Carmel Butler / House of Commons

[JonCris]

Just for the record and as a procedure and matter of elimination :

 

I spoke to the FSA last week and asked them what facilities they had for viewing documents associated with securitisation in an attempt to find where these banks list our securitisation data...they came back this morning saying they have no access to this data and suggest the DPA Subject Acess route to gain this info if we want it. They apparently have no requirement for companies to disclose this and feel there to be no obligation for the banks/finance companies to supply it to us. We'll see...

 

 

SC

 

Of course your entitled to know who owns your mortgage

 

I suspect the FSA are saying this because they are up to their armpits in this [problem] & after all that's happened the last thing they want is to be exposed as the principal agency who with the present government actively encouraged this deceit on the consumer.......... why do you think control was moved from the Bank of England to the new FSA...... to many independent minded people at the BoE..............whereas at the FSA they are all bankers from the private sector......... effectively the dishonorable watching the dishonest you might say ;-)

Edited March 23, 2009 by JonCris

[elizabeth1]

Of course your entitled to know who owns your mortgage

 

I suspect the FSA are saying this because they are up to their armpits in this [problem] & after all that's happened the last thing they want is to be exposed as the principal agency who with the present government actively encouraged this deceit on the consumer.......... why do you think control was moved from the Bank of England to the new FSA...... to many independent minded people at the BoE..............whereas at the FSA they are all bankers from the private sector......... effectively the dishonorable watching the dishonest you might say ;-)

 

 

Is there any way we can put a template letter together to ask the specific questions we need to be asking about this securitisation malarky?

 

I previously did an SAR to Abbey relating to my mortgage and despite it being a decade old now etc.. nothing showed to indicate securitisation etc.. but that's down to my not asking any direct questions back then.

 

I am just thinking it'll be easier to put a direct approach to this stuff and leave less room for the Banks to wriggle and not answer us properly with the info that we want.

[enoughisenough]

Storming stuff Elizabeth 1

 

A true cagger!

 

A template letter is difficult in this regard but not impossible. I think it is difficult from a number of vantage points. However the suggestion is a completely valid one and these companies could be hit with a flood of requests that would completely overwhelm them.

 

There is also the question of strategy. Is it the right one to adopt? I have directly placed in my SAR the exact question. However there will be no light shed voluntarily on this subject unless the banks in question have already decided upon an alternative strategy. Be assured they are worried about this but they will always have a fallback position. Witness the bank charges claims.

 

That said, pressure still needs to be brought to bear.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Is there any way we can put a template letter together to ask the specific questions we need to be asking about this securitisation malarky?

 

I'm almost there. Almost. Give me perhaps 3 - 4 days. It needs to be spot on.

 

If you want to be prepared, go to the Land registry site and make sure you have the following information:

 

1) Your title number, and a copy of the Title document listing at C: Charges Register, the "mortgage company(s)" whos charges you wish to have the Land registry investigate. If you're in any doubt as to what to do, check this link and then the link within it Land Register Online website

 

2) Go to this link Land Registry : Regional Information and identify first your Local Office from your Title Document and the info, click on the link and make a note of the address (top left) and below that (under "Key Management") the name of the Land Registrar.

 

3) Ask your friends to do the same, and stand by. It will cost 2 sheets of paper, 2 envelopes, one 1st Class Stamp and 1 recorded delivery (currently £1.08 )

You may also like to find the name and address of your MP for Phase 3 unless you know it already. Go here: MP (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

4) Read and make yourself as familiar as possible with this document: Land Registration Act 2002 and this document The Land Registration Rules 2003

 

5) Wait for 5 - it needs to be *absolutely spot on* and for that I want any opinion that you can garner either pro bono from a solicitor or lawyer or offer yourself from 4) above re the acts.

I'm 99.9% sure, but I'm not big headed enough to believe I have all the answers and angles, so I'm throwing this open: can we all:

 

Go through the LRA 2002 and the LRR 2003 above at 4, and pick out, cut and paste here in this thread the relevant points/Act Paragraphs that *you think* cover, or may cover, the non-disclosure of any change in either Title, Equity, Ownership, Benefit as we've been discussing.

 

If we can all do that, some time around Friday I hope to be able to post a new thread with the letters on.

Assuming they havent got to me first

Edited March 25, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[bustthematrix]

All the best Mo!

[enoughisenough]

Hello LOTM,

 

Sorry for the abrupt break in exchanges I have been very busy and ....mmm had some outcomes shall we say. Anyway in regards to your call to arms how this for an opening gambit (from p7 or 8 I think!)

 

Land Registry Practice Guide 29 November 2008

 

Land Registration Act 2002

Scope of this guide

This guide gives advice on the

registration of legal charges and

deeds of variation of the terms of a

registered charge at Land Registry. It

is aimed at solicitors and other legal

advisers. Land Registry staff will also

refer to it.

 

 

WARNING

If you dishonestly enter information or make a statement that you know is or might be, untrue or misleading, so as to make a gain for yourself or another person, or to cause loss or risk of loss to another person, you may commit the offence of fraud under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both.

 

Mmmmm....

[Smarterchick]

I think that's a good starting point EIE

[Last of the Mohicans]

I think that's a good starting point EIE

 

 

 

Eh, sorry EIE - cream crackered here and might be misunderstanding your post! Sorry...

 

I do have the letter ready, based what you might call and exchange with a Gov Dept. - I really would be grateful is you guys could concentrate on being sure of exactly what clauses/.paras/ points would be broken by someone not registering a charge correctly and not registering the correct charge, the differences where they appear in those acts between a charge in equity and charges in trust and so on. I know weve done good stuff, but - and I think NightmareFor banks and SuperSlueth have said as much - THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL. These people are not kebab shops selling dodgy meat. This is major, major chit undertaken by very clever people, and we're just a bunch of roobs trying to work out what stunts they've pulled.

This is not an episode of ScoobyDoo where the rubber mask will get pulled off. It will be a slow and painstaking excersise. So, please, trust me, you will see where this phase works and fits into the scheme of things - if together we can be sure of the groundrules.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[Suetonius]

Has anyone read this case 109 onwards

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

 

Previous case

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2003] EWHC 2834 (Ch),

[Suetonius]

Carmel Butlers Testimony to the House of Commons – separated JPEGS of each page.

Hats off to Scedminc for the original find.

 

Added:

 

House of Commons Cover Sheet

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/cover.jpg

 

List of Evidence (Carmel Butler is #107)

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/listofevidence.jpg

 

---------

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image1.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image2.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image3.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image4.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image5.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image6.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image7.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image8.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image9.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image10.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image11.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image12.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image13.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image14.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image15.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image16.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image17.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image18.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image19.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image20.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image21.jpg

 

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/who-knows2/spv/Image22.jpg

 

 

It might be easier to read this version

[Last of the Mohicans]

Has anyone read this case 109 onwards

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

 

Previous case

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2003] EWHC 2834 (Ch),

 

 

Yes.

It raises and follows on from the issues. The devil IS in the detail. the Law is an ass. Etc... I wonder where the defendents are now...? In a game this big, its cheap to set up a court case where a beak is forced to come to a conclusion that becomes case law.

 

Not that I'm a cynic or anything....

[Last of the Mohicans]

It might be easier to read this version

 

Yes, thats the copy posted by Sced - but its impossible to mark out for discussion points you note when its in PDF form - hense the JPEGS, so we can use our coloured crayons

[Suetonius]

Yes.

It raises and follows on from the issues. The devil IS in the detail. the Law is an ass. Etc... I wonder where the defendents are now...? In a game this big, its cheap to set up a court case where a beak is forced to come to a conclusion that becomes case law.

 

Not that I'm a cynic or anything....

 

 

The people that reached that conclusion were:

 

Lord Justice Ward (member of the privy council)

Lord Justice Carnwath (member of the privy council, QC, former chairman of the Law Commission)

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker (Q.C & former Lord Justice of Appeal)

[enoughisenough]

Sorry LOTM

 

The gist is at the bottom. Any irregularities which are knowingly or even half knowingly perpetrated in regards to mortgage titles are subject to the stated (very serious) penalties.

 

We of course shall continue to dig and throw up stuff. It remains as you say in the detail. And THIS is a VERY BIG JIGSAW.

 

regards EIE

[Last of the Mohicans]

The people that reached that conclusion were:

 

Lord Justice Ward (member of the privy council)

Lord Justice Carnwath (member of the privy council, QC, former chairman of the Law Commission)

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker (Q.C & former Lord Justice of Appeal)

 

Cheers mate. Fine gents all I'm sure. I'm curious how a piar of ex council house buyers ended up a) owing umpteen hundred thousand, b) chasing it all the way to the Appeal on quite frankly ludicrously weak arguments, and c) who bankrolled them. Cos I tell you what - that must have cost them a few bob... Anyway - enough of my cynicism - way past my sleep time here and an early one tomorrow.

 

All the best

 

Mo

[Last of the Mohicans]

Sorry LOTM

 

The gist is at the bottom. Any irregularities which are knowingly or even half knowingly perpetrated in regards to mortgage titles are subject to the stated (very serious) penalties.

 

We of course shall continue to dig and throw up stuff. It remains as you say in the detail. And THIS is a VERY BIG JIGSAW.

 

regards EIE

 

Yes, sorry bud - I'm past my sleep-by date right now All the best

[enoughisenough]

...and just to add (not specifically to LOTM) but more for general circulation

 

A county court decision isn't even binding on other county courts otherwise after the Berwick -Vs-Lloyds TSB decision the bank charges bandwagon would have stopped rolling there and then. It didn't because a county court decision is never settled precedent. This is why even though the banks lost their unfair charges case in the Court of Appeal, they can go to the Law Lords despite being advised by the Appeal judges not to bother.

 

Hope that clarifies. All the same caution should be exercised, even at the CC level as this is gathering a whole load of momentum. Nobody should go off half cocked on this unless their lives are on the line and they are 110% prepared.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[scedminc]

Has anyone read this case 109 onwards

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

 

Previous case

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2003] EWHC 2834 (Ch),

 

I found this Pender case a while ago and mentioned it. For anyone interested use the link below to see what was said.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/175426-mortgage-securitisation-preferred-3.html#post1961907

[enoughisenough]

Also for digging try this link

 

Mortgage regulation – background

 

It is has stuff all over the place regarding SIs (Statutory Instruments which have the full force of law).

 

Some very interesting lies therein. I will oblige my honourable duty to digest and regurgitate this information as soon as I am able.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

[Suetonius]

I found this Pender case a while ago and mentioned it. For anyone interested use the link below to see what was said.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/175426-mortgage-securitisation-preferred-3.html#post1961907

 

Thanks, I have now posted on that thread

[Suetonius]

Also for digging try this link

 

Mortgage regulation – background

 

It is has stuff all over the place regarding SIs (Statutory Instruments which have the full force of law).

 

Some very interesting lies therein. I will oblige my honourable duty to digest and regurgitate this information as soon as I am able.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

 

Always bear in mind the important dates with regard to the FSA regulation of mortgages, MCOB etc (31 October 2004)

[Last of the Mohicans]

Punting this, you 'erberts Can one, two or all of you scrape through the LRA 2002 and the LR® 2003 and offer your opinions on:

 

1) What "forces" the LR investigate an allegded breech of Charge registration

 

2) What "forces" a charge holder to register a charge in equity

 

3) what "forces" a charge holder to notify the LR that another person or entity has taken a part of, or equity in a Charge they hold

 

4) Where 3 above affects the ability of a registered charge holder to affect removal of their charge from the Register

 

5) What specific sections make it neccesary to register "a charge" be it in equity or otherwise.

 

6) Anything else that catches your eye...

[Last of the Mohicans]

Always bear in mind the important dates with regard to the FSA regulation of mortgages, MCOB etc (31 October 2004)

 

Suetonius, been reading some of your recent posts - sorry, I was knackered when you posted them and not really compus mentus. You seem really clued up on the legal angles on this mate, so could you please go through the LRA 2002 and the LR® 2003 for us and then play "Devils Advocate" for us re my list of questions in the post above?

Dont mean to load you down but I'm guessing you'll be able to see the twists and turns easier than most of us given the other stuff you've posted recently.

And thanks for coming over and your input. Its appretiated.

 

Thanks,

 

Mo

[enoughisenough]

Seconded.

 

It's not just the words of the Act or Acts it's how judges and barristers exploit the rules of language to aid construction that really matters - i.e. how they give the words meaning.

 

Anyone with a TRUE legal brain could spell out all possible interpretations and which ones are most valid etc. THis is where the real value of all this comes in.

 

A call to arms please!

 

EIE. Keep the faith.

[Smarterchick]

From across the pond....this is what's happening: Foreclosure Defense Tactics | Loan Modification & Home Loan News

 

 

EDIT just a note to our users, this is an USA site, and does not apply to the UK.

Edited March 26, 2009 by HSBCrusher