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

[ryde]

kegi

lehmans set it all up they were the" lead bookrunner"

[supersleuth]

See...the bankers do not pay tax...and if the government dares to tax them, they just say, OK, we're moving out.

 

Bonus Tax May Drive Financial Firms Out of the U.K., BBA Says - BusinessWeek

 

Yes please, do move out. We don't need the securitisation industry or your Credit Default Swap industry, we were doing very well without them but now the whole country is bankrupt. Angela warns, it would be the "height of irresponsibility" to loose the banking industry, I say, it was the height of irresponsibility to have them in the first place! She laments the loss of our other industries, but doesn't say to the government, spend the money on real industry, no, she just wants our tax money to shore up more of their rot. And be warned, they need another £29 billion in capitalisation next year, plus however many billions in obscene bonuses and still want their billions of profit too. We the consumers will have to shore up all this too.

 

Mr Darling takes a call from Mr Dimon of US Giant JP Morgan who complains, hey don't tax the US Bankers for making billions of pounds off your minions. Mr Dimon really does not need to complain because as he knows, the obscene bonuses get paid off shore anyway and the UK tax man gets zilch. What he's really complaining about is that as of this week, the Inland Revenue require a declaration of the off shore assets that are owned. Thus, the off-shore tax evaded obscene bonuses might actually get taxed. So the bankers get a direct line to Darling to complain about paying any tax, but do you think Darling would take a call from you as a British Citizen?

 

Mr Dimon and his friends, whether directly or indirectly, have greatly benefitted from the the British consumer and tax payer: Alaistair,..darling, they're not here to give, they're only here to take.

 

What did our Darling do for us - mere soundbite: introduce repossession pre-action protocols, which none of the banks follow and no court has ever forced them to follow. Injustice is everywhere in abundance.

Edited January 3, 2010 by supersleuth

[h8them]

issued by

SOUTHERN PACIFIC SECURITIES 04-2 PLC

(the "Issuer")

on or about 29 July 2004

We refer to:

(a) the Mortgage Administration Agreement (the "Mortgage Administration Agreement") dated 9 August 2004 between, among others, Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited (whose role has been transferred to Capstone Mortgage Services Limited) (the "Mortgage Administrator"), Capita IRG Trustees Limited (the "Trustee")

 

It is being said then that Capita IRG Trustees Limited (the "Trustee") and not Southern Pacific Securities 04-02 (the "Issurer" & SPV) hold the Legal Title.

 

The Legal Title holder should be recored by the LR, so should Capita be recorded ???

[midge61]

Hi all

 

Interesting article in financial mail today

 

Nurse wins reprieve over repossession | This is Money

 

Quote from the FSA

The FSA says: 'Regulation doesn't cover the owner, only the administrator. And the administrator has no responsibility for setting rates and charges. We support proposals to extend our remit.'

[h8them]

Evening all,

 

is the concensus now that the trustee and not the spv owns the legal title

 

bit of a change from before no ?

 

Anyone ?

[eagleforms]

Heard half an item on the radio yesterday about court case that judged that lenders do not have to produce true copies of agreements. Anyone got any idea of what this was about.

Also had a reply to my complaints to SMPL and will report back when I have read through the guff they have sent.

[Gallahad]

Heard half an item on the radio yesterday about court case that judged that lenders do not have to produce true copies of agreements. Anyone got any idea of what this was about.

Also had a reply to my complaints to SMPL and will report back when I have read through the guff they have sent.

 

This thread will inform you

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable-53.html#post2676305

[ryde]

Originally Posted by h8them

Evening all,

 

is the concensus now that the trustee and not the spv owns the legal title

 

bit of a change from before no ?

 

h8

To save me going through all the posts and I know and appreciate you have invested an enormous amount of time and research into this and legal/equitable and agree with your analysis as that is what the courts promote.

My position is that there has always been a deliberate concealment for evasive purposes I simply cannot see the purpose of the originator retaining the legal title for any other reason.Its a pure sham.

Does the question you ask have any bearing on our situation ?

The locus standi of the originator to bring the repo claim is the big question.Because that is what is continually happening now,in fact its capstone who appear to be bringing the claim without any written authorisation from the originator and who have a contractural agreement as far as I know only with the spv!!!

If the trustee for the spv holds the legal title in trust on behalf of the investor it is the trustee who should bring the repo claim (through capstone)on behalf of the investor,is that what you're saying?

Edited January 3, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

Nurse wins reprieve over repossession | This is Money

originally posted by midge above.

Have posted an extract as our lot are mentioned and saves clicking the link.

Thanks midge well found.

Unregulated: The tough sub-prime mortgage lenders

 

Almost 50,000 homes were repossessed last year and many of these actions were brought by sub-prime lenders such as Rooftop.

These are mostly little-known firms that in 2006 and 2007 lent to higher-risk homeowners such as the self-employed or those with histories of arrears.

Many, like Rooftop, Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited (SPML) and Preferred, were first owned by American investment banks that failed.

The current ownership of many such lenders is unclear, even though tens of thousands of ordinary borrowers remain on their books. The Financial Services Authority says it has no list of such lenders or their parent companies and no knowledge of what mortgage rates they charge.

In many cases the lenders are thought to be foreign, unregulated businesses that can charge high mortgage rates and become aggressive if borrowers default.

 

 

Evidence from Citizens Advice, Shelter and other charities suggests these lenders are especially harsh over arrears. The law simply requires that the mortgages be run by a UK firm authorised by the FSA. But these have no control over lenders' rates or arrears policy.

The FSA says: 'Regulation doesn't cover the owner, only the administrator. And the administrator has no responsibility for setting rates and charges. We support proposals to extend our remit.'

The Treasury has outlined proposals to extend regulation to cover the new owners of these 'sold mortgage books'. Consultation concludes next month so any legislative change remains a long way off.

The regulated administrator firms, including some familiar names, are reluctant to talk.

Skipton Building Society, through its HML subsidiary, is the biggest administrator of other lenders' mortgage books. Its clients include lenders such as GMAC and Commercial First, both of which have been associated with unfair treatment of borrowers. HML refused to speak to Financial Mail.

Capstone, the administrator responsible for SPML and Preferred mortgages, also failed to answer our questions.(SURPRISE SURPRISE)

 

I THOUGHT ALL THE SPML ETC LOANS WERE REGULATED BY THE FSA .

WHY DON'T WE SEE IF WE CAN GET THE MAIL ON THIS LOT.WHILST THEY STILL SEEM "HOT TO TROT "

SEND THEM THE SAME COMPLAINT WE MADE IN RELATION TO LORD CAGGER'S (ITBG/ITGG ETC) POST.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ryde

[JonCris]

An interesting read

 

Fresh mortgage agony for borrowers under threat of repossession | Mail Online

[ryde]

As I am new to all this (new to this site that is, not new to SPML and Capstone unfortunately) can I just say, I think all your efforts are fantastic! Working together to try to unravel this absolute legal minefield. Lets hope that we all get a welcome boost and extra legpower by an imminent concrete announcement soon! Shame no-one knows some legal whizz or some interested reporter?

Well this is your chance got to keep banging away at them,POST AS MANY COMMENTS AS YOU CAN TO THE MAIL LINK ABOVE. THIS STORY IS THE TIP OF THE ICE BERG ESPECIALLY COMPARED WITH SOME OF OURS AND SHOWS JUST HOW IGNORANT "THE GREAT UNWASHED " ARE,

WHERE'S LORD CAGGER?

Edited January 3, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

Osprey, hello and welcome

 

In the earlier posts, you will see that a few caggers have been in touch with reporters...little dottty being one that i remember, and my self with a chap from bloomberg....not sure how further LD got with her reporter...my contact was at the time actually more interested in the impending down fall of another sub primer, namely cattles!! Not sure if we have anyone at the moment who is in contact with reporters?

 

regards

b-o-2

 

Nothing to lose post a comment with the mail and keep posting until just one of them listens,more comments the better.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

When You Think About It 50000 Repos,how Many By Sub Primers And How Many Illegally,almost A Small City!! Enough People To Fill Wembley Stadium.

[Suetonius]

It is being said then that Capita IRG Trustees Limited (the "Trustee") and not Southern Pacific Securities 04-02 (the "Issurer" & SPV) hold the Legal Title.

 

The Legal Title holder should be recored by the LR, so should Capita be recorded ???

 

Hello h8them,

 

No Capita does not own the legal title and no it should not be registered at the Land Registry.

[Sagittarius]

My position is that there has always been a deliberate concealment for evasive purposes I simply cannot see the purpose of the originator retaining the legal title for any other reason.Its a pure sham.

 

I agree. It's also usually easy to spot the "Banks" representative (and I don't mean the crock with the throat chain)

[Suetonius]

The below is my own personal understanding/opinion:

 

Typical English Securitisation

 

Equitable Assignment of Mortgage Loans

 

The Legal Title (Legal Rights & Duties) is retained by the Lender and the Equitable Title (Beneficial Interest) is assigned to the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). With the creation of the Equitable Title and with the conscience of the legal owner (Lender) being affected, thus requiring him to hold property as owner at law on behalf of the equitable owner (SPV), a trust is created.

 

Within this trust there is:

 

Settlor: (The owner of the Legal Title, including legal and equitable rights)

Trustee: (The owner of the Legal Title)

Beneficiary: (The owner of the Equitable Title)

 

Therefore:

Settlor: Lender

Trustee: Lender

Beneficiary: SPV

 

Only the Equitable Title (Beneficial Interest) to the Mortgage Loan is assigned to the SPV. The Mortgage Deed (Security) is retained by the Lender. Therefore, there has not been a deposition and no legal requirement for registration as required by the Land Registration Act 2002.

 

However, a contractual obligation is created between the Trustee and the Beneficiary. The obligation ensures that following a “Perfection Event” the Trustee will assign the Legal Title (including the Mortgage Deed) to the SPV.

 

In the event of the agreed circumstances, notice of assignment confirming the sale of the mortgage loan to the SPV will be sent to the borrowers (in compliance with s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925) and the SPV will register its (in compliance of the Land Registration Act 2002) Legal Title of the Mortgage Deed with the Land Registry as a deposition has then taken place.

 

 

Creation of Mortgage Backed Securities or MBS (also referred to as Securitisation)

 

The simplest Mortgage Backed Security is a pass-through MBS which simply distributes received interest and repayments of principal.

 

A Mortgage Backed Security is an asset-backed security or debt obligation that represents a claim on the cash flows from mortgage loans (Beneficial Interest), most commonly on residential property.

 

Mortgage loans are purchased from banks, mortgage companies, and other originators. Then, these loans are assembled into pools. Mortgage-backed securities represent claims on the principal and interest payments on the loans in the pool.

 

The SPV as the equitable mortgagee and Bankruptcy Remote owns in equity and manages the pool of mortgage loans.

 

 

The Trustee of the Issue of Notes (Different to the Legal Title Trustee)

 

The Trustee receives from the SPV, a charge over the SPV’s assets as a guarantee for the MBS holders (the Investors). The assets the trustee is given a charge over, include mortgages: more precisely the pooled cash flows from mortgages (Receivables).

 

The SPV is entitled to give the Trustee a charge on the pooled cash flow (Receivables) as following assignment of the Equitable Title (Beneficial Interest) it is an asset of the SPV.

 

 

 

 

The following illustration would appear to support the above expressed understanding.

 

 

This illustration was taken from:

 

Innovation in Securitisation: Yearbook 2006 (International Banking & Finance Law) (International Banking & Finance Law Series)

• Publisher: Kluwer Law International (1 Jun 2006)
  
• Language English
  
• ISBN-10: 9041125337
  
• ISBN-13: 978-9041125330
  

Page 126 - Section 3.2 The Role of the Trust in an English Securitisation Process.

 

 

 

 

This is not by any means the only independent book relating to securitisation that confirms equitable assignment. There is also:

 

Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future by Vinod Kothari

 

• Publisher: John Wiley & Sons; Har/Cdr edition (18 Aug 2006)
  
• Language English
  
• ISBN-10: 0470821957
  
• ISBN-13: 978-0470821954
  

Page 611 (continued on Page 612)- Equitable Assignment

"Why Equitable Assignment?

 

"Why do entities resort to equitable assignment? Essentially, to avoid the difficulties involved in full-scale legal transfer. These difficulties may either include having to notify the debtor (as under U.K. or Hong Kong law) or the stamp duties associated with a conveyance that the receivables (as in U.K. and India). Some preconditions for effecting an equitable transfer are:

 

• There must be an express intention on the part of the transferor to assign receivables.
  
• The receivables must be identified
  
• The buyer must have paid the consideration
  
• Though the obliger is not notified, the transaction must be carried out between the transferor and transferee as if full scale transfer had taken place. Therefore, the seller must not be paying from his general funds, but out of a specific fund or collections from the receivables.
  
• To allow the transferee to proceed against the obligors if the need arises, the transferor should be given a power of attorney authorizing the transferee to collect payments from the obligors.
  
• To support and strengthen the power of attorney specified above, a mandate should also be given requiring the obligors to pay the transferee."
  

And.......

 

Securitization Law and Practice: In the Face of the Credit Crunch (International Banking & Financial Law Series) by Jan Job de Vries Robbe

 

 

• Publisher: Kluwer Law International (30 Jun 2008 )
  
• Language English
  
• ISBN-10: 9041127151
  
• ISBN-13: 978-9041127150
  

 

Page 399 - 9.26 Legal Risks

 

"In English Law governed securitization transactions, one of two forms of assignments are used, equitable or legal assignment. If the assignment is equitable only, without notification to the borrower, then it only allows for protection under equity to the SPV as assignee. To ensure full protection at law however, the underlying borrowers must be notified of the assignment. The is generally done after the occurance of certain trigger events, which could indicate an increased risk of insolvency of the seller"

 

In addition to these books (none of which I wrote), there is also the other evidence that I have previously posted, including Halsbury's Laws of England

 

"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 bonds. 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 purposes.

 

The originator retains the powers of the mortgagee, including the right to possession 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 issuer.

 

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."

 

Are all these Authors and Publisher's also part of the great Legal Title conspiracy ?

 

I consider that the following extract from one of h8them's posts, sums up my thoughts on this matter:

 

_____________________________________________

 

Sources of Evidence of Equitable Assignment:

 

(1) Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760 Case No: B2/2003/2609

(2) Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2003] EWHC 2834 (Ch) Case No: CC/2003/PTA/0099

(3) GMAC RFC Limited v Sinclair

(4) Dr Eilis Ferran (Professor of Company and Securities Law at Cambridge University)

(5) Innovation in Securitisation: Yearbook 2006 (International Banking & Finance Law) (International Banking & Finance Law Series) , Mortgage Securitisation – Legal Aspects , Securitization: The Financial Instrument of the Future , Securitization law and Practice: In the Face of the Credit Crunch (International Banking & Financial Law Series) and Halsbury's Laws of England

(6) Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 4(3) of the The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003

(7) Post 3046 Consumer Action Group (CAG)

 

Sources of Evidence of Legal Assignment:

 

None

 

However, h8them has disregarded on the side of Sources of Evidence of Legal Assignment, personal opinion.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Suetonius
TYPO

[Suetonius]

Sorry for the long post, had to be done

[ryde]

Thanks suetonius

know you have been through this on many occasions.

So currently:

1)The possible insolvency of sppl is the trigger event causing the legal title to be transferred from them to the spv.

2)The" fsa regulated" originator(sppl/spml/pml/lmc etc) sets the mortgage rates and enforcement procedures on the instructions of the non regulated spv through their regulated administrator in this case capstone.

3)"Why do entities resort to equitable assignment? Essentially, to avoid the difficulties involved in full-scale legal transfer. These difficulties may either include having to notify the debtor (as under U.K. or Hong Kong law) or the stamp duties associated with a conveyance that the receivables (as in U.K. and India).

 

 

THATS HOW I READ IT ,

So the only reasons for the equitable assigment are purely for evasion and this is supported by the courts because it is executed within the current legal framework,

The best we can actually hope for then is a trigger event or the persistent default of the originator.

What about the actual "conscience" of the lender towards the borrower(joke)

Edited January 3, 2010 by ryde

[wot2do?]

lol here we go again

 

play it again ITBG?, like a record baby round round

[wot2do?]

You are too funny

[ryde]

Sounds like Lord Cagger is now employing a stroke of pure genius as adopted and employed with great success by the C.I.A.

Behavioral homeostasis theory of habituation and sensitization as applicable to Pavlovian conditioning.

So all beware of uncontrolled automatic responses,you won't know you've done it until someone tells you you have.

We could all become sleepers overnight awakened at some point in the future by Lord Cagger's mantra.

And whatever you do don't mention "Apples"

[Suetonius]

lol

 

Well it is time for me to turn off the computer and go to my bed.

 

Night night

[wot2do?]

Edited January 4, 2010 by wot2do?

[Crapstone]

Getting a bit sick of all this rapping and repeated posts. Funny to start with but now it just grates on me.

 

It's not something I want to be part of because this thread has a serious background and people have lost their homes and still face losing them.

[Suetonius]

Sorry Crapstone,

 

That is my fault. I know whenever I post in this thread, the automatic response from ITBG? is his "rap".

 

When I bid everyone good night, earlier this morning I was going to post details of additional books confirming equitable assignment. I changed my mind as I knew we would again be presented with the "rap".

 

I apologise in advance, if in response to this post, ITBG? posts his "rap" again.