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

[ryde]

With reference to the above:

Please do not lose sight that the situation everyone is now in appears to be unique in that the instigator of all these securitisations Lehmans has gone bankrupt and has not been bailed out by government as has previously been the case.

Assuming ITBG's and others applications to the insolvency service,fsa,dti companies house etc were successful and spml/pml and others were disqualified or declared insolvent.The spv eurosail to whom they have assigned the equitable and beneficial title would then be entitled to the full legal title under the terms stated in the prospectus.

The borrower would then according to lpa 1925 have to be notified that eurosail intended to register the legal title in its name,have I got this right.

ie:this is a notifiable application.

This would then give the borrower the right to object to the application on the grounds that the original contractual terms must be guaranteed.

This alone would make itbg's actions fully justified and wholly worthwhile.

It would also cause an administrative headache for capstone.

If spml etc were declared insolvent resultingly as per recent high court judgement (perpetual trustee/belmont) the legal tiles would not be the property of the official receiver but the spv.

Thought pwc administration ran out after a year.

Edited November 22, 2009 by ryde

[Suetonius]

I don't disagree they can sell the mortgage to whomever they wish. What I'm saying is they can't or shouldn't be able to sell the mortgage to another who's terms are detrimental to the original borrower

 

 

Totally 100% agree on the shouldn't part.....

[JonCris]

Totally 100% agree on the shouldn't part.....

 

OK As the courts now seem intent on overlooking statute in favour of common law then I suggest the lenders are remiss in their lawful duty of care

[Crapstone]

It's problem enough to get folks to go to the FOS or write a letter of complaint in the first instance. You lot need to get some spherical shaped bits.

 

If you don't go through the right channels to start with then your chances are zero. It's not so much the outcome but the dispute and the trying. All for the record..and ones that you won't lose..

 

We already know the should or shouldn't ...it's been discussed to death but the fact is those terms haven't been inflicted upon us directly. Business as usual in all ways and across the board whoever and whatever, or at least that's what they will have you think.

 

Challenge them ..what have you got to lose?

[ryde]

Eurosail-UK 2007-5NP - Notice of Meeting - InvestEgate

 

this needs some deciphering but indicates the current health and status of the spv who is now calling extraordinary resolutions,it also reveals how closely capstone are linked to them.There are many notices for all the spv funds.Its all as a result of borrowers defaulting.!

Edited November 22, 2009 by ryde

[wonderman]

Sorry JonCris, but I will be one that does mention the term/condition of an agreement (contract) that does state (or something with the meaning of).

 

"We have the right to sell assign any/all of our rights under this agreement."

 

It cannot be simply brushed under the carpet.

 

I would strongly urge no one to take that approach in Court.

 

Ownership be it either equitable or legal with regard to securitisation (except wholesale) is transferred via assignment. The right under the contact that is assigned (sold) is the right to payment.

 

As I previously said, within the last 15-20 years virtually every single mortgage, loan, credit card and HP agreement will have this term within the agreement. Admitedly the contract does not mention the word "securitisation" however, it does state in "clear english" that the lender will have the right to assign/sell its rights.

 

Therefore, in my own personal opinion any argument that someone cares to use that they were not told that a lender could assign a right under the agreement, has about as many holes in it as the legal title to sue argument.

 

1) Unless an agreement states that the lender cannot assign its rights, it can.

 

2) If a lender was to tell a borrower after a mortgage had been securitised that it had been, this could be argued to be an express notice as per the LOP 1925.

 

 

• As it is an equitable assignment, notification(post assignment) to the borrower is not required. (s.136 LOP 1925)
  
• As the term/condition is in the agreement contract, the borrowers further permission is not required. (as per above House of Lords)
  

 

Hi Suetonius,

 

Could you explain something?

 

LOP 1925 is a section that is relevant to Legal assignments only - so if the assignment is only an equitable assignment, then s.136 is not relevant. Why do you keep talking about s.136?

[mercyblue]

The eurosail document refers the the currency swap and the bullet cap both of which were backed by lehmans its the "extra" bits supposedly to make the deal a no-lose scenario its not referring to actual mortgage repayments

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Could you explain something?

 

LOP 1925 is a section that is relevant to Legal assignments only - so if the assignment is only an equitable assignment, then s.136 is not relevant. Why do you keep talking about s.136?

 

Good Morning Wonderman,

 

I will glady explain.

 

Certain posters (including ITBG?) maintain that securitisation involves the sale of the legal title. As I am sure you are aware, this is not something that I agree with and have argued the case that it is only the equitable/beneficial title for many, many months.

 

I say this because (for other reasons please see this thread), the legal title, includes the legal right to a "thing" and all legal remedies for the same. The legal right and all legal remedies can only be assigned via a Legal Assignment.

s.136 of the LOP 1925 states:

 

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—

 

Put simply, s.136 of the LOP 1925 details the criteria for a legal assignment ("express notice in writing").

 

Therefore in answer to your question, s.136 of the LOP 1925 confirms that unless an "express notice in writing" has been given to the borrower it is not effectual in law. An assignment that is not effectual in law and does not comply with s.136 of the LOP is an equitable assignment.

 

And that is why I continue to talk about it and will continue do so, to prevent people from relying on a agrument that has more holes in it than a siv. (my personal opinion)

 

That is also the very reason why I started to post in the securitisation threads. I know my posts are not popular and to be honest I don't care. I am not here to win friends.

 

Even if just one person has used a different argument to save their home because of what I have posted, than I am a very happy man.

 

I hope that is ok Wonderman....

Edited November 22, 2009 by Suetonius
sorry forgot to add "personal opinion" :-)

[wonderman]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Thank you for the reply...but I don't see your point. s.136 concerns only a legal assignment. You are saying that the assignment is an equitable assignment. If the assignment is an equitable assignment then s.136 is totally irrelevant. So please could you explain why you are arguing that s.136 is relevant to an equitable assignment?

[mercyblue]

please lets not go back to this legal title question its dead in the water long ago.

Anybody that goes bankrupt loses their house to the official receiver who will get the beneficial interest.

 

Bankruptcy - What will happen to my home in bankruptcy?

 

If anybody still thinks you need the legal title to do anything please read that.

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Thank you for the reply...but I don't see your point. s.136 concerns only a legal assignment. You are saying that the assignment is an equitable assignment. If the assignment is an equitable assignment then s.136 is totally irrelevant. So please could you explain why you are arguing that s.136 is relevant to an equitable assignment?

 

please lets not go back to this legal title question its dead in the water long ago.

 

I have responded on this thread to you wonderman....

[cagger80]

Eurosail-UK 2007-5NP - Notice of Meeting - InvestEgate

 

this needs some deciphering but indicates the current health and status of the spv who is now calling extraordinary resolutions,it also reveals how closely capstone are linked to them.There are many notices for all the spv funds.Its all as a result of borrowers defaulting.!

 

This may help

 

http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2008/dec08/24712.pd

[ryde]

CHANGE OF SUBJECT SLIGHTLY

mercyblue the reason they have posted all these notices is because of and as a result of the mortgage defaults.

For the consideration of all.

1)Capstone are the administrators that is the collectors and then distributors to eurosail the spv of the mortgage repayments

2)They are a seperate legal entity and could in fact administrate anyones mortgage.Their object is to survive the current situation.

3)The spv eurosail is legally entitled to the repayments ONLY on your mortgage it is not entitled to any administrative charges,arrears fees etc made by capstone and in fact has to pay them an administrative fee for collecting your mortgage.

4)Capstone levy exorbitant fees even fictional fees on the borrower for anything that deviates from the normal repayment.As has been reported over and over again arrears fees are in many cases more than the arrears.

These fees are NOT paid to the spv they are kept by capstone.

5)Capstones fees and charges come before any repayment to the spv out of your account.

6)What capstone are effectively doing is squeezing everything they can out of the borrower deliberately putting them into arrears to line their own coffers diverting funds to themselves instead of the spv.

This is putting the spv into a situation where they are failing,liquidity funds have been refused hence all the notices to investors.

THIS SITUATION IS DOWNRIGHT CONSPIRATORIAL AND SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO THE INVESTORS IN A POSTING ON THE INTERNET.

What I am saying is the borrower cannot pay off the arrears on their mortgage because the administrators charges are in many cases greater than the actual arrears payments.

I would suggest that someone posts a list of capstones administration charges here.All these posts come up in the google search I will then post if I can a notice to the investors about capstones charges and what they are doing because these big pension funds etc have an awful lot more power than we do and they're being conned,most mortgages are in default as a result of charges made by the administrator who are diverting funds meant for the spv into their own pockets by way of charges.Hope this makes sense.

We'll get the b.....s one way or another.

Edited November 22, 2009 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

sutonis,

 

I dont' do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Edited November 22, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?
incorrectly used a capital letter

[Suetonius]

Sutonis,

 

I dont' do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG?

 

Am I Mr Popular today ???

 

First it was wonderman, closely followed by IS IT ME? and now it is ITBG? as his alter female ego (must be a weekend thing ) ITGG?

 

I don't know why you keep posting that you don't do drugs.

 

I personally really don't care if you do or you don't.

 

However, your repeated posts that you don't do drugs, does very little to assist anyone.

[I'm the bad guy?]

i'd have to, to respond to that

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Edited November 22, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?

[Suetonius]

i'd have to, to respond to that

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG?

 

Please do........

[I'm the bad guy?]

just say NO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

d.a.r.e.

Edited November 22, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?

[Suetonius]

Could mods please delete posts 2816 -2820 (including my own).

 

They having nothing to do with the topic of this thread or subsequent discussions.

 

ITBG?, you are just making yourself look very foolish.

[I'm the bad guy?]

eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

[I'm the bad guy?]

is it safe to come out now!

 

 

has ITGG! gone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

Suetonius back to serious stuff.

If the equitable titleholder ie eurosail becomes as is increasingly possible the legal titleholder because of default.insolvency etc.

Would they have to apply to the land registry to register their legal charge or would it just entail a change of name?

The application as it is a transfer of the legal title would i assume be notifiable to the mortgagor ie us ,under lpa 1925.

[kegi]

quote

ryde

What capstone are effectively doing is squeezing everything they can out of the borrower deliberately putting them into arrears to line their own coffers diverting funds to themselves instead of the spv.

This is putting the spv into a situation where they are failing,liquidity funds have been refused hence all the notices to investors.

THIS SITUATION IS DOWNRIGHT CONSPIRITORIAL AND SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO THE INVESTORS IN A POSTING ON THE INTERNET.

That is a wild statement to make ryde without proof, as to the worlds top financial investors not being aware of such things I doubt that.

And where would that put the posting I made from a internet source that Capstone owe out 60 million pounds [not very good at it]

kegi

[ryde]

Kegi

look at previous posts, a fee of £115 a month because an account is in arrears is preposterous and completely unjustifiable,how much actual extra administrative work does an account in arrears entail.This means for every account in arrears capstone get £115 before anything is paid off the arrears towards the spv's payments.That sort of sum would support something like a £50000 interest only mortgage at normal rates.Don't forget capstone already get paid by the spv for collecting the mortgage.

I hope someone will post capstones current administration charges.This will prove what I am saying.

please post your source that capstone is owed £60000000, as collectors only for someone else ie the spv, I cannot see they are owed anything.They take their cut at source ie from us before it ever gets to the spv/investor.Their cut is now so large that the spvs are failing its as simple as that and their charges are pushing more and more into default resultingly pushing the spv into bigger default with the investor,pretty clever scheme.

Rats filling their bellies in preparation for deserting the sinking ship.

Edited November 22, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

reposted

Edited November 22, 2009 by ryde