Approached by compensation firm about Mortgage Securitisation?

I initially raised this issue with Mark Smith way back following an approach from Legal Quest. The fact that he thought it was likely a non starter and maybe only an advance fee grabbing scam made me decide like Mark Alexander that I am out. I would only join a class action if it was conducted by Mark Smith.
From all the expert comments though that have since been aired by members who have vast legal knowledge the simple question at bottom of all this remains obscure to my simple mind. If mortgage lender/building society A sells my mortgage to company B so B receives the interest payments thereafter and ultimate repayment of the capital sum is it a legal necessity for A's name to be replaced on the title deeds with B's as holder of first charge? Legal Quest's pitch seems to be that this must be done and if not then there is possibly financial recompense to be had. It further seems that some lenders cover this point in their small print booklet to cover themselves for not doing it.

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.
Ok so the original lender "assigns" the debt but remains registered with Land Registry. So, what does this mean- the original lender uses the Limited Power of Attorney in the Mortgage Agreement to create a Deed of Assignment without your knowledge. ( Now, apparently any use of the PoA has to benefit the Mortgage holder, how does selling the Original Note, "the value" at a profit then not passing that profit on benefit the Mortgage holder ? ) The mortgage provider does not disclose this sale nor does it pass on any profit to the mortgage holder and is not taxed on any profit it makes, that goes directly to the bank who created the mortgage (note I say "created" as they created debt, they did not lend a penny). So the point is Tax Evasion, pure and simple fraud !

Update:
I am now instructed in a case where Legal Quest is a consulting expert witness. I may also be instructed as one of a team of counsel to give opinions on the legal merits/demerits of the various securitisation models that there are. Suffice to say that there seems to me to be more 'legs' in this than was first thought. Subject to receiving client permission I will update here if there is any meaningful progress.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law) at 12/04/2018 - 15:02
Thank you for the update Mark.

I remain sceptical but look forward to reading your updates.

I'm glad to see there might be some "legs" in this issue after all and await Mark Smith's updates if he is permitted to issue them with great interest.
Since I first set the hare running about this matter Mortgage Express (B&B) has assigned my mortgage with them and many thousand others to Topaz Finance (administered by Rosinca Mortgages) saying quite clearly in the notice letter that title would be changed at the Land Registry. I wonder if they have yet done so?

I attended the court as the 'Expert Witness' acting for Legal Quest and the main thrust of the matters before the court was the fact that the named proprietor of the legal charge, by their own admission, had been paid in full and held no equitable interest.

Therefore, in the case in question, the Judge quite correctly approved the request for disclosure where the lender must show that they have standing to file.

As far as the Legal Quest position is concerned on our growing number of claimants, we stand firm on the point that there appear to be errors in the paperwork relative to the legal standing of the true owner and liability. As a result, if it can be proven in each of their cases that the original named proprietor of the registered charge has been paid and, has no equitable/financial interest, there is a cause of action open for the mortgagor which could result in a benefit.

The lenders should at the very least release the legal charge.

For all those waiting for a result, we are about to embark on the first round of Class/Group actions with notification to a large number of lenders imminent, we will report on progress.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law) at 12/04/2018 - 15:02
Reference Mark Smith's comment 3 months ago about there being more "legs" to this than originally thought....

Mark, has there been any further developments?

I echo Anne's request for an update from Mark Smith. Is there any prospect of us gaining a "benefit" as suggested in EBG's post of 3 months ago?

This 'test' case is still very much on the rails, but is working its way through the courts. We can update when matters are in the public domain.

Hi Mark

So what's the best advice at the moment. Sign up to Legal Quest class action? Or sit tight and wait for the outcome of the test case?

I've got 5 buy to let interest only mortgages and believe all 5 have been sold and changed providers over the years.

Best regards

Steve