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

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

have you been served notice that **** are going for possession?

 

 

 

ITBG?

[eagleforms]

Ever wondered why there aren't more people on this thread? Could it be because daily vitriolic by the few that seem to have highjacked it keep them away, and childish remarks, like "don't do drugs". I see that there are other related threads and I am joining one of those and I'll let the devoted few chase securitisation, the esoterics of the companies act and all those other red herrings that keep you up at night.

Bye

[ryde]

ITBG

No not yet

eagleforms

Out of desperation trying to explore in vain hope perhaps every possible avenue.ITBG in his defence is probably under the same pressure as most or he wouldn't be here.

He's just a loose cannon but at least for most of the time he's pointed and is firing on all barells directly at the right target.!!!(CAPSTONE AND PALS)

Edited November 23, 2009 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

bye, this thread is for the believers.

 

 

IS IT ME? a'int that right cuz

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

when it comes through, get in touch with IS IT ME? by PM

 

hopefully, he will lead you to safety.

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[I'm the bad guy?]

Delta Dawn, what's that flower you have on,

could it be a faded rose from days gone by..

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

[bach]

eagleforms, lots of people watch and feed this thread.

Believe it or not I am one of them, its been a great debate. and spurred on by us all. Iv been a victim too, but I have quietly watched and supported these guys every step of the way.

 

I do have a brain, I may not offer anything at present, but am taking notes for the future, and have been watching from the beginning with the greatist of interest, and addicted to the thread. Quite ones are the ones to watch !!!

regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lynn

[enoughisenough]

Hi All

 

Much promised and vaunted, much pledged but so little delivery. I have been asked on a number of occasions to post what I had before in terms of a digest of the prospectus. I cannot search back through the whole of this or other threads due to time constraints.

 

However the previous posts were comprised of extracts with my commentary upon what they might mean. Here however (I think) is merely the extracts from a 2008 prospectus, which i prepped in word first maybe with the odd bit of comment. However I'm not trawling back through what is a very long post AGAIN to find emphasis. That's for others who've been asking for this, to do. Done it once not doing it again.

 

Don't worry each propsectus is virtually identical to the others. For those of you requesting this here it is. Sorry I couldn't get my a*** in gear earlier, (except that is to say I did many months ago and posted it up...)

 

Keep the faith.

 

Before we even get into the page numbers

 

The Instruments will be obligations solely of the Issuer and will not be guaranteed by, or be the responsibility of, any other entity.

 

Also

 

In particular, the Instruments will not be obligations of, and will not be guaranteed by, Mortgage Funding 2008-1 Parent Limited (the “Parent”), Preferred Mortgages Limited, Southern Pacific Personal Loan Limited, Langersal No. 2 Limited, Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited, Alliance & Leicester plc, Matlock London (formerly Matlock London Limited), any Branded Lender, any Remote Processor, Preferred Mortgages Collections Limited (“PMCL”), the Collection Account Banks, Vertex Mortgage Services Limited, Lightfoots Solicitors, Homeloan Management Limited, Capstone Mortgage Services Limited

 

 

p.1. THE TRANSACTION OVERVIEW – this differs from previous prospectuses I have seen but the set up is recognisably the same. Note that the Trustee is not identified on the transaction overview. This doesn’t matter though as the Trustee is clearly identified later on.

 

p.2. In this Prospectus:

 

(i) each of SPML and PML, in their respective capacities as sellers of the Loans to the Issuer are referred to as a “Seller” and together the “Sellers”; and

 

(ii) each of SPML, PML, SPPL, Langersal, A&L and Matlock (in their respective capacities as an originator of the Loans), are referred to as an “Originator” and together the “Originators”.

 

No concern should arise from the differentiation between originator and seller. In the common parlance category (ii) were’ flipped’ over to SPML for further sale.

 

p.3. Capstone Mortgage Services Limited (“Capstone”) will be appointed as mortgage administrator (in such capacity, the “Mortgage Administrator”, which expression includes any other the terms of the Master Securitisation Agreement (as defined below) and the mortgage administration agreement set out in schedule 3 of the Master Securitisation Agreement (the “Mortgage Administration Agreement”) to administer the Mortgage Pool as agent for the Issuer and the Trustee (see “The Mortgage Administrator” below). Under the terms of the Delegation Agreements, Capstone will delegate certain of its duties under the Mortgage Administration Agreement to Vertex Mortgage Services Limited (“Vertex”), Homeloan Management Limited (“HML”) and to Lightfoots Solicitors (“Lightfoots”).

 

Watch out for Vertex, HML and Lightfoots appearing over the horizon in the next couple of months.

 

Also p.3: BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited, whose registered office is at One Canada Square, London E14 5AL, will be appointed as trustee for the Noteholders and as trustee for the Residual Certificateholders in relation to their entitlement to RC Distributions (in such capacity, the “Trustee”) pursuant to a trust deed (the “Trust Deed”) to be entered into on or about the Closing Date between the Issuer and the Trustee. The Trustee will hold the security granted by the Issuer under the Deed of Charge for the benefit of, among others, the Instrument holders.

 

p.11: Payments made by Borrowers under the Loans will be made to the Issuer in sterling. As at 5 March 2008, the aggregate Principal Balance of the Loans and their related Collateral Security, to be purchased by the Issuer from the Sellers on the Closing Date, is £999,999,768.44 (the “Initial Mortgage Pool”).

 

p.15: On issue, the A Notes are expected to be rated by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“S&P”) and by Fitch Ratings Ltd. (“Fitch” and, together with S&P, the “Rating Agencies”) as specified on the first page of this document. The B Notes and the Residual Certificates will not be rated

 

p.16.: The Issuer understands that each of the Sellers intends to apply all or part of the amount it receives from the Issuer on the Closing Date in or towards repayment of secured loan facilities granted to its affiliates by an affiliate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

 

p.17: General economic conditions and other factors (which may not affect property values) have an impact on the ability of Borrowers to repay Loans. Loss of earnings, illness, divorce and other similar factors can lead to an increase in delinquencies and bankruptcy filings by Borrowers, which may result in a reduction in payments by such Borrowers on their Loans and could reduce the Issuer’s ability to service payments on the Notes and may reduce the RC Distributions on the Residual Certificates.

 

p.18: The Issuer may not have any rights (under general or contract law) against any solicitors or valuers who, when acting for the Originators in relation to the origination of any Loan, may have been negligent or fraudulent.

 

In the Initial Mortgage Pool approximately 5.81 per cent. of the Loans have characteristics that do not comply with, amongst other things, the Lending Criteria and the standard mortgage documentation referenced in the Mortgage Sale Agreement (such Loans being, the “Non-Compliant Loans”). These Non-Compliant Loans fall broadly into one or more of the following categories:

 

(a) Loans that do not comply with the applicable Lending Criteria;

 

(b) Loans in respect of which inconsistent information was provided to, and/or discovered by, the Originator following the origination of the Loan;

 

© Loans in respect of which certain of the standard documentation, books, records and/or accounts in respect thereto have been destroyed and/or are currently not in the actual possession of the Originator and/or its agents;

 

 

To the extent that any Non-Compliant Loan is determined by a Court to be unenforceable, the Issuer may not be entitled to receive any amounts with respect to principal and/or interest and/or other amounts with respect to such Loan, and may, in circumstances where a Court finds that the Non-Compliant Loans are unenforceable due to an act or omission of the Originator and/or its agent, be required to make payments to Borrowers out of its own funds in an amount determined by a Court.

 

p.20. Monthly payments in respect of Part & Part Loans are comprised of the interest due on both portions of the Loan and the principal repayable on the portion in respect of which the borrower is required to pay both interest and principal. There is no scheduled amortisation of, in relation to the Interest Only Loans, the principal amount, and in relation to the Part & Part Loans, the portion of the principal amount on which the Borrower elects not to repay principal. Consequently, upon the maturity of an Interest Only Loan or a Part & Part Loan, the relevant Borrower will be required to make a “bullet” payment that will represent the entirety of the principal amount then outstanding. The ability of such a Borrower to repay an Interest Only Loan or a Part & Part Loan at maturity frequently depends on such Borrower’s ability to refinance the Property or obtain funds from another source, such as pension policies, personal equity plans or endowment policies. The ability of the Borrower to refinance the Property will be affected by a number of factors, including the value of the Property, the Borrower’s equity in the Property, the financial condition of the Borrower, tax laws and general economic conditions at the time.

 

p.22. Under the terms of the Loans a Borrower will, in certain circumstances, have to pay prepayment charges upon prepayment of a Loan. In certain circumstances, notwithstanding that these prepayment charges are due, no Prepayment Charges Receipts would be received by the Issuer and no additional amounts would be paid to the Residual Certificateholders. Additionally, there are situations where it may not be possible to collect in full the amount of the prepayment charges.

 

ALSO P22 SUPER JC SC ETC TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING AS IT NEEDS DEBUNKING!

 

Legal title to the Mortgages in the Mortgage Pool has remained since origination and will remain: (i) in the case of the SPML Loans, with SPML and in the case of Loans originated by SPPL, with SPPL, as the case may be; and (ii) in the case of the PML Loans, with PML. Subject to the completion of applications to the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Registers of Scotland or the Registers of Northern Ireland, as applicable, for registration of the transfers in favour of SPML, the legal title to the A&L Loans will remain with A&L. On the Closing Date, it is expected that legal title to the majority of the A&L Loans shall have been transferred to SPML.

 

ALSO

 

For so long as neither the Issuer nor the Trustee has obtained legal title, each relevant Legal Titleholder will, pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, undertake for the benefit of the Issuer and the Trustee that it will lend its name to, and take such other steps as may reasonably be required by the Issuer or the Trustee in relation to, any legal proceedings in respect of the Loans originated or acquired by it and their related Collateral Security. In order for legal title to the Mortgages over registered land in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and any land in Scotland to be transferred, transfers and assignations would have to be registered or recorded at the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Land Registry of Northern Ireland or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be given to the Borrowers.

 

P.23: In order to enforce a power of sale in respect of a property, the relevant mortgagee (which may be the relevant Legal Titleholder, the Issuer or the Trustee) must first obtain possession of the Property. Possession is usually obtained by way of a court order although this can be a lengthy and costly process and will involve the mortgagee assuming certain risks. See “Title to the Mortgage Pool - Enforcement Procedures” and “Repossession Procedures” below. If obtaining possession of property in such circumstances is lengthy or costly, the Issuer’s ability to service payments on the Notes would likely be reduced.

 

P24: Following the occurrence of an Event of Default (THE ISSUER NOT THE BORROWER) in relation to the Notes while any of the Loans are still outstanding, the ability of the Issuer to redeem all of the Notes in full will depend upon whether or not the Loans and Collateral Security can be realised to obtain an amount sufficient to redeem the Notes. There is not, at present, an active and liquid secondary market for secured residential mortgage loans of this type in the United Kingdom.

 

P.35 WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY GO?

 

Payments by Borrowers in respect of amounts due under the SPML Loans and the A&L Loans will be made, in the majority of cases by direct debit, into (i) the Mortgage Funding 2008-1 SPML Trust Collection Account; (ii) the Mortgage Funding 2008-1 SPPL Trust Collection Account; (iii) the SPML-NR Specific Collection Account; (iv) the First Mortgage Collection Account; or (v) the Second Mortgage Collection Account.

 

All cleared amounts received from Borrowers will be transferred daily from the Collection Accounts (other than the First Mortgage Collection Account and the Second Mortgage Collection Account) into an account denominated in sterling held in the name of the Issuer at the Account Bank (the “Transaction Account”). Cleared amounts received from Borrowers into the First Mortgage Collection Account and the Second Mortgage Collection Account will be transferred by a nightly automatic transfer into the First Mortgage Redemption Account.

 

PAGES 46 AND 47 – ALL THE COMPANY INFO. REGISTERED ADDRESSES FSA REGULATION OR OTHERWISE AND SO ON.

 

P.50: The Issuer has been established specifically to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans originated by: (i) Matlock (trading as the London Mortgage Company by itself or in association with a Remote Processor); (ii) Langersal; (iii) SPML (by itself or trading as the London Mortgage Company or in association with the Branded Lenders, Correspondent Lenders or Remote Processors); (iv) SPPL (by itself or trading as London Personal Loans); (v) PML (by itself or in association with a Remote Processor); and (vi) A&L, in each case, such acquisition financed by the issue of the Instruments.

 

The Issuer will publish annual reports and accounts, has applied for a consumer credit licence under the CCA and has applied to be registered as a data controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Issuer has not prepared audited financial statements as of the date of this document.

 

p.60 Sale of Loans and Collateral Security

 

Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement, the Sellers will sell and the Issuer will purchase the Loans and Collateral Security comprised in the Initial Mortgage Pool for consideration equal to the aggregate of:

 

(a) an amount equal to £994,169,768, representing:

 

(i) the aggregate Principal Balance of the Loans comprised in the Initial Mortgage Pool as at the Closing Date (excluding, for the avoidance of doubt, the “Aggregate Accrued Interest” being the aggregate amount of interest accrued at the Closing Date but not yet due from each Borrower), which is expected to be approximately £999,999,768

 

As Superseluth has already indicated:

 

This proves two points. Firstly that Preferred have sold the mortgages to the 2008-1 company and secondly, that Preferred have suffered NO LOSS and therefore, as JC advises, there is NO LOSS for the court to remedy and thus, Preferred have NO CLAIM. They have been fully paid for the FULL amount of the balance on your account.

 

p.92: Neither the Issuer nor the Trustee currently intend to effect any registration at the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Registers of Northern Ireland or any registration or recording in the Registers of Scotland to perfect the sale of the Loans and the Collateral Security to the Issuer or the charge of them by the Issuer in favour of the Trustee nor, save as mentioned below, do they intend to obtain possession of the title deeds to the Properties and the Loans and their related Collateral Security.

 

Also

 

notice of the assignment to the Issuer of the Loans and Collateral Security and their subsequent charging or assigning to the Trustee will not be given to the Borrowers.

 

AND FURTHER

 

Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement and the Deed of Charge, each of the Issuer (with the consent of the Trustee) and the Trustee will be entitled to effect such registrations and recordings and give such notices as it, acting in its absolute discretion, considers necessary to protect and perfect the interests respectively of the Issuer (as purchaser) and the Trustee (as chargee) in the Loans and the Collateral Security, inter alia, where (a) it is obliged to do so by law, by court order or by a mandatory requirement of any regulatory authority, (b) an Enforcement Notice (as defined in Condition 9(a) (Events of Default)) has been given, © the Trustee considers that the Charged Property (as defined in the Deed of Charge) or any part thereof is in jeopardy (including due to the possible insolvency of any of SPML, SPPL or PML in each case as Legal Titleholder of the relevant Loans) or (d) any action is taken for the winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation of SPML, SPPL or PML. These rights are supported by irrevocable powers of attorney given by, among others, the Issuer, SPML, SPPL and PML.

 

The effect of (i) not giving notice to the Borrowers of the sale of the relevant Loans and their Collateral Security to the Issuer and the charging of the Issuer’s interest in the Loans and their Collateral Security to the Trustee and (ii) the charge of the Issuer’s rights thereto in favour of the Trustee pursuant to the Deed of Charge taking effect in equity (or extending over the Issuer’s beneficial interest) only, is that the rights of the Issuer and the Trustee may be, or may become, subject to equities as well as to the interests of third parties who perfect a legal interest prior to the Issuer or the Trustee acquiring and perfecting a legal interest.

 

Until the legal interest of the Issuer or, as the case may be, the Trustee, has been perfected, the Issuer, or as the case may be, the Trustee may also need to join the relevant Legal Titleholder in any legal proceedings taken against the relevant Borrower. The Borrower is also entitled to set-off (or exercise any analogous rights in Scotland) any amounts owing to the relevant Legal Titleholder in respect of such Loan against any other amount owed by the relevant Legal Titleholder to such Borrower.

 

The risk of such equitable and other interests leading to third party claims obtaining priority to the interests of the Issuer or the Trustee in the Loans and the Collateral Security is likely to be limited to circumstances arising from a breach by the relevant Legal Titleholder or the Issuer of its or their contractual or other obligations or fraud or mistake on the part of the relevant Legal Titleholder or the Issuer or their respective officers, employees or agents (if any).

 

p.98: Save in respect of certain of the Non-Compliant Loans, each relevant Originator has procured that since the making of any Loan full and proper accounts, books and records have been kept showing clearly all material transactions, payments, receipts and proceedings relating to such Loan and its Collateral Security as a Prudent Mortgage Lender would keep and all such accounts, books and records are up to date, accurate in all material respects and have been kept to standards acceptable to a Prudent Mortgage Lender and in the possession of the Mortgage Administrator or held to its order (subject to the provisions of the Deed of Charge).

 

p.100A court order under Section 126 of the CCA is necessary to enforce a land mortgage or heritable security securing a credit agreement to the extent that the credit agreement is regulated by the CCA or treated as such or is a regulated mortgage contract under the FSMA that would otherwise have been regulated by the CCA or treated as such.

 

P.102 The Block Buildings Policies are underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc (registered number 93792) whose registered office is at St. Mark’s Court, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1XL or Sterling Insurance Company Limited whose registered office is at Ambassador House, Surrey, TW9 1SQ.

 

p.105: Any person carrying out a regulated activity, unless an exemption is available, must be authorised by the FSA, with specific permission required from the FSA to engage in the activity. If requirements as to authorisation and permission of lenders and brokers or as to issue and approval of financial promotions are not complied with, a regulated mortgage contract will be unenforceable against the borrower except with the approval of a court.

 

p.106: In January 2007, the FSA published a statement of good practice on mortgage exit administration fees (“MEAF”). The FSA articulates some principles of fairness and states that the practical application of those principles goes to (a) clarity in contract terms, (b) evidence of justifiable increases and relevant costs and © avoiding the use of terms that put the “burden of proof” as to whether a MEAF is unfair onto customers. In other words, FSA authorised persons are responsible themselves for determining what is fair as would be judged from the stand point of a reasonably minded customer.

 

Under Section 150 of the FSMA, a private borrower is entitled to claim damages for loss suffered as a result of any contravention by an authorised person of an FSA rule. In the case of such contravention by an originator, a borrower may claim such damages against the originator, or set off the amount of such claim against the amount owing by the borrower under the loan agreement or any other loan agreement that the borrower has taken from the originator. Any such set-off may adversely affect the ability of the Issuer to make payments to Instrument holders

 

The Non-Status Lending Guidelines for Lenders and Brokers (the “Guidelines”) issued by the OFT in July 1997 and revised in November 1997 apply to all secured loans made to “non-status borrowers”, defined for the purposes of the Guidelines as borrowers with a low or impaired credit rating or who might otherwise find it difficult generally to obtain finance from traditional sources on normal terms and conditions. Most of the Borrowers would be so regarded.

 

However, where the lender is FSA authorised, the FSA has said that “if we become aware of unfair practices in a non-regulated area of a firm's business, we would then question whether fairness is part of a firm's corporate culture and look at the regulated areas of the firm”.

 

p.107: The Guidelines are designed to promote transparency in all dealings with borrowers, requiring clear contract terms and conditions to be provided promptly with full explanations of all fees and charges payable by the borrower in connection with the mortgage.

 

The actions of any broker or other intermediary involved in marketing a lender’s products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, and the Guidelines make clear that lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that such brokers and other intermediaries comply with the Guidelines and all relevant statutory requirements. This is so even if the lender has no formal or informal control or influence over the broker.

 

Charges payable on any early redemption (in whole or in part) are also dealt with in the Guidelines. Essentially, partial repayments must be permitted and any early repayment charges must do no more than cover the costs reasonably incurred by the lender in processing the payments and cover reasonable losses arising from the prepayment.

 

The Guidelines state that lenders should discontinue the use of the “Rule of 78” in non-status loans unregulated by the CCA on the basis that it can be unfair and oppressive and should not apply it rigidly to existing loan agreements without a cap to ensure that payments on early redemption are not excessive. The “Rule of 78” was a method of apportioning interest in a way that front-loaded interest payments to the detriment of borrowers making early repayments.

 

The Guidelines also state that inclusion of an annual flat interest rate, in cases where the amount of interest component of the payment made by the borrower on each payment date under the loan is calculated on the basis of the full amount drawn under the loan, rather than the principal amount outstanding from time to time under the loan, should be avoided.

 

In addition, the Guidelines discourage lenders from charging a higher interest rate on default on the basis that it is unfair and oppressive. Any administrative charges incurred on default (or as a result of a partial repayment of principal) must be reasonable, covering the lender’s administrative costs only, and must be set out in the documentation.

 

Arrears must be dealt with sympathetically and positively and monitored closely, with repossession taking place only as a last resort. Additionally, the requisite court proceedings should not be instituted unless all other avenues have failed.

 

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “1999 Regulations”) and (in so far as applicable) the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (together with the 1999 Regulations, the “Regulations”) apply to agreements made on or after 1 July 1995 and apply to all or almost all of the Loans.

 

The Regulations provide that: (a) a consumer may challenge a standard term in an agreement on the basis that it is “unfair” within the Regulations and therefore not binding on the consumer; and (b) the OFT, the FSA and any other “qualifying body” (as defined in the 1999 Regulations) may seek to enjoin (or, in Scotland, interdict) a business against relying on unfair terms, although the rest of the agreement will remain enforceable if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

 

P.109: Any credit agreement that is wholly or partly regulated by the CCA or treated as such has to comply with requirements under the CCA as to licensing of lenders and brokers, documentation and procedures of credit agreements, and (in so far as applicable) pre-contract disclosure. If it does not comply with those requirements, then to the extent that the credit agreement is regulated by the CCA or treated as such, it may be unenforceable against the borrower:

 

(a) without an order of the OFT, if the lender or any broker does not hold the required licence at the relevant time;

 

(b) without a court order in other cases and, in exercising its discretion whether to make the order, the court would take into account any prejudice suffered by the borrower and any culpability of the lender.

 

 

p.110: From 6 April 2008, for agreements made (or changed such that a new contract is entered into) the £25,000 limit under the CCA will be removed. However, loans made wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on by the debtor will remain subject to a £25,000 limit. It will also be possible for high net worth borrowers to opt out of the protections (except as regards unfair relationships) under the CCA.

The CCA 2006 also amends the CCA by: (a) strengthening the licensing regime; (b) changing the grounds for challenging a credit agreement, from “extortionate credit bargain”, to “unfair relationship” between the lender and the borrower (with retrospective effect on existing agreements from 6 April 2008); © extending the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to licence-holders under the CCA; and (d) extending post-contract transparency requirements.

 

pp113-114: Under the Unfair Practices Directive, a commercial practice is to be regarded as unfair if it is: (a) contrary to the requirements of professional diligence; and (b) materially distorts or is likely to distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer who the practice reaches or to whom it is addressed (or where a practice is directed at or is of a type which may affect a particular group of consumers, the average consumer of that group). In addition to the general prohibition on unfair commercial practices, the Unfair Practices Directive contains provisions aimed at aggressive and misleading practices and a list of practices which will in all cases be considered unfair.

 

[ryde]

eie

thanks for that and your efforts in annotating the relevant parts.

quote:

This proves two points. Firstly that Preferred have sold the mortgages to the 2008-1 company and secondly, that Preferred have suffered NO LOSS and therefore, as JC advises, there is NO LOSS for the court to remedy and thus, Preferred have NO CLAIM. They have been fully paid for the FULL amount of the balance on your account.

Until the legal interest of the Issuer or, as the case may be, the Trustee, has been perfected, the Issuer, or as the case may be, the Trustee may also need to join the relevant Legal Titleholder in any legal proceedings taken against the relevant Borrower. The Borrower is also entitled to set-off (or exercise any analogous rights in Scotland) any amounts owing to the relevant Legal Titleholder in respect of such Loan against any other amount owed by the relevant Legal Titleholder to such Borrower.

 

Is this not saying if the legal titleholder cannot take action against the mortgagor the trustee or spv will join in the action(would just entail a transfer of the legal title from pml to trustee or spv)so although pml may have no claim because they have been paid,the spv will have title transferred and take up the same action,so whatever the case from every angle we're stuffed,on this point.

Will look through rest later

[enoughisenough]

PS

 

In order not to have accusations of hypocrisy levelled at me I have discussed and offered a number of postings digesting this double talk as well. It's always a question though of whether people want to listen, read, learn and act upon sound premises or dodgy ones.

[enoughisenough]

I believe we are stuffed from a transfer point of view. Virtually everything these days right down to an hp agreement for a bloody sofa is securitised. The whole financial system cannot and will not allow a claim to succeed on this basis. It's a cordon sanitaire. Full stop. Fairness is virtually the only rotten game in town. However sceds earlier posts make for very interesting reading.

 

I'm all up for cranking the pressure up on the barstewards.

[ryde]

eie

hoping flattery will get me everywhere.

Could you apply your excellent analytical mind to my conundrum.

pml are trying to register their legal title on a property on which i have a restriction preventing this.

If they have securitized the mortgage which they deny ,they have been paid and have no title to bring a claim as they are not the legal titleholder(because the title has not been registered both they and the spv to whom they sold the loan are equitable owners,in fact they aren,t anything because they have sold it!!!! suppose thats why they are denying the loan has been securitized!!!!get your head around that one! driven me to the brink of insanity.

eie:quote.

I'm all up for cranking the pressure up on the barstewards.

I'll second that, just keep ITBG pointed in the right direction he's out for blood and mayhem,sounds like he has a transcript of capstones motivational speeches to their staff and has adopted their battle cry.

NO MERCY!

Edited November 24, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

SCED

Ask Companies house why pml etc are receiving preferential treatment?

If capstone are collecting all these arrears fees and charges for spml/pml they should be being paid directly into their bank accounts,one possible reason why they haven,t submitted accounts is that all these charges ARE NOT IN FACT BEING PAID INTO THEIR ACCOUNTS WHICH AMOUNTS TO FALSE ACCOUNTING AND TAX EVASION.

CAN someone please post exactly how much they are paying in arrears fees for missing 1 payment and assuming capstone have instructed solicitors.Whats the maximum they can charge you.??

[littledotty27]

CAN someone please post exactly how much they are paying in arrears fees for missing 1 payment and assuming capstone have instructed solicitors.Whats the maximum they can charge you.??

 

We are being charged £41.25 every month & litigation fees have been anything between £300 upto £1200.

Edited November 24, 2009 by littledotty27
typo

[enoughisenough]

Well anyone who has received their new tariffs for January 2010 onwards knows that they have breathtaking arrogance especially in the light of GMAC-RFC and the criticism of these charges from just about every quarter including the usual suspects like the CAB, Which? and Shelter but also from the great regulatory triumvirate and the TSC.

 

Litigation Management Fee. £115.00. This they apply whenever the hell they feel like it, which is as often as possible.

 

Even when they 'waive' it, which is sooo nice of them don't you think you can never be sure they won't just say oops we haven't slapped one on this poor fecker for a while. Let's TRY IT ON!

 

Monthly arrears fee. Mmm what figure can we pluck out of the ether? £50? BRILLIANT. That sounds right!

 

Arrears interest. Now the key to this one is to make it small and very precise so they won't really notice. It will be impossible to verify, we can stack it up on the back of the unlawful charges and then charge arrears interest on the arrears interest. £14.08? GENIUS! Don't forget to spin the wheel!

 

Legal fees. Everyone's a winner baby that's no lie. Charge them several hundred quid even if we bottled it at the final hurdle. Oh and always send them a letter with the detailed itemisation of costs enclosed. Only you can't include it because it doesn't exist. Get it? Funny? Absolutely hilarious and obviously in keeping with MCOB TFC and the rest.NOT.

 

What astounds me is that all this is happening under the noses of our tough talking eunech featured regulators. Well it's fast becoming crunch time for Sants, Pain, Titcomb, Fingleton et al. Show us your yarbles, that's if yer have any to show. Which on the current "business as usual" siren call for yet more charges from Capstone is a resounding NO!

Edited November 24, 2009 by enoughisenough

[I'm the bad guy?]

just going over PWC administration report(22ndOct) on Mable Commercial Funding Ltd-the parent of Resetfan Ltd>SPML/PML/LMC/PML and Capstone subsidiaries.

 

just as I suspected, PWC gonna drag this one out, at least til 30th Nov 2010. they are lying Jackals, say'in the report that Mables subsidiaries 'the majority which are still solvent', yeah! I believe you- I guess that's why you don't need any directors in LMC/SPPL- because they're SO SOLVENT they are run by their own bull****

 

alot in this one, looks like they are going to set up a Lehmans Asset management company(as earlier reported), Capstone to continue as scumbags.

what was most important though, from the revenues received, they were NOT from the mortgage assets, but from other investments; in fact from SEPT08-SEPT09 Mable pulled in £15million.

 

So with over 80,000 Lehmans mortgages, in a year, PWC could only collect £15m- that because you feckers are allowing the SPVs to collect all the mortgage payments. Criminal Cabal.

 

if someone can tell me how to PDF up the report, will do- this is on its way to CIB/CH etc.

 

fear not- we will SHUT'EM DOWN!

 

 

 

ITBG?

war com'in

[scedminc]

ITBG,

 

If you download and install CutePDF - Create PDF for free, Free PDF Utilities, Save PDF Forms, Edit PDF easily. then you can just print it as usual but select the cutepdf printer.

 

Failing that send the link and I will PDF it for you as I have Acrobat Pro then I will upload it.

 

Sced

[I'm the bad guy?]

Sced,

 

will give it a go

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

I have personally been flailing about with this whole concept for many months now (to the brink of certification!) and think I am at last beginning to get a grip on the whole concept relating to this situation and these lenders.Please correct me if I am wrong.

1)SPML/PML have submitted no accounts since november 2006,question has to be asked why? They are being administered by auditors for chrissakes,why incur uneccessary penalties?

2)Their various parents Lehmans,Mable funding etc are all in administration

3)Eurosail in its various identities is unable to service its investors hence all the posted notices,the liquidity funds have dried up.

4)Capstone are diverting vast sums by way of arrears charges and fees from the mortgage payments due to the spv .

5)These arrears fees are supposed to be collected for and paid into the originators account(ie spml/pml) but I believe capstone are swallowing them up as administrative fees and as a tax avoidance scheme(capstone have 450 employees spml/pml have none)

6)The paper company originators are being kept afloat as their failure would see the legal titles of the mortgage portfolio passing to the spv and a huge sdlt bill.

To all intents and purposes this appears to be one huge tax [problem] with the mortgagors,the spv,hmrc and consequently the investor as the victims.The only winner being capstone.

Edited November 24, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

ITBG

Think you've frightened everyone off!!

How about the Revenue angle?

Massive tax evasion here I am sure, one big reason for no accounts,haven't cooked the books properly yet.Bet all the arrears fees go straight into capstones account as admin charges rather than spml/pml account.Also bet spv payments are dwindling daily,capstones chunk getting ever larger , they're not inventing arrears to pay the spv thats for sure.

Edited November 24, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by ITBG?

 

So with over 80,000 Lehmans mortgages, in a year, PWC could only collect £15m- that because you feckers are allowing the SPVs to collect all the mortgage payments. Criminal Cabal.

 

Followed by:

 

Originally posted by Ryde

 

Also bet spv payments are dwindling daily

 

So, if I understand this correctly we 'feckers' are continuing to pay the SPV whose payments are dwindling daily.

 

I realise this comes from two posters not one. However some clarity needs to be developed here. Are the SPV's payments dwindling daily? How do we know? Where are the Eurosail accounts? Are Capstone paying the SPV? Or have they stopped doing that?

 

There is also the possibility that both quotes are correct in which case I'll just go back to reading Lewis Carroll.

[ryde]

eie

In support of my post which is a value judgement I submit this link for both your and other caggers consideration.

here: for just one of the eurosail vehicles and there are many more.

http://www.investegate.co.uk/articlePrint.aspx?id=200910271647404673B

 

this is prime ie a+ rated mortgagors some 300 million pounds worth, liquidity facility provider has refused to provide liquidity,why the request by the spv? because the fund is not servicing the returns to the noteholders.Why ? because of mortgagors default either personally or this is caused/created directly by capstone and administrative costs/charges levied on accounts reducing payments to the spv at source,what other reason?

Edited November 25, 2009 by ryde

[Crapstone]

Can someone tell me when you miss one payment how much you have to pay capstone in total because you are 1 month in arrears? and they have instructed a solicitor,ie what is the maximum amount you,d have to pay.

Also having a quick look at the law seems there is no mandatory striking or dissolution of companies for not filing acounts on time just escalating fines and consequences for the directors.

 

 

If you have a payment plan in place they shouldn't charge you anything. The max. amount they state, after solicitors and for being in arrears by 1/3 of the monthly statement is £115. But they charge this even when they get their maths wrong and the situation.

 

Tomorrow we will see what the court has to say about unfair charges.

[Crapstone]

If anyone has current mortgage problems then forget the complex issues of securitisation. Save the roof over your head first and ask questions later. Do challenge the fees and charges applied if they are included in your arrears figure which is presented to the court. Your arrears should only contain payments missed and do question fees being applied after a suspended repossesion. Take the list of charges to court with you and ask that they be suspended otherwise your chance of repaying is compromised if they insist on £115 per month in charges but the court orders your payment to be £50 per month.

[ryde]

Thanks crapstone nice to see you back thought Itbg had frightened everyone off!