Mortgage Securitisation - Paragon V Pender Title to Sue Judgements - For Debate & Discussion

[IS IT ME?]

Sue and E is E.

Sue you are very knowledgeable on the paperwork of this and I do not mean that badly but if you look at the judgement again just for 5 minutes before you reply on the question of

If the lender HAS been PAID IN FULL for the mortgage book then I ask,

What are there losses?

What and why do they not transfer the mortgage to who ever?

Looking at the judgement I think the Judge was wrong and be leave me Judges do not know about securitisation at all and its that question of if the LENDER had been Paid in full for the Mortgage then they should have not been a party to any court case, as they do not own any thing but just act as agents for who ever.

Yes I know about who's on the LR and the LR act but if they have not changed these details becuase it would open a can of worms then its not the bower who should be taken to the cleaners.

[IS IT ME?]

Thank you Sue,

But the question still remains, if the lender has been paid in full ie the bonds then it is the bond holders who have losses.

Yes it say's bah bah bah in the rules BUT and this is the big BUT these laws where written years ago before securitisation was even thought of.

So I therefore ask what is there loss.

[IS IT ME?]

You should down load the latest sale from ACCORD MORTGAGES sale of mortgages asap,

BUT read it all, all 207 pages of it then you will understand why they have got away with it and the courts do not help the borowers in any way.

[IS IT ME?]

do a sreach for accord mortgages sale, it should come up about the 4th one down.

But you must read all of it to see where it goes.

[IS IT ME?]

Has any one read the papers, but you can't get the MORTGAGE SALE AGREEMENT or the CHARGE why is that?

[IS IT ME?]

Thanks wfspayback found it and downloaded it.

Yes I am looking into this BIG time and may be now found the way forward, have you read these Hopefully Suetouis will read these now as they show that the seller has transferred ALL rights to the mortgages to the TRUSTEE.

I think they will be removed soon!

[IS IT ME?]

And?

you have also read the Master Definitions and Construction Schedule which you will NOT get.

Why have 6.3 if as it reads and I say if it reads PRIOR to perfection of the transfer of the legal title?

Like page page 3 1

page 4 3.1 (a)

3.9 page 6

3.16 page 8

22.1 page 32

23.3 (b) page 40 d and h?

[IS IT ME?]

the issuer is BRASS PLc

and The SELLER IS ACCORD

 

Brass have no assets or money as usual Directors are all the same again.

[IS IT ME?]

You have read ALL of the document?

What are you saying then that accord can take people to court even though they do NOT own the mortgages any more

Its all a con and it is why we are in sh@@t we are now.

[IS IT ME?]

Just what was needed and I for one am looking into this as I FULLY believe this is right.

[IS IT ME?]

I think it's time also and willing to jion any action.

I am waiting to hear back from some one who knows more and sits high up on the bench as to what action to take and what papers to issue.

[IS IT ME?]

well well, well done applllecart which has now gone over lol

I have noted this and thank you.

[IS IT ME?]

Hi can we post now?

[IS IT ME?]

apple, can I pm you some thing to look at?

[IS IT ME?]

I now have a copy of the mortgage deed and it states nothing as it is only singed by me and the witness. But the interesting part is that our solicitor has signed it as being a true copy some 20 days after the date of the deed? and reg at the LR and it states page 1 of 2 so where's the other page???

[IS IT ME?]

erm Thank you for the reply bhall, I'am with Ken thank you

 

I think some one works for them as you would not get the forms and as you say its the BORROWER which give legal title not the lender. But this does not mean that the lender still holds legeal title for these mortgages this has been transferred when the sale went though.

As I have asked for a Director of the company to sign an statement of truth that they still own this mortgage for 2 years and 3 court case's they have not! why not??

[IS IT ME?]

You and I both know it but it has to change and maybe just maybe its happening. And it's just a case of asking the right questions like above and not getting the answers which are the truth which will open this up

People like Ben always put you down or give mis-information so they can stop any one opening this up yet do not help in ant way just like last time rember he has not been on for a long time and again could not answer the questions I put to him.

I for one have had enough and if they want a fright then they have got it, I don't mind paying a reasonable rate and doing it right but I am not going to pay some one else's bonus or interest.

Lets see what happens now.

[IS IT ME?]

By the way Ben if you read the so called internet page you will see that ALL of the documents you refer to are dated 2011 and are in light of the sale of the mortgages which if you read the document therein they had to do.

I can not see where you state that applpecart is wrong in any of his posts or that the question of who owns what is stated.

[IS IT ME?]

well you have to ask nicely lol

Its now well under way to change these orders and put the questions in the way you have and see what happens now as you quite rightly state this is the LAW and can not be changed nor dismissed by the judges.

I rember Sustious was it who was saying you can't do this and you can't do that what's happened to him??? he is very quiet now.

[IS IT ME?]

so there we HAVE it ha let the games begin

You still can't have PM s apple as really don't wont to post up yet.

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry still can't PM you and as you know there are trolls on here so thinking before posting.