Carmel Butler / House of Commons

[Redfish]

I found this out from Dragon Lady on another forum. I'm sure she won't mind me passing on her words: "I know of case which went to Court recently using the securitisation argument. The case was lost and no it is not Pender.

 

It was proven in court the assignment was equitable and not absolute. Trust England to do it differently to the rest of the world, or maybe they have learnt the lessons from the rest of the world.

 

The case outcome was given to me in confidence so I cannot divulge the name of the person concerned, but believe me had this case been won, the floodgates would have opened wide. I am sure in a few months someone will start sluething around and find the case."

 

I was in conversation with Dragon Lady about this before she posted this comment up publicly, the consumer in that case was a member of the legal fraternity and he lost very badly. Basically it was all down to the fact that what happens in courts in the US doesn't apply in UK because the lenders have to follow different laws and therefore only do an equitable assignment here.

[heliosfa]

What court was it? County? High? Appeal?

 

If i was the High Court or lower, no precident has been set and to be honest, the judgeent could be incredibly flakey!

 

Really we need to see a transcript of the judgement.

 

H

[Suetonius]

What court was it? County? High? Appeal?

 

If i was the High Court or lower, no precident has been set and to be honest, the judgeent could be incredibly flakey!

 

Really we need to see a transcript of the judgement.

 

H

 

Hello Heliosfa,

 

Here is a case from the Court of Appeal for you:

 

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

 

 

The law with regard to what requirements must be met for and the implications of a legal assignment are covered by s.136 of the Law Of Property Act 1925

 

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)

[Suetonius]

Just a reminder, if anyone wants to discuss why they consider that these judgements are flawed or even flakey,

 

Here is a thread created for that specific purpose.

 

Feel free to post

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/197424-mortgage-securitisation-paragon-pender.html

Edited June 14, 2009 by Suetonius

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius

 

Let me first of all apologise for intimating that you had not clarified your comments concerning SPPL and Preferred closure when of course you had. I'm sorry.

 

It is without doubt that a statement along the lines of I have just found out...needs closer scrutiny. Notwithstanding the poster's newbie status I would be naturally intrigued as to how such a highly technical legal argument could be simply 'found out'. Indeed at what level of jurisdiction was this case? Mmm. Closer scutiny of this is required by both sides of the argument in my humble and Ill informed opinion.

[Redfish]

If/when the judgement is found by Dragon Lady or others I'll definitely post up here. I have no idea which level court it was heard in, as I said, this was told to me by her, and if you read her posts on the other forum, Consumer Credit Support, you'll understand the weight I give to her knowledge. She had been keen on getting to grips with the securitisation issue for a long time, in her words "we thought we had discovered the Holy Grail with this one, especially with the way things were going in the Courts overseas using securitisation". Sadly it did not turn out that way.

[Suetonius]

I hope she does not mind you refering to her or quoting what she has told you.

[andrew1]

I hope she does not mind you refering to her or quoting what she has told you.

 

I think you are right Suetonius, bad practice quoting what someone writes on 'other' forum as we don't know whether it was said on a private thread or by PM. If dragonlady or anyone else wants to post up what they find on CAG as well, fine, but unless Redfish is dragonlady I'd suggest a little decorum is applied eh Redfish?

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius

 

Let me first of all apologise for intimating that you had not clarified your comments concerning SPPL and Preferred closure when of course you had. I'm sorry.

 

Apology accepted EIE

[enoughisenough]

I'm afraid I'll have to reserve my opinion on what has ' just been found out' . Without the judgment I fail to see what could pass for anything other than hearsay.

 

EIE.

[Lloyds Defender]

Hi all

 

I’ve been reading through these threads trying to find information that will help me stop a possession claim of our house. What, in my experience, is the very true position is this, they will change the rules to protect the money and land owners in this country. We as mere tax payers don’t have the same access to “justice” as someone with lots of cash.

 

What they do first is strike out your defence, in my case the judge admitted that he had not even read my defence!!! But he could not see any chance of success!!! Well you wont if you don’t read it.

 

When you have had your defence struck out ***YOU NO LONGER HAVE A SAY*** yes this is true, when we get to the possession hearing I have been told by the “judge” that I will not be able to participate. End of.

 

You need to know what rules work in your favour and how to get them back, and in my opinion when someone has got you by the balls your in a perfect position to pee on them!!! Most people pay their bills by Direct Debit this includes their mortgage, the Direct Debit Guarantee scheme states clearly that if you dispute and have queries about any bills paid by DD you have a right to claw back EVERY SINGLE PAYMENT EVER MADE!!! There is no time limit nor amount limit. In my opinion if the bank or building society use its powers to get your house off you then you have a right to get you cash back.

 

Phone your bank which you used to pay your mortgage or loan and ask to be put through to the Direct Debit Indemnity Team, tell them that you have a dispute with XXX bank and you wish to claim back all payments made to them, the CASH will be in your account within 2 days. Go to your bank and draw the cash out and put it away somewhere safe. You are not breaking the law and I have known people who have clawed back in excess of £300,000, don’t let any bank tell you that they can only go back 6 months (Lloyds being one) its crap, there’s no time limit nor amount limit.

 

This applies to any bill paid by DD, loans, mortgage, phones etc.

 

If they want our houses we want our money back.

[enoughisenough]

Hi lloyds defender

 

What you say about our courts Is shocking but nonetheless true. The djs see possession claims in very narrow terms. How much are the arrears and how much can you afford to pay. That's it nothing about claimant conduct or the extent to which the arrears are genuinely constituted. The courts themseles are in breach of an EU reg. Which mandates that the courts must consider the nature of the contract on the defendants behalf. I'll post the relevant link later.

 

On the other matter I would bet you stop any repo dead in its tracks and have them begging you.

[Lloyds Defender]

Hi lloyds defender

 

What you say about our courts Is shocking but nonetheless true. The djs see possession claims in very narrow terms. How much are the arrears and how much can you afford to pay. That's it nothing about claimant conduct or the extent to which the arrears are genuinely constituted. The courts themseles are in breach of an EU reg. Which mandates that the courts must consider the nature of the contract on the defendants behalf. I'll post the relevant link later.

 

On the other matter I would bet you stop any repo dead in its tracks and have them begging you.

 

I was told many years ago “laws were made by men with money to protect the men with money and justice is not for the likes of thee or me”, how true is that. It’s just one scandal after another, and what they hate, and I mean hate is that thanks to websites like this people like us are finding them out, we are reading the very laws that they purport to be working to and we understand it, we read it literally, but if you read all the case laws you will see a common theme “the judges interpretation of the law” or the one I like “spirit of the law”. The words are, in most cases, quite simple, and if we can’t understand a particular word or sentence we can look it up, they hate it. So the best thing to do is shut us up.

 

But what they fear most of all is loosing their “precious” (quote from Lord of the rings) I picture them huddled over a pile of money rubbing their fingerless gloved hands together chanting “my precious, my lovely precious”. Then take it away from them, claw your DD’s back, you have genuine reason for doing so “your in a dispute with them” and what's the worst they can do to you? Take your house off you!!! Well they are going to do this anyway, the difference being you will have some cash to fight them, or just walk away with the cash, either way you will deprive them of their “precious”.

[JonCris]

English Law has ALWAYS been built on property - Don't forget it's not that long ago that married woman were considered 'chattels' & had few rights without their husbands say so (I wish:D) Also serfs used to be owned by the lord of the manner OR the Yeoman farmer

 

Saxon Woman had more rights than later generations Saxon Woman could, until William arrived, inherit in their own right WITHOUT it becoming part of the husbands property

[Smarterchick]

Don't forget it's not that long ago that married woman were considered 'chattels' & had few rights without their husbands say so (I wish:D)

 

 

I'll have to have a word with my ole man, when he was making his will out he included me as an 'asset' - swine, didn't suss out he was really referring to me as a ' chattel'

[JonCris]

CHATTEL - Personal property, movable or immovable, which is less than a freehold; for example, a book, a coat, a pencil, growing corn, a lease. Note no Missus mores the pity:D

[Suetonius]

the Direct Debit Guarantee scheme states clearly that if you dispute and have queries about any bills paid by DD you have a right to claw back EVERY SINGLE PAYMENT EVER MADE!!!

 

Hello LD, do you have a link to the Guarantee as I wasn't aware it applied to, or actually refered to disputes.

[littledotty27]

With working for a bank in the past,this is what relates to a direct debit guarantee scheme.

 

Under the rules of the Direct Debit Scheme, should any money be taken in error, then the customer's bank or building society must, on request, make an immediate refund to the customer's account. This is the Direct Debit Guarantee. This covers situations where the originator has not given the required advance notice regarding a change of amount or date. It also protects customers should an incorrect amount be debited or if a debit occurs earlier than the specified, agreed date, or in error.

[Suetonius]

Hello LD, do you have a link to the Guarantee as I wasn't aware it applied to, or actually refered to disputes.

 

It's ok I found it

 

Direct Debit - your customers rights

 

 

• This Guarantee is offered by all banks and building societies that take part in the Direct Debit Scheme. The efficiency and security of the Scheme is monitored and protected by your own bank or building society.
  
• If the amount to be paid or the payment dates change the organisation will notify you normally 10 working days in advance of your account being debited or as otherwise agreed.
  
• If an error is made by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the amount paid.
  
• You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by writing to your bank or building society. Please also send a copy of your letter to the organisation.
  

[Suetonius]

CHATTEL - Personal property, movable or immovable, which is less than a freehold; for example, a book, a coat, a pencil, growing corn, a lease. Note no Missus mores the pity:D

 

Does Mrs JC read these forums ?

 

No dinner for you tonight

[enoughisenough]

Did you get any din-dins JC?

 

PS, with due deference to LDs DD argument, what opinions do other caggers have? Seems to me to a recipe for absolute meltdown for these companies -a sure fire way of bringing them to their senses if only even a handful caggers were able to pull this off.

 

PPS Hi LD I see you're on forum. I'm not knocking what you say. I find it very intriguing, just interested in getting a sense of others opinions.

 

Cheers.

 

EIE.

[JonCris]

Of course I did & delicious it was too - 1st starter corn on the cob 2nd starter home made vegetable soup (with leeks:p) main course - fresh peppered mackerel (purchased direct from the fish mongers next to the harbour) with fresh garden peas & boiled new potatoes (purchased from the local farm shop) dessert vanilla ice cream & finally the best bit - Stinking Bishop Cheese washed down with a nice bottle of port

 

Now what was the question:confused:

[Lloyds Defender]

Did you get any din-dins JC?

 

PS, with due deference to LDs DD argument, what opinions do other caggers have? Seems to me to a recipe for absolute meltdown for these companies -a sure fire way of bringing them to their senses if only even a handful caggers were able to pull this off.

 

PPS Hi LD I see you're on forum. I'm not knocking what you say. I find it very intriguing, just interested in getting a sense of others opinions.

 

Cheers.

 

EIE.

 

I agree, get your request in and get control back where it belongs.

[andrew1]

I agree, get your request in and get control back where it belongs.

 

LD, this all sounds a very useful tool perhaps mainly in the case of repossession, but from your experience are you saying it is only by stating you are 'in dispute' that the guarantee kicks in as Seutonius is saying the guarantee may not specifically say 'dispute', but 'errors' by the bank. The fall out of getting this wrong, even if you do get your money out of them is what? - Bankruptcy proceedings issued by the bank - ?

 

I'm just trying to think aloud here as to under what circumstances this can apply. It sounds a tempting way to turn the tables, but it looks too easy? can you expand a little?

[Lloyds Defender]

LD, this all sounds a very useful tool perhaps mainly in the case of repossession, but from your experience are you saying it is only by stating you are 'in dispute' that the guarantee kicks in as Seutonius is saying the guarantee may not specifically say 'dispute', but 'errors' by the bank. The fall out of getting this wrong, even if you do get your money out of them is what? - Bankruptcy proceedings issued by the bank - ?

 

I'm just trying to think aloud here as to under what circumstances this can apply. It sounds a tempting way to turn the tables, but it looks too easy? can you expand a little?

It’s nothing to do with the bank what your “dispute” is, this is one situation where for a change the bank HAS to do as it’s told.

In my experience I called the bank, asked to be out through to the DD indemnity team, told them I wanted to claw back all payments made to XXX bank, they ask why, I told them I am disputing some of their bills so I wanted to claw all payments back and I will take the matter up with them direct. That’s it.

This was not my mortgage this was other payments and was last year. To date no application has been filed for bankruptcy!

Think about it, if you claw back your payments, “spend the money” on a holiday and drowning your sorrow as a result of the possession of your house, and you have “nothing left” then what the hell can they do to you? Kick you out of your home? Already done that! Bankrupt you? What’s the point you have nothing!

The response to this information has been interesting, it shows how they have bullied us into being frightened to death of hitting them back. That goes for banks and the government, if you question what they are doing you are labelled as a trouble maker! So you are indoctrinated into not asking questions, being subservient.

I have a case on at the moment with my local council which I will post on this site soon. I can’t go into too much details at the moment but here is a brief synopsis:

I discovered that I was entitled to a particular benefit so I applied, I was granted the benefit but not the full benefit, I enquired why and I was told that it was “Government Legislation” in other words the law. No being one who accepts such rubbish I investigated the specific legislation and surprise surprise they were lying, according to the legislation passed by parliament I am actually entitled to almost 10 times what I have been given. It transpires that this is going on all over the country EVERY COUNCIL does this!!! They are shafting the very people who need help most. I requested a tribunal, the “judge” played dumb and actually pretended that she didn’t understand this particular section of the law!!! And found in favour of………….. guess who……….. the council. The evidence is unequivocal, its in plain English and still they continue to shaft everyone on benefit. I understand why they did it, the ramifications are enormous this has been going on since 1992, if you are impressed with the amount claimed back from banks it’s miniscule compared to this.

Can’t wait for the appeal.