Hi Wot2do You raise a pertinent point. Could you suggest to Caggers wot 2 do? Have you used, or do you know of, any arguments that cannot be shot down in flames? Or, (if your assertion is true) do you accept the reason that litgants in persons may be being "shot down in flames" is the strong possibility that litigant's in persons do not have a fair hearing? It is easy for those who are not in the firing line to criticise others and revel in a false perception of the homeowner's alleged "failure": a "failure" that may more properly attributable to the failure of the court system, rather than the "failure" of the argument. Nonetheless, the purpose of this forum is to help consumers. If you can be 100% confident that the courts have correctly applied the rule of law against arguments used, then could you suggest what is the correct argument that you would use?.... Your positive and considered reply would be helpful to many caggers... ...tell us....wot 2 do????? Dear Lord, do tell us, wot2do!

Hi ZillaK, A suspended possession order IS A POSSESSION ORDER. The principle argument at a repossession hearing is whether or not the lender may have an order for POSSESSION. Once you have a suspended order, then the principle (as to whether or not they may have possession), is DECIDED. Thus, once you have a suspended order against you, then you have NO DEFENCE against the possession order. Also, once a suspended order exists, then the argument with the lender is merely whether or not to lift the suspension. If you are merely arguing for a suspended possession order, then you are not defending the possession, you are merely deferring the date on which they will take possession. And whilst a suspended possession order means that they may not take possession within a few weeks of the possession order, it is a virtual certainty that at some stage in the future, the suspension will be lifted and they will take possession. For a prime example of a suspended possession order being repossessed seven years after the order - see the Pender case.

Hi Napiernuts, You seem to have access to a lot of legal knowledge, do you have any wisdoms on the Disclosure issue to share?

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.

As I said, you were asked a straight forward question which required a simple yes or no answer. You prefer to give a politician answer which details many ruses and manoeuvres, each of which are necessary to avoid that which is patently obvious i.e., the assignee has the legal right to register its legal title at the Land Registry because: it was assigned the legal title. Goodnight

What confusion? Your confusion?

Wrong. An absolute assignment is achieved by the content of the contract. Once the contract is agreed and the contract provides for the absolute assignment of a title, that absolute assignment is a legal assignment. It is a legal assignment because it assigns, as Napiernuts said earlier, "absolutely everything". Once the buyer has paid for the property so absolutely assigned the legal assignment is complete. The legal title is "attached" to the assignee. Napiernut's statement quoted above refers to the steps that must be taken AFTER the contract has been signed. Following the assignment of the legal title, the assignee must then "perfect" its legal title. "Perfection" is achieved by registration at the Land Registry. Napier nuts is now talking about the assignee's perfection of its legal title. So whilst we all know that the assignee (in violation of law) has not "perfected" its legal title at the LR, it does not change the fact that the contract assigned an absolute assignment, that legal assignment "attached" to the assignee once the contract was signed by both parties. Which means a contract that agrees an absolute assignment with full title guarantee is an assignment of the legal title. The assignor, has just assigned everything! The fact that the assignee has chosen to violate the law and not perfect its legal title at the LR, does not change the fact that at law, the contract provided for an absolute assignment. Once the assignor has assigned its legal title, it can no longer lawfully claim to own the legal title.

Hi Napiernuts, It is accepted that, like a politician, you avoid a simple answer to a simple question. It is either yes or no. If you need to resort to linguistic acrobats (much the same as the judiciary or the lender's lawyers), then I take it that you are of the opinion that an absolute assignment with full title guarantee does not assign absolutely everything. Whilst your earlier posts is entirely logical, viz, that an absolute assignment assigns absolutely everything, you now appear to equivocate from that firm and logical statement of law. It seems that you equivocate because, your answers indicate that you do not believe that an absolute assignment assigns everything because you do not appear to believe that it assigns the legal title. You avoid giving a straight forward yes or no answer. It was just out of interest that I posed the question, and it is of no real consequence what your answer is, so I will not ask you any further for a yes or no answer because you obviously don't wish to say. PS I didn't ask whether the TRANSFER was absolute. The question did not concern the "perfection" of an assigned legal title, it concerned the "attachment" of an assigned legal title. I asked whether an a contract to assign an absolute assignment with full title guarantee was an assignment of the legal title or not.

Napiernuts, Don't understand your reply. All that has nothing to do with the question. Could you confirm? The Question was : is it correct to say that where a Mortgage Sale Agreement states that it is an "absolute assignment with full title guarantee" - such assignment is a legal assignment - Correct - either yes or no.

Hi Napiernuts How perfectly put. Could you comfirm, that when Mortgage Sale Agreement says, "absolute assignment with full title guarantee" it is correct to say that the "assignment" is a legal assignment - correct?

Hi Inspectorgadget, Just to clarify..the point is, that if your lender did engage in the back-to-back selling of your property, and did really sell for say, 50K, then would not be a question of "less money you owe in the long run", it means that you owe no money at all! You see, if there was really no shortfall, then there was no shortfall on which interest accrued, which means the you may have a complete defence (if you can show there was a back-to-back sale and therefore a breach of fiduciary duty). Plus, it means that say the surplus, i.e. £8.5K that was owed to you, but not paid to you, would have attracted compound interest at the contractual rate. Thus, it could turn out that they owe YOU £28K or more!. All this of course is dependent on your finding out the facts from the Land Registry. As I said before, the lenders regularly engaged in this back-to-back selling fraud during that period of repossessions. You just need to find out if you too, were a victim of that crime.

Your 50K flat sold for £25K - yeah right...in addition to the guidance that Ellen will give you, I strongly recommend that you go to the Land Registry to see if there was a back-to-back sale of your property - could almost guarantee that there was! Whilst the first sale may have been for 25K, there most likely would have been a further sale for say £50K. The mortgagee is under a fiduciary duty to sell for a market price and therefore, if there was a futher sale, as I strongly suspect for say market value at e.g. £50K, then they would owe you £8.5K plus interest. Therefore, in addition to Ellen's guidance it is also really is worth your while checking out with the Land REgistry what sales were executed within the years 1996 - 1997.

SPML et al., were in the business of (a) securitising loans and (b) making people homeless. They would would originate mortgage and hold them on their books until the next scheduled securitisation issue (usually once a quarter). Therefore, it is entirely possible that between the last securitisation and the bankruptcy, they would have originated mortgages that did not get securitised because the bankruptcy prevented the next securitsed issue. Thus, there would have been loans in the "pipeline" that did not get securitised. Hence, they could have had a mortgage book that wasn't securitised. As for any sale, that seems unlikely too because, a vulture fund buyer would have appointed new directors to the board. As for Capstone taking over SPML or any of its sister companies, that seems unlikely too, because Capstone is unlikely to have been able to fund any takeovers of its sister companies - and anyway - Capstone itself was up for sale too. The administrators/receivers report would give details of any sale of the companies and details of how much they were sold for etc. Has anyone got the receivers reports that were filed at Companies House?

Theoretically that's a fair assessment. SPML etc were probably being funded through Mable (and or Storm Funding), so if they couldn't pay Mable back, then Mable probably couldn't pay their creditors either. It's the usual knock-on effect of a bankruptcy. PwC couldn't achive a 50p in the £1 sale of these books. But note that PwC didn't approach the mortgage borrowers to ask them if they were willing to give 50p in the £1 to raise money i.e. selling the mortgage asset back to the mortgagor/borrower. Even though there's not much opportunity to remortgage, if you can redeem your existing mortgage at 50p in the £1 then essentially you are asking for a remortgage loan with an LTV of 50%, thus, these mortgagors would have had much more chance of getting a loan for a mortgage of 50% of the value of their home. Would like to know what price they got (if sold), just think, if they sold them for say 30p in the £ - what tragedy for the borrowers - being overcharged by the vultures when the mortgagor/borrowers could have redeemed for say 30p in the £ and saved all the social heartache. These city institutions would rather chuck families out on the street than deprive the city of screwing over the hardworking homeowners in this country. Just think it should have been relatively easy for the mortgagor to remortgage for a 30% LTV even in these times. Well, much easier than being grossly overcharged and repossessed...which is what will happen with the vultures.

See what I mean about the FSA's abject apathy. They haven't moved to strike off her FSA registration have they? She is in violation of offences under the Companies Act, and yet they maintain her as an FSA authorised person. So can the consumers really trust any FSA authorised person?

Hi Ryde, Your question: Do not understand what they mean by saying they failed to deleverage the books of spml/pml. The leverage of a company is the amount of debt it has in relation to its equity. In other words, it is the ratio between that amount of equity and the amount of debt. Thus if a company has been capitalised with say 30K of capital and that capital was raised by - say, 10K in equity, raised from the shareholders and the other 20K raised by borrowing money, then the company's Debt to Equity ratio is 2:1. So the company is said to be leveraged to the ratio of £2 of debt for every £1 of equity. When a company deleverages, it is said to be reducing its borrowings. Thus, according to the article, it appears that Lehmans mortgage books were funded by a borrowings and that they failed to pay back the borrowings i.e. failed to deleverage. These books of mortgages (more likely than not) would have been money that they borrowed in order to finance newly originated mortgages that would have been put in the "pipeline" ready to be securitised in the next securitisation issue. Do not confuse this with the mortgage borrowers debts because the mortgages that are owed to SPML is SPML's assets (and not an SPML debt): in the context of leverage, it is the actual debts of the company, e.g. if they have a bank overdraft or the company borrowed money to fund the origination of new mortgages to new borrowers. As to your other comments "You note that PWC are the administrator with the obvious power of sale and control." This article makes much more sense. The guy at Capstone must have given Keithybat a dud steer, can't see that Capstone could have bought out SPML at all. If Capstone and SPML have been sold, then it is more likely to have been sold to one of the vulture type funds, i.e. the private equity investors or some hedge fund. Will have a look at the link and post up another comment if necessary.

Good point wot2do. Under the control of Ms Attia then, who has failed to file accounts, in violation of the Companies Acts, 1985 and 2006, and who is about to be, and should be, struck off. It may be right that the parent's bankruptcy does not mean that its subsidiary is in administration, but the parent's administrator must liquidate the assets of the parent for the benefit of the creditors...which means...that the subsidiaries are affected because, the subsidiary is an assets of the parent company which value will form part of the assets that are liquidated to fund the creditors claims. That is why it is usual that the subsidiaries fall when the parent company is in liquidation. BTW, if capstone has bought SPML, then why are there no new directors? When a company is sold, then there is usually a new board of directors appointed by the new owners to manage their newly acquired company. Is Ms Attia a director of Capstones too? If so, she's just playing manoeuvres. No change really just more skullduggery....and aren't CH also bringing criminal charges against Ms Attia too? And one more thought, where did Capstone get the funding to pay for its alleged acquisition of SPML? You see, any money that Capstone has going spare would surely have been claimed by its parent's administrator seeing as it was owned by the parent and the administrator must have claimed all values from the subsidiaries to pay the parent's creditors. And the proceeds of the sale of SPML would have gone to the administrator/receiver too. Where's the fresh funding come from?..or is this just Ms Attia manoeuvres?..or is it just not true. Final thought...he that controls the parent controls the parent's subsidiaries. Thus, the administrator/receiver would be in control of the subsidiaries....unless, the parent only had a minority shareholding in the subsidiaries, in which case, it's not a parent!

Hi Midge, any mortgage taken out from 31 October 2004 is an FSA regulated mortgage irrespective of whoever owns it. An FSA regulated entity must administrate the mortgage irrespective of who owns it. That's why the SPV has contracted with Capstone to Administrate the mortgages. The SPV sets the interest rate policies and the repossession policies and Capstones, pursuant to their contract with the SPV implements the SPV's policies, irrespective of whether the SPV's policies are in accordance with the MCOB rules or not. Capstone's paramount allegiance is to the SPV, not the FSA regulator - they know the FSA is pure hot air and Capstone know that the FSA won't do anything to protect the consumer anyway. If the FSA wanted to look at what's going on with your SPML/LMC/Preferred mortgage, they could go to Capstone and have a look anyway. The FSA won't - toothless tiger or worse, they encourage breach of the MCOB rules through their abject apathy.

Hey Guests, you're welcome, but please do come in and join us and share what you know.

First Floor, 6 Broadgate...well who lives there... See The Company Thing — Query: RegisteredAddress for NO 6 BROADGATE! Query: RegisteredAddress for NO 6 BROADGATE SOUTHERN PACIFIC G PARENT LIMITED FIRST FLOOR NO 6 BROADGATE LONDON EC2M 2QS 6523 - Other financial intermediation SOUTHERN PACIFIC G PARENT LIMITED FIRST FLOOR NO 6 BROADGATE LONDON EC2M 2QS 6523 - Other financial intermediation SOUTHERN PACIFIC SECURITIES G PLC FIRST FLOOR NO 6 BROADGATE LONDON EC2M 2QS 6523 - Other financial intermediation SOUTHERN PACIFIC SECURITIES H PLC FIRST FLOOR NO 6 BROADGATE LONDON EC2M 2QS 6523 - Other financial intermediation

Ha, So not only do the directors flea like rats off the sinking ship, the administrators do too!!! 2.38B 21/12/2009 NOTICE OF RESIGNATION BY ADMINISTRATOR:LIQ. CASE NO.1:IP NO.00008211 It seems that this is more than mere administration, it is a liquidation case. See "LIQ. CASE". So not only do they not have any directors (is that correct), they don't have an administrator either. The last administrator report is: 2.24B 13/11/2009 ADMINISTRATOR'S PROGRESS REPORT:BROUGHT DOWN DATE 22/09/2009:LIQ. CASE N Have you seen it? And...Has there been another report brought down to 21 Dec 2009 - as we can see, that is when the current administrator quit. Seems that he may have quit rather than have to file another report

Ryde, Do you know who has been appointed Mable's administrator/receiver? What about Resetfan, are they in administration too?

Call to any of the Guests that log onto this site. If you are a Capstone employee and can help, come and join us and let us know what's going on from the inside. After all, whatever your employers say, they will ultimately be shafting you too and your job is on the line anyway - you are probably another normal UK citizen who is called upon to pay for this carnage through your PAYE or through your own inflated mortgage payments. Break the silence and let us know.

If Mabel is in administration, and Mable owns SPML and Capstone as their company assets, then Mable's administrators/receivers would take any value from the ownership of those companies and their assets - liquidate them and then use the proceeds to pay Mable's creditors or at least, that is what at law should happen. The plot thickens again. So whether or not the administrators/receivers allowed one of Mable's subsidiaries to buy the other - hmmm who knows... Usually when the parent folds, the subsidiaries fall with it.

Many thanks Sue, whenever you can it will be appreciated. BTW cases that are unrelated to securitisation are just what is needed!