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

[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.

[Suetonius]

Wot2do? Your not helping with your posts, you just encourage him more

Edited January 4, 2010 by Suetonius
Typo

[Suetonius]

Hello SS,

 

I am work at the moment, so can't do anything until I get home.

 

Using CAG on a mobile phone is hard enough for me let alone searching Bailii etc..

 

I will start looking into arguments for disclosure as soon as I get home tonight. I'll start by looking at previous cases (most likely unrelated to securitisation) with regard to arguments used to force (or gently push) a Judge to order disclosure of documents.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Suetonius
Excuse spelling I have Fat Fingers....

[Suetonius]

Hi Ryde,

 

Disclosure is the live issue which was mooted at around page 180 (around post nos. in the 3590's), and we've been hoping to hear from Suetonius. He's always good for developing the depths of a subject so hopefully, he'll be able to share the benefit of his thoughts soon.

 

Sorry with the weather etc, it has been a long week.

 

I have been looking very closely into the arguments for and the arguments against Disclosure.

 

Civil Procedure Rule 31.12 Specific Disclosure & Inspection -

 

(1) The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection.

(2) An order for specific disclosure is an order that a party must do one or more of the following things –

(a) disclose documents or classes of documents specified in the order;

(b) carry out a search to the extent stated in the order;

© disclose any documents located as a result of that search.

(3) An order for specific inspection is an order that a party permit inspection of a document referred to in rule 31.3(2).

(Rule 31.3(2) allows a party to state in his disclosure statement that he will not permit inspection of a document on the grounds that it would be disproportionate to do so)

 

and

 

Ministry of Justice Practice Direction - Disclosure & Inspection states:

 

Specific Disclosure

 

5.5 An order for specific disclosure may in an appropriate case direct a party to –

(1) carry out a search for any documents which it is reasonable to suppose may contain information which may –

(a) enable the party applying for disclosure either to advance his own case or to damage that of the party giving disclosure; or

(b) lead to a train of enquiry which has either of those consequences; and

(2) disclose any documents found as a result of that search.

 

The above sounds good and supports the argument for disclosure.

 

However, the argument is far from as clear cut as it may at first appear.

 

Firstly, lets look at CPR part 31:

 

(1) The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection.

 

The keyword would have to be may (and not will). As a Court may make an order, this would be subject to the discretion of the Judge(s).

 

Guidance is of course provided within the Practice Directions for CPR part 31.

 

Specific Disclosure

 

5.2 The application notice must specify the order that the applicant intends to ask the court to make and must be supported by evidence (see rule 31.12(2) which describes the orders the court may make).

 

5.3 The grounds on which the order is sought may be set out in the application notice itself but if not there set out must be set out in the evidence filed in support of the application.

Practice Direction 5.2 indicates that an application for specific disclosure of in this instance must be supported with evidence.

 

Practice Direction 5.3 indicates that you must specify the reasons for disclosure, either in your application or in your evidence. (evidence is still required as per 5.2)

 

 

The Lenders Position:

 

"on the face of it", the lender has evidence of its ownership of the legal title, including the legal title to sue in the the form of the mortgage loan agreement and the charge registered in the lenders name.

 

The Borrowers Postion:

 

What evidence is there to support an application request for disclosure. As previously pointed out by h8them

 

Anyone ever wonder (no pun intended) why all the documentation

 

Presale report

Prospectus

Mortgage Administration Agreement

Bank Agreement

Notice's to Noteholders

Books etc and etc

 

All say equitable ?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Suetonius
Formatting

[Suetonius]

Hello Ryde,

 

Thanks for above sue.

Is not the whole question of disclosure to put beyond any question of doubt the fact that the" lender" has locus standi,

 

Sorry Ryde, I have minsunderstood. I thought the purpose of the disclosure of the Mortgage Sale Agreement was

 

The issue is now DISCLOSURE and whether the Mortgage Sale Agreement is RELEVANT to the facts under dispute viz was the assignment a legal or equitable assignment. Disclosure is Relevant to that ISSUE.

 

 

eg:what exactly would be the current situation with sppl? Does the trigger event of their imminent insolvency override the fact that their alleged ownership of the legal title should pass to their trustee in bankruptcy and not to the spv?

 

With regard to the insolvency of SPPL, the notice said:

 

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

 

" The Issuer has been informed that SPPL has no directors and may be made insolvent imminently. In any case, the Issuer notes that a lack of directors may be considered evidence of the imminent insolvency of SPPL.

 

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

 

It is my understanding that until SPPL is not the holder of the legal title, not much has really changed.

 

There are also previous cases such as riley and the extracts from Hansard where the lender had sold the whole of their interest to another entity and then attempted to repossess in its own name.

 

I am not familar with which Hansard extracts you refer to, but in relation to riley, it is very difficult to comment or reach any conclusion without being able to read the case. However, we do have from Sinclair:

 

 

1. During the course of the argument my attention has been drawn to an interesting case, namely City Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Reilly and Reilly, which was an unreported decision of Judge Rubery in the Stroke-on-Trent County Court, dated 28th November 1997. On analysis that decision does not, in my judgment, assist the applicant for this reason. There the claimant was City Mortgage CorporationLtd, which was the original lender and mortgagee. The original mortgage was dated 15th March 1996. On I think the same day a transfer of what Judge Rubery held to be the legal and beneficial interest in the charge was transferred to another company called Greenwich International Ltd. The transfer was not dated and it was submitted on behalf of the claimant, which was City Mortgage Corporation Ltd, that it took effect only in equity and not in law. I should add that notice to the defendants of the transfer was given on the same day, 15th March 1996.
   
2. The judge rejected the claimant's submission and held that the transfer operated as a transfer of the legal interest and that notice of that transfer had been given to the defendant, so that the transferor or assignor, City Mortgage Corporation Ltd, no longer had any rights under the charge. Those rights were vested in the transferee or assignee, namely Greenwich International Ltd. Accordingly, the claim failed.
   

In my own personal opinion, the notice sent to the defendents would be the evidence required to successfully apply for disclosure.

 

 

Full disclosure would remove any doubt in this situation,such disclosure would of course give the lender the opportunity to produce evidence in support of its ownership with the documents mentioned by h8them so it would work both ways.

 

Yes it would remove any doubt, but first you would have to create the doubt in the mind of the judge, after all it would be he/she or even they that would order disclosure. To create that doubt, it would appear that you would need some form of evidence.

[Suetonius]

You donot seem to quiz the actual intention of some caggers or their posts. Some are here to discredit those who are genuine on this thread. Beware the Jackals.

 

It is obvious that you consider me to a "Jackal" ITBG?

 

However, take a moment to ask yourself one question.

 

If I was an employee of any of the Lehman subsidiaries, why would I try to discourage people from using arguments that HAVE NOT and more importantly CONTINUE NOT to work Court ?

 

I would have more respect for you, if you actually made any accusation to me directly.

[Suetonius]

Does anyone, who originally had a loan or mortgage with SPPL, LMC etc know if the charge is still in the original lenders name or if it has been changed to SPML.

 

What is the mortgage year for SPML, is it January to December, March to February or ??

 

With the annual statements do you ever recieve amended terms & conditions.

 

Just a few questions so that I can get things straight in my head

[Suetonius]

..anybody who believes that the SPVs, donot legally own your mortgage, is a feck'in Jackal....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

get some

 

Guess that must make me a feck'in Jackel then ITBG? ;-)

[Suetonius]

Nothing as grown up and shows how strong your argument is like a bit of name calling hey ITBG?

[Suetonius]

You got it nearly in one ITBG? I do have a radar but it does not go off on Jackal.

 

Something else sets it off... ;-)

[Suetonius]

Best to ask ITBG? Ryde, he has all the answers

[Suetonius]

I sense a jackal reference coming or may be a rap

[Suetonius]

napiernuts, further to the questions asked..

 

If the assignment/transfer is intra group, could relief be claimed

[Suetonius]

I will pm you some links

[Suetonius]

Vanilla Ice does not like to be proved wrong. Instead prefers to post wrong information by the dozen

[Suetonius]

Hello Ryde,

 

tried to respond to you pm but your box is full... can you delete some messages ;-)

[Suetonius]

All these names you call me ITBG?

 

I know you love me really....

[Suetonius]

Re: SPPL

 

Congratulations to all and well done..

 

I mean that to all if you, even you ITBG?

 

Now would be a good time to approach the press, especially the Mail they like the David beating Goliath stories..

 

ITBG?, Littledotty, EiE, Ryde and co have started the ball rolling...

 

Keep pushing it, now is not the time to sit back to see what happens, strike while the iron is hot..

 

Is anyone in litigation with SPPL at this moment in time?

[Suetonius]

Ryde, sorry going to have to correct you.

 

ITBG? appointed himself Lord Cagger.

[Suetonius]

I know you love me really ITBG?

[Suetonius]

No fallingout at all.. It took me time but I come to realise he is not worth the time or the energy.. I am leaving him alone in Jackanory land

[Suetonius]

I would gladly shake his hand. I have no anger or any other ill feeling towards him

[Suetonius]

I will leave now... Didn't mean to stop people posting...

[Suetonius]

Personally, if someone has been making threats it takes being an idiot to an entirely new level.

 

If someone called me on my home phone number and threatend me, I wouldn't be happy either

[Suetonius]

As for the comment that they have got to the site team, thats just utter nonsense , i find it amusing that you would even make the suggestion

 

You sure you have not been bribed ????

 

Come on, what did it take ??

 

Hob Nobs or jaffa cakes

 

 

(the above is said in jest)