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

[supersleuth]

zither

to clarify

1)sppl are in the throes of being struck off the companies house register as they have no directors and the spv to whom they have sold the beneficial interest in the loans has instructed the administrator/collector capstone to transfer the legal title to the loan (ie the charge registered in the name of sppl at the land registry) to the spv(southern pacific securities or whatever) they must notify you of this then the spv must register the charge at the land registry.

 

4)capstone and the lenders they collect your payments for ie sppl/spml/lmc/pml (although the reality is they collect for all the spvs to whom your loan was sold) are reportedly due to be heavily fined by the fsa for their practices as were gmac.

The reality is the spvs should all be fined as capstones contract is with them not the originators spml and the like,so it will be interesting to see who if anyone actually gets fined.

hope I have got this right and am sure fellow caggers will amend and further clarify where necessary,but this is how I currently see it all at present.

 

Hi Ryde,

 

You got it so right...and so I can't see why you really are so convinced that the various originators only sold an "equitable" interest. If the originators only sold the "equitable" interest to the SPV's then how is it that all of a sudden the SPV's can turn their "equitable" interest into a "legal" interest? Well interesting question for the legal v equitable argument isn't it?

 

You see, if SPML really did retain their "legal" ownership, then that "legal" ownership would vest in their trustee in bankruptcy. But you seem to think that its very OK for the say SPPL's bankruptcy trustee to be deprived of his right to the "legal" ownership. Think about it. If you knew you were just about to be made bankrupt and then say hey, I'm really a trustee for a beneficiary so I'll transfer all my "legal" interests to the "benficiaries", the bankruptcy trustee will say FRAUDULENT TRANSFER..and he'll be right! But yet, you seem to think it's OK for the SPV's to come up and say, hey, we little ole SPV's who only have a mere "equitable" interest will now make ourselves the "legal" owners. All of a suddent that "equitable" interest magically turns into a "legal" interest. Very interesting.

 

But don't worry cos you're right. You see, the SPV's have ALWAYS had the "legal" ownership. Even though Suetonius got most of the votes for his argument that the SPV's only had a little ole "equitable" interest. Rubbish. It's the SPV's that have always owned the legal title and always exercised ALL the LEGAL rights under your mortgage. They set your interest rates, they created a LEGAL sub-charge and filed that legal charge at Companies House (as is their LEGAL right as the LEGAL owner). But still, you will say that the SPV's only have an "equitable" interest. So ask Suetonious how does the SPV turn it's mere "equitable" interest into a "legal" interest? And before I get bored with hearing about that damned LPA s.136 written notice rubbish...remember, s.136 only concerns a chose in action i.e. the debt! It does not concern a transfer of an interest in REAL PROPERTY, which is your MORTGAGE DEED that granted them an interest in your PROPERTY i.e., a possession in action.

 

The answer is: they were transferred the LEGAL title a long time ago. They just didn't tell the LR!!!!!

 

But s.27(3) & (4) says that when a LEGAL title is transferred they MUST tell the LR...but they don't abide by the law - do they?...oh no...and s.123 says that it is a criminal offence to SUPPRESS AND CONCEAL information from the LR. Now look again at your prospectus. It says...we don't INTEND to tell the LR...we don't INTEND to register our interest at the LR. Correct. So the SPV's declare all over the prospectus that our fancy lawyers all know that LRA 2002 s. 27(3) &(4) says we must register and our fancy lawyers know that s.123 says it's a criminal offence to suppress and conceal information from the LR, but hey, that's for the minions, we, the SPV's aren't going to bother about that we just please ourselves cos we don't INTEND to register our legal title...the legal title that they've ALWAYS OWNED. Now if they haven't always owned the legal title, then of course, transferring the legal title on the eve of their bankruptcy would be a fraudulent transfer wouldn't it? So this is a bit of a catch 22. Either they're going to do a fraudulent transfer now, OR, the SPV's always did have the legal title in which case they committed a criminal offence under s.123. Oh well, no surprises cos we all know they're criminals anyway.

 

Now just incase you need further proof, check out the HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Brown Wilkinson and his take on the law. Read it for the principles of law when there is an issue of retaining or separting legal and equitable titles. It's in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v London Borough of Islington:

 

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996)

 

The Retention of Title Point

It is said that, since the Bank only intended to part with its beneficial ownership of the monies in performance of a valid contract, neither the legal nor the equitable title passed to the local authority at the date of payment.

The legal title vested in the local authority by operation of law when the monies became mixed in the bank account but, it is said, the Bank "retained" its equitable title.

I think this argument is fallacious. A person solely entitled to the full beneficial ownership of money or property, both at law and in equity, does not enjoy an equitable interest in that property. The legal title carries with it all rights. Unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estates, there is no separate equitable title. Therefore to talk about the Bank "retaining" its equitable interest is meaningless. The only question is whether the circumstances under which the money was paid were such as, in equity, to impose a trust on the local authority. If so, an equitable interest arose for the first time under that trust.

 

The Separation of Title Point

The Bank's submission, at its widest, is that if the legal title is in A

but the equitable interest in B. A holds as trustee for B.

Again I think this argument is fallacious. There are many cases where B enjoys rights which, in equity, are enforceable against the legal owner, A. without A being a trustee, e.g. an equitable right to redeem a mortgage,

equitable easements, restrictive covenants, the right to rectification, an insurer's right by subrogation to receive damages subsequently recovered by the assured: Lord Napier and Ettrick v. Hunter [1993] A.C. 713. Even in

cases where the whole beneficial interest is vested in B and the bare legal interest is in A. A is not necessarily a trustee, e.g. where title to land is acquired by estoppel as against the legal owner: a mortgagee who has fully discharged his indebtedness enforces his right to recover the mortgaged property in a redemption action, not an action for breach of trust.

Edited December 31, 2009 by supersleuth

[Crapstone]

Hi EIE,

 

My personal thoughts on a safe way of doing it is: pay the money into court....or, seeing as they are so very very fond of TRUSTS, open up a savings account and tell them that you will pay the money each month into this savings account and that you formally declare that particular savings account number XXX is money that you (as the trustee for SPPL) will hold on trust for both them (SPPL) as a beneficiary and also you as a beneficiary. Tell them that you will continue to pay the money into court (or into the TRUST fund that you have set up for them and declared your self as a trustee for them) until they have produced satisfactory evidence that they are lawfully and legally entitled to receive the money on behalf of SPPL. Oh, and do mention that you will only pay the money over when you receive written confirmation from an SPPL director and that the trust will terminate the earlier of either: your receipt of a letter signed by an SPPL director, or a letter from SPPL's bankruptcy trustee, or the 2nd Anniversary of the notice of the trust. If by the 2nd anniversary you haven't received either of the two letters, then as trustee, you (as the trustee) can pay the money back to yourself as the beneficiary. Check it out with a solicitor...anyone can create a TRUST...e.g. if you're a parent, then you're probably already a trustee with a Child Trust Account for your kids anyway.

 

Also, if when SPPL are struck off, then as JonCris has mentioned, you must not pay them because by law SPPL's bankruptcy trustee will be the entity you must lawfully pay.

 

In the meantime, who are you paying? If it is not a bank account that is SPPL then you are not getting "good receipt" for your payments. Only SPPL as the so called "legal" owner of the charge can give you good receipt for your payments. Thus, if you are paying into an account called say "Capstone", then without Capstone proving to you that they are lawfully SPPL's agent then Capstone can't give you good receipt.

 

In the meantime, here's and excellent bit of fun

(if link doen't work then youtube "Bank Aid - Do they Loan this Christmas"

 

Hi EIE,

Still hanging on in there with the faith...there's plenty of good people out there especially you. Oh and check out the video...there's so many of us who know what's really going on and sometimes it's good to make light of it....helps maintain sanity in the face of all this corruption.

 

As good as it might sound, I woudn't choose that route. Been there, done that and had the charges to boot. Keep paying as usual until told otherwise...don't take a gamble on what will happen next. Talking the talk is fine but if you end up before an 'ivory tower' judge to keep your home then that's a different stress level altogether. You should know by now they only see the B&W and any legal arguement against the automatic rubber stamp costs money, time and a whole load of stress.

[Crapstone]

Just tried Capstones website and it's down..Are they updating it, is it just my computer or is it a sign? lol

 

http://www.capstonemortgageservices.co.uk/capstone/sitedocs/contact.aspx

[supersleuth]

As good as it might sound, I woudn't choose that route. Been there, done that and had the charges to boot. Keep paying as usual until told otherwise...don't take a gamble on what will happen next. Talking the talk is fine but if you end up before an 'ivory tower' judge to keep your home then that's a different stress level altogether. You should know by now they only see the B&W and any legal arguement against the automatic rubber stamp costs money, time and a whole load of stress.

 

 

The rubber stamp. Agreed. No law, just a rubber stamp. Fortunately there are a very small number of judges who do apply the rule of law. Not many, but some...good luck...in the end, it's always the rubber stamp.

[Crapstone]

The rubber stamp. Agreed. No law, just a rubber stamp. Fortunately there are a very small number of judges who do apply the rule of law. Not many, but some...good luck...in the end, it's always the rubber stamp.

 

I don't need any luck..I've has almost 7 awful years with Capstone and the SPML feckers. Hard work and determination has paid off and they are eating out of my hand for a change.

[ryde]

supersleuth

I believe the consensus of opinion is that the "retention of the legal title" is a huge sham unfortunately supported in many cases by the courts and the ignorance or unwillingness to listen by the various dj's ,there can be no other purpose for its paper retention than basically to defraud the borrower who believes they have signed a regulated contract with a lender who will comply with the regulations laid down by the fsa and fsma 2000 etc when in reality this regulated contract has been transferred to an unregulated spv who carries out their performance of the contract in a completely unregulated manner for as long as they can possibly get away with it,hence the existence of this forum.

I am currently involved in a case where the whole thing turns on this very point and concerns an application by the originator to register a legal charge.I have produced numerous documents where the originator has been clearly shown to have securitized/sold the loan to the spv and my case is that the originator has no locus standi to make the application to register the charge(the application should be by the spv) ,I have asked that the originators are put to the full proof that they own the loan.

The reply by the judiciary.

Full disclosure is denied and if relevant the topic can be heard at the hearing.This has left no option but to appeal without permission or a stay of proceedings(which has been denied without reasons) to the high court at huge cost and incovenience.

If the hearing goes ahead I will most definetely lose purely because the originator's word that they own the legal title to the loan is,will and has without any proof already been accepted.

Edited December 31, 2009 by ryde

[zither]

Thank you for that clarification on events. I am a bit clearer now and will watch things a bit closer now, thanks once again.. Oh, by the way -GOOD MORNING GUEST!

[supersleuth]

supersleuth

I believe the consensus of opinion is that the "retention of the legal title" is a huge sham unfortunately supported in many cases by the courts and the ignorance or unwillingness to listen by the various dj's ,there can be no other purpose for its paper retention than basically to defraud the borrower who believes they have signed a regulated contract with a lender who will comply with the regulations laid down by the fsa and fsma 2000 etc when in reality this regulated contract has been transferred to an unregulated spv who carries out their performance of the contract in a completely unregulated manner for as long as they can possibly get away with it,hence the existence of this forum.

I am currently involved in a case where the whole thing turns on this very point and concerns an application by the originator to register a legal charge.I have produced numerous documents where the originator has been clearly shown to have securitized/sold the loan to the spv and my case is that the originator has no locus standi to make the application to register the charge(the application should be by the spv) ,I have asked that the originators are put to the full proof that they own the loan.

The reply by the judiciary.

Full disclosure is denied and if relevant the topic can be heard at the hearing.This has left no option but to appeal without permission or a stay of proceedings(which has been denied without reasons) to the high court at huge cost and incovenience.

If the hearing goes ahead I will most definetely lose purely because the originator's word that they own the legal title to the loan is,will and has without any proof already been accepted.

 

 

Hi Ryde, you are really on the ball and you really do see it all with clarity. There is a sting going down and unfortunately our corrupt courts are all too complicit in the fraud. The courts assist the concealment of truth using the "relevancy" argument to block disclosure. But, you may find it useful to argue that s.58(2) disapplies the Land Register's "principle of conclusiveness" when there are s.27 registration requirements that "remain to be met". Here the SPV's registration requirements remain to be met so SPML (or whichever one it is you're arguing against) are complicit in assisting the SPV's to suppress the information from the LR. Thus SPML's registration is not conclusive proof of their alleged "legal ownership". Use also the Law Commission Report to assist you on this point.

 

With regard to the "if relevant" bit, the disclosure is very relevant. It proves the fact as to whether or not the originator has locus standi. That is entirely the question before the court. If the court wants to deny you the discloure then the court is in violation of Art. 6(1). See CPR 31.0.6 "Duty to disclose....Part 31 applies to all claims except small claims....A failure by a "public authority" (within the meaning of s.6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998) [n.b. a court is a public authority] to disclosure, or to permit disclosure of, documents relevant to the issues in the case which would assist a party to establish its case may constitute a denial of the ECHR, Art 6(1) right to a fair hearing." See e.g. McGinley and Egan v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR.

 

Also see CPR 31.6.3 which lists 4 categories of documents. The documents that you want fall into category 2 which are "Adverse documents", in that they are documents which to a material extent adversely affect a party's own case or materially support another's case. Additonally or alternatively, the documents fall into category 3 documents, in that, they are relevant to the issues but do not fall obviously into catergory 1 or 2 because they do not obviously support or undermine either sides case. They are part of the "story" or background. Then there is category 4 which are a "train of inquiry docuements, which may lead to a train of enquiry enabling a party to advance his own case or damage that of his opponent.

 

The court knows that if it looks at the documents then they will HAVE to find for YOU. That's why they deliberately refuse you disclosure and therein lies the courts corrupt complicity. Use the Art.6 to set up your case for the ECHR. You will have an ECHR action against the UK if the courts refuse to disclose.

 

Keep going...you're nearly there.

Edited December 31, 2009 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Oh, and just one more thought, the impending strike off of these charlatans may assist your cause. It's a timing issue, but what will the courts say when the criminals are struck off at CH? Hmmm problem for the complicit courts eh.

[enoughisenough]

Thank you Super.

 

We all know the courts are up to their necks in this and this is sadly a truth that becomes more evident the higher we progress up the judicial food chain. Just ask Heath, Walker or Story or even if you believe they actually wanted to win the OFT in the bank charges case.

 

However even our own Supreme Court is bound by law emanating from the EU and there is very little wriggle room. This could be another one in the eye for our wonderful courts if they fail as they usually do to consider the unfair charges. The UTCCRs arise from a European directive. At the risk of being boring...

 

In 1993 the European Union published a Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts (Council Directive 93/13/EEC). The Directive was implemented in the UK via the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994, which came into force on 1 July 1995. The regulations were amended in 1999, in the form of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) (the Regulations).

 

In respect of Schedule 2 of the regulations a non-exhaustive list is provided of terms which may be regarded as unfair, (inter alia)

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier … exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

 

(o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his; (by which I mean that you are bound by the laws of England and Wales)

 

(q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

 

Further, regulation 8 (1) provides as follows: ‘An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer’.

 

In addition to which regulation 5. - (1) states “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

 

Furthermore (2): A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

Finally, but not exhaustively...

 

12. –(3) The court on an application under this regulation may grant an injunction on such terms as it thinks fit.

 

We have been through this before and my point is therefore not the regulations. Good God, try getting anyone to observe or enforce them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and had we been sufficiently well versed in all this say 3 years ago we could have ground Capstone into the dust with a series of claims long before we were driven to the brink of extinction.

 

That opportunity has escaped us, but it presents another one. Every time we have been to court and not been heard on these charges, even without our asking, any order made by the court is most likely void.

 

 

Emanations of the state including the regulatory authorities and critically the courts are for the purposes of the treaty of Rome domestic institutions which are deemed community institutions also.

 

What does this mean? It means that if any domestic institutions fails in its duty arising under community law any individual who suffers a loss as a consequence of this failure can sue the state for damages. So called francovich damages. And the ECJ is hearing an increasingly large number of these cases each year. if you are fed up with the FSA the OFT, the FOS and the courts each of these really is in the firing line.

Edited January 2, 2010 by enoughisenough
Added info and development of points to a hastily written post.

[wot2do?]

You see, if SPML really did retain their "legal" ownership, then that "legal" ownership would vest in their trustee in bankruptcy. But you seem to think that its very OK for the say SPPL's bankruptcy trustee to be deprived of his right to the "legal" ownership. Think about it. If you knew you were just about to be made bankrupt and then say hey, I'm really a trustee for a beneficiary so I'll transfer all my "legal" interests to the "benficiaries", the bankruptcy trustee will say FRAUDULENT TRANSFER..and he'll be right! But yet, you seem to think it's OK for the SPV's to come up and say, hey, we little ole SPV's who only have a mere "equitable" interest will now make ourselves the "legal" owners. All of a suddent that "equitable" interest magically turns into a "legal" interest. Very interesting.

 

 

While you was away Superslueth a case in the Court of Appeal was discussed.

 

English Court of Appeal Unanimously Upholds First Instance Decision in Perpetual Case

 

"On 6 November 2009, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed LBSF’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision that provisions which allow for the subordination of rights or beneficial entitlements of LBSF on its bankruptcy or default are valid and effectual under English law."

[osprey29]

Can someone confirm, if they know, is it just SPPL that looks likes its impending insolvency? SPML is not quite there yet? Those public notices detailing selling bonds etc., predominently mention SPPL but later on in scipt, mention SPML impending insolvency too? Bit confusing? Is it perhaps SPPL is further up the formal paperwork chain than SPML? THX

[supersleuth]

While you was away Superslueth a case in the Court of Appeal was discussed.

 

English Court of Appeal Unanimously Upholds First Instance Decision in Perpetual Case

 

"On 6 November 2009, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed LBSF’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision that provisions which allow for the subordination of rights or beneficial entitlements of LBSF on its bankruptcy or default are valid and effectual under English law."

 

How interesting that a law firm with a hugely vested interest puts out a piece of self-congratulatory press release. There are two short answers to their propaganda. First, in the words of the famous Profumo scandal "well they would say that wouldn't they!", and secondly, have you read the case yourself? Do you think that the Sidley Austin press release is a fair and accurate analysis or what was actually decided in that case? In my view their spin on the case is pure poppycock.

 

The point is, that there were no equitable interests sold to the SPV who are the so called beneficiaries. The SPV always owned the legal title. The SPV as the LEGAL OWNER created a trust and gave their legal interest to a trustee who held the mortgages in trust for the investors. The SPV has never been a mere beneficiary. They are the ones who settled their legal interest into trust to be held for the investors as beneficiaries. Thus, I do not argue that the SPV will now make a fraudulent transfer, I am saying that the SPV has always been the legal owner and have committed a criminal offence under s.123 when the INTENDED to conceal and suppress the information from the Land Registry to hide the fact that they were and always have been THE LEGAL OWNERS!

 

Just in case there's still any confusion - the SPV have never been the beneficial owners of an equitable interest!...They have always been the legal owners!

Edited December 31, 2009 by supersleuth

[wot2do?]

How interesting that a law firm with a hugely vested interest puts out a piece of self-congratulatory press release. There are two short answers to their propaganda. First, in the words of the famous Profumo scandal "well they would say that wouldn't they!", and secondly, have you read the case yourself? Do you think that the Sidley Austin press release is a fair and accurate analysis or what was actually decided in that case? In my view their spin on the case is pure poppycock.

 

may not be just spin (from the Master of the Rolls).

 

"We very recently gave judgment in a Lehman Brothers case, which involved our deciding whether a provision which improved the position of note holders under synthetic collateralised debt obligations vis-à-vis a Lehman subsidiary on the insolvency of the Lehman parent was contrary to the bankruptcy law (Perpetual trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd).

 

We held that it was not, and we were told that the New York bankruptcy court was waiting to hear the outcome, in order to decide how to proceed. It seems pretty likely that our decision is different from what it would be in US law."

 

Switching priority when winding up companies - Times Online

 

"certain contractual provisions which, on an insolvency event, switched the priority over assets and changed the allocation of specific costs to the potential detriment of Lehman BSF, were valid because the antideprivation rule did not apply to them;"

mr-insolvency-law-dinner-lecture-11112009.pdf

Edited December 31, 2009 by wot2do?
Add Timeonline

[ryde]

kegi

sober posts only please,are you off to high wycombe tonight for the new years bash,could be the last so try and make the most of it.

Do you know I have this strange vision of you somehow as one of the "sans culottes ",wonder why? ( victor hugo,french revolution "lez miserables"(good name for a cagger?! that) etc etc.

oh and by the way,wishing you and all fellow caggers a successful new year,will all our dreams come true at last ,justice for the masses ??

[ryde]

supersleuth

agree with what you say as do many.Basically complete and deliberate manipulation of legal loopholes and laxity of regulators,capstone fraudulently pose as the collectors/administrators for the lender/originator when their contractural obligation is not with them at all but is with and to the spv.Retention of the legal title serves no purpose but to effectively deregulate the loan and dissipate accountability for contractural performance and obligation through numerous third parties.

the perpetual case as I read it states that the contractural obligation of lehmans to the spv binds them as it was pre their insolvency.The assets therefore are not part of the insolvent estate which is what lehmans wanted,they belong to perpetual.This tends to reinforce the argument that in reality it was a true sale to start with.

 

CAN ANYONE IN FACT OFFER A VALID REASON WHY THE LENDER/ORIGINATOR RETAINS THE LEGAL TITLE.

1)LAND REGISTRY TRANSFER FEES

2)SDLT FEES

3)ACCOUNTS

THEY,RE THE ONLY 3 REASONS I can think of.All open to accusations of fraudulent concealment.

Edited December 31, 2009 by ryde

[littledotty27]

Here is the information I have received.

 

The London Mortgage company has failed to deliver their accounts for the period ended 30 November 2008, which were due for filing no later than 30 September 2009. The Registrar is required to send two statutory notices to the company to establish if the company is in business and operation. If the company fails to deliver the overdue accounts or does not respond to these notices the Registrar will continue with the process of dissolving the company. This will culminate in a notice being issued in the London Gazette highlighting the Registrar's intention to strike the company off, unless cause to the contrary is shown within three months of the notice being issued. So whilst the process of removing the company from the register is underway it will be several months and not days before the company is dissolved and this on the proviso that they fail to deliver the accounts or contact Companies House.

[kegi]

Just in case there's still any confusion - the SPV have never been the beneficial owners of an equitable interest!...They have always been the legal owners!

 

Would you agree then super in that case since the conception of these agreements set up say from 2005 all repo's done have been illegal ie none of the fab four had any right to litigate.And as the true owner [your words]the SPV is not registered with L/R they also do not have the right to litigate [set aside the fact they have sold on the beneficial interest].So no one does that would be more than a backdoor they have left open for us to exploit its a cavern .

 

You must also then believe that the letter to noteholders posted on here is also part of the sham/[problem] what ever you want to call it.

 

quote super

Oh, and just one more thought, the impending strike off of these charlatans may assist your cause. It's a timing issue, but what will the courts say when the criminals are struck off at CH? Hmmm problem for the complicit courts eh.

 

the bit above and the bit from little dottys post ref CIB that LMC nor SPPL haveing any right to bring legal actions implies to me that if they were not to be struck off etc etc that they would be able to bring action against us.

 

Feel free to knock me down I've already been defrocked

thanks Ryde lol

 

kegi sober as a judge

[wot2do?]

You must also then believe that the letter to noteholders posted on here is also part of the sham/[problem] what ever you want to call it.

Do you mean the letter/notice that said

Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited ("SPPL") is an originator and current holder of the legal title to the Mortgages.......

 

...........The imminent insolvency of SPPL will have various implications, such implications including but not limited to, issues relating to the holding of title to the Mortgages relating to each Loan comprised in the Mortgage Pool and the Collection Account.......

 

...........Clause 15.1(b) of the Mortgage Administration Agreement provides that the Mortgage Administrator shall, if requested by the Issuer (with the consent of the Trustee) or the Trustee, deliver to the Issuer (with the consent of the Trustee) or the Trustee, as the case may require, all Property Deeds and up-to-date schedules for attachment to the Transfers and give formal notice of a legal assignment as the case may require of each Mortgage relating to each Loan comprised in the Mortgage Pool and of such charge and guarantee to the relevant Borrowers..........

 

does make you wonder

[h8them]

Going around in the equitable and legal assignment circles again

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2608337.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2608374.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2611978.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2617859.html

 

2010 a new year people

[kegi]

wot2do

thats the one thanks

it should make one wonder that is to the noteholders not me and you?

 

h8them

I'm not I know where I stand or fall depending how much I've supped:p

Happy new year

waiting for the fireworks to start

kegi

[h8them]

Have a good night Kegi.

 

I am sure the fireworks will start tomorrow

 

 

"Equitable Assignment is an inconvenient truth"

 

 

[ryde]

littledotty

same should apply to all of them not just lmc as have all failed to deliver accounts .What a long protracted process.LMC is same as sppl NO DIRECTORS.

H8them we're no disputing the legal loophole we all know its been exploited,there's the moral and ethical principle but most importantly the fraudulent concealment.

Again what is the purpose of the retention by a pure originator of the legal title? I believe it to be purely for evasion.

kegi

do us all a big favour just pour a gallon of beer over all their servers and fry their hard drives,thanks in advance.

[Crapstone]

Just popped in to say Happy New Year to you guys and girls. Let's hope it will be a better one for all of us.

 

Love and best wishes to you all,

 

Karen xxx

[h8them]

It is not only SPML/SPPL that uses securitisation or even only sub-prime (hate that term) lenders.

 

 

Abbey

Alliance & Leicester

Barclays

Bradford & Bingley

Britannia

Capstone

GMAC RFC

HBOS

HSBC

Kensington

Lloyds TSB

Morgan Stanley

Northern Rock

Paragon

Royal Bank of Scotland

Standard Life

 

All of the above also use securitisation, some of the links are out of date but some of those that are still valid give you access to additional documentation.