Well Amex declines to answer Securitisation Question

[Fedupandfightingback]

Amongst other things, I asked Amex had they securitised my account.. this is the relevant section from their reply to me.

 

 

 

"Your account is funded by American Express Services Europe Limited. We do not believe it is necessary to provide any further information as to the source of funding as it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. To suggest that we would not be entitled to recover debt accrued by you through your use of the card is simply wrong.

 

We are in no doubt as to the fact that the debt is genuinely owed by you.........provided you with documents necessary to evidence the debt. If you genuinely believe that the debt is not owed to us, we would ask you to provide details of the company to whom you believe the debt is owed. Clearly it cannot be the case that you have spent a significant amount of money on your credit card that has not been paid back, without their being a legal entity to which that money should be repaid."

 

 

The rest goes on to say they can't assist any further, FOS, etc., and then the bit about external collection agents.

 

If I do a Subject Access Request would that show if the account has been securitised? My accountant thought it would. I think their answer is very evasive - in fact they are not answering the question at all.

[the_shadow]

Amongst other things, I asked Amex had they securitised my account.. this is the relevant section from their reply to me.

 

 

 

"Your account is funded by American Express Services Europe Limited. We do not believe it is necessary to provide any further information as to the source of funding as it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. To suggest that we would not be entitled to recover debt accrued by you through your use of the card is simply wrong.

 

We are in no doubt as to the fact that the debt is genuinely owed by you.........provided you with documents necessary to evidence the debt. If you genuinely believe that the debt is not owed to us, we would ask you to provide details of the company to whom you believe the debt is owed. Clearly it cannot be the case that you have spent a significant amount of money on your credit card that has not been paid back, without their being a legal entity to which that money should be repaid."

 

 

The rest goes on to say they can't assist any further, FOS, etc., and then the bit about external collection agents.

 

If I do a Subject Access Request would that show if the account has been securitised? My accountant thought it would. I think their answer is very evasive - in fact they are not answering the question at all.

 

I've personally not seen anything on the printouts that you get back from amex which would indicate either way but then its all in gobbledy gook even with the printouts showing "some" of the abbreviations..

 

Just as an aside though when(if you did) you made DD payments did they go to AESEL Receivables instead of American Explress Ltd?

 

S.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Helllo Folks!

 

That's an interesting response, note how Amex avoids using the word owned.

 

Funds may well flow through the Amex kiosk in the UK but, that says absolutely nothing about the ownership of the alleged Debt.

 

Second point being that once a gift has been given, the giver no longer owns the gift in any event. Silly them if they borrowed money to make all of those s127 gifts.

 

However, the problem for them is they still owe whatever they borrowed or sold themselves, which may be why Amex are getting so upset these days.

 

• It all started by them handing out bags of Cash to Consumers along with poop Agreements. The aim was to make lots of money by charging high interest rates.
  

 

• They then had the bright idea to sell the future balance projections for those Debts to investors for instant Cash. Why wait to be paid when you can get paid straight away? Even better if you can take a cut as the cash flows past you on its way to/from the investors.
  

 

• They then handed out that new Cash to more UK Consumers along with more poop Agreements, all because they thought they could earn even more money by charging even higher interest rates than the ones they offered to their investors. Easy money!
  

 

• They then sold the future balance projections for those new Debts to new investors for more instant new Cash...and kept repeating the above grand plan: borrow, lend, sell, charge interest, pay interest, pocket the difference, borrow, lend, sell, charge interest, pay interest, pocket the difference, borrow, lend, sell, charge interest, pay interest, pocket the difference...
  

But, then it all went sideways. Amex and all the other bankers playing the same game just got far too excited, messed themselves, and then spoilt it for everyone.

 

Now it's payback time, for them, as they have investors breathing down their necks wanting to be paid. Big problem for them is they got their figures wrong, and failed to understand what they were letting themselves in for. The grand plan wasn't as big, and it wasn't as clever, as they once thought!

 

To suggest that we would not be entitled to recover debt accrued by you through your use of the card is simply wrong.

It may be wrong, and it may sting and it may hurt like a b1tch but, if all they have are poop Agreements worth squat, backed up by a truckload of defective Default Notices, then they had better get used to the injustice of being bestowed with three unfortunate characteristics: greed, arrogance and stupidity.

 

Those are a powerful combination but, when combined with an inability to use a calculator or understand UK Consumer Law, there is almost no limit to the size of mess it can create.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[citizenB]

BRw, you do so have a way with words :D

[angry cat]

They are hardly going to admit it, are they.

 

It is up to them to prove that the account has not been securitized and not to play semantics!

[ScarletPimpernel]

I agree with BRW - Amex's letter is very carefully worded, but they might just as well have just said 'yes' and be done with it.

 

Amex say:

Clearly it cannot be the case that you have spent a significant amount of money on your credit card that has not been paid back, without their being a legal entity to which that money should be repaid.

 

This is precisely why the securitization question is asked - in order to discover exactly who the legal entity is to whom the money should be repaid. Of course, if it's been securitized, it'll be Amex who'll be doing the repaying.

 

Amex's persistent attempts (in my case) to collect on accounts for which they know they have no agreements and have provided defective DNs are now becoming tiresome. Perhaps I will throw the securitization question at them next.

[angry cat]

No Point just asking though;

they must prove that the account has not been securitized, in the form of a notarised document, duly stamped and signed (by a Notary Public) and

counter signed by their Company Secretary.

 

Not the time to fiddle faddle about, do it under CPR 31.16.

 

AC

[creditcardmug]

The actual money that was borrowed, has most probably been repaid already, and more, the only thing left would be interest/charges, for which, if there isnt an agreement they have no right to charge anyway, in my view, notwithstanding, as was said above the advance was a gift

[ScarletPimpernel]

The actual money that was borrowed, has most probably been repaid already, and more, the only thing left would be interest/charges, for which, if there isnt an agreement they have no right to charge anyway, in my view, notwithstanding, as was said above the advance was a gift

 

I used exactly this argument when Amex suggested that I had a moral responsibility toward them, even if the agreements were invalid. They didn't pursue the point.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SP!

 

Perhaps I will throw the securitization question at them next.

Excellent.

 

Maybe also ask them to send you a copy of their Company Accounts, and ask them to please place a big red ring around where, exactly, in their Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet they are hiding all of the UK Card Debts they are carefully avoiding saying they do, or do not own.

 

The UK Service Company (the UK kiosk for the American parent) seems to have a relatively small but nevertheless pretty full Profit & Loss just running the services they provide (the clue being in their Company name). There's no slack suggested by their Books to cover big enough numbers to accommodate the Card and Loan Debts...there never were!

 

The UK Service Company is a bit like a Petrol Station, huge sums get delivered in Tankers and get pushed out of their pumps, but all they are is a low rent vehicle that allows those sums to whiz through them to/from somewhere else, to/from someone else who really owns the show not just the tank, row of pumps and the Cash Till (where all money apart from a Service Fee goes somewhere else)!

 

Same goes for the token Holding Company that sits above the Service Company, both owned outright by their USA based parent. Apart from the UK Service Company which forms the bulk of their numbers, the Holding Company has even less left over in their Books for anything else.

 

It seems neither of these two Companies are the entity we are all seeking, and to which the UK Service Company alludes to without naming names. The other UK Companies seem to be Insurance related, so they are not it either.

 

No sign, either, of any robust and significant Securitisation activity going on in either the UK or EEC...which leaves us with, where else I wonder?

 

Fly due West over a large pond until you get to New York...where living not that far away you'll find...

 

The American Company USA

 

The Global Parent. The big fat one that owns all of the other little fat Companies.

 

A Company that, until only a few months ago, was not a bank. It had to become a bank in order to thrust out its rather greedy SuperSizeMe begging bowl for bailout funds.

 

So, prior to the bailout, to fund itself bearing in mind that it could not, nor wanted to, accept Deposits, it relied heavily instead on financial magic tricks to raise money from their existing portfolio of Card and Loan Debts to finance, wait for it, wait for it...their next round of Card and Loan Debts.

 

The financial trickery is called Securitisation. The trick that is the equivalent of pushing an Air Hose into a Durex and blowing it up until it is the size of the Moon.

 

The American Company USA have always been very, very, very, and I repeat very heavily reliant upon Securitisation. If it was not nailed down, then they would Securitise it.

 

If they were not doing the Securitisation over here, then they were certainly doing it somewhere. If they were doing it in the USA, then any Securitisation is a one-way trip: the American Accounting Standards demand that Securitisation must be via outright sales.

 

If they sell, they are required to sell lock, stock and barrel. This raises immediate concerns because their Sterling Credit Card Debts are mainly based on UK Regulated Credit Card Agreements. You can't just sell them off to anyone. Or, rather, if you do, then the Agreement is effectively dead in the water if the new owners do not have a UK Consumer Credit Licence.

 

It would be the same as selling the Debts to a bloke they met in the pub.

 

Oh dear, this is not looking good for them. It can't be long now before they will need to pack their bags and leave. Soon there will be nothing left for them over here once the full enormity of this issue hits the fan, and once they have repaid anything they have ever won in Court to date where they took action without having a right if action.

 

Judgment Day approaches.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[citizenB]

davey77 posted this on his own thread, I thought it was relevant to this dicussion.

 

Hi DD.. been away from the computer for a couple of days and just catching up.

 

In line with the securitisation i sent the following email to the ICO:

 

"I would be grateful for the ICO's views on requests for certain information under the Data Protection Act. Specifically in relation to a Subject Access Request to a Creditor by a Consumer for information the Creditor holds regarding an account that has been part of a Securitisation pool or has, past or present, been passed to such a third partly under such a financial arrangement - namely a SVP as part of any securitisation process. In failing to supply information relating the Securitisation would the Creditor have breached a request under the DPA?

 

Given that such an arrangement for an account, although aggregated for this purpose, necessarily links back to an individual it seems clear that basic information as to whether or not a given account forms part of an outside (third party) securitisation pool by having been sold to an SPV would essentially be classed as personal data and therefore any such arrangement should be specified in reply to a Subject Access Request. Also, to assess if that account had been at some point transferred to countries without adequate protection, or not.

 

Thanks for your reply in advance."

 

Today i had this so watch this space:

 

"Case Reference Number *********

 

Dear Mr davey

 

Thank you for your correspondence dated 21st May 2009 regarding ICO guidance on subject access requests.

 

The matters you have raised will be assigned to one of our casework teams before being allocated to a case officer who will respond in line with our current service standards.

 

Should you wish to contact us about this matter please quote the above case reference number. Failure to do so may delay the processing of your request.

 

If you would like to contact our Helpline please call 08456 30 60 60, or 01625 54 57 45 if you would prefer to call a 'national rate' number.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Signed on behalf of

Mr Paul Arnold

Head of Customer Service"

[the_shadow]

Hello SP!

 

Excellent.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Just to show the complex webs they weave as I've posted this before, this is how the credit card accounts were dealt with in 2005 according to Amex corp's 10-Q report

 

Additionally, in October 2004, Credco established two additional 99.9 percent

owned entities, American Express Sterling Funding Limited Partnership (AESLP)

and American Express Euro Funding Limited Partnership (AEELP) in connection with

the implementation of alternate receivable funding strategies in the United

Kingdom and Germany. AESLP in turn established a wholly-owned subsidiary,

American Express Funding (Luxembourg) SARL (SARL). These entities were funded

with the proceeds of debt securities issued by Credco in pounds sterling and

euros, in the third and fourth quarters of 2004, respectively. During the fourth

quarter of 2004, Credco sold its cardmember loan and receivable portfolios in

the United Kingdom and Germany to American Express Services Europe Limited

(AESEL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of TRS. Subsequently, AESEL transferred with

recourse cardmember receivables and cardmember loans of $2.5 billion and $619

million to SARL and AEELP, respectively. These transfers of cardmember

receivables and cardmember loans with recourse resulted in Credco recording

loans with affiliates $2.8 billion and $2.9 billion in its Consolidated Balance

How many intervening companies does it take?

S.

[smouk]

If I do a Subject Access Request would that show if the account has been securitised? My accountant thought it would.

Unlikely - my SAR response was sparse to say the least.

 

Copy of default, termination, some letters, 6 yrs of statements and some (selected) screen shots.

[Trudy B]

subbing

[ScarletPimpernel]

Looking back over my, by now quite substantial, file of papers relating to Amex, I note that the various dismally moronic creatures they have set to pursuing me don't seem to be clear about to whom I am alleged to owe money. In my case, there are four accounts, but if I look at just one, the DCA's clients are named as:

 

American Express

American Express Services Ltd

American Express Europe Ltd

Amex

 

None of the above company names appears on the application forms/non-compliant agreements that have been supplied to me in response to s.78(1) requests. I rather wish I'd noticed before. I'd tend to suspect that it's more ineptitude than intent to mislead, but then again...

 

The DCAs involved, some of whom have had more than one go, are:

 

RMA/NCO

AIC

Newman

Moorcroft

SRJ

 

...and not forgetting the risibly grandiose Pishcon de Reya.

 

It seems to me that before I take the latest chancers to task over the meaty subject of securitization, they will have to start by confirming exactly who they are representing.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Incidentally, these are the companies shown on Companies House register:

 

 

FC012336 AMERICAN EXPRESS ASSET MANAGEMENT N.V.

BR000301 AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

FC001863 AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

SL005292 AMERICAN EXPRESS EURO FUNDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

BR000655 AMERICAN EXPRESS EUROPE LIMITED

BR000897 AMERICAN EXPRESS EUROPE LIMITED

FC011790 AMERICAN EXPRESS EUROPE LIMITED

06613927 AMERICAN EXPRESS GROUP SERVICES LIMITED

05163695 AMERICAN EXPRESS HOLDINGS LIMITED

05048826 AMERICAN EXPRESS INSURANCE SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED

06301718 AMERICAN EXPRESS PAYMENT SERVICES LIMITED

01833139 AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED

SL005291 AMERICAN EXPRESS STERLING FUNDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

 

 

I'm not clear how there can be three companies called American Express Europe Limited, though one is a foreign company. I suspect that this could be important.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SP!

 

Another interesting list is to see how many pop up on the OFT Web Site:

 

Public Register

 

i.e. to see who also has a Consumer Credit Licence!

 

0017644 American Express Bank Ltd Current SW1W 0RR

0103402 American Express Company Lapsed on 19/01/1996 SW1H 0NH

0133848 American Express Financial Services Limited Lapsed on 06/01/1998 RH15 9AW

0136130 American Express Europe Limited Current BN2 2LP

0170481 American Express Travel U K Limited Lapsed on 25/02/2000 SW1Y 4BS

0180187 American Express Services Europe Limited Lapsed on 24/09/2000 BN2 2LP

0259919 American Express Insurance Services Limited Lapsed on 10/08/2004 BN1 4EB

0495451 American Express Services Europe Limited Current SW1E 5BZ

0519879 American Express Bank (Luxembourg) S.A. Historic SW1W 0RR

0539223 American Express Financial Services Europe Limited Lapsed on 14/07/2008 SE1 8NW

0622176 American Express (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Current 12269 50772

They flogged off American Express Bank Ltd, so that one is not now part of the Group. That leaves just three with current Consumer Credit Licences, one in Malaysia.

 

Where in The Consumer Credit Act 1974 does it say that a Regulated Agreement can have a complete holiday in USA Securitisation land, and later come back out again as a bunch of number-money that can somehow re-form into an orderly queue (with a suntan), after which these numbers can Regulate themselves and assume the identity of the Regulated Agreement that had already disappeared into USA Securitisation land.

 

Finally, see if you can spot how many of the following Companies have Consumer Credit Licences:

 

Credco

American Express Sterling Funding Limited Partnership (AESLP).

American Express Euro Funding Limited Partnership (AEELP).

American Express Funding (Luxembourg) SARL (SARL).

American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL).

 

That'll be just the one then.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[make them aktiv runners]

Looking back over my, by now quite substantial, file of papers relating to Amex, I note that the various dismally moronic creatures they have set to pursuing me don't seem to be clear about to whom I am alleged to owe money. In my case, there are four accounts, but if I look at just one, the DCA's clients are named as:

 

American Express

American Express Services Ltd

American Express Europe Ltd

Amex

 

None of the above company names appears on the application forms/non-compliant agreements that have been supplied to me in response to s.78(1) requests. I rather wish I'd noticed before. I'd tend to suspect that it's more ineptitude than intent to mislead, but then again...

 

The DCAs involved, some of whom have had more than one go, are:

 

RMA/NCO

AIC

Newman

Moorcroft

SRJ

 

...and not forgetting the risibly grandiose Pishcon de Reya.

 

It seems to me that before I take the latest chancers to task over the meaty subject of securitization, they will have to start by confirming exactly who they are representing.

 

One important point to cross out first. The DCA's can sometimes reassign back to the OC who then sells to another DCA, it is possible for the company name to have changed by the next time OC sells it.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Indeed, Aktiv, but Amex doesn't sell debts - it just relentlessly passes them around different DCAs, so the creditor shouldn't change. All the letters I've had from the creditor are from one Amex company, but its name hasn't appeared on any DCA documents.

 

One has to wonder why they don't act like every other OC, and sell or write off debts. Their Quixotic pursuit of hopeless cases is inexplicable - it must be costing more than they ultimately stand to gain - unless there's some sort of accounting process that needs to see the figures staying on the books.

[angry cat]

The rules differ here in the UK;

read and enjoy:

 

http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/ifawz1/baums/Bilder_und_Daten/Arbeitspapiere/a0294.pdf

[the_shadow]

The rules differ here in the UK;

read and enjoy:

 

http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/ifawz1/baums/Bilder_und_Daten/Arbeitspapiere/a0294.pdf

 

 

Would be nice to get sight of the UK Report, supra note 31, at 202 by the Bank of England to see their recommendations on assignment.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

This is HM customs and revenues take on securitisation

 

Guidance for specific trade sectors: Finance: Securitisation arrangements

 

Mainly concerned with how companies report it than any possible legality issues, note they state only the benfits are sold not the rights.

 

S.

[angry cat]

different rules apply here in the UK, to that of the US!

[angry cat]

In the UK, there are generally three methods of transferring a receivable, novation,

assignment and sub-participation50. Since novation (essentially a re-creation of the

obligation) requires the consent and cooperation of all three parties - the SPV, the

originator and the account debtor - it's infrequently done51. Therefore this method of

transfer will not be discussed here any further.

There are two methods of transferring by assignment. They are legal and equitable

assignmet. Legal assignment seems at first glance ideal for asset securitization, since the

consequence of a legal assignment is that the whole and beneficial title is transferred to the

SPV, leaving little doubt that the transaction is a "true sale"52. Legal assignment, however,

includes a statutory requirement to give written notice to the account debtor53. This notice

requirement can pose problems for a potential asset securitizer because it is

administratively cumbersome, and because the securitizing institution may not wish to let

their account debtors know that their receivables have been financed, because it gives the

wrong impression54.

Equitable assigment may prove an attractive alternative to legal assignment, since under

English law, an equitable assignment would qualify as a "true sale" and would not require

notice to the account debtor55. There are several disadvantages, however, to using

equitable assignment as opposed to legal assignment56. First, without notice, the account

debtor can discharge the receivable by payment to the originator57. Second, the SPV is

subject to any set-off which the account debtor might obtain against the originator, both

before and after transfer58. Third, there remains the possibility that a later sale of the SPV's

receivable to a bona-fide purchaser would defeat the SPV's interest in such receivable59.

Fourth and finally, the SPV procedurally would not be able to sue directly, it must join the

originator in any legal proceeding60.

The final method for transferring receivables."

 

We know already that block of debt are being sold through Dublin and mainly equitable assignment.

 

AC

[angry cat]

Amex; looks like the first securitization of card receivables was in 1992!

 

Amex plans card-backed bond issue. (American Express Co., credit card receivables) | Article from American Banker | HighBeam Research