Donate to The Hub – Ireland

All donations,
will help us help you.
Thank you.
Get the Hub Ireland App FREE

 Download The Hub Ireland App

Free for Android and IOS

Ask These Questions

Byron xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

Co Kildare

Date 16/04/2013

Bank Details

Loan Account Mxxxxxx.

Request Under the Data Protection Act & The Freedom Of Information Act. This is a ‘Qualified Written Request’. Request for original mortgage note and additional information.

CC: xxxxx The Director, xxxx their solicitor, New Beginning.


Dear xxxxxxx

We are the owners of the property at the address listed above, and you are ‘asset services’ my mortgage.

Over the last several weeks there have been many stories documenting the problem that asset servicing companies are foreclosing on homes without proof that they own the loan. We have learned that in many case’s, servicing companies like yours do not even know who owns the loans you service. Employees at several leading institutions have admitted to rubber stamping tens of thousands of foreclosures every month, without even checking to make sure that the company had a legal right to proceed with foreclosure. In some cases, banks allegedly falsified mortgage documents to cover up their mistakes. There have been reports of two institutions trying to foreclose on the same home, banks foreclosing on homeowners who were current on their payments, and even of a bank foreclosing on a home where the homeowner had never taken out a mortgage to begin with. This is not merely a “technical problem”–it is the difference between having a warm bed at night and being out on the street.

As a homeowner and a customer of your company, I am horrified to see that either GE or Pepper has taken some 31 people to court from March 1st 2013 through to March 19th 2013. I had always believed that if we played by the rules, we would be protected, but now we know that companies like yours think the rules don’t apply to them.

To protect ourselves and our family, we need to know who owns our mortgage. Within forty days, we would like to know the name, address, and phone number of the company or investor that owns our mortgage. Furthermore, in light of the recent allegations of foreclosure fraud, we demand to see the original mortgage note proving ownership over our home loan.

If you fail to produce a mortgage note proving that you have a right to collect my mortgage payments, we will be forced to consider all options available to us to ensure that our home is protected.

Further more we would like you to answer these questions, we have kept them simple and given a reason why we are asking them, just for your attention and simplicity.

1. Are we indebted to either GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd or Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd or Pepper Asset Servicing right now? Please answer yes or no.

Why: If our loan has been securitised, then we are no longer indebted to you.

2. Please confirm that the GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted.

Why: If our loan was securitised, then your money was not used to fund the loan. Therefore, a legitimate loan between ourselves may not exist.

3. Would the GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd [our contract as per the land registry is with GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd] be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.”

Why: If we are wrong about your conduct, then your company will have no problem complying with this request.

If our loan has been securitised, our original agreement is no longer with the company registered with CRO 34927! Your company having securitised our mortgage loses all right and title to the loan agreement. You cannot amend an agreement when you no longer legally entitled to it, nor do you have it in their possession.

4. Did the company 34927, known as GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd, now renamed Pepper Asset Servicing record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?

Why: we want confirmation from you that you deal in negotiable instruments (promises).

GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd, recorded pre-tax losses in its Irish business totalling €107.1m in 2011.

Accounts filed with the Companies Office show GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd sustained the loss after incurring exceptional costs of €92.9m through the writing off of bad and doubtful debts.

If you analyse the companies figures and the fact that there was a profit just before the ‘sale’ of the company it would suggest that plainly 34927 do securitise their loans.

The loss in 2011 follows losses of €71.9m in 2010.

The figures show that the firm had repossessed properties totalling €4.5m on its books in 2011.

A note attached to the accounts, states that “properties were repossessed in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 as a result of a failure by certain customers to meet their contractual monthly mortgage repayments.”

The figures show that the firm had €466m in loans to customers at the start of 2011 prior to the bad debt provision. In the three years prior to 2011, GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd 34927, wrote off €84m in bad debts.

Pepper Home Loans Group, purchased GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans for a total of a reported figure of €149m.

According to the directors’ report, the provision of bad debts of €93m increases the bad debt provision coverage on the loan book to 26% compared to 15% in the prior year.

The figures show that in 2011, the firm received €10.3m in interest income and paid out €12.6m in interest, resulting in a gross loss of €2.3m.

The firm also incurred the €92.9m bad debt provision and an additional €11.7m in administrative expenses.

The firm’s accumulated losses and shareholders’ deficit stood at €223.1m at the end of Dec 2011.

In a post-balance sheet event, the accounts disclose that the firm’s loans, with a carrying value of €424.6m, were forgiven, resulting in the recognition of a capital contribution.

The firm also repaid loans from related parties totalling €56.6m.

Reading and analysing the above and in light of the question 4, We would like to know: has our loan with GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd [our contract is with 34927, GE Woodchester Home Loans Ltd, as registered with the land registry office] been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?

We understand that you have 30 days to reply to this request.

We would like to close this letter by reminding you of our earlier comment: “If you fail to produce a mortgage note proving that you have a right to collect my mortgage payments, or fail to answer our question we will be forced to consider all options available to us to ensure that our family home is protected.

Likewise we acknowledge that we are due before the Masters Court in June and if you do not respond to this letter in an appropriate manner, then we will have no recourse but to let the Masters Court decide on your conduct.


Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Yours sincerely


Byron xxxxxxxxxx

No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved.

WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT



YOU ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW!


  1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).
  2. Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account?
  3. Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.”
  4. Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.
  5. Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?
  6. Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?
  7. With reference to point 6, has my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding its securitization.
  8. Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised?
  9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?
  10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security / surety to another party?

THE 10 QUESTIONS EXPLAINED

  1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).
    • Obvious question, right? Wrong. In fact, your bank may well refuse to answer it.
    • Here’s why: If your loan has been securitised, then you are no longer indebted to your bank. If you are not indebted to your bank, then in our opinion, the bank cannot take judgement against you.
    • A recent judgment in the US (one of many similar judgments since 2008) has ordered banks to pay out US$8.5billion to consumers because of banking fraud. This is almost identical to what you should be seeking.
    • In the case of securitisation, your legal position with the bank has changed. Did your bank disclose securitisation to you? Do you even know what it means? Probably not. Therefore, you should therefore seek recourse and follow the success of other countries.
    • Also, if the bank does answer “yes” to this question, and it turns out that your loan has been securitised, then it is our opinion that the bank has placed itself in a position of fraud and quite possibly perjury. This could lead to criminal action against the bank and possible recourse for you.
  2.  Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account?
    • It is unlikely that your bank will answer this question. However, they may try to disguise the answer by using clever language, so read their answer very carefully.
    • If your loan was securitised, then the bank’s money was not used to fund the loan. Therefore, a legitimate loan between you and the bank may not exist. The bank could never admit this, because to do so would be to admit that there could not possibly be a loan agreement with you.
    • Even if your loan was not securitised, then the bank still cannot answer this question. Why? Because the bank did not loan you their own lawful money. Something you need to know about banking: banks do not “loan” money in the ordinary sense of the word. This is a tricky concept, and works like this:
    • Banks do not make loans. Instead, they “advance” or “extend” something called “credit.” This simply means that a magical facility is created that provides you with “money” that is made out of thin air. As hard as it is for you to accept this, the money loaned to you was simulated (ie virtual).
    • To illustrate: A customer deposits €100 into their bank. The bank then quickly makes nine photocopies of that €100. They lend those photocopies to nine people, charging interest on each of those so-called loans. Then, if the loan is not paid back with interest, they take away the assets pledged as security.
    • In reality banks do not use a photocopier, they use a computer. The loan amount is typed into the computer and, hey presto, “magical” money is created out of thin air. You think that this money is a loan, or debt so you feel obligated to pay it back. However, it was never actually lent to you in the first place.
  3. Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.”
    • If you are wrong, then the banks would have no problem complying with this request. However, see for yourself: they will not agree to amend the contract.
    • If your loan has been securitised, your original agreement is no longer with the bank! A bank loses all right and title to the loan agreement once it has been sold into a securitisation scheme. One cannot amend an agreement when they are no longer legally entitled to it, nor do they have it in their possession. Furthermore, any indebtedness to the bank would have been settled as a result of the sale of the asset.
    • Put simply, no matter what the situation, the bank did not possess the money it loaned you, and never did. They are fooling you and participating in a fraud of monumental proportions. The fraud is that they cannot take away your assets without disclosing the truth to both you and the Court.
  4. Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.
    • If everything is legitimate and above board, then banks should have no problem explaining how your particular loan came into being. However, banks will not reveal this to you. When you ask your bank these questions, you will see for yourself.
    • You need to know something else about banking: Banks do not deal with actual, physical “money.” Instead, they operate with promises to pay. For example: if a bank promises to pay you €10,000, that would equate to a €10,000 deposit into your account. This deposit is reflected on your statement as a promise of the bank, to you, for €10,000. In other words, it looks like you have €10,000 in your account, but actually this number merely represents €10,000 worth of promises made by a bank to you.
    • The words “money” and “deposit” are therefore misleading. The banks redefined these words so they sound the same in everyday use, but mean something very different to the legal and banking system.
    • Another word being misused is the word “transfer.” A transfer is not a transfer of money. It is simply a case of the bank shifting their promise to pay A to a promise to pay B. This is only an illusion of a transfer.
    • Do you remember when you first took out a loan? You gave the bank a promise, in writing, to make payments every month, with interest. This written promise to pay money to the bank becomes the money they used to lend you! Therefore, you actually created your own loan. It takes some time to get your head around this, and we recommend you research the links below to help you understand the process.
  5. Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?
    • This question is designed to trick the banks. You want confirmation from your bank that they deal in negotiable instruments (promises). Once admitted, it will confirm most of what you is saying.
    • Remember, real money (gold and silver, or notes that represent gold and silver) no longer exist. The illusion of money (known as “credit” or “bank promises”) quietly replaced real money so that the banks could fund their own business empire by creating money out of nothing, then charging interest on it.
    • Negotiable instruments (promissory notes and bills of exchange) serve, in effect, as money. So, when you give the bank a promissory note (a written promise to pay back a loan), they convert your promise into their promise. Their promise = so called “money.” So you gave them the money they loaned you.
  6. Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?
    • This question is plain and simple: we want the banks to admit the obvious. We know they engage in securitisation, but once they admit this to a customer, then the customer would naturally have the right to ask a crisp follow-up question: “well then, has my specific loan been securitised?” Remember, if your loan has been securitised, then the whole game changes. This is ultimately what we want the banks to tell us. There is a very good chance that your loan has been securitised. You need to know the truth, which is why you MUST persist in your demand for the answers.
  7. With reference to point 6, has my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding its securitization.
    • It is your right to know about securitisation. If you don’t get answers, then work obtain recourse.
  8. Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised?
    • The bank only has one counter argument to this: there is a contract between you and the bank. However, if your loan has been securitised, the contract is sold! It’s gone. The bank no longer has the contract, nor does it have the right to that contract. What part of this do the banks not understand? If a bank alludes or pretends they have it, then we believe that they are committing fraud.
    • The contract between you and the bank could conceivably say anything it wants to. The fact is that it has been sold and the bank has lost all rights to it. In our opinion, the bank cannot legally, ethically or morally claim back the debt from you because they have already been paid.
  9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?
    • This is going to shock you, so be warned. When a loan is securitised, your loan gets bundled with other loans and then sold to a third party. If you default (miss a few payments), then the third party (called an SPV – Special Purpose Vehicle) carries insurance. They get paid out if you default!
    • This needs to be emphasised: If you get sick or lose your job, or you cannot meet your repayment obligations, then the secret third parties who trade in your loans get paid out. They are protected against your default. So then… where is your protection? Nowhere. You have no protection because to protect you would mean to inform you of the game and once you know the game, the game is over.
    • And one more thing… if the SPV is insured so they get paid out if you default… and the bank was paid for your loan right up front when the loan was securitised. So then… how and why are they able to foreclose on your assets? And where does the money go from the sale on the Sheriff’s auction? This is precisely what we are fighting to expose.
  10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security / surety to another party?
    • This is the final nail in the coffin. Put simply, we want the bank to admit that they no longer have your security. If they do not have your security, then they cannot foreclose. The banks will never admit this because it means admitting that billions of Euro’s in foreclosures of assets over the past two decades would have been illegal. This would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits.

Thanks to Awaken Longford