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

[enoughisenough]

May have already been posted but again the term issue raises its head. Note the reference to five years:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Regulator acts on Lehman products

[enoughisenough]

Well after a bit of surfing I've found several disgruntled investors. Hands across the ocean anyone? My enemy's enemy is my friend?

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Lehman investors demand action

[enoughisenough]

I'm getting the distinct impression here that some some kind of repo overdrive roadshow is about to go down.

 

Can we get an idea as to who is in a state of limbo and who has a hearing before the beak in the run up to Christmas. I may have a cunning plan. As I speak I'm in limbo but we all know how quickly that can change. I think everyone of us needs to be battle ready.

 

GR and Ryde appear to have the clock ticking.

Crapstone is in limbo as is EiE.

NABL has come through the other side

Sced has just fought of a vicious action

ITBG - not sure.

Gallahad is fighting for his/her daughter.

We all know Agatha's situ. Wondering what the situ is with Dotty?

Any other posters?

 

If anyone thinks I may be taking a wrong approach here just say so. But I just think that they may be coming after us and want to be ready individually and collectively.

Edited November 17, 2009 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Mr Pain was justifying the FSA's recently announced plan to bring in new rules to restrict mortgage lending.

 

But the CML's chairman said the regulator's plans were too restrictive.

 

"Increasingly, I also have the feeling that regulators see lenders and intermediaries as the sweetshop owners - or worse, the drug-dealers at the school gates - of the mortgage market, enticing innocent consumers in and then getting them hooked, for their own evil profit-driven purposes," said the CML chairman Matthew Wyles

 

Very well put Mr. Wyles. I would struggle to put it any better.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | High-risk mortgage lending rapped

[ryde]

Sounds like the powers that be are all looking for a scapegoat to make an example of and serve as a warning to all others , can you think of a better candidate than the failed evil empire? as far as the authorities are concerned they are and will be non players now in any event ,so nothing to lose.

[enoughisenough]

Well Ryde...forgive my exasperation but they don't have far to look! When are they going to haul this lot in?

 

...gritted teeth...

[ryde]

I,m going to see if I can make contact with the investor group eie posted who were sold dodgy investments by the same seller who sold us the dodgy mortgage (investment product! ) see if i can establish a common link(everything was missold on false promises),thanks for encouragement all,head was down but now bloods up and ready to kill!!no stone wii be left unturned.

http://www.missoldinvestments.co.uk/

This is the link to the uk investor action group, may not be directly linked to our mortgages but still have an axe to grind on misselling.

Nicely put together website ,wonder if they could incorporate us as well?

Edited November 17, 2009 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

all,

 

has anyone else received their CIB, confirmation of investigation of SPML or other you filed online?

 

MP to formally request the directorate of CH and CIB, on the 'trading' status of SPML and other Lehman mortgage entities. It looks like the only 4 companies which have not been put into administration, are the 4 'mortgage companies'; SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL. I wonder why?!

 

 

comments?

 

 

ITBG?

[JonCris]

Crapstone where have I said it wasn't:confused: Mine was a general observation in Walker about the judiciary constantly trying to frustrate the Will of Parliament particularly where the victim is an ordinary citizen. Also one suspects they are doing this with the tacit consent of those in government as most will recall they tried intervention in Wilson without success

[ryde]

Am posting these submissions from carmel butler to treasury select committee I know this is similar to that posted by supersleuth all those months ago.I know it is the old equitable/legal title transfer cookie again but reading this for the first time especially paragraphs 18 and 22 supports the arguments of ITBG and the reasons why EIE wants to see a copy of the sale contract between the Spv eurosail and the investor,because if there is concealment that the legal title has been transferred to the spv eurosail and this has been concealed from everyone else in direct contradiction to what is stated in the eurosail prospectus Pender is dead and not applicable and this lot are truly sunk.

 

We also need to get hold of the form 395 filing by eurosail at companies house,this should be in the public domain.

 

I will use this as part of my defence and put them to the full proof if need be by demanding that they produce the sale contract.

 

 

THE LEGAL RUSE

16. First, the legal ruse. The law provides mortgagees with a statutory power to transfer a legal charge.[112] It is under these statutory provisions that the banks exercise their right to assign the mortgages to the SPVs. In a contract of sale that provides for a disposition[113] of an interest in land, the legal title will be conveyed immediately from the seller to the buyer[114] on the completion date. There can be no doubt that on completion, the buyer has acquired the legal title, but there will inevitably be a "registration gap" between the conveyance date on which the buyer acquired the legal title and the date on which his legal title is registered at H.M. Land Registry. During this registration gap, the law provides that the buyer's title: "does not operate at law until the relevant registration requirements are met".[115]

 

17. This is where the legal ruse comes into play. It is this "registration gap" that the SPV unlawfully exploits in order to conceal its ownership and control of the mortgages. Under the Land Registration Act 2002 ("LRA 2002"), the transferee[116] of a registered charge is required to register at H.M. Land Registry, its ownership of the mortgage that it purchased.[117] Therefore, it is a legal requirement that the SPV register its proprietorship of the mortgage at H.M. Land Registry. Whilst the law implicitly permits the registration gap as a matter of pragmatism, the law also implicitly mandates that the registration requirements are to be observed expeditiously. Nonetheless, in contumacious disregard for its legal duty to comply with the registration requirements of the LRA 2002, the contract of sale expressly provides that the SPV will not register the transfer at H.M. Land Registry indeed, the contract provides that notice of the transfer is to be concealed from the borrowers and H.M. Land Registry and a fortiori concealed from the world[118].

 

18. The suppression and concealment of this information from H.M. Land Registry is a criminal offence[119], and in furtherance of this offence[120], the SPV's legal title to the mortgages is also concealed from the county courts and the Government. The Banks remain registered as the proprietor of the mortgages and accordingly all interested parties are deceived by this concealment with one exception. The SPV does inform its investors that the bank sold its legal title to the SPV (to whom, the right to register the legal title to the mortgages is important). Consequently, the bank appears to be the legal owner, but it is not.

 

19. For example, in the case of Northern Rock as the seller of mortgages, the prospectus states: "under the mortgage sale agreement dated March 26, 2001 entered into between the seller, the mortgages trustee, the security trustee and Funding, the seller assigned the initial mortgage portfolio together with all related security to the mortgages trustee|"[121]. Additionally, under the terms of Northern Rock's mortgage sale agreement, it is, "entitled under the terms of the mortgage sale agreement to assign new mortgage loans and their related security to the mortgages trustee". [122] (bold emphasis added).

 

20. Northern Rock may remain falsely registered as the putative `legal owner' but in truth, Northern Rock is merely the administrator of the mortgage loans. Again the Prospectus states: "The seller acts as administrator of the mortgage portfolio under the terms of the administration agreement, pursuant to which it has agreed to continue to perform administrative functions in respect of the mortgage loans on behalf of the mortgages trustee and the beneficiaries, including collecting payments under the mortgage loans and taking steps to recover arrears."[123] (Bold emphasis added).

 

21. The legal reality is that: (i) Northern Rock sold its legal title to the SPV, in this case, to Granite Finance Trustees Limited[124] and therefore, Granite is the legal owner; (ii) Northern Rock is the administrator of the mortgages and falsely holds itself out as the legal owner of the mortgages; (iii) Granite Finance Trustees Limited should be, but is not, registered as the owner of the mortgage; and (iv) all these facts remain concealed because Granite and Northern Rock have unlawfully contracted to suppress this information from H.M. Land Registry.

 

22. Notwithstanding that the SPV conceals its legal title from H.M. Land Registry, the SPV will, nonetheless, avail itself of, and exercise, all the statutory and contractual legal powers that the legal owner enjoys. For example, the SPV will exercise the legal owner's statutory power to create a legal charge [125] on the borrower's mortgages.

The SPV will file at Companies House a Form 395 "Particulars of a Mortgage or Charge" within the statutory 21 days, to register the Legal Charge that the SPV created against the mortgage loans in favour of the SPV's trustee, as security for the payment of money due to its investors and creditors.[126]

 

23. The SPV's exercise of the legal owner's contractual and statutory legal powers leaves no doubt that SPV is: the legal owner of the mortgages. Nonetheless, the banks and the SPV unlawfully exploit the "registration gap" in a smoke and mirrors tactic to cause confusion and conceal the SPV's legal title. The SPV is the legal owner. The banks are the administrators.

Edited November 17, 2009 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

So, we are back with the legal v equity charge issue. There is no need for the mortgagee to sell the legal title as he can lawfully assign the equitable title to a mortgage. The spv re-packages all the various equitable titles in to tranches and use them as securities against bonds sold on the Irish exchange. The mortgagee holds the titles, but, they are in turn guarantees against the equitable tranches, but, still the ''property'' of the mortgagee. Forget this issue, we will not get anywhere if we start with this rubbish again. They may not be the smartest cookies around at Lehmans, but, this part of the business is for sure as legal as is required.

 

However, there is something new l found out that may be of value to those of you who did not sign off the entire mortgage deed yourself. Anyone who was furnished with a single page of the mortgage deed may have a mortgage agreement that is not legally valid. Check up the 2008 High Court Judgement Mercury Tax Group v HMRC (2008) EWHC 2721/ This is very interesting and may prove of great value to many of you.

GR

[ryde]

GR

legal v equitable just want to tie up the 2 loose ends to make it absolutely and conclusively certain.The debate is well over on this issue apart from this but I have to put it to bed fully once and for all.

Am also looking and hoping I suppose for the

"George Carman moment " having recently read his biography. The missing and vital piece of evidence usually retrieved out of someone's bin and being produced and turning the big libel cases of the eighties at the last moment when all seemed lost, in the high court.Made front page news at the time.It was said "Gorgeous George" as his clients knew him wouldn't clear his throat for less than a grand!

Any caggers live near High Wycombe?

[on*the*case]

Any caggers live near High Wycombe?

 

....and up for a spot of 'bin diving'

[ryde]

Had a quick look at the granite finance prospectus twice as big as eurosail,it appears very similar with northern rock holding the legal title and selling on paper beneficial title to granite,so see earlier post by carmel butler.Also guess who was also involved our old friends Lehmans.There really could be something in this when viewed from another angle and look at what happened to northern rock ?and there is no bail out in our situation.

will look at northern rock securitization documents later seem very similar to our crews but could be much more transparent,any diggers heres the link.

http://companyinfo.northernrock.co.uk/treasury/securitisation/mortgages.asp

 

As lehmans were involved i cannot see there being a great deal of difference between the 2 spvs involved granite finance and in our case. eurosail in the operation.One is a model for the other.

Edited November 17, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Breaking news....

 

Walker v SPPL

 

...highly likely to be appealed in the Supreme Court.

[ryde]

Furher thoughts if carmel butlers assertions are correct every repo undertaken by northern rock which dwarfs the repos by spml and the like would be invalid because they did not possess the title to sue as the legal title to the defaulted mortgage was owned by granite finance!!!!!!!!!!!?????????and was filed under form 395 at companies house by granite finance (the spv)and was only known by the investor/spv and seller/administraor northern rock!!??

Any thoughts?

[gustavius rex]

lf what you say is correct, well then it's most likely good by Northern Rock!!! Which will, of course, not be the case. lnteresting case this. l wonder if anyone is going to pursue this issue?

GR

[enoughisenough]

It won't go away will it? Is it Sue o clock yet?

[enoughisenough]

I should add in order not to be misunderstood. There's quite a few of us who are still in their houses because they couldn't demolish it and therefore reasoned that if that was the other side of the argument and it was ALL we relied upon it would be goodbye keys, hello repo.

 

Of course say the sale documents proved full sale, even though as far as gr says, unnecessary in English law the of course that is a different matter. Until we see one of these though it probably won't stand up in our banker friendly consumer hostile courts.

 

Ryde I was originally after the sale agreement the investors signed to establish whether it defined more closely than the prospectus does the overall term of the investment. This is what I was looking for in pursuit of the argument surrounding all the issues that were previously raised about contractual performance. I hold out no hope of getting one and more pertinently identifying which one would apply to my mortgage. These are the burdens of proof we will be put to. If anyone were to produce the sales docement that included the tranches which included my mortgage which then stated five year redemption gauranteed which then stated true sale- then we have them. A very very very big ask.

Edited November 17, 2009 by enoughisenough
Trying to edit on phone. Waste of time. Ignore typos.

[I'm the bad guy?]

...ITGG? escaped, but caught and renditioned

 

oh what a tangled web we weave..

 

 

 

ITBG?

back

[ryde]

Does anyone know how to get hold of the form 395 that euosail should have filed at companies house within 21 days of securitisation? or how to contact carmel butler?

Will see if there's any northern rock action groups.

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

find your SPV, go to CH site and download the m395

 

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

Opinion seems divided on this. I went to CH and they did not have a clue what I was talking about.

 

Probably didn't want to either... But then I had limited time to argue the toss. An experience alas all too familiar in our courts.

 

If anyone can actually complete this exercise be sure to let me know. Freedom of information request perhaps. Forget SAR. On the other hand ask CH with SAR concerning your title? Then we might get a hold of it

[MARTIN3030]

Earlier post unapproved-please stay on topic avoiding the personal stuff

 

Thanks:)

[Crapstone]

Crapstone where have I said it wasn't:confused: Mine was a general observation in Walker about the judiciary constantly trying to frustrate the Will of Parliament particularly where the victim is an ordinary citizen. Also one suspects they are doing this with the tacit consent of those in government as most will recall they tried intervention in Wilson without success

 

I have no idea what part you refer to JonCris and no wish to argue the ins and out of Parliament or the judicial system. I'd be stupid to think that we weren't being fleeced...law and politics..my ar*e if they are kept apart without back handers.

 

We fight on...