) do not apply to: transactions in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products or services where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange quotation or index or a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not control;

 

contracts for the purchase or sale of foreign currency, travellers cheques or international money orders denominated in foreign currency;

 

 

 

(d)

Paragraph 1(l) is without hindrance to price indexation clauses, where lawful, provided that the method by which prices vary is explicitly described.

In knowledge lies wisdom

 

Mo - not even a bar-stool lawyer, but I'll help where I can...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry don't get me wrong the fight must and will go on. I was just trying to state the probable reality of the outcome once all this is out in the open. I was just thinking that some people may think they will get away with not having to pay there mortgage or will get a massive compensation payout but I just think this will never happen. I know what you say about how the law has been broken etc but if 80% of the UK is in the same boat then once out something will be done or changes will be made so to stop anything happening to these criminals. Just my opinion of course but I think these criminals should be locked up or thrown in a dirty pit and left there for good after all the misery they have caused to millions of people.

 

:) No worries :) That they'll be protected eventually is a given - our government and the establishment (to use that hackneyed old phrase) are both corrupt, and we lack the collective gonads to take to the streets and scare them into acting for US rather than themselves these days. That might be chicken and egg, but I'm not sure :)

Anyway... whatever...

The most important thing is that they're legally beaten under the Law as it stands today by the people they're trying to screw over.

 

Us :)

 

So... go find me the list of titles in a Eurosail 06 prospectus, pronto ;)

In knowledge lies wisdom

 

Mo - not even a bar-stool lawyer, but I'll help where I can...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to find out if Swift Advances plc securitise their portfolio. A recent discovery from Beacon suggest that Swift are different in that they maintain their assets on balance sheet and do not securitise. Supersleuth is suggesting if not ALL, most securitise. Swift have told me they don't in response to a direct request, not that I don't believe them of course...but they are Swift and Swift don't tell things the way they really are. They are linked to Kestrel and one of their Directors worked for Preferred..come on - how the hell do I find out the truth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to find out if Swift Advances plc securitise their portfolio. A recent discovery from Beacon suggest that Swift are different in that they maintain their assets on balance sheet and do not securitise. Supersleuth is suggesting if not ALL, most securitise. Swift have told me they don't in response to a direct request, not that I don't believe them of course...but they are Swift and Swift don't tell things the way they really are. They are linked to Kestrel and one of their Directors worked for Preferred..come on - how the hell do I find out the truth?

Hi - which Kestrel do you refer to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are part of Kestrel Holdings Limited 05055802, but there is Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd; No2 Ltd; No3 Ltd; Kestrel Aquisitions Ltd ; Kestrel Advances Ltd (Dormant)

 

Swift have Swift 1st Ltd ; Swift Advances plc ; Swift Securities Ltd and there's Capital Homes Loans Ltd too and all this lot are within the same group with Kestrel

Edited by Smarterchick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The following is page 34 of my prospectus............

 

Title of the Issuer

Legal title to the Loans and their related Collateral Security will be transferred to the Issuer only in the

limited circumstances described under "Title to the Mortgage Pool" below. Prior to the Issuer or the

Trustee obtaining legal title to the Loans and their related Collateral Security in accordance with the terms

of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, a bona fide purchaser from SPML or SPPL (which remain the legal

owners of the relevant Loans and Collateral Security), for value of any such Loan who does not have any

notice of the interests of the Issuer and the Trustee, as the case may be, might obtain a good title free of

any such interest. However, the risk of third party claims obtaining priority to the interests of the Issuer

or the Trustee in this way would be likely to be limited to circumstances arising from a breach by the

relevant Originator of its contractual obligations or fraud, negligence or mistake on the part of the

relevant Originator or the Issuer or their respective personnel or agents. The rights of the Issuer and the

Trustee may be or become subject to the direct rights of the Borrowers against SPML or SPPL. Such

rights may include the right of a Borrower to redeem its Loan and related Collateral Security by repaying

his Loan directly to SPML or SPPL, as the case may be. These rights may result in the Issuer receiving

less monies than anticipated from the Loans.

For so long as neither the Issuer nor the Trustee has obtained legal title, each of SPML and SPPL 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 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 or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be

given to the Borrowers.

In order for legal title in the English Mortgages over unregistered land to be transferred, transfers or deeds

of assignment of the English Mortgages of unregistered land together with the Loans secured thereby

must be completed and, where applicable, in order to stop other third party rights arising or continuing,

notice should be given to any prior mortgagee and registered with the Land Charges Registry.

 

 

Could someone tell me what it means in simple terms please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...