SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

Correction: the Matlock mortgage were sold to the SPV (i.e. Eurosail), which means that Eurosail are the owner of your mortgage and therefore, your lender.

 

Read from page 65 of the prospectus.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Update...

 

It appears that Matlock sold to the mortgages to SPML, and then SPML sold the mortgages to Eurosail. See page 98 of the Prospectus.

 

Therefore, Eurosail are now your mortgage lender

[supersleuth]

NO!

 

We have a chance because the rule of law is on the side of the borrowers. The lenders have breached many criminal laws and civil laws. It is up to the borrowers to assert their defence and to enforce all the consumer protections that the borrowers have against the lenders.

 

Plus as I keep saying, the Claimant named on the Claim Form is NOT the lender and therefore has NO RIGHT AT LAW to claim a repossession against your property.

 

If you wait for, or expect that the government/FSA/FOS to fight for YOUR home, think again. That will not happen. You have to fight for yourself and assert your defence. These securitisations have repossessions structured into them. The lender had no intention of lending you the money for 25 years. Therefore, they force repossession by overcharging (which is breach of contract and in fact, theft - see s.3 of the Fraud Act 2006) and also, cause you to go into arrears with their overcharges so that they can repossess you.

 

It does mean that you have to work at your defence yourself, or you can wait for the government/FSA/FOS to do something for you. Personally, I believe that you are better off helping yourself. But then again, we all have to make our own choices.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

Re your post on 2nd Feb. If you PM a draft of your defence and witness statement, I'll have a look and give you suggestions.

 

As for the reporter - excellent.

 

Also, the Treasury Select Committee are doing an inquiry on the "banking crisis". I am preparing some evidence from the consumer perspective and hope they'll take note.

 

There was witness evidence on consumer issues heard on 14 January 2009 (see website parliamentlive tv archive where you can watch the video).

 

Unfortunately, the witnesses for the Consumer Issues were the CAB, nice guy, but knows absolutely zero about the securitisation issues. A chap from Which Magzaine - not much use at putting the case for consumers and then, would you believe it - the rest of them were the F*ing BANKS!!! the BBA, the CML and some guy representing lease finance lenders. Don't think this rabble could state the case for the consumer!!

 

Therefore, I think we should all write statements to our local MP and ask them to forward it as evidence to the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, John McFall MP to be used as evidence for the inquiry into the banking crisis.

 

If you do write to your MP and provide a witness statement for John McFall, please consider stating that you are disappointed with the witnesses who spoke on Consumer Issues as they were conflicted in the CML and the BBA represent and are loyal to the banks and therefore are conflicted against the interests of consumers, which consequently means that the committee has not heard the real consumer issues that need to be address. The primary issue being this securitsation fiasco.

 

Witness statements could cover things like, the lender's behaviour, the manner in which you are treated by the court service and judges, the lack of access to legal advice, and the ineffectiveness of the FSA to protect consumer interests (i.e. the constant non-compliance with FSA rules and the FSA unwillingness to enforce the rules for consumers) and any other issues that you can think of.

 

Supersleuth

.

[supersleuth]

Hi Campri2,

 

Re your post #128 where you say:

 

- has anyone heard of this **** I had to listen to about ambiguous costs being automatically found in favour of claimants? ta

 

With respect to the costs question, have a read of my post on this thread #98. When in court the Claimant is asserting that the court should apply a rule of law - remember to make them state exactly WHAT RULE they wish the judge to apply. If they cannot state the rule, then you can ask that the judge does not consider the application of an ambiguous rule! After all, the law has to be certain. Plus when a judge is exercising his jurisdiction on the question of costs he MUST consider the factors set out in CPR 44.3

 

Also, I cannot imagine that a rule about ambiguous costs"could possibly exists. Costs are costs. So they have to be clear on what costs they are asking for. If they don't bother to state the rule the judge should not apply it. Don't be shy, be assertive, always make them expressly state the rule and powers that they are invoking.

 

HOWEVER, all is not bad news because...it may be that they are averring to the contractual clause that you pay the defendant pays the costs. When there is a contractual clause to pay the costs of the claimant...BUT...the rule cannot be applied in your case until the judge has gone through the Unfair Contract Terms act. See my post number 98

 

The clause in your contract that says you will pay their costs is not enforceable against you, and therefore, they have relied on a rule to stuff you with costs when that rule is not applicable until such time that the judge makes a determination that the contractual clause on costs, is fair and enforceable (which it is not!). The judge has erred in law at the behest of the Claimant.

 

Therefore, the rule of thumb for any issue is: always insist that they state the exact rule and not guess. Tell the judge you want to know whic rule he is applying because you are unable to argue against the application of a rule if you don't have the opportunity to know and see which rule he is using. If the Claimant cannot state the rule then the judge should not accept their submission.

 

Other relevant law

 

Possession claims are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 55.

It may be a good idea to print off this part 55 from the hm courtservice website. Also print off Part 44 and/or part 46 which give the court rules on costs.

[supersleuth]

Campari2,

 

You can write to the court and ask that the order be varied. Here's a starting point for you.

 

It is requested that the court vary the order in relation to costs to the effect that each party is to pay its own costs on the following grounds

 

1. The court exercised its discretion on the Claimant's proposition of law that there is a rule that ambiguous costs are to be awarded to the Claimant. The Claimant was unable to give any authority to support that proposition of law, nor able to cite a particular rule that supports that proposition. Therefore, the court was unable to determine whether such rule exists at law, and the defendant was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the existence of such proposition. Consequently, the court erred when awarding costs as it rested its exercise of discretion on an ambiguous and unsupported proposition of law.

 

2. The court erred in the exercise of its discretion in that it failed to consider the factors which the court must consider pursuant to CPR 44.3 and 44.5.

 

In particular, the court did not consider the issue proportionality pursuant to 44.5(1) in that, the Claimant's costs were disproportionate to the amount claimed. The Claimant complained of alleged arrears of £xxx and claimed legal costs in excess of £6,000. Such costs are disproportionate to the claim asserted. Additionally, the amount of costs claimed were unreasonably incurred.

 

3. [Assuming that they didn't follow the pre-action protocols - use this too.] Pursuant to CPR 44.3(5)(a), the Claimant should not be awarded costs on the grounds that the Claimant failed to comply with the pre-action protocols and accordingly should not have commenced these proceedings until it had complied with its lawful duty. Accordingly, the Claimant should not be rewarded in light of its failure to comply with the court's pre-action protocol rules and in light of its failure to comply with its legal obligations under the FSA regulations.

 

Consider those points for starters. Also write to the theives and tell them you want a detailed breakdown of the costs and state expressly that you want a copy of the invoice that the law firm has sent to them. You only have to pay exactly what the law firm charged. Hence, then must have an invoice with that amount.

 

Also, with respect to the "ambiguous costs rule" they may be refering to CPR 48.3 (and see also CPR 48PD.1). This is a rule about the amount of costs where costs are payable pursuant to a contract. If that is the rule they were talking about, then they'd have to say!! In the meantime, be ready for it because, you will have to argue that the contract clause is not enforceable under unfair terms etc. (see post number 988) and the judge cannot apply the r.48.3 until he has made a determination under the unfair terms legislation.

 

Hope this helps...keep fighting...although I do understand it's like banging your head on a brick wall.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi

 

Re The Paragon v Pender case

 

Do not dispair - this case is not as bad as you think!!

 

The Penders were trying to appeal against a judgement that had been entered against them 7 years earlier. There are strict time limits for appeal against judgement usually 21 days. Therefore they had to apply to the court for PERMISSION to appeal out of time. The lower-court refused them the permission to appeal out of time. So they appealled to the Court of Appeal against that decision (i.e. the lower court's refusal to allow them to appeal out of time).

 

Therefore, whilst the case looks as if totally stuffs all borrowers, the case is actually taken out of context. When the court is deciding whether to allow permission to appeal, the standard on which they judge is the summary judgment standard. This means that the court has to decide whether they have "a prospect of success". Given that the judgement was 7 years old the court decided that they didn't have a "prospect of success" and so DID NOT GRANT THEM PERMISSION TO APPEAL.

 

Therefore, there was NO APPEAL. Whilst the judgment goes into all sorts of reasoning that seems to go against all borrowers, the case can be distinguished on the fact that it was only a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT standard and it was A PERMISSION TO APPEAL hearing.

 

Consequently, I am sorry that that this case has been successfully used and abused by the lender to defeat Londres but it does not change the fact that the case has been misapplied against Londres. My lender tried to intimidate me with this case too. It is the ONLY case the lenders have to assert and on a proper reading, it is not case precedent that can be used in accordance with the doctrine of stare decisis. Although I acknowledge that it is misused against unrepresented litigants who will find it next to impossible to argue against.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

The difference between a District Judge and a Deputy District Judge is that one is full time and the other is part time.

 

Be careful of the Deputies. A full time district judge has only ONE job and is NOT allowed to work in private practice. But, the Deputy DJ IS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. That does not necessarily mean that he is conflicted, but sometimes it does.

 

I know specifically of one Deputy District Judge that has the banks as his CLIENTS, and then he sits on the REPOSSESSION CASES. This is illegal, but I know for a fact that this particular DDJ does what he likes - and it suits his clients. The defendants in those cases have NO CHANCE.

 

Therefore, whilst I know of this one particular DDJ it does not mean that your DDJ will be a piece of cr*p like that one, but make sure you note their name and then look them up on the Law Society. If they are in private practice and act for lenders, then they should not be sitting on your repossession case. If they are just e.g. divorce lawyers etc., then its no worries.

 

Good luck tomorrow

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

 

 

B-O-2- With regards to ITN they are still doing there research on securitisation & repossessions & will be in touch.

 

Hi Littledotty27,

 

Re the quote from your post no. 167:

 

Have you had a look at the link that Scedminc has just posted? That link takes you to a pdf of information about securitisation which your ITN contact may find useful in their research. It may help ITN understand what's really going on and the real reason for your plight.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4bbanks,

 

If the property has been repossed and sold, then it will be extremely tough to challenge and reopen that issue BUT, if there is a shortfall, and the imposter lender seeks to bring an action against you for the shortfall you can assert the defence that they have no cause in action against you because they have no right and title to the contract under which they are claiming the shortfall.

 

Once the property has been sold, that is the end of the matter as far as the Land Registry is concerned. The mortgage is officially redeemed and the buyer gets the property free and clear of the mortgage that did exist. So there is no "Land Registration" of the mortgage once the sale of a repossessed property is completed.

 

Which is fantastic, because thereafter, the lender cannot rely on his (false and criminal) land registration as the source of his legal rights. His legal right to claim from you is entirely contractual. As we all know, the imposter lender has assigned the contract to the SPV so, they have no contract rights against you as they have no claim against you for a shortfall.

 

Therefore, you can argue that you have NO CONTRACT WITH THE LENDER/CLAIMANT because they sold all their contractual rights to the SPV. So the only person that may have a contractual claim against you for the shortfall is the SPV only!

 

This is a really excellent question because it had not occrred to me what the legal consequence of the imposter lender's sale would be. The imposter lender relies entirely on their false and illegal registration of themselves as the registered proprietor...so once that registration is removed - THEY HAVE NO LEGAL grounds on which to come after you! There is no registration that gives them the (alleged) right to sue!

 

Thanks for asking the question - because you really could tell them to take a hike - if the SPV wants a shortfall - they'll have to crawl out from under that rotten stone and ask for it themselves!!

 

Plus, remember that as the mortgage charge at the land registry is now removed, any shortfall claim that the SPV may have against you is UNSECURED.

 

Hope this gives you some food for thought

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

BTW: There is potentially another issue here. The courts constantly ignore the borrowers legal and contractual rights and ignore the fact that the Land Registry is incorrect. However, the Human Rights Act says that no one can be deprived of their property unless it is according to law.

 

As the Claimant is, according to law NOT the owner of the mortgage, and as the Claimant has unlawfully caused the register to be incorrect, the repossessions orders are not IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

 

Therefore, there are Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy from the court) issues here too. We are being royally shafted by the court's inability to recognise the illegality of the imposter lenders and giving over property which they are not entitled to have in accordance with law.

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4banks,

 

Re getting involved - have you seen Scedminc's post on this thread no. 179 - it has a link to another post with a pdf that explains alot about this rot. You may want to consider asking your local MP to take up the consumer issues raised in that document.

 

As for the solicitor question - it is unlikely that solicitors have any nouse about securitsation - BUT what they will know (or should know) is contract law. At contract law only parties that are "privy" to the contract have the legal right to sue eachother. So anyone who is not in "privity of contract" with you cannot sue you. When the imposter lender sold the contract to the SPV, the SPV became in privity of contract with you and the imposter lender is not.

 

Therefore, if you want to assert this defence, you'll have to tell the solicitor that the imposter lender cannot sue you because he has sold and assigned the contractual rights to the SPV. Thus, the imposter lender has no locus standi (legal standing) grounds on which it can sue you for an alleged shortfall under the contract.

 

You will have to explain that you KNOW that the imposter lender has no contractual rights against you because you know they sold to the SPV which means, you'll have to show the solicitor the Prospectus which states that the imposter lender sold the contract to the SPV and use that to prove and evidence the fact that the SPV is in contractual privity with you.

 

The imposter lender may keep on squealing about its registration at the land registery, but ha! that no longer exists - so that cannot be grounds for a shortfall action against you. When choosing a solicitor, try to get one who has a fighting spirit. Most of them are wet blankets and intimidated by the power and might of the large banks - so you need a solicitor whose got some gumption. In fact, try to find one who has suffered from this securitisation cr*p too and then they may be more motivated to win your cause and it will help them too!!

 

As for the form of a claim against the imposter lender, I wrote a post about the Human Rights Act. You may have a human rights claim because the courts, as a public authority under the HRA, cannot act in a manner that contravenes your human rights. As the repossession was NOT in accordance with law then the court may be deemed as having contravened your human rights. This may be a good question for those human rights solicitors/barristers.

 

Let us know how it pans out for you

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4banks,

 

A good lawyer should be able to come up with lots of causes in action against an imposter lender who puts you to litigation on a shortfall, but until they threaten action against you, I'm not sure about starting the fight other than perhaps the Human Rights potential claim.

 

If the imposter lender does start and action, you could ask for it to be struck out on the grounds that it is an abuse of process. It is an abuse of the court process because they know that they have sold their contractual rights and so they know that they have no contractual claim against you ergo, they abuse the process of the court to assert a claim which they know they have no legal right to bring. An "abuse of process" defence is a defence at law because nobody is allowed to abuse the court system or use its processes for vexatious or frivolous complaints. As a litigant in person, you can try that argument.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Nightmare4banks

 

Can't really make any suggestions without having some more details so you can PM me if you don't want to put them in the forum. Also, are you appealing against a District Judge order or is it an appeal against a Circuit Judge order? The time limits on appeals is very short (only 21 days from the date of the hearing) so you have to move quickly to secure the appeal.

 

Also, did you ask the judge at the hearing for permission to appeal and was the permission granted. If not, the appeal process requires that you first apply for permission to appeal and then, if granted, you get to have an appeal hearing. The court's have made it very difficult to appeal - so much for the "Access to Justice Act" eh??!! Kinda think that Act was a misnomer.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Midge61,

 

As per Nightmare4banks request, please do share more infor about the doo doo that Capita Fiduciary Group is experiencing. I'm amazed that the FSA are actually doing something.

 

Hi Nightmare,

 

Your analysis of securitisation is spot on - but I would add

 

to your point no.3: that's why the "Notes" that are issued as called "Asset Backed Securities (ABS) - also known as (allegedly) toxic-assets.

 

to your point no. 4 the objective of the trust is the protect the investor's interests BUT the assets are liquidated when things go wrong - that's what the real problem is. The investor's want the take the cash and run NOW rather than honour the 25 year term that the borrower is entitled to demand under the contract. That's part of the deceit. That's why they push the interest rates up so that they can CAUSE the defaults which causes the borrower to either (1) remortgage or (2) get repossessed. One or the other WILL happen because they want to cash out now.

 

Consequently, they not only use interest rate overcharging to force the alleged arrears, they also burden the accounts with charges and fees to exacerbate the borrowers plight. This is all deliberate, then they play victim in the courts and moan, that the borrower has DEFAULTED - when they know that they executed a policy to deliberately CAUSE the defaults. That's why there are so many repossessions.

 

PLUS, most importantly, repossession are extremely profitable. They can take (1) all the equity from the homeowner and (2) they can [problem] an ERC and (3) and they sell cheap to their buddies, who then sell on at another profit and (4) they can create an (alleged) shortfall which means they can hound the life out of the borrower for years and years for the (alleged) shortfall and charge compound interest and other fees etc.,- OH BOY extremely profitable - much more profitable than honouring their contract with the borrower to lend for 25 years. It's what the business world call "maximising profit"

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Hi Midge61,

 

Thank you for bringing the FSA thing up - I almost had a moment where I thought that the FSA had ACTUALLY helped consumers!

 

Having read the link, my momentary hope quickly dwindled to reality which is that the FSA is much the same old (useless for the consumer) FSA The reality is that the FSA are the bestest bestest friend of the financial institution and the headline of a £300,000 fine does not even go so far as to constitute a slap on the wrist for the crime. Because:

 

If you're going to make £3.5 million for committing the crime and (1) it's unlikely you'll be caught and (2) even if you are caught, you only have to pay £300K, then it makes sense to go ahead and committe the crime! PLUS even when you have to pay the paltry sum of 300K, that money doesn't go to the FSA's coffers or the tax payer NO, it goes straight back to the financial institutions! Want proof - read the Editor's notes where it says:

 

Financial penalties are not treated as income by the FSA. They are applied for the benefit of authorised persons (or the issuers of securities admitted to the official list) as appropriate, and so given back to the industry in subsequent years.

It would be really nice to believe that the FSA will do something, anything for the consumer, but alas, still haven't seen any real evidence that the FSA will protect the consumer.

 

Thank you again Midge, as every piece of evidence is really valuable so that we the consumer can find out whether we have any real protections - excellent find Midge and thanks for sharing it.

[supersleuth]

Hi Guys,

 

Last of the Mohican - you are totally correct! The Claimant named in the court action is not the person who owns the charge and the judges don't ask for proof - the court process is a rubberstamp affair - and from the borrower perspective - the best it will get as so called "justice" is a deferral of the inevitable i.e. a suspended possession order - they'll let you live in your home for a little while longer.

 

Here's the law: The LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 s. 27(1) says that the Charge (ie. the mortgage charge) does not OPERATE AT LAW until the registration is complete.

 

Section 27(3) and (4) says in effect that it is MANDATORY that where there has been a transfer and assignment of a mortgage charge, that transfer/assignment MUST be registered.

 

So, on the one hand when the false claimant sells to the SPV both s.27(3) and (4) requires that the transfer MUST BE REGISTERED. BUT, s.27(1) says that the transfer will not operate AT LAW until it is registered.

 

This is called the "registration gap". The gap is necessary because, you sign the contracts documents on say 1 jan, but then you have to tell the LR that there has BEEN a transfer which paperwork will take a few weeks to prepare and send (as the law requires). There has to be a registration gap in order to send the Land Registry the information and then time for the Land Registry to update its records.

 

Two points ensue from this registration gap. First the law mandates that YOU DO TELL THE LR, and second, that until you do tell the LR, the transfer will "NOT OPERATE AT LAW" (i.e. s.27(1)

 

There can be no doubt that s.27(3) and (4) are compulsory because s. 123 makes it a criminal offence to suppress and conceal information from the land registry. Thus, whilst the LRA2002 does have a "registration gap", you commit a criminal offence if you deliberately don't tell the LR about the transfer.

 

The SPV's commit a criminal offence because they deliberately don't tell the land registry and they deliberately conceal the transfer from the LR and the Borrowers and the courts and the governement etc. It is deliberate because, the seller/lender and the SPV have made it a term of the contract of sale that THEY WILL CONCEAL THE TRANSFER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY AND IT ALSO SAYS IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WILL NOT TELL THE BORROWER!!! Fact: this deliberate concealment is stated in the Prospectuses. Therefore, the SPV and the false claimant have intended to conceal and suppress the information from the LR, they deliberately intended that the borrower and the LR shall remain ignorant - Hence CRIMINAL OFFENCE committed - absolute no doubt about it.

 

Now over to the s.27(1) issue. The false lender who is the false claimant knows that they have sold the charge, and knows that they are not the legal owner - but they rely and unlawfully abuse s.27(1) - if a Charge does not operate at law until registration is completed- then the courts would consider that it operates in EQUITY.

 

Equity is a particular legal jurisidiction of the court. This means that the false claimant is a BARE TRUSTEE during the registration gap until the mandatory registration of the new owner (the SPV) is completed. The false claimant is not the legal owner, he is only "deemed" to be the legal owner because of his false registration due to his criminal agreement to conceal and suppress the information regarding the transfer from the LR. See s.58(1) which states the registered proprietor is "deemed" to be the legal owner.

 

It is s.27(1) that dupes the moron judges. I say duped, because in order to rely on the false claimant's "deemed" legal ownership, the false Claimant must rely on their criminal act of suppression and concealment of the transfer (s.123), and their unlawful act of failure to comply with the mandatory registration requirement of s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the moron judges allow a criminal act to be purportrated against the borrowers and the Land Registry when they are duped into recognising the false claimant as the legal owner. The courts allow the false claimant to rely on its criminal offences of (i) s.123 suppression and concealment of information from the LR and (ii) failure to comply with the mandatory registration of the transfer pursuant to s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the court order given to a false claimant for repossession is grounded on criminal offences and a court order that is grounded on criminal offences cannot be a valid and lawful court order. Alternatively, it could be deemed that CRIME DOES PAY!!! The court orders prove that crime pays! In other words, without the criminal act of the false claimant, they would not get a repossession order. The criminal act is an essential element that is neccessary such that the false claimant can dupe the court to give it the repossession order.

 

Now for the next legal (or rather illegal) sleight of hand. When the issue comes up, the false claimant will tell the moron judges "oh, yes but we ONLY SOLD AN EQUITABLE INTEREST". Not true, they sold the legal title, but the legal reality is that the legal title, as per s.27(1) does not operate at law until the registration is complete.

 

Again, the courts never ask to see the contract of sale to see exactly WHAT ALLEGED EQUITABLE INTEREST WAS SOLD because in fact, it was the legal title that was sold. But the courts just take their word for it that it was an equitable assignment. If the courts (and the borrower) demanded that the false claimant PROVE that they only sold an alleged "equitable/beneficial interest" then the concealment and falsity of the ruse would be exposed.

 

The fact is that the false claimant has lied again. At law, the reality is that the legal title for the SPV does not "operate at law" until the SPV registers (as the law demands that they do). But the moron judges, believe the false claimant when it says "they only sold the Beneficial title", which puts the concept of equitable juridiction in the moron judges' mind.

 

So the moron judge ASSUMES that the false claimant is a TRUSTEE under a legitmate trust and assumes that as a TRUSTEE the claimant is a bona fide claimant. The moron judge should not make this false assumption because (i) if the false claimant really was a legitimate trustee the law requires that they disclose on the Claim Form that they are claiming in a "representative capacity as a TRUSTEE. None of the claim forms state the claimant as a trustee and therefore, the court should not recognise them as a trustee.

 

Nonetheless, from this the moron judge believes that there is an assignment of the "equitable interest", and the false claimant is a bona fide trustee, when in truth the position is really, that the SPVs legal title is operating in "equity" merely because of its criminal acts and because s.27(1) says that the SPVs legal title "does not operate at law" until it registers its ownership. The false claimant could be said to be a BARE TRUSTEE - but a bare trustee HAS NO LEGAL RIGHTS OTHER THAN TO DO WHAT THE BENEFICIAL TITLE HOLDER TELLS THEM TO DO. In other words, the exploitation and abuse of s.27(1) allows the false claimant to pull the woll over the moron judges eyes and unlawfully pretend they are the legal owner.

 

So there's a catch 22 which works perfect for the false claimant. The false claimant criminally exploits the "registration gap" to pretend that it is the legal owner when in fact (i) it KNOW that it is NOT the legal owner and (ii) KNOW that it has deliberately concealed the real legal owner from the LR through purportrating the criminal act of suppressing and concealing that information from the LR.

 

Until the moron judges can get their dumb head around the fact that it is a criminal offence to suppress information from the LR (s.123), and until the moron judges demand compliance with the LRA s.27(3) and(4), the court will always make an order for the false claimant which is grounded on the criminal acts of the false claimant and the SPV. The registration gap may lawfull exist, but s.123 does not allow the unlawful abuse and explotation of s.27(1) because s.123 makes it a criminal offence to deliberately suppress and conceal the information (which is precisely what the false claimant does!).

 

Here's the final legal reality. Under the human rights act you have the right to be "HEARD". So as a borrower you have the right to state all this to the court, BUT, the courts don't pay any heed to what you say. The courts may HEAR, but they are not LISTENING!!!...the moron judges do not engage brain, they do not consider your legal point because - the false claimant has a qualified lawyer who will lie and cause the court and cause the moron judges to rubberstamp this criminal offences.

 

Any references to moron judges is essentially all of them. They pay NO attention to the law, and pay no attention to what a litigant-in-person says the law is. They will always defer to the powerful bank. If the judge were to pay any attention to a legal argument from a litigant in person, that would require that they do some WORK!! They would have to THINK and do some real legal work and legal analysis. So it's easier just to ignor the Litigant-in-person and accept the false claimant's lies and accept the false legal argument from the claimant's lawyer.

 

Does this mean we have no chance - no, it means that we have got to keep saying it to the moron judges until ONE OF THEM actually listens. There must be at least ONE judge in a district court somewhere that is NOT A MORON!!! One of us will find the intelligent judge who is capable of engaging brain and so the more of us who put this legal argument forward, the more chance there is that one of us will cause the court to enforce the LAW!!

 

Good luck, you've got nothing to loose by trying, and if you're the lucky one that finds the NON-MORONIC judge you may just get the just and correct result - DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION against you on the grounds that the false claimant cannot rely on his criminal manipulation of deliberately causing the Land REgistry to be inaccurate, and having sold its title to your mortgage contract, the false claimant has no contract with you and cannot claim any remedy under the contract when the false claimant is not in contractual privity with you.

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Littledotty,

 

You could print the post off and try to use it to make the point if you think it will help in your circumstances.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Absolutely right - last of the Mohicans!! You can SAR the SPV's - it may be worth a tenner! even if they lie - which they probably will!! At least they'll have to put their lies in writing.

 

Most caggers will have worked out which SPV has securitised their mortgage, but they won't know in which transaction their mortgage was securitised. Thus, A specific question to ask the SPV in your SAR is to ask them to specify exactly in which transaction they securitised YOUR mortgage.

 

Another point re the Land REgistration issue is that we borrowers as the legal owner of the physical property are entitled to ask the land registry to correct the register. i.e. update the Charges register filed against our physical property. When I've worked out the procedure - I'll post more on this point.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Oh and another point on SAR of the SPVs. The Data Protection Act requires all data holders to register with the information commissioner. Check to see that the SPV has filed itself as a processor of personal data with the Information Commissioner - if not - that's just another criminal offence to add to the list.

[supersleuth]

Hi

 

The mortgage assets are the mortgage contracts, deeds and the mortgage charge. The mortgages that are sold are listed by Land Registry Title Number. Thus, the title number of your property appears on the portfolio list. When the originator sells the portfolio the buyer and seller will sign a Land Registry Form TR4. That form states who the seller is (the transferor) who the buyer is (the transferee) and the assets (mortgage) that is transfered. The mortgages that are transferred are listed by land registry title number.

 

Until the land registration is complete, the Inland REvenue will not know about the transfer. Anyway, these companies do not pay tax anyway - they are offshore companies.

[supersleuth]

Last of the Mohicans,

 

Once you've identified the SPV you must then try to ascertain which particular transaction. That is more difficult to identify. There are two ways of working it out. First, I vaguely recall reading a post where (I think it was you), where you said you saw on your bank statement a reference to SPML 05-03. There is your clue. Your mortgage (if it was you) will have been securitised in 2005 and it would have been SERIES -3. Therefore, there will be a Prospectus that the SPV issued (I believe it is Eurosail that is the SPV for the SPML mortgages) called: EUROSAIL 2005-03 SERIES. The transactions will always be named by the year of the securitisation and then by a number. The number 3 indicates that this was the 3rd securitisation transaction that Eurosail completed in the year 2005.

 

Another way is the SAR Eurosail and directly ask them.

 

Also, you've got it absolutely correct. The imposter lenders (i.e. the false claimant's) do, as you say: "keep something they no longer own on the books when they've sold it". It is to do with an accountancy standard called IAS39. Want to know how it is done? Read Memo No. 107 on Parliament's Treasury Committee's web site. Here's the link

 

UK Parliament - Bankingcrisis

 

Finally, your query re: "surely the mortgage company does pay tax". I assume are referring to the imposter lender/false claimant. Another reason for keeping the assets on the banks books is because: interest received from mortgages is taxed as income tax and if it is paid directly to offshore companies such as SPVs then it is subject to WITHHOLDING TAX. Which means that before the interest receipts are paid off shore the company making the payment abroad must withhold say 30% of the payment and give it directly to the Inland Revenue. BUT there is an exception. Interest paid to a UK bank is NOT subject to withholding tax. Therefore, the UK bank has another reason to falsely leave the assets on its books - it can help the SPV escape from the withholding tax - either way, they don't pay tax.....but they DO receive our taxes!!!..... when the banks get in trouble we the taxpayer have to pay for our mortgages again! The government are re-captialising the banks balance sheets to apparently give us confidence in the financial system. Hmmmm What a fabulous game - they RECEIVE benefits from the state and make NO contributions whatsoever! Both the banks and the SPVs are in a win-win situation all round.

Edited March 4, 2009 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Oh there is another way of discerning which transaction your mortgage was securitised: Many of you have said that you received a letter asking for an SPV to be named on your buildings insurance policy. At the time it didn't mean anything to you (understandably). However, that is another clue. The date on which you received that letter, will be around the same time that your mortgage was securitised. Therefore, once you've identified your SPV - look for the propectus that is dated on or around the date on which you received that letter regarding the building insurance.

 

It is very interesting to know why the SPV declares itself regarding the building insurance. That is because, the large and powerful building insurance companies would NOT pay out a claim to an entity that is falsely named on the policy - i.e. the insurance companies KNOW that the imposter lender is NOT entitled at law to any monies from a claim and so would NOT pay them. Thus, to ensure that the SPV can receive the money, they must be legally and properly identified on the policy as having a legal interest in the building insurance policy. Therefore, whilst the SPV can get away with duping the courts, Land Registry and borrowers at law, they would not get away with duping the powerful insurance companies at law. Hence, the SPV wants and needs to be expressly named if they want to claim the legal right to any insurance proceeds from any claim.

[supersleuth]

Hi Littledotty,

 

Re your visit to the Land Registry and what can be done.

 

Tell the LR that the register is inaccurate and incomplete because the SPV has failed to register itself as the proprietor of the mortgage on the Charges Register (which is register C on your title register).

 

There is a procedure under the LRA 2002 where you can make an application to the court or to the Registrar (of the Land Registry) to apply for the update/corrections to be made.

 

It may be that once the register is updated, all the current court orders would fall away and the SPV would have to come out of the woodwork and you could start again - but this time - you really are ready and in the know of what defences you can assert.

 

Good luck, let us know how it pans out

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Good luck littledotty, I feel you may be the one of us that will break through!

 

Mercyblue - you are correct - the building insurance policy is very good evidence to prove who the legal owner really is! There will come a point will all this evidence where the courts are just going to have to sit up and take notice of this rot.