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

[gustavius rex]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry that l've not been on line for a while, but, have had the famous swine flu plus a traffic accident that screwed up an already broken back, why, l've been out of action.

 

To comment about what has been discussed here lately, l feel we need to lower the level of worries. l shall start with the home insurance bit, which really raised my eyebrows. l had my insurance renewed a couple of months back and l registred SPML/PML's interest only. There were never any discussion about Eurosail or any other spv or party, which l would not have agreed to under any circumstances. My mortgage deed is with SPML/PML and not any other entity. l cannot see that there should exist any legal circumstances where you should assign the insurance benefits to a spv or note holder. What arrangements SPML/PML make, is their business, but, as far as we mortgagoors are concerned, we deal with the contractual counter party, i.e. the mortgagee.

 

Regarding the sale/transfer or assignment of legal titles the situation is as l've explained before. SPML/PML/London Mortgage are all Private Limited Companies and as such no sale and/or transfer can take place outside these legal entities unless the mortgage tranches, that is legal and beneficial titles are sold/transferred/assigned in a deal between SPML/PML/London Mortgage and a buyer/beneficiary/assignee. ln case such a sale/transfer/assignment has or will take place, we as the mortgagoors must be informed and have our legal rights protected. As far as l know, nothing has been forthcoming to me and l've not heard that anyone else here has been informed about such a pending deal either.

 

But, and that is a big but, as it is now our mortgages are ''managed'' by what at best can be described as an inept and at worse totally incompetent Capstone. lf they, Capstone, require you to swap the insurance interest from SPML/PML/London Mortgage for Eurosail or any other spv in your insurance they are in clear breach of the mortgage contract. Consequently, if they can commit such a stupidity there would be nothing stopping them to try to salvage the investments (mortgage books) by trying to sell or assign them without informing us until the deed is done.

 

So, l agree with all of you that we not only need, but MUST find out what is going on behind our backs. l am now so fed up by having these inept s..t heads blowing smoke up my rear that l am litterally exploding. l shall explore further today and l shall be back with some form of proposal for further action later. Meanwhile, keep the spirits up and continue with the good job in progress.

 

Gustavius

[enoughisenough]

So, l agree with all of you that we not only need, but MUST find out what is going on behind our backs. l am now so fed up by having these inept s..t heads blowing smoke up my rear that l am litterally exploding.

 

They are, as I'm sure we all agree, a particulary inept and incompetent bunch of idiots. It took them eight weeks NOT to answer my central complaint. Have I really got to spell it out in Spot goes to the mortgage broker vocabulary. Idiots.

[sailor579]

Gustavius,

 

I have fired off numerous e-mails to capstone requesting information on insurance.

 

I have also requested e-mail address's of contacts within capstone to try and speed up communication and also give me a written record of questions and answers. But they seem very reluctant to communicate other than by phone or post.

 

The latest request is to clarify the name of the bank account I want to transfer payments to. Even over the phone they don't seem to know or don't want to tell me the name of the account just the sort code and acc number.

They even said that with a direct electronic funds transfer I should allow 5 working days for the funds to reach them by the due date !!!!

 

I have even suggested that I drive to their office's for a meeting to discuss these issue's..... Still waiting for the reply on that one (not holding my breath on this)

 

They even sent me a letter saying I had missed a payment and would be in breach of our agreement, dismissing out of hand the fact that as the incorrect account details they gave me were to blame.

 

Think they may be getting fed up with me now as however I contact them with a query they say "We look into this and write to you"

 

Ho hum I shall carry on trying to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

[gustavius rex]

Interesting reading.... Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL

 

Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL Notice of Meeting - Bloomberg.com

 

Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL Plc - Notice to the Noteholders | RNS News Item | Hemscott.com

 

Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL Plc - Notice to Noteholders

 

Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL Plc - Notice to Noteholders | Regulatory News | Daily News | News | Hemscott

 

 

 

l seriously recommend that everyone subscribing to this thread reads through all of the above. Food for thought; funds are empty, special drawer in chapter 11 and guarantor in chapter 11. Note holders are not getting paid what will they now do? Wait for PWC to eventually pay out a fraction in ten years time,? Or make arrangements now to rescue what there is left to rescue?

GR

[I'm the bad guy?]

Suetonius,

 

Can you comment on, as you mentioned previously the 'perfection event' in the trust deed. Would you say that this is now being implemented by the Trustee(the SPV under instruction)as highlighted by yourself and Gus in the Bloomberg posts?

 

This means that from the 'perfection event', which I believe is when the Trustee, in the words of the trust deed 'where the Trustee considers that the Security or any part thereof is in jeopardy..' This then manifests itself into the 'perfection act' whereby the property deeds, loan files etc now have to be handed over to the Isssuer/SPV?

 

In my opinion, the SPV already is the holder of the titles, and they are already in trust with the Trustee BNY.

 

However, let us assume the preamble above, are we now seeing the 'calling in' by the investors of the collatoral under the trust deed?

I thought this might be just a matter of time, as shown by the Perpetual case in the previous posts. There is now a fight for the assets between the investors and Lehman Special Financing(BNY-trustee neutral). It appears the 'perfection event' creating the 'perfection acts' was much sooner than everyone thought. In fact only a few months after the Lehman bankruptcy.

 

So with the above 'perfections' taking place, the only thing that the SPV has not done is inform the borrowers, which it is obliged to do under the trust deed. Also, from the 'perfections' the SPV has still not registered its titles to the Land Registry. Furthemore, this is evidence that SPML/PML the lenders are insolvent but PWC are NOT putting them into adminstration or insolvency. Note SPML/PML/Capstone/Restfan still all overdue accounts.

 

We are still being had.

 

comments please.

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

There is an October 22nd deadline for all note holders to submit questionnaires declaring their interest in the notes.

 

Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL Plc - Notice to Noteholders | Regulatory News | Daily News | News | Hemscott

 

Anybody an earthly clue as to what happens thereafter. Do we all get repoed to satisfy the investors? We need to get a strategy together quickly.

[Preuss]

Hi,

 

first of all apologies for hijacking the thread, I just cannot find an appropriate thread to post a question.

I am having a dispute with my mortgage provider - already received a repossesion order but because I've questioned some numbers the judge scheduled one more hearing.

In short - all mortgage conditions point to that if I cannot meet payments my home may be repossesed. But there is another one that states - if during the first 60 months account fails two or more months into arrears the mortgage co may apply varable interest rate.

The mortgage company chose to enforse the first condition, but "conveniently" forgot about the second...

I've looked through some securitisation documents and came accross a statement that "some mortgage agreements might be unenforsible due to an "obscure" reasons like interest rates".

 

I've just thinking how I can use the fact that they do not want to change an interest rate in my favour. Logically if they are warning the potential investors of such a danger, probably somewhere exist a case where agreement was deemed unenforsible...

[enoughisenough]

No worries for the Hijack but you will desperately need your own thread if you are going to be properly and closely advised.

 

Who are you with Preuss?

[enoughisenough]

Also just to beef up my earlier point about their sheer incompetence

 

ChronicleLive - News - Today's Chronicle - Killingworth man sent strangers' personal data in mail

 

We shouldn't be surprised now should we...

[Preuss]

Thanks. At the moment I have so many things going on that it is difficult to focus on only one...

 

I am with Yorkshire Building Society.

 

Where I can start the thread?

[JonCris]

Preuss start your own thread then post a link here:D

[enoughisenough]

Hope this helps get you sorted:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/225487-preuss-yorkshire-bank-repo.html#post2496882

[sailor579]

EIE

 

Ref Chronicle article.

 

There is an opportunity to comment on this article. Time for some more publicity methinks !!!!!

 

I have already posted a response

[Preuss]

Thanks EIE for sorthing me out. Just finished typing, I hope that it is clear what I wanted to ask...

[MortgageTalk]

Enoughisenough

 

Under the terms of using the Forum I cannot "tote" for business - and I never have! However, if you can point me towards your original post and problem then I would be glad to have a look.

[Suetonius]

Post 1682

So with the above 'perfections' taking place, the only thing that the SPV has not done is inform the borrowers, which it is obliged to do under the trust deed. Also, from the 'perfections' the SPV has still not registered its titles to the Land Registry. Furthemore, this is evidence that SPML/PML the lenders are insolvent but PWC are NOT putting them into adminstration or insolvency. Note SPML/PML/Capstone/Restfan still all overdue accounts.

 

We are still being had.

 

comments please.

 

ITBG?

 

Post 1655

Suetonius,

 

s.136 Law of Property Act 1925

 

"136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—"

 

s.136 means that unless a notice has been given to the debtor / borrower, the assignment can only be equitable.

 

ITBG?

 

So with the above 'perfections' taking place' date=' the only thing that the SPV has not done is inform the borrowers[/b']

 

and

 

s.136 means that unless a notice has been given to the debtor / borrower' date=' the assignment [u']can only[/u] be equitable.

 

Ok, I was going to leave the equitable v legal topic alone but with your repeated requests for me to comment, I thought it would be rude of me not to respond.

 

As above, you have said that the SPV has not informed the borrowers and you have also said that unless the borrowers are informed, "the assignment can only be equitable".

 

ITBG? you have said it all already.. Not really much for me to comment on...

[enoughisenough]

Sue I appreciate where you are coming from and (mostly:D) always have! But I'm very concerned over what appears to a battle for legal title and the potentially disastrous fall out for us the humble borrower. The whole carefully constructed edifice has crumbled and presumaby the investors are now beying for our blood. Is such a consequence probable and what can we do to forestall or fight back. The OFT et al aren't going to protect us. Where can the average SPML consumer get some leverage here? No pun intended?

[I'm the bad guy?]

Suetonius,

 

Thankyou for you reply. BUT note the following:

 

1. Please show me where I have said 'you have also said that unless the borrowers are informed, "the assignment can only be equitable". Literally.

 

2. My question to you was, from YOUR position, is the instruction from Capstone to note the interest of Eurosail as mortgagee, in YOUR opinion sufficient notice to the borrower which would be in YOUR opinion, to satisfy LOP 1925 s.136?

 

3. Under the LRA 2002 Section 27(4)Schedule2 PART2: REGISTERED CHARGES

 

Part 2 Registered charges

Introductory

9. This Part deals with the registration requirements relating to those dispositions of registered charges which are required to be completed by registration.

 

Transfer

10. In the case of a transfer, the transferee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor.

 

Creation of sub-charge

11. In the case of the creation of a sub-charge, the sub-chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the sub-charge.

 

The fact the SPV 'deliberately omits' to register its LEGAL TITLE under 10 above and the TRUSTEE BNY under 11. In my opinion this is further proof of concealment from the Land Registry. SuperSleuth did ask us to look at section 4 closely.

 

Just to be clear I MAINTAIN, Supers' position that BOTH the legal & equitable title were transfered to the SPV from the lender during the True-Sale securitisation process.

 

However, this debate is important, to pose hypotheses and to come to each owns considered opinion. Its not about scoring 'points', but getting answers.

 

Over to you Sue, anyone?

 

ITBG?

ps how do select bits and such..

Edited October 12, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?

[gustavius rex]

Suetonius,

 

Can you comment on, as you mentioned previously the 'perfection event' in the trust deed. Would you say that this is now being implemented by the Trustee(the SPV under instruction)as highlighted by yourself and Gus in the Bloomberg posts?

 

This means that from the 'perfection event', which I believe is when the Trustee, in the words of the trust deed 'where the Trustee considers that the Security or any part thereof is in jeopardy..' This then manifests itself into the 'perfection act' whereby the property deeds, loan files etc now have to be handed over to the Isssuer/SPV?

 

In my opinion, the SPV already is the holder of the titles, and they are already in trust with the Trustee BNY.

 

However, let us assume the preamble above, are we now seeing the 'calling in' by the investors of the collatoral under the trust deed?

I thought this might be just a matter of time, as shown by the Perpetual case in the previous posts. There is now a fight for the assets between the investors and Lehman Special Financing(BNY-trustee neutral). It appears the 'perfection event' creating the 'perfection acts' was much sooner than everyone thought. In fact only a few months after the Lehman bankruptcy.

 

So with the above 'perfections' taking place, the only thing that the SPV has not done is inform the borrowers, which it is obliged to do under the trust deed. Also, from the 'perfections' the SPV has still not registered its titles to the Land Registry. Furthemore, this is evidence that SPML/PML the lenders are insolvent but PWC are NOT putting them into adminstration or insolvency. Note SPML/PML/Capstone/Restfan still all overdue accounts.

 

We are still being had.

 

comments please.

 

ITBG?

 

l have not had access to the exact wording in the guarantee documents that exist between Originator-spv-Lehman Special Financing-Lehman Europ-Note Holders/Trusttee. What we know is this; the originator sells the beneficial part of its mortgage books to the spv (Eurosail or whatever). The spv re-packages all the mortgages in to tracts containing 100:s of mortgages as investment instruments and issues notes/bonds for investors to buy. Although there are obvious risks with this kind of investments, the spv mitigates the offer with a) the security of the deed. b) specal draw down funds for non-performing mortgages, additional draw down facilities from Lehman Special Funding backed by a Guarantee from Lehman Europe against swaps, i.e. re-purchase of bonds against cash at (l'm sure discounted prices). Problem, mortgages do not perform and investors start to draw on the special draw down facilities that eventually runs out of money. lnvestors start to panic and want to impose the swap guarantee and cash in their bonds. No can do as Lehman Special Funds and lehman Europe are in chapter 11. Next step? The investors MUST cancel all swap rights in order to enforce the perfection, i.e. through their trustee enforce their right of the legal titles. What is our situation then. Well, all of us have a contract with the originator that protects us irrespective who the actual owner of our mortgages is. All they can do is to try to re-negotiate our mortgages or simply buy us out with offers you just cannot resist, ie. discounts. But, what we must be aware of are the actual proceedings and the contract performance AND assignment itself.

GR

[wot2do?]

anyone know if Superslueth won or lost his case

[enoughisenough]

Does anyone have the precise or even approximate date for it?

[I'm the bad guy?]

Gus,

 

pretty much agree with what you say. However, I believe this was a True Sale securitisation. I have still not had a reply from Sue or anyone in a previous post on this:

 

How is it possible that assuming the SPV has only the beneficial title interest it can create a TRUST DEED of assets/mortgages with BNY Trustee?

 

It CANNOT, unless it is the legal title holder, that is the whole purpose of the TRUST DEED for security of the investors. If it was only beneficial, the investors would have none of it. Also, spoke to CH mortgage section and confirmed the m395 TRUST DEED is a SUB-CHARGE on assets/mortgages held as security.

 

Really, I'm only here for answers, does anyone know how a TRUST DEED can be created with only a beneficial interest by the SPV?

 

Comments please?

 

ITBG?

[Suetonius]

Suetonius,

 

Thankyou for you reply. BUT note the following:

 

1. Please show me where I have said 'you have also said that unless the borrowers are informed, "the assignment can only be equitable". Literally.

 

Post 1655

 

s.136 means that unless a notice has been given to the debtor / borrower, the assignment can only be equitable.

 

 

2. My question to you was' date=' from YOUR position, is the instruction from Capstone to note the interest of Eurosail as mortgagee, [u']in YOUR opinion sufficient notice[/u] to the borrower which would be in YOUR opinion, to satisfy LOP 1925 s.136?

 

In MY (just mirroring your use of caps ) opinion no.

 

I have not personally seen one of this letters however, from the limited information posted, it would appear that this letter is not an "express notice" to the borrower which expressly states that the mortgage has been sold.

 

Rather it would only appear to confirm that the benefical rights (aka right to the money) have passed to Eurosail.

 

3. Under the LRA 2002 Section 27(4)Schedule2 PART2: REGISTERED CHARGES

 

Part 2 Registered charges

Introductory

9. This Part deals with the registration requirements relating to those dispositions of registered charges which are required to be completed by registration.

 

Transfer

10. In the case of a transfer, the transferee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor.

 

Creation of sub-charge

11. In the case of the creation of a sub-charge, the sub-chargee, or his successor in title, must be entered in the register as the proprietor of the sub-charge.

 

The fact the SPV 'deliberately omits' to register its LEGAL TITLE under 10 above and the TRUSTEE BNY under 11. In my opinion this is further proof of concealment from the Land Registry. SuperSleuth did ask us to look at section 4 closely.

 

Section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002 specifically relates to registrable dispositions. As SPML has retained the legal title, the charge has not been disposed.

 

Just to be clear I MAINTAIN' date=' Supers' position that BOTH the legal & equitable title were transfered to the SPV from the lender during the True-Sale securitisation process.[/quote']

 

Apologies to both Bust the matrix and joncris for repeating my posts.

 

However, as the points raised by ITBG? are the same as SS, my responses are exactly the same as they were when SS raised them as they are now when raised by ITBG?

 

"21. Two of the exceptions are the consequence of US requirements. The first, which the Appellant contends is reflected in substance and in form in the structure which has been achieved, is that the assignment must be a true sale; it may not be an assignment by way of security if US accounting standards are to be respected (necessary because COBE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a US corporation which is subject to US standards). No such requirement is imposed by UK accounting standards, nor by the FSA"

 

Are you also saying that

 

House of Lords

Legislative Law (Law of Property Act 1925 & The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003)

Dr Ellis Ferran (Professor of Company and Securities Law at the University of Cambridge)

Halsbury

High Court of Justice (MBNA v HMRC)

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customers (HMRC)

Manchester Tribunal Centre (Capital One v HMRC)

Court of Appeal (Paragon v Pender 2005)

High Court of Justice (Paragon v Pender 2003)

Trust Law

 

have all got it completely wrong ?

 

However, this debate is important, to pose hypotheses and to come to each owns considered opinion. Its not about scoring 'points', but getting answers.

 

Over to you Sue, anyone?

 

ITBG?

ps how do select bits and such..

 

It CANNOT, unless it is the legal title holder, that is the whole purpose of the TRUST DEED for security of the investors. If it was only beneficial, the investors would have none of it. Also, spoke to CH mortgage section and confirmed the m395 TRUST DEED is a SUB-CHARGE on assets/mortgages held as security.

 

A M395 gets it's name from s.395 of the Companies Act 1985. A M395 is used for:

 

(a)a charge for the purpose of securing any issue of debentures,

(b)a charge on uncalled share capital of the company,

©a charge created or evidenced by an instrument which, if executed by an individual, would require registration as a bill of sale,

(d)a charge on land (wherever situated) or any interest in it, but not including a charge for any rent or other periodical sum issuing out of the land,

(e)a charge on book debts of the company,

(f)a floating charge on the company’s undertaking or property,

(g)a charge on calls made but not paid,

(h)a charge on a ship or aircraft, or any share in a ship,

(j)a charge on goodwill,

 

Sorry if I have missed anything ITBG?...

 

Why we are on a question and answer session, could you please confirm why

The Pender case, is not a citable precedent.

 

 

ITBG?

[littledotty27]

Apparently we have defaulted our SPO...(not)

Got a letter stating unless we pay £12.68 before 14th oct there going for repo..yes you did read right £12.68..how pathetic,this is the 3rd letter in under 2 weeks,with all different amount to be paid.

 

How about we all club together & strike a picket outside the head office,surely we must be able to get some media attention that way!!

[Suetonius]

Apparently we have defaulted our SPO...(not)

Got a letter stating unless we pay £12.68 before 14th oct there going for repo..yes you did read right £12.68..how pathetic,this is the 3rd letter in under 2 weeks,with all different amount to be paid.

 

How about we all club together & strike a picket outside the head office,surely we must be able to get some media attention that way!!

 

So crazy, you could not make it up...