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

[enoughisenough]

None that I can Find!

 

I'll keep digging though.

 

Check your PM regularly though teehee!

[supersleuth]

Hi Enoughisenough

 

The documents that you sent (are public documents and so can be shared on with other CAGgers.

 

This whole repossession nightmare that everyone is facing is because of certain 'triggers' in the securitisation documents. If a certain scenario happens, then the Investors have the right to have their notes redeemed early. i.e. earlier than the note redemption date - which means for the borrower - earlier than your 25 year term.

 

If the trigger event happens such that the Investors Notes can be redeemed early, there is only one way that the SPV can get the money to redeem the notes. That means, they will either force you to remortgage (which is now virtually impossible) or they will repossess you. Either way, they will liquidate you in order to get the cash to redeem the investors note.

 

That is the real scandal behind all this crap. That is why they have, in a lot of cases actually created the arrears that they complain about and why they force you into arrears. They do not want you to have the loans any more they want to cash out. That is why the interest rates are so high, the charges so excessive etc., they want to MAKE you default so that they can claim a repossession. It is the passive-agressive tactic - they look like the poor old victim who has a "bad Borrower" that doesn't pay, when in fact they've abused their contractual powers to force you into arrears. They are determined to repossess so that they can liquidate the mortgage pool in order to redeem the notes for the investors.

 

See e.g. the Standard and Poors document. That document is a type of 'advert' which tells potential investors that the deal is coming up and gives the investors and interest to consider whether to buy the notes. It a type of marketing document outlining the main points of the investment opportunity. The Propectus thereafter gives the final and full details.

 

Nonetheless, look at the page on the S&P document were it states:

Mandatory redemption

The notes will be subject to mandatory redemption in part on each interest payment date from available funds. [i.E. THE FUNDS THAT BECOME AVAILABLE AS AND WHEN THEY REPOSSESS YOU AND THE FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE FROM THE SALE OF YOUR PROPERTY] Redemption will occur sequentially. There will be no mandatory redemption of the junior notes while any of the senior notes are still outstanding.

However, if certain tests are met, redemption will occur pro rata according to the principal amount outstanding of the notes. These tests include:

• Passing an arrears test;

• Having no principal deficiency on any class of notes;

• Maintaining the balance of the reserve fund at the required level;

• Having no outstanding liquidity drawings;

• At least 50% of the class A notes having been fully redeemed; and

• The A1 notes having been repaid in full.

Optional redemption

The issuer may redeem all the notes at their outstanding principal amount, together with accrued interest if:

• The notes become subject to a withholding tax; or

• At any time the principal amount outstanding of the notes (excluding the class DTc notes) is lower than 10% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes at the closing date (excluding the class DTc notes).

 

These are the terms of certain trigger event which will cause the MANDATORY or option redemption of the Investor Notes. You can take it as red that these events have been triggered and that is why all these mortgages WILL be repossessed (unless the borrower has managed to remortgage).

 

The other document that you sent is a public notice to the investors in certain Notes. In the Mortgage sale agreement between SPML and the SPV, SPML will have made certain REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES about the mortgages - e.g. SPML will have represented that the mortgages in the mortgage pool have a loan to value (LTV) of say, 90%. If subsequently, that REPRESENTATION turns out to be untrue, then the SPV can say to SPML - hey you falsely represented the LTV and if we had known the truth, we would not have bought THAT mortgage so, in accordance with the Mortgage sale agreement, SPML will say, oh whoops sorry, of course you must have a refund and we will take back the mortgage. Think of it like a kinda returns policy same as when you take a product back to Marks and Spencer.

 

BUT even though SPML may have taken back some mortgages and refunded that particular SPV - SPML would have thereafter, put that mortgage back into another pool and securitised it off again anyway.

[Smarterchick]

If that's the case SS, what have I got wrong here? In earleir posts it is being stated that the SPV's are the rightful owners of the loans and mortgages and repossesions should not be being undertaken by the loan company, but above you are stating that repossession CAN be effected...by the SPV? - I thought these SPV's were unlikely to do that due to their 'amost secret' exisitance? - how does the layperson get to grips with the difference between the two?

[supersleuth]

If that's the case SS, what have I got wrong here? In earleir posts it is being stated that the SPV's are the rightful owners of the loans and mortgages and repossesions should not be being undertaken by the loan company, but above you are stating that repossession CAN be effected...by the SPV? - I thought these SPV's were unlikely to do that due to their 'amost secret' exisitance? - how does the layperson get to grips with the difference between the two?

 

Don't know where you think I am stating that repossession Can be effected by the SPV because I have not said that at all. You question how the layperson gets to grips with the difference - that is the point! They don't want the layperson to get to grips with it - they want it concealed. That is why people on this thread have been so remarkable - they've worked out who their SPV is!

 

You do not know WHO your SPV is yet. Your mortgage is with Swift Advance (is that correct?). You only know that Swift Advances originated your mortgage (is that correct?). Are Swift Advances named as the owner of your mortgage on your property register at the Land Registry. Whoever is registered at the land registery as the owner of your mortgage will be the company that SOLD your mortgage to the SPV.

 

That is the starting point for working out to whom they sold your mortgage. It's the only thing you can go on. So, if you read the earlier parts of this thread and other thread such as the "Preffered Mortgages" thread, you will see how people sussed out who their SPV is. Once you've worked out who your SPV is, then you can use the Prospectus to give you all the information about how your mortgage is being abused. It is hard, I know, but it can be done, as many people on this thread have already done it.

 

As I said before, check your building insurance policy - which companies are named as having an interest in your buildings insurance policy? You may find some obscure company that you haven't heard of before is on your policy - that could be your SPV.

 

Get a copy of Swift Advances Annual Report and Accounts (it costs £1) online from Companies House - read especially the notes in the accounts which may also tell you the names of companies. Find out who the parent company of Swift Advances. Like I said, there is some ground work to do, but it can be done. All I can do is give you pointers as to where to look.

 

Gotta do the ground work, but as a SmarterChick you will suss it out and as you get the info - we Caggers will all help you to connect the dots.

 

Supersleuth

[Smarterchick]

Digging I have absolutely no problems doing- it's a hoof mine (HOOF??? - Hobby, sorry, ) sussing it out, once the penny drops will be no trouble, it's just joining up all the different sets of numbers..like the ones I sent you. I have already done a companies house style breakdown on Swift, their directors and their group, if it's there I'll find it. I've followed this and the other thread for Preferred avidly from the start so the odd nudge here and there is how this all works and all I need, the others as you say have done it brilliantly, I'll find it. Do those numbers I last sent you joinging those accounts have any relevance?

Edited March 11, 2009 by Smarterchick

[supersleuth]

Hi Smarterchick,

 

The numbers didn't reveal anything to go on. As you say, it looks like they are bank account references - might even be the bank account of the SPV but if it is the SPV account number, at this stage it doesn't tell you who the SPV is. Keep digging and keep asking questions - that's what is so great about this web-site.

 

BTW - that Beacon link you posted earlier shows Beacon are a "packager" of the mortgages - i.e. packages them up for securitisation. So look out for the other mortgages that Beacon packages as they would probably package Swift morgages with e.g. First Plus (i.e. one their other clients)

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

[andrew1]

Intriguing Supersleuth, we could do with someone like you to unravel this ..I'm amazed at everyones input..good work all of you. True CAG grit..

[supersleuth]

Hi Guys,

 

Check out this blog site where the House of Commons Butler evidence is discussed with a barrister that calls himself FatBigot. It relates to the false/imposter lender's legal title to sue.

 

Mark Wadsworth: "Are securitisation companies above the law?"

[scedminc]

Good find SuperSleuth. Not be around much lately so have had to catch up on the threads. Just read what you just posted and sounds like FatBigot has run away and hid in a corner now with nothing else to say lol. Just goes to show if they are a barrister that either condone and probably work for these criminals or just do not understand. You would think though that as a barrister they would have at least look at a prospectus and not just assumed that a deal is done on equitable interest.

[enoughisenough]

Do you not think that this might cast just a smidgen of doubt?

[midge61]

hi

 

Having just read the blog I was at first concerned that we are on the wrong track but to be honest Fatboy seems to be going on past experience and the law has changed since then.

 

Our prospectus's show a TRUE sale has happened and therefore Carmel Butler is right and it just needs testing.

 

Greed leads greedy men to do anything to make a fast buck ....... just look at the mess that RBS created.

[andrew1]

So what are you guys suggesting on here - a mortgage is unenforceable by the original loan company if it's been secutitised? Geez, That then begs the question of who could enforce it...The banks won't like this one jot!

[scedminc]

So what are you guys suggesting on here - a mortgage is unenforceable by the original loan company if it's been secutitised? Geez, That then begs the question of who could enforce it...The banks won't like this one jot!

 

I dont think it would ever be deemed to be unenforcable as this would inturn mean that 80% of the UK mortgages are also unenforceable. If there is a serious legal issue uncovered and they were seen to be unenforceable then steps would be taken to change this as the whole market would collapse and this just wouldnt be allowed to happen.

 

Sorry i just saw you said the unenforceable by the original lender. In that case well yes maybe but then I am sure if this was made public then the SPV's would soon show there hand and start doing things correctly and they would be forced to do this to avoid economic disaster.

[midge61]

Hi

 

For me I would like to see the mortgages sold to a bank or building society that would take as it should be, a 25yr loan and then put us on to a decent interest rate (since finishing my fixed rate I have been charged 9%,10% and presently8.6%) and treated fairly with options if suffering financial hardship.

 

These securitised mortgages were sold purely to make mega bucks at our cost. I just want the chance to pay off my mortgage as quickly as possible but without all the hassles of being told I have arrears from 2 years ago and being put under pressure all the time.

[supersleuth]

Hi Scedminc,

 

The whole market has allegedly collasped - isn't that what the whole "toxic-assets" thing is about. Anyway, you are right. The courts and the government would do a cover up for the financial institutions because the powerless consumer is the easiest one to screw over.

 

But to be clear, it isn't saying that the mortgages are all unenforceable - it is saying that the company that pretends it owns the mortgage has no right at law to enforce the mortgage against you. It has no lawful right to claim against you because they have sold their contractual rights against you to an SPV - therefore, at law, only the SPV has the contractual claim against you.

 

But people generally don't know that it is the SPV that should be making the claim (i.e. other than the CAGgers on this site) because the SPV has concealed its legal ownership of the mortgage from both you and the Land Registry, oh, and the courts are also duped into believing that the falsely register lender has a claim because of the SPVs failure to register as the real owner of your mortgage.

[supersleuth]

Midge61,

 

You are so right...and all that crap you suffer is caused by the SPV. They do not honour their contractual obligations to you - they just abuse you and charge the excessive interest rates in order to force you into arrears because they want to repossess you.

[Smarterchick]

Hi Scedminc,

 

The whole market has allegedly collasped - isn't that what the whole "toxic-assets" thing is about. Anyway, you are right. The courts and the government would do a cover up for the financial institutions because the powerless consumer is the easiest one to screw over.

 

But to be clear, it isn't saying that the mortgages are all unenforceable - it is saying that the company that pretends it owns the mortgage has no right at law to enforce the mortgage against you. It has no lawful right to claim against you because they have sold their contractual rights against you to an SPV - therefore, at law, only the SPV has the contractual claim against you.

 

But people generally don't know that it is the SPV that should be making the claim (i.e. other than the CAGgers on this site) because the SPV has concealed its legal ownership of the mortgage from both you and the Land Registry, oh, and the courts are also duped into believing that the falsely register lender has a claim because of the SPVs failure to register as the real owner of your mortgage.

 

 

Can I just push the boat out into slightly deeper water here then as I have friends this happened to. Would it be fair to assume that if someone who has had their home repossessed by one of these finance companies and it was thereafter proved through this researching that the loan was actually owned by one of these SPV's, the people who were repossessed could have a claim against the finance company for some kind of mis-representation and compensation? ( I really hate this claims culture-but this could be serious and just deserts for these bankers)

[enoughisenough]

Can't argue with anyone here. Looks like I'll be very soon charged with trying to make that point stick. Then if I do either the big guns will come out OR they'll try and keep it secretive. I simply don't think the District Judge is the appropriate level of hierarchy for this. Circuit judge at least. Oh and does anyone know if Carmel would appear as an expert witness for me. Things could get very interesting then?

[scedminc]

Can I just push the boat out into slightly deeper water here then as I have friends this happened to. Would it be fair to assume that if someone who has had their home repossessed by one of these finance companies and it was thereafter proved through this researching that the loan was actually owned by one of these SPV's, the people who were repossessed could have a claim against the finance company for some kind of mis-representation and compensation? ( I really hate this claims culture-but this could be serious and just deserts for these bankers)

 

Hi,

 

Yes you are probably right they may have a claim if all this came out but at the same time I dont think they would as it would all be covered up and things would be put in place to stop claims etc. I think the only good that may come of all this is that policies / laws change so these people cannot and do not do this anymore and if they it is done correctly and fairly. No consumer past or present is going to make any money out of this thats for sure. But i'm sure i speak for most that no money is wanted from this and all we want is fair treatment etc.

[enoughisenough]

too right. I want to pay my 2nd mortgage even to these shisters. I only have two conditions 1) that the payments I am asked to make are fair in all respects and 2) that the term I signed up for Is the term over which I repay. Can't ask fairer than that. Carmel anyone - this would be really good, I need to get my defence in soon and I'll need to state this.

[Smarterchick]

Hi,

 

Yes you are probably right they may have a claim if all this came out but at the same time I dont think they would as it would all be covered up and things would be put in place to stop claims etc. I think the only good that may come of all this is that policies / laws change so these people cannot and do not do this anymore and if they it is done correctly and fairly. No consumer past or present is going to make any money out of this thats for sure. But i'm sure i speak for most that no money is wanted from this and all we want is fair treatment etc.

 

Not wishing to be too reactive here, but what would you or anyone tell their loved ones who are sitting there wondering what has happened to their lives as a result of the wrong company suing them for repossession? "Mr Judge, please allow ABC finance company to take our home even though they don't own it"?

 

It is testing the limits I know, and I understand what you are saying, but what is the point of us uncovering all this if it's not to put things right?

 

CAG members have done this with the bank charges and many other causes on here. If the banks sold our homes then surely it is they who need to take the fall? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, I'm not normally, but this is the same old issue over who has the rights LEGALLY to do what and from what I read and see being uncovered by all these wonderful exposures is precisely that...I wouldn't want to go into court, and we all know how distressing that is, and have rough justice no more than anyone else, but if my mortgage was with GE and Marks and Spencers owned my house rather than GE I don't see why GE has the right to repossess and if they did conning the Judiciary into believeing they did then I'd want compensation and GE pulled in front of the court to explain themselves because I might have had a completely different result if dealing with M&S...get my drift?

[supersleuth]

Smarterchick - spot on!

[andrew1]

Not wishing to be too reactive here, but what would you or anyone tell their loved ones who are sitting there wondering what has happened to their lives as a result of the wrong company suing them for repossession? "Mr Judge, please allow ABC finance company to take our home even though they don't own it"?

 

It is testing the limits I know, and I understand what you are saying, but what is the point of us uncovering all this if it's not to put things right?

 

CAG members have done this with the bank charges and many other causes on here. If the banks sold our homes then surely it is they who need to take the fall? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, I'm not normally, but this is the same old issue over who has the rights LEGALLY to do what and from what I read and see being uncovered by all these wonderful exposures is precisely that...I wouldn't want to go into court, and we all know how distressing that is, and have rough justice no more than anyone else, but if my mortgage was with GE and Marks and Spencers owned my house rather than GE I don't see why GE has the right to repossess and if they did conning the Judiciary into believeing they did then I'd want compensation and GE pulled in front of the court to explain themselves because I might have had a completely different result if dealing with M&S...get my drift?

 

I must admit, I tend to agree with you smarterchick ( like the name ) We have done this with all the debt Collection Agencies bringing them into line with their legal responsibilities they have for so long abused and the forum empowering people to follow the trail of questions and counter argument which this forum is so good at has given them a sharp and swift winkle picker up their rear ends. They have transformed in the last 2-3 yrs and it has been hard and cost them dearly. I reckon you lot on this thread are going along the first steps to a rather large headache for the banks, politicians and judges alike - well done all of you, keep it up. We may wreck the economic structures of this country, but from the ashes will come a stronger phoenix, just like the DCA's have learned.

[scedminc]

Not wishing to be too reactive here, but what would you or anyone tell their loved ones who are sitting there wondering what has happened to their lives as a result of the wrong company suing them for repossession? "Mr Judge, please allow ABC finance company to take our home even though they don't own it"?

 

It is testing the limits I know, and I understand what you are saying, but what is the point of us uncovering all this if it's not to put things right?

 

CAG members have done this with the bank charges and many other causes on here. If the banks sold our homes then surely it is they who need to take the fall? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, I'm not normally, but this is the same old issue over who has the rights LEGALLY to do what and from what I read and see being uncovered by all these wonderful exposures is precisely that...I wouldn't want to go into court, and we all know how distressing that is, and have rough justice no more than anyone else, but if my mortgage was with GE and Marks and Spencers owned my house rather than GE I don't see why GE has the right to repossess and if they did conning the Judiciary into believeing they did then I'd want compensation and GE pulled in front of the court to explain themselves because I might have had a completely different result if dealing with M&S...get my drift?

 

I agree entirely just thinking of the reality of it and what the government would allow. For example the test case that is with the bank charges will almost certainly result in them being deemed unlawful etc etc etc but I bet your bottom dollar that no one else is going to get paid out indefinately due to the financial implications on these people that are continuously protected. Don't get me wrong I'm in on the fight with all this and will do everything and anything I can to bring them down but I'm also looking at the reality it and how the government will step in regardless!!

[Smarterchick]

well that's what all the banks thought didn't they over bank charges and PPI and people didn't think they could ever take them on as they were far too big to take on..WRONG