Hi

Sorry to hear about your experience with SPML.

They took almost £20k Erc from me, I only had a mortgage with them for a year.

I am sure there are a great many unhappy ex customers & current customers of this lot. It occurs to me that times must be very difficult for this company (and the likes of Kensington etc). I think they will all be having difficulties and the current proprietors will be looking to sell up. It could be made very difficult for them if all their unhappy customers launched some sort of class action against them. This would have to be disclosed to any prospective purchasers & might cause great difficulties for them. I am sure that there must be a common thread to the way we have all been treated, something around which we could build a case.

We could have a look at all these companies, get as many complainants as possible and see how we could fund something.

They are very vulnerable right now & as Corporal Jones would say, "they dont like it up 'em"

Dangermouse

I agree with you Dangermouse, maybe if we all got together,something could be done.

Im awaiting my call from ITN on monday,maybe we should all contact ITN,the bigger the story the better.

SPML are quite good at intimidating customers,lets see how they like being intimidated from the press.

If anyone is interested in airing there side of things to the news let me know & I will pass on your details to Chris the specialist editor at ITN.

Probably a silly question. Bt has anyone approached the likes of SPML, Kensington etc. and asked if they are planning to sign up to the government's scheme.

Dangermouse

I think this will answer your question dangermouse.

It is from an article in todays Times

Louise Cuming, the head of mortgages at moneysupermarket.com, the comparison website, said: “The list of criteria that must be fulfilled before borrowers are even considered means that few will qualify and even fewer will actually be granted assistance due to the fact it is voluntary on behalf of the lenders, who have only signed up ‘in principle'.”

It is also estimated that sub-prime lenders, who are considered to be responsible for approximately half of all repossessions, will not join the scheme.

Ray Boulger, of the mortgage broker John Charcol, said: “Sub-prime lenders will certainly not be signing up to this deal. This scheme has all the hallmarks of a plan that has been cobbled together at the last minute

Mortgage scheme rules likely to limit householders' help

Hi Dangermouse,

Class actions are a good idea, but it depends on what you want to achieve. It only takes one case to set the precedent. Once the case is proved in favour of one of the borrowers in a securitisation pool, the same facts and law can be applied for each and every other borrower whose mortgage is in the same pool. It would only take one well prepared case to show that SPML are in fundamental breach of contract. E.g. breach of the borrowers right to the 25 year term just for starters, but more outrageous (and in my view, unlawful), is the whimsical manner in which the interest rates are set and charged in an abuse of discretion under the terms of the mortgage contracts.

But you may find out from the Prospectus as I did, that the mortgage is void and unenforceable in any event and that will really turn the tables on them. My case was due to be heard last week, but, unexpectedly and surprisingly, the trial got cancelled at the last minute. Therefore, I am now waiting for a new trial date to test the legal arguments. Will keep you posted if any precedent gets set.

The real scandal is that usually the company that brings the action against the borrowers and gets a possession order, in truth and in fact, that company, has no legal standing to bring the action and therefore, no legal right to a possession order in the first place.

To give an example of why I say this consider this principle: say you sell your car in January to Mr Bloggs. Then in February, a Mr Smith damages the car that you sold in January. Could you, who sold the car in January, bring an action against Mr Smith for the damage he caused in February? Of course not, dont be stupid, you would correctly cry, because Mr Bloggs bought the car in January, any claim for damages caused to that car in Februrary is a claim that only Mr Bloggs could bring because Mr Bloggs owns the car.

At law, you would be deemed to have 'extinguished' all your legal rights against that car when you sold it in January. This principle is so obvious that nobody would give it a second thought. If you did bring an action against Mr Smith, you would rightly expect the court to tell you to take a hike.

Now consider that same principle in the context of a securitised mortgage. A mortgage contract is an asset in the same manner that a car is an asset, both assets have property rights at law. Remember, also that the company who purports to be your mortgage lender has, in fact, already sold your mortgage to an SPV (but, they have not told you that they sold it!).

Thus, when the mortgage company who claims the legal right to possession of your home asks for that court order, in fact, they have no right to possession because THEY'VE SOLD THE MORTGAGE TO THE SPV! If anyone has the legal right to claim possession of your home, it is only the SPV that has the legal cause in action to bring a claim for possession. The only reason the mortgage companies get away with it, is because (a) they keep it secret from you that they sold your mortgage; and (b) they keep it secret from the court.

Therefore, nobody tells the court (because you don't know, and the mortgage company keep it secret) that the company who brings the claim in fact, has no legal rights to enforce, because it sold its legal rights when it sold the mortgage.

The securitisation process works for the greedy bankers because the borrowers legal rights can be abused by the banks, mortgage companies and the lawyers who act for them. And the borrowers rights can be abused and are abused because the borrowers have no legal representation and nobody fighting for the borrowers rights. You will observe from our own experiences that the bank always talk of their rights and the borrowers obligations but never once mention the borrowers rights and the banks obligations.

Once the borrowers fight back against the illegality and infringement of their legal rights, and assert and enforce their legal rights will this securitisation scandal stop.

If you are interested in following up on these points, I stongly recommend reading a poster written on 12 May 2008 at 20:04 hours by "TaffR". He (or she) also explains the true ownership of mortgages (and therefore the real legal owner) and you will see how the concealment of ownership is really affecting the borrowers legal rights. TaffR is spot on.

Supersleuth

Hi Supersleuth

I have a complaint against SPML/Capstone that has been waiting its turn at the FOS. I am reclaiming charges but have said nothing about the unfairness of the ERC of £20k that was deducted (particularly as i was under a possession order & money order & had no choice but to terminate early).

I have also been thinking about this thread and the points that you have raised regarding securitisation.

I have called the FOS today and my case is still some months away from being dealt with, they have agreed that I can provide an additional complaint for them to consider. Can you help me put somehting together? it might be useful to get some sort of consideration from them on this point.

Dangermouse

Hi Dangermouse,

The way I see the ERC as a logical fact is that:

The contractual provisions of ERC's are written such that the borrower agrees to pay an ERC - IF THE BORROWER chooses to redeem the mortgage early. Note the words "chooses" to redeem, i.e. the borrower exercises his right to redeem.

Therefore, in principle, it seems to me that where a lender terminates the contract through repossession then the right to an ERC is not triggered because it is NOT the borrower that is exercising its right to redeem the mortgage, but rather it is the lender that is DEMANDING that the mortgage is redeemed. As you rightly say, it was not "your choice" to redeem, it was the lender's demand that the mortgage was redeemed and therefore the ERC was not payable.

The ERC is a "penalty" clause. It is a penalty that the borrower is charged ONLY IF the borrower redeems early. And anyway, even if the borrower chose to redeem early, as I understand contract law, a penalty clause is not enforceable.

The FSA have stated that ERC's are unfair, but the FSA (toothless tiger), turns a blind eye to this abuse (and in my view criminal extortion). Hence, people who fight for the return of the money may eventually suceed, meanwhile those who don't (i.e. the majority of borrowers) won't get a refund. Thus, there is no regulator unequivocally enforcing a prohibition against the ERCs and thus, it remains extremely profitable for the banks to continue to charge these extortionate ERCs.

To give you an example of how bad the lender rip-offs are. In my case, the argument started because of the overcharging of interest. I showed that the lender continuously overcharged interest of at least 0.25% too much (as well as other overcharges). Eventually, the the lender admitted that they did charge 0.25% but said that this only amounted to an extra £3,000 interest over the 5 years of the mortgage, which they said was nothing.

So I said, uh, at least they've acknowledged that overcharged interest amounts to (at least) £3,000. I replied, this is not an insignificant amount because, there are 4576 mortgages in the securitisation and as they've overcharged me interest of at least that amount, then they've overcharged all the other 4576 borrowers WHICH MEANS that the lender has taken an estimated £13.8 million of overcharged interest from all those homeowners in that securitisation mortgage pool by overcharging 0.25% to each of us. (i.e. overcharge each borrower by £3,000 multiplied by 4576 borrowers equals 13.8 MILLION POUNDS extra cash for the lender!!). It's scandalous. Now estimate all the non-enforceable ERCs that they're collecting, not to mention the monthly fees/charges that add. The mortgage system is rotten and corrupt (in my view) and yet these guys now plead poverty to the government and our government give these theives all our tax money - we're paying twice!!!

Now I've finished with my little soap-box rant, back to your ERC - £20,000 is a substantial sum, so why not have a go at getting it back, and...don't forget to add compound interest at the contractual rate...what's good for the goose is good for the gander!!! (note, compound the interest monthly from the date it was taken from you - you'll be surprised just how much your £20,000 has grown)

Good luck

I did a lot of googling yesterday and SPML now comes under Capstones address and contact details even on FSA register.

So I would send everything there if I was you.