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

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

The difference between a District Judge and a Deputy District Judge is that one is full time and the other is part time.

 

Be careful of the Deputies. A full time district judge has only ONE job and is NOT allowed to work in private practice. But, the Deputy DJ IS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. That does not necessarily mean that he is conflicted, but sometimes it does.

 

I know specifically of one Deputy District Judge that has the banks as his CLIENTS, and then he sits on the REPOSSESSION CASES. This is illegal, but I know for a fact that this particular DDJ does what he likes - and it suits his clients. The defendants in those cases have NO CHANCE.

 

Therefore, whilst I know of this one particular DDJ it does not mean that your DDJ will be a piece of cr*p like that one, but make sure you note their name and then look them up on the Law Society. If they are in private practice and act for lenders, then they should not be sitting on your repossession case. If they are just e.g. divorce lawyers etc., then its no worries.

 

Good luck tomorrow

Supersleuth

[scedminc]

Hi all,

 

For all that is actively looking into or wants to know some more about securitisation of mortgages then look at this post as it makes good reading.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/175426-mortgage-securitisation-preferred-4.html#post2009103

[supersleuth]

 

 

B-O-2- With regards to ITN they are still doing there research on securitisation & repossessions & will be in touch.

 

Hi Littledotty27,

 

Re the quote from your post no. 167:

 

Have you had a look at the link that Scedminc has just posted? That link takes you to a pdf of information about securitisation which your ITN contact may find useful in their research. It may help ITN understand what's really going on and the real reason for your plight.

 

Supersleuth

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

I have 2 questions:

 

1.What happens if a property has already been repossessed,sold and there is a shortfall?

 

2.Does the stated Claimant lender(which in fact it is not) have a right to the repossession and to make a claim for the shortfall?

 

 

 

Taking into account that that the real lender is a SPV as been discussed on this thread.

 

Any guidance would be highly appreciated.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4bbanks,

 

If the property has been repossed and sold, then it will be extremely tough to challenge and reopen that issue BUT, if there is a shortfall, and the imposter lender seeks to bring an action against you for the shortfall you can assert the defence that they have no cause in action against you because they have no right and title to the contract under which they are claiming the shortfall.

 

Once the property has been sold, that is the end of the matter as far as the Land Registry is concerned. The mortgage is officially redeemed and the buyer gets the property free and clear of the mortgage that did exist. So there is no "Land Registration" of the mortgage once the sale of a repossessed property is completed.

 

Which is fantastic, because thereafter, the lender cannot rely on his (false and criminal) land registration as the source of his legal rights. His legal right to claim from you is entirely contractual. As we all know, the imposter lender has assigned the contract to the SPV so, they have no contract rights against you as they have no claim against you for a shortfall.

 

Therefore, you can argue that you have NO CONTRACT WITH THE LENDER/CLAIMANT because they sold all their contractual rights to the SPV. So the only person that may have a contractual claim against you for the shortfall is the SPV only!

 

This is a really excellent question because it had not occrred to me what the legal consequence of the imposter lender's sale would be. The imposter lender relies entirely on their false and illegal registration of themselves as the registered proprietor...so once that registration is removed - THEY HAVE NO LEGAL grounds on which to come after you! There is no registration that gives them the (alleged) right to sue!

 

Thanks for asking the question - because you really could tell them to take a hike - if the SPV wants a shortfall - they'll have to crawl out from under that rotten stone and ask for it themselves!!

 

Plus, remember that as the mortgage charge at the land registry is now removed, any shortfall claim that the SPV may have against you is UNSECURED.

 

Hope this gives you some food for thought

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

BTW: There is potentially another issue here. The courts constantly ignore the borrowers legal and contractual rights and ignore the fact that the Land Registry is incorrect. However, the Human Rights Act says that no one can be deprived of their property unless it is according to law.

 

As the Claimant is, according to law NOT the owner of the mortgage, and as the Claimant has unlawfully caused the register to be incorrect, the repossessions orders are not IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

 

Therefore, there are Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy from the court) issues here too. We are being royally shafted by the court's inability to recognise the illegality of the imposter lenders and giving over property which they are not entitled to have in accordance with law.

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi Superslueth!

 

To begin with,many thanks for your detailed prompt reply.

 

I am very pleased if I have raised an interesting question - pay back time has arrived!

 

Now my next questions are -

 

1.Can the imposter lender still chase for this shortfall claim against me regardless?

 

2.In your view - would the lawyer/barrister acting on behalf of the imposter lender know that his/her client lender is an imposter or not?

 

Personally,I think the lawyer/barrister would know and if this is the case - would there not be a form of claim against the imposter lender and its "illegal team" for being chased for money that is not owed by the former mortgage payer?

 

Just a thought.

 

Again,many thanks in advance.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi Superslueth again!

 

You have kindly answered my first question in my last post - so please ignore.

 

Thanks for the such good news.

 

By the way,I am prepared to get involved in any form of petition/legal action if and when needed regarding the over all appalling way that people are treated in repossession cases in this country mainly based on personal experience.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4banks,

 

Re getting involved - have you seen Scedminc's post on this thread no. 179 - it has a link to another post with a pdf that explains alot about this rot. You may want to consider asking your local MP to take up the consumer issues raised in that document.

 

As for the solicitor question - it is unlikely that solicitors have any nouse about securitsation - BUT what they will know (or should know) is contract law. At contract law only parties that are "privy" to the contract have the legal right to sue eachother. So anyone who is not in "privity of contract" with you cannot sue you. When the imposter lender sold the contract to the SPV, the SPV became in privity of contract with you and the imposter lender is not.

 

Therefore, if you want to assert this defence, you'll have to tell the solicitor that the imposter lender cannot sue you because he has sold and assigned the contractual rights to the SPV. Thus, the imposter lender has no locus standi (legal standing) grounds on which it can sue you for an alleged shortfall under the contract.

 

You will have to explain that you KNOW that the imposter lender has no contractual rights against you because you know they sold to the SPV which means, you'll have to show the solicitor the Prospectus which states that the imposter lender sold the contract to the SPV and use that to prove and evidence the fact that the SPV is in contractual privity with you.

 

The imposter lender may keep on squealing about its registration at the land registery, but ha! that no longer exists - so that cannot be grounds for a shortfall action against you. When choosing a solicitor, try to get one who has a fighting spirit. Most of them are wet blankets and intimidated by the power and might of the large banks - so you need a solicitor whose got some gumption. In fact, try to find one who has suffered from this securitisation cr*p too and then they may be more motivated to win your cause and it will help them too!!

 

As for the form of a claim against the imposter lender, I wrote a post about the Human Rights Act. You may have a human rights claim because the courts, as a public authority under the HRA, cannot act in a manner that contravenes your human rights. As the repossession was NOT in accordance with law then the court may be deemed as having contravened your human rights. This may be a good question for those human rights solicitors/barristers.

 

Let us know how it pans out for you

Supersleuth

[Nightmare4banks]

Superslueth,many thanks again for your detailed post.

 

I would just like to say:

 

1.Regarding my involvement,I will see to contact my local MP and highlight as you say the rot and associated issues.

 

2.About the shortfall,I do not have a lawyer or can afford one for that matter.However,I will put forward the points that you have highlighted in your posts to the lawyer acting on behalf of the imposter lender.

 

3.I think that anyone can get a lawyer regarding human rights claims regardless of means/employment status and at no cost.Maybe I am incorrect here but I must admit that I am not sure.

 

I have one other question:

 

Would there be a claim against the imposter lender in the case of chasing a shortfall that it had no right to have in the first place? i.e. creating a very convincing claim but in fact that should have been embarked on in the first place.

 

By the way,I am not referring here in any shape or form to the human rights issues which are clearly to do with the court process regarding a repossession but how I could possibly kick the "imposter lender's a**".

 

I will let you know how it pans out.

 

Once again,many thanks.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4banks,

 

A good lawyer should be able to come up with lots of causes in action against an imposter lender who puts you to litigation on a shortfall, but until they threaten action against you, I'm not sure about starting the fight other than perhaps the Human Rights potential claim.

 

If the imposter lender does start and action, you could ask for it to be struck out on the grounds that it is an abuse of process. It is an abuse of the court process because they know that they have sold their contractual rights and so they know that they have no contractual claim against you ergo, they abuse the process of the court to assert a claim which they know they have no legal right to bring. An "abuse of process" defence is a defence at law because nobody is allowed to abuse the court system or use its processes for vexatious or frivolous complaints. As a litigant in person, you can try that argument.

 

Supersleuth

[Nightmare4banks]

Superslueth,in reply to your last post:

 

In brief,without going through alot of boring detail and putting a load of information in a public forum - the imposter lender has a judgement in its favour against me.

 

So what would be the best course of action to get the claim wiped out/judgement set aside?

 

I was going to take this matter to the Court of Appeal and have the forms ready to complete as I am well within the time limits to lodge an appeal.

 

Any views/suggestions would be highly appreciated.

 

Again,many thanks in advance.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[Nightmare4banks]

I forgot to mention that

 

1.I have another property that will be repossessed in the very near future.

 

2.Also,if it makes any difference - the shortfall is on a former main residence property but the property that will shortly be repossessed has a residential investment - Buy to Let mortgage.

 

3.The Buy to Let agreement is with a different original lender and has also been "SPV"ed - I found this out going through the posts/links on this forum yesterday.

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4banks

 

Can't really make any suggestions without having some more details so you can PM me if you don't want to put them in the forum. Also, are you appealing against a District Judge order or is it an appeal against a Circuit Judge order? The time limits on appeals is very short (only 21 days from the date of the hearing) so you have to move quickly to secure the appeal.

 

Also, did you ask the judge at the hearing for permission to appeal and was the permission granted. If not, the appeal process requires that you first apply for permission to appeal and then, if granted, you get to have an appeal hearing. The court's have made it very difficult to appeal - so much for the "Access to Justice Act" eh??!! Kinda think that Act was a misnomer.

 

Supersleuth

[kegi]

exactly my thoughts if the bogus lender got away with the repo how ?is anyones guess,and is not now on the LR now only the legal holder of that property could chase you for the shortfall and if he does reveal his hand it must prove that they were both in collusion to decieve you the borrower and as stated put in doubt the repo in the first instance as being unlawful

This ought to put up in large letters on the repossession forum

 

kegi

[midge61]

Hi all

 

I have found my SPV: southern pacific securities 05-3plc (it was on my bank statements!) but I can't find the prospectus anywhere.

 

I have found that the Trustee is Capita Fiduciary group and they have been in deep doo doo with the FSA.

 

Now are the Trustees the owners of the Spv or are they just another front man?

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all,

 

Kegi,

 

I have one question for you -

 

Could you please explain what the deceit is? Please coreect me if I am mistaken - do you mean the repo then the shortfall? Kindly clarify.

I will put a post in the repo forum in the next day or two.

 

midge61,in reply your question about the SPV:

 

From what I understand is that

 

1.The SPV is the new owner of the mortgage portfolio and puts this portfolio in trust with a trustree.

 

2.SPV funding is obtained from investors as it is a new company without a penny to its name.

 

3.Then the mortgage portfolio is put up as collateral to keep the investors happy making the investment much more viable as it is secured on properties and as you have stated in your case the trustee here is Capita Fiduciary Group.

 

4.The objective of the trust is to protect the interests of the investors and so the assets cannot be liquidated should things go wrong.

 

5 The main thing to remember is that the SPV is the only party that has privity of contract with the borrower.

 

6.Although the other two parties - original lender(taking mortgage payers to court and the general admin associated with the portfolio to include reposssessions) and the Trustee(hiking the interest rates) both clearly have an impact on the borrower.The terrible thing is that the borrower does not know this until it is too late and this means that he/she/they have lost his/her/their home through a repossession.

 

7.The original lender is the Portfolio Seller that will sell the mortgage portfolio to a new owner - a SPV.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Midge61,please tell us more about the FSA and what you know about the doo doo you have mentioned in your last post!

Edited March 2, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Hi Midge61,

 

As per Nightmare4banks request, please do share more infor about the doo doo that Capita Fiduciary Group is experiencing. I'm amazed that the FSA are actually doing something.

 

Hi Nightmare,

 

Your analysis of securitisation is spot on - but I would add

 

to your point no.3: that's why the "Notes" that are issued as called "Asset Backed Securities (ABS) - also known as (allegedly) toxic-assets.

 

to your point no. 4 the objective of the trust is the protect the investor's interests BUT the assets are liquidated when things go wrong - that's what the real problem is. The investor's want the take the cash and run NOW rather than honour the 25 year term that the borrower is entitled to demand under the contract. That's part of the deceit. That's why they push the interest rates up so that they can CAUSE the defaults which causes the borrower to either (1) remortgage or (2) get repossessed. One or the other WILL happen because they want to cash out now.

 

Consequently, they not only use interest rate overcharging to force the alleged arrears, they also burden the accounts with charges and fees to exacerbate the borrowers plight. This is all deliberate, then they play victim in the courts and moan, that the borrower has DEFAULTED - when they know that they executed a policy to deliberately CAUSE the defaults. That's why there are so many repossessions.

 

PLUS, most importantly, repossession are extremely profitable. They can take (1) all the equity from the homeowner and (2) they can [problem] an ERC and (3) and they sell cheap to their buddies, who then sell on at another profit and (4) they can create an (alleged) shortfall which means they can hound the life out of the borrower for years and years for the (alleged) shortfall and charge compound interest and other fees etc.,- OH BOY extremely profitable - much more profitable than honouring their contract with the borrower to lend for 25 years. It's what the business world call "maximising profit"

 

Supersleuth

[midge61]

Hi all

 

Capita Fiduciary Group is the trading name of Capita trust Company Ltd. They were also known as Royal & sun alliance Trust Company and it was under that name that the FSA fined them for mis-selling precipice bonds.

 

FSA fines Capita Trust Company Ltd 300,000 for mis-selling precipice bonds

 

The Carmel Butler memo explains the tricks that the SPV use to get borrowers to re-mortgage such as suddenly telling the borrower that they have arrears from years earlier........which is EXACTLY what Crapstone are trying on me.

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all,

 

Another 4 questions have come to my mind -

 

1.What is the position if the trust company is a subsidiary company of the original lender?

 

2.Where does that leave the legalities associated with the obilgation on the SPV to disclose its ugly identity?

 

3.Plus also any litigation between the original lender which now has sold all of its assets to the subsidiary company?

 

4.The main question is therefore is the main company vicariously liable i.e.resposible for the subsidary company or not in this scenario?

 

My guess is yes and if so we as borrowers are stuffed to put it bluntly.The contract is therefore deemed to exist between us and the SPV but the original lender now acting on its behalf.Maybe I am talking rubbish but I am not asserting any views or knowledge just trying to get a clearer picture.

 

Finally,just to add I know this has happened with Bank of Ireland securitizing its mortgage portfolio to its subsidiary company Bristol & West - it was written just like that in the article that I have seen online.

 

In my view probably all the securitizations are like this example and probably they can get legally off the hook too including any criminal offences that have been committed.

 

Food for thought!

 

Any ideas/views,folks?

 

Note:I will comment on Supersleuth's and Midge61's last posts in a seperate new post within this thread.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[Nightmare4banks]

Now regarding Superslueth's last post:

 

I totally agree with your post and probably the most concerning issue is that when things go bad borrowers are forced to remortgage and if not possible lose their homes.

 

Midge61,I would also like to add that I believe that there is a fundemental confilct of interest to allow one company to sell mortgages and yet a subsidary/linked company(maybe more difficult to prove) to sell securities etc.

 

Personally,I also feel that:

 

1.the laws governing SPVs are not compatible with the Euoropean Convention on Human Rights due to their adverse affect on the public at large - both mortgage payers and tenants that live in properties that have been rented from landlords/landladies that have SPVed mortgages who eventually lose their investment properties too due to repossession.

 

2.The exact applicable Human Rights Articles are to be researched .Therefore potentially we could have a case.

 

I would not object to joining forces with any others on this forum to seek proper redress under the human rights laws as a collective group in a class action with the SPV lender being or having been experienced by each one of us in that group and I feel that the matter will be taken more seriously rather than us go indivdually to deal with the matter.

 

What are your views,folks?

[supersleuth]

Hi Midge61,

 

Thank you for bringing the FSA thing up - I almost had a moment where I thought that the FSA had ACTUALLY helped consumers!

 

Having read the link, my momentary hope quickly dwindled to reality which is that the FSA is much the same old (useless for the consumer) FSA The reality is that the FSA are the bestest bestest friend of the financial institution and the headline of a £300,000 fine does not even go so far as to constitute a slap on the wrist for the crime. Because:

 

If you're going to make £3.5 million for committing the crime and (1) it's unlikely you'll be caught and (2) even if you are caught, you only have to pay £300K, then it makes sense to go ahead and committe the crime! PLUS even when you have to pay the paltry sum of 300K, that money doesn't go to the FSA's coffers or the tax payer NO, it goes straight back to the financial institutions! Want proof - read the Editor's notes where it says:

 

Financial penalties are not treated as income by the FSA. They are applied for the benefit of authorised persons (or the issuers of securities admitted to the official list) as appropriate, and so given back to the industry in subsequent years.

It would be really nice to believe that the FSA will do something, anything for the consumer, but alas, still haven't seen any real evidence that the FSA will protect the consumer.

 

Thank you again Midge, as every piece of evidence is really valuable so that we the consumer can find out whether we have any real protections - excellent find Midge and thanks for sharing it.

[midge61]

Hi

 

This is what Capita as Trustees offer according to their website

 

SPV Management & Administration - Capita Fiduciary Group London

[kegi]

nightmare re post 197 and your comments we are stuffed I have said in another post that I cannot believe they have not covered every base in their setup of this spv carry on and Londres in another post said the same,it seems unbelievable they can state they have no intention of notifying the borrower of a change in ownership and the same goes for registering with the LR their title to the property in writing if indeed they are acting unlawfully or illegally in this matter.But thats how it looks when you read the prospectus ?they must have in my view have left themselves a get out clause .. if not its a go to jail card for conspiracy to defraud at least or any other charge in that context.

It would take someone with a legal mind and a deep pocket [just in case] to take them to court on just this matter alone no other ?the rest would follow if proven they have acted against the law.

This was my point about the deceit they have colluded between themselves the spv and the original lender to deprive you of your house and or a shortfall in what has been discribed as in a unlawfull or illegal way? if true:) Surely there must be someone out there who could put this matter to rest as to its legality as a freebie. ... or on legal aid

It must surely be only the true owner of the title who can repo you or chase up a shortfall no other, trustee or not if the act of doing so is against the law it falls back onto the head of the true owner

if not i will appoint some one I know to go out and get rid of the yobs who live around me without the fear of it coming back to me.

my views only as per usual

 

kegi

[Last of the Mohicans]

nightmare re post 197 and your comments we are stuffed I have said in another post that I cannot believe they have not covered every base in their setup of this spv carry on and Londres in another post said the same,it seems unbelievable they can state they have no intention of notifying the borrower of a change in ownership and the same goes for registering with the LR their title to the property in writing if indeed they are acting unlawfully or illegally in this matter.But thats how it looks when you read the prospectus ?they must have in my view have left themselves a get out clause .. if not its a go to jail card for conspiracy to defraud at least or any other charge in that context.

It would take someone with a legal mind and a deep pocket [just in case] to take them to court on just this matter alone no other ?the rest would follow if proven they have acted against the law.

This was my point about the deceit they have colluded between themselves the spv and the original lender to deprive you of your house and or a shortfall in what has been discribed as in a unlawfull or illegal way? if true:) Surely there must be someone out there who could put this matter to rest as to its legality as a freebie. ... or on legal aid

It must surely be only the true owner of the title who can repo you or chase up a shortfall no other, trustee or not if the act of doing so is against the law it falls back onto the head of the true owner

if not i will appoint some one I know to go out and get rid of the yobs who live around me without the fear of it coming back to me.

my views only as per usual

 

kegi

 

 

I've today sent a detailed and specific SAR to: "my mortgage company", the "mortgage company" who took me to court to gain a repossesion order relating to a charge "my mortgage company" held on my home and registered with the Land Registry in 2005, and the charge holder as listed on my properties title with the Land Registry. From this you may deduce that strangely enough, all three entities have de facto gone to law, or allowed to go to law charges stating they each own the legal charge on the property. If they didnt, they couldnt go to court for repossesion - that, or Judge xxxxxx has been a silly boy and not asked for proof - thus due process under the law has not been adhered to. And if they dont have the legal charge, and have represented themselves as having the legal charge and attempted repossesion of a property in which they have no legal charge...?

I'm sure we can all join the dots on that...

I'll be interested to see what I get back from each of them, in particular the true copy of the mortgage contract... or is that "contracts"? We shall see...