Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Hi Ben, Do you have or know of any links to any other lenders securitisation documents? In particular Cheltenham & Gloucester or Lloyds....BP

 

Hello BP

 

This is a link for the Lloyds Banking Group.

 

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/investors/debt_investors/securitisation_terms.asp

 

Unfortunately, it is not as detailed as the one for ybs

 

Ben

[bigphil61]

Hi Ben, Thanks for the link, unfortunately I could find no MD references, but as you say its not as detailed as the YBS documentation, I'll keep on digging....BP

[bhall]

Hi Ben, Thanks for the link, unfortunately I could find no MD references, but as you say its not as detailed as the YBS documentation, I'll keep on digging....BP

 

Hello BP

 

The MD reference is a very unreliable way to identify if any individual or specific mortgage has been securitiised.

 

The MD reference is merely the reference given to a standard mortgage deed produced by a lender, that has been both checked and approved by the land registry. Therefore, a MD reference could apply to all of the mortgage deeds used by a lender for a non specific period of time, could be months or even years.

 

By way of an example - say lender x used the same land registry approved mortgage deed between 2004 and 2006 (meaning all of those mortgage deeds would have the same MD reference). say the same lender securitised its mortgages on a quarterly basis, during that two year period there would be 12 securitisation transactions, each with its own documentation and SPV.

 

A Mortgage Sale Agreement for a securitisation that took place in the first quarter of 2004, will detail the same MD reference as a securitsation that took place in the last quarter of 2006. The point I am trying to make is that a mortgage provided in 2004 could have the same MD reference as one provided in 2006. However, say your mortgage was from 2006, the MD reference applicable to your deed could still be detailed in a mortgage sale agreement from 2004 - Despite it obviously being impossible that it relates to your actual mortgage.

 

X securities 2004-1

X securities 2004- 2

X securities 2004 - 3

X securities 2004 -4

 

X securities 2005 - 1

X securities 2005 -2

X securities 2005 -3

X securities 2005 -4

 

X securities 2006 - 1

X securities 2006 -2

X securities 2006 - 3

X securities 2006 -4

 

(the above are example of quarterly securitisation transactions)

 

The Mortgage Sale Agreements for the above example securitisation transactions could all detail the same MD reference numbers - However, it would be impossible for a securitisation transaction in 2004 to relate to a mortgage provided in 2006. Despite the Mortgage Sale Agreement for a transaction in 2004 detailing the MD reference for a mortgage deed used in 2006 (being the same standard deed used since 2004).

 

Reading the above, I have not explained it very well. Basically do not rely on an MD reference to prove that any individual or specific mortgage has been securitised, as it doesn't prove anything.

 

*the above is a very basic example and does not take into account the fact that lenders use more than one type of mortgage deed at any one time

 

 

EDIT

 

As a working example

 

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/Nationwide%20Internet%20Site/pdf/M55_Oct_11.pdf

 

nationwide have used the above mortgage deed since October 2011 with the reference MD921K

 

Every mortgage since October 2011 would have the same MD reference number. One provided on 1 November 2011 would have the same MD reference as one provided on 1 January 2014. However, any mortgage sale agreement (for a securitisation transaction between those dates) would still detail that same MD reference number, even though it could not possibily apply to mortgage deeds with the same MD reference number that were provided after any specific securitisation transaction

[bigphil61]

Hi Apple, Forgive me if I've got this totally wrong, but whilst reading through the thread yet again (personal punishment for being to dense to take it all in first time or even second time around), I noticed that you have referred to the Mortgage Deed as the Agreement! Surely any such Agreement would be covered under the CCA 1974 or CCA 2006. So how could the 'Deed' that creates the disposition be the 'Agreement'. There isn't any agreement, so does'nt it make it impossible for the lender to rely that there is any agreement that relates to the LRA s32? There is NO AGREEMENT...BP

[bigphil61]

Hi Ben, thank you, I'll keep on digging....BP

[jotho]

Hi Ben. Can I just ask you an off subject question? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if they need your PoA to securitize your mortgage?

Jo

[bhall]

Hi Ben. Can I just ask you an off subject question? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if they need your PoA to securitize your mortgage?

Jo

 

Personally I would avoid the spanish white rabbit arguments like the plague.

[applecart]

Hello BP

 

The MD reference is a very unreliable way to identify if any individual or specific mortgage has been securitiised.

 

The MD reference is merely the reference given to a standard mortgage deed produced by a lender, that has been both checked and approved by the land registry. Therefore, a MD reference could apply to all of the mortgage deeds used by a lender for a non specific period of time, could be months or even years.

 

By way of an example - say lender x used the same land registry approved mortgage deed between 2004 and 2006 (meaning all of those mortgage deeds would have the same MD reference). say the same lender securitised its mortgages on a quarterly basis, during that two year period there would be 12 securitisation transactions, each with its own documentation and SPV.

 

A Mortgage Sale Agreement for a securitisation that took place in the first quarter of 2004, will detail the same MD reference as a securitsation that took place in the last quarter of 2006. The point I am trying to make is that a mortgage provided in 2004 could have the same MD reference as one provided in 2006. However, say your mortgage was from 2006, the MD reference applicable to your deed could still be detailed in a mortgage sale agreement from 2004 - Despite it obviously being impossible that it relates to your actual mortgage.

 

X securities 2004-1

X securities 2004- 2

X securities 2004 - 3

X securities 2004 -4

 

X securities 2005 - 1

X securities 2005 -2

X securities 2005 -3

X securities 2005 -4

 

X securities 2006 - 1

X securities 2006 -2

X securities 2006 - 3

X securities 2006 -4

 

(the above are example of quarterly securitisation transactions)

 

The Mortgage Sale Agreements for the above example securitisation transactions could all detail the same MD reference numbers - However, it would be impossible for a securitisation transaction in 2004 to relate to a mortgage provided in 2006. Despite the Mortgage Sale Agreement for a transaction in 2004 detailing the MD reference for a mortgage deed used in 2006 (being the same standard deed used since 2004).

 

Reading the above, I have not explained it very well. Basically do not rely on an MD reference to prove that any individual or specific mortgage has been securitised, as it doesn't prove anything.

 

*the above is a very basic example and does not take into account the fact that lenders use more than one type of mortgage deed at any one time

 

 

EDIT

 

As a working example

 

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/Nationwide%20Internet%20Site/pdf/M55_Oct_11.pdf

 

nationwide have used the above mortgage deed since October 2011 with the reference MD921K

 

Every mortgage since October 2011 would have the same MD reference number. One provided on 1 November 2011 would have the same MD reference as one provided on 1 January 2014. However, any mortgage sale agreement (for a securitisation transaction between those dates) would still detail that same MD reference number, even though it could not possibily apply to mortgage deeds with the same MD reference number that were provided after any specific securitisation transaction

 

Hi Ben

 

I agree with you here on the point made about the MD numbers.

 

I also agree that 000's of mortgages registered with HMLR will have the same MD number.

 

I also agree that borrowers do not derive an 'individual' MD Number for their mortgage.......a borrowers MD No could be the same as his neighbours if they happen to have taken a loan from the same lender during the same period.

 

All of which intends that it is easy enough for a Borrower to recognise if the MD No on their deed matches an MD No party to a pool of mortgages sold to an SPV....

 

This is possibly why 'Accord' and many other lenders have taken to abusing 'transparency' Rules in beginning to remove any on-line detail that was previously available to borrowers.....

 

What you have kindly pointed out is that 'mortgages' and the MD No' identify that a borrowers loan/'mortgage' is at all times party to a 'batch' recognised by the MD No and are simply pooled as a 'batch' time and time again and then sold on and on again in a 'batch'.....I suppose it helps keep the administrative costs down for lenders and HMLR when they do not create individual MD No's for individual borrowers.

 

Apple

[jotho]

I just like to check everything out myself but have struggled getting an answer on that particular question

[applecart]

Hi Apple, Forgive me if I've got this totally wrong, but whilst reading through the thread yet again (personal punishment for being to dense to take it all in first time or even second time around), I noticed that you have referred to the Mortgage Deed as the Agreement! Surely any such Agreement would be covered under the CCA 1974 or CCA 2006. So how could the 'Deed' that creates the disposition be the 'Agreement'. There isn't any agreement, so does'nt it make it impossible for the lender to rely that there is any agreement that relates to the LRA s32? There is NO AGREEMENT...BP

 

OMG.....BigPhil61.....I think you make a very important observation here........Boy oh boy, this thread is nothing if not 'progressive'....

 

LRA s.32 does say just because the lenders charge is noted on the register of title is not evidence of its validity....it also says that if the 'agreement' is not valid - then mere notice of the lenders charge does not validate the charge.......

 

I have to agree with you.....in our search for the truth....and our understanding that there must be an 'agreement'...... we have not found one.....I think you may have something here, when you have spotted that in most cases there simply is 'NO agreement'

 

 

I think it is the CCA 2006 section 2 that removed the financial limit of £25k to say that all credit facilities no matter how much the amount of credit is will be regulated under the CCA 1974.......eeerrrmmmm?

 

Just Thinking on my feet here.......if the deed is void because it has not been executed by the lender.....now a finding that there is possibly NO 'agreement' that they can point to......falling within the CCA 1974 (not forgetting the FCA are looking to incorporate the CCA 1974 under their wing)....then....is this just another issue for the lender to have to overcome?.....should applications and 'appeals' include this finding moving forward?.....eeeerrrmmm....... my thoughts are that the 'charge' on the borrowers register of title has no chance of being found to be 'valid'....because there is 'NO' Agreement.....oooh by gum...... its not looking very good for lenders......not looking very good at all..... ; )

 

So there is so far.....NO Defence to the Void Deed........ No Defence to a 'valid charge'....because there is in the vast majority of cases 'NO Agreement'......

 

Please someone tell me my mind has not gone into overdrive........(BigPhil61 It's all your fault) lol

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

ooops....meant to say in post #4535:

 

"So there is so far.....NO Defence to the Void Deed........ No Defence to a 'in-valid charge'....because there is in the vast majority of cases 'NO Agreement'......"

 

Apple

[enfircer]

Hi Ben. Can I just ask you an off subject question? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if they need your PoA to securitize your mortgage?

Jo

 

yes jotho is the answer to your question if you look in your T&C'S if you haven't already done so you will see you granted irrevocable power of attorney its well hidden this allows them to do what ever under this as if it was you.

 

as for white rabbit for whatever he believes in was and is correct on this subject you need to do a deed of revocation to revoke it.

get your wheels in motion follow whats being done on this thread get your application in to the property chamber.

[enfircer]

Personally I would avoid the spanish white rabbit arguments like the plague.

 

where did spanish white rabbit appear in jotho's question ?

[bhall]

where did spanish white rabbit appear in jotho's question ?

 

Hello Enfircer, hope you are well

 

El Spanardo also known as the white Rabbit has been a keen promotors of that line of argument for a long time.

 

Thought you might have known that

 

Ben

[bhall]

Much like the other freeman types arguments and Apples fanciful ideas those arguments don't hold much weight in a possession hearing.

 

Sorry

 

Ben

[enfircer]

Much like the other freeman types arguments and Apples fanciful ideas those arguments don't hold much weight in a possession hearing.

 

Sorry

 

 

 

Ben

 

I was asking where did spanish white rabbit appear in jotho's question? as far as i can see he was asking you for some advise if you knew?

as for Apple's fanciful ideas i wouldn't know about those the only thing people and I myself are interested in are FACTS no play ground stuff.

not getting into an argument over he said she said whatever the case may be.I don't care to much for the freeman of the land stuff but some of it is interesting to say the least.

[IS IT ME?]

Much like the other freeman types arguments and Apples fanciful ideas those arguments don't hold much weight in a possession hearing.

 

Sorry

 

Ben

 

Yes Ben BUT they have stayed in there homes and can you show were white rabbit is wrong ?

Why is the PA there, it's not for the borrowers is it.

We will see what happens

[Crapstone]

Jotho,

 

I get what you mean that the offer was not the one you say you signed. Unless there is any significant change in the major body of the contract then it would still stand and so would the arrears. Can you say what the difference is? What I meant by 'acceptance' was that you had paid them for x amount of time before now raising the issue that there is a problem. The fact that they agree to a lower payment is at their discretion and doesn't prejudice their claim as should be in the T & C's.

 

Apple,

 

We looked into a lot of that before and found it not to be much help as it wasn't retrospective, or at least not enough as I recall to cover what the discussion is here. It may cover the mortgage now but not the foundations of it and it's making by the unscrupulous. The financial advisors weren't regulated and neither were a lot of the law firms used by them. Well not in my case, and that left a gaping hole of trying to pin a tail on a flea in a wind tunnel!

[bigphil61]

OMG.....BigPhil61.....I think you make a very important observation here........Boy oh boy, this thread is nothing if not 'progressive'....

 

LRA s.32 does say just because the lenders charge is noted on the register of title is not evidence of its validity....it also says that if the 'agreement' is not valid - then mere notice of the lenders charge does not validate the charge.......

 

I have to agree with you.....in our search for the truth....and our understanding that there must be an 'agreement'...... we have not found one.....I think you may have something here, when you have spotted that in most cases there simply is 'NO agreement'

 

 

I think it is the CCA 2006 section 2 that removed the financial limit of £25k to say that all credit facilities no matter how much the amount of credit is will be regulated under the CCA 1974.......eeerrrmmmm?

 

Just Thinking on my feet here.......if the deed is void because it has not been executed by the lender.....now a finding that there is possibly NO 'agreement' that they can point to......falling within the CCA 1974 (not forgetting the FCA are looking to incorporate the CCA 1974 under their wing)....then....is this just another issue for the lender to have to overcome?.....should applications and 'appeals' include this finding moving forward?.....eeeerrrmmm....... my thoughts are that the 'charge' on the borrowers register of title has no chance of being found to be 'valid'....because there is 'NO' Agreement.....oooh by gum...... its not looking very good for lenders......not looking very good at all..... ; )

 

So there is so far.....NO Defence to the Void Deed........ No Defence to a 'valid charge'....because there is in the vast majority of cases 'NO Agreement'......

 

Please someone tell me my mind has not gone into overdrive........(BigPhil61 It's all your fault) lol

 

 

Apple

 

 

Hi Apple, Just doing my bit for the borrower....BP

[jotho]

Enfircer. Thanks for that. As I said to Ben I just like to check everything out myself. I seem to have got myself some fatherly advice from him but no actual answer. I found about the PoA a while ago and have made note of your suggestion to revoke it. I was asking the question because my lender has stated they have not used my PoA. I am aware of another case where this lie cost them the outcome. I only asked Ben as he seemed to be especially knowledgeable on securitisation.

Oh heck here I go off thread again. I do not want to go there and certainly don't want to start any debate at all. It was intended just as a simple one-off question.

 

I am totally focussed on the deed now. It is going to take a while longer for me to get to application stage. As I said early on, I am aware how important this is for everyone concerned and am really worried I might do damage with an unmeritorious application. In the meantime though I've got an oral hearing end of Feb and a multi-track case to prepare for concerning the amount of the arrears. I don't think I can use the deed issue at the oral hearing, not even with a shoehorn, but the upcoming trial is open to anything (other than a s2 defence).

 

Jo

[sequenci]

There are a few cases lines up that tackle the deed issue about to hit the chamber, isn't that right?

 

It could be pertinent for anyone looking at this issue themselves to await the outcome of those hearings.

[enfircer]

Enfircer. Thanks for that. As I said to Ben I just like to check everything out myself. I seem to have got myself some fatherly advice from him but no actual answer. I found about the PoA a while ago and have made note of your suggestion to revoke it. I was asking the question because my lender has stated they have not used my PoA. I am aware of another case where this lie cost them the outcome. I only asked Ben as he seemed to be especially knowledgeable on securitisation.

Oh heck here I go off thread again. I do not want to go there and certainly don't want to start any debate at all. It was intended just as a simple one-off question.

 

I am totally focussed on the deed now. It is going to take a while longer for me to get to application stage. As I said early on, I am aware how important this is for everyone concerned and am really worried I might do damage with an unmeritorious application. In the meantime though I've got an oral hearing end of Feb and a multi-track case to prepare for concerning the amount of the arrears. I don't think I can use the deed issue at the oral hearing, not even with a shoehorn, but the upcoming trial is open to anything (other than a s2 defence).

 

Jo

 

Hi jotho i understand what your saying the lender is not telling you the truth what is the truth is they do not do anything under your name

it is under the POA itself that you gtanted them it is this you need to revoke with them and also if you do do this make sure the insurance and acting solicitors get revoked to.

once this is done you can request to see any document they have then.Don't forget to get it witnessed by a notory public.

Having watched the spanish white rabbit could you please tell me to ben where he is wrong on the POA?

[bhall]

Good Morning Everyone,

 

To clarify my previous response to Jo (apologies for the sharpness of my response)

 

It is not and never was "your mortgage". The problem is that we are used to saying we have a mortgage with such and such bank or I have a mortgage with Bank x etc. The use of term mortgage is used incorrectly and explains why a lot of fanciful ideas are eventually disproven.

 

A borrower grants a mortgage to the lender as security for a loan. To be clear, the borrower gives the lender a mortgage. Once given to the lender, the lender is the owner of that mortgage and as such is recorded by the Land Registry as the proprietor of the charge.

 

As the owner of the charge, the lender is free (subject to any term to the contrary) to sell or dispose of the charge as it sees fit.

 

Case law clearly confirms beyond any possible confusion that a lender is at law also free (subject to the contrary) to assign the debt to a 3rd party.

 

If you look at other websites you start to see the problems with these types of arguments. One site which heavily promoted the whole void deed issue, still provides its members with a copy of the Lamb case from January 2013, in the full knowledge that in a subsequent case Lamb lost.

 

Before it's forum settings changed (recently) there was never any mention of this.

 

If you look at another site that promoted this concept and that of the POA argument. It offers free membership, yet when you sign up, you have to pay for template letters.

 

CAG is far superior to those websites in that it does not charge, merely seeks a donation and to more a degree allows the freedom to discuss loses and potential loses.

 

Least we forget, two cases were heard by the Property Chamber last week. It would appear by Is It Me?'s post (he is still waiting) that neither of the two cases were one of his friends.

 

The chamber has indicated and it's rules permit that the decision of those hearings could be applied to other applications, including that of Is It Me?'s friend.

 

In closing look at some of the other threads - Marika's for example, she tried the deed route and the POA argument. In much the same way as previously posted by PJ the Judge was not interested and dismissed those arguments.

[bhall]

A couple of days ago Enficer posted (since been removed) a memorandum that was submitted to the Treasury Select Committee. Enfircer referred to it as 'interesting reading'.

 

The memorandum was only half of the story, you should google what happened in the outcome of the author of that memorandum's own possession proceedings.

 

The whole picture may not be a nice picture but it is better to look at the whole picture and not just a little part of of it.

 

Ben

[IS IT ME?]

Well Ben it's not the full story? Yes your right.

The judges just look at what is owed are rubber stamps the order and moves onto the next one!

As for 3rd party rights you should read those if you quote them, they give ALL the rights AND Benefits to the other party.

 

Any one with an accord mortgage should wait and see what comes next like L p a 23???

I say again without any hesitation apple is right 100%

Edited January 29, 2014 by ims21