Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is this any better?  I've resigned myself to losing. Admittedly, I don't quite know what I'm doing. I just hope I get a remote hearing, that should save me some embarrassment.      1) The Claimants pleaded case is that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Provident subsequently assigned to Vanquis Bank Limited under account reference xxx.    2) It is admitted I have had financial dealings with Provident in the past. However, have no recollection of the alleged reference number the claimant refers to.   3) In February 2019 I made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.    4) On the 21 June 2019 the Claimant sent a response which enclosed a reconstituted copy of an agreement, default notice, notice of assignment Provident to Vanquis, notice of assignment Vanquis to Lowell. [EXHIBIT x, x & x].   5) On 30/07/19, I received a claims form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £369.84. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £369.84 in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no xxxx  pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).   6) Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Provident to Vanquis. The claimant states a further assignment to them occurred on 12/06/2017 with notice given.    7) It is denied notice of assignment from Provident to Vanquis and subsequently Vanquis to Lowell were ever received.    😎 The claimant states documents were received at both addresses. The claimant doesn’t appear able to confirm my address and therefore cannot say with certainty said documents were received. Furthermore, the client did not issue said documents and therefore cannot prove delivery.     9) It is denied any communication took place with myself and Vanquis Bank Limited. Any alleged legal assignment to part of the “Fresh Start” initiative had not been informed. I have no previous knowledge.   10) Under the consumer credit act 2006, until debts have been repaid, there is an obligation to send statements and notices to the debtor at prescribed intervals at no more than 12 months. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Consequences of failing to make repayments and the opportunity of making minimum payments.   11) The Claimant has submitted a statement of accounts dated March 2019. This having followed my request for a credit consumer agreement. It is denied this document and any such required statement of accounts required under section 77A during the alleged agreement were ever received.   12) The claimant states that a default notice was issued on 18thJanuary 2017. The notice of default provided by the Claimant, dated, 18thJanuary 2017. The payment date requested by Vanquis Bank Limited,  28thFebruary 2017. The formal Notice of Default that was allegedly enclosed at the same time displays a requested payment date, 28thFebruary 2019. (Exhibit x, x)   13) I argue that this is not in fact a COPY of an original default notice, that they state was issued during February 2017, but that this is a fabricated version of a default notice created by Lowell. Either way the default notice was not issued by the assigned creditor (Vanquis).   14) It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement.   15) The Claimant states a default notice was not required. If there is a default in payments during the fixed term a default notice must be issued. The Claimant states they were informed a default notice was sent on 18thJanuary. The Claimants case relies upon being informed and does not constitute fact.   16) It is denied a default notice was ever received.    17) It is admitted I responded to the Claimant’s pre-action protocol letter addressed in my name. I indicated I did not know if I owed the debt. I indicated as such having no recollection of affiliation with Vanquis nor Lowell. A default for the allege debt appearing on my credit file only November 2019.    18) I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income.   As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   19) Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
    • Ok I’m still thinking about this PayPal but only because ive been reading other forums and them saying that PayPal sells the debt to other companies and then they chase you for it .   Here are the other debts I have below and I’m still paying them all but now really struggling with it as I’m now full carer and no tidy income. None of these have I failed to pay yet to date and ive never been to court or anything and no criminal record ive always been clean & tidy and always paid things without fail but due to circumstances already said about ive now got deeper in owing more and just really struggling now and cant afford all the payments I’m paying plus then all the interest that keeps going back on them.   Nationwide building society credit card  £4,400 Nationwide building society overdraft £345 Capital 1  £2,594 Argos credit/store card £1,904   the wife also has   Nationwide credit card £1,600 Argos credit/store card  £1,875 Capital 1  £1,280   Its the Nationwide bank I’m really wanting to keep sweet as ive been with them since I was like 17 and I’m 50 now plus I use it for all direct debits and car insurance / life insurance etc etc plus I rely on the overdraft from month to month.   
    • Brassnecked you said DCBL are being toothless bullies but as the letter says, 'This case is not subject to high court or bailiff action', I was assuming they wouldn't be allowed to visit the property anyway, and even if they did, they aren't entitled to enter or to take anything away,,, isn't that the case?
    • you should be reading up between the diff stages of the claim CAG is self help too!!   no to mediation  1 wit you the rest is obv   3 copies  court their solicitors your file
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 6 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
landy_alert

Mortgage Securitisation Question

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4007 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

Hi everyone:)

 

Apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere - I have had a brief scan of the huge 'Securitisation' thread but cannot see the answer to my question and its a lot to take in for someone who is still getting to grips with understanding securitisation.

 

We had a mortgage on which we defaulted and were issued with court papers for repossession.

 

We paid off our arrears before the date of the hearing and avoided this happening.

 

Six months later we sold our house and repaid the mortgage.

 

Recently we did a Subject Acess Request on our old mortgage company and discovered in the notes that 3 months after taking out the mortgage our account was transferred to another company, which I have discovered shares the same address and is obviously connected in some way to our original lender.

 

When our original lender issued proceedings against us it was after this transfer had taken place and yet there was no mention of the second company's name in any of the paperwork we received in relation to their claim.

 

We are now in the process of reclaiming arrears charges etc from the mortgage company.

 

I am just wondering if the mortgage company ever had any right to take us to court and if there is any way I can prove this or use it to my advantage - the mortgage company put us through a terrible time as my OH attempted suicide as a result of their actions and I would like to see justice done!

 

If anyone can offer any advice I would be most grateful, thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x


LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in short from the huge thread, banks only sell the right to collect interest through securitisation and via it's SPV but not the right to issue proceedings as they still hold the legal title and interest at the land registry.

 

the SPV must legally own the mortgages to be able to sell them to investors.

 

so somewhere along the line, regulators and people are being fooled.

 

no-ones yet really figured out how to take the banks on in this issue. Unless i've missed something on the forum.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in short from the huge thread, banks only sell the right to collect interest through securitisation and via it's SPV but not the right to issue proceedings as they still hold the legal title and interest at the land registry.

 

the SPV must legally own the mortgages to be able to sell them to investors.

 

so somewhere along the line, regulators and people are being fooled.

 

no-ones yet really figured out how to take the banks on in this issue. Unless i've missed something on the forum.

 

Hi tifo:)

 

Many thanks for your response - it's most appreciated.

 

I've been gradually working my way through the huge thread and trying to get my head around the many complex issues.

 

So basically what you're saying is that although the lender has securitised, they are still legally within their rights in issuing proceedings as they have only passed some of the rights to the spv - thank you for simplifying this for me!

 

You say that the spv must legally own the mortgage to sell to an investor - I take it that this is where the search of the Land Registry comes in? Also is it possible to find out such info retrospectively, ie, we sold the property in question, so I assume its too late now to find out exactly who held the legal title at the time (18 months ago)?

 

Furthermore, with our property we had over £350,000 equity as well as two mortgages totalling another £250,000 - in a case like that I presume both our name and the two lenders names would be on the title at the Land Registry? (We only had a mortgage of £50,000 with the lender who issued proceedings)

 

Prior to these mortgages we had owned the property outright and had never had a mortgage so I have never needed to question this before.

 

Therefore I suppose its not worth bringing up the securitisation subject with our former lender during the charges reclaim process?

 

Apologies for all the silly questions, but I've never dealt with anything like this before and now I'm trying to get to grips with it all:eek:

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

Edited by landy_alert
Missed a bit!

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically what you're saying is that although the lender has securitised, they are still legally within their rights in issuing proceedings as they have only passed some of the rights to the spv - thank you for simplifying this for me!

 

You say that the spv must legally own the mortgage to sell to an investor - I take it that this is where the search of the Land Registry comes in? Also is it possible to find out such info retrospectively, ie, we sold the property in question, so I assume its too late now to find out exactly who held the legal title at the time (18 months ago)?

 

Hi Landy,

 

The bank sells the benefit and right to collect the interest and principle sum on the mortgage, which is what investors pay for through the SPV. It still keeps the legal title and some obligations so it can issue proceedings and have its name on the registry. It then acts as an administrator for the SPV and the Trust, on behalf of the investors, to collect mortgage payments and pass them on, minus its own fee.

 

You need to know who the SPV is and this can be gleaned from bank records. You then need to see the prospectus which included your mortgage. You then need to check Companies House for records relating to the SPV and its interest in land.

 

You can send a SAR to the bank and it is obliged to send you everything it holds on you. This should give details of the mortgage transfer.

 

I myself haven't figured out a lot of the additional work that needs to be done but do understand the concept to some extent.

 

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tifo

It is complex enough on a first mortgage but most people are concerned with their second charge mortgage's ( sub prime lenders) that is where the issue complexity becomes enonourmous. the clause in question on most of these agreement is "We have the right to transfer all our rights and obligations under the agreement to third parties" and in the firm in question's operations, they have done this many times, even before the first payment has been made by the borrower in order to borrow/obtain more funding.,

I am struggling to get to grips with all this, as it is very important to a lot of people.

 

I know for a fact that they also do not notify the First mortgage security holder either who hold first priority

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sparkie,

 

That term "we may transfer ....." normally refers to them passing on the debt by assignment to an agency for collection. I'm not sure it applies to securitisation which is a whole different ball game?

 

It's easier in the US, as there the mortgages are transferred with legal title and right to collect, no splitting of responsibilities like here. That's why homeowners have had success in hearings when the sueing bank's been asked to "show the note that they own the mortgage".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sparkie,

 

That term "we may transfer ....." normally refers to them passing on the debt by assignment to an agency for collection. I'm not sure it applies to securitisation which is a whole different ball game?

 

It's easier in the US, as there the mortgages are transferred with legal title and right to collect, no splitting of responsibilities like here. That's why homeowners have had success in hearings when the sueing bank's been asked to "show the note that they own the mortgage".

 

Hi tifo

What its all about the subprime lender in my case had not in the true sense of the word securitised but had obtained funding by means of a fixed and floating charge debenture on all the secured accounts, they then transferred our account to another Ltd Loan company within the group, this other company then obtained further funding by way of these transfers..and I suspect some more than dubious practiceswithin this whole group we are talkinh of 100's of millions of pounds.

I know it sounds complex and it certainly is........ because to obtain this further funding of some more £200.000.000 .......they MUST have transferred the legal security as well of the previous £400.000.000......no bank will lend £600.000.000 without any security. and that is is original borrowers house's by way of the security of them ( Bulk legal charge transfer....of course I am still "Digging":D

 

sparkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what i say, how can an SPV sell something it does not legally own (the mortgage) but only has the right to collect money from it. I assume this right can be passed along, but somehow it seems unbelievable that investors pay so much money for something the SPV does not legally own (the mortgage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that, probably, the SPV doesn't sell the mortgage per se. Instead it sells the right to collect the payments made by the mortgagee, or rather the payments made by a large number of mortgagees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that, probably, the SPV doesn't sell the mortgage per se. Instead it sells the right to collect the payments made by the mortgagee, or rather the payments made by a large number of mortgagees.

 

It can only sell the right to payments made by the mortgagees, because that's all it has.

Edited by tifo
wrong info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But i bet the prospectuses say they legally own the mortgage ....

 

 

Please let me take that bet Tifo.....:D

 

Each of the prospectuses posted on CAG todate very clearly state the original lender retains the legal title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry ... i need to check more prospectuses then.

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...