Carmel Butler / House of Commons

[Suetonius]

Sorry EIE I know that sounds like I am being difficult.

 

However, the question is not straight forward as lender obligations have changed and not all current regulatory obligations apply to all the mortgages in place at the moment

[JonCris]

I'm not going to go into a lengthy argument suffice to say that what the parties claim can be disputed as not being the actuality - Their claim there is NO transfer may not in fact be correct - They do after all have & have always had every reason to claim that which they do as it's to their benefit - also if they are sure of their position why not come into the open - why do they panic when ownership together with the right to litigate is questioned

[enoughisenough]

OK If you only want to go public!

 

1. CCA 1974 - how does the provider/ originater exploit exemption under this?

 

2. If unregulated what effect does the FSMA 2000 have on providing protection from unlawful activities as practiced by the provider?

 

3. Assuming DPA 1998 is not followed through with and assuming in the case of CPR 31.6 this is not also complied are there any further rights to action if it has been so ordered that they have to comply before any dormant action with liberty to restore can be reactivated?

 

4. In respect of issuing consumer notification that they must pay X by Y and consumers fulfill that obligation, what right does the provider have under law, to apply any late/default/litigation charges when a performing arrangement has been established. (in fact they have no right to apply these charges in any eventuality)

 

4. In respect of UTTCRs 1999 can a claimant resurrect and apply for enforcement or claim possession against a defendant who has made an arrangement but nonetheless accrues further arrears and whose liability therefore increases solely predicated upon the application of charges rather than any delinquency in regards the arrangement.

 

I could go on-serial abuse of people on the phone, false representation to the courts (Don't worry I have evidence) and all the other stuff you know I have raised.

 

Please Suetonius - there are a lot of people in a very critical position. Your stuff is great as it really concentrates the mind. However as from the perspective of dotty, this is just two bald men arguing over a comb.

 

Cheers. Keep the faith EIE.

[enoughisenough]

To be honest If I spent all day and all night putting down the final detail of everything I would end up in a series of unenviable positions.

 

This is open forum. We are supposed to guide each other, raise legitimate doubts about strategies and offer sound advice. We are not as far as I am aware obliged to seek opinion from those who will not do PM or seek actual details on open forum.

 

Good Night and Good Luck - a great movie about the arrogance of power and its downfall. We can all still be fraternal, maternal, paternal, single, not committed, committed and otherwise positively engaged with fellow humanity.

 

Can't assume that I have the power of Murrow to change a nation by adopting his excellent catchphrase so I will stick with my own.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[roony]

It is worth a try. However, it might be important to remember the implementation of the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003, inparticular regulation 4(4).

 

Part 2

 

Modification of Law Requiring Formalities

 

"(4) Section 395 of the Companies Act 1985 (certain charges void if not registered) shall not apply (if it would otherwise do so) in relation to a security financial collateral arrangement or any charge created or otherwise arising under a security financial collateral arrangement"

If the securitisation occured after this legislation was introduced (26 December 2003), there may not be a charge registered.

 

 

ok great, now back to my original question, I was wondering what documents do i ask for when you ring the spv & quote S.395?

 

could supersleuth or someone who knows pls reply, thnx lol

[enoughisenough]

You can't ring the SPV Roony. They are an empty shell company with no employees. They existed simply to securitise your mortgage and hold nominal accounts.

 

PM me for further stuff.

[Suetonius]

We are not as far as I am aware obliged to seek opinion from those who will not do PM or seek actual details on open forum.

 

Of course not. You are not obliged to seek the opinion of anyone.

 

For me personally, I just don't do things behind closed doors or via pm's/im's

 

I have been on CAG about 3 years now (not as Suetonius) and I have always been very public about my disputes with companies and what I was doing and how I was doing it.

 

It is my choice that I do things that way.

 

No one is saying you have to do anything of the sort.

 

Right as you suggested across the way, I am not only taking time away from SS, but I think I will take off for 48 hours off CAG (that is if I can manage that long)..

 

Night All

[Suetonius]

ok great, now back to my original question, I was wondering what documents do i ask for when you ring the spv & quote S.395?

 

could supersleuth or someone who knows pls reply, thnx lol

 

A lot of them have postal addresses in Ireland, Jersey and Luxembourg. As EIE they are effectively a shell, the directors of which, are usally other companies.

 

It is a very tangled web.

[roony]

hi,

well I think this is the spv for Abbey registered here in London, as mentioned in the prospectus, not exactly close to the cayman islands

 

HOLMES TRUSTEES LIMITED

ABBEY NATIONAL HOUSE

2 TRITON SQUARE

REGENTS PLACE

LONDON

NW1 3AN

 

EIE I'm referring to supersleuths post here, i meant s.423

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2056602.html

 

"Under the Companies Act 1985 (and/or the 2006 Act), when any legal charge or mortgaged filed under s.395 anyone is allowed to inspect the documents that created the s.395 charge. The company must allow inspection under s.423 of the Companies Act 1985. So I wrote to the SPV and told them I was exercising the s.423 right to inspect the documents."

 

For those coming late to this thread, thanks again to supersleuth's excellent posts, this is why spv's have to purchase the legal title, from what I understand making the original lender no longer a legal owner of your mortgage

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2109953.html

 

posted by supersleuth

 

"The reason why that HAVE TO HAVE a legal assignment is because they need to create a sub-charge. The power to create a sub-charge is a LEGAL power and therefore, they MUST purchase the LEGAL TITLE in order to exercise their LEGAL POWERS to create a sub-charge.

 

See my post no. 162 on this thread Carmel Butler / House of Commons

 

The only reason the false notion that the SPV has taken an equitable assignment comes into the argument is because the lawyers make people believe that the words "operates in equity" means that there's been an equitable assignment. This is the smoke and mirrors. The words "operates in equity" only means that the court's equity jurisdiction will operate on the transfer of the legal title pending the SPVs compliance with its registration at the LR - which the LAW mandates that it MUST do."

Edited April 22, 2009 by roony

[Smarterchick]

When did you write Roony? Have they responded?

[enoughisenough]

Seconded Suetonius. Tangled doesn't even begin to do it justice. Hence the vociferous debate. Someone somewhere posted that it was a near perfect [problem].

 

I'll buy into that. Especially the 'near' bit.

 

Keep the faith.

[foolishgirl]

 

1. CCA 1974 - how does the provider/ originater exploit exemption under this?

 

2. If unregulated what effect does the FSMA 2000 have on providing protection from unlawful activities as practiced by the provider?

 

3. Assuming DPA 1998 is not followed through with and assuming in the case of CPR 31.6 this is not also complied are there any further rights to action if it has been so ordered that they have to comply before any dormant action with liberty to restore can be reactivated?

 

4. In respect of issuing consumer notification that they must pay X by Y and consumers fulfill that obligation, what right does the provider have under law, to apply any late/default/litigation charges when a performing arrangement has been established. (in fact they have no right to apply these charges in any eventuality)

 

4. In respect of UTTCRs 1999 can a claimant resurrect and apply for enforcement or claim possession against a defendant who has made an arrangement but nonetheless accrues further arrears and whose liability therefore increases solely predicated upon the application of charges rather than any delinquency in regards the arrangement.

 

 

You don't want much do you EIE?!

[enoughisenough]

I'm just a newbie!

[roony]

When did you write Roony? Have they responded?

 

I havent written to them yet, as i cant find any 395 documents registered with companies house on Holmes Trustee's, scouring the prospectus to see any other companies have registered 395 documents with companies house

 

edit : ok i've found the spv for Abbey, theyre called Holmes Master Issuers Plc & the 395's listed at companies house match the mortgage pools in the prospectus

Edited April 22, 2009 by roony

[SadButTrue]

I havent written to them yet, as i cant find any 395 documents registered with companies house on Holmes Trustee's, scouring the prospectus to see any other companies have registered 395 documents with companies house

 

edit : ok i've found the spv for Abbey, theyre called Holmes Master Issuers Plc & the 395's listed at companies house match the mortgage pools in the prospectus

 

 

Something I have never understood and hopefully either SS, EIE or Sue can answer for me,

 

If the SPV owns the legal title to the mortgage pools, why does it need a charge ?

 

I ask because this is an explainantion of a charge that I have found

 

"A charge is a type of burden or liability registered against a property in order (usually) to secure a loan of money by the owner of the property [the borrower] to another person [the lender]. The borrower remains the owner of the property itself, but is only free to deal with the property - by way of sale, transfer or other transaction - once the rights of the lender have been fully satisfied (usually, only once the lender has been repaid in full). The lender has certain rights in the event of the borrower’s failing to comply with the terms of the charge ; in particular, the lender has a right to sell the property to recover any outstanding monies, subject to the terms of the charge document and to various legal rules. "

 

Wouldn't the lender be the SPV and the Owner be the mortgage lender

[SadButTrue]

I think I may be looking at this in a far to simple way.

 

My bank has a charge on my house. However, I am the registered owner

 

Does a charge mean ownership ?

 

PLEASE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE !!!!!

[roony]

lol wheres your thread sadbuttrue, check out the spml preferred thread for a complete description

 

The charge is just registering the legal title of a mortgage with the land registry, from what i understand, the lender just registers the right to repossess the property with the land registry, ie ownership of a mortgage registered with the land registry

 

 

Btw any news on the trial or the Treasury?

Edited April 23, 2009 by roony

[SadButTrue]

I hoping (fingers crossed) I won't need. I am two months behind and have about 3 weeks to get the money together.

 

I should just be able to scrap the required £1,000

 

Supersleuth says the s.395 is the trustee and not the SPV

[supersleuth]

No, Sadbuttrue,

 

Supersleuth said that the SPV grants the Trustee a sub-charge against the mortgage contracts.

 

Therefore, the SPV owns your mortgage - the Trustee owns the SUBCHARGE (i.e. the SUB-charge created against your mortgage)

[roony]

I checked the trustee for Abbey with companies house online, Holmes Trustee's & they didnt have any 395's registered with companies house.

 

But the SPV did, Holmes Master Issuer PLC, these 395's also match the dates in the mortgage pool, mentioned in the prospectus.

 

 

As EIE & Supersleuth explain :

 

"1. The SPV owns the legal title to your mortgage - (Not your property )

2. The SPV has created a SUB-CHARGE on your mortgage.

This sub charge is the form 395 which IS the "mortgage on your mortgage".

 

Also from what I understand it looks like, the roles of the trustee & spv as to who holds the 395 forms gets switched

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2121502.html

"No the SPV actually should be the one. But the law is complex here, as is the process. THe SPV sells on the underlying collateral in the form of notes and is also sometimes referred to as the issuer. The Trustee is a spin of from the SPV. If you really want to know what happened to your mortgage there are several steps."

 

 

 

EIE explains this :

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2121618.html

"The SPV grants a Trustee a - mortgage on your mortgage - think about that phrase. Your mortgage IS mortgaged. People generally only think about granting mortgage on a property BUT you can grant a mortgage on the contractual value of the actual mortgage contract. When the SPV borrowers money from the investors, the investors say - yes we will lend you money but how do we know we'll get paid - so the SPV says, hey investors, I own all these mortgage contracts that are worth X amount and I'll put these mortgage contract in trust with a Trustee who will hold these mortgage contracts for your benefit. The SPV puts the mortgages in trust with the Trustee and grants the Trustee a Legal Charge on the mortgage contracts (which IS the mortgage of the mortgage contracts, filed with Companies House as a form 395 filing).

 

The form 395 filing is where the mortgage contracts have been "charged with the payment of money" - which is money to be paid by the Trustee to the investors.

 

Thus, the upshot is:

 

1. The SPV owns the legal title to your mortgage

2. The SPV has created a SUB-CHARGE on your mortgage. The Trustee has the Sub-Charge - (This sub charge is the form 395 which IS the "mortgage on your mortgage".

3. The Trustee owns the sub-charge (i.e. form 395 filing, the mortgage on your mortgage).

 

The smoke and mirrors bit - is that all of this has happened in secret without telling you about it plus, the originator remains registered at the LR, so you don't what's going on behind the scenes.

 

Mull over the concept of granting a mortgage on a mortgage contract. Once you get comfortable with the fact that you can grant a mortgage/charge on a CONTRACT it will become easier to grasp.

Edited April 23, 2009 by roony

[SadButTrue]

thanks guys the fog is clearing

[roony]

So my question is, does only the creation of the sub-charge get registered on Companies House? Or does the transfer of the sub-charge also get registered with Companies House?

 

I'm hoping I'll found out when i goto inspect the documents under s.423.

[supersleuth]

When you grant a mortgage against your property the MORTGAGE CHARGE is registered against YOUR title register at the LR.

 

When an SPV grants a mortgage SUBCHARGE against the property of its own company (i.e. the property being the mortgage contracts that it owns), the MORTGAGE SUB CHARGE is registered against the SPV's register at COMPANIES HOUSE.

 

The CHARGE will always be registered on the REGISTER of the person who GRANTED the CHARGE.

 

To repeat: you granted a charge against your property - the charge is registered against your title at the Land Registry.

The SPV granted a sub-charge against your mortgage (i.e. its assets) - the charge is registered on the SPVs registration at Companies House.

 

Same principle in both cases.

 

To view it from another angle:

 

If you read YOUR title register at the LR - the register will tell the world that YOU have granted a charge IN FAVOUR of your lender. If you read the SPVs form 395 filing, it will tell the world that the SPV has granted a charge IN FAVOUR of the Trustee.

Edited April 23, 2009 by supersleuth

[roony]

Thats even better, so the 395 form is proof the spv granted a trustee the right to mortgage the legal title to the mortgage it owns ( not the property owned by the borrower).

 

Isn't there a law or statute which requires the original owner of the property to be informed of the sub-charge?

 

Also is this where the confusion is? The sub-charge has to be registered on the land registry?

[supersleuth]

Yes, the sub-charge SHOULD be registered at the Land Registry AND... the SPV SHOULD register itself as the legal owner of the mortgage at the Land Registry.

 

BUT...they don't abide by the law!...BECAUSE they don't want you to know what's going on...AND...they don't want the TAX MAN to know either...which is the more important point. The reason for all this concealment is to avoid (or evade) paying TAX!