Securitization is 'designed to fail'

[supersleuth]

Hi Mr J Strap, or are you also "Virgin One". If you are not "VirginOne", and you engaged in a copy and paste exercise, then it appears that you, Mr Strap are guilty of plagerism. See Mr J Strap's post also posted here under the name "VirginOne" - scroll down to response number 15

 

 

Whether you are or are not VirginOne and/or Mr J Strap, you are insincere. In future, post the link, rather than attempt to credit yourself with the appearance of having knowledge.

Edited May 31, 2010 by MARTIN3030
link removed

[tifo]

it appears that you, Mr Strap are guilty of plagerism.

 

He's also posted the exact same text over on LB under a 'securitisation' thread.

[actionnotwords]

Another question that could be possibly raised is that s136 was made under the L.O.P. 1925 I can hardly imagine the draftsman's original intention encompassed its use in manipulation of the borrower, tax ,land registry fees system etc by the invention and practice of securitization some 70 years later.

However until a High Court case redefines the application of s136 it unfortunately stands.(my personal opinion of which I agree to disagree)

As this is supposedly a civilised debate rather than sledgehammer tactics to drive an opinion home,would it be at all possible to conduct it in a civilised manner rather than resorting to personal insult which only causes antagonism and in some cases distress.

If you believe someone to be wrong gentle persuasion showing your side of the debate with supporting evidence is preferable and I would submit would meet with far more constructive results.

The object of this debate being to answer the question raised not to prove how clever you may be and what an idiot the person who opposes you is.

We are all supposed to be here to help each other,aren't we?

Edited May 31, 2010 by actionnotwords

[tifo]

s136 was made under the L.O.P. 1925 I can hardly imagine the draftsman's original intention encompassed its use in manipulation of the borrower, tax ,land registry fees system etc by the invention and practice of securitization some 70 years later.

 

Exactly. Even though not unlawful, the use of s.136 is a manipulation of a law with a serious loophole that needs closing.

 

Its intention was to facilitate legal assignment by giving notice to the borrower and, i assume, it was envisaged that this notice would be given sooner rather than later (as is the case with other debts). The fact that it was equitable until this notice was given was so that the debt isn't in limbo as to who owns it. I don't think it was thought that any assignment would be done with the intention of never informing the borrrower and hence misusing the Act, which is what the banks do.

 

The whole assignment is done with the intention of misleading many different people and i'm sure this must be wrong somewhere, though not unlawful.

[Mr J Strap]

Hi Mr J Strap, or are you also "Virgin One". If you are not "VirginOne", and you engaged in a copy and paste exercise, then it appears that you, Mr Strap are guilty of plagerism. See Mr J Strap's post also posted here under the name "VirginOne" - scroll down to response number 15

 

 

Whether you are or are not VirginOne and/or Mr J Strap, you are insincere. In future, post the link, rather than attempt to credit yourself with the appearance of having knowledge.

 

My original intention was to not become entangled with the infantile attempts of one-upmanship, which thus far have sadly over shadowed these discussions. However, I do feel a certain compulsion to respond to the charges made against me.

 

As the main protagonist of Ms Butler’s views on assignment and on title to sue, your response to my post Superslueth, was I have to say sadly predictable and at the same time very disappointing.

 

Instead or raising points with regard to security interests or the like, you have made a thinly disguised attempt to discredit me (I use the term discredit, as you have accused me of being guilty of plagiarism and attempting to credit myself with having knowledge), I must assume your intention was to therefore indirectly attempt to discredit the information contained within my post. I am sure, you will say this was not your intention but actions do have a habit of speaking louder than words.

 

I must congratulate you on your ability to establish that I post on other sites. I can confirm that I am VirginOne and I am also jockstrap on LB and MSE. However, what is the significance or relevance of my posting on other sites and does my posting on other sites detract from the accuracy of my post?

[actionnotwords]

Hi Mr J Strap,

 

Could you kindly clarify a couple of points with respect to your extensive post.

 

Firstly, you say that "it should be clearly noted that all documentation relating to the securitisation of mortgages in the UK confirm that the sale is equitable". Are you aware that despite many borrowers requesting these documents, that the lenders vigorously resist the disclosure? Therefore, these documents, which you say confirm an equitable sale, have never been disclosed and consequently, it has been impossible for anyone to "clearly note" the confirmation that these sales are equitable. Nonetheless, it is evident from your assertion that you have a copy of a mortgage sale agreement and have been able to "clearly note" and confirm for yourself that the sale was equitable. So why don't you post it up so that we caggers can confirm for ourselves that the sale is equitable and you can thereby prove your point. No doubt you'd agree with Suetonius who cautions us, that we should seek to verify every poster's opinions.

 

Secondly, you have identified a case that may be of significance to the debate, namely the Basinghall Finance plc case. However, it is not available on the bailii.org site. Do you have a copy of the judgment that you could post up? It may be helpful to many caggers to understand what arguments were heard and why the permission was refused. If you don't have a copy, could you let us know more about the case and why you say it proves your point?

 

Many thanks

quote supersleuth

 

Mr Strap,

I believe supersleuth has a point,it would be most illuminating to see this information.

 

"quote mr strap

I must congratulate you on your ability to establish that I post on other sites. I can confirm that I am VirginOne and I am also jockstrap on LB and MSE. However, what is the significance or relevance of my posting on other sites and does my posting on other sites detract from the accuracy of my post?

quote mr strap"

 

I believe supersleuth's concern may have been your apparent need for multiple identities the possible misuse of which could be used to reinforce ones own arguments by a numerically advantageous consensus of opinion.Are you for example in fact also JebediahSpringfield. on this site ?,your styles certainly bear certain similar characteristics.

 

It would now appear the direct link to shaun parkers blog

 

Capstone Mortgages Disgraceful Ripoff

 

which details the insurance [problem] and consequential escalation of mortgage arrears [problem] perpetrated by these lenders has now for unknown reasons been removed when previously it had been allowed,however some may be relieved that no issue will be made of this.

Edited May 31, 2010 by actionnotwords

[actionnotwords]

Exactly. Even though not unlawful, the use of s.136 is a manipulation of a law with a serious loophole that needs closing.

 

Its intention was to facilitate legal assignment by giving notice to the borrower and, i assume, it was envisaged that this notice would be given sooner rather than later (as is the case with other debts). The fact that it was equitable until this notice was given was so that the debt isn't in limbo as to who owns it. I don't think it was thought that any assignment would be done with the intention of never informing the borrrower and hence misusing the Act, which is what the banks do.

 

The whole assignment is done with the intention of misleading many different people and i'm sure this must be wrong somewhere, though not unlawful.

 

It would be interesting to examine what the original draftmen's intentions were in 1925 in drafting s136.I would submit that it was clearly that a borrower should know who owned the legal title to their debt and which party they would be dealing with.I would further suggest that securitization abuses and exploits this intention.As previously posted I disagree that the spv(and trustee) who controls the loan through various agreements and has agreements to this effect with the mortgage administrator is a "brain dead entity",far from it,in fact the originator plays no role once the loan has been sold as is typified by the recent strike off proposals against sppl and the notices issued to investors by the various spvs involved.SPPL with the other lenders in their group now continue to exist as shells only.

[tifo]

I would further suggest that securitization abuses and exploits this intention.

 

Had s.136 said that the borrower should be informed within a certain period, e.g. 28 days, then things would be different. Because it doesn't specify any time period for notifying the borrower but instead states the assignment will be equitable until this is done means the banks can misuse the Act as they've been doing.

 

The LR Act goes some way towards specifying a 'reasonable' period within which to notify them but then as the assignment is equitable the bank/SPV does not have to, again they break no law but use it to their advantage.

 

What i don't understand is how the SPV sells something it doesn't legally own? Unless equity has the same effect as legal ownership because its done by banks and the investors simply trust how it happens?

[actionnotwords]

Further consideration to the use of s136 would reveal the fact that the borrower is subjected to the constraints levied on the agreement by the contractural obligations imposed by the spv on the administrator as illustrated in the spv prospectus: for example a repayment loan is prohibited from conversion to interest only.(because it will cause a shortfall in payments to the spv then to the investor)It could be argued is such rigidity fair to the borrower,it means in reality the borrower is divested of any of their rights under the pre action protocols s7.which simply cannot be implemented by their lender.

Could a case be argued that there is a misuse of s136 and that its misuse in fact causes unfair disadvantage to the borrower?

This may be a constructive line to pursue.

Edited May 31, 2010 by actionnotwords

[Mr J Strap]

Hello Actionnotwords, no I am not Jebediah.

 

I have noted Supersleuth's request for me to substantiate my claims, which I did find somewhat hypercritical given that it would appear nothing has been posted (in the form of documentation or other forms of evidence) to substantiate the opposite view.

 

As previously highlighted the various securitisation debates appear to have been instigated following Ms Butler’s submission to the Treasury Select Committee (TSC). Within this submission a number of references were made to a specific securitisation transaction – being Clavis Securities PLC Series 2006-01.

 

I have taken the liberty of providing a copy of the Note Issue Supplement (also referred to as a prospectus) to this post.

 

“1.6 Series Portfolio Legal Title Holder Basinghall Finance PLC whose registered office is at Woolgate Exchange, 25 Basinghall Street, London EC2V 5HA, in respect of each Mortgage in the Series Portfolio.”

 

“ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN TRANSACTION PARTIES

 

Basinghall Finance PLC is the General Treasurer and will, in relation to the Series, be the Series Portfolio Seller, the Series Portfolio Legal Title Holder, the Series Special Servicer and the Series Treasurer.”

 

The Note Issue Supplement clearly defines Basinghall Finance PLC as the Legal Title Holder.

 

 

Further information can be extracted from the Director’s Report & Financial Statement for Clavis Securities PLC.

 

Clavis Sec Plc: Doc re. Directors' Report and Financial Stateme... | Company Announcements | Investegate

 

“i) Loan to originator

 

Where a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferee does not recognise the transferred asset as its assets. The transferee derecognises the cash or other consideration paid and recognises a receivable from the transferor. In relation to the mortgage portfolios transferred to the Company, derecognition is considered to be inappropriate for the portfolio seller's or originator (Basinghall Finance PLC) own financial statements as the originator has retained significant risks and rewards of that financial asset.

 

The Company's financial statements are therefore prepared on the basis that its acquisitions of beneficial interests in mortgage portfolios are recognised as a collateralised non-recourse loan to the portfolio seller.

 

Under the terms of the securitisation the Company retains the right to 0.01% of available revenue receipts from the beneficial interest in the mortgage portfolio. This is reflected in the profit and loss before any movements on fair value gains and losses on derivatives. Available revenue receipts are defined by the Programme Documentation and include mortgage interest received, interest received on the bank accounts and the amounts standing to the credit of the discount reserve ledger.

 

Profits in excess of 0.01% accrue to Basinghall Finance PLC, the portfolio seller of the underlying mortgages. Accordingly a creditor ('deferred consideration') for amounts payable to Basinghall Finance PLC for this residual interest has been recognised at the period end. The payments of deferred consideration are strictly governed by the priority of payments that sets out how cash can be utilised.

 

The loan to originator is classified within 'loans and receivables'. The initial measurement is at fair value with subsequent measurement being at amortised cost using the effective interest method. The effective interest on the loan to originator is calculated with reference to the interest earned on the beneficial interest in the mortgage portfolio less the residual interest due to Basinghall Finance PLC as described above. Where cash has been accumulated by the Company to fund the future repayment of its inter-company loans, the Company's share of the interest arising on the beneficial interest in the mortgage portfolio is adjusted.

 

The loan to originator is subject to impairment reviews in accordance with FRS26. A charge for impairment would be recognised where there is a risk that the income on the loan to portfolio seller will be significantly reduced. This could occur if the credit quality of the mortgage assets that are pledged as collateral for the loan deteriorated significantly. Currently the directors consider that no impairment exists.”

 

“8. Loan to originator

 

The Company purchased a portfolio of mortgage loans from Basinghall Finance PLC, however, as the principal risk and rewards of these mortgage loans remain with Basinghall Finance PLC, these are not deemed for accounting purposes to have transferred to the Company. Accordingly, the Company accounts for the transaction as a loan to Basinghall Finance PLC as originator.

 

The loan to Basinghall Finance PLC is denominated in sterling and bears interest at a variable rate. It is secured on the beneficial interest in a portfolio of residential mortgage loans. The repayment of the loan to originator is linked to the repayment of the loan notes.”

 

In summary, the Note Issue Supplement (prospectus) confirms that Basinghall Finance PLC is and will be the legal title holder. The Directors Report & Financial Statement for Clavis Securities confirms that the loan to Basinghall Finance PLC is secured on the beneficial interest only.

 

The information publically available much of which has previously been posted on this site does not confirm that any one of three principles of the perfection of the security interest has in fact taken place. If this is an incorrect conclusion, I ask someone to post actual evidence to show that a different conclusion should be reached.

 

 

Clavis Note Supplement 2006.pdf

[supersleuth]

Hi Mr J Strap,

 

Could you kindly clarify a couple of points with respect to your extensive post.

 

Firstly, you say that "it should be clearly noted that all documentation relating to the securitisation of mortgages in the UK confirm that the sale is equitable". Are you aware that despite many borrowers requesting these documents, that the lenders vigorously resist the disclosure? Therefore, these documents, which you say confirm an equitable sale, have never been disclosed and consequently, it has been impossible for anyone to "clearly note" the confirmation that these sales are equitable. Nonetheless, it is evident from your assertion that you have a copy of a mortgage sale agreement and have been able to "clearly note" and confirm for yourself that the sale was equitable. So why don't you post it up so that we caggers can confirm for ourselves that the sale is equitable and you can thereby prove your point. No doubt you'd agree with Suetonius who cautions us, that we should seek to verify every poster's opinions.

 

Secondly, you have identified a case that may be of significance to the debate, namely the Basinghall Finance plc case. However, it is not available on the bailii.org site. Do you have a copy of the judgment that you could post up? It may be helpful to many caggers to understand what arguments were heard and why the permission was refused. If you don't have a copy, could you let us know more about the case and why you say it proves your point?

 

Many thanks

 

Hi Mr J Strap,

 

Whilst your work in providing a very extensive reply is appreciated, it does not answer the questions asked.

 

You expressly stated that "it should be clearly noted that all documentation relating to the securitisation of mortgages in the UK confirm that the sale is equitable", which indicates that you have access to the documentation and have had the benefit of confirming for yourself that the sale was equitable. As you have indicated that you can, for once and for all, definitively prove that the sale was equitable, put us all out of our misery and post up the Mortgage Sale Agreement so that all the Caggers can confirm for themselves that the documentation relating to the securitsation does indeed confirm an equitable sale. If you do not have the documentation, just say so. If that is the case, we are all back to square one and nothing is proved.

 

You also made much of the Basinghall Finace plc case, which indicates that there may be a precedent of interest to caggers. And yet, you avoided answering that question too. Do you know anything of interest regarding that case that you can share with us caggers.

 

JebediahSpringfield has already noted that replies must be made simple for my simple brain, so if you are of the same opinion (which I suspect you are), could you please just answer the questions in simple terms?

 

Many thanks

Supersleuth

[kegi]

kegi in your sarcasm you ignore (again) the fact that these 'investments' ar meant to be, unbeknown to the borrower, sold over & over again & had that been the case then they wouldn't have been any the wiser. It's only because of the credit crunch & the banks refusal to lend to 'investors' that it's all gone balls up

 

JC I will ignore the bit in bold then and leave such things to your good self and of course SS ,as to the rest of it which I think is a bit lopsided I agree if it was not for the credit crunch and Lehmans etc you would have never known about securitisation [or maybe you did] the point is who cares then or now .Answer not many of the 11 million borrowers out there give a toss . It has not nor will it bother them at all they carry on as always paying their mortgage until its paid off or they decide to end it themselves

I will go so far to suggest most have not nor will do even look at the LR to see who is on it .Securitisation in itself has had no effect on millions of mortgages and thats a fact .Securitisation is way past your doomsday scenerio of 5 years fact And I include in that the 1 to two million subprime mortgages .So to answer Tifo's question for you instead of where you been the answer Tifo is nothing will happen to your mortgage if you carry on paying what you should.

All securitised mortgages will end in five years IS NOT A FACT its rubbish those who still believe that are members of the cast of Alice in wonderland

Where I do come on board is when borrowers [mostly subprime I would say]find themselves in trouble for what ever reason and then cannot make heads or tails of who they are supposed to be dealing with in regards to their problem or do not it seems adere to the T&C THAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR WITH THE NOW IT APPEARS DEFUNCT ORIGINAL LENDER IN SOME CASES.Or with charges etc no one I believe would deny this is a big problem but I have to ask myself the question would this be happening [let alone the credit crunch]if Lehmans for instance had not gone down.

Or put it another way would the same problems they are having now with the likes of SPML ie capstone be any different if SPML had not securitised those mortgages ,or back even to LMC etc etc.My own view is they would.Draw your own conclusions from that.

 

kegi

[supersleuth]

Hi Kegi,

 

A most interesting post. I take it that you have absolutely no problems with your mortgage company and that everything is just hunky dory for you.

 

Given that there are so many people who are not as fortunate as you, it is a blessing to hear that you are evidence that there is at least one mortgage borrower in this country is doing just fine (or maybe you don't even have a mortgage). Given that you have nothing to worry about, I wonder why you are here on this site. Why would you bother to spend your time going on consumer sites and take valuable bank holiday time to post up your opinions when you've got absolutely no problems with your mortgage? So tuff love from you Kegi to the people suffering at the hands of SPML et al., in your view, even if they weren't with SPML they'd still be suffering overcharges repossessions etc., so you have no sympathy. That's fine. So why are you here?

 

I don't expect an answer to the question, but spending your May bank holiday time to tirade against those who do suffer with real problems from their mortgage companies does seem bizarre.

Edited May 31, 2010 by supersleuth

[banker_rhymes_with]

Securitisation in itself has had no effect on millions of mortgages and thats a fact

What planet is this banker on?

 

Pumping the big banking fairy story up via Securitisation, and other invisible (until caught) banking gambling games, is at the very heart of this latest bank induced global financial bollock drop.

 

It is affecting everyone, and to suggest we'd all somehow not notice the economy and our lives going down the U-Bend, is just the slightest bit insulting.

 

These cretins cannot make money in a business that makes money, we know this because we are now paying for their abject failure to do the very thing they say they can do.

 

The last laugh is on us, however, because the bailout funds to rescue the bankers from their own immense stupidity, has gone straight into their trousers.

 

I'm sure they are delighted.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 1, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[tifo]

So to answer Tifo's question for you instead of where you been the answer Tifo is nothing will happen to your mortgage if you carry on paying what you should.

 

That's what i was implying, that nothing happens, no charges or insurance scams or product changeovers. Everything continues as normal. They do not suddenly decide to repossess or evict you.

 

The mortgages themselves probably get pooled into the next sale but the effect on the borrower is nothing if they continue to pay as normal.

 

I'm referring to high street banks and not sub prime.

[supersleuth]

Hey there BankerRhymeswith - Well said!

 

Those, like Kegi, who are nice and comfortably off really do need to get their heads out of their cotton wool world and take a reality check. If, as you say, Kegi is a banker, then her posts and opinions are understandable, BUT, if not a banker, then his/her tirades against innocent victims of the banksters is bizarre in the extreme.

 

No doubt, given Kegi's delight for the banks, he/she will one of the very few tax-payers who will be happy to pay all the extra taxes that we're all going to be stuffed for just to shore up these criminals.

 

Those who take the "I'm alright Jack" attitude, should be careful - you may be next in line. Never think you're immune from these bankers no matter how comfortably-off you think you are at the moment.

[Mr J Strap]

However, when put to strict proof to substaniate their arguments they always appear to fall at the first hurdle.

 

The information publically available much of which has previously been posted on this site does not confirm that any one of three principles of the perfection of the security interest has in fact taken place. If this is an incorrect conclusion, I ask someone to post actual evidence to show that a different conclusion should be reached.

 

My case and point has been proven today and I rest my case.

[supersleuth]

How odd Mr J Strap, that you quote yourself twice as proof and then conclude that you've proven your case!

 

As you have been unable to answer or address either of the two reasonable questions put to you, and given that you have totally avoided the questions anyway, you don't appear (to me) to be a credible witness in your own case. It may reasonably be said that you have fallen at your first hurdle. So I accept that you rest your case and accept that you don't have anything else to offer.

 

Kind regards

Supersleuth

[newstarter]

Good evening caggers on this thread.I have been reading with intrest this debate concerning securitization,although i do admit at the moment some of the posts are going over my head.Could someone explain in plain and simple terms what securitization is,why is securitization frowned upon by many caggers,and what does it mean for ordinary families mortgaged with a sub prime lender.

[Mr J Strap]

It is your assertion that the sale and the ownership by the SPV is not equitable only. Your claim would be that the lender does not have the standing to bring a claim.

 

In response to your claim, I would hold that there is no case to answer.

 

The general approach to be followed was described by Lord Lane CJ:

(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case.

 

You have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence to support your claim.

 

(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.

 

(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.

 

(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.... There will of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the discretion of the judge.

 

The personal opinions you have expressed are inconsistent with other evidence – in that evidence (legal precedent, prospectus, accounts etc) which establishes the transaction and ownership is equitable only has been submitted.

 

You have not built a case and appear to have no foundation to a start a claim.

 

Therefore, no case to answer.

 

No party to the actual transaction implies directly or indirectly that a perfection event has incurred. Without such a perfection event, the points you raise are without substance or merit.

 

So I ask you, I applore you, I beg you ! Please substantiate your claims.

[supersleuth]

Hi Mr Strap

 

I thought you said you rested your case. So rest. And enjoy the peace.

 

What does it matter to you what my point is? You've already proved your case to yourself and I see little point in offering you any alternative, especially because, you don't want to answer any questions to substantiate your own points. So just be happy and rest in contentment with your own conclusions.

 

Peace

Supersleuth

Edited May 31, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Good evening caggers on this thread.I have been reading with intrest this debate concerning securitization,although i do admit at the moment some of the posts are going over my head.Could someone explain in plain and simple terms what securitization is,why is securitization frowned upon by many caggers,and what does it mean for ordinary families mortgaged with a sub prime lender.

 

 

Hi Newstarter,

 

It's a long story, but if you want to get to grips with the saga, check out this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/170607-spml-london-mortgage-company.html

[tifo]

the bank has been paid the money they loaned to the borrower and they've sold the right to collect interest to the SPV who sells that right to investors.

 

do we not have the right to ask who we are paying interest to since it's not the bank we borrowed from and do we have to continue to pay them interest since they've sold that right?

 

do we have to pay the bank the principle amount borrowed since they've been paid by the SPV who bought the rights to charge interest.

 

so our mortgaged debt has been paid in full.

 

i know the answers to the above will be YES but what are the reasons, apart from the bank owing legal title. And with this can we not say there's no right for the bank to do this since they don't own our mortgaged debt anymore, both principle and interest?

[actionnotwords]

Mr Strap,

with the greatest respect Supersleuth has attempted for many months to champion the causes of consumers against the evils of securitization against numerous people,firstly suetonius and now yourself with numerous others in between.

Whether Supersleuth is right or wrong makes no difference currently because the only thing in my opinion that will force change is a High court judgement to this effect and until a case is presented at this level s136 will stand.

The important point of significance is that this site is the "consumer action group reclaim the right" and Supersleuth must be applauded in every way for attempting to relentlessly "reclaim the right" on behalf of the consumer ,that is the whole purpose of the site.

Supersleuth may not be right in what he/she states,only a court can decide conclusively but at least he/she champions the consumers rights constructively.

It would be far more constructive and within the true purpose of this site if you and your predecessors devoted their energies to finding alternative arguments rather than continually pouring cold water on someone who is attempting to find a way forward.

What is wrong with saying OK Supersleuth I don't agree with you because of the following reasons but I would suggest we could perhaps explore this avenue; for example is the agreement unenforceable,is it fair to the consumer are their brokerage issues to explore.

Why not combine skills and work together.

No such suggestion has ever been made.

Legal v equitable assignment has been explored in an endless loop for over 12 months now when undoubted talents and energies could have been devoted to something far more productive.

The consumer in this case is simply looking for a viable defence against the lender due to the regimes imposed unfairly in my view by securitization.

I cannot see how title to sue can assist in any event,if the title is not with the lender it would transfer to the spv who could then instigate proceedings anyway(assuming of course they held the appropriate licence etc) as in the Walker/ SPPL/now sp5 case.

Could everyones' energies please,please be devoted to something more constructive ie a viable defence for the consumer in these matters,is this not a possibility.

There is only one enemy and villain of the piece here and that is the pariahs who call themselves lenders and their associates.

 

Tifo

The simple answer to your questions above is that the bank acts as trustee for the spv (ie on their behalf).You pay the bank who then pays the spv who then pays the investor.Your contract is with the bank.

Edited June 1, 2010 by actionnotwords

[tifo]

Your contract is with the bank.

 

... and this is the whole purpose of these threads to establish who has what rights and where.