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

[uneverdid]

Hi EIE, it was a completely new mortgage to get it into my own name. This was the only company that would take me on well so the broker told me which was home loans.

I took it out in May 2007 what does this mean, like i say i signed with preferred but all payments now appear as made to spml even though ive got it in writing that capstone will appear on my statements. I will not let this drop i am currently trying to sell up but no luck at present. I can't wait for the day to come when i can say good riddance to this bunch of complete cowboys.

[JonCris]

Hi Uneverdid.

 

I don't know why they even bother lying like this. You took on an SPML loan around say 2005. Was this a second charge or did it get your existing lender totally off your back? Don't answer unless you want to - just guessing what is likely here?

 

The securitisation SPV in 2005 was called Southern Securities (05-03 for example). The 05 bit refers to the year and the three refers to the quarter. In this case then around October 2005 the mortgage was packaged up with all the other ones and sold as investor notes.

 

If it was 2006 there were only 2 SPML/SPPL SPV issues under Lehmans Bros heralded Eurosail programme, which at the time was described in the corporate propaganda bull**** as 'exciting' etc. Look at Lehman's now.

 

This is the reason for all the grief we are getting but it would have come anyway because they had no intention of letting the mortgage run for the full term of the agreement. The notes must be redeemed on about a five year average to satisfy the greedy investors. My heart sank the other day when I heard Broon criticising the bonus culture and arguing that their bonuses should be tied to long term success of about five years. This hugely disappointing egomaniac has just given the green light for yet more of this nonsense. I wish there was a government or a politician who had the balls to step in and just offer mortgages at BoE +1% and kill off these predators once and for all. (oops I'm rambling).

 

So, your mortgage was securitised, they are lying and they should effing well grow up.

 

Oh and one final point, if securitisation is such a straight deal, perfectly legit and above board as some argue why all the denials?

 

They could just say a la Suetonius "Yes we securitised your mortgage but still hold the beneficial rights in event of default. This is a perfectly legitimate transaction in UK law."

 

But they never ever do, do they? What exactly are they afraid of?

 

If yours was 2006 you have them bang to rights because Eurosail will (99% certain here) appear on your statements

 

Simple because they don't want to put their dirty dealings before a judge who may not be understanding;-)

[enoughisenough]

Hi JC.

 

I must confess I hadn't considered this. Is this tantamount to saying Sue rather than supersleuth is right but even the lenders can't risk it because nobody actually knows, akin to the bank charges. If so the courts and judges need a sharp wake up call. No repo should be allowed to proceed where this issue remains an unknown quantity. If all the authorities Sue has cited are watertight why won't the lenders make the simple statement? What CAN they be afraid of.

[JonCris]

Again because Sues arguments are based on equity when the 'facts' scream otherwise. To all intense purposes & other practical considerations securitization IS a sale. They hide this behind a contract which even admits their clear intention to commit an offence by NOT registering to conceal their interest. If there is no sale as they claim why even need to mention NOT regsitering the sale......... according to them there's no sale so why bother ........the only logical reason is that it is a sale nothing else makes sense

[enoughisenough]

Sue's arguments are based on the concept of equitable assignment which to my eye is an altogether more complex argument.

supersleuth had the measure of these though.

 

I still think it boils down to this. The argument is so watertight that they conceal and then deny, deny, deny... As their lehman bosses might have said what gives?

[Suetonius]

Again because Sues arguments are based on equity when the 'facts' scream otherwise. To all intense purposes & other practical considerations securitization IS a sale. They hide this behind a contract which even admits their clear intention to commit an offence by NOT registering to conceal their interest. If there is no sale as they claim why even need to mention NOT regsitering the sale......... according to them there's no sale so why bother ........the only logical reason is that it is a sale nothing else makes sense

 

 

Hello JC, what would these specific 'facts' be that scream otherwise. Is there a single fact that proves that the legal title has been legally assigned. I am honestly not being sarcastic. I would really like to know.

 

I don't think anyone claims that a sale has not taken place. If I have previously posted or even suggested that a sale has not taken place, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to everyone.

 

Contrary to some posting's my argument is not that a sale that has not taken place. It is specifically in relation to what has been sold.

 

I contend that it is the equitable title and not the legal title that has been sold.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

I wonder if people would be willing to express their views on this:

 

Even if the sale document / deed says in direct contradiction to both the presale reports and prospectuses that the legal title is sold (assigned), would this document overide the applicable legislation with regard to legal assignment ?

 

How could a contract between two companies overide:

 

Law of Property Act 1925

The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003

[Suetonius]

Sue's arguments are based on the concept of equitable assignment which to my eye is an altogether more complex argument.

supersleuth had the measure of these though.

 

I still think it boils down to this. The argument is so watertight that they conceal and then deny, deny, deny... As their lehman bosses might have said what gives?

 

Even Superslueth conceded that

 

Hi Suetonius,

 

I agree with you that the assignment is either an equitable assignment or it is a legal assignment. It is one or the other.

 

However, she went on to say

 

There is one way to prove beyond all reasonable doubt is whether the assignment was equitable or legal. That is to produce the sale/purchase agreement between the SPV and the lender. The lenders WILL NEVER allow those documents to be produced in court. WHY, because it will PROVE that the assingment was a transfer of the legal title and not a transfer of an equitable title.

 

I disagree, the way to prove beyond all reasonable doubt whether the assignment was equitable or legal is to produce a copy of the Notice of Assignment as required by law for a legal assignment to take place.

 

In my view, if there is not a Notice of Assignment, than the assigment can only be legally equitable ?

 

Would anyone disagree with my view, if so, please explain why and how.

 

Kind Regards

 

Sue

[pt2537]

you are entitled to see the sale agreement (Lord Denning MR) if there is a absolute assignment so id say that it is worth demanding the sale agreement in any event to see what the terms are

[Suetonius]

you are entitled to see the sale agreement (Lord Denning MR) if there is a absolute assignment so id say that it is worth demanding the sale agreement in any event to see what the terms are

 

Hello PT,

 

Would you agree or disagree that the content of the sale agreement (deed), would not have an effect on the requirement of a Notice of Assignment to make an assignment legal rather than equitable ?

 

As you have posted yourself, even Halsbury states:

 

586. Securitisation of mortgages.

 

 

 

Securitisation is the sale of a package of mortgage debts to a corporate vehicle (the 'issuer') established for the purpose of issuing securities usually in bearer form such as bonds1. One or more mortgagees (the 'originator') may agree to sell debts and related security to the issuer.

 

This effects an equitable assignment of the mortgages which is not perfected by notice to the mortgagors or by registration. The issuer is entitled to call for a legal transfer of legal title to the mortgages in certain circumstances such as the persistent default or insolvency of the originator.

 

The issuer is given an irrevocable power of attorney to effect the transfer and for certain other purposes2. The originator retains the powers of the mortgagee, including the right to possession3 but agrees to act in accordance with the instructions of the issuer in relation to matters such as interest rates and enforcement.

 

The undertaking and assets of the issuer, including the mortgages, are in turn charged in favour of a security trustee for the benefit of the holders of notes or bonds issued by the issuer4. The security trustee is given custody of the charge certificates or, in the case of unregistered land, mortgages and title deeds, and is given an irrevocable power of attorney to effect a legal transfer of the mortgages.

 

 

1 See companies; financial services and institutions.

2 See the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 s 4; and agency vol 1 (2008 para 175.

3 See Paragon Finance plc v Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760, [2005] All ER (D) 307 (Jun).

4 The charge takes effect as an equitable sub-charge.

 

 

Ok this is what halsburys says on securitisation

 

there are hundreds of pages of info and i must admit im not entirely sure i know what im looking for, but if i post anything which helps then let me knw and i will go get the full articles

 

For those not familiar with Halsbury, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsbury%27s_Laws_of_England

Edited July 18, 2009 by Suetonius

[Crapstone]

The legal framework they're using is sound and as Sue says, whatever the companies contract to between themselves wouldn't override Law of Property.

 

What is clear, is that it's the underhand tactics which are disguised within the securitisation which are questionable as being unfair to the consumer. If even part of the role taken by the lender is outsourced then how can complaints be fairly addressed when you can only talk to the puppet and not the invisible master?

 

Shouldn't the equitable 3rd party be involved in any court proceedings merely on their interest in the property or some mention of it made by the administrators that they have been informed?

 

I'm still pondering the insurance aspect. As the only named party, other then ourselves, on the building insurance is the supposed 3rd party,(they aren't but should be named), then if the house were to be destroyed they would then be entitled to claim their loss. A loss that they don't have legal title of, only equitable.

 

In my original mortgage contract it stipulates that the lender must always be named on any buildings insurance. If they are asking me to name someone other than the lender then where would that leave us in the event a major claim and what effect would/does it have on the legal status of the property and mortgage? Any opinions?

Edited July 18, 2009 by Crapstone
corrected spelling mistakes

[Suetonius]

Shouldn't the equitable 3rd party be involved in any court proceedings merely on their interest in the property or some mention of it made by the administrators that they have been informed?

 

Hello Crapstone, I do see where your coming from.

 

However, in the Court of Appeal it was stated:

 

111. The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

[Crapstone]

I thought you'd come back with that Sue, but any thoughts on the insurance aspect?

 

Sedit qui timuit ne non succederet. Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Crapstone

[Suetonius]

I thought you'd come back with that Sue, but any thoughts on the insurance aspect?

 

Sedit qui timuit ne non succederet. Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.

 

To succeed none of us can just sit still. If there isn't yet away to get past these problems then we will have to make one. However, first we must fully understand the question, before we can find the answer.

 

In all honestly with regards to the insurance, I don't know. However, I do not think that this could be accepted as a Notice of Assignment due to the terminology of the agreement or subsequents letters.

 

I can only presume (as in guess), that it may be similar to the assignment of Endowment policies in years gone by. After all this only further confirms the beneficial interest (to the money) rather than legal ownership of the legal title of the actual mortgage. However, as I say.. I don't know on this one..

[Suetonius]

However, if you dig deeper with regard to what happens when the payment is made as a result of any insurance claim.. You might stumble upon something interesting

[Crapstone]

I already did..hence ..and..

[enoughisenough]

You can't prove a negative. This seems to be the problem. The SFO should conduct a raid of the trusts and find this stuff if it hasn't been shredded and eaten.

 

Sue are you willing to concede that it's possible the assignment was legal not equitable, as in the US, or are you 100% confident that every single securitisation is an equitable assignment?

[Suetonius]

You can't prove a negative. This seems to be the problem. The SFO should conduct a raid of the trusts and find this stuff if it hasn't been shredded and eaten.

 

Sue are you willing to concede that it's possible the assignment was legal not equitable, as in the US, or are you 100% confident that every single securitisation is an equitable assignment?

 

Good Morning EIE, I see you have been a busy boy this morning.

 

Of course I would be willing to concede that it is possible. I would be very foolish to claim otherwise. However, as yet I have not seen anyone to suggest that this is the case.

 

As far as I am aware, no one (if anyone has, please say and post a copy) has received a notice of assignment. The presale reports confirm that it the equitable title that is being acquired. The prospectus even confirms that a notice will not be sent to the borrower, thus further confirming equitable assignment.

 

My argument is very simple and straight forward:

 

It is a point of law that a Notice of Assignment is required for a legal assignment.

 

No Notice of Assignment can only mean that the assignment was equitable.

[Suetonius]

In life, I have only found two things that were impossible.

 

1) Put your right elbow, in your left hand. Then try to lift your elbow out with your right hand.

2) A woman walking past a shoe shop without going in.

 

Therefore, I consider anything else possible

 

 

*THE ABOVE IS A JOKE

Edited July 19, 2009 by Suetonius
To stop anyone getting on their high horse

[Suetonius]

You can't prove a negative. This seems to be the problem. The SFO should conduct a raid of the trusts and find this stuff if it hasn't been shredded and eaten.

 

Sue are you willing to concede that it's possible the assignment was legal not equitable, as in the US, or are you 100% confident that every single securitisation is an equitable assignment?

 

To put doubt in my mind, someone would have to explain how an assignment can be legal and not equitable without a Notice of Assignment.

 

Can anyone do that ?

[enoughisenough]

Good morning Suetonius

 

you're absolutely correct that not a single notice of assignment has seen the light of day. This is only possible in two discrete circumstances. The first us that it is along with other material evidence concealed from the borrower and the second is that it doesn't exist because the assignment is equitable. What puzzles me greatly is that an equitable assignment would require no amendment to the registry. So why does every single prospectus I've seen state that they currently have no intention of making that change. This is odd akin to saying I currently have no intention of ping something I am not required to do. I have to say I find it very bizarre.

 

As with other Aspects of personal finance during the boom such as unsigned credit agreements I think it may be the case that the legal framework and the procedures used were not watertight. They were too busy printing money for themselves. Just my thoughts for what their worth.

[enoughisenough]

I think psychologists would call it a Freudian slip. A very simple way forward would be to see if a successful criminal prosecution could be brought under the Land Registry Act 2002, failure to register a disposition of land. If that failed then you are almost certainly correct. If on the other hand it suceeded...

[Suetonius]

If you read, further on in the prospectus, it does explain.

 

I am posting via phone at the moment so I can't quote what it actually says. When I get home, I will clarify.

[Suetonius]

I think psychologists would call it a Freudian slip. A very simple way forward would be to see if a successful criminal prosecution could be brought under the Land Registry Act 2002, failure to register a disposition of land. If that failed then you are almost certainly correct. If on the other hand it suceeded...

 

I can answer this one too ;-), when I get home later.

[enoughisenough]

Naughty boy. Where have you been all night then!