Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

[applecart]

Yes, the SPV was substituted for SPPL on the charges register, in December 2010, tho' the actual sale took place with securitisation in 2007. The TR4 is weird as it shows the SPV as both transferor and transferree and the SPV's "beneficial interest" is noted elsewhere in the TR4 document as from 2007 (which is why I want the Mortgage Sale Agreement, which I am trying to get) If they have to use any money they receive to pay off the debt, then surely my loan should have been at least partially redeemed as a consequence of the sale to the SPV if these words mean what they say.

 

Hi Sappho54

 

It seems to me, from what you are saying that the SPV and SPPL are borne out of the same organisation - it sounds as though SPPL is a subsiduary of a larger organisation (holding company who will act as the SPV) - this is not unusual - it appears similar to what happened with Paragon v Pender - my research found that Paragon are a subsiduary of their parent Company - which basically means that the money that SPPL gave to you was loaned to them by their Parent Company.

 

The Parent Companies tend to be Transnational Corporations. (TNC)

 

A Transnational Corporation will generate income from the financial markets as they tend to be in the financial position to 'guarantee bonds' and 'issue bonds' because of their immense financial standing in the market place (we are talking billions and trillions worth here in asset 'value') - ie. selling shares, bonds

 

In particular 'bonds' are debts....

 

In mortgage backed securities - the TNC derives an interest in the mortgage - the subsiduaries are of course in the main 'mortgage originators' purely borne to create debt , in relation to property/mortgages (note, I say 'borne to create debt') - from a laypersons point of view this is the mortgage that we all think of as our debt liability to the originator - once the debt is created and then sold, from that moment on - in reality; it is or should be referred to as mortgaged backed security and NOT a mortgage - and it is traded as a 'note' or 'bond' on the finance markets for investment.

 

The TNC generates funds from the financial markets - it is this money that it lends to its subsidaries - it is the TNC that acts as the SPV and Issuer and tend to have AA+ ratings with the likes of moody's and S & P.

 

It is little wonder - as was the case in Paragon - v Pender, that the originator was found to have retained a 'right to possession' based on the submissions in that case.

 

So in your case, where the TR4 shows the SPV noted since 2007, to me that says, they derived a beneficial interest in your mortgage debt since 2007 - i.e the property was 'sold' to the SPV/Parent Company in 2007.

 

It is confusing I know, but if you can see that at Companies House that they are registered as separate organisations with separate registration numbers, then they operate independantly from one another in the event of insolvency (i.e Lehman went down, but their subsiduaries were not sued only Lehman were).

 

At the point that the SPV was substituted for SPPL, this means that you will have been served notice of the SPV's interest and you are duly liable to now pay directly to the SPV.

 

It could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of the notice that you were not liable.

 

It could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of the notice that SPPL are liable to you for the monies secured from the sale to counter any purported outstanding liability to the SPV or any right to possession during that period ..... but, the money was the SPV's in the first place - but you didn't know that - it is not your concern - your deed is in the name of the originator not the SPV.... the originator on inspection at Companies House is a separate organisation to the SPV from a laypersons point of view.

 

In the alternative, it could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of notice that the Law would not uphold a sale of the borrowers mortgage debt to the originating Lender ...much the same as the Law would not uphold the Lender securing by way of agreement with the borrower to sell the borrowers property to the lender.....

 

Just a wee bit of 'Food for thought'.....

 

NB: copy and paste that which I have posted - there is a tendancy of late to delete my posts : (

 

Applecart

[applecart]

your TR4 having the SPV as both, is common and ignored by the complicit HMLR. its a sham and the LR knows it, with registration dates being altered to 'fix' the SPV registration.

 

1. from the Mortgage Sale Agreement- its a True Sale, sold with full title guarantee to the SPV. the schedules to the MSA, even include a 'Certificate of Title', attributed to the SPV.

 

Agreed, even a contract for sale is as good as a done deal in relation to property - as soon as it is created, the seller holds in trust for the purchaser and does so until it is registered.

 

2. send a SAR directly to your SPV who use your data, donot accept any reply that says that you need to write to Acenden. your reply is required directly from their data controller, not their remote processor. if the SPV does not comply, file an online complaint to the ICO.

 

I'm not sure the sending of an SAR is necessary - too time consuming - The data control is all handled by the 'remote processor' and is by agreement - so you would be going round in circles and thus no real cause to include the ICO (not on that basis anyway)

 

3. so what the SPV does not do, is then register its ownership of the charges/loans. now if you were to call the LR for example, and tell them you have had a property transferred to you, they WILL tell you to register it. ask them in writing, on the procedure for this, and reply to them stating that you need not register as land registration is NOT compulsory in the UK. they will choke, as they know it is, but the LRA 2002 is being subverted by the bankstas. this opens up pandoras box, as if land registration is not compulsory, then 'incomplete' transfers, will affect SDLT, Capital Gains Tax etc. afterall, if it is only an 'equitable transfer' then there is no legal transfer, so what taxes are to be paid? interesting point on CGT, is it payable on an 'beneficial interest'(say transfers between family members) if the transferee decides not to register with the LR?

 

On this point, I beg to differ slightly..... the SPV is not looking for a legal interest in the borrowers property, it will have derived that which it bargains for - which is a 'beneficial interest in equity'... the financial collateral regulations 2003 give the SPV the 'legal' right to the interest in the land for its purpose - There is nothing illegal in what they do. Do you truly believe that organisations that could buy me and you ten times over would risk breach of the Law? I think not, they have not done anything illegal - The SPV's immediate interest is not in seeking possession of a borrowers property, they already know what to do as and when and if that time arrives. they need only notify you, trust me they know the Law better than the likes of me and you : ).

The fact is the 'registration gap' is not to do with any illegalities, it is to do with equitable interests on the basis that if a disposition is not 'registered' then it is 'equitable' until such time as it is registered and subject to s.29 LRA 2002 (overriding interest for value). In order words on its face, once the disposition is registered at HMLR the 'registration gap' disappears. I know the Law allows 2 months for registration - but it is suspect on the grounds that it falls under the 'unregistered estates' legislation and there is a grey area (IMO) as to what we call 'unregistered estates' given that at some point all land and interests in land in the UK shoudl be 'registered'...??? Will it affect securitisation business models... I think the deadline is either this year or next... so we will see ....??

 

Applecart

[CPSBarmyArmy]

Hi Sappho54

 

 

"It could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of the notice that SPPL are liable to you for the monies secured from the sale to counter any purported outstanding liability to the SPV or any right to possession during that period ..... but, the money was the SPV's in the first place - but you didn't know that - it is not your concern - your deed is in the name of the originator not the SPV.... the originator on inspection at Companies House is a separate organisation to the SPV from a laypersons point of view.

 

In the alternative, it could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of notice that the Law would not uphold a sale of the borrowers mortgage debt to the originating Lender ...much the same as the Law would not uphold the Lender securing by way of agreement with the borrower to sell the borrowers property to the lender..... "

 

Hi Applecart, I am enjoying reading you posts but I have a few questions/points to what you have stated above.

First and foremost, I am pretty sure, in all of the originating lenders T&C's, it states that they may transfer the debt at their discretion without further notice and that the borrower is bound to the same terms with the new 'owner' as they were with them.

Secondly, as the titles were not 'perfected' that gave the 'originator' the right to continue to represnt themselves in any action for and on behalf of the SPV as they hold the legal titles, or did, despite and certainly in the case of SPPL, with them stating from 2008 onwards that they 'own' no loans (CH filed reports etc). I beleive a majority, if not all, of the titles SPPL held in their name were transfered to the SPV during the coarse of last year.

Finally, most of the loans, as far as I am aware, that Acenden/Capstone administer for were originated by Lehman entities such as Preferred, SPML and SPPL etc. Most, if not all, mortgages generated by these firms would have been 'sold' first to the parent company (SPML) and then to the SPV within 3 months of origination for the reason's you set out above.

The questions then (and I am genuinly interested and not being snippy )

1. How can it be argued that SPPL would be liable for the monies to the borrower, or not be entitled to seek repossession, from the point of sale until notice was given?

2. Can you explain the next comment? Maybe it is to early in the morning for me but I cannot grasp the concept

Many thanks,

CPS

 

[applecart]

Hi Sappho54

 

 

"It could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of the notice that SPPL are liable to you for the monies secured from the sale to counter any purported outstanding liability to the SPV or any right to possession during that period ..... but, the money was the SPV's in the first place - but you didn't know that - it is not your concern - your deed is in the name of the originator not the SPV.... the originator on inspection at Companies House is a separate organisation to the SPV from a laypersons point of view.

 

In the alternative, it could be contended that during the period between 2007 and the date of notice that the Law would not uphold a sale of the borrowers mortgage debt to the originating Lender ...much the same as the Law would not uphold the Lender securing by way of agreement with the borrower to sell the borrowers property to the lender..... "

 

Hi Applecart, I am enjoying reading you posts but I have a few questions/points to what you have stated above.

First and foremost, I am pretty sure, in all of the originating lenders T&C's, it states that they may transfer the debt at their discretion without further notice and that the borrower is bound to the same terms with the new 'owner' as they were with them.

Secondly, as the titles were not 'perfected' that gave the 'originator' the right to continue to represnt themselves in any action for and on behalf of the SPV as they hold the legal titles, or did, despite and certainly in the case of SPPL, with them stating from 2008 onwards that they 'own' no loans (CH filed reports etc). I beleive a majority, if not all, of the titles SPPL held in their name were transfered to the SPV during the coarse of last year.

Finally, most of the loans, as far as I am aware, that Acenden/Capstone administer for were originated by Lehman entities such as Preferred, SPML and SPPL etc. Most, if not all, mortgages generated by these firms would have been 'sold' first to the parent company (SPML) and then to the SPV within 3 months of origination for the reason's you set out above.

The questions then (and I am genuinly interested and not being snippy )

1. How can it be argued that SPPL would be liable for the monies to the borrower, or not be entitled to seek repossession, from the point of sale until notice was given?

2. Can you explain the next comment? Maybe it is to early in the morning for me but I cannot grasp the concept

Many thanks,

CPS

 

 

Hi CPS

 

As you know this is a self help forum - on that basis, we are all minded to be careful what we post on the open forum to stave off legal actions against the CAG.

 

You asked: "1. How can it be argued that SPPL would be liable for the monies to the borrower, or not be entitled to seek repossession, from the point of sale until notice was given?"

 

hmmmm... how do I answer you without putting the CAG at risk or causing this entire thread to be deleted or without risking giving an answer to a potential tout?

 

Be assured that the answer is available, but not for the open forum and not for posters that I am not totally convinced are genuine posters - no disrespect, but you only have 2 posts : (

 

Applecart

[applecart]

Hi Vin Diesel

 

Is it true what Furian says about you? you only have 2 posts, but appear extremely knowledgable on the topic and to be able to source and post Wellstead -v- Judge White & Anor [2011] IEHC 438 in direct response, is exceptional, given that the case Law is pretty recent.....

What I will say is...... this case Law ...... in the right hands ...... with correct application of knowledge......... could have detrimental consequences for lenders that have securitised a consumers property...

So, regardless of who you are and what your intention, good or otherwise, this case law is a fantastic post Vin D ... much appreciated : )

Applecart

[applecart]

Hi Vin D

 

"The evidence before me shows that there has never been a completion of the sale of the mortgages. The defendant's reliance on the particulars of claim or the pre-action correspondence as constituting notice of assignment, such as to effect a legal assignment under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, is misplaced" taken from the Paratus AMC case..... and...

 

"He complains that he has sought information and documents from Ulster Bank to back up his assertion but has received no satisfactory response in that regard. He submits that until Ulster Bank provides him with such information and documentation he is prevented from proving that argument, and he seeks an order from this Court directing Ulster Bank to provide the required information to him, and he seeks a continuation of the stay on repossession until all that is done, and until the Court determines that matter". taken from the Wellstead case...

Pender confirmed that reliance on notice under s.136 LPA 1925 alone in relation to a securitised mortgage is misplaced.

and.... a borrower expecting a lender to send him documents that will assist his claim is also flawed - especially when the borrower admits that he cannot make his case without it......

The mind boggles................

 

But, you know what.... at least borrowers are trying and in time there will be a borrower who succeeds. Knowledge is where the power is...... : )

 

Applecart

 

[applecart]

Hi Vin P

 

Applicants Argument:

 

"His grounding affidavit characterises the action by Ulster Bank in seeking repossession in circumstances where it no longer owns the mortgage and has been repaid the money lent to the applicant is fraudulent, misleading and premeditated."

 

The borrowers argument was a sound argument - it is the nature of securitised business models that the lender will not own the mortgage once it has been sold - but it is not 'fraudulent',.......

 

Misleading and premeditated - could have an argument here - because if you were led to beleive that you had a conventional mortgage, but then find out that it was one created for the lenders collateral gain - then you may have been mislead and the action could be 'premeditated' because the lenders who finance loans in this way - are aware of thier intention prior to granting the mortgage to the borrower...

 

Applecart

[applecart]

on a side note - my green boxes after all these years on the CAG still stand at 2 squares - how annoying is that - surely, I should have more boxes??

[applecart]

................ and I have definately posted more than 488 posts : (

[applecart]

To correct your observation and conclusion. In my initial posts I did not demonstrate or express any knowledge.

 

Both previous posts are infact cut and paste extracts from the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. A public and free resource, which you can also use ;-)

 

Both extracts are contrary to the views and opinions expressed by recent commentators.

 

As confirmed by the Open Government Licence, the extracts posted are permitted and not prevented by copyright.

 

Places to find 'resources' such as the British and Irish Legal Information Institute Website is also useful - Thank you : )

[applecart]

one would post replies to 'VinDiesel' aka 'sugarray', but as i previously posted replies to 'sugarray' which were deleted by the MODS, i shall refrain from wasting time again. but, as the MODS erased 'sugarray' posts as well, we shall see if the 'V.D.' posts are dealt the same?

 

Hi Furian

 

Ummm - why would they want to delete such useful information? on its face in is in favour of the lender not the consumer, these types of post are fine, its when one posts on the open forum in favour of the consumer that risk the CAG.

 

Applecart ; )

[CPSBarmyArmy]

That is absolutely fair enough. This is a new forumn for me. I have been much more vocal on alternate sites, for a few years now. I am new to participating on this site but I can absolutely verify my position off the radar.

 

 

CPS

Edited January 10, 2012 by MARTIN3030

[tifo]

Places to find 'resources' such as the British and Irish Legal Information Institute Website is also useful - Thank you : )

 

The case of Wellstead is a Judicial Review so is it binding as a legal precedent on securitisation? It was a JR which was refused.

 

The applicant who represents himself on this application seeks leave to seek reliefs by way of Judicial Review.

Edited January 6, 2012 by tifo

[CPSBarmyArmy]

looks like SPPL still on the wind up trail, see Companies House

 

But are CH doing anything about thier flagrant non-disclosure of Company Accounts overdue since August 2011. Last I heard = NO. I wonder why that is.... CPS

[applecart]

Wellstead -v- Judge White & Anor [2011] IEHC 438 (25 November 2011)

Paratus AMC Ltd & Anor v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2011] EWHC 3307 (Ch) (14 December 2011)

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005)

 

Hi VinD

 

So, I take from your reply that the answer to my question is .... if the lender sells his interest in the mortgage and fails to register the disposition, and can then show the court an agreement between the SPV and himself to confirm he retains a right to possess my home (in fact he doesnt even have to show this) .............. and then he confirms that he has not served notice on me of the sale, and backs this up with a copy of the deed to show the SPV's name has not replaced his own.......... then equity steps in to secure the lenders right to retain possession regardless of having sold his interest in the property......... oooh I get it now...............ummmmmm??

 

On this basis...am I therefore to understand that my ambitious plan to ensure my children inherit the house are dashed!!!..................... that my hard earned cash paid to my subprime lender........ is all money down the drain............... dratt!!!!! How stupid of me, who dared me to be so darn ambitious!!!...... I shoulda stuck to renting from the council!!!!! LOL!!!!

 

Applecart

[applecart]

Applecart, it gets curiouser and curiouser..

 

You bet!!

 

Applecart : )

[applecart]

eerrrm - Just thought I'd beg the question.......

 

Have any of you wonderful caggers got a spare room I can rent please? my mortgage is with a subprime lender, where I stand no chance of redeeming my mortgage, so just trying to get ahead of the game and start renting instead..............any offers??

 

Applecart : )

[applecart]

That is absolutely fair enough. This is a new forumn for me. I have been much more vocal on alternate sites, namely acendenactiongroup for a few years now. I am new to participating on this site but I can absolutely verify my position off the radar.

 

 

CPS

 

Oh, I see, that will explain the direct questioning approach : )

 

It's ashame because there was loads of useful posts on other threads that have since been deleted - I genuinely would not recommend that anyone posts direct answers on the open forum - this thread will go the same way as the others if we do........

 

Being as we are now acquainted - you wouldn't happen to have a spare room I could rent?

 

Applecart : )

[spot]

I've not followed or read this whole thread, but I have a good jist of where it's going or been, but would this round the circle? :

 

Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd - 1968 3 All ER 824.pdf

 

You have the Companies House Accounts which shows the sale to the SPV, has anyone been advised in their SAR that there is any indication of the transfer of the mortgage to the SPV? - If so I'd imagine Van Lynn might provide the answer..?

 

You guys have a pretty good handle on most of the legislation and probably stripped this apart before..but don't ask and I'd keep wondering..

 

HTH

[CPSBarmyArmy]

Oh, I see, that will explain the direct questioning approach : )

 

It's ashame because there was loads of useful posts on other threads that have since been deleted - I genuinely would not recommend that anyone posts direct answers on the open forum - this thread will go the same way as the others if we do........

 

Being as we are now acquainted - you wouldn't happen to have a spare room I could rent?

 

Applecart : )

 

LOL, unfortunately not. I am afraid I am caught up in this farce of finance as well, well sort of. I do know the avenue of securitisation has been explored before and what a lot of people have not even realised is all of the so called sub-primed loans were backed up with insurance to protect not only the originators but also the ultimate investors for the SPV's. Then you really start to have ask the question of who owes what if anything but that is a whole nother thread, which may for all I know, have been discussed before my time here.

It is entirely valid for the borrower to attempt to understand who is bringing enforcement action but it is most likely the originator 'on behalf' of any number of other people within the loop.

It was stated earlier that this lot would have convered tracks on the legalities of their actions. This is not strictly true to be honest, and given the scale of greed involved, it is hardly surprising!

CPS

[CPSBarmyArmy]

it's a waiting game now, is SPPL going to be the patsy for the FSA's 6th 'sub-primer'?

 

It would be nice to see 1 less shark in the pool, defunct or not. CPS

[applecart]

[bob Marley] When he was scheduled to perform at a peace rally, a gunman came to his house and shot him down. Two days later he walked out on that stage and sang. When they asked him why - He said, "The people, who were trying to make this world worse are not taking a day off. How can I?

Light up the darkness."

 

 

I am LEGEND.

 

I remember that Furain - Bob Marley is a Legend - I used to listen to his 'redemption song',

 

He was way ahead of the game wasn't he? - we're fortunate that his teachings can live on and be applied in current times to empower us to do the same : )

 

Applecart

[seanamarts]

two posts unapproved, please keep on topic thank you

[applecart]

LOL, unfortunately not. I am afraid I am caught up in this farce of finance as well, well sort of. I do know the avenue of securitisation has been explored before and what a lot of people have not even realised is all of the so called sub-primed loans were backed up with insurance to protect not only the originators but also the ultimate investors for the SPV's. Then you really start to have ask the question of who owes what if anything but that is a whole nother thread, which may for all I know, have been discussed before my time here.

It is entirely valid for the borrower to attempt to understand who is bringing enforcement action but it is most likely the originator 'on behalf' of any number of other people within the loop.

It was stated earlier that this lot would have convered tracks on the legalities of their actions. This is not strictly true to be honest, and given the scale of greed involved, it is hardly surprising!

CPS

 

What... no room at the mansion? LOL - my search for alternative accommodation goes on then : )

 

Seriously though, I have to be careful what I say on the open forum - my post count has been seriously affected because of being too vocal and my green boxes stand at a meager 2...... : (

 

I agree, we should be able to debate and understand the position we face when a mortgage has been sold - but all the case law appears to show that when we seek redress, that we are blocked.

 

Paragon case Law shows that when it sold its pool it retained possession rights under an administration agreement.

 

In fact the wealth of case Law provided by Vin D directs that we are all 'mis-guided' in seeking redress - so, in reality we should all go rent a place...and dutifully hand back the house or pay through the nose on-going without further debate or question.

 

But.... hang on a bit......... Furian reminds us of Bob Marley - Bob was a simple man but a man non the less who was ahead of his time (IMO) - did he see these times coming I wonder? Did he foresee what would become of the mortgage market when he advised in his redemption song that as citizens we should: 'emancipate yourself from mental slavery' ... AND....' non but ourselves can free our minds'

 

I was browsing the Internet late one night - and came across a website all to do with the 'straw man' - interestingly, that site enlightened me to the fact that whilst Slavery is not lawful - it is not illegal..... interesting that isn't it? - are we being mentally enslaved by authorities from recent case law - are we being driven to believe that there is no way out? Am I a slave, NO, Am I mentally enslaved..........., right now and for the proceeding 10 years, YES - it's time for 'emancipation from mental slavery'. Thanks Bob and Thanks Furian for pointing me in this direction : )

 

If I am mental - then that's ok - BUT if my mental state is caused by the subprime/sublime efforts of others to distract me from the truth - that's not ok!!

 

Applecart

[applecart]

Hi Vin D

 

I'm pleased to see that all is not lost - for some, they will be more than happy with the 'ray of hope' that the GLC provide - but, you must understand, I would not be satisfied with recourse to 'charges' alone - I Want To Keep My House for my kids - I don't want to keep paying a mortgage on the back of an agreement that is doomed to fail. : (

 

Applecart