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

[supersleuth]

The "moral obligation" thing has really got to me....so if anyone is faced with this nonsensical argument from a lender...perhaps you might remind the judge that on the subject of morals there is substantive moral authority on this issue in that

 

Jesus threw the immoral usury mongers out of the temple, and likewise, the judge might consider taking a moral lead from Jesus and throwing our modern day usury Shylocks OUT OF THE COURT TOO.

 

Ok guys, I'm going to get off my soap box on this one now.

[supersleuth]

Littledotty,

 

Are you going to do the interview?

[pt2537]

The "moral obligation" thing has really got to me....so if anyone is faced with this nonsensical argument from a lender...perhaps you might remind the judge that on the subject of morals there is substantive moral authority on this issue in that

 

Jesus threw the immoral usury mongers out of the temple, and likewise, the judge might consider taking a moral lead from Jesus and throwing our modern day usury Shylocks OUT OF THE COURT TOO.

 

Ok guys, I'm going to get off my soap box on this one now.

i know, its shocking really, the immoral trying to preach morals , unbelievable, but sadly some of our district judges arent as wise to it and some times accept the moral arguments, sadly

[littledotty27]

If it helps get the subject out in the open then yes I am going to do the interview.

[supersleuth]

Hi pt,

 

That's because we have too many judges that suffer from bigotry and idiocy who don't know any law...they just play to the powerful...it's easier than engaging brain and thinking. Happily, with luck of the draw, there are still some odd possibilities of getting a Judge is worthy of judicial office.

 

Littledotty,

 

Please say you're going to do the interview and hopefully the other lady will too. Keep us updated....

Supersleuth

 

 

Ohhh just noticed that you've replied - excellent news - thank you

[littledotty27]

of course i'm going to do the interview...it would be rude not to.

[enoughisenough]

Does anyone think there's a way we could chip in with our experiences that would not compromise ourselves. Obviously there's the stuff on the site but it maybe better for a journalist to have a few more people go on the record. Then it's just not a bunch of anonymous whingers, as they will be apt to portray us, but people who are prepared to go public? I'm willing to be laughed off on this one. JUst a thought!

[littledotty27]

Personally I think the more the merrier.

When he gets back to me I will see what he thinks.

[cds]

I got a similar e:mail last week still mulling it over

 

cds

[littledotty27]

I got a similar e:mail last week still mulling it over

 

cds

 

what is there to mull over?

The more people that contact the media,the more of a chance we have this issue made public.

Who contacted you if you don't mind me asking?

[brassed-off-2]

what is there to mull over?

The more people that contact the media,the more of a chance we have this issue made public.

Who contacted you if you don't mind me asking?

 

I agree with you LD, the more this is publicised the more chance we have of fighting it..

I would think that there is nothing to mull over, when you are faced with loosing your home to these morons we are dealing with.

I for one have spoken to the media, a couple of weeks ago, regarding another lender with a 2nd charge on my home.

Having done some 'googling' in relation to that journalist, who was working for a very well known financial news channel on cable/satellite, and noticing they had certain interests in reporting on Lehmans/spml, i dropped it into the conversation, certain things i was up against with my main lender, and if they wanted to speak to me again regarding these issues, they were free to call me anytime. I have kept hold of their email address, to use at a later date, when i have dealt with some more pressing issues.

 

B-O-2

[littledotty27]

At the end of the day we are all in the same boat together..i'm sure once the media get one story they will all click on with whats going on.

 

I sent an email to all the national newspapers and to the news channels,I got one reply back from ITN and i'm going to go for it,i've nothing to lose(only my home).

 

B-O-2 keep on at them till they take it on.

I'm of now to watch Ashes to Ashes, night peeps

[brassed-off-2]

hi

 

If anyone is a subscriber to Euroweek.com, I think there is some interesting info on eurosail on there but I can't access it.

 

Crapstone, posted up on one of the threads to say one of these sites were running a free trial, and it might be worth our while joining, but staggering it so we could get maximum benefit from it.

Was this not the site he/she mentioned ??

Will try to find it and post link.

 

B-O-2

[truro]

I think I understand your reply about Moral Obligation and the law. But I'm talking about legal obligations from the companies who sold these mortgages. Are they not obligated to inform customers of changes to their mortgages like a transfer. Isn't it my legal right to be informed before it take place? What about the registration date of the LMC at Company House where LMC was Incorporated in 2006, yet I got a mortgage from them in 2005. Aren't these legal matters that just dosen't seem right to a lay person like myself.

I know alot of arguments have been gone over before now which I've missed, but I'm confused as to why this company is still operating when it went bankrupt in teh US and parent company has reorganised because of the crash in the market. So who now owns the mortgages, if SPML has no legal right to repossess.

Maybe I'm off track, but this is what I'd like to know, so maybe people should organise as a group and challenge the company and the courts, to find out whats going with Lehman brother subsidiaries. I cannot find a website for LMC just other companies hosting their mortgages, and as far as I'm aware they are not selling mortgages.

[supersleuth]

Truro,

 

Your lay person instinct is spot on. A company that did not exist in 2005 could NOT legally and lawfully enter into ANY contract. Therefore, if the company did not exist prior to 2006, it did not exist at law and did not have contractual capacity. Moreover, did the company have a credit licence from the OFT in 2005? (probably not if it didn't exist), again illegal to lend money without an OFT licence and then did it have FSA authorisation to engage in mortgage activities in 2005? (probably not if it didn't exist), again another illegal and criminal offence. And then, what about registration with the Information Commissioner under the DPA so that it could lawfully process your personal information, again, another offence perhaps.

 

It seems that most people IMAGINE that these companies are sooo reputable that they wouldn't break the law - BUT actually, it's standard for them to break the law and get away with it (so far).

 

It is most likely that Eurosail (the SPV) owns the mortgages in the UK. The document that Brassed-off-2 posted lists the Eurosail SPV companies as part of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the USA. This means, that under the USA Chapter 11 Lehmans may try to reorganise first. That means that the Debtor (Lehmans) will have the protection of the bankruptcy court and will pull in as much cash as possible from any of the assets it owns e.g. the UK mortgages. Then they will look at the cash they have available and ask the creditors if they will accept a deal eg get 50 cents for each $1 owed, and if the creditors agree, then Lehmans could come out of reorganisation and start up again, but it may turn out that they'll just be bankrupt in the manner in which we in the UK think of as bankrupt i.e. defunct, no more, nada etc. Chapter 11 "bankruptcy" in the US is a little different to how we understand the word "bankruptcy" in the UK. It is still "in bankruptcy" but they get a chance to "reorganise" the company first.

 

Anyway the point is that from the UK perspective - they're collecting in as much cash as possible in order to pay the creditors - so Eurosail, being on the list posted by BO2 means that they're liquidating as many of the Eurosail assets as possible. I'd say 99% certain that Eurosail own the Legal Title to you mortgage although they haven't complied with s.27 LRA 2002 (that's another offence to add to the list).

[truro]

Thank superslueth

 

I'm new to this and might have posted my previous message twice, sorry about that!

Do you understand anything about Third Party Rights (Act 1999). If SPML is third party to the contract as my mortgage contract is with Matlock, can they persist with repossession?

[supersleuth]

Can't say fpr certain without seeing the documents whether SPML have 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act BUT what I can say for certain is that I have never seen these banks allow anyone to argue for 3rd party rights under their contracts. There is usually a clause expressly opting OUT of the 3rd Party rights Act 1999.

 

Have you identified which Eurosail SPV has securitised your mortgage? Check the list of possible Eurosail SPVs on BO2's attachment earlier today.

 

As far as I understand it, Capstone are administrating the mortgages, and SPML are registered at the Land Registry (correct?) - but SPML will have sold the mortgages to Eurosail and therefore Eurosail should be registered at the Land Registry as the Legal Owner (but they have failed to comply with the law). This argument goes back to the "operates in equity" and the "it was an equitable assignment" issue. It's part of the smoke and mirrors - they've obfuscated the titles so much. The point is, that the Eurosail SPV WILL have created a sub-charge against your mortgage. Creating a sub-chrage is an exercise of the legal powers of the legal owner and therefore, SPML MUST have transferred the legal title in order for Eurosail to lawfully create a sub-charge.

 

OK, this may all sound confusing, but do read through this thread and the thread on "Preferred" that Scedminc started.

 

In my view, most people are being sued for repossession where the claimant has no right or title to sue the borrower....and most borrowers are being overcharged.

[supersleuth]

Truro,

 

BTW: with respect to your mortgage contract, there is no way that SPML can claim to have 3rd Party rights under the 1999 Act from your contract with Matlock. There are NO provisions in a mortgage contract for any 3rd party to claim rights. The mortgage contract only contains a provision to "assign" the contract TO a 3rd Party - the 3rd Party Rights Act has no application in this context.

[pt2537]

my goodness SS, this is a tricky subject isnt it, the biggest headache i can see in all of this is the proving and more importantly getting the judges to accept this argument and that it happens

 

I came across a case on lexis the other evening that the issue of securitisation had been raised and the court said nope so it seems its going to be a hard slog proving this

[supersleuth]

Yes you're right - but you don't have to argue about the securitisation - the issue is WHO OWNS THE LEGAL TITLE. And that is an issue that the court should concern itself with. If the so-called lender is swinging around the LR saying look Judge I'm registered as the legal owner - and the borrower says, yes Judge, but he has sold the legal title and unlawfully failed to register in compliance with s.27, then the so-called "lender" is misrepresenting itself (when it KNOWS that its sold the legal title), has NO CLAIM because its been fully paid by the purchaser and therefore has SUFFERED NO LOSS and consequently, requires NO REMEDY from the court.

 

What was the case that you recently read?

[pt2537]

Yes you're right - but you don't have to argue about the securitisation - the issue is WHO OWNS THE LEGAL TITLE. And that is an issue that the court should concern itself with. If the so-called lender is swinging around the LR saying look Judge I'm registered as the legal owner - and the borrower says, yes Judge, but he has sold the legal title and unlawfully failed to register in compliance with s.27, then the so-called "lender" is misrepresenting itself (when it KNOWS that its sold the legal title), has NO CLAIM because its been fully paid by the purchaser and therefore has SUFFERED NO LOSS and consequently, requires NO REMEDY from the court.

 

What was the case that you recently read?

i must confess i didnt pay much attention to the case as it wasnt relevant to the facts of the case i was researching but i believe the case was Paragon and Pender does that ring any bells at all? i found reference to it in Halsburys laws

[supersleuth]

Ahhhh - good ole Paragon v Pender (again) - yes, I know the cases very well both the 2003 and the 2005 cases.

[enoughisenough]

A slog,granted, but not impossible. Soon this will start to break through even our impenetrable justice system. They are charged with applying the law. The law on these matters is complex but pretty much favours super's arguments notwithstanding the equitable assignment debates that have raged extensively on this site. IT has been knocked back at least twice in my knowledge but not in so definitive a set of terms as to establish precedent. The right argument in front of a court willing to here that not everything is rosy in the corporate garden could break through, unless it's so stitched up that it doesn't and never will. I can't see this line of pessimistic thinking as holding true forever. There is a peasant's revolt here and the last thing the government wants going into next year is a mash up of repossessions of the very people they are supposed to protect that turn out to have no lawful basis. On that basis I would argue that this is getting through and though many unlawful repossessions will continue to happen this simply can't go on inexorably even the logic of the SPV is the logic of Dalek.

 

The main thing at the lower end of the judicial food chain is to cast doubt - enough doubt - so that the mortgagees live to fight another day. If you can't quite be confident on the securitisation stuff and the day of reckoning is imminent, ask nonetheless that the court should not repossess where they cannot prove beyond title deeds and LR that they STILL own the mortgage. It is up to them to prove, strictly, that they still do so. Explain that simply having registered a charge, when 80% + of all mortgages have been securitised - even the high street ones - is no longer sufficient. Anytime in the last 10 years, even longer, you took out a first or 2nd charge mortgage with these clowns - it was spun on to somebody else. They owned it. Now they don't.

 

It's too risky at the moment to stop paying these clowns altogether - so as best you can- keep up the payments peeps - watch for their shenanigans. Ask as of right under the consumer credit act 2006 that they supply with monthly statements of what as been paid in, what they have charged and then challenge those charges.

 

They are now interested in switching their charges regime to an aggressive interest on arrears job. This too is unlawful if properly challenged. i.e those arrears based on unlawful charges is totally unrecoverable by them. They can only charge arrears interest on legitimate missed payments. This too is subject to challenge but is more complex. Take back the right. These feckers will stop at nothing and do not overly expect too much sympathy from the courts.

 

In time this will all come out through critical mass. And when it does it will come out so quickly a tidal wave, if not a tsunami, will come crashing down around them. If they wanted to avoid this they could start playing fair and the momentum might swing back. However because they know the are on the run they will as SS indicates be trying to grab as much cash as they can as quickly as they can. They cannot do otherwise. Their SPiV master dictates.

[pt2537]

Ahhhh - good ole Paragon v Pender (again) - yes, I know the cases very well both the 2003 and the 2005 cases.

i take it that they are like Rankine and Amex is to Consumer Credit then? basically a bad judgment made by a poor judge with little idea of the matter in hand? would i be on the right lines there?

[truro]

Has anyone seen this info before? Dont remember seeing it on any of the links -

InvestEgate, Eurosail 2006-1 PLC - Repurchase of Mortgage Loans

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

 

 

$437,500,000 Class A1b Notes due 2025

 

(Common Code: 025356454; ISIN: XS0253564545)

 

£100,000,000 Class A1c Notes due 2025

 

(Common Code: 025356578; ISIN: XS0253565781)

 

£321,200,000 Class A2c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025356772; ISIN: XS0253567720)

 

€20,700,000 Class B1a Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025356900; ISIN: XS0253569007)

 

£17,500,000 Class B1c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357124; ISIN: XS0253571243)

 

€13,600,000 Class C1a Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357205; ISIN: XS0253572050)

 

£16,500,000 Class C1c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357329; ISIN: XS025357329

 

€26,400,000 Class D1a Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357361; ISIN: XS0253573611)

 

£3,000,000 Class D1c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357493; ISIN: XS0253574932)

 

£11,025,000 Class DTc Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357566; ISIN: XS0253575665)

 

£4,778,000 Class E Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357663; ISIN: XS0253576630)

 

issued by Eurosail 2006-1 PLC

 

(the 'Issuer')

 

The Issuer today received notification from Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited ('SPML') that SPML intends and is required to (acting in its capacity as seller of the original mortgage loans to the Issuer and pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the mortgage sale agreement dated 30 May 2006 between, inter alios, the Issuer and SPML (the 'Mortgage Sale Agreement')) repurchase 85 mortgage loans from the Issuer in an aggregate amount equal to approximately £13,603,094 (the 'Mortgage Loans').

 

Pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, SPML is required to repurchase the Mortgage Loans as it has become aware that a warranty in respect of the loan to value ratio for such Mortgage Loans was not satisfied at the time that the Mortgage Loans were originally sold to the Issuer and as a result a warranty breach has occurred. The loan to value ratios ('LTV') for such Mortgage Loans were not satisfied due to inaccurate information that was provided to SPML by certain third parties in relation to the purchase price of the properties securing such Mortgage Loans.

 

By way of background information, this issue was first identified when the Lending Quality group at SPML responded to concerns raised by a solicitor in respect of seven loans originated through a particular packager. The solicitor was not comfortable that full and accurate details had been disclosed, in particular in relation to the purchase price of the underlying properties.

 

This led to the instigation of a wider review of loans originated from the same packager which showed that in certain cases there were anomalies between the registered price at the relevant Land Registry of a property and the details contained in other related documentation. Most typically the loans involved a borrower requesting in the application form a remortgage of a buy to let property. However, the loan was not a remortgage but was in fact for the actual purchase of the property, with this fact being stated inaccurately on the application form. This was not apparent to SPML until as part of SPML's investigation Land Registry records including registered purchase prices were checked for each loan originated through the particular packager.

 

As a result of this review, breaches of SPML's terms of business were identified and so the relationship with the packager was terminated. SPML has also made all necessary reports to its regulator and other relevant authorities in relation to the packager.

 

As part of its investigation SPML obtained Land Registry data in respect of all live loans originated through the packager that had been subsequently securitised or sold. SPML's lending criteria applies an LTV limit of 95% based on the lower of the purchase price and valuation and SPML represented in the Mortgage Sale Agreement to the Issuer that this limit had been complied with. Following discovery of the purchase price registered at the Land Registry, SPML recalculated the LTV based on such purchase price and determined that the LTV limit had been exceeded in the case of 85 loans sold to the Issuer with a current notional amount of approximately £13,603,094.

 

The weighted average original LTV (WAOLTV) of the Mortgage Loans based on the valuation used at the time of origination was 85.36%. The weighted average original LTV of the Mortgage Loans based on purchase price data registered at the Land Registry is 123.57%. 97.70% of the Mortgage Loans are current and 0.53% of the Mortgage Loans are more than 180 days in arrears.

 

After removing the Mortgage Loans the revised weighted average original loan-to-value (WAOLTV) of the original mortgage loan pool in the Issuer becomes 73.80% as compared to an originally disclosed WAOLTV for the transaction of 74.01%.

 

If the Mortgage Loans were to remain in the Issuer at an adjusted LTV ratio which is reflective of the Land Registry purchase prices then the revised WAOLTV of the original mortgage loan pool in the Issuer becomes 74.72% as compared to an originally disclosed WAOLTV for the transaction of 74.01%.

 

99.1% of the Mortgage Loans are located in the North and 0.9% of the Mortgage Loans are located in the South East.

 

As stated above, SPML obtained Land Registry data for all loans originated by the packager and in respect of the other 166 loans (representing £ 17,022,240) in the transaction originated through such packager SPML found no breach of the LTV representation given by SPML to the Issuer ('Non-Affected Loans') nor is it aware currently of any other breach of representation in respect of such Non-Affected Loans and consequently is not repurchasing these Non-Affected

Loans.

 

The Non-Affected Loans have a WAOLTV of 84.67%. 86.31% of these loans by balance are current, 3.44% are more than 180 days in arrears.

 

SPML has stated that it will, as payment for the repurchase of such Mortgage Loans, pay in cash an amount equal to approximately £13,603,094 to the Issuer. The repurchase of the Mortgage Loans will take place within 21 days from the date of this notice.

 

This Notice is given by Eurosail 2006-1 PLC.

 

14 November 2006