Was your income certified? That would help your case because it would be clear and convincing evidence that they lent to someone whose income they knew definitively.

Why does the Final Notice specifically say arrears management fees charged prior to 31 May 2010? DB Mortgages was charging arrears management fees after this date (I should know). The release does not say anything about the arrears management being unfair or not reflecting true costs of administration. It only makes reference to the solictior's instruction fee being £83 more than it should have but it does not go into that same level of detail about the arrears management fee. All it says is "DBM will refund £50 to every borrower who was charged a £50 monthly arrears management fee prior to 31 May 2010; and" It would have been nice if they had provided more detail about the arrears management fee to give people better ammunition against other lenders. They used the 31 May date specifically for a reason and it's not clear why from reading the notice and that bothers me.

Looks like Kensington is going back to its securitisation strategy Kensington gears up to launch securitisation | News | Mortgage Strategy

Looks like the muppets at Capstone are changing names. Ascending star | Features | Mortgage Strategy You know what they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Where is the FSA in all this?

Agreed with ryde, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. By the way, Barclays bought the U.S. operations of Lehman, not the European operations, so what you said in that regard is nonsense.

They may be limited by the terms of an administration agreement, but it can't hurt to try. Ultimately, it's a cost benefit analysis for the lender. It's costlier to foreclose on a second lien because there is a first lien involved and if the combined loan to value of the borrower is close to 100%, then it may not be economical to foreclose at all as recovery will probably be next to nothing. If after taking into account the costs of potentially foreclosing on the loan, the lender sees that recovery will be minimal, it may be in their interest to settle for a reduced amount.

Haven't dealt with them but know any Picture loans were probably securitised by Merrill Lynch earlier in the year. The loans would have been sold on to Scannan Finance. Attached is a rating agency report about the deal. Any reduced settlement opportunities may be limited by the terms of the securitisation documentation as the servicer has to act in accordance with the servicing guidelines set forth there. I've attached the prospectus from the Irish Stock Exchange. This deal was done at a time when the securitisation market was completely shut, so it's most likely Merrill retained the bonds for its own account with a view to sell them down the road. Scannan.pdf 10933Scannan.pdf

Yes, and also, under many lending criteria, lenders wouldn't even count a CCJ that old even if it was on your credit, which it's not.

Thanks for your response. I see what you are saying, but this reference to full title guarantee is a term of art under the Law of Property, it does not mean legal title versus equitable title. Legal and equitable title can both come with full title guarantee. This is standard language under securitisation documents. Some securitisation documents require borrowers notification following certain events like a downgrade or bankruptcy, but failure to notify borrowers upon the intial assignment is not required. This doesn't just go for SPML securitisations, it applies to all securitisations in the UK. Equitable transfer is used because of potential stamp duty issues and because it doesn't require borrower notification. English law allows this though, and it's standard for securitisation deals. From a securitisation legal guide: www.iclg.co.uk - Securitisation See Section 4: "In practice, when transferring a portfolio of mortgages, the transfer is accomplished by an equitable assignment without notice to the debtor and without any registration (although the equitable assignment could itself be registered as a notice in the Registry, for registered land, or as an interest in the Central Register of Land Charges, for unregistered land)." There are some potential enforceability issues, but once notified, the debt is enforceable by the purchaser of the mortgage. You sound like you have more patience than I do, so best of luck. I'll just urge you to probe further on the title issue because I think it's a nonstarter based on my experience. It sounds like you have other potential claims not hinging on this one issue though. Here's that full title guarantee definition I was referring to: Full title guarantee Resource type: Glossary item Status: Maintained One of the two key phrases used to imply covenants for title (www.practicallaw.com/A34766) under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 in an “instrument effecting or purporting to effect a disposition of property” (section 1(1)). The other key phrase is limited title guarantee (www.practicallaw.com/A36356). Full title guarantee implies that: The disposing party has the right to dispose of the property (section 2(1)(a)). The disposing party will do all it reasonably can to give the title it purports to give, at its own cost (section 2(1)(b) and (2)). If the property being disposed of is registered, there is a presumption that the whole of the property in the registered title is being disposed of (section 2(3)). If the property being disposed of is not registered, there is a presumption that the interest being disposed of is the freehold (www.practicallaw.com/5-381-1198). If it is clear that the interest is leasehold (www.practicallaw.com/7-381-1197), it is presumed that the interest is the unexpired residue of the term of the lease (section 2(3)). The disposal is free from all charges (www.practicallaw.com/A34644), encumbrances and adverse rights, except any charges, encumbrances or adverse rights about which the seller does not know and could not reasonably be expected to know, that is, free from all known encumbrances (section 3(1)). Where the full title guarantee covenant is used in respect of the sale of leasehold property, additional covenants are implied: that the lease is subsisting and the seller has complied with its terms.

I mentioned this in another thread. It's not legal title that is transferred. It's equitable title, which is recognised by the English courts and no registry is required (Registrable dispositions clause notwithstanding. As part of my case against these losers I did months of research and this is how securitisations are done across Europe, with equitable title transfers. I'm telling you, the land registry argument won't work, but I wish you the best in any case.

Kegi you are absolutely right. I dealt with these SPML retards last year, and the case was rejected by the court. Bottom line, SPML do not need to notify the borrower that the mortgage was sold because SPML does not transfer LEGAL title, only beneficial title to the mortgage, therefor the land registry does not need to be notified. Any argument relying on this is doomed to fail. The Paragon case makes this clear. You can try other grounds or try negotiating with Capstone in the first instance. In the end I spent a lot of time writing letters and in court and got nowhere until negotiated a performing arrangement with capstone.