From the other place Well done Richard Dyson of the Mail on Sunday. Well done for exposing Capstone. Well done for exposing their shameful repossession strategy which is not and never was a policy of last resort. It is a policy of first resort. It is their business model. They want to liquidate the mortgage book as fast as they possibly can. And that means charge, after unfair charge, after extortionate unfair charge, until they have the "grounds" for repossession. Now that a journalist with the courage and integrity to run with this has exposed the shameless and disgraceful CAPSTONE MORTGAGE SERVICES for what they are, maybe others would like to follow his excellent example? One thing's for sure though. They are not nearly so secretive as they once supposed. The FSA's immunity from censure for these disgusting practices will surely now fall under the microscope. CAPSTONE ACCUSED ON REPOSSESSIONS

Hi all... I'm Utterly frustrated here. The fact is that Capstone have been completely in disregard of any of their obligations as an FSA authorised company. Even any cursory glance at the postings here (unless everyone is making it up) would confirm this. So, in consequence can we agree, that CAPSTONE is an outfit which should not hold ANY authority from the FSA until it is proved FIT TO DO SO? Or is it always the case that the posters who essentially support these bastards, and who obviously have self interest at heart, will win the argument because any sustained opposition to those arguments is ridiculed by proxy on other sites? This has done NOTHING TO PROTECT THE VICTIMS OF THE OUTRAGEOUS ONSLAUGHT OF REPOSSESSIONS. Petty vendettas get nobody nowhere, unless of course there is an interest in pursuing them. I reserve special condemnation for those who seek to divert, dissemble or distort through LYING. You know who you are and YOU KNEW what you were doing. Shame on you. My motives are clean and clear. Are yours?

Hi eagle If you were to claim in the county court with Capstone the defendant would be the OL SPML, SPPL, PML. However probably the best way to do this would be to file a counterclaim. Although you are out of time it is quite straightforward. Judges will not hear defences but THEY WILL hear counterclaims and are known to be quite sympathetic to the arguments. People's experiences in court are frustrating because the judges are sticklers for procedure. As a defendant in a repossession claim you have very little ground in which to make arguments but as a counterclaimant the court will open up to you and hear what you have so say. I would suspect that they already have a suspended repo order hanging over you. Is that right? If so you can still counterclaim but the right to do so must be affirmed by a Judge. You only have automatic rights to a counterclaim when you submit your defence, i.e. within 14 days. The key regulation is the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations (1999). Basically any term which requires a consumer to pay more than the costs incurred as a result of the breach is likely to be unfair and thus 'not binding'. You could argue that virtually any term that results in charges is reclaimable but that is a matter for the court. I would bet that any properly constituted counterclaim which was admitted by a judge would have an 80-90% chance of success. Keep the faith EiE.

Eagle Insofar as barclays/ woolwich are concerned you now have all the necessary ammo for issuing claim in the County Court. My experience with them suggests it will go to the wire. Send them an LBA giving the 14 days to comply with and observe the FOS adjudication when they fail to do that it's time for your N1 claim. They'll back down before the hearing in most likelihood but it pays to get your arguments and evidence in order in case they actually defend properly. Keep the faith. EiE. You'll get plenty help with this I'm sure. Just don't take any assistance from betty. The accuracy per post ratio is somewhat suspect and they can't admit to being wrong. On a site like this that's no good to anyone.

Hi all and thanks to eagle and JC in particular It's more than apparent that "Our Betty" has completely shot her one and only useless bolt. I am not Ryde and Ryde is not EIE. The appalling and disgraceful attempt by this none contributor to muddy the waters, spread misinformation and distract everyone from the main task of fighting SPML Capstone etc clearly exposes bouncing Betty for what she is. A speculator, a liar and a fly by the seat of her pants guess merchant. WRONG WRONG WRONG BETTY. AND YOU HAVEN"T GOT THE DECENCY TO COUGH UP AND APOLOGISE. Do yourself a favour and find out some facts before you start on this kamikaze mission of making yourself look totally stupid. Enough of the idiots making false accusations already...there's some real work to be done helping those at risk of being done over. Not that YOU WILL be contributing to that task you gutless, spineless and hopelessly inaccurate caller of matters of fact. THANK GOD FOR THAT. If anybody is offered "advice" by Betty I suggest you run a mile in the opposite direction.

Oh dear. Bouncing betty has got her knickers in quite a twist hasn't she. Eie is not Ryde. Ryde is not EiE. EiE does not spam. EiE dies not encourage others to spam. Betty it seems is flying a kite in the face of facts and cannot admit she is wrong. Perhaps she would care to apologise?

I don't know who the hell bouncing betty thinks he it she is but I want an immediate correction published. EiE (myself) us not Ryde. I have never used any identity for myself other than EiE. Any Reading of my posts will clearly reveal ( if you can be bothered to read them all) that the user Ryde and the user EiE are two seperate real life users. Many others will confirm this. I do not spam any site I use and do not encourage others. I want a full apology for your hasty and inaccurate conjecture and if I do not receive one that will say more about you than it does about me. Bouncing betty has not only called this wrong. Bouncing betty as many long standing caggers will know has just publicly exposed tbemselves as a complete fool.

Oooh. Now let me think..... JUST ABOUT ANYONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE **** SUCKING PREDATORS Just a wild guess though. Mortgage Strategy "interview" with Amany Attia

Pat I seriously would not worry about this. Let them explain why the agreement is not crystal clear so that all parties know where they stand. They have no right to insist upon insurance with them. It's just another one of their money grubbing tricks and likely to be regarded as unfair.

Others may take a different view but I would regard this as sufficiently puzzling to launch a complaint with the Information Commissioner. Let them sort this out. That's what they're there for.

Sue Just out of interest you would agree that PwC and the regulators are doing their level headed best to stave off an investor revolt? Secondly, following on, would you also agree that the most expeditious way of doing so is to pursue, through the likes of Capstone (look at Northern Rock) an aggressive repossession strategy? What sticks in my craw is the way in which the investors get looked after as best as (what goes up may go down) but the borrower (25 years not five) is getting stiffed royally here. No wonder the word mortgage contains within it the French word for death. In this case not signed up for life but screwed for life. Even after possession.

Hi all The consensus appears to be that I have been a little hot headed and have been posting stuff that is unnecessarily hostile and provocative. I agree that this interpretation is justified and that (not for the first time) I got a bee in my bonnet. I wish to offer my sincere apologies for impugning the motives of individual members of the site team, and since the accusations were made publicly the best place for this apology is also in public. If anyone thinks otherwise, the fire has not gone out of my belly. But I'm driven mad by the sheer frustration of watching day in day out waiting for some development - it does my head in, as I'm sure it does everyone else's. If we have some small victories preventing a repossession (those are obviously big for the people involved) it still feels like nothing has been achieved. How some people cope (or rather don't) I have no idea. Keep the faith EiE.

I'm very sorry to hear that Dotty and as insensitive as my post concerning this was to the very real possibility that people such as yourself might have had first hand experience of this it also happens to be true. If the CAG team have access to PMs you can check this out. An appalling state of affairs. I'm disgusted that Martin3030 has still not seen fir to withdraw his comments or at the very least come up with some pathetic justification, no doubt employing the get clause "context".

I've had PMs from people feeling that the only way out of this is to KILL THEMSELVES. This site relies on US to do the work for them whilst THE PAID moderators line their pockets. I'm fed up to the hind teeth of the MODS undoing all of that work because the very enemy the troops are fighting on a daily basis have a hot line to the CAG command. In the light of people posting desperate messages feeling that they must commit suicide to get out of their desperate situation does MARTIN 3030 STAND by his comments that this thread is the equivalent of threads elsewhere fighting parking tickets? If he does not then he should issue a public apology. Or resign.

If Martin3030 REALLY thinks that fighting these sub prime dogs is the equivalent of fighting a parking ticket I suggest he reaches for the drawer and gets a good hold of the pearl handled revolver. At least he'd be dignified in doing so. Moderators should have at least some clue as to what is actually going on. http://capstonemortgageservices.wordpress.com/category/capstone-mortgage-services-administrator-in-chief-for-repossessions/ I suggest he mugs up on the various TSC reports by Shelter Which and the TSC themselves. I must have missed their inquiry into parking attendants. What an outrageous nonsense.

Hi all I've now had a look through all the posts concerning this "offensive" linkand cannot understand the line of reasoning the mods have adopted. First it was links have to be approved first then it was the link broke site rules. Which one was it? I can't follow Martin 3030's logic at all and I agree with ANW that he seems to be being less than open here. As ANW has said the other site is CLEARLY NON-COMMERCIAL. It is free to use, carries no advertising and does not even ask for contributions. So that's a complete red herring. I've looked at the other site in depth and cannot see any issues at all. It is factual, contains all the resources anyone might want to fight the **** and is actually very good. The blog's author should be congratulated not exiled and airbrushed by the CAG Politburo. Equally the blog has made it clear that it wants to work in tandem with CAG. I went on the other site which is not so difficult to find eagleforms (Just google capstone mortgages wordpress) and it actually states that it wants to work with CAG: here's an extract: That seems very reasonable to me. It seems either that the Consumer Action Group fears this new "rival"or that ONCE AGAIN, as with the banning of ITBG (which has left a very bad taste with me and actually disgusts me), the CAG has been leaned on by the ****. In all likelihood the new site has probably not sought the permission of CAG for the link and has not sought the permission of CAG for its establishment. Why one earth should it? IS Cag some kind of internet police on consumer issues. Please tell me truthfully the CAG have not been leaned on by the **** on this issue. You can do so by PM if you wish.

Hi All And sorry I've been away for so long (...really ill but over the worst of it now). I have been looking in from time to time on my mobile but it's just really fiddly to post anything substantial. I'm absolutely shocked at what is going on here. Not for the first time the mods have come blundering in...with no knowledge of the issues here on this thread. I think you need to get a mod who knows these scumbags well enough to decide what is in bounds and what isn't coz as far as I can see you are all trying to get your credit cards written off and never had to deal with these shysters, fraudsters and money launderers who rob people of their homes their equity and make them and their families homeless destitute and unemployed. That's the consequences here, not some poxy black mark on a credit referencing file. What CApstone and the lehmans companies have done is atrocious and the CAG should be kicking **** in the consumers favour with parliament, the media and any sod else. First the thread goes completely silent for 3 or four days give or take one or two rather innocuous posts. and now some absolutely rubbish decision by the mods over that link that everyone is arguing about which no-one is allowed not allowed to post and must even apparently be removed from signatures. WTF? JHC. It's first of May this week. By the time we get to Ist June the ****** outfit in question will have illegally repoed about another 500 families. As far as I can tell the blog was trying to make a narrow focus for newbies so that they could get a handle without trying to wade through five thousand posts half of which were dominated by legal and equitable and all that jazz. Goodness knows how anyone is supposed to make sense of that. I can't beleive the cag have banned the link but thne I'll need to go back through to see what the hell the issue is, If you want the thread to get back on message Caro I strongly suggest you stop pulling self seeking and unecessary publicity stunts and get on with helping people get to heart of the Enterptise Act Part 8 issue which is where I last left off. If the cag has bowed to external pressure like it did over the banning of ITBG...then I'm disgusted, will register my protest ( Not over the link itself but any hint that they have bowed to pressure) and make my temporary absence a permanent one in disgust. Disgusted. EiE. Bloody school prefect types. A bit of power and a bit of pressure.

Hi sced you should put the whole thing in writing pretty much as it is here. Tell them that you have no confidence in their ability to organise this very important event for you and you are claiming a full refund of the deposit. You expect their constructive responder within 14 days. That gets the ball rolling but this is clearly going to claim further down the line. That's when they will bottle out. Try the misleading provisions of the unfair consumer practices directive 2008. Don't mention court yet but do mention the relevant parts of the directive. Keep some powder dry for your LBA! Good luck. Should be a relatively straightforward one. Or you could just go a head with the wedding with them and then sue their arses into oblivion! (lol) not really...!

Hi guys Sorry to butt in but you have to have given them eight weeks (forty days) and have received their final response. The FOS will not entertain it until then. Hope that clears things up.

Hi ANW Can you post a link to this green light? Much appreciated. EiE.

I am also with Nationwide after getting fed up with Barclays nabbing money from my account for an unenforceable credit card, putting into the red and charging me for that. I reckon Barclays have helped themselves to 2K + of may cash since i got my charges refunded just before the stay came in. Nationwide won't charge you. But it's a nightmare trying to get things paid as they only give you a cash card. They said I could have chip and pin after six months of regular payment but when I asked they didn't tell me they would do a credit search and then declined it. WTF is wrong with giving me a chip and pin? It's a nightmare when you've done a big shop and it comes over what you are carrying in cash.

Cher When was the order made, what does it say and why do you want to vary it?

Hi cher As noted elsewhere the normal procedure is for them to wait for you to breach the order then they apply to the court without notifying you first for a warrant for eviction. The barstewards will do this at the drop of a hat such as late payment or a shortfall in the agreed overpayment. More insidious though is that they exploit how useless the courts really are by claiming a breach WHERE NONE AS OCCURRED and the useless court just rubber stamps it. After all the lender would not lie would they? Ive heard cases of people paying and them simply not processing it, of claiming payments haven't been made where they have and so on. The **** are tireless in their quest to rob you of your house and throw you and your family's sorry asses on the street. I never cease to be amazed by their boll0cks. What do they mean they don't like the court order? IT IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. They'll have a hard time arguing that so if they go for eviction FIGHT AND WIN BECAUSE YOU WILL WIN. Why do you want to vary the order? There are strict time limits on this in any case. Keep the faith. EiE. OH AND KEEP FIGHTING THE ****.

That's because you've gone soft and given the answer people want to hear! LOL!

Whilst I agree that unfair might have been better in the title as sue has found out to his own chagrin once chosen you cannot change the thread title. If it's that important a mod can merge this with a new thread with a better title. Sue it looks like a little role reversal may occur here. I'm determined to prove the negative if such a thing were even possible. Part 8 seems very powerful to me. But I am unconvinced of its capacity to apply in the circumstances discussed on the other thread.