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

[I'm the bad guy?]

..confirmation ITGG? got renditioned.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

Attempting to bypass the swear filter one post after a cagbot. Tut tut.

 

however I think my ar&3 in relation to the judiciary parliament and back handers may be available under the common law defence of fair comment.

[I'm the bad guy?]

how come EiE ragged on Gallahad, and not so much as a:(

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

penaltychargesforum.co.uk

[Suetonius]

Good Evening ITBG?

 

If you would like to engage in a serious debate, please feel free to post in the equitable vs legal thread, as you previously indicated you would.

 

Just to point you in the right direction here is a link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/210243-mortgage-securitisation-equitable-legal-4.html#post2583767

 

I would respectfully ask you to refrain from making any further personal posts about me.

 

Feel free to attack my ideas but not me.

[Suetonius]

Ryde, I will send you a pm about your posts relating to Carmel Butler

[Crapstone]

I wrote a long post and then daughter tripped my lead and wiped the lot out .

 

EIE. I'm in limbo and with head above water. It doesn't stop me from annoying them though with regular letters and calls. I'm in this for the long run and acting on behalf of everyone that has had the displeasure of crossing their path.

 

Ryde..been there and done that...they know far less than we do and keeping their own interests first. Can't blame them for that..dogs and cats and all that.

 

Behind the scenes action is being taken. Not everything has to be published here or in comment responses to newspaper articles online. Make your case direct..use the letters pages if need be. Make others aware and above all don't be afraid..the worst has already happened if you have products from these companies and Capstone overseeing the fiasco.

 

GR. Always happy to help so don't feel you have to fight anything on your own. Just a friendly ear to swear in always helps!

 

Sue... There is no reason why anyone should make personal comments here or on any board. Attack the post but not the poster otherwise you'll just make yourself look very silly and childish. I would think that arguing amongst ourselves is the last thing that we want and all contributions are welcome.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Crapstone
Spelling....as ever

[ryde]

Have spent several hours looking through northern rock situation through help groups,granite finance etc the legal equitable debate has not been raised at all despite thousands of repos,have also had invaluable info that the continued pursuit of this argument would be fruitless which I gratefully take on board, so sorry for wasting everyones time, will not bring it up again,looking for a miracle I suppose.

Mind you finding one positive, northern rock is a good indication of where things may be heading,what would have happened for instance if they hadn't been bailed out?

Also all the same players were amazingly involved in the whole northern rock debacle ie PWC and Lehmans.

[ryde]

Is this site becoming a haven for insomniacs?!

[wonderman]

Seems you're right Ryde, we're all suffering sleepless nights over this crisis. Any chance you could share that "invaluable info"? Did you receive that info from Suetonius in the PM he sent you?

[ryde]

wonderman pm from suetonius concerned my defence in pending proceedings invaluable info was from a northern rock connection will post link tomorrow once i have relocated it if you like?

[wonderman]

Have spent several hours looking through northern rock situation through help groups,granite finance etc the legal equitable debate has not been raised at all despite thousands of repos,have also had invaluable info that the continued pursuit of this argument would be fruitless which I gratefully take on board, so sorry for wasting everyones time, will not bring it up again,looking for a miracle I suppose.

Mind you finding one positive, northern rock is a good indication of where things may be heading,what would have happened for instance if they hadn't been bailed out?

Also all the same players were amazingly involved in the whole northern rock debacle ie PWC and Lehmans.

 

It seems that Ryde may have a point. Strange that PWC and Lehmans are the same players involved in both the Northern Rock fiasco and SPML. Wonder if there's anything in it, e.g., if it was the same M.O., or whether it's just a coincidence. Point is that both Northern Rock and SPML/Lehmans ended up bankrupt.

[wonderman]

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

 

Thanks for this GR. Very Interesting Case. Aside from all the legal stuff what is most obvious is that the banks really do seem to be the untouchables.

 

The case explains how the banks and their clients "avoid" paying tax and HMRC alleged a tax fraud. But HMRC did not go after the Bank - they went after the little guy (well, this particular little guy was much bigger than us minions, but no matter, he is the little guy as compared with Kleinwort Benson). The principle fraud alleged was the obtaining of signature pages to draft documents and those original signature pages were then used on another document.

 

So HMRC went after the smaller firm, i.e. Mercury Tax Group...but note at para. 27 of the Judgment where HMRC say, "Well in theory, it could have been individuals within Kleinwort Banson, or it could have been individuals within Mercury Tax Strategies", and then goes on to say that on the basis of financial incentives it was more likely to be Mercury. What like Kleinwort Benson didn't have any financial incentives? Oh, and then see para. 46 where the judge discussing one of the documents in evidence says "on the face of it KB and not Mercury - had misrepresented the positioin that affected only the subsequent "unwinding" and not the tax claim itself." So the judge can accept that KB made misrepresentations - ah at last - one small acknowledgement from a judge that the banks do tell lies and fabricate documents!

 

The point here is that if even HMRC are too scared to go after Kleinwort Benson in what I,as a mere mortal PAYE tax payer, consider a criminal fraud on the treasury, then it seems to me that the investment banks, SPV and their client/investors really are the untouchables and don't have to comply with any law.

 

Given up on all our institutions now, seems the powerful are corrupted absolutely and no one will ever break the rot. Think may it's time to leave the country and move to a debtor friendly jurisdiction.

Edited November 18, 2009 by wonderman

[gustavius rex]

Thanks for this GR. Very Interesting Case. Aside from all the legal stuff what is most obvious is that the banks really do seem to be the untouchables.

 

Given up on all our institutions now, seems the powerful are corrupted absolutely and no one will ever break the rot. Think may it's time to leave the country and move to a debtor friendly jurisdiction.

 

 

hi Wonderman,

 

Good of you to read through the referenced judgement. However, l think you missed one very important point and that is the validity of deeds. Anyone here who did not sign the entire mortgage deed, but, only one single page that was inserted by, for example an mortgage advisor, will stand a reasonable chance to have their mortgage deed declared invalid, i.e. the mortgage advisor organsed the whole dingaling and you only signed off on one or two single pages and not the entire deed document. May be very difficult to prove, ut, l am now in such a situation where my deed is invalid as l did not sign or even see the entire true contract deed. Good for me, though, but sh..e for the other party.

GR

[Smarterchick]

hi Wonderman,

 

Good of you to read through the referenced judgement. However, l think you missed one very important point and that is the validity of deeds. Anyone here who did not sign the entire mortgage deed, but, only one single page that was inserted by, for example an mortgage advisor, will stand a reasonable chance to have their mortgage deed declared invalid, i.e. the mortgage advisor organsed the whole dingaling and you only signed off on one or two single pages and not the entire deed document. May be very difficult to prove, ut, l am now in such a situation where my deed is invalid as l did not sign or even see the entire true contract deed. Good for me, though, but sh..e for the other party.

GR

 

Hi GR, sorry to butt in on this, but if the mortgage deed is invalid what does that mean in laymans terms about the mortgage and ownership, liabilities under the mortgage? - Where might I find my original mortgage deed anyway?

[wonderman]

Hi GR,

 

Agreed. That is the main value of the case to borrowers, just wanted to point out those other snippets particularly the fact that a judge has acknowledged that the bank told lies and fabricated documents.

 

But back to the main value of the case: it is worth paying particular attention to para. 36 of the judgment. Whilst the judge rejected the submission in relation to the Mercury case, the proposition of law is good for borrowers.

 

You see, most borrowers have actually suffered prejudice to their legal rights and obligations, so the case of Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Crossseas Shipping is entirely applicable in relation to any mortgagor's contract. Therefore the Raiffeisen case must be an even better case to use than the Mercury case and/or maybe use both the Mercury and the Raiffeisen case together. Can't find the Raiffeisen case on the BAILII web site, but I still think it is probably essential reading if you are going to use this defence.

Edited November 18, 2009 by wonderman

[wonderman]

Hey smarterchick, not a smart question. Your original deed is with your mortgage company of course. You gave the deed to them when you borrowed the money.

[enoughisenough]

I can't find it either though I was able to find that Raiffeisen have a number of other cases in 1999 2000 and 2001. The one I believe were are referring to is an EWCA decision in 2003.

 

I did find this useful summary however.

 

http://www.collyerbristow.com/FileServer.aspx?oID=1360&lID=0

[Smarterchick]

Hey smarterchick, not a smart question. Your original deed is with your mortgage company of course. You gave the deed to them when you borrowed the money.

 

 

Forgive me wonderwoman, but I have seen copies of a single deed document, but I don't recall ever seeing the original, perhaps as it was over 20 yrs ago since I moved in I missed it. I was just trying to see how what is being discussed here fitted in with what I had and the effect it would have if wrong...I'm too used to unenforceable agreements I guess I'll leave you to the technical stuff which I might say, looks hard and impressive to plough through.

[wonderman]

Hi Smarterchick,

 

Apologies if my comment was not at tactful as it should have been. If you are used to unenforceable agreements, then this one should be easy for you. Could you share some tips on your unenforceable agreement experiences with us? It may be of help to many of us.

[enoughisenough]

C'mon guys

 

Can we have a consensus here. Like almost everything else to do with these garbage mortgage products you can bet everything that the paperwork (i.e. legal formalities) were rushed through in order to get yet another mortgage rolled out. Too busy printing the funny money, see? I'll bet my last the deeds, the contracts and just about everything else that gives them the right to enforceability are dodgy in the extreme. That's worth pursuing as the deeds are easy to get hold of. Then one Solicitors opinion in your favour and your inches away from giving them a major effing headache.

[Smarterchick]

Hi Smarterchick,

 

Apologies if my comment was not at tactful as it should have been. If you are used to unenforceable agreements, then this one should be easy for you. Could you share some tips on your unenforceable agreement experiences with us? It may be of help to many of us.

 

You see, even EIE gets hot when we go off topic...if I dare go off topic on this thread Wonderwoman I'll be served up for lunch by the cagbotters....I'll try and lead you to a link on unenforceable agreements, but I just had the thought I could pull one over on my mortgage company...sorry EIE...

[wonderman]

Smarterchick,

 

Just a thought, but correct me if I'm wrong:

 

if you moved into your home over 20 years ago, which means your mortgage is pre-1989, and you've had the same mortgage for over 20 years, then it is doubtful that you're a victim of all this securitisation fraud (unless it is the case that you've need to remortgage in the last few years).

 

Therefore, if your mortgage is pre-1989, then there's probably no point in you worrying about your mortgage deed.

 

I must confess, I don't know much of the technical stuff either, but having read the Mercury case that GR mentioned, it did seem to have something that may be worth following up.

[Smarterchick]

Smarterchick,

 

Just a thought, but correct me if I'm wrong:

 

if you moved into your home over 20 years ago, which means your mortgage is pre-1989, and you've had the same mortgage for over 20 years, then it is doubtful that you're a victim of all this securitisation fraud (unless it is the case that you've need to remortgage in the last few years).

 

Therefore, if your mortgage is pre-1989, then there's probably no point in you worrying about your mortgage deed.

 

I must confess, I don't know much of the technical stuff either, but having read the Mercury case that GR mentioned, it did seem to have something that may be worth following up.

 

Oh I think my mortgage has been securitised via Holmes Financing No 9 or thereabouts, but as Sue says it's probably ( if not definately) all legit and I won't start digressing into that as GR says..no I'll just keep watching and learning from you peeps...keep up the good work.

[wonderman]

Smarterchick,

 

Don't think it's possible to pull one over on a mortgage company. That's their exclusive privilege and forte, they've been pulling one over on us for years.

[Smarterchick]

Smarterchick,

 

Don't think it's possible to pull one over on a mortgage company. That's their exclusive privilege and forte, they've been pulling one over on us for years.

 

 

You don't know me Mrs... :D

 

not so dumb smarterchick