Approached by compensation firm about Mortgage Securitisation?

by Readers Question

10:58 AM, 7th June 2017
About 2 years ago

Approached by compensation firm about Mortgage Securitisation?

Make Text Bigger
Approached by compensation firm about Mortgage Securitisation?

Is anyone aware of the Mortgage Securitisation issue that has arisen with “promises” of “up to 8 out of 10 UK Borrowers could qualify for a reduction in their mortgage by up to 70% if mortgage was sold by lender without borrower being told”? 

 I have been cold call approached by a mob seeking to represent me, but immediately thought if there is anything in it that it might be a job for Mark Smith representing our group?

Basically Robinson Murphy Solicitors of Newcastle have written to me due to having my details from a previous contact I had with them years ago – can’t recall about what? –  saying they have been instructed by Legal Quest as one of their administrators in respect of challenging BTL or residential mortgages.

The crux of the matter centres on having a mortgage that was sold, transferred or assigned under a process called Mortgage Securitisation which the lender has not told the borrower about. To qualify one must have a loan secured by a mortgage on your property, the loan must have more than two years before maturity and repayments must be up to date with no arrears.

I’ll be interested to know what Mark Smith makes of it.

Many thanks

richard



Comments

Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law)

11:10 AM, 7th June 2017
About 2 years ago

I would be sceptical on the question of whether large institutional lenders routinely breach their contract terms by assigning mortgages to other lenders/investors without consent

1. Many mortgages contain a term allowing this to happen, and so consent is deemed.
2. Many mortgagees will sell the income streams rather than assign all of the contract to the new owners-as is evidenced by the fact that the original lender still holds the charge.

Please be very careful before parting with even an initial fee for a DSAR scrutiny.

Neil Patterson

11:50 AM, 7th June 2017
About 2 years ago

Hi Richard,

I have heard this PPI style sales pitch about securitisation every year since the credit crunch in 2008 and I have yet to see anything substantive come from it.

Mark Alexander

13:39 PM, 7th June 2017
About 2 years ago

I concur with everything Mark Smith and Neil Patterson have said.

If they get any real results I'm sure we will get to hear about them. Until then I'd stay well clear.
.

Mick Roberts

7:24 AM, 8th June 2017
About 2 years ago

And I'm commenting to get any news, but if Mark Smith says the above, then it's probably not happening.

I've had the Scarborough sell two to the Skipton.

And Platform, I've got 7 with, they decided to sell ONE about 8 years ago to JP Morgan, & now this one this year, JP Morgan has sold to Rooftop Mortgages. Same addresses to write to though.

Mark Alexander

7:28 AM, 8th June 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mick Roberts" at "08/06/2017 - 07:24":

GMAC also sold mortgages to MX and others.

By the way, you don't need to comment to get comment notifications. You can just sign up for comment notifications at the bottom of the article by adding your name, email address and clicking the green button 🙂
.

Mick Roberts

8:02 AM, 8th June 2017
About 2 years ago

Yes Mark, you've told me I don't need to comment before, I do like to let u all know I'm still here though ha ha.

This ruddy Rooftop mortgages telling me I've got to change payment date.
The JP Morgan change, they wanted insurance proof every year, whereas the Platform lot didn't.

Platform wanted to start charging me every year for interest only statements, even though it's a HMRC requirement.
And then I took to FOS, won it, then JP Morgan started it again few years later ignoring the FOS judgement.

AAAAAhhhhhh and some people tell me I shouldn't be paying off these mortgages. I'm sick of dealing with the imbeciles.

And only yesterday, the Woolwich make a direct debit mistake they made 10 years on all 24 mortgages, which I successfully complained about ten years ago. It's like they just forget what was ruled upon them before & because it was ten years ago, it doesn't matter.

We've all got 'em, one BRILLIANT lender who gets things right, statements, details on statements, payments etc. And then we got other lenders, u think 'Why don't they just do it like that brilliant lender. EXACTLY THE SAME?' Then we'd all be happy.

I kid u not, approx. 15 years ago maybe 19 years, Future Mortgages who got bought out by the Ipswich, lost 3 of my standing order payments. On the actual mortgage statement, 3 of the 12 payments were missing.
I had proof & eventually won the argument, but it's after 20 years of dealing with these imbeciles, I've had enough. Yes might be cheap debt, but it is costing me hundreds of unnecessary hours every year.

Andrew Jones

10:00 AM, 8th June 2017
About 2 years ago

Securitisation is normal, all the major lenders do it and mostly the borrower never knows, the mortgage agreements will have a clause allowing the lender to assign the debt. Usually the original lender continues to administer the loan for the buyer who pays an administration fee and assumes the credit risk.
Where problems occur it is more likely that the loan book has been sold on to.a new buyer, where a lender ceases doing business for example. Then the loan is moved to a different administration system, they try a best fit to the new system that does not replicate the original terms of the mortgage and problems result.
Complaints should be recorded and redress paid where errors are made, most lenders should be covered by FCA requirements and volumes outcomes and speed of resolution are monitored closely.
However, to return to the original post, if you don't know your loan has been securitised, you have experienced no problems with administration and the terms have been honoured then why would you think that compensation is due?

Nicky Andrew

14:05 PM, 8th June 2017
About 2 years ago

It seems like a bit of a stab in the dark, however there is legal reason behind it and success has been achieved through the legal charge on the mortgage no longer being held by the original mortgage provider.

This is not about compensation for wrong doing or financial losses, this is about taking advantage of incomplete or incorrect paperwork made upon completion of the securitisation, leaving no legal charge being held on your mortgage by the investor who agreed to purchase the mortgage backed security. Thus giving the bank no legal means to demand repayment for a debt they have already had settled via the securitisation. Their 70% write off figure derives from 100% reduction of your outstanding mortgage debt minus their 25%+VAT fee.

Mark Alexander

14:49 PM, 8th June 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Nicky Andrew" at "08/06/2017 - 14:05":

Hi Nicky

Welcome to Property118.

For your first post, this seems to be a very detailed "stab in the dark".

What is your relationship with this offering?
.

Philip Hudson

13:49 PM, 4th August 2017
About A year ago

I'd like to throw in my point as well if I may.

Mortgage Securitisation does appear to be something that lenders have mis-managed and in doing so calls into question the issue of who owns the mortgage.

The reality is that if the mortgage has been sold then surly the lender has not rights over it any longer and as such the borrower can legal challenge them.

The core issue as I understand it is that within the original Mortgage Agreement, there is a POA clause that allows the lender to do what they like, how and with whom they like, including securitising the mortgage. If this is the case and the borrower has not been made aware of the transaction (either by being informed or through consent) then what laws are being breached and what recourse has the borrower got to react.

I've been watching the case on Anthony Carlin in Northern Island who is battling the courts over this matter and it does appear that Santander has both lied in court and also hidden the facts only to have the court now demand they release all information relating to the securitisation of his mortgage. It does appear that he has them on the ropes and as such if this case is won, it opens up the whole integrity of how lenders have dealt with mortgages behind the scenes and if legally proven can it lead to the mortgage being written-off...

The big argument for me is when did they sell my mortgage, if they sold it what rights do they have (other than the POA) and if they sold it years ago, can I make a money claim for all payments made to the date it was securitised.....

Only time will tell on this very interesting topic...... I think its only a question of time before the courts have to file in favour of borrowers and the floodgates on claims will open!

One this is for sure, I've started the process on my mortgages as nothing ventured, nothing gained and for £100 it's worth the risk...

1 2 5

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

And the landlord vote goes to - ?

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More