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

[supersleuth]

An absolute assignment, assigns everything absolutley

 

Hi Napiernuts,

 

It is accepted that, like a politician, you avoid a simple answer to a simple question. It is either yes or no. If you need to resort to linguistic acrobats (much the same as the judiciary or the lender's lawyers), then I take it that you are of the opinion that an absolute assignment with full title guarantee does not assign absolutely everything.

 

Whilst your earlier posts is entirely logical, viz, that an absolute assignment assigns absolutely everything, you now appear to equivocate from that firm and logical statement of law. It seems that you equivocate because, your answers indicate that you do not believe that an absolute assignment assigns everything because you do not appear to believe that it assigns the legal title. You avoid giving a straight forward yes or no answer.

 

It was just out of interest that I posed the question, and it is of no real consequence what your answer is, so I will not ask you any further for a yes or no answer because you obviously don't wish to say.

 

PS I didn't ask whether the TRANSFER was absolute. The question did not concern the "perfection" of an assigned legal title, it concerned the "attachment" of an assigned legal title.

I asked whether an a contract to assign an absolute assignment with full title guarantee was an assignment of the legal title or not.

Edited January 6, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Absolute Assignment of either a chose in action or a chose in possession is not solely achieved by the content of a contract

 

Wrong.

 

An absolute assignment is achieved by the content of the contract. Once the contract is agreed and the contract provides for the absolute assignment of a title, that absolute assignment is a legal assignment. It is a legal assignment because it assigns, as Napiernuts said earlier, "absolutely everything".

 

Once the buyer has paid for the property so absolutely assigned the legal assignment is complete. The legal title is "attached" to the assignee.

 

Napiernut's statement quoted above refers to the steps that must be taken AFTER the contract has been signed.

 

Following the assignment of the legal title, the assignee must then "perfect" its legal title. "Perfection" is achieved by registration at the Land Registry. Napier nuts is now talking about the assignee's perfection of its legal title. So whilst we all know that the assignee (in violation of law) has not "perfected" its legal title at the LR, it does not change the fact that the contract assigned an absolute assignment, that legal assignment "attached" to the assignee once the contract was signed by both parties. Which means a contract that agrees an absolute assignment with full title guarantee is an assignment of the legal title. The assignor, has just assigned everything!

 

The fact that the assignee has chosen to violate the law and not perfect its legal title at the LR, does not change the fact that at law, the contract provided for an absolute assignment. Once the assignor has assigned its legal title, it can no longer lawfully claim to own the legal title.

[supersleuth]

What confusion? Your confusion?

[supersleuth]

As I said, you were asked a straight forward question which required a simple yes or no answer. You prefer to give a politician answer which details many ruses and manoeuvres, each of which are necessary to avoid that which is patently obvious i.e., the assignee has the legal right to register its legal title at the Land Registry because: it was assigned the legal title.

 

Goodnight

[supersleuth]

Hello SS,

 

I am work at the moment, so can't do anything until I get home.

 

Using CAG on a mobile phone is hard enough for me let alone searching Bailii etc..

 

I will start looking into arguments for disclosure as soon as I get home tonight. I'll start by looking at previous cases (most likely unrelated to securitisation) with regard to arguments used to force (or gently push) a Judge to order disclosure of documents.

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Disclosure is the live issue which was mooted at around page 180 (around post nos. in the 3590's), and we've been hoping to hear from Suetonius. He's always good for developing the depths of a subject so hopefully, he'll be able to share the benefit of his thoughts soon.

[supersleuth]

This is getting really frustrating,this thread was started by littledotty 13 months ago.

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO DISCLOSURE

everyones been diverted again

 

 

Hi Napiernuts,

 

You seem to have access to a lot of legal knowledge, do you have any wisdoms on the Disclosure issue to share?

[supersleuth]

..thanks for the concern re: defence of repo etc ryde - we are of course preparing back-up defences/offers etc fitting our circumstances.. I will be very surprised if the court awards outright possession and expect that it will be a suspended possession order - in this situation we will ask for a time order/interest frozen I think (and after reading around here) etc..

 

ZillaK

 

Hi ZillaK,

 

A suspended possession order IS A POSSESSION ORDER.

 

The principle argument at a repossession hearing is whether or not the lender may have an order for POSSESSION. Once you have a suspended order, then the principle (as to whether or not they may have possession), is DECIDED.

 

Thus, once you have a suspended order against you, then you have NO DEFENCE against the possession order. Also, once a suspended order exists, then the argument with the lender is merely whether or not to lift the suspension.

 

If you are merely arguing for a suspended possession order, then you are not defending the possession, you are merely deferring the date on which they will take possession.

 

And whilst a suspended possession order means that they may not take possession within a few weeks of the possession order, it is a virtual certainty that at some stage in the future, the suspension will be lifted and they will take possession. For a prime example of a suspended possession order being repossessed seven years after the order - see the Pender case.

Edited January 9, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Did you use these arguments in your case ITBG?

 

If so, did you win your case ?

 

I think we have all sadly read time and time again caggers going to Court with an argument that should win their case. But it is shot down in flames by the Judge.

 

Have these arguments been tested ?

 

Over to the Lord Cagger himself ITBG?

 

 

Hi Wot2do

 

You raise a pertinent point. Could you suggest to Caggers wot 2 do? Have you used, or do you know of, any arguments that cannot be shot down in flames?

 

Or, (if your assertion is true) do you accept the reason that litgants in persons may be being "shot down in flames" is the strong possibility that litigant's in persons do not have a fair hearing?

 

It is easy for those who are not in the firing line to criticise others and revel in a false perception of the homeowner's alleged "failure": a "failure" that may more properly attributable to the failure of the court system, rather than the "failure" of the argument. Nonetheless, the purpose of this forum is to help consumers.

 

If you can be 100% confident that the courts have correctly applied the rule of law against arguments used, then could you suggest what is the correct argument that you would use?....

 

Your positive and considered reply would be helpful to many caggers...

 

...tell us....wot 2 do?????

 

Dear Lord, do tell us, wot2do!

Edited January 19, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Re the question of: to whom you are making your mortgage payments....

 

Preferred and LMC were (I believe) subsidiaries of SPML. SPML bought the Preferred and LMC mortgage (a sale of the legal title), but again, they did not tell the LR, thus, Preferred and LMC remain (incorrectly) on the register. However, since SPML are the legal owners they will give the receipt - hence, your bank statements show SPML as the payee.

 

SPML then, having bought the legal title to the Preferred and LMC mortgages, and being the real legal owner entitled to have the payments, SPML then sold the legal title of the Preferred and LMC mortgages to the SPV (at this point you can continue to argue whether it was a sale of the equitable or legal titles). Nonetheless, the point is that: Preferred and LMC sold the legal titles - and - SPML bought the legal titles (notwithstanding that SPML did not register its legal title at the LR).

 

 

So, as far a SPML are concerned, they are the legal owner that is entitled to be registered and as such, they will say that they are entitled to give "good receipt" for your payments (notwithstanding that they are not registered as the legal owner). So you see, they will have it both ways! They will have it anyway they want irrespective of the law.

 

The whole mess is a result of the lenders and the SPVs refusal to comply with the law of the land! If the LR truly was a "complete and accurate" relection of the real owners then all this mess would abate - but alas, no court in this county will hold the lenders to account, and no court will force the lenders to abide by and conform to the law of the land (well, so far, no court has made any lender abide by the law)

 

The upshot will be - if you argue that e.g. LMC is the registered proprietor and therefore, only LMC can give good receipt and accordingly, you will not pay Capstone or SPML - as you would very rightly be entitled to argue - then, the court will say, hey you know you have to pay somebody and therefore just pay Capstone/SPML even though they do not give you "good receipt". The rule of law is irrelevant.

 

Point is - the court's perception is that any powerful litigant can demand money from you - irrespective of who is registered at the LR - and you will pay them - irrespective of whether or not you get good receipt.

 

Now, that may not be a true application of the rule of law, but the reality on the ground is that is the practical application of what is actually happening. The court will do nothing to stop the powerful litigant irrespective of the rule of law.

 

The correct application of the rule of law is that you do not have to pay anyone other than the person who is registered as the proprietor of the charge. Accordingly, at law, you do not have to pay Capstone or SPML.

 

But as wot2do may well caution you, if you try to argue that rule of law in a court in this county, you may well be shot down in flames. The court may demand that you pay Capstone/SPML even though neither SPML nor Captsone are not the registered legal owners and, even though neither Captsone nor SPML can give you lawful good receipt for your money.

 

At law, the danger for you is: that Preferred and LMC could - strictly speaking - could, one day, say to you - hey, you had no business paying SPML or Captsone because we did not give you or them written authority to pay SPML - so, now you don't have good receipt and now you need to pay us (i.e., Preferred and LMC) all over again! Tough on you that you didn't get good receipt!

 

Oh how capricious and arbitary our "rule of law" really is. The consumer is- Damned if you do and damned if you don't. They win either way.

[supersleuth]

Hello Superslueth & Fan Club (ITBG?)

 

Of course it is because the legal system is unfair.

 

I am sorry that you have issue with me asking ITBG? questions.

 

I am sure that Lord Cagger is more than able to answer for himself. Sadly my assumption was incorrect.

 

Is it wrong to ask if a particular argument has been tried & tested ?

 

Seems like a rational question don't you think.

 

As for what I think people should do. I think people should keep fighting until a way is found.

 

Onwards and upwards.

 

Hi Wot2do,

 

It was not my intention, nor did I attempt to, answer the question you posed for another as I have no doubt, that Lord Cagger can (and may in his usual vociferous style) answer for him/herself.

 

But your question did prompt me to ponder another pertinent and rational question which is: wot2do? The question was genuine. Do you have any suggestions on wot2do? To merely say people should keep fighting is far too broad, can you narrow it down and give some specifics on wot u would do?

[supersleuth]

• ITBG? has posted the above on a number of occassions. However, one point would appear to be overlooked.
  

 

• s.503 of the Companies Act 2006 only applies to accounting periods commencing on or after 6 April 2008.
  

 

• The accounts submitted by SPML are for the financial year ending 30 November 2007.
  

 

• s.503 of the Companies Act 2006 is not applicable to the accounts recently submitted by SPML.
  

 

Hi Napiernuts,

 

Are you suggesting that under Companies Act 1985, SPML can lawfully fabricate its accounts?

[supersleuth]

Hello Superslueth, I trust you are having a pleasant evening.

 

Could you please clarify exactly within my post that you have quoted any suggestion, relating to the fabrication of accounts or otherwise.

 

My post was very clear and concise.

 

s.503 of the Companies Act 2006 is not applicable to the accounts recently submitted to Companies House.

 

Would you agree or disagree with the above statement.

 

Hi Napiernuts,

 

Your post was concise, however it was not clear. It was implicit in your assertion that a fabrication in pre-2006 Act account was lawful. To explain, you quoted ITBG whose message is that SPML's accounts are a fabrication and not s.503 compliant. You quote those posts and asserted that s.503 does not apply to SPML's 2007 accounts. Therefore, it is fair to deduce that either there is no equivalent of s.503 in the 1985 Act and/or that there is nothing in the 1985 Act that prohibits fabrication of accounts.

 

You have implicitly also indicated that you have knowledge on this topic and area and therefore, your clarification on this topic was sought.

 

Is there an equivalent s.503 in the 1985 Act? Is it your view that the SPML 2007 Accounts are bona fide?

[supersleuth]

Hi Whistleblower,

 

I agree with you. There are spies on abundance on this thread which is testimony to the fact that we are on the right track and they must be worried!...why would they spend so much time spying on us if we weren't on the right track?

 

On the topic of targets - all three of EIE's targets are spot on - the SPV does know what's going on, they're the ones extorting money from borrowers and they're the ones evading tax all with the aid and complicity of the respective originator's.

 

CH and CIB are appropriate re the insolvency of the originators and Companies Act violations

 

Whichever strategy (or strategies) the genuine caggers choose for themselves are all worth following. But back to Whisleblower - do some whistle blowing - irrespective of the spies! They're here anyway and so are you! So just blow it man!!!..and give the spies something more to worry about. Blow man Blow!

[supersleuth]

How relevant is this meeting that is going to take place about Mortgage Funding 2008 to propose the termination of a swap agreement??

 

BARCLAYS News BARC BARC.L - Interactive Investor

 

Sced

 

Hi Sced

 

From the limited information in the notice, it can be deduced that the Noteholders are being informed that the SPV wants to terminate four swap agreements between itself (the SPV) and Lehmans. It is (very slightly) implicit from the limited information that (perhaps), with respect to three of the swaps, the SPV may owe Lehmans money on the swaps and therefore the SPV want to take the opportunity to avoid their liability to Lehmans. However, with respect to the fourth swap (the currency swap), it seems that the SPV may be on the profitable side of that transaction. It may be the case when all four agreements are netted off against eachother, Lehmans owes the SPV money and therefore in order to make their claim as a creditor in the Chapter 11 Lehmans case, they must terminate.

 

What it may mean for borrowers.

 

The rub is in the paragraph that says:

 

1. as set out in the Issuer's notice to Noteholders dated 27 November, 2008 (which set out the contents of a letter received from Capstone Mortgage Services Limited, the Cash/Bond Administrator), the termination of the Currency Swap Agreement may impact upon the distribution of the Actual Redemption Funds on any Interest Payment Date;

 

 

Translated this means that the SPV is exposed to currency exchange risk (as the currency swap was supposed to be its protection)....which means, borrowers pay in £s, but the SPV has to pay some of its investors in say, Euros, and the exchange rates may move such that they don't have £s to buy the amount of euros needed to pay the investors. This is highly likely as the £ has been depreciating against the Euro.

 

 

 

But guess what!!!! the barstwards will be able to shore up that shortfall by charging YOU MORE!! ...here we go...more charges and interest and any other ruse in the "contractual" amoury to shaft you for extra cash needed to pay for the currency risk costs that the SPV need to fund shortfalls to feed the insatiable monster. Yes, you are probably going to be the source that will fund the currency risk shortfalls.

 

 

Best get onto Companies House and shut them down...that's one very good way to put a stop to them...flush them out of the woodwork so that they can't hide behind the "legal title holder".

 

 

Incidentally, note how the Noteholders are the beneficiaries - interesting that the SPV is NOT referred to as a beneficiary in these notices. That's true. The SPV is not a beneficiary, it is the legal owner who created the Trust, appointed the trustee and then settled its legal title into the TRUST so that the appointed Trustee could look after the noteholder BENEFICIARIES!

Edited January 29, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

REPLY

THE NAME SHOWS THE GAME

THE WHISTLES ALREADY BEEN BLOWN

BUT YOU LOT HAVE STOPPED BLOWIN IT

YOU GOT YOUR LEADER THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS GOT TO EM AND BIG TIME WITH THE HELP OF LESS THAN A HANDFULL IN A YEAR

FOLLOW HIM OR CRAWL BACK IN THE TRENCH

YOU GOT ALL THE AMMO USE IT

BUT USE IT DIRECTLY

NOT JUST YAKKIN ON HERE

CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH FROM THE DARK SIDE

TOO MUCH EXPOSURE

TOO MANY FECKIN SPIES

ALL THE RIGHT THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID AND DONE

BUT YOU GOT TO KEEP ON AND ON AND ON AND NOT ONE OF YA

ALL OF YA AND ALL THE TIME

SO A WHIMPER BECOMES A HOWL BECOMES A SCREAM

SO DO IT OR ROLL OVER THATS YER CHOICE

AT LEAST YA CAN SAY WE WENT DOWN TRYING IF IT ALL GOES T.TS UP

THE FECKERS MIGHT EVEN TRY TO PAY YA OFF IF YOR ENUF NUISANCE.

THATS IT GONE.

 

 

Cryptic as Whistleblower may seem - maybe he is on the inside blowing a whistle...the whistle telling us that we are on the right track and that it will work if we shout loud and long enough. If that is what whistleblower is telling us, then it is entirely consistent with my theory that this thread has an abundance of spies BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT.

 

OK whilstblower thanks for your input - hope I've interpreted your message accurately. He seems to be saying that if any caggers are in court - USE IT DIRECTLY - i.e. use the arguments - after all, you've got nothing to loose - they're gonna nick your home whether you argue or not.

 

Is that right whistleblower? Is that your point?

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

And hello 4 guests - are you friends or foe?

[supersleuth]

Hey Whistleblower - give us a bit more - say what you've got to say directly.... you are anonymous here anyway so stuff worrying about spies...given em something to worry about when their own troops break ranks, you may be just the first of many whistlblowers!!!!

 

You've had the courage to come forth - now follow through and deliver directly.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Other possible strategies for you to consider in addition to EIE's (that he posted earlier this evening)

 

1. Caggers who are in litigation - make a CPR 31.6 or 31.12 application for disclosure of the Mortgage Sale Agreement

 

2. Make an application to the Land Registry on form AP1 for correction to the inaccurate and incomplete Land Register. Use both, the SPV's Companies House form 395 filing and their prospectus where it states that "they do not intend to register" and that "they are entitled to be registered" as proof of them being assigned legal title - use s.27, s.58(2) and s.123 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

 

3. Use the evidence in strategy no. 2 above to support a disclosure application.

 

4. If you are in litigation Make an application to the court for the Land Register to be corrected as part of your defence. That application will also support your disclosure application.

 

5. Tough one, but, another defence could be that they are in material breach of contract and cannot assert an allegation of your alleged breach until they have cured their breach. Their breach being, that they agreed to loan you the money for 25 years and it is clear from their company account filings that they have no intention of honouring that material promise in the contract. Their accounts all say that they are winding down (and liquidating, i.e. repossessing) their assets. In other words, their conduct is evidence of them having repudiated the contract (which repudiation you accept) and therefore, neither party at law has to perform the contract. The Norgen case is helpful on this one re the 25 year to pay the mortgage defence.

 

Flush out the SPVs! Destroy the criminal originators!

 

If you get rid of the originator either through the Companies House strategy or your defence strategy you may well will win because the SPV won't repossess you - they can't, it would blow their tax evasion structure plus blow their regulator avoidance structure - no FSA authorisation! One of us may break through and then you'll blaze the trail for all.

Edited January 29, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

ahh.. was just wondering seeing as Capstone's email servers trace back to Nomura.. so they all work for Nomura?.. but none of the assets were acquired?

 

Hi Zil,

 

Perhaps you're right. This link may be the explanation. Normura bought the fixed income section of Lehmans. Fixed income securities include mortgage back securities, hence your mortgages.

 

Nomura seal $2 Lehman Brothers deal - Telegraph

[supersleuth]

Cheers zill sterling work yet again.

 

All note the above statement "the directors of preferred group limited have not been able to confirm they have no current intention to demand payment of the debt in the immediate future"

 

 

Thats because they couldn't be contacted because there are no directors.

 

PREFERRED ACCOUNTS SHOW THEY OWE 40+MILLION TO GROUP UNDERTAKINGS

 

THEY'VE GOT TO GO

 

Top post Ryde!

 

Perhaps its worth asking CH exactly which "directors" E&Y allege that they have spoken to! Just goes to show that the accountants are just as criminal as their ghost clients....and can't even make sure that their lies are logical.

 

Tell CH you want to know which Directors E&Y spoke to when they formed their (so-called) OPINION.

 

BTW - Ryde, a Director must sign the Directors Report and accounts - so, if there are no directors, who signed the accounts?

Edited February 10, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

h

tp://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/3852725/pageid/1

 

 

page 2 seems interesting on this one...refers to the mortgage deeds!!

 

Good find Brassed-off.

 

Anyone who is litigation with SPPL should use these two documents together with LRA 2002 s. 58(2) as evidence to prove that the court cannot rely on the Land Register as proof of SPPL's alleged entitlement to repossess their property.

 

These public notices make it clear that the Land Registry is currently inaccurate and incomplete. It makes it clear that there are s.27 registration requirements that remain to be met (as per the words of the Act - see also Schedule 2 of the act).

 

Moreover, a company that has no directors is not a bona fide company because at law, a company can only lawfully operate through its board of directors. If there are no directors, there is no board and consequently, the company cannot lawfully do any act (until it has a board through which to act) - in particular unless and until it has a lawfully constituted board of directors, it cannot go to court and ask the court for anything!

[supersleuth]

sced

THOUGHT IT WAS THE RULE THAT IF A COMPANY WAS STRUCK OFF AND BOTH THE PARENTS IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE IE PREFERRED HOLDINGS AND GROUP HAVE NO DIRECTORS THEIR ASSETS WHICH WOULD BE PML BECOME ASSETS OF THE CROWN.The consequences of this could be far reaching as if the prospectuses are to be believed the crown would hold all the legal titles to our mortgages and have locus standi!!!!!!!!!whereas the spv would just b stuck with the equitable titles!!!!

 

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Yes, wouldn't it be interesting if the Crown under the doctrines of bonavacantia assumed the legal titles - leaving the SPV's with their "equitable" titles, .....well as per brassed-off's recent posts...just look how quickly the SPV's would come out screaming about their LEGAL TITLE!...bet they won't be shy in proving to the Crown that they really do own the legal title....

[supersleuth]

Hi SS,

 

Do you know how its stands with the parent company having no directors even if PML has a director. Surely the parent company has overall control of the companies below it therefore making PML dead in the water?? I agree with CH I think that PML could still exist as a registered name in its own right but if the parent company cannot control it then it either needs to go or seperate from the group structure??

 

Sced

 

 

Hi Sced,

 

Print off their Memoranda and Articles of Association. In there you will see exactly what Quorum of directors is needed for the board to resolve that the company will do any act. So what if a company is registered. It cannot make any decisions, resolve any board resolutions, trade or transact anything if there is no board to control and direct it. A company that has no Board is in substance and effect, dormant. The only possible reason for leaving it registered may be so as to avoid depriving the shareholders from their shares (- of the assets of the company), but other than that - a company without a board is a nullity.

 

The only claim to the ownership and appointment of a board lies with the shareholders of the company. Have a look at the shareholders. At law, a shareholders meeting must be held annually - and at such meeting a board would be elected (or appointed). If they're not even bothering with a shareholders annual general meeting, the company may be registered in name, but nothing at law. It is not a company that is in "good standing".

 

This means also e.g., that it cannot appoint and instruct solicitors to act on its behalf - from where are the solicitors getting their instructions? if there is no board to manage the company?

 

Can't quote any exact provisions other than to say that the Company's Act 2006 will probably have the answer.

[supersleuth]

Hi All,

 

Those of you who want to expose the scandals of the banks criminal activity, and who are deafened by the silence of our British Journalists may be interested in this link:

 

Iceland aims to become an offshore haven for journalists and leakers » Nieman Journalism Lab

 

The media is part of the establishment along with the FSA, FOB, OFT, Parliament and the Financial Institutions who all want to keep the crimes concealed and none of them will do anything of real substance about it. Plus, in this country the concealment of institutional crimes is supported by our Defamation Laws that work against free speech. Even this site has regularly been pressurised to censor and remove truthful posts that are (falsely) alleged to breach Defamation Laws (and CAG has had to succumb to that pressure because not even CAG can afford to defend a defamation action).

 

So if Iceland are prepared to publish the real Truth, maybe that's where the truth may have a chance of a real and successful public outlet. After all, the Icelandic ordinary people were, like us, major victims of these crimes.

 

If you watch the video to the link, you may discover a potential reason why the British Press are mute on the subject. It may be that there are court injunctions that gag our press. Apparently, there are between 200 and 300 gagging orders (injunctions) in existence. The orders provide that: you may not talk or report on a subject, and also that you may not talk or report on the fact that the reason you can't talk or report is the gagging order! If this is the reason for the press apathy, it is no wonder there is so much silence!

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

The lack of CH action against the SPML entities is one such scandal that really ought to be exposed....especially when it is clear that the CH take prompt and firm action against any another lesser mortals. Equality before the law? No one is above the law?...Dickens...."the law is an ass"...no rule of law here! Powerful break the law with impunity, for the rest of us the law and courts are used to whip us into submission to those powerful law breakers.

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth