repo date 21/09/2009

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sue

 

I didn't think it would be long before the vexed issue would arise again. LOL!

 

I think there may be, in line with what JonCris has argued (hope I'm not misrepresenting you here JC!) that the concealment and unfair practices seemingly inherent in some securitisation structures make securitisation an issue quite separate from the title issue. In fact haven't the FSAade a policy statement on securitisation structures moving forwards with the aim of ensuring greater consumer protection in the future?

 

EiE.

[MARTIN3030]

Hello Mick-message acknowledged.Will take a look.

[MARTIN3030]

And will merge some of your threads so theres background info for this.

[micko19]

hugely appreciated

 

micko

[Suetonius]

Post deleted by Suetonius

Edited August 14, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Post deleted by Suetonius

Edited August 14, 2009 by Suetonius

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sue

 

I understand that your point regarding Redstone will be perfectly valid. But generically the securitization process affects fairness. That much cannot be altered.

 

EiE

[micko19]

can anyone hence advise me on the wording of a cpr request which would thoroughly investigate issues of title, deed etc and who in a court environment would represent Redstone if they have no employees.

 

Also the main issues with the mortgage are ...

 

1. Misrepresentation ie using ccj's in a search filter when they did not exist.

2. Forgery of signatures in an effort to disguise the fact that no other mortgage companies were approached.

3. Fraudulent documents that show the incorrect dates and amounts for the mortgage request.

 

I am sorry seut but I do believe Dougal as an ex police officer identified the crimes immediately and this is where the focus should be.

 

However I am a great believer in accepting ones own responsibilities and i have been very irresponsible in my dealings. sometimes s**t happens for a good reason and with lessons learnt we can teach the next generation to avoid the thieves we were enticed by. There are no real winners or losers. I have earnt a good living and laughed most of the way through my life without stealing from others. the responsibility of our generation is to teach the next that financial companies are thieves and the greatest step forward will be getting this on school curriculums. Government will never change the fact that money runs the judiciary and the judiciary willingly stitch people up on behalf of financial companies.

 

Wasting time being bitter is pointless we can only change and influence the future not the past.

 

bla bla rant rant

 

thanks all

 

and yes iv'e had a couple of shandies

 

micko

[micko19]

Hi Sue

 

I understand that your point regarding Redstone will be perfectly valid. But generically the securitization process affects fairness. That much cannot be altered.

 

EiE

 

thank you for that and also the 18,000 ERC might possibly be a fairness issue

 

micko (still digging relentlessly for a bone)

[tbern123]

happy 2010

Edited January 1, 2010 by tbern123

[micko19]

i notice above all else that he/she organises compliments for his/her comments before he/she has had any contradictory replies..... just a comment for thinking people who may be interested in tailing this history..

 

no disrespect intended. and remember seut gives a good reflection of the judiciary in these matters..They may be negative but do reflect the nature of our current judicial system.....

 

micko

[micko19]

Seut will very rarely if ever be proved wrong because 99% of settled cases involve confidentiality clauses. Seut does not have to be a genious to recognise this fact and peddle his/her credibility accordingly. Those amongst us with brains can smell the genuine and discard the chaff.... no offence meant just spelling out what we all know to be fact...

 

we all have insticts and we use them

 

micko

[micko19]

Sorry when I use the term loan, I mean mortgage.

 

 

 

With regard to securitisation and the spv, you may want to take a look at Bluestone Securities PLC;)

 

*here you go

 

Bluestone Securities Plc | Law Debenture

 

Bluestone Securities Plc

 

Dec 23, 2004 Provision of services in a mortgage securitisation.

 

We provide the directors and company secretary to Bluestone Securities Plc (the issuer) and Bluestone Parent Limited (holding company) in this non-conforming residential mortgages securitisation, arranged by HVB, securitising loan portfolios purchased by Redstone Mortgages Plc from third party originators in the UK. The issuing vehicle will issue a series of Notes, the first issue (called Bluestone Series 2004-1) being for £288 million

 

Sorry but the above quote entirely diverts the thread from fraud, forged signatures

and misrepresentation please advise honestly who you work for. You will enjoy a massive relief by being honest...

 

micko

[enoughisenough]

Hi Micko19

 

Sue's posts have a tendency to raise the hackles of other caggers. You may recall that he/she did not disagree with Dougal's suggestion of contacting the police directly with what appears to be a straightforward case of fraud.

 

I am not on this site to defend anyone. I am here to gather information that may be useful and to sift through it in a way that may prove constructive and help me in my own personal battles. You however have important fish to fry.

 

Sue's agenda (if he or she has one) is neither here nor there. But the arguments made are everything and always backed up by law, however selective that interpretation may or may not be.

 

There is always the slight possibility that Sue works for the 'enemy' and is merely very clever at siding with convenient, more or less well established stuff like charges, and dissing the more controversial stuff. I have no clue, but at this time of pressure you MUST NOT be diverted from fighting your case and cause as vigorously as you can.

 

I stress that I am 100% a genuine consumer of an effed up product that does not do what it said on the tin. And I want my day of recompense. I cannot speak for other caggers, nor their motives and intentions.

 

All I CAN say is that without this site I, along with my kids, would be out on our ars*s.

 

Please take this in the spirit it is posted and please, please, please keep the faith.

 

Cheers. EiE.

 

PS You must fight for a criminal prosecution against these barstewards.

 

PPS. CPR 31.6 for 'live' action disclosure.

 

CPR. 31.16 for pre action disclosure.

 

Godspeed. (Even though I'm agnostic!)

[Suetonius]

Thank you EIE

[Suetonius]

i notice above all else that he/she organises compliments for his/her comments before he/she has had any contradictory replies..... just a comment for thinking people who may be interested in tailing this history..

 

I organise compliments ????

 

Have you read the responses to my posts:confused:

 

Seut does not have to be a genious to recognise this fact and peddle his/her credibility accordingly.

 

 

Sorry but the above quote entirely diverts the thread from fraud, forged signatures and misrepresentation please advise honestly who you work for. You will enjoy a massive relief by being honest...

 

micko

 

:confused:

 

In your post #46, you said:

 

Securitisation is important and the future may bring some changes to the law so I will make the point that the arrangement was misled and did not involve real lenders so it goes on record.

 

The post you subsequently quoted was post #49, posted after you had made a statement relating to securitisation.

 

Just for the record and for the avoidance of any doubt I do not work for any:

 

Mortgage Lenders

Mortgage Brokers

Any companies involved directly or indirectly in securitisation

Banks

Building Societies

Hedge Fund

Stock Broker

or any other financial institution of any description.

 

However, even if I was the CEO of ABC Mortgages, how does that affect the accuracy of any of the information I have posted.

 

It is clear that any information I can provide is not welcome in this thread and as the OP, I will respect your wishes.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to wish you well and the best for the future.

[enoughisenough]

No probs Sue

 

we can agree, disagree, debate and sometimes huff and puff. It's what the CAG is for.

 

EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Just to clarify

 

I was responding to your thank you post!

[Crapstone]

No probs Sue

 

we can agree, disagree, debate and sometimes huff and puff. It's what the CAG is for.

 

EiE.

 

With more and more complex issues being raised even a barrister would have problems addressing the questions. The law changes constantly and is always open for interpretation so the best we can do is moot these points and see all sides of any arguements before they are raised in a court. Arguing here may result in a few tossed dummies but in court it could be the loss of a home or some hefty legal fees. And it wouldn't look too good if a hearing resulted in a petty slandering match be it a civil or criminal one!

 

We all want the best for everyone against rogue lenders and Sue is no exception on that. Like EIE, I would have made some foolish mistakes had it not been for CAG and the support I've been given. Not all views or opinions on here are correct and they don't claim to be, but it does allow you to make an informed choice of your own.

[micko19]

i apologize abjectly for my huffing and puffing which has caused offence. Some of my stuff last night was entirely inappropriate to the the conduct of these threads. Please accept my apologies specially suet. All the entries are so much appreciated and I should have shown more gratitude that all you take the time to contribute.

 

A big apology from a big eedjit

 

micko

[enoughisenough]

Nah! Don't be soft mate. Not one of us has come through this without posting something that has upset someone, myself included. Point is were all here for a very good reason and that is to save our own skins and help others do the same. As someone who has been to court and argued the locus standi argument I can tell you 2 things. 1 it makes the oppo squirm. 2. It draws a big fat blank with the judge.

[enoughisenough]

Sue I realise you must be tired of having your motives questioned and I myself have been more than a tad brusque. However I would urge you to consider the bigger picture viz your massive contribution to raising the game and preventing or at least mitigating the possibility that we argue in court on a sticky wicket and get mauled as a result. I for one would be disappointed if you withdrew from this or any thread. The consequences of people playing kavanagh qc uninformed with their houses is just too horrible to contemplate. Please reconsider? Ta.

[micko19]

 

paper work so far

 

 

http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr229/micko19_bucket/hpscan152-1.jpg

 

This is all the paper work they have sent so far. I do believe my work on the FOS AND police will be too late to impact this reposession although I fully intend to provide a defence hopefully with the help of some of you guys and gals.

 

I have heard many horror stories about houses being seriously undersold from true value, does anyone know any steps that can be taken to reduce the chances of this happening..

 

Also the quote below is from the Guardian regarding 4.7 MCOB??

 

***********************************************************************************

 

This year an estimated 75,000 families - against 40,000 last year - will lose their homes, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML).

But many who face handing back the keys could be helped by rules covering "suitable advice" for borrowers, buried in the handbook of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the City regulator.

Andrew Brown (not his real name) struggled to repay his mortgage but subsequently took his mis-selling case to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and has now won. Despite turning to the FOS late on and being repossessed, he will receive compensation - while other borrowers who begin cases at an earlier stage than he did might well be able to save their homes too.

A housing association tenant, Brown had the valuable promise of a rent fixed for life. However, a mortgage adviser persuaded him to buy the property and failed to consider "what would happen when the attractive discounted rate [set up on that mortgage] ended", according to an FOS spokeswoman.

Brown was repossessed and had to move; he then lodged a complaint with his mortgage adviser and ultimately brought the case to the FOS.

Industry specialists believe more claims of this kind are now likely to emerge. The main source of optimism for those in a similar position lies deep within the FSA's rulebook for mortgage advisers, Mortgage and Home Finance: Conduct of Business (MCOB).

This states mortgage advice must be "suitable for that customer" and that advisers "must make and retain a record" of it being suitable; this is known, crucially (and rather technically), as complying with section 4.7. Breaches of the MCOB rules are "actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result", under section 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

"Undoubtedly, such cases would succeed," says professional negligence barrister John Virgo of Guildhall Chambers in Bristol. "There is a fundamental obligation under MCOB [rules] and I'm sure there will be a pretty big increase in this sort of litigation."

Philip Ryley, head of financial services and markets at solicitor Michelmores, is more cautious. He says: "It really depends on each individual case as to whether they have received a service which would breach MCOB rules. It is an issue that may be raised before district judges [deciding repossession cases].

"If it develops wholesale, it devalues the meritous cases that exist. The courts will soon become familiar with these arguments and will then require the borrowers to produce evidence at an early stage. to root out frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations."

Though there may be concern some borrowers might try to exploit the MCOB rule without good cause, there appear to be many cases of people being mis-sold mortgages they could not afford.

A Citizens Advice report entitled Set Up to Fail, on the sub-prime lending market in 2007, found the charity's repossession clients had often found themselves with "inappropriate and unaffordable" mortgages and secured loans, and that people buying council houses received "particularly poor advice".

One case it highlighted concerned a couple with a disabled child in south-east Wales who were persuaded to take a second mortgage on their home. The loan wiped out their equity and meant £1,300 - 87% - of their £1,500 monthly income went on mortgage repayments.

The CML accepts the rulebook can be invoked by consumers. "The MCOB rules are there for a reason: to protect consumers," says spokeswoman Sue Anderson. "Consumers have 'the ability and right' to rely on these regulations if they believe they have not been dealt with correctly," she says.

In 2007, Cash highlighted how cold-callers were using dodgy selling tactics to convince social housing tenants to exercise their "right to buy" and saddle these low-income homes with inappropriate mortgages.

Although the ombudsman found in Brown's favour, the issue remains complicated. The FOS is charged with restoring people, as far as possible, to the situation they would otherwise have been in - and that is not straightforward in circumstances such as these.

"Historically, you may not have been worse off," says the FOS spokeswoman, referring to the fact that when house prices were rising - until 2007 - people who had been mis-sold an unsuitable mortgage might not have lost out if the price of their house was rising. They would not have won compensation.

Now, the ombudsman is having to work out how to compensate someone who has not been protected by the rise in property values.

Have you got a claim for mis-selling?

 

• If you are in financial difficulty, first try all other steps to resolve your crisis: talk to the lender as early as possible about arrears; seek advice from a debt charity; curb spending and draw up a tight budget; and try to boost your income.

• Be brutally honest: if you've been in any way economical with the truth in your mortgage application, such as overstating your income (whether unwittingly or not), your case will be much weaker.

• You could have a case if your mortgage adviser never explored affordability with you, or dealt with you in a superficial way. Advisers should rely on past figures for income and outgoings, says Philip Ryley of Michelmores. If they don't have them, then you're off to a strong start.

• You might have extra grounds for a case of mis-selling if your mortgage stretched beyond your retirement date and your adviser did not explore that as an affordability issue.

• A case based on what's known as mortgage "misrepresentation" might also be feasible. According to Ryley, this might be arguable if you were "given a very hard sell, or told everything good about the product and given no information about what would happen when interest rates went up". If misrepresentation is argued successfully, the contract can be rescinded - as a case in 1991 proved.

• To avoid the expense of lawyers' fees, a homeowner can make a claim with the individual who advised on the mortgage, and if the response is unsatisfactory take the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The FOS would probably request that your repossession proceedings are put on hold during any investigation.

• Even if your mortgage began before the MCOB was ushered in on 31 October 2004, the rules could still apply, says one lawyer who wishes not to be named. "It makes no difference as to when the loan was entered in to, for the purposes of the arrears rules," he says.

• Publicity about such cases will take time to filter out, as they are likely to be settled informally. But if people do start making claims in significant numbers, it could snowball, says one unnamed financial services lawyer. "What would be interesting would be a group action," he said.

******************************************************************************************

 

micko

[enoughisenough]

Excellent post. Whilst it doesn't apply directly to my own circumstances it does apply to thousands of others. If anyone can be bothered MCOB is a pretty formidable set of tools.

[micko19]

come on seut surely you can knock this reasoning into a cocked hat .....

 

This states mortgage advice must be "suitable for that customer" and that advisers "must make and retain a record" of it being suitable; this is known, crucially (and rather technically), as complying with section 4.7. Breaches of the MCOB rules are "actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result", under section 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

 

Save me the embarrassment of mentioning stuff like this at my hearing and getting knocked back. We all await your response with respect and appreciation.

 

micko