MSE News: Buy-to-let borrowers hit by West Brom mortgage hike

dturner451

antrobus wrote: »

How much detail do you want?

I've got his full name, date of birth, last known address, and the name of his trustees in bankruptcy.

He seems to have left the building ?


Perhaps its because he as found out the legal process has begun and he can no longer hi jack the fund ?


Maybe he will turn up under yet another name ?

Lewis_Ranieri

Dean,


suffice to say, I am not interested in providing personal information. I have answered your questions in full, I'm not being paid by anyone unlike others.


If people reading this think a Bank, in this case WBMC actually Lends money to borrowers, mortgagors, and they have paid into Hoover 118, then you are being taken to the cleaners, it's as simple as that. Oh and by the way, the earth is not flat either.


WBMC are entitled to do as they please, as they see fit, because Mortgagors have signed T and C's to say they can. Power of Attorney. It's as simple as that as one very talented and knowledgeable lady has responded to Mr Hoover on Face Book (not that I ever use it). She was threatened with so called Legal action too by Mr Hoover by putting him firmly in his place.


Hoover 118 victims - if you think this is down to so called contract law, wake up.


Let's put it in simple terms, as it is, and if you don't get it then you can't be helped further.


1. WBMC jacked their rate because they are entitled to.
2. Why, Power of Attorney in T and C's
3. Why, because WBMC need to pay the SPV who has bought the Mortgage Notes. They will claim only in Equitable Title, not Legal Title so it gives WBMC, the Legal Hoodwinkers and the Administrator the get out of jail free card to say WBMC own the Mortgage Note and can therefore foreclose or jack the rate. In reality WBMC do not own the Note, the SPV does.
4. The directive to jack the rate came from the SPV.
5. Why? Because they are not being paid whet they expected in the Contract between WB and themselves due to the unprecedented length of time BoE BR has been at 0.5%.
6. Try and see how far you get when you request a copy of said Contract!
7. Hike Rates, pay the SPV, pick off a few Mortgagors as low hanging fruit via LPA's, foreclose, steal the properties, cash in on default insurance, sell under-value, proceeds to WBMC and the SPV not to mention the parasites feeding on the process.


That's it in a nutshell - I suggest those seeking to discredit me jump off the high horse of your Legal Charge as none of you posting on here have a clue as to what is really happening - wake up.


Who do you think controls the Judiciary? Who do you think controls the "Court" System.


Enough said.


Pay more attention to educating yourselves and less about who I am and my motives and you may get somewhere.

dturner451

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Dean,


suffice to say, I am not interested in providing personal information. I have answered your questions in full, I'm not being paid by anyone unlike others.


If people reading this think a Bank, in this case WBMC actually Lends money to borrowers, mortgagors, and they have paid into Hoover 118, then you are being taken to the cleaners, it's as simple as that. Oh and by the way, the earth is not flat either.


WBMC are entitled to do as they please, as they see fit, because Mortgagors have signed T and C's to say they can. Power of Attorney. It's as simple as that as one very talented and knowledgeable lady has responded to Mr Hoover on Face Book (not that I ever use it). She was threatened with so called Legal action too by Mr Hoover by putting him firmly in his place.


Hoover 118 victims - if you think this is down to so called contract law, wake up.


Let's put it in simple terms, as it is, and if you don't get it then you can't be helped further.


1. WBMC jacked their rate because they are entitled to.
2. Why, Power of Attorney in T and C's
3. Why, because WBMC need to pay the SPV who has bought the Mortgage Notes. They will claim only in Equitable Title, not Legal Title so it gives WBMC, the Legal Hoodwinkers and the Administrator the get out of jail free card to say WBMC own the Mortgage Note and can therefore foreclose or jack the rate. In reality WBMC do not own the Note, the SPV does.
4. The directive to jack the rate came from the SPV.
5. Why? Because they are not being paid whet they expected in the Contract between WB and themselves due to the unprecedented length of time BoE BR has been at 0.5%.
6. Try and see how far you get when you request a copy of said Contract!
7. Hike Rates, pay the SPV, pick off a few Mortgagors as low hanging fruit via LPA's, foreclose, steal the properties, cash in on default insurance, sell under-value, proceeds to WBMC and the SPV not to mention the parasites feeding on the process.


That's it in a nutshell - I suggest those seeking to discredit me jump off the high horse of your Legal Charge as none of you posting on here have a clue as to what is really happening - wake up.


Who do you think controls the Judiciary? Who do you think controls the "Court" System.


Enough said.


Pay more attention to educating yourselves and less about who I am and my motives and you may get somewhere.

The only part of my questions /assumptions you have answered there are that this as happened to you . You have been the "low hanging fruit " as you put it .


But if you are not prepared to give more details of who you are and why you have such an interest then we have to assume you are who others have got you as. You have been made bankrupt and you have a grudge to bear. It seems you want our fund to fight the battle you and your friends have lost. But the people you know have been at this for between 5-18 years.


We do not want to wait that long.


I am sure you are right that West Brom do not hold our mortgages. But our agreements are with West Brom and they are breaching those agreements. It does not say in the T & Cs they can. It absolutely does not. That is why they tried so hard to move borrowers to different products with collared base rates. If they had the legal ability to do so they would have way before now. They are simply trying it on. They never anticipated anyone being able to fund a case against them. They thought they would get away with fobbing everyone off to the FCA and FOB who do not have a clue.


That is not going to happen. We will either have our day in Court or a Hearing as you put it. Or and more likely they will settle with those that have been included in the Action. That's the commercial thing to do.


You have now refused to back up the claims you have made and reveal who you are and why you are making them. So why should anyone take any notice of what you say ?


All you seem to be doing is throwing around loads of mud with an element of knowledge and truth in it hoping that some will stick. It hasn't!


As far as I am concerned now , your one and only motive was to hi jack the £460 000 we have raised and try and convince our legal team to fight an issue that affected you so ultimately you could claim some recompense for your plight, because you have been unable to put up a credible case with the resources you have or have been able to raise at your disposal.

Lewis_Ranieri

WBMC Mortgagors Solution, attack the POA and expose the link between WBMC and the SPV as NewEra did vs Investec. http://www.newera.org.za/judgement-opens-a-world-of-trouble-for-sa-banks/.

Lewis_Ranieri

Dean,


I have given no personal information and I'm not interested in any money so please stop putting words into my posts. I, as I have said, all along, will ignore any personal remarks or questions. I am certainly not Bankrupt. Mr Hoover was thrown a few red herrings which he took hook line and sinker, in turn spread to his cronies. Quite funny, together with all the references to hovering/vacuums not latched onto either! Before you start, the others are not me.


Your answers are as above, in as basic terms as they can be put, if Mortgagors are blind to this, then good luck, I do hope you succeed. Most of you are all new to this, probably think you own the houses you are arguing about and probably think West Brom actually leant money. When the shock of the fact that none of that is reality, finally sinks in, WBMC continue to do as they please, then some of you may stop to think laterally not the way you have been conditioned to think all your lives.


Gedaljahu Ebert - £1Bn, 1200 properties dispossessed without being in default.


http://mrebert.wordpress.com/the-forensics-of-legal-fraud/


Get yourselves a copy of this and you will see for yourselves who you are dealing with in what you think is a "Court". Maybe in a building calling itself a Court, if you believe you are in one when sat in front of the Administrator, yeah the Earth is flat, carry on regardless.

Lewis_Ranieri

Oh and Dean, you picked upon one word "agreements", well done, so why are you blowing on about Contract Law?


If you read my earlier notes, at the risk of continually repeating clues for you all, I asked the pertinent question, do you have Agreements with WB or Contracts?

dturner451

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Dean,


I have given no personal information and I'm not interested in any money so please stop putting words into my posts. I, as I have said, all along, will ignore any personal remarks or questions. I am certainly not Bankrupt. Mr Hoover was thrown a few red herrings which he took hook line and sinker, in turn spread to his cronies. Quite funny, together with all the references to hovering/vacuums not latched onto either! Before you start, the others are not me.


Your answers are as above, in as basic terms as they can be put, if Mortgagors are blind to this, then good luck, I do hope you succeed. Most of you are all new to this, probably think you own the houses you are arguing about and probably think West Brom actually leant money. When the shock of the fact that none of that is reality, finally sinks in, WBMC continue to do as they please, then some of you may stop to think laterally not the way you have been conditioned to think all your lives.


Gedaljahu Ebert - £1Bn, 1200 properties dispossessed without being in default.





Get yourselves a copy of this and you will see for yourselves who you are dealing with in what you think is a "Court". Maybe in a building calling itself a Court, if you believe you are in one when sat in front of the Administrator, yeah the Earth is flat, carry on regardless.

Ive not put words into your posts.


Ive not made personal remarks


But you have not fully answered my questions , so I re asked in red. You have not answered any of those.


You can not expect your comments to be given any credibility if you are not prepared to give true information about your self.


Some of your remarks seem credible and well researched but too many do not make sense. They just do not add up. Then when questioned further on them you become evasive. I do not profess to know about the law or the banking system, but I know what I signed, I know what West Brom offered to get out of what I signed. I know they are trying this on. I am confident they will settle with the group . It does not make commercial sense not to.


I know at least three barristers have looked at this from our side and I know the expected success. It makes sense that their barristers will have given them an expected success of less than 100% so a small settlement makes sense.


I know I have read your comments and asked reasonable questions of them that do not make sense or add up and I know you have then avoided answering them.


I am prepared to read what you put but if you are not prepared to answer my reasonable questions including details about yourself then please do not direct anything further to me as I will not respond as we are going around in circles.

antrobus

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

.....If you read my earlier notes, at the risk of continually repeating clues for you all, I asked the pertinent question, do you have Agreements with WB or Contracts?

From the Oxford English Dictionary;

contract, n.1
aA mutual agreement between two or more parties that something shall be done or forborne by one or both....
b. esp. A business agreement for the supply of certain articles or the performance of specified work at a certain price, rate, or commission.

A contract is an agreement. Not only is your question not pertinent, it also displays an extraordinary lack of understanding of the English language. Not to mention English law.:)

BeetrootMike

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Dean,


Who do you think controls the Judiciary? Who do you think controls the "Court" System.


Enough said.

Is it the Illuminati, Stephen?

Lewis_Ranieri

Antrobus, if a an Agreement were a Contract, it would be called a Contract, it's not, it's an Agreement. One requires full disclosure the other one not so. You appear short on the basics of mortgage note securitisation and what tools the Service Agents (Banks) utilise to move them off their books.