Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Shein has been linked to unethical business practices, including forced labour allegations.View the full article
    • Hi I have to agree with @unclebulgaria67 post#3 For the funding side of moving to a new area and it being private supported accommodation I would also suggest speaking to private supported accommodation provider about funding but also contact the Local Council for that area and have a chat with them about funding because if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit certain Supported Accommodation that meets a certain criteria is treated as ‘exempt accommodation’ for Housing Benefit purposes but you need to confirm this with that relevant Council in your new area especially since it is Private Supported Accommodation as each Council can have slightly different rules on this. If you have a certain medical condition look up the charities and also have a wee chat with them as they may be able to point you to different Grants to assist with moving costs and your question about funding for private supported accommodation as well.
    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1125 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

leeds

 

have you sent a SAR notice to this company

 

last time i asked them for this they said there would be a charge of £35 for this information and that was just for the arrears information and nothing else

i have noticed your template letter which states about a £10 fee does this apply in this case

at the moment things are going ok and they agreed to reinstate the £40 monthly and not take any more of for the insurance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Little Dotty

Yes I have got a letter from SPPL informing me that Capstone is taking over as administrators as of the date of the letter . I signed my agreement fo the loan on the 5th of september 2006. The letter I received from them was also dated the 5th of September 2006 which I received about 2 weeks later. I am sure I did notice somewhere that capstone took over in february 2006. Hope this helps I will find the letter with the exact wording on it and post it up okay thanku cher69

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something but why can SPML/Capstone or whoever not be entitled to sell on your mortgage? As long as you are duly notified and the new owner has bought it legally and maintains the agreement with you as a regulated mortgage why is this fact in itself a basis/reason for class action etc?

 

Please clarify - thanks.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something but why can SPML/Capstone or whoever not be entitled to sell on your mortgage? As long as you are duly notified and the new owner has bought it legally and maintains the agreement with you as a regulated mortgage why is this fact in itself a basis/reason for class action etc?

 

Please clarify - thanks.

 

SPML/Capstone sell your mortgage on the quiet,then ask you to note some other company on the buildings insurance(as 1st mortgagee) & pay into their account,but the company they want you to pay to is unregulated with the FSA. Therefore your mortgage has gone from a regulated to an unregulated mortgage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Little Dotty

I just found the letter now and it is dated the 5th of September 2006 but it was posted at least 2 weeks after that date. I signed my agreement for the loan on the exact same date the 5th of September 2006. The letter the first letter i ever received from them and it is on Capstone Headed Paper not SPPL and it is in fact mainly detailing my new loan. giving info onbrokers fees etc. it is only when you get to the back page, as if it were an afterthought they have put the following ("Please note that from the 1st of February 2006 until further notice, the administration of this secured loan will be undertaken by Capstone Mortgage Services Limited, a company which forms part of the same group as SPPL") and that is it . I will check the insurance next okay cher

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Little dotty

The only reference to insurance is on the back of the original SPPL headed agreement that I signed. Where it states the following-: The borrower must ensure that we are either a joint insured party under the insurance policy or that our inerest in the property is noted on the insurance policy. (This is the only reference to insurance I can find) hope this helps .!!Cher

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Dotty

I just remembered that on a couple of occasions when discussing the arrears onthe telephone Capstone have mentioned a company called CAPITA around the 17th of October 2007 and another company called RESETFAN was also mentioned. Unfortunately in my notes it does not say who they are. Cher

Link to post
Share on other sites

SPML/Capstone sell your mortgage on the quiet,then ask you to note some other company on the buildings insurance(as 1st mortgagee) & pay into their account,but the company they want you to pay to is unregulated with the FSA. Therefore your mortgage has gone from a regulated to an unregulated mortgage.

Hi LD.

I'm sure you know which side I'm on so you won't mind my questioning as this is for the good of us all.:)

 

Are you sure that because the new mortgage owner is not 'regulated' by the FSA, this automatically makes the mortgage contract unregulated? That may well be the case but it seems shocking that a mortgage company, daft as many of them are, would be as brazen as to pull such a clear cut and provable breach of contract. The last I heard (and I'm no expert), every residential mortgage in the UK, since Oct 2004, has to be regulated by the FSA.

 

If the mortgage is no longer 'regulated', there are grounds there for some type of action, though not sure what. There are then lots of questions:

1. Would a judge invalidate the sale of the mortgage and order return to the original mortgagee?

2. Would a judge deem the breach sufficient for the mortgage itself to be cancelled?

3. Is court the best/first port of call for actions like this or is it the lender first and then the FSA and then possibly court?

4. What is the impact of this on those who

i. Are currently facing repossession hearings

ii. Have suspended repossession orders

iii. Have already been repossessed

5. Does it matter if the mortgage owner is not regulated? What if the administrator is regulated but the new owner is not? Could that be their way around that problem?

 

I'd be really surprised to find that the money lenders have indeed shot themselves so magnificently, I suspect there's more to it and they've covered themselves...somehow :confused: ..(similiar to the securitisation debate when the issues of equitable vs legal assignment were brought to the fore)

 

Very interested to hear anyone's views on this though.

Edited by bustthematrix

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulated mortgage agreement under the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2000.

 

The FSMA 2000 Act gives rise to the following:

 

Entering into, advising on, administering and arranging regulated mortgage contracts (including arranging and advising on variations to such contracts) are regulated activities under the FSMA (together with agreeing to do any of these things). 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 have had a request to pay SPV & have them noted as 1st mortgagee on the buildings policy.

The only way to disclose this further information is to have the court order disclosure of mortgage sale agreement,mortgage administration agreement & master securitisation agreement.

The administrators have already shot themselves in the foot by disclosing the info they already have.

If the spv only owns equitable title,why would they request to be noted as 1st mortgagee?

 

The above FSMA Act basically states what happens if company are not regulated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello LD, remember that SPPL was a 2nd charge lender (CCA regulated where applicable rather than FSA) and as per your post the issuer is MORTGAGE FUNDING 2008-1 PLC.

 

Mortgage Funding 2008-PLC has a consumer credit licence.

 

Licence Number:0615142

Licence Status:Current

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration Number Mortgage Funding 2008-1 Plc6505910

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Credit reference agency Debt adjusting/counselling Debt collecting

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suetonius

 

The spv that has been requested on my buildings insurance policy is Mortgage Funding 08-1BL, I don't have a 2nd charge loan,only a 1st charge with SPML, they might be CCA regulated but not FSA regulated.

 

Hello LD, remember that SPPL was a 2nd charge lender (CCA regulated where applicable rather than FSA) and as per your post the issuer is MORTGAGE FUNDING 2008-1 PLC.

 

Mortgage Funding 2008-PLC has a consumer credit licence.

 

Licence Number:0615142

Licence Status:Current

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration Number Mortgage Funding 2008-1 Plc6505910

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Credit reference agency Debt adjusting/counselling Debt collecting

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suetonius

 

The spv that has been requested on my buildings insurance policy is Mortgage Funding 08-1BL, I don't have a 2nd charge loan,only a 1st charge with SPML, they might be CCA regulated but not FSA regulated.

 

Hello again LD,

 

This makes interesting reading

 

http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/docs/2001/mortgage_response.html

 

In the light of these discussions, the construction of the RAO was changed. It no longer relies upon the exercise of rights by a rights holder as a regulated activity. Instead, the RAO focuses on administering the mortgage, and this will be a regulated activity, in addition to ‘entering into a regulated mortgage contract as lender’. The RAO defines administration as notifying the borrower of changes in interest rates or payments due under the contract, or of other matters of which the contract requires, and taking necessary steps to collect or recover payments....

 

The RAO details the following as regulated activities as per s.22 of the FSMA 2000

 

(a) accepting deposits (article 5);

(aa) issuing electronic money (article 9B);

(b) effecting contracts of insurance (article 10(1));

© carrying out contracts of insurance (article 10(2));

(d) dealing in investments as principal (article 14);

(e) dealing in investments as agent (article 21);

(f) arranging (bringing about) deals in investments (article 25(1));

(g) making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments (article 25(2));

(ga) arranging (bringing about) regulated mortgage contracts (article 25A(1));19, 30

(gb) making arrangements with a view to regulated mortgage contracts (article 25A(2));19, 30

(gc) arranging (bringing about) a home reversion plan (article 25B(1));17

(gd) making arrangements with a view to a home reversion plan (article 25B(2));17

(ge) arranging (bringing about) a home purchase plan (article 25C(1));17

(gf) making arrangements with a view to a home purchase plan (article 25C(2));17

(gg) operating a multilateral trading facility (article 25D);31

(gh) arranging (bringing about) a regulated sale and rent back agreement (article 25E(1));32

(gi) making arrangements with a view to a regulated sale and rent back agreement (article 25E(2));32

(h) managing investments (article 37);

(ha) assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance (article 39A);30

(i) safeguarding and administering investments (article 40); for the purposes of the permission regime, this is sub-divided into: (i) safeguarding and administration of assets (without arranging);

(ii) arranging safeguarding and administration of assets;

 

(j) sending dematerialised instructions (article 45(1));

(k) causing dematerialised instructions to be sent (article 45(2));

(l) establishing, operating or winding up a collective investment scheme (article 51(1)(a)); for the purposes of the permission regime, this is sub-divided into: (i) establishing, operating or winding up a regulated collective investment scheme;

(ii) establishing, operating or winding up an unregulated collective investment scheme;

 

(m) acting as trustee of an authorised unit trust scheme (article 51(1)(b));

(n) acting as the depositary or sole director of an open-ended investment company (article 51(1)©);

(o) establishing, operating or winding up a stakeholder pension scheme (article 52 (a)33 );

(oa)31 providing basic advice on stakeholder products31 (article 52B);10

(ob) establishing, operating or winding up a personal pension scheme (article 52(b));33

(p) advising on investments (article 53); for the purposes of the permission regime, this is sub-divided into: (i) advising on investments (except pension transfers and pension opt-outs);

(ii) advising on pension transfers and pension opt-outs;

 

(pa) advising on regulated mortgage contracts (article 53A); 19, 30

17(pb) advising on a home reversion plan (article 53B);

17(pc) advising on a home purchase plan (article 53C);

(pd) advising on a regulated sale and rent back agreement (article 53D);32

(q) advising on syndicate participation at Lloyd's (article 56);

® managing the underwriting capacity of a Lloyd's syndicate as a managing agent at Lloyd's (article 57);

(s) arranging deals in contracts of insurance written at Lloyd's (article 58);

(sa) entering into a regulated mortgage contract (article 61(1));19, 30

(sb) administering a regulated mortgage contract (article 61(2)); 19, 30

17(sc) entering into a home reversion plan (article 63B(1));

17(sd) administering a home reversion plan (article 63B(2));

17(se) entering into a home purchase plan (article 63F(1));

17(sf) administering a home purchase plan (article 63F(2));

(sg) entering into a regulated sale and rent back agreement (article 63J(1));32

(sh) administering a regulated sale and rent back agreement (article 63J(2));32

(si) meeting of repayment claims (article 63N(1)(a));34

(sj) managing dormant account funds (including the investment of such funds) (article 63N(1)(b));34

(t) entering as provider into a funeral plan contract (article 59);

(u) agreeing to carry on a regulated activity (article 64);

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was reading last night but was too tired to log where i had read that special dispensation was granted in respect to MORTGAGE EXPRESS AND NORTHERN ROCK HENCE THE NORTHERN ROCK GRANIT FUND will find it but the basis of what i read was that the goverment of the day wMX and NR would receive their protection and would be free of any injunctions laid against them.... just annoyed where ive put the file,, what has this to do with spml maybe nothing but maybe a lot

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue would you please help me and others with the following:

1)Could you explain your last post in plain English are you saying the spv doesn't need to be regulated?if not why not?

 

2)Can you provide a link for people to find out if their spv holds a CCA licence

 

3)What does it mean licenced to hold clients money where can this be found out?

 

4)The borrower has to receive a s136 LOP1925 notification from their lender for their assigned mortgage to their spv to change from equitable to legal assignment.What is your opinion that this could be applied under LRA 2002 under Offences etc.

 

123 Suppression of information

(1) A person commits an offence if in the course of proceedings

relating to registration under this Act he suppresses information with the intention of—

(a) concealing a person’s right or claim, or

 

COULD IT BE ARGUED THAT BUT FOR THE S136 WHICH THE SPV INSTRUCTS THE ORIGINATOR NOT TO SEND TO THE BORROWER BECAUSE THEY DELIBERATELY DO NOT INTEND TO PERFECT THE SALE APPLIES HERE AND IS SUPRESSION OF THE TRUE SALE BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS THEY RECEIVE FROM THIS SUPRESSION

(b) substantiating a false claim

 

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to

both.

 

Based on the spvs statement to its investors in the prospectus.

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.Is this supression under the lra 2002 for the benefit of avoiding regulation,registration fees taxes etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello LD, firstly sorry for the delay in responding I am unable to access forums during the day and for some reason, I was unable to access CAG until now so this is the first opportunity I have had to respond.

 

Ok, secondly I will try my best to respond the points you have made.

 

Sue would you please help me and others with the following:

1)Could you explain your last post in plain English are you saying the spv doesn't need to be regulated?if not why not?

 

As far as I am aware the recent notices only relate to SPPL and not to SPML. Therefore, as SPPL and the subsequent legal title holder is not a regulated mortgage lender - FSA regulation as such is not necessary.

 

My previous post contained a list of the activites that are regulated.

 

2)Can you provide a link for people to find out if their spv holds a CCA licence

 

http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/Default.aspx

 

CCA Licence

 

3)What does it mean licenced to hold clients money where can this be found out?

 

I am taking a guess this question relates to the FSA register and Capstone/Acenden. The answer is in two parts:

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/resources/faqs/register.shtml

 

What does "Unable to hold client money" mean?

 

'Unable to hold client money' indicates your firm cannot hold money on behalf of clients. For more information see our One minute guide to client money or our section on Client money.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/your_firm_type/gi/financial_management/client_money.shtml

 

Client money

 

Protecting your clients' assets is one of our key requirements:

"A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them." (FSA Principle 10)

 

Why do we have client money rules?

 

The client money rules are to protect your customers' money. They ensure a clear separation between money that belongs to your customer and money that belongs to your firm.

 

 

When does your monthly payment cease to belong to you and start to belong to the lender ?

 

4)The borrower has to receive a s136 LOP1925 notification from their lender for their assigned mortgage to their spv to change from equitable to legal assignment.What is your opinion that this could be applied under LRA 2002 under Offences etc.

 

123 Suppression of information

(1) A person commits an offence if in the course of proceedings

relating to registration under this Act he suppresses information with the intention of—

(a) concealing a person’s right or claim, or

 

COULD IT BE ARGUED THAT BUT FOR THE S136 WHICH THE SPV INSTRUCTS THE ORIGINATOR NOT TO SEND TO THE BORROWER BECAUSE THEY DELIBERATELY DO NOT INTEND TO PERFECT THE SALE APPLIES HERE AND IS SUPRESSION OF THE TRUE SALE BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS THEY RECEIVE FROM THIS SUPRESSION

(b) substantiating a false claim

 

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to

both.

 

Based on the spvs statement to its investors in the prospectus.

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.Is this supression under the lra 2002 for the benefit of avoiding regulation,registration fees taxes etc

 

To enable me to answer the question, can you please clarify what right or claim has been concealed ?

 

I only ask because any claim or right a borrower could bring or has relating to their mortgage can be made against the legal title holder. The legal title holder, does not only have the legal rights, it also has the legal duties and obligations

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue thanks for reply its really helpful and clears up a lot of things as this is really difficult for me to understand so please bear with me.

 

To clarify my question

 

123 Suppression of information

(1) A person commits an offence if in the course of proceedings

relating to registration under this Act he suppresses information with the intention of—

(a) concealing a person’s right or claim.

The original lender such as spml/pml supresses the information that it has sold the mortgage loan to the spv.

The fact that it is a true sale has been supressed the spvs right to register and replace the original lender has been concealed.

The spv deliberately uses its absolute power not to perfect the true sale by instructing the lender from whom it has purchased the mortgage and collateral security not to notify the borrower as required by s136 meaning although a true sale has taken place the assignment is treated only as equitable. Surely this is supression of a right concealed by both the spv and the lender. .

 

 

If the transfers take place of regulated mortgages under fsa regulation such as pml/spml and certain sppl would the contracts against the borrowers be unenforceable against the borrowers if the same spvs who are licenced are not regulated by the fsa?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I was coming from LD. I suspect the SPVs may have covered their backsides re: the FSA regulation by arranging it so that the Administrator is a regulated entity (as is fully required) and this is noted in Suetonius' post.

 

The situation for the mortgage owner (legal title holder) may however be different but we shall see.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ask because any claim or right a borrower could bring or has relating to their mortgage can be made against the legal title holder. The legal title holder, does not only have the legal rights, it also has the legal duties and obligations

Hi Suetonius, good to see you're still around.

 

Can you clarify what you mean by the above? How exactly does one find out who the legal title holder to their mortgage is? Can the SPV be unregulated by the FSA while the Administrator is regulated and is this OK with the FSA?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the administrator cannot be touched, but it is possible to get information from them

The new statement of insolvency practice 16 in England and Wales makes it mandatory that administrators disclose detailed information to creditors before and after a pre-packaged administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrickq1, I meant Mortgage Administrator/Servicer not an administrator in the generic sense of a liquidation or insolvency process.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...