I take your point Maybelline, it isn't just the cost of a stamp and a piece of paper though, what about the money to pay the people to do it, labour costs are businesses biggest cost, or the building for them to work in and the running costs of that. Who was the guy on the radio? a so called expert? As to the charges been repaid, I know that GE despite what a lot of people think is there to try to help people, in fact I know a lot of the people in the company personally. I also know that it is a company trying to stay afloat with a lot of people not paying their mortgages which causes it to lose money. Some of its policies may sound harsh or unfair but I know they will listen if there is something they can do. They regularly speak to the CAB to see if their policies etc cause extra hardship and they will listen even if the response you get isn't always what you would have wanted to hear.

Actually I agree with most of those points, the problem I see it is twofold, lenders applying a one brush fits all scenario which they then protect as fair, but also borrowers not accepting the position they are in and doing whatever they can to change it. Most people in a long term debt problem are not realistic about solving it and believe their lender should let them sort it in their own time. With regards to short term, my actual belief is the cost should be broken down to exactly what it takes and know more. Meph hears various peoples chins hit the floor lol. Meph

I agree, wholesale of debt though is not a new thing, this is perhaps just a new way of it happening Apologies, I havn't had time to read all the posts, I do accept points made though. Interestingly, securitisation could be argued as a contributing factor to the prevalation of cheap credit which in itself is a major factor in driving boom's?

But the terms of the loan will remain the same?? The contention surely is whether the securitisation restricts the loan not that it alters the terms? As to the Fraud Act, I accept the point, except that notification will be sent to the customer the day after completion, most customers will bin the letter on the basis of not knowing what it means therefore fraud is not applicable as the party has been informed. Meph

Excellent point, in fact I would argue it is not about whether the lender wanted to repurchase the loans but whether they could. For example the American secondary market and all the warehouse lenders who went bust. Also depends upon your definition of product, mortgage type IO or C/R could be argued to not be product at all. And the restriction is on those cases where the lender is usually obligated to make an advance and usually they don't form securitisation notes for that very reason. You are correct that lenders are obligated to treat customers fairly but not where it would place themselves at a competitive disadvantage to do so. Can you really see all the purchase agreements unravelling given the complex nature of them and the trading on the back of them, that's what started the mess in the first place. Can you also see a court setting precedent to do so, knowing that 1 case could then lead to whole deals unravelling and bringing down the lender who sold them in the first place. Justice is blind, but it also lives in the real world.

Depends on the market doesn't it, I'm not arguing its fair, I'm giving the reasons for the charges, its for the ombudsman to determine fair. As to £100, well in a few years with inflation it will be, as to £1000, a few more years on that. At present nobody is going to charge those figures as that would be like sticking your head over the parapet and saying shoot me. If your competitors are charging £40 how can you say £100 is fair? Taking your wider point Suetonius, what is fair? And I ask that as a genuine question, cos if anybody answers £0 they need to read my thread in full about costs. Meph

I sincerely think that won't happen. Look, all mortgage contracts have the clause but not all companies do it, interesting some of the terminology you use about respectable to back st loan shark. You are aware that the biggest securitiser in the last few years was Halifax then Bradford and Bingley? As to the person who point out they can change the T&C's, please post an example, the mortgage is a contract and as such cannot be changed without consent of both parties unless there is a clause in said contract that allows one to do so. Without an example, it simply isn't something you can except as fact. Morally you may not agree, but legally, this is generally watertight, and believe me it is because you are talking £100's of millions if not billions.

Difficult one that, yes you paid for something but there were no conditions or terms from what you've said to the contract, they've then put you back in the position that you were in previously, you've suffered no loss but some emotional distress, I believe you'd have to sue them to get anywhere, the only other thing I can suggest is talk to the industry watchdog if there is one and report them to trading standards for advice. Meph

Sounds like they are playing you against the other couple. I would suggest that you would like to speak to the area manager and get him to explain that after been promised the early bird fee would secure why his company is now placing you in competition with another couple and why he is causing you the stress to believe you may not get the property. It sounds like you may not have any concerns given the reaction of Plumlife and Countrywide, but I would get them to answer the question as to how they feel they can promsie one thing and then retract it. Meph

Hi Skints, looking at this, it seems supersleuths is right. If you fell into arrears with an unsecured loan, then you will need to look at the terms and conditions of the loan. NR should have served you with a default notice, are you quite sure you've never had this? If so, then you can apply to set aside the judgement made on the grounds it was not legally applied for. I would suggest before you do this, you make a data subject request and request all info on your file. It sounds like they've defaulted you. called the balance due at which point payments will be allocated, but you still owe the whole amount as they have in effect said they are calling in the loan (they can do this if they have legally defaulted you). Then they've taken action, at which point they've said you need to pay the court fees as well as the arrears to stop action. Not quite correct, if you pay the arrears then you are not in default, the costs can still be charged but unlikely the judge would agree if you are not in default of the payments. I think following Sleuths advice is best, buy your self time, get the data and come back to us. Meph

Did you sign anything? Was there a specified contract or just generalities about ' this will secure the property' Are you sure you've lost it? What have you asked them? Meph

If you want to know about securitisation please ask, I was the audit manager for it so I know it back to front. In short, it doesn't matter who owns your mortgage, they can't change the terms and conditions. What does everybody want to know? Meph

What can't you get to tally up? Looks like a standard agreement? As to whether you still owe the debt re Subject Access Request, the answer is yes, just because there may be a failure to respond to your requested doesn;t mean the debt is wiped. Whats the issue here please, can I help? Meph

Hi Nicurro, sorry for not been able to reply sooner. Ignore my request for the legal charge the info you have given makes it irrelevant. So you are aware, the legal charge is the document you sign that binds the mortgage to the property, also called the mortgage deed. Its likely though not certain you will have signed with your solicitor. Looking at the docs i've got 2 comments. 1) Whoever told you you where remortgaging told you complete crap 2) I'm not 100% sure that what they've done is in accordance with FSA guidelines. Here's why. One of the items you have posted is the KFI (Key Facts illustration) this is the document required by regulation that has to be sent when they are selling you a new mortgage. Interestingly enough though, that isn't what they've done, look at the section where it says 'What you have requested'? You will see from this you have requested the loan term be extended from its current position to over 30 years. What does this mean? Well it will drop your payments, definitely as you are paying the same amount back over a longer period, but it also means they will earn more interest from you as it takes longer to repay, but the killer point from what you have said earlier, is 'YOU HAVE NOT REMORTGAGED'. They have simply changed the terms of your existing mortgage over a longer period. That's why you have then been taken to court as you are still in breach of the original agreement, all this agreement did was vary the terms of the previous. That makes my previous posts moot, you still have the same mortgage, just over a longer period and what they have done is legally correct, though you may have a misselling case to take to the ombudsman if they have propostioned it as a remortgage, it definitely isn't. What can you do, ok brass tacks time. Can you afford the payment in the figures in these documents? Can you afford the payments plus an amount towards the arrears? You have said they have taken you to court over the arrears and agreed a suspended order on them, what where the grounds? This is what you must pay to ensure they take no further action. As to whether what they have done is correct or not, well here's the bit you may not like. They have told you via 'KFI' what they where doing with your mortgage, it is understood that you understand this document or have taken advice on it if not, before you sign any other documentation. As such, they have told you in writing what they intended to do, it may have been represented differently and you may find some traction if you approach them on this, but ultimately it comes down to the documentation. You have agreed to extend the term, they have told you thats what they where doing and then have done it, while you could claim misselling, in my opinion I don't think the ombudsman would listen, though you could try. So you are in a position of this is your new mortgage and payment. Maintain this payment and the extra agree under the suspended order and they can do no more. Don't maintain it and I guarantee they will take further action, read bailiffs and eviction. You need to be very honest with yourself, can you maintain those payments and i'm not talking from time to time, I'm talking every month? Mail me back or post with your thoughts. Meph

A default effects your credit rating for six years, unfortunately if you hand in the keys this is called voluntary repossession and this can actually last longer. Even if it was just the default, you would be liable for any shortfall or the balance of the debt and provided they contacted you for payment then it never expires. Only if there is no contact does the statute of limitations apply. Meph