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

[I'm the bad guy?]

..eh? WUF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

bionic

Edited January 27, 2010 by I'm the bad guy?

[wot2do?]

I am sure you posted that if someone answered your question you would leave this thread.

 

So much for your word

[I'm the bad guy?]

..WUF..GFYS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

cyborg

[wot2do?]

TO END ALL QUESTIONS' date=' I OPENLY CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTE ANSWERS TO, WHY THE MORTGAGE SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LENDER AND THE SPV; [u']NEED NOT[/u] UNDER CPR 31.6, BE PRODUCED TO EITHER THE LIP OR THE COURT.

 

ANSWER THIS,

 

AND I WILL LEAVE THIS THREAD

 

PERMANENTLY.

 

 

No doubt someone, can put one of those vote meters up, so all the posters on this thread can vote on the answer. Can it done?

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

GAME OVER

EJECT JACKAL.

 

31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

 

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

 

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

 

(iii) support another party’s case; and

 

 

© the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction

 

The most straight forward approach would be to break it down.

 

• The Legal title to a thing cannot be transferred by contract alone.
  
• Chose in Possession's are transferred by delivery
  
• Chose in Action's by assignment
  
• The Mortgage Sale Agreement is a contract, thus cannot transfer legal title
  

As legal title (including title to sue) cannot pass by contract alone, the Mortgage Sale Agreement is not a document that will adversely affect his case.

 

Meaning that 31.6(b) i, does not apply to the Mortgage Sale Agreement.

 

 

Napiernuts 2

 

ITBG? 0

Final whistles blows and ITBG? is outta here !!!

 

Please don't let the door hit your ass on the way out..

[I'm the bad guy?]

..WUF is a JACKAL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

destroyer

of jackals

[wot2do?]

WUF WUF who let the dogs out ?

[I'm the bad guy?]

..WUF, is the Jackal from the Omen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

ms.constantine

[wot2do?]

Still posting ???

 

Not leaving then WUF WUF

[wot2do?]

GFYS ITGG!

 

 

[I'm the bad guy?]

..the jackal from the Omen, is who let WUF out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

buffy

[littledotty27]

Have some respect for the creator of this thread

 

Yet your still carrying it on Wot2do!!!

[I'm the bad guy?]

..in deference to LD, exfiltrate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

respect

tha vets

[napiernuts]

Post deleted to allow ITBG? to continue to live in his fantasy world.

 

Follow his ill informed and often incorrect advice at your own risk

Edited January 27, 2010 by napiernuts

[napiernuts]

Post deleted to allow ITBG? to continue to live in his fantasy world.

 

Follow his ill informed and often incorrect advice at your own risk

Edited January 27, 2010 by napiernuts

[I'm the bad guy?]

..this thread is a jackal FREE zone,

 

 

so we shall continue on your 'Mortgage Sale Agreements - Disclosure' thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

going

to hell

[I'm the bad guy?]

..made it! back just- got outta hell...as suspected Nappynuts aka SHILL is talk'in a load of boll***s, and a confirmed Jackal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

rage against

the jackals

[ryde]

spv prospectus 2008 EXTRACT as originally posted by eie on a legal/equitable thread 9 months ago.YET AGAIN.

 

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.

 

AS this has still not been addressed this in my opinion is the argument for disclosure and I ain't saying it again.

 

1) Mortgage servicer Capstone has a servicing contract exclusively with the spv(yet to be disclosed)

2)The mortgage contract was signed with the originator in consideration that the loan was a regulated agreement and subject to regulation by the FSA and the applicable law.

3)The originator "superficially"` on paper sold the equitable title to the loan to the spv who through their contractural agreement with Capstone oversee and administer the loan(as proof see the spv accounts and notice to noteholders re sppl))

4)The spv is not authorised by the FSA it is therefore submitted that until the relationships are conclusively established by the disclosure of the following documents(master securitisation agreement,administration agreement etc etc) between the contracting parties and entities involved in these proceedings the regulated mortgage contract signed by the defendant/mortgagor cannot be enforced.(NOTE THE WORD WILL FROM THE ABOVE PROSPECTUS which is in the spvs own words,this is differentiated from the oft used word of MAY)(the bone of contention being that the non regulated spv is conducting a regulated activity which will render the mortgage contract unenforceable, hence the essential requirement for disclosure of the servicing agreement and other related documents)

legal v equitable doesn't need to come into this.

 

This would obviously need to be polished but it seems a bloody overwhelming argument for full disclosure to me.So can it be given the attention ,considering the importance of the subject, it merits .

Please, something constructive and positive ,no sh.te,and keep it on this thread, this is the culmination of 4000+ posts.

Edited January 28, 2010 by ryde

[napiernuts]

Post deleted to allow ITBG? to continue to live in his fantasy world.

 

Follow his ill informed and often incorrect advice at your own risk

Edited January 28, 2010 by napiernuts

[ryde]

Originally Posted by ryde

must be authorised by the FSA, with specific permission required from the FSA to engage in the activity.quote napiernuts

 

These are not my words they are taken directly from the spv prospectus to their investors without alteration, are you saying they have got this badly wrong.?

The argument is that it is the non regulated and beneficial/equitable titleholder the spv who is carrying out these regulated activities hence the contractural agreement exclusively with the mortgage servicer capstone to whom as evidenced by their accounts (and the recently posted notices to noteholders )they give instruction in overseeing the mortgage pool and its performance.The only way to affirm this is for disclosure of the agreement and associated agreements.

 

We need to explore this fully because the end result could be an unenforceable agreement, NIRVANA.

Edited January 28, 2010 by ryde

[ZillaK]

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.

 

I wonder if that might actually be of some use in my situation.. given that the introducer/originator company changed name and the principal, under which they were an appointed representative, was sold before any agreement was executed.. thus having no fsa authorisation on both accounts..

Edited January 28, 2010 by ZillaK
..typo..

[enoughisenough]

Well...

 

I crawled through emotional bloody barbed wire to get this and other stuff on brokerage posted and got told left right and centre it had nothing to do with anything...

 

Ended up nearly dropping off here altogether, BUT, I had the point, I have the point and I'm still making it...finally it seems that some want to look at the regulations and the law and see whether there is mileage in this...it was all I asked.

 

Somewhere on this thread dated early november is a whole breakdown of the brokerage stuff...take a look. It will astound you...people were screaming for coordination here and as soon as I started going through the ABCs all I got was:

 

"No...you can't do it like that...I had a good broker."

 

Hardly the bloody point but thoroughly dispiriting when you have been banging at this from all angles, day in day out, not just here but behind the scenes also.

 

Call me sensitive. I'm not actually. I'm very thick skinned, but will fly off the handle at ill thought out tripe, or walk away from the nonsense because I can't be arsed with it any more.

 

I'll just prove the pessimists right and deal with it as an individual and take what comes. Sod community, because if this is community, I want nothing to do with it.

 

PS applies to all (my wiser self included). Keep the personal crap off this thread. THIS THREAD IS TOO BLOODY IMPORTANT FOR ALL THAT RUBBISH.

 

God give me strength...

Edited January 28, 2010 by enoughisenough

[ryde]

ZILLAK

include it in your defence,you have nothing to lose,it needs to be tested in court and don,t forget you only need to succeed on one count.And they might find great difficulty in answering this.

[ryde]

eie

I agree with the brokerage side fully and there is important precedental case law to support the borrower.There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the broker was in most cases tied to this lot and received a hefty fee for pushing them forward as the only outfits who would grant a "sub prime "(loosely employed) borrower a mortgage.Have absolute evidence of this £2000 up front secret commission.

eie and anyone else

I badly need your input on the disclosure argument and the case for it that has been promoted from your post involving securitisation on the preferred thread nearly 9 months ago in debates with supersleuth!(recently discoverd by accident and before I ever came to this forum)

These 2 issues are absolutely fundamental in my opinion and cannot be lost again until fully tested.

We are talking contract recission and unenforceable agreement here.

legal/equitable not even an issue.

So I would respectfully ask all, please no non essential diversions.

Edited January 28, 2010 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Hi Ryde

 

And thanks for all your excellent contributions. The efforts I put in at the start of the autumn were at the behest of GR who seems to have disappeared. I know he/she had bad stuff going down and in my view has probably been yet another victim of the ****. We never saw exactly eye to eye to put it mildly but there was a lot a common ground also. That was what I was trying to find...I wanted this mapped out from start to finish with all the legal argument and evidence in a nice neat order ready to present for legal opinion.

 

Anyhow that was then. But hopefully we can revive this stuff and get some momentum going again. I think it needs doing, and I swear that I will somehow somewhere find the time to do so, eliciting vital contributions from others such as yourself. But the inane juvenile nonsense has to stop and has to stop here. This is show and tell time. PwC can't sit on this forever. It's now gone to the Supreme Court. The investors will be favoured over whatever the hidden agenda of PwC is. Unless I'm wrong and the SC suddenly strikes a blow for the poor bloody consumer.

 

However I am fully wrapped up for at least the next ten days (though not in a basement this time...I've been given the keys to the penthouse:D) so I can't possibly get this going again any time soon.

 

BUT. Please all bear this in mind. The FSA position on this is rapidly coming to be completely untenable. Are they waiting for the election so that the tories can scrap them? (possibly). Are they holding their fire until something gets stitched up behind the scenes to our mutual detriment? (again quite possibly)

 

Or is there a point of no return which has been forced upon them (Think GMAC-RFC... yes yes yes.. I know (it was a particularly rubbish fine...) by all of this work we and others out there do?

 

Let's hope it is the latter. And let's get this much on board. This year. Our time. Feck the lot of them and let's see them burn.

[ryde]

eie

thanks for above

3 issues for concentration

1) FSA(doh...again)imminent decision on arrears fees supposedly in our favour,gmac case precedental ,use as a defence in any litigation hearing the defence being that until the correct arrears on the loan can be established as a result of this decision any litigation especially repo should be adjourned.

2)brokerage,secret commission, possible recission of contract

3)Disclosure non reg spv pulling the strings unenforceable agreement

ALL AS POSTED ABOVE.

ANYONE WITH A HEARING TRY THE LOT ,NO LOSE SITUATION.