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

[Suetonius]

All UK securitisations prior to 2003 required notice to us borrowers but some Statutory Instrument issued by parliament removed this requirement. I'll try to find the link. Now given that Pender's mortgage securitisation predated this I think that this is a critical piece missing in the Pender jigsaw. Were they given notice and did they consent to the securitisation of their mortgage and the disposition of an interest in land. I haven't found anything In Pender that says Paragon were open about this aspect of their mortgage contract or that they sought and gained the consent of the Penders for such a disposition. (Sue and I had an exchange on the 2003 SI in which I concluded correctly I believe that the relevant SI was the green light for mass securitisation)

 

Hello EIE,

 

I think that you might be thinking of:

 

 

The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003

 

 

PART 2

 

Modification of law requiring formalities

 

Certain legislation requiring formalities not to apply to financial collateral arrangements

 

"(3) Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (legal assignments of things in action) shall not apply (if it would otherwise do so) in relation to a financial collateral arrangement, to the extent that the section requires an assignment to be signed by the assignor or a person authorised on its behalf, in order to be effectual in law."

 

This only means that the notice does not have to be signed by the assignor. As I understand it, it does not remove the actual requirement for an express notice of assignment to be sent to the borrower.

 

I do apologise for my use of a sledgehammer, I just find it frustrating that as soon as any progress is made in relation to the "performance of contract", someone will try to divert the debate back to equitable v legal assignment, without adding any new points that have not previously been discussed at length.

 

We have the prospectus which outlines the lending policy, so people can check if their mortgage was provided to them inline with this policy. It also details under what circumstances the equitable title must be repurchased. It could be argued that these circumstances may effect the willingness of SPML/PML (Capstone) to assist borrowers etc.

 

The debate needs to be moved forward, not continually taken three steps back or left to go around in circles.

 

ITBG?, I have previously expressed my personal views with regard to people wanting me answer questions, when they don't answer mine. I am sorry, I do not give yes and no answers, as they are meaningless without explanation or given in the proper context.

 

However, I will answer your questions in due course... (may not be today, as I am busy with other matters).

[Suetonius]

That the fos won't investigate until they see under separate cover the words full and final response and that capstone won't use those words. That's my complaint.

 

The FOS should investigate the complaint, if capstone has not provided you with a final response after 8 weeks.

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Suetonius

 

I do apologise for my use of a sledgehammer, I just find it frustrating that as soon as any progress is made in relation to the "performance of contract", someone will try to divert the debate back to equitable v legal assignment, without adding any new points that have not previously been discussed at length.

 

Nah, it's fine actually. Disregard my sledgehammer post. It's there for people to go through if they want and tell you why they think you are wrong.

 

Let's leave it at that. Thanks for posting the SI. I just want to go back to the point at which we debated it and have another look. I certainly remember thinking that it removed any possible grounds for challenging securitization on the exhaustively discussed basis you referred to above. That said JonCris has been pateintly pointing us in the right direction for months. Performance.

 

 

Ryde and Sue,

 

Yes that's where I was going with this next but the FOS have put a spanner in the works. I have to have a separate F&F for each distinct complaint. Typically in their last response they dodged those things they couldn't explain and I got some dreadful embarrassing dirge of a response. Time to put them on strict notice of exactly what I require, copy in the FOS, so they know that's what I've done and then send off the papaerwork.

 

Notwithstanding Catchy's stuff above Catchy would do better to recognise that there are many of us here who have done far more than talk. Of course anonymity must prevail so I can't say who has DONE what. You're very much mistaken Catchy if you think we are nothing more than a sewing circle. I also folowed you advise and rang them up to ask for charges back and they behaved as I predicted they would. They told me to get stuffed.

[ryde]

Without wishing to appear to be a sycophant he,s right again!^^This needs to go forward and we should all know now legally exactly where we stand ie stuck with PML/SPML AND CRONIES.

The prospectus does outline the lending policy but is this not geared for the peace of mind of the investors? IT REASSURES THEM THAT THE lenders are prudent and make proper checks.

This is a joke because they certainly did not use the lending criteria stated in my particular case

The broker sent a blank form stating sign here and here and then all the other details were filled in by the broker or lender ie pml/spml there were no income checks ,both people were on the dole and they gave them over £100000 remortgage which was defaulted on.PML it appears would give almost anyone a mortgage so they could just add to their list and sell it on via eurosail ie sell on a load of toxic debt, if there was any comebak repossess the property if in default with whatever excuse; or keep banging in high administration fees forcing any borrower in arrears into repossession,the property was usually undervalued in any case. WHAT DO WE DO REPORT THEM FOR THE CROOKS THEY ARE TO THE INVESTORS?

Edited October 3, 2009 by ryde

[littledotty27]

Good luck to any of you that have actually had the FOS listen to you.

Apart from our complaint we put to them,they listened to what SPML had to say,but wasn't interested in listening to our further details.

 

SPML told them(fos) a pack of lies and basically told us is was our own fault that we got into arrears in the 1st place and as we were apparently over 2 years in arrears it was up to us to sort out and deal with it.

18 months we waited for an adjudicator and that was there full and final response.

 

I thought I would contact the reporter again yesterday and got an immediate response,he said he would take a look at the forums and get back to me...lets see if he does.

[verycatchy7939]

One one way guys we need to get this on TV radio shout loud to anyone and everyone who will listen, we got to get eveyone on our side to conquer this SPML mess, trouble is no once cares but us so it our job to make em

[bach]

I'm totally with you on this one.

With all of us working on them, evenually we will bring them down.

Im working with you behind the scenes and following every bit

 

Best wishes Lynn,

[ryde]

Is there anyone out there who has a journalist friend or contac if only we could get the press interested in this lot or this forum,what about some sort of online petition calling for investigation and action we,d need to have a theme or list of complaints that need to be addressed and someone with simple organizational skills.?any realistic suggestions or ideas more than welcome,lets get something going for gods sake.We are all spending hours online in any case trying to find some tripwire for the b.....ds

[wot2do?]

Is there anyone out there who has a journalist friend or contac if only we could get the press interested in this lot or this forum,what about some sort of online petition calling for investigation and action we,d need to have a theme or list of complaints that need to be addressed and someone with simple organizational skills.?any realistic suggestions or ideas more than welcome,lets get something going for gods sake

 

I have signed up to a few on here before

 

e-Petitions | Number10.gov.uk

[verycatchy7939]

i just sent the link to and a synopsis of our issues to watchdog via there website lets see if any happens

[verycatchy7939]

just done emailed Darling and my local MP rob felllo

[ryde]

Good on you mate! We need an attention grabbing headline like"FALLOUT FROM LEHMANS BANKRUPTCY,THOUSANDS OF BRITISH HOMEOWNERS IN DANGER OF LOSING THEIR HOMES!!!" THEN THE VARIOUS REASONS CAN BE LISTED,CAN YOU POST THE LINKS... AT LEAST LETS GET SOMETHING STARTED HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE ABOUT 3 MINUTES.ENDLESS DEBATE HERE IS NOT GOING TO STOP THE REPOSSESSIONS,.UNLESS SOMEONE COMES UP WITH A REAL WINNER.

Edited October 4, 2009 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

hi Guys,

 

l've taken a step back lately and not engaged so much in the ongoing discussion here. And, the reason for this is that l get this feeling that we begin to act like the dog who's chasing his own tail. Round and round it goes and it always end up with the same issues and same arguments. Sue has laid the complexity of the securitisation issue out as clear as it possibly can be. The law of the land is also clear, hence, l cannot for my life understand why we are dissecting something, again and again, that cannot reveal anything that we do not already know.

 

To get back to the basics again, this is how it worked:

 

Lehmans decide to enter the bandwagon and cash in on the mortgage frenzy by establishing x number of lenders (originators). Funding is obtained from Barclay Capital who will provide bridging funding. Mortgages are centred on the sub-prime market where the return on invested capital is seriously good. Mortgages are split up in to a beneficial and a title part and the beneficial part is bundled in to tranches and ''sold'' on to a spv at a premium (Lehmans profit margin or spread). The spv issues notes or instruments that guarantee a return of x% on invested capital, but, with attached risks. Funds are established as buffers for any non-performance, normally at 1% of the tranch value. Investor money are paid to the spv and to the lender who finally pays back Barclays. Everyone is happy and has made a bundle of money.

 

Now we have the problematic issues and those are related to what the originator/spv has promised the investors. Most mortgages originated through SPML/PM were fixed for a period of, say, 2 years and thereafter running for various periods at a premium over LIBOR. What the prospectus say to the mortgagor and to the investor are, however, not the same. Lehman obviously calculated that the majority of the mortgagors would be able to repair their lousy credit files over the next 5 years and thereafter re-mortgage with a prime lender at a much better rate, hence, the investor prospectus say that the investment would run for 5 to 6 years. But, the mortgagor has a standard agreement running for anything from 10 to 35 years. Enters bank crash and everything so carefully planned goes out the window and now the originator, spv and investor are facing real problems. Mortgage arrears, defaults, non-existant alternative lenders and a dramatically drop in the LIBOR makes the whole business set up risk to fail. The bridging loans dry up and the buffers get drained why the investors want to get rid of their bad investments. No can do, no-one wants to buy and now they are desperate and that's when re-possessions etc. are the preferred method. The thing is, l have mortgage for the next 25 years and at a rate of 2.1% + LIBOR so l'm not interested in losses to the investors or the spv's or the originators. l want to keep my mortgage and l do not want to pay more than 2.1 + 0.6% or 2.7% in total. However, the investor who sits on all these bonds that are running on 2.2 to 3.5% instead of 8 to 10% and an ever increasing amount of arrears/defaults, is now desperate to get rid of my mortgage and there you have the problem in a nut shell. Most of us do not have a mortgage contract that is performing as we originally agreed. Anyone who has his house threatened with re-possesion under the current financial circumstances is not provided with a proper opportunity to sort his problems out, because the investors are losing money. So, let's look at what we were promised and then at what the investors were promised and perhaps we can come up with a joint conclusion and way forward.

 

Gustavius

[verycatchy7939]

reciept from my mp

 

[cid:559140817@09032007-33C0]

ROBERT FLELLO MP

STOKE ON TRENT SOUTH

 

 

Thank you for your recent email which is acknowledged by this automated response and will receive attention as soon as possible.

Emails are treated in the same manner and with the same level of importance as other communications, such as post, telephone, and fax. With the large volume of correspondence I receive it can take four weeks and sometimes more before I am able to respond. I apologise for the delay and will endeavour to respond as quickly as possible.

For individual help and support, in line with Parliamentary Protocol Members of Parliament deal with their own constituents Therefore if your original email did not include your full postal address, please will you re-send your message and include your postal address and full name?

If you are contacting Rob about constituency casework, please ensure you have included:

*

full name

*

postal address

*

contact telephone number

*

any relevant reference numbers

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Robert Flello MP

 

LABOUR MP for STOKE-ON-TRENT SOUTH

Westminster Office: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Telephone: 020 7219 6744

Constituency Office: Ground Floor, Travers Court, Fenton, Stoke on Trent, ST4 2PY

Telephone: 01782 844 810

e-mail: [email protected]

[ryde]

What exactly is the common ground here ,seems to be the actual mortgage contract with the lender and the unfair charges for arrears.This needs to be specified,usually you have to be 3 months or more in arrears for the lender to take repossession action.It looks like we are going to get nowhere with the spv or title to sue issue.Talking about which can we not petition the sage of this forum Suetonius to suggest an answer as his knowledge bank and access to information appears to dwarf our own

Edited October 4, 2009 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

What exactly is the common ground here ,seems to be the actual mortgage contract with the lender and the unfair charges for arrears.This needs to be specified,usually you have to be 3 months or more in arrears for the lender to take repossession action.It looks like we are going to get nowhere with the spv or title to sue issue.Talking about which can we not petition the sage of this forum Suetonius to suggest an answer as his knowledge bank and access to information appears to dwarf our own

 

 

Go back to post 1528 and what Sue says. Let's go back and review exactly what our mortgage contracts say and then what the spv prospectus say. lf the investor finds himself in a situation where he feels his investment is not performing and intends to divest at any cost, then our mortgages may be at risk and consequently the mortgage contract is no longer performing as per contract agreement. lt would be interesting to be able to go through the early actions of Northern Rock when the state took over. There are other similar situations where the mortgagee/investor have actually sold off the mortgage to the mortgagee at seriously reduced rates. Do not remember where right now, but, will research soonest.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Hi

 

I agree with virtually all that has been said. The early days of northern rock will provide very sobering reading. They had round about June this year the worst high street repo rate. The conclusions of this must be that even our government is so in thrall to the banks it is prepared to sanction this. Whilst I have been piling on the pressure at all sorts of official levels I have noticed one consistent response. A deafening silence.

 

Agreed in full. Performance. Now lets get em by whatever means available.

[ryde]

A lighter flights of fantasy thought.

When you think about it its bloody scandalous really the greedy banks and executives make a mess escape without any liability to fat bonuses and pensions for pushing paper around then sell our mortgages off at a discount rate to a similar bunch of white collar crooks and the whole cycle starts again.

If only we were in a position to buy it back at the same rate.They couldn,t sell the SPML/PML mortgage book at 50p in the pound because the sale was only to financial institutions.IMAGINE GETTING A LETTER FROM CAPSTONE OFFERING YOU YOUR MORTGAGE BACK AT HALF PRICE.

WE SHOULD ALL GET TOGETHER FORM A LIMITED INVESTMENT COMPANY

CAGGERS LTD OBTAIN FUNDING FROM BARCLAYS,THE GOVERNMENT OR THE LIKE AND BUY THE WHOLE LOT BACK AT 50% AND THEN PAY NORMAL HIGH STREET INTEREST RATES BACK.(WE COULD EVEN THEN GET INTO THE SECURITIZATION GAME OURSELVES AND NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO DO PROPER WORK AGAIN!) WE CAN ALL DREAM.

would also save the goverment or rather taxpayer a lot of dosh when they have to rehome everyone,maybe we could get it on the electoral agenda ,what a vote winner.

Edited October 4, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Effing hilarious ryde. LMFAO. In all my waking sleeping dreaming moments I never thought of that one. Mind having looked at the figures... Barclays wouldn't lend me 20k which us how I ended up with these reckless feckers in the first place. Most of that was to pay off ulawfully constituted debt.

[gustavius rex]

A lighter flights of fantasy thought.

When you think about it its bloody scandalous really the greedy banks and executives make a mess escape without any liability to fat bonuses and pensions for pushing paper around then sell our mortgages off at a discount rate to a similar bunch of white collar crooks and the whole cycle starts again.

If only we were in a position to buy it back at the same rate.They couldn,t sell the SPML/PML mortgage book at 50p in the pound because the sale was only to financial institutions.IMAGINE GETTING A LETTER FROM CAPSTONE OFFERING YOU YOUR MORTGAGE BACK AT HALF PRICE.

WE SHOULD ALL GET TOGETHER FORM A LIMITED INVESTMENT COMPANY

CAGGERS LTD OBTAIN FUNDING FROM BARCLAYS,THE GOVERNMENT OR THE LIKE AND BUY THE WHOLE LOT BACK AT 50% AND THEN PAY NORMAL HIGH STREET INTEREST RATES BACK.(WE COULD EVEN THEN GET INTO THE SECURITIZATION GAME OURSELVES AND NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO DO PROPER WORK AGAIN!) WE CAN ALL DREAM.

 

 

Hurray!!!! We have re-invented the wheel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! l think that what you propose here is what was called a BUILDING SOCEITY!!!! And why not. let's go back to the original grass root level and do exactly what you propose. The funding will be an obstacle, but, not insurmountable l think.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Speaking of mutuals lets start a grass roots revolution. Switch all current accounts to nationwide and where possible buy some shares . No I don't work for them. They work for me.

 

If not the nw then the co-op. I recently ditched barclays and feel cleansed.

[ryde]

better still apply for govt funding or register as a charity helping the soon to be homeless and get lottery funding as well.! and rates rebate from whatever premises we operate from.!

[Suetonius]

Suetonius to suggest an answer as his knowledge bank and access to information appears to dwarf our own

 

Thanks for the compliment but everything I have posted has been obtained via Google and Yahoo searches.

 

Can anyone post a copy of an actual SPML mortgage agreement, with terms and conditions minus of course any financial / personal information. I think we need to take a look at what SPML say they will do, compared to what they actually do.

[gustavius rex]

Thanks for the compliment but everything I have posted has been obtained via Google and Yahoo searches.

 

Can anyone post a copy of an actual SPML mortgage agreement, with terms and conditions minus of course any financial / personal information. I think we need to take a look at what SPML say they will do, compared to what they actually do.

 

 

l do not have access to SPML, but, Preferred and l think it will contain the same rubbish. But, l do not know how to copy this stuff on to the site, shall ask my daughter for help here if you give me a helping hand.

GR

[ryde]

b........r

Edited October 4, 2009 by ryde