SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[Nightmare4banks]

Last of the Mohicans,

 

In reply to your last post and in my view:

 

1.I feel that these companies have covered themselves somehow under company and trust laws.

 

2.I say this because as I mentioned before in a previous post within this thread that I have actually seen an article regarding the selling of Bank of Ireland's mortgage portfolio to its subsidary company Bristol & West - which in fact would be the SPV.

 

3.However,it is not all doom and gloom as I do firmly believe that there should be some form of redress because on the one hand one company is granting a mortgage borrower a 25 year mortgage(original lender/portfolio seller) but another company within that same group(SPV) with the trustees are doing all they can to repossess the property or make a real killing out of the mortgage borrower.

 

4.If there is proof of the relationship between the three parties associated with

mortgage(most importantly without the knowledge of the mortgage borrower which is a VERY crucial point) which means that there is a very serious conflict of interest and therefore there should be form of redress for that borrower.

 

5.I would not be able to comment on the form(s) of redress as the only two things I can think of are:

 

a.There was no intention to really grant the 25 year mortgage and thus the contract should be rescinded/cancelled and damages obtained in favour of the borrower.This is because on one hand a 25 year mortgage has been granted but on the other hand the way the SPVs are set up are just for the totally opposite - to be in the repossession business and make a very quick killing out of the mortgage borrower by hiking fees and interest rates to force remortgaging to get the liquid cash or in worst case scenarios reposss the borrower's property which could affect a very large amount of people both mortgage owner occupiers and the landlords/landladies that have SPVed mortgages secured on their properties.

 

b.The deliberate deceit which is much easier to prove if the SPV is a subsidiary company of the original lender and the legal implications of all this.

 

6.Just sit down and think one moment why the repossessions on Northern Rock's mortgage books(I wonder who the real owner(s) is/are of Northern Rock's mortgage portfolio is/are?) soared as has been mentioned in the news despite taxpayer bailout?The answer is very simple because the grabby greedy investors in a SPV setup want their money yesterday and do not care how they get that money to include making hardworking people homeless and destitute.

 

Anyway,just my 2p's worth!

Edited March 3, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[littledotty27]

Received witness statement this morning from the claimant nit picking at everything i have put in the witness statement,stating its not a proper statement.

They have admitted they took over in may 2006 & we was informed(but wasn't).

Also stated that the contract sent was only mortgage offer(even though its signed by us & was obtained from solicitors office).

The mortgage deed we got from solicitor states matlock bank & was signed by us on 11/01/06.

According to the LR SPML put there charge on that date.

Credit file states a/c opened 21/12/05 & still shows as matlock bank.

In court this afternoon,will let you all know how we get on.

[scedminc]

Received witness statement this morning from the claimant nit picking at everything i have put in the witness statement,stating its not a proper statement.

They have admitted they took over in may 2006 & we was informed(but wasn't).

Also stated that the contract sent was only mortgage offer(even though its signed by us & was obtained from solicitors office).

The mortgage deed we got from solicitor states matlock bank & was signed by us on 11/01/06.

According to the LR SPML put there charge on that date.

Credit file states a/c opened 21/12/05 & still shows as matlock bank.

In court this afternoon,will let you all know how we get on.

 

Good luck for this afternoon.

[littledotty27]

Thanks Scedminc

Im shaking with fear.

I have also printed off the prospectus,do you think I should bring the secritisation up in court?

[scedminc]

Hi LittleDotty,

 

I remember shaking with fear when I very first went to court. However after seeing that it is kind of informal I now feel much better on return visits. If it was me going I would take everything I could possibly take to discredit them. It may be too late for you now if you are in court this afternoon as I believe you are better going armed with things in a structured way so that the DJ doesn't get bored or think you are just clutching at straws. I would certainly ask some difficult questions though.

 

Hope this helps.

[littledotty27]

I have actually got all info in a file to take with me.

The prospectus,the contract,the deeds. etc

Everything they wrote in the witness statement contradicts itself,so I have marked it to confront them about it.

This isn't the 1st time in court,this has been going on since 2006.

[supersleuth]

Hi Guys,

 

Last of the Mohican - you are totally correct! The Claimant named in the court action is not the person who owns the charge and the judges don't ask for proof - the court process is a rubberstamp affair - and from the borrower perspective - the best it will get as so called "justice" is a deferral of the inevitable i.e. a suspended possession order - they'll let you live in your home for a little while longer.

 

Here's the law: The LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 s. 27(1) says that the Charge (ie. the mortgage charge) does not OPERATE AT LAW until the registration is complete.

 

Section 27(3) and (4) says in effect that it is MANDATORY that where there has been a transfer and assignment of a mortgage charge, that transfer/assignment MUST be registered.

 

So, on the one hand when the false claimant sells to the SPV both s.27(3) and (4) requires that the transfer MUST BE REGISTERED. BUT, s.27(1) says that the transfer will not operate AT LAW until it is registered.

 

This is called the "registration gap". The gap is necessary because, you sign the contracts documents on say 1 jan, but then you have to tell the LR that there has BEEN a transfer which paperwork will take a few weeks to prepare and send (as the law requires). There has to be a registration gap in order to send the Land Registry the information and then time for the Land Registry to update its records.

 

Two points ensue from this registration gap. First the law mandates that YOU DO TELL THE LR, and second, that until you do tell the LR, the transfer will "NOT OPERATE AT LAW" (i.e. s.27(1)

 

There can be no doubt that s.27(3) and (4) are compulsory because s. 123 makes it a criminal offence to suppress and conceal information from the land registry. Thus, whilst the LRA2002 does have a "registration gap", you commit a criminal offence if you deliberately don't tell the LR about the transfer.

 

The SPV's commit a criminal offence because they deliberately don't tell the land registry and they deliberately conceal the transfer from the LR and the Borrowers and the courts and the governement etc. It is deliberate because, the seller/lender and the SPV have made it a term of the contract of sale that THEY WILL CONCEAL THE TRANSFER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY AND IT ALSO SAYS IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WILL NOT TELL THE BORROWER!!! Fact: this deliberate concealment is stated in the Prospectuses. Therefore, the SPV and the false claimant have intended to conceal and suppress the information from the LR, they deliberately intended that the borrower and the LR shall remain ignorant - Hence CRIMINAL OFFENCE committed - absolute no doubt about it.

 

Now over to the s.27(1) issue. The false lender who is the false claimant knows that they have sold the charge, and knows that they are not the legal owner - but they rely and unlawfully abuse s.27(1) - if a Charge does not operate at law until registration is completed- then the courts would consider that it operates in EQUITY.

 

Equity is a particular legal jurisidiction of the court. This means that the false claimant is a BARE TRUSTEE during the registration gap until the mandatory registration of the new owner (the SPV) is completed. The false claimant is not the legal owner, he is only "deemed" to be the legal owner because of his false registration due to his criminal agreement to conceal and suppress the information regarding the transfer from the LR. See s.58(1) which states the registered proprietor is "deemed" to be the legal owner.

 

It is s.27(1) that dupes the moron judges. I say duped, because in order to rely on the false claimant's "deemed" legal ownership, the false Claimant must rely on their criminal act of suppression and concealment of the transfer (s.123), and their unlawful act of failure to comply with the mandatory registration requirement of s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the moron judges allow a criminal act to be purportrated against the borrowers and the Land Registry when they are duped into recognising the false claimant as the legal owner. The courts allow the false claimant to rely on its criminal offences of (i) s.123 suppression and concealment of information from the LR and (ii) failure to comply with the mandatory registration of the transfer pursuant to s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the court order given to a false claimant for repossession is grounded on criminal offences and a court order that is grounded on criminal offences cannot be a valid and lawful court order. Alternatively, it could be deemed that CRIME DOES PAY!!! The court orders prove that crime pays! In other words, without the criminal act of the false claimant, they would not get a repossession order. The criminal act is an essential element that is neccessary such that the false claimant can dupe the court to give it the repossession order.

 

Now for the next legal (or rather illegal) sleight of hand. When the issue comes up, the false claimant will tell the moron judges "oh, yes but we ONLY SOLD AN EQUITABLE INTEREST". Not true, they sold the legal title, but the legal reality is that the legal title, as per s.27(1) does not operate at law until the registration is complete.

 

Again, the courts never ask to see the contract of sale to see exactly WHAT ALLEGED EQUITABLE INTEREST WAS SOLD because in fact, it was the legal title that was sold. But the courts just take their word for it that it was an equitable assignment. If the courts (and the borrower) demanded that the false claimant PROVE that they only sold an alleged "equitable/beneficial interest" then the concealment and falsity of the ruse would be exposed.

 

The fact is that the false claimant has lied again. At law, the reality is that the legal title for the SPV does not "operate at law" until the SPV registers (as the law demands that they do). But the moron judges, believe the false claimant when it says "they only sold the Beneficial title", which puts the concept of equitable juridiction in the moron judges' mind.

 

So the moron judge ASSUMES that the false claimant is a TRUSTEE under a legitmate trust and assumes that as a TRUSTEE the claimant is a bona fide claimant. The moron judge should not make this false assumption because (i) if the false claimant really was a legitimate trustee the law requires that they disclose on the Claim Form that they are claiming in a "representative capacity as a TRUSTEE. None of the claim forms state the claimant as a trustee and therefore, the court should not recognise them as a trustee.

 

Nonetheless, from this the moron judge believes that there is an assignment of the "equitable interest", and the false claimant is a bona fide trustee, when in truth the position is really, that the SPVs legal title is operating in "equity" merely because of its criminal acts and because s.27(1) says that the SPVs legal title "does not operate at law" until it registers its ownership. The false claimant could be said to be a BARE TRUSTEE - but a bare trustee HAS NO LEGAL RIGHTS OTHER THAN TO DO WHAT THE BENEFICIAL TITLE HOLDER TELLS THEM TO DO. In other words, the exploitation and abuse of s.27(1) allows the false claimant to pull the woll over the moron judges eyes and unlawfully pretend they are the legal owner.

 

So there's a catch 22 which works perfect for the false claimant. The false claimant criminally exploits the "registration gap" to pretend that it is the legal owner when in fact (i) it KNOW that it is NOT the legal owner and (ii) KNOW that it has deliberately concealed the real legal owner from the LR through purportrating the criminal act of suppressing and concealing that information from the LR.

 

Until the moron judges can get their dumb head around the fact that it is a criminal offence to suppress information from the LR (s.123), and until the moron judges demand compliance with the LRA s.27(3) and(4), the court will always make an order for the false claimant which is grounded on the criminal acts of the false claimant and the SPV. The registration gap may lawfull exist, but s.123 does not allow the unlawful abuse and explotation of s.27(1) because s.123 makes it a criminal offence to deliberately suppress and conceal the information (which is precisely what the false claimant does!).

 

Here's the final legal reality. Under the human rights act you have the right to be "HEARD". So as a borrower you have the right to state all this to the court, BUT, the courts don't pay any heed to what you say. The courts may HEAR, but they are not LISTENING!!!...the moron judges do not engage brain, they do not consider your legal point because - the false claimant has a qualified lawyer who will lie and cause the court and cause the moron judges to rubberstamp this criminal offences.

 

Any references to moron judges is essentially all of them. They pay NO attention to the law, and pay no attention to what a litigant-in-person says the law is. They will always defer to the powerful bank. If the judge were to pay any attention to a legal argument from a litigant in person, that would require that they do some WORK!! They would have to THINK and do some real legal work and legal analysis. So it's easier just to ignor the Litigant-in-person and accept the false claimant's lies and accept the false legal argument from the claimant's lawyer.

 

Does this mean we have no chance - no, it means that we have got to keep saying it to the moron judges until ONE OF THEM actually listens. There must be at least ONE judge in a district court somewhere that is NOT A MORON!!! One of us will find the intelligent judge who is capable of engaging brain and so the more of us who put this legal argument forward, the more chance there is that one of us will cause the court to enforce the LAW!!

 

Good luck, you've got nothing to loose by trying, and if you're the lucky one that finds the NON-MORONIC judge you may just get the just and correct result - DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION against you on the grounds that the false claimant cannot rely on his criminal manipulation of deliberately causing the Land REgistry to be inaccurate, and having sold its title to your mortgage contract, the false claimant has no contract with you and cannot claim any remedy under the contract when the false claimant is not in contractual privity with you.

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

[scedminc]

I have actually got all info in a file to take with me.

The prospectus,the contract,the deeds. etc

Everything they wrote in the witness statement contradicts itself,so I have marked it to confront them about it.

This isn't the 1st time in court,this has been going on since 2006.

 

In which case then I would go for it. At the end of the day they dont care what they do to you. If you have got everything in place then fight them and see what they say. I should imagine the solictor wont be able to answer anything of what you put to them. On the other hand they may dismiss your evidence as any evidence you wish to use should be sent to all parties prior to the hearing. I have just noticed SuperSleuth is online. It may be worth sending him a message as he will be the best person to advise you seeing you have only a small window of time left.

[Nightmare4banks]

Littledotty27,in reply to your posts:

 

1.Good luck in court and please remember that Matlock Bank/SPML is not the real issue but it is the the SPV.

 

2.To keep it simple,just mention the securitisation of the mortgage portfolio belonging to SPML and in otherwords SPML does not have the charge on your property but the invisible SPV does i.e. there is no contract between you and SPML but between you and the SPV.

 

I hope this helps.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Littledotty,

 

You could print the post off and try to use it to make the point if you think it will help in your circumstances.

 

Supersleuth

[littledotty27]

Thanks Supersleuth

I have done just that,but ammended the bits with moron lol.

Will let you know how we get on.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Last of the Mohicans,

 

In reply to your last post and in my view:

 

1.I feel that these companies have covered themselves somehow under company and trust laws.

 

 

 

thanks Nightmare,

 

I'm going to sit on my hands for a while - but, I will say this:

 

What cant speak cant lie.

 

I would heartily suggest everyone should get a copy of their Title from the Land Registry before attending a court for repossesion. Who knows what mismatches may be found?

 

 

Thank you Superslueth

[Last of the Mohicans]

One thought I'd like to kick around... can you SAR an SPV?

[Nightmare4banks]

Last of the Mohicans in reply to your posts and in my view:

 

 

1.Regarding the company and trust laws or should we say mistrust laws? - No problem!

 

2.I would have thought that if you have any paperwork that shows the SPV's name on it -

that there should be no reason whatsover against sending a SAR.

 

3.It would be very interesting to see what the response would be.

[supersleuth]

Absolutely right - last of the Mohicans!! You can SAR the SPV's - it may be worth a tenner! even if they lie - which they probably will!! At least they'll have to put their lies in writing.

 

Most caggers will have worked out which SPV has securitised their mortgage, but they won't know in which transaction their mortgage was securitised. Thus, A specific question to ask the SPV in your SAR is to ask them to specify exactly in which transaction they securitised YOUR mortgage.

 

Another point re the Land REgistration issue is that we borrowers as the legal owner of the physical property are entitled to ask the land registry to correct the register. i.e. update the Charges register filed against our physical property. When I've worked out the procedure - I'll post more on this point.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Oh and another point on SAR of the SPVs. The Data Protection Act requires all data holders to register with the information commissioner. Check to see that the SPV has filed itself as a processor of personal data with the Information Commissioner - if not - that's just another criminal offence to add to the list.

[littledotty27]

Just got back from court,it has again been suspended for another month.

 

Now I brought up the securitisation deal,the judge asked to see it,but obviously 203 pages is quite alot to read within an hour.

He admitted that he didn't understand it,but obviously the claimants rep did & looked shocked when it was mentioned.

There was questions that the rep could not answer on behalf of the claimant & I do think she understood where we were coming from.

Our next quest is to pay the LR a visit tomorrow with the prospectus & see what can be done.

I have such a headache,but glad today is over.

[midge61]

Hi

 

well done you.

[littledotty27]

thanks Midge61

 

How are you getting on with yours?

[Pab10]

Subbing with great interest.

Good Luck.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Doing some more thinking (if you can smell wood burning, you know what it is )

 

If "Mortgage Company A" sells "Mortgage A" to "SPV A" it has presumably sold an asset - would not "Mortgage Company A" have to declare the sale of each asset (mortgage) in a bundle as a seperate item to the Inland Revenue for tax purposes?

[Nightmare4banks]

Last of the Mohicans,in reply to your last post and in my view:

 

1.There probably should be paperwork for each sold mortgage but please remember that securitisation involves the selling of portfolios of mortgages rather than on an individual basis.

 

2.If this is the case then probably the only required information would be the total value of the mortgages and the total value of the portfolio.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Last of the Mohicans,in reply to your last post and in my view:

 

1.There probably should be paperwork for each sold mortgage but please remember that securitisation involves the selling of portfolios of mortgages rather than on an individual basis.

 

2.If this is the case then probably the only required information would be the total value of the mortgages and the total value of the portfolio.

 

 

OK, that seems reasonable - if we say for arguments sake, you buy a thousand "10mm bolts" at "50p unit price" from Nuts and Bolts Ltd, then the IR would accept that the parties sold / bought a thousand identical items of identical value.

 

But how can (eg) the second mortgage on a 2-up, 2-down be identical to the primary mortgage on a 5 bedroom detatched house in a different town?

 

They must both be individual assets, listed on the Mortgage Companies books seperately originally for tax purposes "on the way in".

They must therefore be listed seperately "on the way out" or the books would not balance.

 

OK, I admit I'm no accountant - I can barely count! - but that seems straightforward to me?

[supersleuth]

Hi

 

The mortgage assets are the mortgage contracts, deeds and the mortgage charge. The mortgages that are sold are listed by Land Registry Title Number. Thus, the title number of your property appears on the portfolio list. When the originator sells the portfolio the buyer and seller will sign a Land Registry Form TR4. That form states who the seller is (the transferor) who the buyer is (the transferee) and the assets (mortgage) that is transfered. The mortgages that are transferred are listed by land registry title number.

 

Until the land registration is complete, the Inland REvenue will not know about the transfer. Anyway, these companies do not pay tax anyway - they are offshore companies.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Hi

 

The mortgage assets are the mortgage contracts, deeds and the mortgage charge. The mortgages that are sold are listed by Land Registry Title Number. Thus, the title number of your property appears on the portfolio list. When the originator sells the portfolio the buyer and seller will sign a Land Registry Form TR4. That form states who the seller is (the transferor) who the buyer is (the transferee) and the assets (mortgage) that is transfered. The mortgages that are transferred are listed by land registry title number.

 

Gotcha Slueth. So - and I'm sorry if this is an obvious question, but I have read the whole thread and every other I can find that seems relevant before asking it - is there posted anywhere "the way" to identify your mortgages portfolio?

 

 

Until the land registration is complete, the Inland REvenue will not know about the transfer. Anyway, these companies do not pay tax anyway - they are offshore companies.

 

Again sorry, I'm not being obtuse here, but while the SPV may not pay tax, surely the mortgage company does?

 

If they are *not* notifying the Land registry of the transfer and/or change of ownership of one of their assets, aren't they then falsifying their tax return by keeping something they no longer own on the books when they've sold it?

 

The only way I can see that not being the case is if they never declared a given mortgage to be "on their books" in the first place?

 

 

Is there a tax accountant in the house LOL

Edited March 4, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans