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

[supersleuth]

Last of the Mohicans,

 

Once you've identified the SPV you must then try to ascertain which particular transaction. That is more difficult to identify. There are two ways of working it out. First, I vaguely recall reading a post where (I think it was you), where you said you saw on your bank statement a reference to SPML 05-03. There is your clue. Your mortgage (if it was you) will have been securitised in 2005 and it would have been SERIES -3. Therefore, there will be a Prospectus that the SPV issued (I believe it is Eurosail that is the SPV for the SPML mortgages) called: EUROSAIL 2005-03 SERIES. The transactions will always be named by the year of the securitisation and then by a number. The number 3 indicates that this was the 3rd securitisation transaction that Eurosail completed in the year 2005.

 

Another way is the SAR Eurosail and directly ask them.

 

Also, you've got it absolutely correct. The imposter lenders (i.e. the false claimant's) do, as you say: "keep something they no longer own on the books when they've sold it". It is to do with an accountancy standard called IAS39. Want to know how it is done? Read Memo No. 107 on Parliament's Treasury Committee's web site. Here's the link

 

UK Parliament - Bankingcrisis

 

Finally, your query re: "surely the mortgage company does pay tax". I assume are referring to the imposter lender/false claimant. Another reason for keeping the assets on the banks books is because: interest received from mortgages is taxed as income tax and if it is paid directly to offshore companies such as SPVs then it is subject to WITHHOLDING TAX. Which means that before the interest receipts are paid off shore the company making the payment abroad must withhold say 30% of the payment and give it directly to the Inland Revenue. BUT there is an exception. Interest paid to a UK bank is NOT subject to withholding tax. Therefore, the UK bank has another reason to falsely leave the assets on its books - it can help the SPV escape from the withholding tax - either way, they don't pay tax.....but they DO receive our taxes!!!..... when the banks get in trouble we the taxpayer have to pay for our mortgages again! The government are re-captialising the banks balance sheets to apparently give us confidence in the financial system. Hmmmm What a fabulous game - they RECEIVE benefits from the state and make NO contributions whatsoever! Both the banks and the SPVs are in a win-win situation all round.

Edited March 4, 2009 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Oh there is another way of discerning which transaction your mortgage was securitised: Many of you have said that you received a letter asking for an SPV to be named on your buildings insurance policy. At the time it didn't mean anything to you (understandably). However, that is another clue. The date on which you received that letter, will be around the same time that your mortgage was securitised. Therefore, once you've identified your SPV - look for the propectus that is dated on or around the date on which you received that letter regarding the building insurance.

 

It is very interesting to know why the SPV declares itself regarding the building insurance. That is because, the large and powerful building insurance companies would NOT pay out a claim to an entity that is falsely named on the policy - i.e. the insurance companies KNOW that the imposter lender is NOT entitled at law to any monies from a claim and so would NOT pay them. Thus, to ensure that the SPV can receive the money, they must be legally and properly identified on the policy as having a legal interest in the building insurance policy. Therefore, whilst the SPV can get away with duping the courts, Land Registry and borrowers at law, they would not get away with duping the powerful insurance companies at law. Hence, the SPV wants and needs to be expressly named if they want to claim the legal right to any insurance proceeds from any claim.

[Last of the Mohicans]

^ Cheers Slueth - I'll digest and answer more fully later, but have to get out right now.

 

Just briefly - as a sort of additional piece of explanatory evidence if someone wants to explain to someone (eg: a judge) that "this company asking for repossesion is NOT the owner of my mortgage" - I found this. It would - or should, if the phrase "British Justice" means anything alert the court to the fact that "this goes on", even though you may not be able to prove that your mortgage has been sold on, the grounds of likelyhood are there, and a decent judge *should* (I would have thought) adjourn in order for the "Plaintiff" to prove categorically that your mortgage hasn't been sold and that they are the owner.

 

Yes, they can point to title at Land Registry, but this is one more bit of "grist to the mill" of settling reasonable doubt in the courts mind.

 

InvestEgate, Eurosail 2006-1 PLC - Repurchase of Mortgage Loans

 

In full, in case it "dissapears": (My bolding of text)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

 

 

$437,500,000 Class A1b Notes due 2025

 

(Common Code: 025356454; ISIN: XS0253564545)

 

£100,000,000 Class A1c Notes due 2025

 

(Common Code: 025356578; ISIN: XS0253565781)

 

£321,200,000 Class A2c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025356772; ISIN: XS0253567720)

 

€20,700,000 Class B1a Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025356900; ISIN: XS0253569007)

 

£17,500,000 Class B1c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357124; ISIN: XS0253571243)

 

€13,600,000 Class C1a Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357205; ISIN: XS0253572050)

 

£16,500,000 Class C1c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357329; ISIN: XS0253573298)

 

€26,400,000 Class D1a Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357361; ISIN: XS0253573611)

 

£3,000,000 Class D1c Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357493; ISIN: XS0253574932)

 

£11,025,000 Class DTc Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357566; ISIN: XS0253575665)

 

£4,778,000 Class E Notes due 2044

 

(Common Code: 025357663; ISIN: XS0253576630)

 

issued by Eurosail 2006-1 PLC

 

(the 'Issuer')

 

The Issuer today received notification from Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited ('SPML') that SPML intends and is required to (acting in its capacity as seller of the original mortgage loans to the Issuer and pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the mortgage sale agreement dated 30 May 2006 between, inter alios, the Issuer and SPML (the 'Mortgage Sale Agreement')) repurchase 85 mortgage loans from the Issuer in an aggregate amount equal to approximately £13,603,094 (the 'Mortgage Loans').

 

Pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, SPML is required to repurchase the Mortgage Loans as it has become aware that a warranty in respect of the loan to value ratio for such Mortgage Loans was not satisfied at the time that the Mortgage Loans were originally sold to the Issuer and as a result a warranty breach has occurred. The loan to value ratios ('LTV') for such Mortgage Loans were not satisfied due to inaccurate information that was provided to SPML by certain third parties in relation to the purchase price of the properties securing such Mortgage Loans.

 

By way of background information, this issue was first identified when the

Lending Quality group at SPML responded to concerns raised by a solicitor in respect of seven loans originated through a particular packager. The solicitor

was not comfortable that full and accurate details had been disclosed, in

particular in relation to the purchase price of the underlying properties.

 

This led to the instigation of a wider review of loans originated from the same

packager which showed that in certain cases there were anomalies between the

registered price at the relevant Land Registry of a property and the details

contained in other related documentation. Most typically the loans involved a

borrower requesting in the application form a remortgage of a buy to let

property. However, the loan was not a remortgage but was in fact for the actual

purchase of the property, with this fact being stated inaccurately on the

application form. This was not apparent to SPML until as part of SPML's

investigation Land Registry records including registered purchase prices were

checked for each loan originated through the particular packager.

 

As a result of this review, breaches of SPML's terms of business were identified

and so the relationship with the packager was terminated. SPML has also made

all necessary reports to its regulator and other relevant authorities in

relation to the packager.

 

As part of its investigation SPML obtained Land Registry data in respect of all

live loans originated through the packager that had been subsequently

securitised or sold. SPML's lending criteria applies an LTV limit of 95% based

on the lower of the purchase price and valuation and SPML represented in the

Mortgage Sale Agreement to the Issuer that this limit had been complied with.

Following discovery of the purchase price registered at the Land Registry, SPML

recalculated the LTV based on such purchase price and determined that the LTV

limit had been exceeded in the case of 85 loans sold to the Issuer with a

current notional amount of approximately £13,603,094.

 

The weighted average original LTV (WAOLTV) of the Mortgage Loans based on the

valuation used at the time of origination was 85.36%. The weighted average

original LTV of the Mortgage Loans based on purchase price data registered at

the Land Registry is 123.57%. 97.70% of the Mortgage Loans are current and

0.53% of the Mortgage Loans are more than 180 days in arrears.

 

After removing the Mortgage Loans the revised weighted average original

loan-to-value (WAOLTV) of the original mortgage loan pool in the Issuer becomes

73.80% as compared to an originally disclosed WAOLTV for the transaction of

74.01%.

 

If the Mortgage Loans were to remain in the Issuer at an adjusted LTV ratio

which is reflective of the Land Registry purchase prices then the revised WAOLTV

of the original mortgage loan pool in the Issuer becomes 74.72% as compared to

an originally disclosed WAOLTV for the transaction of 74.01%.

 

99.1% of the Mortgage Loans are located in the North and 0.9% of the Mortgage

Loans are located in the South East.

 

As stated above, SPML obtained Land Registry data for all loans originated by

the packager and in respect of the other 166 loans (representing £ 17,022,240)

in the transaction originated through such packager SPML found no breach of the

LTV representation given by SPML to the Issuer ('Non-Affected Loans') nor is it

aware currently of any other breach of representation in respect of such

Non-Affected Loans and consequently is not repurchasing these Non-Affected

Loans.

 

The Non-Affected Loans have a WAOLTV of 84.67%. 86.31% of these loans by

balance are current, 3.44% are more than 180 days in arrears.

 

SPML has stated that it will, as payment for the repurchase of such Mortgage

Loans, pay in cash an amount equal to approximately £13,603,094 to the Issuer.

The repurchase of the Mortgage Loans will take place within 21 days from the

date of this notice.

 

This Notice is given by Eurosail 2006-1 PLC.

 

14 November 2006

 

Enquiries:

 

Arthur Cox Listing Services Limited Jane Farrelly

 

 

Telephone: +353 (1) 618 0612

 

 

 

Edit: To tie in the the theme of "within the bounds of possibility" you may find within your mortgage offer something like the following:

 

9.3: We may pass any information relating to your application or the Account to any third party providing funding for our business or to whom we may be considering transferring the benefit of this agreement and the mortgage.

 

(My italics)

Edited March 5, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

Re your visit to the Land Registry and what can be done.

 

Tell the LR that the register is inaccurate and incomplete because the SPV has failed to register itself as the proprietor of the mortgage on the Charges Register (which is register C on your title register).

 

There is a procedure under the LRA 2002 where you can make an application to the court or to the Registrar (of the Land Registry) to apply for the update/corrections to be made.

 

It may be that once the register is updated, all the current court orders would fall away and the SPV would have to come out of the woodwork and you could start again - but this time - you really are ready and in the know of what defences you can assert.

 

Good luck, let us know how it pans out

Supersleuth

[mercyblue]

As supersleuth says the correct spv will appear on the building insurance.

Would the production of the building insurance schedule not to mention the letters telling you to add them to it prove ownership?

After all you cant insure a building you have no interest in surely that would be fraud?

[littledotty27]

Thanks Supersleuth

I am armed and ready for the LR this morning.

I am taking with me the prospectus and anything else I possibly can and will let you all know how I get on.

Surely the LR won't ignore what I have got with me.

Fingers crossed.

[supersleuth]

Good luck littledotty, I feel you may be the one of us that will break through!

 

Mercyblue - you are correct - the building insurance policy is very good evidence to prove who the legal owner really is! There will come a point will all this evidence where the courts are just going to have to sit up and take notice of this rot.

[midge61]

Hi

 

I have found via old bank statements that my mort appears to have been sold twice.

 

First my payments went to SPF3-Trust - Southern Pacific Funding (or Financing) who no longer appear anywhere.

Second SPS05-3 - Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc.

 

I have only ever been asked to name SPML on my building insurance never SPS05-3 so I am a bit confused now.

 

Still can't locate the prospectus although I have found SPS05-3 on the Irish stock exchange.

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

Now regarding the the SPV setups - I feel that I may be able to clarify some points as I do understand some basic finance concepts but of course I am not a qualified accountant:

 

1.Any business or charity will have Assets & Liabilities.

 

2.Assets - examples cars,vans and buildings.

 

3.Liabilities - bank loans,interest on bank loans,overdraft fees,legal and accounting fees.

 

4.Plus regular outgoings like staff wages and various types of insurance - buliding insurance and Third Party Liability Insurance.

 

5.Then there is of course the income stream(s) - depending on the type of trade.

 

As far as a SPV is concerned

 

a.The assets are mortgaged properties - which have a market value that could obviously go up or down.

 

b.The liabilities are mainly the admin of the mortgages via the original lender which sold the portfolio to the SPV.There are also other liabilities as mentioned above.

 

c.The income stream is the interest and charges paid by the mortgage borrowers.These monies go direct to the SPV less the admin charges and any other expenses

 

d.Remember that the SPV does not have to pay tax because it is classed as an offshore trust entity which means that no tax is owed.

 

e.When defaults occur on the mortgages - this is when the three parties in this loop (most alarming and unknown to the mortgage borrowers until it is too late) - Original lender,SPV and the Trustees start putting pressure on mortgage borrowers - EACH FOR THEIR OWN REASONS WHICH CAN BE PUT AS ONE WORD GREED AND TO MAKE A QUICK FINANCIAL KILLING - either by trying to make them remortgage or sell by imposing all types of very high fees.

 

f.In many cases the remortgaging or selling is impossible and so the property is repossessed and sold at rock bottom price in an underhanded manner then the former mortgage payer is made to pay a further shortfall.

 

g.Also another point is that in some cases the original lender sells its mortgage portfolio to a subsidiary company.So this is why maybe some paperwork is unclear.

 

I hope this post helps.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[Nightmare4banks]

I just found this link and also backups what I have said in my previous posts regarding SPVs mainly to to do with subsidiary companies:

 

SPV (SPE)

 

 

I will post more comments/observations about the information available via this link after reading through it.

 

Also,I will repeat this again:

 

1.Although the properties have not been registered with the Land Registry properly the original lenders have covered themselves.

 

2.However,this does mean that there has been created ia very serious conflict of interest as I have outlined in a previous post within this thread.

 

Anyway,just my 2p's worth again!

Edited March 4, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Hi Midge61

 

If there is a transaction called SPS05-3 on the ISE, ask them for a copy of that prospectus. From that prospectus, you will be able to decern the various relationships between SPML, SP Funding, SPS etc. and then you will know what is going on.

 

Nightmare4banks

 

just would like to add something to your post where you say "c.The income stream is the interest and charges paid by the mortgage borrowers.These monies go direct to the SPV less the admin charges and any other expenses"

 

The shock factor for borrowers is that they not only pay the administration fees of the imposter lender, borrowers also pay all the administration costs of the SPV - thus the amount of interest charged reflects the entire administration costs of the SPV which is unbelievably colossal! In my securitistation I know that there are 24 DIFFERENT CITY FINANCIAL INSTUTTIONS that charge administration fees to the SPV IN ADDITION to the admin fees charged by the imposter lender -

 

As you rightly point out - the ONLY income stream for the SPVs is the interest earned from us borrowers. Therefore, the weight of ALL the admin costs of BOTH the SPVs and the imposter lender fall on the borrowers. See for example, the evidence to the Treasury Committee (Scedminc has posted a pdf of this evidence) where at para. 10 it states:

 

"This means that Northern Rock must set the interest rate at a level that ensures that the SPV suffers no REVENUE SHORTFALL" ...in other words, we the borrowers, have to pay for the entire costs of supporting ALL the fees, commissions, bonuses (including the famous city bonuses earned in these transactions) and all the ongoing huge costs - is it any wonder that our interest rates are set so high. Truth is that the interest rate set has got nothing to do with alleged "RISKEY and uncreditworthy borrower" - the rate is set because it must ensure that the interest income earned from the borrower is enough to support ALL the imposterbank and SPVs costs and profits. i.e. there must be NO REVENUE SHORTFALL for the SPV.

[Nightmare4banks]

Ai All!

 

Supersleuth,I would just like to add with reference to your last post:

 

1.There is a buy back clause in these portfolio securitisations such that say if some mortgages had that many arrears they would end up repurchased by the original lender.

 

2.I do feel that there should be some form of redress regarding the concealment of the SPV and Trustees and more inportantly totally unwittingly to both the mortgage borrower and to the courts.

 

3.No offence intended against any judges,but I do not think that very many judges understand the securtisation issues that we have raised and he/she takes any information at face value as long as it is not disputed by the other party i.e. in this case us the mortgage borrowers.

 

4.The fact that the original lender granted the mortgage payer a mortgage secured on the property for a normal term of 25 years.However,a company belonging to the original lender either directly or indirectly creates SPVs and Trustees plus mortgages the mortgage payers properties in order to offload them in the quickest possible time by making the mortgage payers remortgage,sell and the worst case scenarios repossessed with totally no regard for the damage caused just because the cash gets short.

 

5.As I have outlined in point 4,I firmly believe that this is the real "nail in the coffin" for the mortgage agreement/deed that was granted by the original lender which I think is the main beneficial legal argument for any mortgage payer/former mortgage payer that lost his/her property through repossession and not the route of incoreect registration will the Land Registry because if we look carefully that is a trivial matter in comparision to the behind the scenes goals and objectives in this well thought out [problem].

 

6.This would generate a large amount of breaches of the human rights laws as because some people have had their properties repossessed so this makes the possession orders granted as possibly unlawful mainly because the judges are unaware of the full facts.This does not mean that the lender regardless of its entity would not be entitled to the possession order based on a certain amout of mortgage arrears.However,to enable the judge to act fairly a large amount of actual factual information has been concealed and most intentially both calculated and reckless - something I know that judges cannot stand.

Thus causing breaches in the human rights laws to follow.

 

6.In conclusion,I feel the way forward would be to tackle these very interesting,alarming and concerning issues with reference to what I have mentioned.

 

Let's be positive and work colletively to get us all proper redress that we all deserve- to get some form of damages/compensation as being unwitting victims of this sort of [problem].

 

Any further ideas/suggestions and/or factual information,folks?

Edited March 4, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[littledotty27]

Well its been quite a day!!

I went to the LR this morning & spoke to someone,but I had to go back this afternoon to speak to there lawyers who deal in fraud.

 

Basically on the LR it states matlock bank registered the charge on 30th jan 06,we signed the deeds on 11th jan 06,so between those dates that is the registration gap.

 

SPML sent an assignment in june 06 & that was updated on 20th june 06.

She said there wasn't anything they could do unless a judge or solicitor complied an order for the spv to register its charge at the LR.

 

She stated it was very complexed and didn't understand the securitisation deal.

But did advise me to seek further legal advice.

So it seems the LR don't want to get involved as there is already a charge on the LR which shows as mortgage to SPML.

 

What do you suggest now guys & girls?

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

As you noted, she doesn't understand the law and doesn't know what to do. So she does the usual and tells you to "seek legal advice". Such a useful phrase to get out of engaging brain - it's nearly as good as the other abused phrase of "can't discuss - data protection act".

 

Ok she was right about one thing - she said there wasn't any thing they could do unless a judge or solicitor "complied" for a court order ....do you mean "applied" for a court order?

 

That's what we can do. I'll work out the process and let you know. In the meantime, what she didn't tell you was that you could apply to the Registrar of the land registry (who could do the same thing as the court order anyway). Hey ho...doesn't surprise me...I'll let you know the process in due course and then you can educate her about her job! (oh and I bet she's never even read the Land Registration Act!!)

 

Supersleuth

[littledotty27]

Hi Supersleuth

 

Sorry yes meant 'applied', apparently she was a registrar/lawyer for the LR.

So if she says she can't do it,whats stopping the rest of the registrars from not doing it either?

She stated as long there is a charge there with re to mortgage,then basically they are happy with that!!

In the meantime I emailed the editor at itn & asked what there lawyers thought of the securitisation,got a reply to say they where still reading through it all.

oh and also she said as there isn't legal aid anymore, she would suggest finding a solicitor that deals with pro bona..whatever that means!!!

Edited March 4, 2009 by littledotty27
add on

[Dangermouse]

Pro Bono means for no fees. i.e. free

 

Dangermouse

[littledotty27]

thank you for that Dangermouse,need to find solicitor now then thats willing to take case on.

[itsamomentintime]

what a complicated thread - me brain 'urts!

[littledotty27]

I feel like that permanately lol

[midge61]

Hi all

 

Well I have finally got my prospectus thanks to the Irish Stock Exchange...........all 178 pages!

 

A lot of MP's are qualified solicitors and barristers perhaps you should try and find an MP that has an interest in the banking crisis that will be willing to take a look.

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

Littledotty27,in reply to your post no.240 within this thread - I would just like to add:

 

1.Matlock Bank was taken over/acquired by SPML and is not anything to do with the SPV setup and merely the name of the bank that owned London Mortgage Company - possibly other companies too.I cannot comment here as I do not know.The name of the SPV would not appear at all on any of the Land Registry

 

2.As other CAGgers have discovered,you would only find any reference to the SPV on building insurance paperwork.

 

Anyway,I hope this helps.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Hi all

 

Well I have finally got my prospectus thanks to the Irish Stock Exchange...........all 178 pages!

 

A lot of MP's are qualified solicitors and barristers perhaps you should try and find an MP that has an interest in the banking crisis that will be willing to take a look.

 

 

8)

 

So what is it Midge? A long list of Land registry numbers? Can you scan and post anything of it (without identifying anyone or anything! - ie, blank out one figure in each LR number if its a list of numbers?)

You may be on to some *real* treasure if someone can see what *might* be their LR title number - then confirm it with you.

I for one would be interested in seeing what makes it up, and a quick summary of the steps you took to get it!

[midge61]

Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc.pdfHi

 

From what I see it is just a pre-sale document but there is nothing that identifies specific mortgages.

 

I think these are held by the Trustee.

 

Anyway i have attached the prospectus.

 

I managed to find it because on my bank statements when I paid by DD it went to SPS05-3 and then I googled that and found Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc.

 

Then thanks to mercyblue I looked on the Irish stock Exchange under Debt securities and there it was. I e-mailed them and asked for a copy of the prospectus and they sent to me.

[Last of the Mohicans]

[ATTACH]6724[/ATTACH]Hi

 

From what I see it is just a pre-sale document but there is nothing that identifies specific mortgages.

 

I think these are held by the Trustee.

 

Anyway i have attached the prospectus.

 

I managed to find it because on my bank statements when I paid by DD it went to SPS05-3 and then I googled that and found Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc.

 

Then thanks to mercyblue I looked on the Irish stock Exchange under Debt securities and there it was. I e-mailed them and asked for a copy of the prospectus and they sent to me.

 

 

It might not be identifying "Your house" exactly Midge, but at this stage, as an excersise in casting enough doubt to make a decent judge ask questions (and allow someone else the joy of perjuring themselves) take a note of this bit:

 

 

 

The denition of Collateral Security - an Americanism that means exactly what we've been saying all along: the prospectus is proof that SPML sold (or in some way disposed of) to Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc "the loans and their related Collateral Security" - in other words, in English, their Charge on the property.

I'm not a lawyer, but I fail to see how that doesnt say exactly that?

[Last of the Mohicans]

There it is in black and white so even a judge could understand it.

 

My guess is that the shiny suit from the "Mortgage Company" will fold at this point... or we should be able to ask for a hold while he proves title other than the Land Registry entry by showing full accounts, and which mortgages have been sold and which not?

 

Superslueth? Comment?

 

Mo

 

 

And...

 

 

And:

 

And:

Edited March 5, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans