Mortgage securitisation claims

bigby

hello everyone
my first post on this wonderful site.
has anyone got any views re the adverts I hear on LBC about mortgages that were passed on from original lender to an un securitised lender without the borrowers agreement. This happened to us about 10 years ago, since then we have been locked into a vastly inferior rate with no recourse to change. I can list with a claim site for £1 and they will get 25% of any winnings.
The lender we have now is one of the named lenders in the claim. 
Ive often thought there should be some legal recourse.
Has anyone had a similar experience and if so are you joining in the claim.
thank you to anyone who takes the time to reply.
bigby

kingstreet

Securitisation has no impact on your rate. The original lender retains the rate-setting rights.

Are you sure you mean securitisation and not that a third-party has purchased a closed book from your now non-lending lender?

bigby

Hi Kingstreet
thanks for replying. The 3rd party did indeed purchase the book from our original lender. This left us locked into a rate that hasn’t changed since the start. 
The website....resoldmortgageclaims.com that has been advertising on national radio says it’s called the ‘mortgage securitisation joint initiative’ apparently uk lenders tfd mortgages to 3rd parties most not regulated by FCA. Our new lender is on this list.
i appreciate you might be busy but take a look at the home page of the website. Any input gratefully received.
cheers
b

kingstreet

What you are describing isn't securitisation.

Here is an example of what it is. A lender lends £500m to 2,000 AAA borrowers at 1.5% fixed until 31/12/2023. Those loans are packaged together in a Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) and a financial institution buys the rights to the interest on those loans for the duration of the fixed rate period. This may be because the institution has investors looking for a relatively low-risk guaranteed return for that period.

The money from the sale can then be used to finance other mortgage lending. At the end of the fix, the lender repurchases the RMBS from the financial institution. During the fixed rate, the lender manages the accounts and remains responsible for rates etc.

Lenders have been securitising since the mid-80s off the top of my head and there has never been any issue with it as the process is included in the lender's mortgage terms.

What you are describing is being a "mortgage prisoner". Times have changed. Your lender has stopped lending and it has sold a closed mortgage book to a third party. The third party owns the book and manages it. As it has no banking licence, it is unable to offer new rates, so switches/product transfers aren't possible. Those who can remortgage away or sell and borrow elsewhere are fine. Those left behind unable to move are mortgage prisoners.

If you have a complaint about how your account has been handled, you complain to the purchaser and if the complaint isn't handled to your satisfaction, you can escalate to the FOS, then take legal action. Unfortunately, there is no quick way out and organisations promising one will usually be looking for up-front fees or for you to take insurance against losing a legal action from which it makes money.

Best avoided.

Thrugelmir

bigby said:

 The 3rd party did indeed purchase the book from our original lender. This left us locked into a rate that hasn’t changed since the start. 

The onus is on you to get yourselves into a financial position to remortgage to a new lender. Closed mortgage books are a very different business model to the lenders that underwrite new business. Direct comparisons cannot be made. 

bigby

Once again a big thank you Kingstreet for such a clear reply. That all makes sense.
I have one more question. Have you heard of any class actions being taken against lenders with no banking licences? 

MWT

I would suggest you start here:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-prisoners/

This would seem to better fit your situation.

Edi81

A banking licence is only required to take deposits from customers ie savings  and current accounts. 

A credit licence is needed to lend money. They are two different things. 

kingstreet

Edi81 said:

A banking licence is only required to take deposits from customers ie savings  and current accounts. 

A credit licence is needed to lend money. They are two different things. 

Ah. Before Halifax was taken over by LBG people used to say it was lending under the BOS banking licence. You learn something new every day...

Edi81

Ah. Before Halifax was taken over by LBG people used to say it was lending under the BOS banking licence. You learn something new every day...

kingstreet

Ah. Before Halifax was taken over by LBG people used to say it was lending under the BOS banking licence. You learn something new every day...

Still the case. Halifax is just a brand of Bank of Scotland plc which has a banking licence to take deposits. Birmingham Midshire and IF are just brands of BoS plc. 

Lloyds Bank plc has its own licence but LBG doesn’t at it’s the holding company. 

Thrugelmir

Edi81 said:

Ah. Before Halifax was taken over by LBG people used to say it was lending under the BOS banking licence. You learn something new every day...

kingstreet

Ah. Before Halifax was taken over by LBG people used to say it was lending under the BOS banking licence. You learn something new every day...

 Birmingham Midshire and IF are just brands of BoS plc. 

Both were independently trading entities prior to their takeover.