Jump to content


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


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 213 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

If you take a look at the questions asked by LD before you joined, you wil see some of the things you might want to change with regard to the FSA, FSMA 2000 and regulation

Thankyou Suetonius for the advice but I emailed it in the early hours to the Land Registry and received an acknowledgement this morning.I must admit to not understanding part 2 but part 1 certainly makes sense and part 2 will be or may be irrelevant anyway as if these new companies are not regulated there is no doubt that they will quickly become regulated or as I have now learnt use Capstones regulatory status as Administrator.

The point is something has to be done and done quickly otherwise any claim against my original Lender either through the FOS which I have read may take an eternity, with Capstone still piling on charges, or alternatively any action through the Courts may disappear with the original Lender SPPL.

Would you perhaps be kind enough to suggest how to amend the objection to take the modified action you suggest as I bow to your greater knowledge or any possible alternative course of action

.People I can see are going to get trapped in a nightmare scenario here with this just the start.

How can Capstone escape with charging £85 per month arrears fee,why are their regulators doing nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peterjm,

 

I will breakdown part 2 now and part one possibiliy later

 

2)We have no contractual agreement with the entities to whom they have sold the loan.We have never signed any agreement with them our only agreement was with SPPL who are a licensed and Financial Services Authority (F.S.A.) regulated Lender.

 

Southern Pacific Personal Loans (SPPL) is not a F.S.A regulated lender. It is not a F.S.A regulated lender as it does not provide any F.S.A regulated mortgage contracts. SPPL provides second charge secured loans. These types of loan are not regulated by the F.S.A.

 

SPPL as a second charge loan provider has a Consumer Credit Licence (number 0496828 and subject to certain criteria the loans its provides are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) and not the F.S.A or the Financial Services & Markets Act (FSMA) 2000.

 

Our loan which the SPPL Charge secures is a regulated loan under the Financial Services and Marketing Acts 2000

 

As stated above the loans provided by SPPL are not regulated by the F.S.A or under the FSMA 2000.

 

it is strictly forbidden by law that such a loan can be administered by an unregulated entity.It is therefore submitted that the transfer of this Charge is in breach of F.S.A.rules and consequently the Act.We have been informed that the entity to whom they have sold our loan will be in all likelihood one of the following:all are not regulated by the F.S.A.

 

Again the references to the F.S.A and the FSMA 2000 (the act) are not relevent and not applicable with regard to this specific company or to the loans it provided. With regard to the administration by an unregulated entity, the entity that administers these loans and those of SPML etc is Capstone with is a FSA regulated entity.

 

No offence intended to the person(s) that created the template letter but part 2 could not be any more wrong on all fronts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Suetonius thankyou for your explanation as I said earlier I think Capstone would hold the fsa licence as administrator if the entities the loan was sold to didn't.

The question really boils down to the not what sppl or any of the other lenders hold by way of licencing ie sppl licenced under CCA. as you say then spml/lmc/pml licenced by the FSA from what I have read, its what the new entities to which it seems all the loans will be eventually transferred hold by way of licences that is the key here as I see it and whether a claim with the FOS is transferable to them,that is my concern in my particular case.Also whether Capstones licences will apply if they do not have the necessary licences when they(the new owners) are directly controlling the loans as I have also read that they already in fact do by setting interest rates even though they are not supposed to be the legal owners of the loans.

I would be grateful if you could look at part one as although my objection has been submitted I have not received any notification of sale or transfer yet so it is not too late to make amendments or resubmissions.

Edited by peterjm
claruity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peterjm,

 

I will breakdown part 2 now and part one possibiliy later

 

 

 

Southern Pacific Personal Loans (SPPL) is not a F.S.A regulated lender. It is not a F.S.A regulated lender as it does not provide any F.S.A regulated mortgage contracts. SPPL provides second charge secured loans. These types of loan are not regulated by the F.S.A.

 

SPPL as a second charge loan provider has a Consumer Credit Licence (number 0496828 and subject to certain criteria the loans its provides are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) and not the F.S.A or the Financial Services & Markets Act (FSMA) 2000.

 

 

 

As stated above the loans provided by SPPL are not regulated by the F.S.A or under the FSMA 2000.

 

 

 

Again the references to the F.S.A and the FSMA 2000 (the act) are not relevent and not applicable with regard to this specific company or to the loans it provided. With regard to the administration by an unregulated entity, the entity that administers these loans and those of SPML etc is Capstone with is a FSA regulated entity.

 

No offence intended to the person(s) that created the template letter but part 2 could not be any more wrong on all fronts.

 

 

Hi SUE,

 

You say that SPPL is nor regulated by the FSA. Blemain Finance Limited are introducers of Cheshire Mortgage Company and Cheshire Mortgage Company are regulated by the FSA, so would that not mean that Blemain also come under the FSA or am I way off mark there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter, I would recommend going back a few pages and reading the posts between me and LD, especially with regard to

 

CCA Licence

 

A number of SPV's (being the companies the legal title's of the SPPL loans are being transferred to) are also CCA licenced in their own right

Edited by Suetonius
additional info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all...

 

I'm Utterly frustrated here.

 

The fact is that Capstone have been completely in disregard of any of their obligations as an FSA authorised company.

 

Even any cursory glance at the postings here (unless everyone is making it up) would confirm this.

 

So, in consequence can we agree, that CAPSTONE is an outfit which should not hold ANY authority from the FSA until it is proved FIT TO DO SO?

 

Or is it always the case that the posters who essentially support these bastards, and who obviously have self interest at heart, will win the argument because any sustained opposition to those arguments is ridiculed by proxy on other sites?

 

This has done NOTHING TO PROTECT THE VICTIMS OF THE OUTRAGEOUS ONSLAUGHT OF REPOSSESSIONS. Petty vendettas get nobody nowhere, unless of course there is an interest in pursuing them.

 

I reserve special condemnation for those who seek to divert, dissemble or distort through LYING.

 

You know who you are and YOU KNEW what you were doing.

 

Shame on you. My motives are clean and clear. Are yours?

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all...

 

I'm Utterly frustrated here.

 

The fact is that Capstone have been completely in disregard of any of their obligations as an FSA authorised company.

 

Even any cursory glance at the postings here (unless everyone is making it up) would confirm this.

 

So, in consequence can we agree, that CAPSTONE is an outfit which should not hold ANY authority from the FSA until it is proved FIT TO DO SO?

 

I wouldn't trust them to walk a dog....never mind letting them loose with a computer, telephone and obligations. They'll say that black is white if you let them and come up with anything to shift the blame.

 

They deserve a 10 out of 10 for the misery they cause, bare faced lies and lack of legal knowledge

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must have an A & B list..those that have challenged and those that sit back and let it happen. Since I won and they refunded.. then charged more ..then refunded again, they've done nothing. No fees, no charges..just the statements. Your pen or printer is mightier than their copper sword.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter, I would recommend going back a few pages and reading the posts between me and LD, especially with regard to

 

CCA Licence quote Suetonius

 

Thanks for your reply I accept part 2 of the objection may not be relevant but have spoke to the registrar this afternoon,the objection has been passed to their lawyer,if they think there are grounds it will then be treated as a dispute which unless resolved by the parties will be referred to the land registry adjudicator,the funds being paid into sppls account will be frozen there until the dispute is settled so the entity to whom the loan is being transferred to will be in limbo and there may be time for the fos to look at my complaint which is my objective personally.

However this is the spml/pml thread so what happens if they carry out the same thing here ie start transfers? For the benefit of the many who subscribe,these are regulated fsa loans I believe.It would also follow that these entities or spvs who have a beneficial interest in the loans ie receive the income at present, control the interest rates set on the mortgage yet under fsa regulation are not supposed to play any role in the direct management of the loans if they use the regulatory status of their administrator capstone rather than become regulated themselves so how do they circumvent this barrier ?

 

I also found this interesting article and would welcome your comments.Its not copyrighted so should be ok and within site rules.It concerns SPPL but will no doubt apply to all the lenders here at a later stage,makes very good reading the interesting point being that its claimed the titles were perfected rather than transferred in other words the entities to whom they are now being transferred owned them from the outset but for an imperfection.Yet people have posted that their loan was stated by capstone as having being recently sold to them?

SPPL were flushed down the pan a long time ago, but of course, they went crazy on their repossession blitz whilst they could hold out on their ‘beneficial equitable’ ruse. They’ve been busy grabbing cash by liquidating people’s homes. Of course, the SPV’s have been receiving the cash, but I think that it has become untenable for them to continue the pretence that they are not the legal owners (as they always have been), not because of the consumers who are losing their homes, but because the Lehman’s creditors were probably beginning to claim the cash/legal title as belonging to them!

The SPV (read investment banks), don’t want their RMBS investors getting the cash (i.e. through the Trustee (who is always another investment bank type entity) . Hence, the RMBS investors (also read as other investment bank as Trustee), want to ensure their claim on the cash (raised from liquidating consumers homes). It’s a clash of the titans now – between the investment bank i.e, the IB behind the SPV and the IB behind the Trustee. Nothing to do with honouring the rule of law, just a grab for the cash. It’s so full of ****e this BS. Ordinary joe bloggs gets robbed which ever way you look at it.

This development of having their legal title “perfected” (rather than transferred) has more to do with PwC and the insolvency/bankruptcy issues than with anything to do with the rule of law and consumers. As I’ve always said, the SPV’s legal title was “attached” immediately that SPPL signed the mortgage sale agreement – but the SPV never “pefected” its legal title, as it is required to do by law, by registering at the LR. The current load of registrations at the LR is merely the “perfection” of their legal title rather than the “transfer” of their legal title. You see, if the SPV did not have a legal title attached when they gave the Trustee a Form 395 mortgage at Companies House, then the Trustee’s mortgage (which is registered at CH) would be fraud! So, if they want to pretend that the SPV only had an equitable title when they created a LEGAL charge at Companies House, then that legal charge is a fraud and unlawful. So you see, how they have it both ways. The SPV has always had the legal title – they just didn’t comply with s.27 and committeed a criminal offence under s.123 when they “did not intend” to register – and the reason for their pretence that they were not the legal owner was to shaft the consumer and to avoid the regulator and avoid taxes such as withholding tax, income tax and corporate tax.

As for the regulator – well the FSA are so discredited now – everyone knows they are ineffective which is why they are being disbanded. So what if the SPV becomes authorised. The FSA will authorise anyone that has an abundance of wealth and power. FSA are just the lacky of the banks – the FSA will do what they’re told to do by the banks. Anything else the FSA do (such as a little slap on the wrist for GMAC, Kensington etc., is just for PR purposes to try to make the consusmer believe they are a “credible deterrent”.

Edited by peterjm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all...

 

I'm Utterly frustrated here.

 

The fact is that Capstone have been completely in disregard of any of their obligations as an FSA authorised company.

 

Even any cursory glance at the postings here (unless everyone is making it up) would confirm this.

 

So, in consequence can we agree, that CAPSTONE is an outfit which should not hold ANY authority from the FSA until it is proved FIT TO DO SO?

 

Or is it always the case that the posters who essentially support these bastards, and who obviously have self interest at heart, will win the argument because any sustained opposition to those arguments is ridiculed by proxy on other sites?

 

This has done NOTHING TO PROTECT THE VICTIMS OF THE OUTRAGEOUS ONSLAUGHT OF REPOSSESSIONS. Petty vendettas get nobody nowhere, unless of course there is an interest in pursuing them.

 

I reserve special condemnation for those who seek to divert, dissemble or distort through LYING.

 

You know who you are and YOU KNEW what you were doing.

 

Shame on you. My motives are clean and clear. Are yours?

 

Looks like after nearly 2 years and thousands of posts and the combined effort and intelligence of hundreds no ones come up with an answer or a way to defeat this lot yet who seem to be able to do as they want when they want.

So the big question is obviously is there a way?

Anyone?

Or do we just roll over?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fretful

 

It is a very similar situation

 

With reference to the FSA - SPML is the principle for SPPL ( Appointed Representative) and Cheshire Mortgage Company is the principle for Belmain (Introducer A.R.)

 

Thanks SUE, so does that mean that Blemain do come under the FSA regulations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter yesterday advising me that my SPPL loan had been transferred to Mortgage Funding 2008, so I rang Capstone and asked who are Mortgage Funding 2008?, whats there address?, spent ten minutes on the telephone and ended up being told that it was none of my business and they would not provide any more details.

The matter has now been reported to the OFT, surprise surprise it appears that I had every right to ask and should have been given the information, its not going to result in them getting their CCA licence revoked but now one person in the OFT knows a lot about Capstone and not just the lack of information they are also aware of the £85 arrears management fee and the £115 litigation charge, and thats how we can stop them, complain and keep complaining, FSA, OFT, Companies House, FOB, your MP, CAB, anyone who will listen?, someone said that Capstone have two types of customer A & B those that complain and those they can push around now lets all become A+.

And if you look at Mortgage fundings CCA licence the name Wilmington Trust comes up who just happen to have the same London address as Capstone now thats a coincidence is it not?.

Good to see both EIE and Sue back.

Regards NABL

Link to post
Share on other sites

NABL

 

Did the OFT say they were going to look into it?

What the hell has happened to this country & freedom of speech?

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s, of the investigating & prosecuting organisations:

 

DO NOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen. 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633 

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643 

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 (part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : tel#0207 637 6236  

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Subprimefees/#detail

Link to post
Share on other sites

NABL

 

Did the OFT say they were going to look into it?

What the hell has happened to this country & freedom of speech?

 

From whats been said on here or seems to have been going on if people are to be believed we haven't got it here, so what chance anywhere else.?

 

NABL can you ask capstone when then your loan was actually sold ?

If they owe you money for unfair charges you could try objecting to the land registry to stop the transfer but you would have to be quick,see my previous posts,in sppl cases it seems only part one of the objection is required but this might be enough,worth a go though as a no loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

littledotty

Yes they are going to look into it and pressure will be kept on to make sure they do.

 

peterjm

I am going for repayment of some unfair charges have spoken to FOS, forms going in post over weekend also letter to LR, not sure about date but its something I will chase them for. Many thanks for your posting regarding charges I was not aware of the urgency until notification of transfer arrived but have already tried to get charges back a request they refused and I have that in writing so if all else fails may try using that against them.

 

littledotty

Just received a call from Trading Standards regarding complaint to OFT, very interesting conversation not going to post details on here needs to be kept private at the moment will PM you over weekend.

nabl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Five guests at 15.00 we are getting popular maybe its because there is some activity on here again?. I wonder if bouncing betty is among them, I wonder why she called herself that?. (answers on a postcard please).

 

She is bouncing to capstones demands to get the **** to hit the fan..but it's not working!!! It's making us more determined :lol:

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s, of the investigating & prosecuting organisations:

 

DO NOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen. 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633 

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643 

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 (part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : tel#0207 637 6236  

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Subprimefees/#detail

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this posting on Money Saving expert

 

[Went to the FSA & spoke to a lovely chap there, he told me mortgage funding 08-1 are not regulated with the FSA,but wilmington trust have a CCA credit licence with the OFT & that they only hold that licence on loans under 25k,but mine is a 1st mortgage over the 25k, I have also received a letter from Homeloans stating I should note MF08-1 as first mortgagee on my buildings insurance.

Does anyone think I should take legal advice over this,with the info I have received from the FSA?.]

 

Proof if proof was required FSA regulated loans being handed over to a company without FSA registration, anyone with a first charge mortgage (such as SPML) and transferred to Mortgage Funding 2008-1 get your complaint in to the FOS asap.

nabl

Edited by not another b----- letter
correcting mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this posting on Money Saving expert

 

[Went to the FSA & spoke to a lovely chap there, he told me mortgage funding 08-1 are not regulated with the FSA,but wilmington trust have a CCA credit licence with the OFT & that they only hold that licence on loans under 25k,but mine is a 1st mortgage over the 25k, I have also received a letter from Homeloans stating I should note MF08-1 as first mortgagee on my buildings insurance.

Does anyone think I should take legal advice over this,with the info I have received from the FSA?.]

 

Proof if proof was required FSA regulated loans being handed over to a company without FSA registration, anyone with a first charge mortgage (such as SPML) and transferred to Mortgage Funding 2008-1 get your complaint in to the FOS asap.

nabl

 

Hmmmm ok....

 

I am somewhat sceptical in relation to the accuracy of this post. Not of you NABL but of the OP on MSE.

 

I am sceptical for three reasons

 

1) All of the official notice to noteholders with regard to MF08-1 have been specifically in relation to SPPL only, with no mention of SPML

2) More worryingly, you would think that someone from the FSA (unless it is the Food Standards Agency) would know that following the implementation of the Consumer Credit 2006 the financial limitation of £25k was no longer applicable (subject to dates)

3) I would also have thought that the lovely chap from the FSA would have explained about mortgage regulated activities and regulated mortgage contracts.

 

Sorry as far as this being proof is concerned.... I would not be so sure....

 

Sounds more like someone with an ulterior motive fanning the flames on a non event

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter, I would recommend going back a few pages and reading the posts between me and LD, especially with regard to

 

CCA Licence quote Suetonius

 

Thanks for your reply I accept part 2 of the objection may not be relevant but have spoke to the registrar this afternoon,the objection has been passed to their lawyer,if they think there are grounds it will then be treated as a dispute which unless resolved by the parties will be referred to the land registry adjudicator,the funds being paid into sppls account will be frozen there until the dispute is settled so the entity to whom the loan is being transferred to will be in limbo and there may be time for the fos to look at my complaint which is my objective personally.

However this is the spml/pml thread so what happens if they carry out the same thing here ie start transfers? For the benefit of the many who subscribe,these are regulated fsa loans I believe.It would also follow that these entities or spvs who have a beneficial interest in the loans ie receive the income at present, control the interest rates set on the mortgage yet under fsa regulation are not supposed to play any role in the direct management of the loans if they use the regulatory status of their administrator capstone rather than become regulated themselves so how do they circumvent this barrier ?

 

I also found this interesting article and would welcome your comments.Its not copyrighted so should be ok and within site rules.It concerns SPPL but will no doubt apply to all the lenders here at a later stage,makes very good reading the interesting point being that its claimed the titles were perfected rather than transferred in other words the entities to whom they are now being transferred owned them from the outset but for an imperfection.Yet people have posted that their loan was stated by capstone as having being recently sold to them?

SPPL were flushed down the pan a long time ago, but of course, they went crazy on their repossession blitz whilst they could hold out on their ‘beneficial equitable’ ruse. They’ve been busy grabbing cash by liquidating people’s homes. Of course, the SPV’s have been receiving the cash, but I think that it has become untenable for them to continue the pretence that they are not the legal owners (as they always have been), not because of the consumers who are losing their homes, but because the Lehman’s creditors were probably beginning to claim the cash/legal title as belonging to them!

The SPV (read investment banks), don’t want their RMBS investors getting the cash (i.e. through the Trustee (who is always another investment bank type entity) . Hence, the RMBS investors (also read as other investment bank as Trustee), want to ensure their claim on the cash (raised from liquidating consumers homes). It’s a clash of the titans now – between the investment bank i.e, the IB behind the SPV and the IB behind the Trustee. Nothing to do with honouring the rule of law, just a grab for the cash. It’s so full of ****e this BS. Ordinary joe bloggs gets robbed which ever way you look at it.

This development of having their legal title “perfected” (rather than transferred) has more to do with PwC and the insolvency/bankruptcy issues than with anything to do with the rule of law and consumers. As I’ve always said, the SPV’s legal title was “attached” immediately that SPPL signed the mortgage sale agreement – but the SPV never “pefected” its legal title, as it is required to do by law, by registering at the LR. The current load of registrations at the LR is merely the “perfection” of their legal title rather than the “transfer” of their legal title. You see, if the SPV did not have a legal title attached when they gave the Trustee a Form 395 mortgage at Companies House, then the Trustee’s mortgage (which is registered at CH) would be fraud! So, if they want to pretend that the SPV only had an equitable title when they created a LEGAL charge at Companies House, then that legal charge is a fraud and unlawful. So you see, how they have it both ways. The SPV has always had the legal title – they just didn’t comply with s.27 and committeed a criminal offence under s.123 when they “did not intend” to register – and the reason for their pretence that they were not the legal owner was to shaft the consumer and to avoid the regulator and avoid taxes such as withholding tax, income tax and corporate tax.

As for the regulator – well the FSA are so discredited now – everyone knows they are ineffective which is why they are being disbanded. So what if the SPV becomes authorised. The FSA will authorise anyone that has an abundance of wealth and power. FSA are just the lacky of the banks – the FSA will do what they’re told to do by the banks. Anything else the FSA do (such as a little slap on the wrist for GMAC, Kensington etc., is just for PR purposes to try to make the consusmer believe they are a “credible deterrent”.

 

Ok a few inaccurracies and wishful thinking in the above artical, especially with regards to the law relating to ownership and the LRA.

 

I am unfortunately out tonight but I will certaining highlight the obvious flaws in the above over the course of the weekend.

 

As those that are familiar with my previous posts will know I will show with supporting evidence why I say there are obvious flaws.

 

Hope it wasn't taken from a legal journal....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Sue I thought I had found the missing link and got excited, it never pays to get excited, an old head on old shoulders but not acting like one.

 

But how about this one:

 

Standard&Poor's Ratings Services has assigned credit ratings to the €1,112.125 million mortgage-backed floating-rate notes issued by Mortgage Funding 2008-1 PLC. At the same time, Mortgage Funding 2008-1 issued £146 million of unrated notes. At closing, Mortgage Funding 2008-1 PLC issued the class A and B notes and used part of the proceeds to acquire the loan pool from the sellers, Preferred Mortgages Ltd. (PML) and Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd. (SPML). This loan pool comprises first- and second-ranking mortgages on properties in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and standard securities on properties in Scotland. The mortgage loans in the pool are nonconforming mortgages (for further details see "Collateral Description" and "Nonconforming Mortgages"). The notes benefit from collections of principal

 

The loan pool of first and second ranking mortgages would this have been SPML and PML selling on second charge loans but not first charge mortgages?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...