Hi Guys, Someone asked, a few pages back, how l was doing. Well, l'm busy, so busy there's not enough hours in the day. 3 court cases with one a.sh...e who managed to get a ccj by forwarding the questionnaire to the wrong address. Will, of course, ask for a set aside eventually, but, it will cost more money and require more time, which l do'nt have. Am checking up here daily, though, but must admit l'm a bit disappointed at the lack of real progress. Still a lot of tailchasing and very little constructive action. Some good has been done and l expect to be back full time shortly with some real interesting stuff, particularily regarding repos, which l've just gone through and managed to avoid. Next step is to get this awful suspension set aside, but, that will be another story. Keep up the fight, but, please try to avoid to much unrequired arguments and get the dingaling moving. Best Regards to all of you Revolutionaries. Gustavius (Che') Rex

A few comments here that may be of interest. Have two different dealings with Welcome, one a car purchase and one a secured loan, both sold with the usual insurance packages. My PPI has been ok, but, there has been other problems relating to the secured loan. have a solicitor dealing (or trying to deal) with Welcome re. mis-sold PPI and the latest info we got from him was....''the PPI was sold through an agent that is no longer trading''... The same info came through regarding a mechanical break-down insurance l have for the car...''Welcome do no longer sell cars, why, we cannot deal with them directly''... lt seems to me that Welcome is not trading at all anymore and that the insurers are blaming Welcome for any and all mis-sold insurances. lt may now prove difficult (but not imposssible, of course) to find a party to take responsibility for whatever wrongs Welcome are guilty of. Propose a thorough investigation of Welcomes current status is conducted. GR

l remember that one. l was one of those who were convinced we could get them on fraud. Actually still think they acted fraudulently. Maybe it will come to light that fraud was actually what they were involved in? ln any case, l do like the turn of event and look forward to the day ''when all is revealed''. Got a reprieve again and hopefully will now be able to sort my own mess out. Am still waiting for the court to contact me and will keep that door open, just in case, well you know what l mean. A large stone fell off my shoulders, though, and maybe l will now be able to spend the time l need to fight off the rest of the scavengers yapping at my heels. That includes this bunch of sharks and shall nontinue my research in to the dark deep of contract performance, contract validity and contract fraud. l do feel for all of you who have family health problems, it is draining and has a very negative effect on your ability to concentrate. Make sure you try to stay healthy, eat, sleep to avoid getting depressed. My heart goes out to youall. GR

Right Guys, Anyone who have a bit to contribute to solving my current problems is very welcome to do so. This is the situation; l've got a mortgage with a, let's say ''near sub-prime'' lender. l have had arrears of around £10,000.00, which l paid off in full last year. Since then l fell in to arrears again and am in about the same situation as last year. l've tried to resolve the situation, but, have a lot of problems that l cannot go in to here. Now my lender has decided that he's had enough and called in the bailiffs for reposession by virtue of the suspended repo. from last year. This despite the fact that l did pay all of the arrears off. However, l made a new proposal, which is very good and would guarantee payments for the mortgage plus £300 towards the arrears. They kept me hanging on for several days, asking for various documents and verifications etc. only to turn me down today, with a week to go to the meeting with the hangman. l've lodged an application for a suspension based on a forthcoming application to set aside the previous suspended reposession using the Norgan Case Law and a complain to FSA, FOS, OFT et al. But, but, but, have only 6 days in front of me, with a weekend included. Advice and support guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gustavius

hi Wonderman, Good of you to read through the referenced judgement. However, l think you missed one very important point and that is the validity of deeds. Anyone here who did not sign the entire mortgage deed, but, only one single page that was inserted by, for example an mortgage advisor, will stand a reasonable chance to have their mortgage deed declared invalid, i.e. the mortgage advisor organsed the whole dingaling and you only signed off on one or two single pages and not the entire deed document. May be very difficult to prove, ut, l am now in such a situation where my deed is invalid as l did not sign or even see the entire true contract deed. Good for me, though, but sh..e for the other party. GR

lf what you say is correct, well then it's most likely good by Northern Rock!!! Which will, of course, not be the case. lnteresting case this. l wonder if anyone is going to pursue this issue? GR

So, we are back with the legal v equity charge issue. There is no need for the mortgagee to sell the legal title as he can lawfully assign the equitable title to a mortgage. The spv re-packages all the various equitable titles in to tranches and use them as securities against bonds sold on the Irish exchange. The mortgagee holds the titles, but, they are in turn guarantees against the equitable tranches, but, still the ''property'' of the mortgagee. Forget this issue, we will not get anywhere if we start with this rubbish again. They may not be the smartest cookies around at Lehmans, but, this part of the business is for sure as legal as is required. However, there is something new l found out that may be of value to those of you who did not sign off the entire mortgage deed yourself. Anyone who was furnished with a single page of the mortgage deed may have a mortgage agreement that is not legally valid. Check up the 2008 High Court Judgement Mercury Tax Group v HMRC (2008) EWHC 2721/ This is very interesting and may prove of great value to many of you. GR

Hi Guys, Have just had a scroll down the various posts and it's more depressing stuff than my own current health condition. EiE, lTBG, Crapstone, Ryde and all the rest, you've all done such a great job, found out so much of value and contributed such a wealth of information, that you should all be very proud of your achievments. You have to look at what you are up against. A government and financial establishment that work hand in hand, not out of love, but, out of necessety. l am sorry that l'm currently so busy saving my own bacon, but, if l cannot come up with a new ''theory of relativity'' within a week, l'm toasted and out on my ass and on the street. Guy's, l'm fighting for my very life and existance. l do not want to cram this site full with my own sh..e, the lender in this case is not one of the Lehman outfits. l preferr to keep this place dedicated to the public prosecution of those particular crooks. But, whatever happens, do not give up, do not get frustrated and rest assured, in the end we shall all prevail. EiE is right about Europe and perhaps this is the only way we have to make things right. l have a meeting with a solicitor this week and shall discuss this matter with him. However, after having just been through a trial of the real type, l'm still in a bit of shock over the outdated system, medevial procedures and lack of true equality under the law. l am actually reeling after having won what was important and it will surely take me a while to re-group for the next battle. Meanwhile, l'm keeping up to speed and shall shortly be back in full force soon. GR

Hi ryde, Please, take it easy, no hard feelings, just a bit of surprise at your statement. Enough about this and let me tell you what happend to me. l went to court in a commercial lease case, where the claimant insists that l have a signed and valid lease running for some x years. l have disputed that, but, have had problems with the case law as l never managed to find any relevant judgement. Now, last week, l had some help from an unexpected source and found the case law in question. l faced a solicitor, a barrister and the claimants alone. l did manage to part win my case and where l lost, l was responsible in any case, hence, not a win for my opponents. l am now going to turn my discovery around and go for the claimants jugular with a counter claim as well as having a previous judgement struck out. My position is now such, that l may even get some interesting legal entity to take it on, ''no-win no-fee''. There's too much to get in to here, suffice it to say that if you do research you will eventually find! This goes for the SPML/PML issues as well. l will again return to my previous statement about non-performance. lrrespective of the ''closing of the loophole'' discussed above, we have to stop looking at everything in a straight line forward only. Tunnelvision is dangereous as you forget everything that's going on around you. The case referred to above concerned an interpretation regarding added charges for the broker (if l have understood this right). This PARTICULAR dispute concerns one single item only. lt does not change the interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act as a whole or any particular conditions therein, with the exception of added charges. My recommendation is that we forget the entire incident and return to our issues at hand. Non-performance due to incomplete information and (and mark my wording here) unsolicited and unapproved speculation with our assets in the mortgage securitisation by the issuing of derivative and spekulative instruments securitised against third party assets without consent from the third party and to the detriment of the security of the third party's assets, home and fortune. l put it to you, that no-one was ever informed, in one way or another, that the properties we bought and mortgaged with SPML/PML would be used as securities in the risky derivatives market. lf we had known and been fully familliar with the risks this entailed, then we would not have mortgaged with SPML/PML. comments please. GR

Hi Ryde, Do not know why on earth you would ''re-evaluate'' old Maggie? She managed, with a few exceptions, to run this country completely down the drain. She was the mother of the industrial wipe-out and focusation on financial and service sectors as the future for old GB. And, concerning Europe, l do not understand your complaint about a ''sell-out'' at all??? Most of the legislation that protects you, me and the rest of the Joe's in this country comes from or originates in Europe. Europe is not saddled with the class system we have here, why, the parliaments and laws of Europe are mainly there to protect the people and not the ''money lenders''. Without Europe and it's human rights act, consumer protection legislation etc. we would be even worse off and (if that's possible) be even less able to defend ourselves against the ''establishment''. Most legislation that has been introduced here has been virtually forced up on us and to the chagrin of the establishment, judiciary and money lenders. l have held you as a knowledgeable fighting spirit and champion of the poor and downtrodden, why your Euro sceptisism come as a bit of a disappointment to me. GR

Hi Ryde, You know, as well as l do, that all these various companies are nothing, but, dream factories, without any other purpose than to lead us and the authorities round in circles. ln the end they all belong(ed) to Lehman and are proberbly staffed by the very same people. lt's a game of smoke and mirrors you put up to stop anyone from realising the truth behind the fasad. Among other things, this is what you do when you want a one man boiler room business look like a billion pound conglomerate. l guarantee you that there is not one single person who actually works full time for either SPML, PML or LMC. Each and everyone is a full time employee of Capstone. Even the introduction letter to Capstone that l received made that clear...''belongs to the same group of companies as'' ... SPML/PML/LMC are dead in the water and proberbly have been for quite some time. Their sole purpose was to generate business, i.e. originate mortgages and loans. Once that business was done and over with so were the companies. They simply had outlived their purpose. As a matter of fact, they have no income as they are no longer originating any mortgages or loans, hence, there's nothing to pay salaries with. All mortgage payments will be funnelled through Capstone to the spv's and on to the bondholders, why it would be strange if there would be any staff still on the payrolls of SPML or PML. GR

Woow, Just walked out of a court room facing 1 solicitor, 1 barrister and 2 clients and l won!!!!!! Contracrs performance at it's worse. Unfortunately it does not relate to this site or even anything that could be useful, with the exception, that you can beat them if you are geared up and know what you are talking about. Even the judge was surprised that he had to find for me in all (to me right now) relevant points. l cannot go in to any details as this case will now continue, however, l proved that what l was saying, was the truth and based on facts. Further, l proved that even a lowely no-good son of a b....h like me can beat a fully black dressed barrister. Not a happy face around, except mine. So, today l'm celebrating, but, tomorrow it's back to work and to find a way to beat them at stage 2 too. Will be back here in full force within a few days l hope. Meanwhile, l like what AlTBG came up with, but, what about PML?? GR

Let's reverse that and complain to FSA and the rest first, with a copy to the lenders solicitor. l am still putting together the letter and shpould, hopefully, have it out this week. GR

l think this is such a complicated issue that few know the ins and outs. Do remember that neither lender, borrower, investor or regulator understood the complexities of the derivative instruments they were dealing in. Even today we and they are arguing about the legal v beneficial titles. Having gone through Rydes excellent pieces it becomes clear that not even the law makers understands fully what is going on. The fact of the matter is, that it's an even larger, but, hidden financial catastrophe than what we have recently experienced. No-one knows exactly how big the sub-prime market is. All the major banks and building societies traded their mortgages on the second tier derivatives market. Abbey, Halifax, Alliance & Leicster, Bradford & Bingley, Northern Rock, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, etc etc had their own sub-prime outfits or traded their sub-prime mortgages (sold them off to companies such as SPML/PML/LMC/Mortgage Express, Kensington....). My personal opinion is that it is a financial meltdown in waiting and that is why nothing is done. lt's the old ostrich solution, bury your head in the sand and it will all just go away. Well, l'm afraid it will not go away and by the time we get the Tory's in the governing position, the proverbial merde will really hit the fan. With desperate bankers, investors, pension funds, hedge funds and so on, the pressure on the old Etonians will be too much and they will crack. Suspension of the implementation of Euro-directives, demands to leave Europe and the like will suddenly be the fad of the day and knowing my fellow Brits, it will work, and pop goes the only protection normal people have. This is why l want to ACT NOW, before it's too late. All the various points of views here, are absolutely legitimate and to each very real, but, it will not help us in our fight against the Hydra these lenders really are. We must unite in one single primary action or we will perish as a group and thereby lose the strength and infuence only a group action can bring. Gustavius

Thank You so much Eagleforms, Have included Norgan's Law in my defence as the case is almost equal to mine. Have also spoken to my lender, who suddenly seems more willing to look for alternative solutions??? We shall see how it goes, but, am not particularily worried as l shall use the Statutory Instrment 1999 too and that seems to be more worrying for our friends in the banking industry than Norgan's law. Again thank You, Gustavius

Hi Guys, have just finished my first batch of N244's which will go to the courts tomorrow. However, having gone through the thread in detail today, l am dismayed to see that you all seem to have found your own tails again. Ryde, l agree with you and almost all you say, but, with one clarification. The investors claim against Lehman had nothing to do with us. the only entities we are dealing with are Lehman subsidiries, i.e. SPML, PML, LMC and so on. They are all Private Limited Stand Alone Companies and ca therefore not be DIRECTLY part of the Lehman bankrupcy. But, and this is a big but, should the FSA/FSO/OFT/DTI or whomever fine any of these paper outfits for unfair trading, then they will all automatically be insolvent and have to stop trading. Ryde is absolutely right when he says that they have no money. What they all relied on was the Draw Down Funds and they are all gone. What is left are the incoming mortgage payments and until they dry up completely the investors through their Trust Company cannot do diddly squat! lt's risk investment and they can only invoke the right to transfer the securities in the case of bankrupcy or total lack of performance, which is about the same. The problem for the investors are the enormeous amounts they will have to pay in stamp duty once they take over, not to talk about the amin. mess. lt shall be interesting to see how it all will develop. GR

But, if l now understood this right, credit card agreements under £25,000.00 will still fall under the 1974 Act? GR

This is my last post for some time to come. l have a repossession order, effective by the end of the month, to deal with. l, further, have 4 bailiff cases and the PML/SPML/LMC cases to sort out, why, l simply do not have the time to start all over again. Also, l cannot originate my complaints with the broker as l never had these particular problems. What l have to contend with, is the unfair contract terms pertaining to the securitisation and charges. Most vital to me is the securitisation v contract performance and that is what l will use. l have spoken to my lender regarding the repossession and informed them that l will request the court for a suspension, based on further litigation for unfair contract terms, in accordance with the statutory instrument 1999 No. 2083, and they are suddenly willing to re-consider. ln the end and after my appeal, it turns out, that, despite some nearly 60,000 hits, we are some 4 or 5 mortgagoors who are interested in a common action. Good for us, but, really pathetic when you consider the number of people who have been re-possessed and/or are in serious mortgage arrears. l had expected more and more positive contributions. l am sorry, but, l must now deal with my individual problems as a matter of urgency, but, shall, of course, let you all know the outcome. All the best, Gustavius

Hi Rocket, Sad story this and not unusual l should think. What really surprises me is how we have had this Statutory Instrument for 10 years, but, never used it in any proper way? l can't get my head around it. lt's been there and it is construed to protect the customer against predatory and unfair business methods, but, until the GMAC story this year, it has actually never been enforced. l have to admit, that l did'nt even know of it's existance before the news about GMAC were posted. Sad, sad, sad, but, say's a lot about what is going on and the governments ''commitment'' to the consumers, i.e. the people. This is a country with Euro Sceptics and who is going to vote for the Cameron Conservatives, who are even more sceptic. And still, it is only Europe who protects and enforces normal working stiff's rights, not the government or other parties in the pockets of the capital. GR

Guys, what is this? You know fully well what l've been referring to, why these Malaysia or wherever dingaling's, are completely unhelpful. You wan't to critisize me for not stating the exact and correct wording in the Stautory Instruments 1999 No. 2083, Consumer Protection, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Terms Regulation 5 (5) Schedule 2, Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of terms Which May be Regarded as Unfair, 1. Terms which have the object or effect of- (p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter's agreement; l do not have the time, nor am l in the mood for bullsh.t. l am sorry that l used the incorrect wording, Act, as it is not an act, but, a statutory instrument. However, l did expect your own particular interest would be greater and more focused than to nitpick my own humble contributions. As far as l'm concerned it's ok, l have my stuff lined up and will deal with it as l see fit, but, as l said, l;ve got no time over, for bitching and sniping about minor crap, when it would have been as easy for you as it was for me, to find the referenced documents. lt would have been more constructive if, rather than post a 600 word post about Malaysia, you simply pointed out - NOT ACT, GR - GR

The Consumer Protection Act 1999, 5 (5), Schedule 2 (p) is clear that a seller cannot transfer his rights and/or obligations without the consumers agreement. GR

l need to know if the act is applicable for a commercial property where the leasehold agreement is between two individuals rather than a landlord and a company or between two companies. You do not need to do anything right now, as l'm only interested in tallying up as many affected mortgagoors as possible. When l'm ready, l shall let you all, who are interested know what needs to be done. GR

Need some urgent legal reasoning whether the titled act would be applicable in a leasehold contract between a consumer (i.e. person, not entity) and a landlord? lt is an important issue as many small shop owners have entered private leasehold agreement with landlords, which gives the landlord all rights, but, the tenant as a consumer, rather, than a commercial/professional entity, no rights at all. gustavius Rex

Ryde, Crapstone and all others who wonder, l have not proposed to limit anything to one or two specific items. lf you noted in my post, above, l referred to schedule 2, which is the indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. The terms included, among others, term (e) - ''requiring any consumer who fails to fullfil his obligations to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation''. l do not think any statement pertaining to charges for non-payment, arrears, letters, phone calls, ball pens, tissue or whatever else our friends at Capstone claim for can be clearer. Please note that the indicative list is NON-EXHAUSTIVE!!!!! and that means, it is not only limited to what has been included under schedule 2, but, can have items added. In construction contracts we do something similar by stating that a particular work Shall be but not necessarily limited to... So, time to stop diddling and get on the boat. l shall start to draft my paper today. For your info. l really will get p....d off if l hear anymore rumblings about not doing anything. You all have now an opportunity to actively do something and as far as l can see, there is absolutely nothing to lose, but, everything to gain. GR P.S. Wonderman, do you think this could include commercial and non- commercial leasehold contract agreements as well? D.S.

This is not to impede anyones private action. What l want is for the solicitors to tell us if they think we have a case, based on the facts we will present. Once l have a, in my and your, opinion a reasonable assessment of our claim, then we shall take formal action. However, let me say it straight out now, l am convinced the unfair terms in consumer contracts more than cover our case. This is a European regulation and we do tend to think more on the lines of the consumers, i.e. the people, than greedy investors in Europe. We shall see what they say, but, the larger the number of victims l can refer to, the more likely is the chance we will get a larger ''no win no fee'' solicitor on board. lt's up to all of you guys and l feel l've done what l can now, to get the circus going. GR