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

[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.

[wfspayback]

Is this it ?

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your_society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Mortgage-Sale_Agreem.PDF

 

My mistake, this is the 3rd one down

Edited July 19, 2012 by wfspayback

[wfspayback]

Sorry this is the 4th one down

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your_society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Prospectus.PDF

[tertiary alcohol]

anybody want to check out what info there are on these links

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 
   
   
  

http://www6.paragon-group.co.uk/pgroup.nsf/securitisationMainFS

 

here is a goodie --- it takes forever to load (when it does download suggest you save a copy amazing ino in there )

 

http://www6.paragon-group.co.uk/pgroup.nsf/nasec/5BDD369D99C49DBC802579270037E583/$FILE/02%20Mortgage%20Sale%20Agreement.pdf

Edited July 19, 2012 by tertiary alcohol

[tertiary alcohol]

Message from The Consumer Action Group

 

To be able to send PMs your post count must be 30 or greater.

 

You currently have 11 posts and you can send PMs to following users only:

Docubot, BankFodder, Reviewer, alanfromderby, MARTIN3030, CAGBlogger, Admin, WebMaster, BookMan, NewsBot, librarian, CAGAdmin1, qwe987, MoneyBAGs, caro, sequenci, maroondevo52, havinastella, seanamarts, ukaviator, the_shadow, Mr lex, GuidoT, steven4064, dx100uk, Sidewinder, IdaInFife, slick132, Conniff, ScarletPimpernel, Pat Mustard, freakyleaky, car2403, 42man, cerberusalert, Ell-enn, andyorch, NOMBot, citizenB, ErikaPNP, pete2, andydd, antone, rebel11, honeybee13, BRIGADIER2JCS, ims21, Gbarbm

[IS IT ME?]

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

[wfspayback]

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

 

For Accord this is the Mortgage Sale Agreement

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your_society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Mortgage-Sale_Agreem.PDF

 

And the Deed of Charge

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your_society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Deed-of-Charge.PDF

 

Wasn't hard to find, just googled Accord "mortgage sale agreement" and then Accord "Deed of Charge"

 

Hope these are of interest to you ITM?

 

Suggest you download a copy before they go missing

[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!

[wfspayback]

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!

 

I have indeed read it...

 

6.2 For the avoidance of doubt, prior to the completion of the assignment, assignation, or transfer (as appropriate) of any Loan and its Related Security to the Issuer pursuant to Clause 6.1 , with effect from the Closing Date relating to that Loan and its Related Security legal title to each Loan and its Related Security in the Portfolio shall be vested in the Seller and sole beneficial title and interest shall be vested in the Issuer. Prior to perfection of the transfer of the legal title to Loans and their Related Security pursuant to this Clause 6, the Seller undertakes (to the extent that any of the following is vested in it) to hold all right, title, interest and benefit (both present and future) in and under (a) the Loans and their Related Security, following the acquisition of such Loans and their Related Security by the Issuer and (b) any sums that are or may become due in respect thereof, on trust for the Issuer (excluding from such trust any Loans which have been repurchased by the Seller).

 

6.3 Perfection of the transfer, assignation and assignment in accordance with Clause 6.1 of:

(a) the English Mortgages in the Portfolio shall be effected by means of a transfer in the form of

the relevant Land Registry Transfer set out in Schedule 2 (Register of Transfers);

(b) an SLR Transfer in the case of Mortgages over Properties title to which is registered in the

Land Register of Scotland (substantially in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3);

© a Sasine Transfer, in the case of Mortgages over Properties title to which is recorded in the

General Register of Sasines (substantially in the form set out in Part 3 of Schedule 3);and

(d) the Loans and relevant Related Security shall be effected through notification to the relevant Borrowers and/or guarantors and/or insurers or other relevant third parties of the sale and transfer or assignment or assignation of the relevant Loans and their Related Security,

and, in each case, notice shall be given to each Borrower or any other relevant person of the sale and transfer of that Borrower's Loan and its Related Security to the Issuer and the charge by the Issuer of the Issuer's interest in that Borrower's Loan and its Related Security to the Security Trustee pursuant to the Deed of Charge.

[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.

[wfspayback]

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?

 

Hello ITM?

 

Do you mean this Master Definitions and Construction Schedule ?

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your_society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Master-Definitions-a.PDF

[wfspayback]

the issuer is BRASS PLc

and The SELLER IS ACCORD

 

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

 

Exactly, 6.2 of the Mortgage Sale Agreement confirms what the seller (Accord) will own and what the issuer (Brass) will own.

[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.

[jotho]

The issue I would like to clarify is the separation of the security and the debt obligation. What happens if the final end-user investor in the securitised package which included my personal mortgage goes bankrupt or simply vanishes. How would I know if my lender were continuing to collect (as trustee) on a debt it had already sold and was no longer obliged to service? Due to the reckless investments made and the way these securities were packaged and sold (mixing good debts up with sub-prime) many investors have gone bankrupt. How would the Official Receiver treat a securitised debt obligation? Where does my obligation end? I would really appreciate the highly informed views of this forum on this aspect of the debate. I hold a Northern Rock mortgage issued just before the crash when they were riding the sub-prime securitisation wave and I believe very little due process was followed in the scandalous mis-selling of these products. I think this may be another twist to this thread.

[applecart]

"The issue I would like to clarify is the separation of the security and the debt obligation. What happens if the final end-user investor in the securitised package which included my personal mortgage goes bankrupt or simply vanishes. How would I know if my lender were continuing to collect (as trustee) on a debt it had already sold and was no longer obliged to service? Due to the reckless investments made and the way these securities were packaged and sold (mixing good debts up with sub-prime) many investors have gone bankrupt. How would the Official Receiver treat a securitised debt obligation? Where does my obligation end? I would really appreciate the highly informed views of this forum on this aspect of the debate. I hold a Northern Rock mortgage issued just before the crash when they were riding the sub-prime securitisation wave and I believe very little due process was followed in the scandalous mis-selling of these products. I think this may be another twist to this thread."

 

Hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd try to add some clarity to assist your line of questioning...(you may need to read what I say more than once, because it took me a while to appreciate what I have found...and couldn't believe it either...given that lenders are rampantly re-possession consumers house without remorse)

 

This is my personal opinion only - when it comes to separation of the security and the debt obligation in relation to a disposition of an interest in land that relates to a mortgage,........... there is no separation within the Law that relates to dispositions of land for the legal interest (the security interest - normally referred to as the 'title to sue' 'cause of action' or right to possession) or the equitable interest (the debt obligation or CMI) for this to happen.

 

For this conclusion I began by considering the Sale of Goods Act - just to better understand the ambit of how a 'sale' occurs and what the underlying factors are that effect a 'sale'...

 

From there, I moved onto 'sales in relation to land' and researched 'trusts' - this threw up pieces of legislation that themselves directly relate and made sense (in my mind) to the finding that it is impossible for a lender to purport to 'sell' its interests in land that relates to a consumers mortgage yet retain a legal interest or a cause of action - one such piece of legislation was the Trustee Delegation Act 1999 - at section 10 - it's wording and my interpretation is that it clearly advises that if a sale agreement is accompanied by a power of attorney - together, these 'instruments' have the effect of divesting the lender of both its legal and equitable interest in the land that relate to the consumers mortgage as party to a securitisation financial collateral arrangement that creates a Mortgage Backed Security. ( I know its a mouthful - but I couldn't think of a simpler way of stating the point).....

 

Please note that I have introduced words here such as 'interests' instead of 'mortgage' - 'disposition' instead of 'sale' and 'interests in land that relate to a mortgage' instead of 'sale of the mortgage' or 'sale of the property' and also 'instruments' instead of 'Mortgage Sale Agreement' or 'Power of Attorney'....

 

Subtle differences, but I believe.....; more than significant in relation to the debate.

 

I do not find that the original lender should or could ever be found to be the 'trustee' in such an arrangement. You may already be aware that any prospectus for a securitisation agreement will insist (UKLA Listing Rules) that the 'Trustee' must be identified in the prospectus - if your Lender is identified within the prospectus - then, sure, your lender can refer to himself as the 'Trustee' - but this is most unlikely to be the case with most sub-prime lenders....

 

It is not a question as to 'what if the end-user investor goes bankrupt' that is of any concern to a consumer (IMO) - the question is....what are your rights as a consumer in the event you become aware that your lender has securitised your mortgage and what legislation is available to you to protect your interests in the land - your home.....

 

In my opinion, your obligation ends when you can prove in a court of law that the Law of the land says your obligation ended at the time and date that the lender disposed of its interests in the land in relation to your mortgage with the effect of disposing to the SPV rights that became extinguished as soon as the SPV paid a valuable consideration and registered its legal interest at Companies House without serving notice under s.1 LPA 1925 upon you.

 

There are of course a number of other considerations to be taken into account - and it is not as simple as stated above - but hopefully you will read into what I have posted to help clarify a few of the concerns you raise..........

 

Again, IMO, an Official Receiver in relation to the Lender and the SPV will be interested in who has the proprietary interest in relation to the land - that is to say, which one of them can prove first in line registration of their interest in the land.

 

Having gained a legal interest in the consumers land, it stands to reason (IMO) that the SPV in the event of its insolvency would look to the consumers property for redress. In Law, the Lenders bankruptcy should not affect the consumer - but as we know - it does and is affecting them on a daily basis (but, this is the legal issue that has yet to be brought and founded before the courts).

 

Long before a consumer can consider challenging a lender, you need to source and identify the 'instruments' that effected the disposition of its interest in relation to your land and mortgage (sale) and then consider what the status of your mortgage account was in at the time and date that the disposition was effected, this being because - if you were in actual default at the time of the disposition, you are likely to have an outcome similar to that found in the horsham case...albeit on different grounds, but essentially a similar outcome....

 

I hope this helps rather than confuses?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

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

[jotho]

Thank you so much for this. Once again the legal argument appears to fall strongly in favour of the consumer. Indeed every legal argument does as far as I have researched, yet no precedents have been set. Due to the massive implications to the banking industry I feel sure this is not something the courts are going to allow either, however obvious the legal argument put forward. My limited knowledge of the court system leads me to ask if a case such as this could be heard before a jury. If so, perhaps a hugely publicised class action could prevail. I am ready to try it if anyone wants to join me and willing to shoulder my proportion of costs. I believe in the US the "show me the note" campaign is having some success in individual cases, but again no class action has been launched. Whilst I can see the banks fearing and fighting this on every level, they only have the income from debt servicing to protect, having sold and been paid for the debt instrument long ago. This is far less morally defensible as well as legally defensible surely.

[spot]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39617[/ATTACH]

 

This may be of interest?

[jotho]

Once again many thanks for your interest and insight. I am struggling with the legal complexities here but I am registering that the law is finding it difficult to uphold the principals of "having your cake and eating it". (To anyone interested, on re-reading my previous post I realise I meant to put "I" am ready and willing to shoulder my proportion of costs. This may not have been clear).

[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.

[andrew1]

you are likely to have an outcome similar to that found in the horsham case...albeit on different grounds, but essentially a similar outcome....

 

Apple

 

Hi Apple, can you tell me what the 'horsham' case was and where I can find that?

 

Ta

 

A1

[applecart]

Hi Andrew1

 

This link will better explain that I may be able to: http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/orders-for-sale-after-horsham/4538803765

 

Apple

[applecart]

Please note in my main post above - where I refer to s.1 LPA 1925 in post '91' it should actually state: s.136 LPA 1925 (my keyboard is playing up)

 

Apple

[andrew1]

Thanks Apple. Most helpful.