It might not show up as lots of records have been lost during the transfer to computer data but you really should inform them just to put your own mind at rest otherwise you'll always be wondering if it will surface if you do get the job. It's very minor and shouldn't discredit you.

Nothing is seen as spent on the CRB, including cautions however minor,so it's best to honest and hopefully that will pay off. Top politicians have held office despite admitting to chasing the odd dragon or two (that's open for a few jokes) in their Uni days so it shouldn't be a problem. Totally off topic but may make you laugh,or not. Strangely enough I was 'arrested' tonight by 2 police officers knocking on my door whilst I was wrestling with a piece of salmon and had my hands covered with fish scales and bones. Right house number, wrong road and certainly the wrong name. But they have a job to do and I pointed them in the right direction with very smelly hands and it was me that was apologising for getting fish scales on them! No harm done and they were nice chaps who quickly realised their mistake bless 'em.

What do you mean by 'signing the house over'? Is the property mortgaged? It depends on if the transfer was made legally and if adequate consideration was given for his share of the house to be given to you. If his share based on 50/50 was say £50,000 but he only gave you £10,000 then he could be seen as disposing of assets which the court can reverse so he still has an interest in the property.

My question would be to SPML/Capstone. Why do you lie? Even when you are caught out you still insist it's a mistake by the mortgagee, a minor error or an admin. problem At best you offer £50 measly quid compensation for making our lives a misery whilst you feel that it's reasonable to charge extortionate fees as BO2 has listed.

I 2nd Midge but I've also used pm, so check your inbox.

Remind me what sleep is...In fact, remind the courts that it becomes all consuming when you are in the firing line from these numpties:mad:. We need a CAG M.P.

Pt2537, Thanks. So it there an easier way of asking for the data relating to just the account as a joint affair, each being several and liable? And do they have the descretion to just forward the copies to the first named or is it a lottery? I'm a reasonable person (too reasonable) and would have accepted a return of the cheque or an explaination why both parties SAR could not be provided for the fee enclosed. But being lied to is another issue and it's a poor attempt to cover their tracks. EIE, Under their rights they only have to send one copy of everything to the address given and as long as one party is notified it doesn't make a difference if the other receives nothing or it's hidden from them. I tried that route and it had no legal standing, as told by a solicitor. It's worked out to our advantage that individual copies have been sent. As pt2537 said, it's given us a chance to cross reference 2 SARs' that should be the same but aren't. Mine has been hastily done and they have missed a lot that should have fell foul to the dreaded black pen. It's not complete. I've been in touch with the Head Honcho for the past 2 years but not one of their letters is in the SAR and they can't expect me to believe that they don't keep copies that are readily available or they are exempt from the DPA. They haven't provided the libor rate change statements either and the eviction notice they issued 'accidently' is missing. And that's just for starters..

Just to be sure..EIE & JC I sent them an SAR from this site and changed all the the terms to show as we/us. We both signed our names and it was clear that it was a mutual request under one account number jointly held and all contained in one letter. Both our names were included on the address, the account name and finally at the end of the letter which was signed and printed. My OH received his but they said my signature could not validated. I called them and they told me they didn't have a copy of my signature to compare it to and then they changed their story to say it didn't match the ones they had. After threatening them under DPA they agreed to send my copy, which I now have. Capstones covering letter to me says that we should have enclosed £10 per SAR (£20) but on this occasion they are waiving the fee (the extra £10) as a gesture of goodwill! Considering it's both on the same account my OH has entire paragraphs missing from his SAR but mine has very little blacked out. Between us we have a fairly good copy including 3rd parties names that they insisted wouldn't be included under DPA. Can either of you provide a relevent paragraph for the fees saga, which can be included in my next letter? The SAR isn't complete at all by any stretch of the imagination and they have again admitted that they do not have our original file.

I'm very late tuning into this thread but Sooooo... glad to have seen it. Well done nowayjose, I wouldn't do anything now. It's between them and the courts and not up to you to provide them with info at your expense. The only thing you have to do is make sure they pay those costs and that you enjoy your victory. £50 costs is a pathetic amount considering the time spent building a defence and compared to Uncle Bobs nest egg built from the bones of people that were harrassed, chewed up and spat out even if they weren't the debtor or the debt was unenforcable. The sooner the OFT put a stop to this the better, as people are defaulting on mortgages and taxes to pay these rogues and are jumping out of the frying pan for the fear of being bankrupt.

Capstone have told me that the SAR made in both names and for the one mortgage account should have been 2x£10 and not one. It's one account in joint names so surely it's only one request? Who's right?

Is it also right that one account SAR made in both names should be 2 x £10?

Kensington may have also put you on a higher interest rate to reflect the risk in renting the property out. I think you need to start from scratch and send off an SAR so you have all the information to hand that they are likely to use. Only then can you start finding errors and unfair clauses/penalties to use as a defence.

I called the court today to try to get a copy of the original Suspended Repo. order. All the records were destroyed after 2 years and so they can't provide me with one. All that is on file is a short note on their computer. 2 years seems an unusually short time to keep court documents and it seems that I have to enclose a copy of the original for the purposes of N244.

I've contacted the court that dealt with my SRO in 2005 to obtain a copy of the original order. It seems that after 2 years all the documents were destroyed and all that remains is a note on their computer so they are unable to provide the original judgement. Is this usual practise as it seems I'd have to supply a copy of the judgement for the purpose of N244? 2 years for record keeping seems unusually short.

But it is a wider review and all the links in the chain have to be considered. Without the mortgages and securitisation there is nothing left for either the investor as a consumer or the consumer as an investor in the mortgage products and the overall financial pool recorded as Lehmans. The 'structured product market as a whole'. Is not a mortgage classed as structured? There is only one way to find out and I'll let you know tomorrow evening. I prefer facts than pointless assumptions and ambiguous terms. It's no hardship that the FSA is looking at this in whatever context.

That links dead Truro..

Obviously very few people have put forward the SPV issues so far for obvious reasons..it's complicated and it's not easy to get all the documents you need to construct a complaint. But now if looks like we don't have to bother as long as we have a reason to believe it's been securitised, then the FSA can do the rest. But it would be good to download those documents and send them to Capstone asking them to elaborate and to release the details related to your mortgage so you can forward them to the FSA.

But they do say there are only a 'small amount of cases', so if we all add to that list it's going to bump up the figures and they'll HOPEFULLY realise just what a can of worms they have opened and they've only just touched the surface.

The FSA seem to be already looking at the SPV issues. case number: WI-A13

It looks like the FSA already have wind of the SPV issues. case number: WI-A13

EIE, I get your point as I'm familiar with law, but I have to plead some ignorance otherwise they'll know, that I know so to speak. We wouldn't want them to think that we can actually read and understand the law.... I'd rather give them the rope and let them....you can guess the rest. So far it's working ..dumb consumer v even dumber goliath and associates.

The rate for March I was given is 5.8% - product margin of 3.75% so it should be 2.5% rounded up or down.

EIE, That's what I intend to do. If Mortgage Holdings are supposed to be the mortgagee then I am owed an explaination at least as to why this should be and I regard it as my right to be able to contact them directly because it's my insurance and in my name. I too can play the game of not disclosing information about or to 3rd parties without expressed permission.

'I'm not forcing the pace of this. They are.' Well said EIE. The 'toxic assets' are of their own making as we know they had no intention of long-term investment and have tried every trick in book to ensure default by the mortgagor. Surely the term 'right to title' would have no legal standing even if the bank did go bust as neither the LR or the borrow were informed. It seems akin to putting a sticker on Grannies clock just in case she should perish in the hope you get first dividends regardless of a will being made and the debts associated with her estate. One thing we can be sure of is that we are well and truly being stitched up and the securitisation is just a side-line to explore. I think we have enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that they have and are acting unlawfully.

My OH has just come out with a corker and showing their age! Apparantly an SPV is a 'Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle' used in Captain Scarlett and were hidden away in houses and barns. How true that is but of course I'm too young to remember:D. B2B, The SAR sent to my OH says that. 'We have only released the details of ******** as we were not able to accept the other authority provided'. 'Despite extensive searches we are unable to locate the original file'. Against all my usual judgement I called them today asking them to explain just why my 'authority' was not accepted. They explained that they did not have a signature to compare it to and then that changed to it not matching any signature they had . I reminded them that the clock is ticking and the Commissioner will be receiving my complaint if they continue with such ignorance. Hey presto!! Within 2 seconds I was told it would be rushed out by special delivery minus all the important files they have 'lost'. Either way it's going to be a complaint as they have failed to comply with the DPA and sent just the bare minimum. We have an insurance assessor due on Friday so when I know more about the claim I'll be calling Crapstone and asking them which mortgagee is entitled to notification as there seems to be a conflict of interest.