Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update. The ASB team have categorically said they want to send a letter to the idiot saying... you are upsetting your neighbor, please come in to talk about this, we need to tell you we have no power to do anything about this though... WTAF?   They also said my only option to stop idiot parking and obstructing our kerb is to park our other car outside idiots property 🤔 because the car is now not obstructing enough to get a ticket and not breaking any law! Even though it's obviously being done to cause annoyance.   Just seems beyond belief!
    • Ok, quick update on this.  Mediation didn't happen - mainly because I missed the deadline for agreeing to the date - I didn't realise the deadline was quite so tight - and I had been away for the weekend and not reading my emails - anyway - although it was bad to not formally respond, it didn't really make too much difference because due to the lack of viable evidence provided by the claimant, mediation would have been pointless.   So I've been waiting to head what court date has been allocated to my case. However, instead I received a "General Directions or Order" letter.    Sorry - I meant to bring it in (to where I'm writing this).....but basically the gist of it was that the claimant had 14 days to respond providing evidence e.g. signed credit agreement etc. - and then I had 14 days after that to respond stating whether I accepted that evidence and whether I wanted to withdraw defence.    The letter was sent around the beginning of the month - therefore their 14 days are more or less up - I haven't heard anything - albeit, I need to factor in postage times - but surely this means my 14 days are not really 14 days....but more a case of the time left before the end of October and when or if I get anything from the court of the claimant with their evidence.   My question really is:    Is it a stupid question - but I cannot really do anything until I receive anything - at the moment, the court won't know what they've sent me (in response to my CCA request) - i.e. the poorly presented application form - meaningless statements - no clear signed credit agreement etc. - so this step is basically the court asking whether there is enough evidence in order to allocate a court date?   I'm assuming I should get a copy of whatever the claimant provides to the court?   Many thanks  
    • hello again, do you think this witness statement better suits my needs witness 2.pdf
    • Hi all   Does this link indicate whether or not Woodside Park station is under the TFL Byelaws or not, as I'm a bit confused?!   https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2209-1819   Rgds. Andy
    • I am hoping someone can offer me some advice concerning an issue with my former landlord, please. In short, I took possession of a property he was letting out just over ten years ago. Having viewed and been offered the letting, I accepted and paid the deposit plus the first month’s rent and moved in. Meanwhile, the landlord had gone on holiday and it was not until a week or so after I had moved in that I saw him again when he came around to see if we had settled in OK. I told him all was fine and took the opportunity to ask him where the parking space was located as there is only “pay per hour” on street parking outside and a commercial car park approaching half a mile away. He said there was no parking included with the accommodation. Yet the lease which we had each signed clearly stated that the property included the use of a parking space. He told me that this was an error on his part and that there was no parking space included with the property. Having already vacated my previous letting and paid the deposit and the rental advance and moved all my effects into the new letting – in addition to not wanting a major fallout with my new landlord (I also had a wife and three children to consider), I erred on the side of caution and did not press the matter.   However, the kids have all grown and flown and we have been obliged to downsize to a one bedroom apartment (with parking, happily). This was nearly three months ago and I have only yesteray received contact from my former landlord’s lawyer stating I still owe him (the landlord) money. I am waiting to learn the grounds for his claim and have requested a full breakdown of that alleged indebtedness from his lawyer but, having been very good tenants who always paid the rent on time and not only took great care of the old property but also did a lot of unpaid work improving it over the course of our ten year residence, I am quite annoyed to be treated so meanly. Regardless of whether or not it transpires that I do, unwittingly, owe this man money I am wondering whether or not I might have a counter claim against him for the false representation of his lease and perhaps even be compensated for the ten years I spent paying for on street parking as well as putting up with the daily (often hourly) inconvenience of that.   If someone could advise me, I would be very grateful.   Thank you.  
  • Our picks

Last of the Mohicans

From the US - interesting reading

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3858 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I was told about this by a mate whos a "realtor" (or whatever they call 'em) in the States. Have a read through, I'll post other links as I find them, or you can Google "show me the note" if you're feeling intrepid - but heres a taster:

 

A friend forwarded me this intriguing post from Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt blog. I mentioned in February how some homeowners were successfully contesting and renegotiating foreclosures by forcing borrowers to show the actual note documenting the indebtedness. This strategy is proving useful to many homeowners caught in the crossfire of the housing debacle, and should certainly be pursued if for no other reason than to ensure people are not foreclosed by multiple lenders:

WHO OWNS THE NOTE?

Your goal is to make certain the institution suing you is, in fact, the owner of the note (see steps to follow below). There is only one original note for your mortgage that has your signature on it. This is the document that proves you owe the debt.

During the lending boom, most mortgages were flipped and sold to another lender or servicer or sliced up and sold to investors as securitized packages on Wall Street. In the rush to turn these over as fast as possible to make the most money, many of the new lenders did not get the proper paperwork to show they own the note and mortgage. This is the key to the produce the note strategy. Now, many lenders are moving to foreclose on homeowners, resulting in part from problems they created, and don’t have the proper paperwork to prove they have a right to foreclose.

THE HARM

If you don’t challenge your lender, the court will simply allow the foreclosure to proceed. It’s important to hold lenders accountable for their carelessness. This is the biggest asset in your life. It’s just a piece of paper to them, and one they likely either lost or destroyed.

When you get a copy of the foreclosure suit, many lenders now automatically include a
count to re-establish the note
. It often reads like this: “…the Mortgage note has either been lost or destroyed and the Plaintiff is unable to state the manner in which this occurred.” In other words, they are admitting they don’t have the note that proves they have a right to foreclose.

If the lender is allowed to proceed without that proof, there is a possibility another institution, which may have bought your note along the way, will also try to collect the same debt from you again.

A Tennessee borrower recently had precisely that happen to her. Her lender, Ameriquest, foreclosed on her in July of 2007. About three months later, another bank sent her a default notice for the mortgage on the house she just lost. She called to find out what was going on. After being transferred from place to place and left on hold for lengthy periods of time, no one could explain what happened. They said they would get back to her, but never did. Now, she faces the risk of having her credit continually damaged for a debt she no longer owes.

 

Full article here

 

 

And another:

(Full article here)

With mortgage practices under fire on Capitol Hill and across the country, a federal court decision in Cleveland is now proving more important each day: Homeowners can’t be foreclosed unless mortgage owners actually go to court and prove they have the right to call the loan.

At first this may seem unimportant. After all, when a home is financed doesn’t a lender own the loan? And if a borrower doesn’t pay shouldn’t the lender have a right to foreclose?

It turns out that the first question is not so simple. A large proportion of the institutions that we see as “lenders” don’t actually own the loans they make. Instead, they create loans and then sell them to issuers. The issuers package the loans to create mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and those securities are then sold to investors worldwide. The investors, in turn, are represented by a trustee.

That means, according to a ruling by federal judge Christopher Boyko of the U.S. District Court in Ohio, that many foreclosures cannot proceed because the actual loan owners are not the lenders that originally issued the loans — even though the names of those original note holders continue to appear in official records.

Before someone can lose their home in a foreclosure a plaintiff must prove that it’s actually the loan owner. ... ......

(more)

In the past few years it would not be uncommon for a lender to put up capital to fund a loan. The loan would be marketed to borrowers by a mortgage banker or a mortgage broker who, essentially, was a salesman for the lender. To borrowers, the mortgage broker or the mortgage banker was their “lender,” however that was not usually the case. Instead, the loan was typically sold by the original lender to an “issuer” and borrowers would make payments to a “servicer.”

The actual owner of the loan at this point was not the original lender, not the mortgage broker, not the mortgage banker nor the servicer or the issuer. Why? When the loan was sold to the issuer, the issuer took that one mortgage, packaged it with other loans, and created a private-label mortgage-backed security (MBS). In effect, the issuer sold the loan to the holders of the mortgage-backed security.

But those who invest in the MBS do not actually own the loan either. They have, perhaps, an “equitable interest” in the sense that they are entitled to interest from the mortgage payments and a return of their capital when the loan is sold, paid off or foreclosed.

However, it could be that a single loan might wind up in several loan pools, each with a different level of investor risk — more risk would hopefully produce a higher level of return. Or, it could be that a loan is in one pool today and another pool tomorrow.

In such circumstances, as lawyers might ask, who is the real party in interest, the party who actually owns the loan?

“This court acknowledges the right of banks, holding valid mortgages, to receive timely payments,” said Boyko. “And, if they do not receive timely payments, banks have the right to properly file actions on the defaulted notes — seeking foreclosure on the property securing the notes. Yet, this court possesses the independent obligations to preserve the judicial integrity of the federal court and to jealously guard federal jurisdiction. Neither the fluidity of the secondary mortgage market, nor monetary or economic considerations of the parties, nor the convenience of the litigants supersede those obligations.”

In other words, a borrower can only be foreclosed when the actual owner of the loan goes to court. In the cases seen by Boyko, the paperwork said the loan owners were various banks, not the trustee for the owners of a mortgage-backed security.

(my italics)

 

Sadly, no legal precedent in the UK of course, but proof positive of the reality of what we're contending.

Edited by Last of the Mohicans
  • Haha 1

In knowledge lies wisdom

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more interesting because of the US NWNF and tort culture, and of course class action. That is one hell of a bomb ticking... :shock:

 

All it will take is one of the more ambitious ambulance-chasers to start canvassing a place like Detroit, the capital of sub-prime repossessions and launch a class action (problem will be the pinpoint a defendant, but I'm sure that they could divide them in "smaller" lawsuits) and away they go: Between those being chased by companies who don't have the actual right to, those who have lost their homes by those same companies, and in a country where punitive damages are actively sought and routinely granted, ouch. If you thought the US economy was in trouble now.... :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even more interesting because of the US NWNF and tort culture, and of course class action. That is one hell of a bomb ticking... :shock:

 

All it will take is one of the more ambitious ambulance-chasers to start canvassing a place like Detroit, the capital of sub-prime repossessions and launch a class action (problem will be the pinpoint a defendant, but I'm sure that they could divide them in "smaller" lawsuits) and away they go: Between those being chased by companies who don't have the actual right to, those who have lost their homes by those same companies, and in a country where punitive damages are actively sought and routinely granted, ouch. If you thought the US economy was in trouble now.... :shock:

 

 

Aye, which is probably why the US Govt is actively helping people under threat of repo, as opposed to our own which is actively aiding and abetting the "lenders" to clobber us.


In knowledge lies wisdom

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, no legal precedent in the UK of course, but proof positive of the reality of what we're contending.

 

Excellent posts Mo. I've thanked you.

 

rgds

V


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...