Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Make sure the WS is sent 14 days before the hearing. You can e-mail the court theirs.  In the subject line put the case number, the names of the parties and "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "Return Receipt". Send Simple Simon his by 2nd class post - all VCS are worth - and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • The outlet is in Camden Town and was set up in 2006, a year after my husband established the business, in addition to selling at exhibitions, online, shows, events, and having licensing agreements in some places overseas.  The only thing I have stopped doing since I got ill is the physical stuff, which I’m working on. The business has not changed name or anything like that either. I’m not sure where the original contract with Camden is but the management must still have it. My husband died in Jan 2017, and until Sept 2018, I would take the stock in every week; after that I was sending it in by post. I went in now and then when possible to re-do the display but that was about it. No one had access to any files until 2020. Moved house in 2020 thought would have to pull it all, Covid had just hit as well. The person in question said he would be interested in taking over and paying the rent etc. so I said I would let him sell the pictures for nothing as long as he would ‘keep it warm’ for me.  Obviously, everywhere was closed for lockdown. During this time I was working out how to go forward.  In May 2022 I told him I couldn’t  give anything away for free anymore, and put in place the wholesale agreement.  I’ve disregarded any discrepancies from before this date. I sent over the jpgs electronically, so I’ve still got them too. He hasn’t got any original files like .psds negatives or memory cards etc, I’ve got proof of all ownership/copyright. A co-op is whereby a small number of neighbours work on a rotational basis so they each of them can have time off, that way everyone doesn’t need to be there at the same time, he had never been an employee of mine.  The only reason I allowed him to have the files in the first place as I didn’t want to lose that side of the business.  It’s a good, constant source of income. However, the rent was becoming crippling as I believed there was something fishy going on well before this as there’s so much cash dealt with there, and I couldn’t go in regularly in person, and I’m sure sales weren’t being recorded properly and cash was being pocketed. My husband was too busy to be doing any stock control properly, he wasn't really into paperwork, and the guy who was ‘helping’ me after my husband's death, was making things very difficult for me to implement a solid stock control system by refusing to co-operate on simple things like using email etc. which I thought was a smokescreen, so I severed ties with him just before I made the agreement in question. I sent about 100 images, jpg files, sent via We Transfer. I’ve got the confirmation of which files were sent with dates. I will have to go through closed bank accounts and previous tax returns to get a proper estimate.   Before I made this agreement, I was selling retail there, this is a wholesale agreement so I’ll have to do some calculations but it is definitely in the thousands.  I haven’t got his his home address, and I don't think he's got any sizeable assets. I’m also worried that he might send the files overseas and start selling them there. I know he’s not stupid enough to sell them online. He knows for sure how serious this is, but he’s been chancing it and thinks I’m stupid, if not soft and stupid. I don’t know if this would work but I am thinking that when he does contact me, I tell him we need to talk, tell him I know what he’s been up to, and strongly urge him not to order any more prints from wherever he is having them printed because it will make things much worse for him if he does. Then when I do tell him about the gravity of the situation, maybe a few days later, I think it will scare him into complying because the consequences definitely trump the few quid he thinks he is saving by getting his own printing done. Tell him an amount that I want back for lost revenue, and make it clear that if he doesn’t destroy the files and if I find out he is still doing it at any point down the line, I will seek prosecution for copyright infringement and fraud, which I will. I don’t know how I can enforce any of this without involving the courts though. I will be able to tell, though, and he will know this. And the only reason I am doing this now rather than before, is that I couldn’t prove anything until now.  It was screamingly obvious from the beginning though, as he wasn’t ordering enough from me to pay the rent, let alone make a profit. If I decided to come down like him lie a ton of bricks straight away, how would I go about a cease and desist, would I have to get one from the court? And what do I do about the stock he currently holds? It has also occurred to me that he might file for bankruptcy or similar if things get heavy, where would that leave me? I could put the feelers out for a brand-new person to take it on, obviously without giving them access to files, that is an option. But that comes with its own set of issues. Also, would there be any implications for me, if I kept quiet for now? Let him order again from me as if nothing has happened, as it will be any day and I want to get all my ducks in a row first ideally….   Thanks again
    • I’ve also just realised their online website they’ve got 12 photographs of my vehicle, including close ups of the inside?? Not sure why that’s relevant.  The time stamp on the first photo is 13:57, the PCN incident time is 14:12. 
    • I’m tempted to send a letter to the company outlining the reasons why I think their PCN is illegitimate. I guess will technically be an appeal.  Their documentation states they won’t discuss over phone, I also don’t want them to have my email address.    re signage on entrance, having looked at land registry, the whole road is private, and when you turn into the road off the highway, there is a sign on the lamppost about 20m in, again not noticeable and on the other side of the road.  I feel like I am in a difficult position with this, I understand that I may have a good chance of not having to pay, but at the same token the stress this is already causing me makes me feel like it’s not worth the £60!
    • Well done with the photo. Of course the signage is insufficient.  PPM are not interested in competent management of a car park, they are interested in catching drivers out so they can issue their PCNs. For a start, according to their trade associations' Codes of Practice, they are supposed to have signage at the entrance. Any e-mail reply from the company and whether they will/won't/can/can't get the invoice cancelled?    
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Securitization - Discussion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3523 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

A couple of more books concerning securitisation

 

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0470821957
  • ISBN-13: 978-0470821954

Page 611 (continued on Page 612)- Equitable Assignment

"Why Equitable Assignment?

 

"Why do entities resort to equitable assignment? Essentially, to avoid the difficulties involved in full-scale legal transfer. These difficulties may either include having to notify the debtor (as under U.K. or Hong Kong law) or the stamp duties associated with a conveyance that the receivables (as in U.K. and India). Some preconditions for effecting an equitable transfer are:

 

  • There must be an express intention on the part of the transferor to assign receivables.
  • The receivables must be identified
  • The buyer must have paid the consideration
  • Though the obliger is not notified, the transaction must be carried out between the transferor and transferee as if full scale transfer had taken place. Therefore, the seller must not be paying from his general funds, but out of a specific fund or collections from the receivables.
  • To allow the transferee to proceed against the obligors if the need arises, the transferor should be given a power of attorneylink8.gif authorizing the transferee to collect payments from the obligors.
  • To support and strengthen the power of attorneylink8.gif specified above, a mandate should also be given requiring the obligors to pay the transferee."

And.......

 

Securitization Law and Practice: In the Face of the Credit Crunch (International Banking & Financial Law Series) by Jan Job de Vries Robbe

 

 

  • Publisher: Kluwer Law International (30 Jun 2008 )
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 9041127151
  • ISBN-13: 978-9041127150

 

Page 399 - 9.26 Legal Risks

 

"In English Law governed securitization transactions, one of two forms of assignments are used, equitable or legal assignment. If the assignment is equitable only, without notification to the borrower, then it only allows for protection under equity to the SPV as assignee. To ensure full protection at law however, the underlying borrowers must be notified of the assignment. The is generally done after the occurance of certain trigger events, which could indicate an increased risk of insolvency of the seller"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So Securitization is a no go then?

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why Equitable Assignment?

"authorizing the transferee to collect payments from the obligors." Servicing agreement?

 

I know what you are saying SueT, but am having trouble understanding how on on one hand the SPV has to be bankruptcy remote, but the originator can still maintain an interest? Are investors aware that they could lose their investment if the originator became insolvent, implied by having an interest in the assets of the SPV? If not, are they told when investing and if not is that dodgy ground for the originator?

 

Am I naive or stupid (dont know if I want the answer to that:))?

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0470821957
  • ISBN-13: 978-0470821954

pg 606

 

Transfer of receivables in Civil Law countriesis, therefore, conditional upon a sanction of the debtor. Some present day agreements put in a clause whereby the debtor gives sanction at the origination stage itself - a clause in the underlying agreement to the assignment. However, it is not certain whether such a sanction would be recognsed as consent to assignment, giving the assignee legal rights to the receivable" Do the T & C's ever state the receivables to be assigned or is it always that the debt/balance can be assigned?

 

There is obviously a difference between the two and how would a court view it? Surely it is not "De minimus"

 

pg 612:

 

Problems with equitable assignment

 

"However, the equitable assignment route has several inefficiencies, and so far as possible Securitization transactions must adopt legal assignments:

 

Wrong dealings by the originator may expose the transferee to problems:"

 

Having a read through what I can find and there does appear to be some contradictions/anomolys? (that sure dont look right at 2am!)

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Spartathsis,

 

Sorry for the below long post.

 

"Why Equitable Assignment?

"authorizing the transferee to collect payments from the obligors." Servicing agreement?

 

I know what you are saying SueT, but am having trouble understanding how on on one hand the SPV has to be bankruptcy remote, but the originator can still maintain an interest? Are investors aware that they could lose their investment if the originator became insolvent, implied by having an interest in the assets of the SPV? If not, are they told when investing and if not is that dodgy ground for the originator?

 

Am I naive or stupid (dont know if I want the answer to that:))?

 

In my own personal opinion,

 

The interest retained by the originator is usually the legal title (encompassing the legal rights) and in some instances instead of charging the SPV an administration fee, to continue the administration of the account, the originator will retain a share of the interest charged.

 

The investors usually won't lose their investment if the originator becomes insolvent, as there is usually a clause within the agreements between originators and SPV's that in the event of insolvency, a notice will be sent to the borrower and the account (credit card/loan/mortgage) will be legally assigned to the SPV.

 

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0470821957
  • ISBN-13: 978-0470821954

pg 606

 

Transfer of receivables in Civil Law countriesis, therefore, conditional upon a sanction of the debtor. Some present day agreements put in a clause whereby the debtor gives sanction at the origination stage itself - a clause in the underlying agreement to the assignment. However, it is not certain whether such a sanction would be recognsed as consent to assignment, giving the assignee legal rights to the receivable" Do the T & C's ever state the receivables to be assigned or is it always that the debt/balance can be assigned?

 

There is obviously a difference between the two and how would a court view it? Surely it is not "De minimus"

 

Again this is only my own personal opinion.

 

The terms and conditions usually state that the originator has the right to assign any/all of its rights and duties under the agreement.

 

The "receivables" are your monthly repayments. It is the right to those payments (to repay the debt) that is usually assigned by an equitable assignment (no legal rights).

 

Within our legal jurisdiction a clause in the underlying agreement will not give sanction for a legal assignment (assignment of the legal rights). However, there is usually a clause in the underlying agreement for a equitable assignment (legally this is not required).

 

I say this for two reasons.

 

1)

 

Judgments - Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward (FC)) (Appellant)

v.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand) (a firm) (Respondents)

 

 

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

 

2)

 

Legal Assignment is defined by s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)

 

"Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—"

 

Therefore, in my opinion for the legal rights to be assigned an express notice must be given to the borrower.

 

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0470821957
  • ISBN-13: 978-0470821954

pg 612:

 

Problems with equitable assignment

 

"However, the equitable assignment route has several inefficiencies, and so far as possible Securitization transactions must adopt legal assignments:

 

Wrong dealings by the originator may expose the transferee to problems:"

 

Having a read through what I can find and there does appear to be some contradictions/anomolys? (that sure dont look right at 2am!)

 

This is very true but in my personal opinion it is neither a contradiction of an anomolys. The answer is contained within the same book:

 

Page 611 (continued on Page 612)- Equitable Assignment

"Why Equitable Assignment?

 

"Why do entities resort to equitable assignment? Essentially, to avoid the difficulties involved in full-scale legal transfer. These difficulties may either include having to notify the debtor (as under U.K. or Hong Kong law) or the stamp duties associated with a conveyance that the receivables (as in U.K. and India).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Securitization is a no go then?

 

In my own personal opinion it may be worth looking more at the impact of securitisation. For example MBNA have a habit of increasing interest rates, usually by large amounts.

 

Are the terms & conditions relating to the interest rate fair?

 

MBNA usually increase interest rates on accounts that are close to their credit limit. If someone is continually close to their credit limit, it could be argued that they are experiancing financially difficulties (otherwise they might pay more than the minium payment). By increasing the interest rate on these accounts, MBNA will increase the financially difficulties.

 

Is that fair or reasonable ? Sympathetic or Understanding ?

 

Could the interest rate have been increased because the credit card account has been securitisied and MBNA has increased the interest rate to increase its profit margin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are the terms & conditions relating to the interest rate fair?

 

MBNA usually increase interest rates on accounts that are close to their credit limit. If someone is continually close to their credit limit, it could be argued that they are experiancing financially difficulties (otherwise they might pay more than the minium payment). By increasing the interest rate on these accounts, MBNA will increase the financially difficulties.

 

some 5 years ago if you were paying the minimum amount that would be like twice the interest on outstanding balance, so every month your outstanding balance will be reduced. Today the minimum balance is like 80% of the interest they charge so the outstanding balance goes on increasing every month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0470821957
  • ISBN-13: 978-0470821954

pg 645

 

Investors rights against the obligors (thats us i presume)

 

Any action against the obilgors canonly be taken by the SPV and not by the benificiaries. Of course, the beneficiaries may force the SPV to take steps against the obligors. So the SPV can instigate some kind of action against debtors, but as it is usually in another country and normally without a consumer credit licence how can it? Then does it not also follow that without said licence it cant trade in any consumer debt ie assign back any delinquent debtors?

 

Posted before I reloaded page SueT;)

Edited by spartathisis

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Suetonius, for the diagram.

 

I'm more concerned about securitisation of credit cards, and your illustration about MBNA I think may well be right.

 

Amex won't tell me if my account has been securitised or not. Where I'm confused is that if it would be okay for Amex to securitise accounts and they would still be legally entitled to collect these accounts, why are they so reluctant to say whether or not they have securitised them?

 

Therefore, are they worried that securitising the accounts affects their own (collecting) position and gives a right to the account-holder not to pay them?

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks and tax avoidance: HMRC responds | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

"To put it simply, the securitisation vehicles that were so profitable that the banks couldn't generate enough of them were often such good deals because of the tax avoidance central to them." So dodgy deals that even HMRC know about!

&

"Yet I have established from HMRC that the UK's end of it is staffed by just three middle-ranking tax inspectors, one junior inspector and one-third of a more senior civil servant. :eek:Small wonder that the tax authorities, both here and abroad, have struggled to keep up with the economy-wrecking business of tax avoidance in the City."

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD; am not 100% sure, but it may be because Amex are US and look to securitize from the US and not UK i.e. Amex securitization may flout UK laws.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

SueT: "Could the interest rate have been increased because the credit card account has been securitisied and MBNA has increased the interest rate to increase its profit margin?" Could it be to make up for the higher number of delinquent accounts being removed from the pool and therefore reducing forecasted yields for investors?

 

Thanks to all contributors so far esp Suetonious, the more you tell me the more questions it raises. Do you know of any case where an originator has been challenged on the legality of cc debt being securitized? Thanks.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

  • Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0470821957
  • ISBN-13: 978-0470821954

pg 645

 

Investors rights against the obligors (thats us i presume)

 

Any action against the obilgors canonly be taken by the SPV and not by the benificiaries. Of course, the beneficiaries may force the SPV to take steps against the obligors. So the SPV can instigate some kind of action against debtors, but as it is usually in another country and normally without a consumer credit licence how can it? Then does it not also follow that without said licence it cant trade in any consumer debt ie assign back any delinquent debtors?

 

Posted before I reloaded page SueT;)

 

Hello Spartathsis

 

You are right the obligor is us (borrower/debtor). This is a link to the author of that book's website:

 

Securitization in UK

 

"Equitable transfers do not result into a right against the world at large, but a personal right - what this means is that the right of the assignee under an equitable transfer is a right against the assignor, and not a independent right against any and all."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all contributors so far esp Suetonious, the more you tell me the more questions it raises. Do you know of any case where an originator has been challenged on the legality of cc debt being securitized? Thanks.

 

I am not aware of any cases. But I will look over the weekend.

 

On what basis are you thinking of challenging the legality of the cc debt being securisied ?

 

Alot of the issues regarding the orginator may have been covered in the pender cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Suetonius, for the diagram.

 

I'm more concerned about securitisation of credit cards, and your illustration about MBNA I think may well be right.

 

Amex won't tell me if my account has been securitised or not. Where I'm confused is that if it would be okay for Amex to securitise accounts and they would still be legally entitled to collect these accounts, why are they so reluctant to say whether or not they have securitised them?

 

Therefore, are they worried that securitising the accounts affects their own (collecting) position and gives a right to the account-holder not to pay them?

 

DD

 

I don't think it is just Amex, must lenders/originators appear to be very reluctant to discuss or confirm securitisation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Suetonius for not answering my earlier question "Am I naive or stupid" ;)

 

Hope you dont mind me using you as a sounding board, its obviously a massive subject and I get the impression that there are conflicting ideas from experts (though on minor points, but conflict anyway). Maybe there is something that doesnt fit quite somewhere that may be found?

 

As far as challenging, I am just giving myself more ammo if possible if/when I get hauled into court. I have app forms, illegible app forms, no agreement at all and defective DN's so not without any ammo at all, but if there was an outside chance of finding something that may benefit those that dont have what I have then I would like to make an attempt at helping. I sound like a philanthropist dont I?

 

I have always wanted to "Fight the man" but could never find him, so the financial institutions that ruin our daily lives is a good start:).

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

When these banks charge off accounts they obtain UK tax relief;

debts are securitized through UK off shore SPV's:

e.g.

Jersey and;

Guernsey.

 

However, if these are securitized through Dublin, Eire but UK tax relief has already been obtained, that could cause a few raised eyebrows...

 

There certainly does appear to be some anomolies about how certain banks have in the past years, securitised their credit card debts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree AC and thats the thing i'm looking for, just in case there is something, maybe under different legislation, that shows up as not being right.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The act of assignment of debt was not a mode of recovery but essentially amounted to trading in debts". How does that fare over here? I believe much of Indian law is English common law and has vast swathes of the same legislation.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

RBS Base Prospectus for offer of securitization of all its Credit Cards (originally dated 2000, but current ones same to 2009):

 

"As regards receivables that are governed by English law, lack of notice to the cardholder means that, for procedural purposes, the receivables trustee will have to loin the relevant originator as a party to any legal action that the receivables trustee may want to take against any cardholder."

 

It also states that only a very small minority of agreements are unenforcaable! 1) They acknowledge that some are unenforceable. 2) Have they not got a clue to the extent their agreemnts in the main are application forms? 3) Should an investor have been informed of the truth?

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...