MAS No5 GMAC RFC

jamesriding

Hi just joined the forum 
I found this thread and it affects my family is it still valid information?

 you are an ex-GMAC RFC customer who had your "mortgage" sold and you REALLY want to get your own back on the Cooperative Bank and MAS No.5, here's a way how!

Check your GMAC "terms and Conditions", specifically Clause 5 which states;

Oh, who give a !!!! what it says, it's NOT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE! then go to section 86.

Section 1 of the Power of Attorney act affirms that in order for PoA to be enforceable it MUST be executed as a separate Deed.

GMAC didn't care whether their paperwork was in order or not. They SUPPOSED that as long as they got the charge on your property, then they would win. That was THEN, this is NOW and we know now about how they defrauded and stole from people.

Now, you need to write to the Land Registry at;

Land Registry, Rosebrae Court, Woodside Ferry Approach, Birkenhead, Merseyside CH41 6DU

Use form K9 and DEMAND a "RECTIFICATION" of the register to remove the illegal charge from YOUR property or you WILL hold them liable for them having allowed the (ILLEGAL) application of the charge and state that you intend to seek a damages claim against the LR for ALL losses incurred as a result thereof (the LR already know and admit that they have done a lot of this in the past, but they NEED people to write in and have the records put right as they don't know which are genuine charges, very few I'll wager, and which are bogus. Bear in mind you must provide proof such as the claim of purported PoA in your mortgage "Terms and Conditions".

Remember, a "lender" can ONLY bring a claim against you for "dispossession" (theft of your property) if the charge is still on the property BUT it is YOUR responsibility, as the property OWNER, to have the incorrect charge removed. Why incorrect? Because GMAC NEVER had LEGAL PoA therefore they NEVER had the legal right to put a charge on your property, regardless as to whether they had a claim or otherwise, again the BOS v. Waugh affirms this.

Thus when they "sold" your mortgage it went through at least one other company (which was never disclosed or declared its "ownership" of your mortgage) thus GMAC lied to you when they told you it was sold to MAS No.5. They would have sent you a "Notice of Assignment" this SHOULD, in reality, have come from the intermediary but most likely came from GMAC (who assumed you would never find out the TRUTH) thus the transfer of equitable rights was NEVER perfected, NOR was it legally executed correctly thus MAS No.5 NEVER had the rights to demand any funds from you.

This means that the "assets" which MAS are claiming are worth far less than it's liabilities which are based a load of mortgages with NO ENFORCEABLE SECURITY behind them, but ONLY if YOU act and have the charge rectified (removed).

What else does this mean? It means that MAS No.5 are trading in bankruptcy (which is illegal) as they should now be in receivership (Let's see how THEY like it).

Why should YOU be held liable for THEIR greed and fraudulent activities? They should have checked the documentation PRIOR to purchasing these mortgages. It's NOT your fault, but they thought they could make a fast buck and no one would EVER find out!! You CAN argue that you will continue to pay but ONLY if what you have paid them to date is taken off the capital amount (Don't forget the 8% statutory Interest) OR you could just tell them to go paddle a canoe over Niagara Falls and see what happens.

If you have already had your house STOLEN by MAS No.5 then you need to seek out a good solicitor and show them this, as you NOW have a claim for damages based on the above (A solicitor should be able to make a case from the above and WILL win if he's any good) this may enable you to get your house back and at the same time, push MAS (Group) and it's parent the Cooperative into a much need collapse.

Apparently, according to Law Debenture, who handled the sales of these "mortgages", out of the seven blocks in the tranche Britannia bought, FIVE are now insolvent this means that the insurance has paid out due to less than 80% of the mortgages remaining active (NOT in DEFAULT). Now you can also bet your life that despite having been PAID IN FULL for the remaining active percentage, that the holder of these is STILL demanding payments from the "borrowers" and THAT my friends is FRAUD plain and simple and on a MASSIVE scale.

In case your solicitor tells you that the Waugh case is non definitive, tell him that the PUBLISHED version is NOT a true account of the results and that, allegedly, Behrens tried to cover his tracks for making previous void judgements and suppressed the true outcome to try to hide his mistakes. You should seek out the parties involved (make a donation) to get a truer view of the results.

Show these greedy criminal SCUM no mercy. Report such cases to Action Fraud AND file charges against those involved with your local Police and MAKE SURE YOU CHASE IT REGULARLY FOR PROGRESS.

Above all remember this; FRAUD VITIATES ANY CONTRACT AB INITIO (from the start)!!!

GOOD RIDDANCE I say!

ACG

I have not read everything, but lets assume you get the charge taken off. 
Do you then stop paying the mortgage? 
If you do, they default you and then presumably make you bankrupt and the court will (I assume) force the sale of your assets in order to pay your debts. 
Whether or not their paperwork is correct, how have they defrauded you? 

AnotherJoe

jamesriding said:

Hi just joined the forum 
I found this thread and it affects my family is it still valid information?

 you are an ex-GMAC RFC customer who had your "mortgage" sold and you REALLY want to get your own back on the Cooperative Bank and MAS No.5, here's a way how!

<snip ranty stuff>

I very much doubt it ever was valid.

Search and find out how many people got their mortgages cancelled using this.

My guess is its a number between zero and zero.

davidmcn

jamesriding said:

Hi just joined the forum 
I found this thread and it affects my family is it still valid information?

It appears to be a load of meaningless gibberish.

jamesriding

I'm going to research further as sub prime mortgages at the time were mis-sold and given to people who did not really qualify for a mortgage things are different now. I think there is some validity to the thread so i will use a solicitor to help my family member 
thanks for your comments 

davidmcn

jamesriding said:

I'm going to research further as sub prime mortgages at the time were mis-sold and given to people who did not really qualify for a mortgage things are different now. I think there is some validity to the thread so i will use a solicitor to help my family member 
thanks for your comments 

But nothing you've quoted has anything to do with mis-selling claims.

ACG

jamesriding said:

I'm going to research further as sub prime mortgages at the time were mis-sold and given to people who did not really qualify for a mortgage things are different now. I think there is some validity to the thread so i will use a solicitor to help my family member 
thanks for your comments 

They clearly did qualify for a mortgage as they got one. 
If they could not get a mortgage with a high street lender, that would explain why they ended up with the likes of GMAC - that is the complete opposite of a miss sale. 

AnotherJoe

jamesriding said:

I'm going to research further as sub prime mortgages at the time were mis-sold and given to people who did not really qualify for a mortgage things are different now. I think there is some validity to the thread so i will use a solicitor to help my family member 
thanks for your comments 

Eh ? The gibberish you posted has literally nothing to do with missales.

Also, a solicitor would not be the appropriate channel to complain via. It woudl be one of the industry regulators. A solicitor woudl be able to do nothing except charge for telling you that. Also be careful they dont get further in the mire, for example say they claimed they earned more than they did with a wink from the adviser (common back in the day).

They dont want a marker against them for mortgage fraud for lying about their earnings and saying "a big boy did it and ran away" wont absolve them from blame.

csgohan4

Misbought you mean? was it a self declaration mortgage?

go ahead and sue the lender, let us know where you get to

davidmcn

The original thread quoted wasn't of course from MSE but from some place where Freemen on the Land hang out, sharing their conspiracy theories:
https://lawfulbank.com/forum/thread/195/mas-no-5-and-cooperative-bank-guilty-of-fraud/view_1438/

Thrugelmir

jamesriding said:

I'm going to research further as sub prime mortgages at the time were mis-sold and given to people who did not really qualify for a mortgage 

That's called application fraud. Not helpful to ones cause.