Mortgage Securitisation Discussion Thread

[wfspayback]

Can the transfer of the legal right to a debt operate at law by any other means than assignment ?

 

Going by the above, I think not.

[wfspayback]

We must not lose sight that possession is not in any case enforcement of the mortgage debt.

[applecart]

There are methods to deal with issues arising out of unfair charges - it has nothing to do with securitisation (both prime and sub-prime mortgagees levy charges for default) - and realistically, if people didn't fall into arrears, no charges would be levied. I am not saying 'alls fair in mortgages and securities' (nor negating job losses/falling wages etc in the recession), but what I am saying is that administering an account in arrears does cost more than administering an account that is not. The question as to the charges is whether they accurately reflect that additional work, or whether they are in themselves penalty charges. But as stated, there are methods to deal with that separately - charges cannot be stated as 'arrears' in a possession hearing.

 

I totally agree, there are other threads that deals with arrear charges. This thread is not it.

Regarding 'title to sue' and the reference that 'all the information here is found within the applicable law' - the problem with this is that the applicable law isn't being applied properly, and therefore the end result is incorrect.

 

You are a Lawyer, if the 'applicable Law' is being applied incorrectly, then please advise us all How and Why you believe this to be the case and how it should be applied - for it cannot be ignored can it? I asked you to advise on 'what grounds' in a previous thread - your reply assisted no one really... would you care to expand now?

 

'Extending arguments beyond Pender': anyone is free to raise whatever they wish in a court of law once they are before the court - whether or not it will be entertained is a completely different matter. Given that the vast majority of people looking for help here are in the county courts, they're simply not going to have enough knowledge to persuade a judge that there is an arguable defence within what they are attempting to claim because the law as it stands, the applicable law, doesn't allow for it. It will take a legal team to crack that nut, if it were available for cracking, which it currently doesn't appear to be.

 

You are not commenting fairly, In order to justify your comments on the thread you felt the need to advise that you are a Lawyer... if you truly were looking to assist, you would have been advising that cases of this nature will not be county court, but High court - they are 'exceptional' arguments over and above the arrears and in 'default' contentions.

 

'Right to possession': ultimately, the arguments being put forward here appear to be in favour of making the loan 'unenforceable'. The difficulty people will have with that 'argument' is that when the law (i.e. judges) can find no solution in applicable law to a given situation, it looks to the law of equity.

 

You are a Lawyer, you will know or should know instantly that if the 'estate in fee simple' is sold that ss.88/89 is engaged....You will or should know that the instant the charge is registered at Companies House that this represents a transfer of the mortgage....and... that the lenders name on the register at HMLR is to be determined....there is an argument in that as a stand alone point....if you think there isn't - then stand up and say why not.....

 

"Back in the day, if you went to court....their would be a wealth of solicitors all looking to truly assist you get to the bottom of the issue to defend you..... today, you find solicitors are chasing the corporate sterling, more concerned with being on a corporate panel.... loyalties that cannot be compromised do not side with the man in the street anymore - small firms of solicitors - don't even bother try to go up against them these days "

 

The above is simply not true. Solicitors will take a case if it is within their ability to deal with it, and if the person looking to employ them has the means to pay. Solicitors don't pay their mortgages with buttons either - so the bottom line is, if there's no money in the market, then they can't take on the work - can't, not won't, they still need to pay their own bills.

 

You stand on one side of the fence - Consumers on the other - In the meantime, please appreciate Borrowers will need to empower themselves and get on with looking at means of keeping the roofs over their heads without legal assistance - because guess what? - they have no money either.

 

There's no money in defending possession proceedings - the very nature of it means that the people needing the help almost certainly won't be able to pay, and with the hefty cuts to legal aid may not be entitled to any assistance via that route either. Does that mean that people don't get representation? No, because there are people who work pro bono and who undertake duty advice simply so that people can get assistance at a time when they most need it.

 

This says it all then doesn't it.... CAG is a self help forum, to empower those who either want or have to represent themselves - don't be too hasty to knock them for doing so...

 

It's not perfect, but there are lawyers out there who do assist - and what's more, we do it for free and in our own time, and often at our own cost. So kindly leave the sweeping generalisations of lawyers as a whole at the entrance to any thread, because it doesn't bode well for future discussion or assistance.

 

I was asked a question, I answered it - as a Lawyer, you will know there is no place for sensitivities or emotion when there is a task at hand.

 

 

 

Apple

[wfspayback]

Transfer of the Legal Right to the Mortgage Debt

 

It is clear that for a transfer of the legal right to the mortgage debt, from the seller to the buyer, to operate at law, it must be transferred by Legal Assignment (as per s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925). Any other transfer would not operate at law, only in equity.

 

If the assignment (the deed not notice) is not written under the hand if the assignor and the borrower does not receive express notice the transfer can and will only operate in equity.*

 

If the above is incorrect - please quote legislation (including reference to specific section) to disprove this point.

 

Transfer of the Legal Charge

 

It is also clear that (as per s.27 of the Land Registration Act 2002) for a transfer of a registered charge to operate at law, it must be completed by registration. If it is not completed by registration, the transfer operates in equity and does not serve to divest the lender of the right to possession as the registered proprietor of the legal charge.

 

The transfer must be made (as per Rule 116 of the Land Registration Rules 2003) in Form TR3, TR4 or AS2 and not by Deed.

 

None of the comments made in this thread really deal with the fact that a transfer of a registered legal charge, to operate at law must be completed by registration.

 

Registration means that a completed prescribed form must be received by the Land Registry and the details amended on the charges register for each residential property to reflect the new registered proprietor of the legal charge.

 

It is a legal fact (confirmed by case law: Pender 2005) that a transfer that has not been completed as above by registration does not operate at law and does not divest the lender as the current registered proprietor of the legal charge of its right to possession.*

 

This one requirement is a hurdle to any counter argument.*

 

The requirement for registration is confirmed by both the applicable law - case law and legislation.

 

The result of the transfer being left uncompleted - not completed by registration is confirmed by the applicable law - case law and legislation.

 

A transfer of a legal charge that has not been completed by registration does not operate at law and does not divest the lender of its right to possession.

 

This is undeniable and is the rule of law.

 

If the above is incorrect - please quote legislation (including reference to specific section) to disprove this point.

 

All discussions about other points are smoke and mirrors.

 

What is being achieved by going around in circles and ducking the core issues.

 

The law as it stands at the moment, will not support a possession defence based upon securitisation. This has been shown time and time again in the cases I previously quoted.

 

The only arguments to support securitisation as a possible defence are based upon lacklasture over reliance on semantics, confusion between the common law right to the mortgage debt and security in equity with the lenders power of sale of the mortgaged property.

 

I don't think it would be unfair or wrong to say that those arguments have more holes in than a fishing net and have a hint of a flight of fancy about them.

 

I read some of the points made in this thread and I am not sure if I should laugh or cry. I guess that is what the power of interpretation can do.

 

I recently built a trampoline for my niece. It came with instructions that were in English but obviously originally written, in I think Chinese.

 

The instructions were translated word for word but the meaning of the instructions - being sentances was lost in translation.

 

In a similar way I feel the meaning of certain case law and legislation has been lost through interpretation to support a certain point of view. If that point of view was correct, no interpretation would be necessary.

 

Can securitisation be used to prove the lender has no right to possession ? As the law stands today No.

 

Will this change in the future ? Only if the law is changed.

 

I hope no one is foolish enough to rely upon a defence based on the title to sue of the lender.

[wfspayback]

Apple you said in response to Lea_HTH

 

"You are a Lawyer, if the 'applicable Law' is being applied incorrectly, then please advise us all How and Why you believe this to be the case and how it should be applied - for it cannot be ignored can it? I asked you to advise on 'what grounds' in a previous thread - your reply assisted no one really... would you care to expand now?"

 

Apple, if you look under Lea_HTH's name you will see a number of green indicators, this will tell you that her posts do assist people.

Edited August 23, 2012 by wfspayback

[wfspayback]

Apple you said in response to Lea_HTH

 

"You stand on one side of the fence - Consumers on the other - In the meantime, please appreciate Borrowers will need to empower themselves and get on with looking at means of keeping the roofs over their heads without legal assistance - because guess what? - they have no money either."

 

She may be a lawyer but does that make her any less than a consumer than you ? If she has a mortgage, it has more likely than not been securitised too.

 

Empower consumers to do what exactly, rely upon legally flawed arguments about securitisation ?

Edited August 23, 2012 by wfspayback

[wfspayback]

I was asked a question, I answered it - as a Lawyer, you will know there is no place for sensitivities or emotion when there is a task at hand.

 

 

 

Apple

 

 

Slightly hypocritical of you. Your posts in response to Lea_HTH's contributions to this discussion reek of frustration that she has dared to not agree with you.

 

What is the task at hand. Exactly what do you want to achieve from this discussion ?

[wfspayback]

Apple*

 

You have made repeated references to s.88/s.89 including

 

"Borrowers may view this as some kind of contradiction on the basis that once you have sold your 'legal charge' how is it that a lender still believes it can legally seek possession of a borrowers property on a 'legal charge' that no longer belongs to it? when LPA s.88 (staute-applicable law) advises borrowers that the right is supposed to have been extinguished....???"

 

"You are a Lawyer, you will know or should know instantly that if the 'estate in fee simple' is sold that s.88/89 is engaged"

 

You have said that once the 'estate in fee simple' has been sold the lenders right to possession is extinguished as a result of s.88 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Time has come to put this little misunderstanding to bed once and for all.

 

The 'estate in fee simple' to which you refer is**for all practical purposes, equivalent to outright ownership. However, the owner is subject to certain restrictions, for example the land must not be used in such a way as to cause nuisance to neighbours and any development is subject to planning controls. In legal documents, this estate will often be referred to as `the estate in fee simple'.

 

So yes once the 'estate in fee simple' - being the mortgaged property and not the legal charge, is sold by the lender it's mortgage is extinguished, so that the purchaser buys the property free from that mortgage (as per s.88 of the Law of Property Act 1925)

 

 

88. Where an estate in fee simple has been mortgaged

[applecart]

Apple*

 

You have made repeated references to s.88/s.89 including

 

"Borrowers may view this as some kind of contradiction on the basis that once you have sold your 'legal charge' how is it that a lender still believes it can legally seek possession of a borrowers property on a 'legal charge' that no longer belongs to it? when LPA s.88 (staute-applicable law) advises borrowers that the right is supposed to have been extinguished....???"

 

"You are a Lawyer, you will know or should know instantly that if the 'estate in fee simple' is sold that s.88/89 is engaged"

 

You have said that once the 'estate in fee simple' has been sold the lenders right to possession is extinguished as a result of s.88 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Time has come to put this little misunderstanding to bed once and for all.

 

The 'estate in fee simple' to which you refer is**for all practical purposes, equivalent to outright ownership. However, the owner is subject to certain restrictions, for example the land must not be used in such a way as to cause nuisance to neighbours and any development is subject to planning controls. In legal documents, this estate will often be referred to as `the estate in fee simple'.

 

So yes once the 'estate in fee simple' - being the mortgaged property and not the legal charge, is sold by the lender it's mortgage is extinguished, so that the purchaser buys the property free from that mortgage (as per s.88 of the Law of Property Act 1925)

 

 

88. Where an estate in fee simple has been mortgaged

 

The 'estate in fee simple' is what is created between the Borrower and Originating Lender s.85 (1) LPA 1925 - so, forgive me, but I'm not sure what you are on about????

 

Apple

[applecart]

You are getting yourself in a mighty twist wfspayback, and possibly trying to cause us all to get into the twist you are adamantly trying to create.......

 

You yourself agree that once the estate in fee simple is sold - the mortgage is extinguished - but you are twisting this by making reference to the 'property' at the same time - please stop doing that - you are 'muddying the waters'.....the mortgage is the loan.....

 

You are right however, that once the mortgage is extinguished the property as security is no longer party to the loan.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Slightly hypocritical of you. Your posts in response to Lea_HTH's contributions to this discussion reek of frustration that she has dared to not agree with you.

 

What is the task at hand. Exactly what do you want to achieve from this discussion ?

 

Not at all. Lea_HTH's contributions are just as appreciated as your own. We do not have to agree..... there is nothing that either of you or anyone else has stated that changes the position with regard to A.N.OTHER as yet.

 

Neither one of you have provided a change in balance - A.N.OTHER's registration at Companies house is evidence of their legal ownership - if I am wrong - then please say so and explain WHY?

 

Pender and the findings therein reference the findings in pender - we have moved on - we are looking at A.N.OTHER.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Slightly hypocritical of you. Your posts in response to Lea_HTH's contributions to this discussion reek of frustration that she has dared to not agree with you.

 

What is the task at hand. Exactly what do you want to achieve from this discussion ?

 

Oh..... and I've answered your question to what I hope to achieve - I answered it at the same time that I acknowledged that you yourself came to the forum looking for assistance with Welcome Finance - or did you miss that??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple you said in response to Lea_HTH

 

"You stand on one side of the fence - Consumers on the other - In the meantime, please appreciate Borrowers will need to empower themselves and get on with looking at means of keeping the roofs over their heads without legal assistance - because guess what? - they have no money either."

 

She may be a lawyer but does that make her any less than a consumer than you ? If she has a mortgage, it has more likely than not been securitised too.

 

Empower consumers to do what exactly, rely upon legally flawed arguments about securitisation ?

 

Where is the 'flaw' - the only 'flaw' so far ......... is your personal interpretation of the Law as it relates to A.N.OTHERS sale of its mortgage pool.....this is a discussion thread - each time a consumer begs the question as to whether this discussion will assist them, I am the first to point out that it is a discussion thread and is of no assistance at this point - it will move on (subject to you reducing the number of repetitive posts) to a natural conclusion one way or the other.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple you said in response to Lea_HTH

 

"You are a Lawyer, if the 'applicable Law' is being applied incorrectly, then please advise us all How and Why you believe this to be the case and how it should be applied - for it cannot be ignored can it? I asked you to advise on 'what grounds' in a previous thread - your reply assisted no one really... would you care to expand now?"

 

Apple, if you look under Lea_HTH's name you will see a number of green indicators, this will tell you that her posts do assist people.

 

It is totally unfair of you to encourage discussion about another Cagger in this way... you are merely looking to incite contention where non exists - be mindful that you are not removed from the CAG...

 

Apple

[applecart]

Transfer of the Legal Right to the Mortgage Debt

 

It is clear that for a transfer of the legal right to the mortgage debt, from the seller to the buyer, to operate at law, it must be transferred by Legal Assignment (as per s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925). Any other transfer would not operate at law, only in equity.

 

If the assignment (the deed not notice) is not written under the hand if the assignor and the borrower does not receive express notice the transfer can and will only operate in equity.*

 

If the above is incorrect - please quote legislation (including reference to specific section) to disprove this point.

 

Transfer of the Legal Charge

 

It is also clear that (as per s.27 of the Land Registration Act 2002) for a transfer of a registered charge to operate at law, it must be completed by registration. If it is not completed by registration, the transfer operates in equity and does not serve to divest the lender of the right to possession as the registered proprietor of the legal charge.

 

The transfer must be made (as per Rule 116 of the Land Registration Rules 2003) in Form TR3, TR4 or AS2 and not by Deed.

 

None of the comments made in this thread really deal with the fact that a transfer of a registered legal charge, to operate at law must be completed by registration.

 

Registration means that a completed prescribed form must be received by the Land Registry and the details amended on the charges register for each residential property to reflect the new registered proprietor of the legal charge.

 

It is a legal fact (confirmed by case law: Pender 2005) that a transfer that has not been completed as above by registration does not operate at law and does not divest the lender as the current registered proprietor of the legal charge of its right to possession.*

 

This one requirement is a hurdle to any counter argument.*

 

The requirement for registration is confirmed by both the applicable law - case law and legislation.

 

The result of the transfer being left uncompleted - not completed by registration is confirmed by the applicable law - case law and legislation.

 

A transfer of a legal charge that has not been completed by registration does not operate at law and does not divest the lender of its right to possession.

 

This is undeniable and is the rule of law.

 

If the above is incorrect - please quote legislation (including reference to specific section) to disprove this point.

 

All discussions about other points are smoke and mirrors.

 

What is being achieved by going around in circles and ducking the core issues.

 

The law as it stands at the moment, will not support a possession defence based upon securitisation. This has been shown time and time again in the cases I previously quoted.

 

The only arguments to support securitisation as a possible defence are based upon lacklasture over reliance on semantics, confusion between the common law right to the mortgage debt and security in equity with the lenders power of sale of the mortgaged property.

 

I don't think it would be unfair or wrong to say that those arguments have more holes in than a fishing net and have a hint of a flight of fancy about them.

 

I read some of the points made in this thread and I am not sure if I should laugh or cry. I guess that is what the power of interpretation can do.

 

I recently built a trampoline for my niece. It came with instructions that were in English but obviously originally written, in I think Chinese.

 

The instructions were translated word for word but the meaning of the instructions - being sentances was lost in translation.

 

In a similar way I feel the meaning of certain case law and legislation has been lost through interpretation to support a certain point of view. If that point of view was correct, no interpretation would be necessary.

 

Can securitisation be used to prove the lender has no right to possession ? As the law stands today No.

 

Will this change in the future ? Only if the law is changed.

 

I hope no one is foolish enough to rely upon a defence based on the title to sue of the lender.

 

With respect - This discussion moved on from all that was Pender - it moved on to looking at - if you have a title in your name - is this the same as having the right to possession..... or, did you miss that?

 

No one is mistaking the understanding in Pender - You are the only one who asserts that we do...

 

Let me make this as simple as I can for you......

 

take this example....

 

Let's assume that A.N.OTHER holds title at HMLR - but.... A.N.OTHER sold his 'estate in fee simple' to B.N.OTHER

 

B.N.OTHER registers his ownership of the 'estate in fee simple' at Companies House

 

A.N.OTHER does not remove his title from HMLR - he keeps it there with B.N.OTHERS approval - and stated in the POA as being 'for the time being'

 

A 'restriction' in the name of A.N.OTHER noted as 'for the time being' is also visible on the title at HMLR

 

Your comments on the above are welcome

 

Apple

[Lea_HTH]

I totally agree, there are other threads that deals with arrear charges. This thread is not it.

I don't recall saying it was - so I fail to see what relevance this response has to what I wrote.

 

You are a Lawyer, if the 'applicable Law' is being applied incorrectly, then please advise us all How and Why you believe this to be the case and how it should be applied - for it cannot be ignored can it? I asked you to advise on 'what grounds' in a previous thread - your reply assisted no one really... would you care to expand now?

 

If you genuinely think I would spend time giving you what would actually be an advice on a legal matter, you're sadly mistaken. You're the one trying to prove the law is incorrect. Generally, that means the burden of proof is on you.

 

 

You are not commenting fairly, In order to justify your comments on the thread you felt the need to advise that you are a Lawyer... if you truly were looking to assist, you would have been advising that cases of this nature will not be county court, but High court - they are 'exceptional' arguments over and above the arrears and in 'default' contentions.

 

I think you'll find that comment is free, and there are no guidelines to such, otherwise your posts wouldn't exist. I did not 'feel the need' to state I was a lawyer to justify my comments, it's a fact. A bit like the fact that the applicable law is applied correctly in court. The law justifies that - the applicable law. Don't attempt to misquote me either - I stated quite clearly that the majority of the people on this site have cases for possession in the county courts, ergo, they'd never get the opportunity to put forward your type of argument without the judge telling them it's not applicable. Every possession case starts in the county courts.

 

You are a Lawyer, you will know or should know instantly that if the 'estate in fee simple' is sold that ss.88/89 is engaged....You will or should know that the instant the charge is registered at Companies House that this represents a transfer of the mortgage....and... that the lenders name on the register at HMLR is to be determined....there is an argument in that as a stand alone point....if you think there isn't - then stand up and say why not.....

 

Why do I have to opine on the matter when there is settled law?

 

You stand on one side of the fence - Consumers on the other - In the meantime, please appreciate Borrowers will need to empower themselves and get on with looking at means of keeping the roofs over their heads without legal assistance - because guess what? - they have no money either.

 

Your comment is what is known as a non-observation. I'd already covered both issues.

 

This says it all then doesn't it.... CAG is a self help forum, to empower those who either want or have to represent themselves - don't be too hasty to knock them for doing so...

 

It says that there are people who help them ACCURATELY - and that self-help forums are excellent places to get help with filling in N244s - Ell-enn does an incredibly fabulous job on that, including helping people with their I&Es, drafting letters and so forth. Her advice is accurate and spot on and to the point - can they afford something towards their arrears, will it clear the arrears before the end of the term of the mortgage, do they have proof of income or any changes...these are the ONLY things that the vast majority of judges in county court possession cases are interested in. It's a hearing, not a trial, so nothing you put forward would get heard - and if it's in writing, it may get a cursory glance with a 'this isn't relevant' result.

I was asked a question, I answered it - as a Lawyer, you will know there is no place for sensitivities or emotion when there is a task at hand.

 

You weren't asked to opine on 'every single lawyer in the land'. It has nothing to do with sensitivities (I'll leave that to you as it seems that anyone who disagrees with your incorrect analysis of the law comes under some form of 'attack'); it comes down to being wrong - patently wrong in this case. You are not in a position to tar every single lawyer with the same brush. Period.

[Lea_HTH]

For the record, and as I have stated previously, discussion is great, but there ought to be an end game to it, a reason for it, not merely idle speculation that leads to misguidance.

 

The huge lengthy posts remind me of 'wang waving' - look who's got the biggest...writing long posts with lots of detail doesn't make them correct.

[applecart]

Lea_HTH

 

Thanks for coming back to me.

 

Your comments give me great insight into the level of your legal knowledge and professionalism.

 

Apple

[Lea_HTH]

Lea_HTH

 

Thanks for coming back to me.

 

Your comments give me great insight into the level of your legal knowledge and professionalism.

 

Apple

 

This is the precise reason why people disengage with you.

 

You're wrong, yet you are dogmatic. When someone disagrees you attempt to attack personally. The fact that you pretend to dress it up nicely doesn't assist your case, it just makes you look foolish.

 

I had dismissed you initially as someone who was desperate to prove a negative; I then felt sorry for you because you didn't even appear to understand precisely what you were cutting and pasting from various places, and particularly when you showed that you were not even aware how case law and statute were interlinked. I have tried to clarify what you are attempting to achieve - you claim it is merely discussion, but it's clear to anyone reading that you are desperate to prove something (unenforceability), and you try to goad others into proving why you're wrong, when in actual fact, the LAW proves you wrong right from the outset, so anyone else's opinion is surplus to requirements.

 

You obviously have an abundance of spare time on your hands, and wish to use it on this matter, which is clearly your choice. My only concern is that having this thread here, with no one else to counter your monologue, that someone who doesn't know any better will come along, read it, and think it'll work in court. That's dangerous, and for a 'self-help' website to leave something potentially hazardous to litigants in person who may believe it, would be foolhardy.

[wfspayback]

For the record, and as I have stated previously, discussion is great, but there ought to be an end game to it, a reason for it, not merely idle speculation that leads to misguidance.

 

The huge lengthy posts remind me of 'wang waving' - look who's got the biggest...writing long posts with lots of detail doesn't make them correct.

 

I thought all the girls loved my Wang waving

 

Now I know why I am single.....

 

See not only do you give good consumer advice, you also give good dating advice*

 

 

 

*The above is an attempt to inject a little humour ;-)

[Lea_HTH]

I thought all the girls loved my Wang waving

 

Now I know why I am single.....

 

See not only do you give good consumer advice, you also give good dating advice*

 

 

 

*The above is an attempt to inject a little humour ;-)

 

I am sure in the right context your wang waving is impressive!

[wfspayback]

I am sure in the right context your wang waving is impressive!

 

I dare not respond further

[Lea_HTH]

I dare not respond further

 

Chicken!

[applecart]

Lea_HTH

 

For someone who has stated that they are 'marginally interested' and gone on to state: "If you genuinely think I would spend time giving you what would actually be an advice on a legal matter, you're sadly mistaken".....

 

Given you are a Lawyer - I'm not sure that you will convince anyone that visits this thread that you are truly acting in the interest of consumers : (

 

But as I have stated and will state again, your input has been appreciated and your comments are noted.

 

Apple

[wfspayback]

Lea_HTH

 

For someone who has stated that they are 'marginally interested' and gone on to state: "If you genuinely think I would spend time giving you what would actually be an advice on a legal matter, you're sadly mistaken".....

 

Given you are a Lawyer - I'm not sure that you will convince anyone that visits this thread that you are truly acting in the interest of consumers : (

 

But as I have stated and will state again, your input has been appreciated and your comments are noted.

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

You are now doing yourself a disservice.