l'm a bit short of time here, but, this is what l've dug up so far. ln the US they have had a good success rate with stopping repos. The reasons given and basis for counter court action were: DECLARATION OF RELIEF 1. Mortgage Fraud; 2. Predatory Lending; 3. Violation of Home Ownership Equity Protection; 4. Property Settlement (unfair); 5. Truth in Lending (Beneficial Ownership Sale of); 6. Fair Credit Agreement; 7. Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 8. Unjust Enrichment; 9. Civil Conspiracy; 10. Set Aside Illegal Trustee Sale; 11. Quite Title; 12. Wrongful Repossessions; 13. Usury; 14. Wrongful & Unfair Debt Collection Charges and Procedures; and 15. Slander of Title. Quite some list of discrepancies and l now need each and everyone of you to go through this and come up with what you think we can successfully use here. Got to go, but, will be back in a few hours. Gustavius Rex

l'm glad you had a 100% success and that you took the step to attend the hearing. However, you are absolutely wrong in your assessment of the need of bailiffs and HCEO's. Most civilised countries deal with civil matters without scavenging bailiffs and they do just fine. There are other means and methods to collect debt without private bailiffs and it is a shameful, uncivilised system that should be abolished without delay. GR

l'm looking in to this right now. GR

Sorry if l rambled on a bit this morning, but, l get so angry when l see the total disregard for the borrowers, who in the end are the very source of the fat incomes enjoyed by investors and bloodsuckers alike. The thing is, that l pointed out in one of my earlier posts that we will eventually have to expand from PML/SPML/LMC only, to include other sub-prime sufferers. The thought behind this is and/or was, that in the end we are all treated equally indifferent and un-lawful by these lenders. This has now been verified by the ''fines'' and compensation requirements handed out by FSA. However, as usual the penalty and compensation scheme does not take in to account the actual suffering by the borrowers and you can be sure that G-MAC will be laughing all the way to the bank to pay off the £10 millions as ordered. lf the FSA had more teeth, or perhaps more correctly stated, the will and interest to look out for our interests, then there would have been a completely different and much more expensive conclusion to G-MAC. They are quick with compensation schemes for investors and they hand out paltry peanuts to the dispossessed. EiE, if you can get these people interested in a class action (here it would be group action) then PM me and l shall assist you best l can. Let's get the show on. GR

lt's not like l'm butting in here without reason. l have one of your fellow HCEO's up my rear too and the moron has put a charge of more rhan 25% on top of an alleged ''debt''. This, my dear HCEO's, without levying, or even talking to me. On top of that, he went to the wrong address on purpose, only to harrass my ex-wife and daughter to force me to pay. l shall deal with the ****** in the only way he understands and that shall cost him dearly. As l said before, there are no excuses for this kind of behaviour and l maintain my earlier statements regarding bailiffs and HCEO's with the addition that throughout history and in every society we have people who are prepared to do almost anything for 30 pieces of silver. The degree of what they are willing to do may vary, but, in the end it is all the same and that is total and utter disregard for your fellow man. Most of you are not nice people, not upstanding citizens and absolutely not honest hardworking people who just want's to earn a crust. l added a post to one of my earlier threads about bailiffs today and it refers to an advertisement for bailiffs from Philips. £20k basic with an OTE of £50K!!!! 150% of your earnings to be achieved through ''performance''. What the h..l do you expect the outcome to be? GR

Hi Guys, Been a while since l've been on here, but, been very busy with a lot of other issues, including a new HCEO who charged £1,100.00 on a £5,000.00, ''debt'', without any levy or entry. They are just beutiful all of them. Now, came accross the following ad in the Evening Standard: CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS REQUIRED Exp. F/T Certificated Enforcement Bailiffs: Basic £20k OTE: £50k Experienced F/T Certificated Levying Bailiffs Basic: £12k OTE: £32k Trainee Bailiffs OTE: £20k Interested? E-mail us at [email protected]'uk or visit www.philips.org.uk Anyone wonder why they behave as they do? lf your basic salary is 20 grand and your target salary 150% higher, then you got to make a hell of a lot of levying and/or collections to reach there. Here we have a bunch of semi-litterate morons walking around with the prospect of earning £50k + a year! That's a lot more than the 60 quid a week in jobseekers allowance they would normally collect. And the result? Bang on the money, unlawful charges, unlawful threats, blackmail and extortion as well as the pleasure of turfing mothers and children out on the street. Well guys, the e-mail addresses are there and you can now all join me in applying for a job with a solid future! That is, now since the fall of the third reich. GR

Really interesting stuff, but, leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The main issue relating to our mortgages is still unsolved. Despite what PCW's statement say's or doesn't say, we must be informed prior to any change of the ownership of the legal title. Should the spv's (the investors, bondholders or whatever) be able to lay their hands on the titles, then they will sell and sell quickly, to anyone prepared to buy, most likely a vulture fund. For them to capitilise on their investment they must be able to lay their hands on an empty property, why they will try to force us out by all means available. Now, everywhere l read about the situation it states that we poor borrowers are hapless, helpless and without any legal clout. l tend to disagree, on the basis that, as far as l can determine, no real effort has ever been made to challenge the dealings in mortgages on a pure contractual performance basis. And, l get really worked up about statements like compensation for re-possessed mortgagors who have already lost their homes. Why did they lose their homes? Through unlawful charges, persistant and calculated increase in debt by the lender and unlawful termination/repossession by the help of indifferent, unqualified and useless county court judges. Why on earth do these people not get together and sue G-Mac? They have a clear case and a few pounds in compensation will not adequately compensate for the trauma they have gone through by unlawfully losing their homes. £10 million in fines and compensation is nothing my friends, they should have been forced to hand back lost properies and if they as a consequence go south, so be it! As usual it is all spin and posturing and no real relevant action that will benefit the punter. We all have contracts, we all have mortgages ''regulated'' by the FSA and we all have certain human rights. Why is it that we always have to drop our trousers and bend over? l am sick and tired of being constantly violated as l am of being treated as if l were some sort of lower living form than the capital players. Most people are scared, un-informed, threatened and at their wits end due to the inhuman pressure put on them by unscrupelous lenders and there is no where for them to turn for help and thereby litte or no chance for them to solve their problems. We here, however, are now in the possession of great knowledge, willingness to fight and reason to survive, so, let's go and get them where it hurts and that is in the pocket as few of them have any hearts that could hurt. Gustavius

The greatest ''historical'' hero that we have in England is Robin Hood. Mr Hoods sworn enemy was the sheriff of Nottingham who terrorised poor people with the collection of taxes and debt. Not much has changed since then l'm afraid and the only difference today is that the sheriff and his henchmen are a bit more sofisticated (not much, but, a tad) and less obviously violent. lt's about time we in the UK left medevial times behind us and entered the 21:st century together with the rest of the civilised world. There is no place for HCEO's and bailiffs in a civilised society and it's a shame on us and on those who willingly and at times with pleasure will terrorise and rob the poor who can pay nor defend themselves. To say it's nothing more than a job is no excuse, that was used by the concentration camp guards too and no-one found that acceptable in 1945, why do we do it now? GR

Hi Guys, l think we are actually progressing better than anticipated. When the thought process is allowed to run free,''pearls of wisdom'' filters through. Crapstone is actually on the right way, but, l think we need to expand a bit further on her intelectual ruminations. Let's analyse the situation as it stands and what the various agencies and authorities actually say. Primarily they have been occupied with the potential losses investors face through MISSELLING! Now, if the investors, who mostly are professionals who's primary business is investment, have or will have a claim for misselling of investment products, then what on earth have we poor borrowers been exposed too? We have not even had access to the various prospects that duly inform the investors about the risks involved, but, to a mortgage contract agreement that will not even mention the factual truth that all our mortgages will be sold on and used as securities for risky investments. Nor have we been informed (that is duly informed) that we were all expected to depart within 5 to 6 years, voluntarily or forceably. The fact is that not one of these investors should have a penny back as the only reason they stand to lose money is because Lehman went bankrupt. The main legal issue is if Lehman promised more than they could provide, but, how is that possible when the prospects clearly informs the buyer that it is a risk investment? lt's all bulls..t and an attempt to claw back some of their lost loot through legally obscure reasoning and a frightened governments attempt to sooth large investors. However, if they can do, so can we and with much more reason as we were unknowingly and unwittingly fooled to believe we have been contracted for a set period when we in reality have not. Nor did anyone expect to have their homes subjected to reckless speculations. we really need to get together now and push forward as l'm absolutely sure we do have a true legal claim here. Gustavius

Hi BGQS, lf you hold back a bit you may stand a better chance of redeeming your mortgage at a discounted rate. Should the investment portfolios continue to run at a 30 to 60% arrears rate, the bondholders will be desperate to sell. Right now everything is up in the air as guarantee/security realisation has not been resolved. Should the bondholders be able to claim the legal titles, then there will be fire sales and anyone with alternative mortgages will have a hayday. GR

Crapstone, l'm not sure l follow your reasoning here. Capstone is a mortgage administrator and not even the prime/main admin. in the case of SPML/LMC, hence, as long as they collect mortgage payments on behalf of their ''clients'' or the trustees for the bondholders they will be paid. Their billing will go to Eurosail and .....etc. As long as they are paid they will function. l do not know exactly how the admin of the various payment functions look, but, as all, save the bondholders, ''belong'' or are controlled by Lehman entities l'm sure prioritising was ensured. lf Crapstone fails there will be a major glitch in the sytem and to such an extent it is not worth the costs. No, l'm pretty sure Capstone will survive and l'm pretty sure PCW thinks along the same lines. lt wouldn't surprise me if this ''makeover'' in Capstones behaviour is the result of a major overhaul and rescue operation worthy a ''living tv'' event. l could be wrong, of course, and you may be far ahead of me in your speculations. lf you are, however, l do not think that will be to any advantage to us. A break down of the current system will make it much more complicated to deal with the issues we have and almost impossible to get a handle on what Capstone's instructions and sop (standard operating procedures) looked like. Gustavius

lt would really help if all you guys who have dropped in latey read through the whole thread. lt is very difficult if not totally impossible to understand the process of discussion that has been conducted here without reading through the entire thread. Abbrevations and initials are explained as is the whole mortgage origination - securitisation - guarantee - re-guarantee process. For all of us who are in the middle of a very serious conclusion to the questions at hand to start all over again is too destructive to contemplate. We do need additional interest and engagement here, but, please do yourself as well as us the favour to study or read through this thread. Gustavius

Hi Baddy, You may be right and it may be so bad that Companies House will wind them up due to non-filing. However, if that event should materialise we will have a major circus coming to town with not only the appearance of a lot of clowns, but, some real nasty and dangereous carnevours as well. lt is not a scenario that we should whish for, but, rather that PML/SPML and the rest will survive until we have had our day in court! lf any of the originators goes down there will be a major scramble among the scavengers to get to the carcass. We are, unfortunately, not strong enough to take part in the feast as we cannot unite. ln the world of wild animals and scavengers in particular, only the strong survive. As individuals without major financial backing we will be nothing more than canned dog food to be devoured at leasure. Do not forget that many of the spv bondholders are hedge funds, institutional and wealthy investors with access to money and the best in legal help. So, let's get together and form a interest group with representation, that's the best way forward for us. Gustavius

hi Guys, Do not, l repeat, do not speculate in any bankrupcy for PLM/SPML/LMC and so on. There is only one single event that could cause these mongrels to go belly up or have to wind up and that is if the spv's enforce their securities, i.e. the transfer of the legal titles. However, before that event can take place the spv's have to sort out their swap guarantees with Lehman Special Funding and ultimately Lehman Europe. The administrator will not volunteer to hand over assets like these titles, as that gives the whole mortgage book away, i.e. control of billions in properties with mortgages. l think that we should concentrate on our particular situation and continue to find the correct answere to the question...''did the lender give the borrower the right information and did he act with intent to defraud''. Personally, l do not think the mortgage originators we are dealing with will go down for a long long time, but, will be kept alive by all and any means by the administrator. l think that the spv's will be forced to go to court to enforce their rights and the issue will be stuck in the system for such a long time that they may go south themselves before it is resolved. l bet you all that Capstone will be sold off and re-hired by PCW to administrate the mortgage books. And, l think too that PML/SPML/LMC/PLATFORM and whatever else that is lying around will survive as paper companies until it is clear which entity can be sold off intact and what has to be dissolved. Please note, ladies and Gentlemen, that neither of the above outfits really needs to trade or have more than one (on paper) employee. The turn over can be £1.00 and as long as they do not fall behind on taxes, VAT, salaries, rent or other financial undertakings, they are ok. They are active and turn over a few thousand, pay one salary and that's it. Remember that they have no real financial obligations towards the spv's. The guarantees were all given by Lehman Special Financing and Lehman Europe. l know this is messy, but, be patient and concentrate on what is important to us, the borrowers, and we shall prevail. Gustavius

l think it is important that we once and for all forget about the so called ''regulating authorities''. They are all toothless pussy cats that were never meant to be anything else than window dressing. The worse they can do is to revoke the licence from lenders and brokers who ''offend'' and that's it. What do you do against companies like PML/SPML/LMC who have all stopped lending? Or, what do you do against a company in general who has nothing but a book of legal titles? For someone like Lehman and whoever is behind Kensington, to take a few examples, it means nothing. All they have to do is to flog off their books to another outfit who is licensed and continue as before, because they are not banks with large deposits etc, but loan originators only who operates with other peoples money. And, again it is us borrowers who will suffer. The authorities would rather have us publicly hanged, drawn and quartered for not maintaining our mortgage payments than actually intervene agains these shoddy lenders. lf you think l'm ranting a bit here, l'm actually not, because, in the end it is our own welfare that's at stake. lf you listened to the radio today or watched the early morning news you will, like me, have seen that about 28% of the white British population is prepared or could consider to vote for BNP!!!??? Anyone more than me who recognises the awful similarities with post first world war Germany? People are frustrated and are rather looking for scapegoats than proper political solutions and the end-result can at times be devestating. That is why we must do our utmost to engage those who suffer in the hands of these awful sub-prime lenders. Right now we are dealing with our own PML/SPML/LMC problems only and God nows that can be more than enough, but, in the end we must engage everyone else who suffers similar treatment from other equally disgusting lenders. ln USA they are already gearing up with mass class actions and l cannot understand why we in this country cannot get together and do the same? Looking through this thread you will find that despite having had 1000:s of hits it is only a handful of people who are active. Why? Between 30 to 60% of all sub-prime borrowers are in arrears or default and that is both loans and mortgages and still little to nothing is actively done. The government, be it Labour, sorry New Labour, or Conservative will do nothing to really change or reform the financial industry. To little export manufacturing and too much dependance on tax income from that particular industry renders the government powerless. There needs to be a change in actual control of the industry as well as in attitude. Stop blaming the poor borrower who desperately needs a roof over his/hers head and start to blame those blood sucking leaches who without any concern for the larger social impact caused by their profit hungry manipulations of the borrower. lt is an outright disgrace to see the banks bailed out with the taxpayers money returning to profit with embarrasing and enormeous half million bonuses to staff, while, small businesses pay 9 to 15% on overdrafts and families are thrown out of their homes and out on the street. ln my country of origin it would never happen and any government or bank even attempting anything similar would not only be out on the street, but, almost surely prosecuted for unlawful profiteering. That aside, in both Germany and France the controls of the banking system and the financial industry is better, stricter and more powerful, why, they have not suffered as much as us and are now already out of the depression, while we will linger on for quite some time to come, with more unemployment, mortgage arrears and misery. lt is about time something meaningful is done about this and l, for one, would like to see all of these social parasites lose all and every mortgage claim they have. Gustavius Rex

My darling Crapstone, l think you just nailed it all down in a few beutiful sentences. Better to stay cool and not like me, right now, flaring up in anger. l've stated time after time that there was never any intention of the lender to fullfill his contractual agreement. But, you went around that and formulated the intention better, i.e, intention for the contract to be fullfilled. This is where the entire case rests, if we can prove and we should be able to do so, then we were led to believe we had a straight forward mortgage contract agreement, why, in reality we had a short term loan agreement with the sole intention of either having us to re-mortgage or lose our homes. ln other words, we are the victims of fraud. Super, super Crappis. Gustavius

Geoff my friend, You'r kicking the wrong guy, the one that's already knocked to the ground, you know. lt was not the self cert. mortgages per se that caused the immense price rises in the housing market, they constitutet a fraction of the total amount of approved mortgages. What caused havoc was the access to easy money and the 95 to 100% and in some cases 125% mortgages. When you buy a house with no deposit and the lender calculates a price rise of no less than 25% over 2 years, you will have problems. lt's called inflation and consists of two main factors, namely a never ending access to cheap and worthless money and a limited supply of houses. The original idea with the self cert was that people who had difficulties proving an exact monthly income, mostly self employed, should be able to have access to mortgages. l have such a mortgage and it's over £200,000.00, but, l did put down a 40% deposit. The problem was that l made steadily £xxx,xxx.xx over a year, but, with great irregularity. As l had to invest my own money in the business l could not take out a steady provable monthly income. l could lie on paper, but, that would, in my opinion, be exactly the same as if l lied on a self cert. l have'nt got the time to sit here and explain exactly why the bubble burst, but, in this country, self cert mortgages had for sure little if any impact. GR

Not much more than was said on the radio. Zillions spent on a discussion paper that will result in........................you guessed it - nothing. Some of the ''conclusions'' are and must have been so obvious that it is frightening to see that the FSA have just discovered the anomalities. All this great talk of regulating, introducing intermediaries, assessments etc. etc etc. is smoke. Any money outfit that speculates in ''equity lending'', i.e. approving a mortgage in the full knowledge that you will fail, but, that you have enough equity in your propert to not only redeem your mortgage, but, actually secure a further profit through charges and so on, will find ways around any regulation introduced. Not only that. Who in his right mind trusts the authorities to regulate a market worth some £1.3 Trillions? Man, they will put some oily politicians on their boards, pay ''consultancy fees'' to a bunch of lordships and the problems will just go away. Why could they not regulate the abuses that were going on before? Because, in the end its money and nothing else that matters. You know that lenders purposly targets people who they know will fail, but, will still provide a profit when their houses are repossessed and you do nothing. ln the end, it will be us mugs who borrows who will be held responsible and the creeps who engages in dodgy lending practices who will be dubbed sirs and lords. GR

Good or bad news today? The FSA is now going to propose a range of measures supposed to ''clean up'' the credit card, loan and mortgage market. So called ..''pre-approved''..loans are going to be banned and so are the ''self cert''. mortgages. Further, the banks and other institutions are foing to be required to conduct a better and more thorough background check on applicants before approving any loans and/or mortgages. The consequences of all this will be a mixed bag at best. The pre-approved loan/credit card business is fine and so are the pre-check requirements, to a certain degree. But, and this is a big but, if they succeed in banning the self cert. mortgage market, then we will have a major problem as many many people who are self employed or have dual income will be left out. To me, this is nothing more than the usual government kneejerk reaction to a situation they caused themselves. The problem is not so much with the borrower or mortgagoor of a self cert mortgage as the banks/mortgage companies attempt to usurp the situation and make immoral money out of desperate peoples need to have somewhere to live. However, and this is now most important for Ryde, if you can hold the vultures away from your house and gain a bit more time, then it may be impossible for them to reclaim (repossess) your house! The new regulation will penelize those lenders who did not make proper background checks and they may, according to the news this morning, lose their rights to repossess. But, as l said, to ban the self certified mortgage will cause immense problems and most important of all, slow down any recovery in the housing market. Gustavius

Sued's posts are true, but, with a few important exclusions. Most important is the redemption of the notes which was guaranteed by Lehman Special Funds. This guarantee was in turn guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Europe or similar. So, when the emergency funds dry up and the noteholders wants to redeem their notes, they go to Lehman Special Funds for their cash redemptions. No money is available as Lehman Special Funds and Lehman Brothers Europe are in chapter 11. Consequently, the note holders are trying to cancel their ''contract'' and/or guarantee agreement with Lehman Special Funding as they would otherwise have to wait until the bankrupcy is complete. ln such a case, they would have to wait in the cue for some 10 years, only to receive 10p on the £. By cancelling their agreement they will try to circumvent the bankrupcy process and deal with the spv and the originator directly. Now, they will have to initiate a court action against the spv and the originator who hold the legal titles and charges on our properties. Throughout all of these machinations we have a contract that is not performing and risk an outcome that is not in compliance with our contractual agreement(s). However, it should be noted, as l've said before, that it is not in the administrators and the various other claimants interest to let the noteholders circumvent the normal process as our legal titles are assets in a separate private limited company, that is still working, on paper, and accordingly an asset. Sue is right, though, in her other analysis of the various methods used by the spv's/origiators to realise cash and the absolute ruthlessness they apply in order to achieve their immediate goals, whatever they may be. The thing is, that the whole society and it's very foundation is at risk if this will continue. ln order for most people to have a place to live they must buy their accomodation. For this to work, there must be a number of safeguards in place to assure that no-one gets thrown out on the street willy nilly. That is why we have a contractual agreement with the lender and certain ''rights'' and certain recommendations in place to safeguard both the borrower and the lender, who should also be an investor in long term instruments. When this system breaks down and the government sides with the lender/investor only, irrespective of how he has contractually performed, then the system and ultimately the whole society in it's current form is at threat of breaking down. You cannot contineously kiss the bankers bums in order to ensure a dodgy and uncertain tax income and claim it is on behalf of the very people you screw, i.e. the reasoning that if do not do what the bankers say they will move out and we will lose the very tax income we need to help the unemployed etc. The reality is that we make people homeless and then we have to re-house them in council property as well as pay their unemployment benefit. And, all of this so that a bunch of sociopaths can sit on their fat rears and collect another £500,000.00 bonus for reckless speculations and complete lack of solidarity with the very people who in the end pays for their immoral bonuses. Something is wrong and very sick with the world we live in right now. Gustavius Rex.

l have had a number of vultures after me and who have tried the same tactics. After the CCA and their inability to provide the required documentation, they continued to harass me with demands, solicitors threats of court action and finally offer of a settlement @ 50% discount of the original debt. l ignored all and everything they did and by now they have mostly given up. Be sure that they do not have any original documents and they will not be able to provide any copies of the original documents either. Sit back and relax, nothing is going to happen, except that the hyenas who bought the debt for a tenner will continue to hunt you for a while, but, will eventually give up. They have not got half a leg to stand on and they know it, but, will, as the opportunistic creatures they are, follow you until they are sure your not going to give up. But, nothing real will happen. Gustavius

Ryde, This is exactly what l've been saying from the beginning. The question is only, when will the average Joe realise that he's being royally screwed? GR

Subbing. GR

Here is a bit more food for thought. Not long a agoo l went to court regarding a business debt where the creditor applied for a charge against two properties in my name. My wife and l have separated and the house she lives in is hers, but, the mortgage and legal title are in my name as l could obtain a better mortgage than she. Now, we do have a deed of trust between us, mainly because l have a daughter from a previous marriage and we neede to protect my wife in case l should pop it. l informed the creditors solicitors about the situation and forwarded copies of the deed, which is some 4 years old and witnessed. However, the solicitors decided to ignore the deed and as l said, we ended up in court. The judge awarded the charge to the creditors with the statement to me...''that what goes on behind the curtains at home is of no concern to him, only what the Land Registry says''... lnteresting, if the spv/investors have no direct charge/interest registred in the Land registry, then they have no legal rights to claim anything. Right? No wonder they are desperate to invoke the transfer of the legal titles, or they stand to lose everything they have as they cannot make any legal claim against the property per se. The consequence of this is that if the originators refuse to hand over (transfer) the legal titles as they are assets belonging to working companies, then we will have a major legal battle between the spv/trustee/investor (bond holder) on one side and the originator/administrator on the other side. The question will be where the spv stands as it sold the bonds on ''behalf'' of the originator, but, on paper bought the beneficial part of the mortgage from the originator. Again, this will have major and direct impact on the performance of the mortgage deed contract and we will again be put in a situation where we have no say or control over our deeds and properties. GR