Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About ryde

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Heres the library edition Swift 1st Limited fined over mortgage arrears failings and will pay an estimated £2.35 million in customer redress Tracey McDermott Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. FSA/PN/079/2011 08 September 2011 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Essex based mortgage lender Swift 1st Limited (Swift) £630,000 for unfair treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears. The firm has also agreed to carry out a
  2. BTM if only the powers that be had the courage to do the same here. The latest filip is the FSA fine of Swift Ist for exactly the same crimes as perpetrated by the shower the subject of this thread.Are they next,how long have we all been waiting? see here for the final notice : http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/swift_1st.pdf
  3. Fellow sufferers I have no doubt youre aware of this but could anyone please post up the Swift tarrif of charges which led to this fine,we have exactly the same problems with Capstone that was now renamed Acenden and if the charges are comparable we have a strong and precedental case with the FSA and the OFT as to why this oufit has completely escaped any sort of punishment for crimes of an identical nature. Anyway great news for you,hope swift don't drag their feet refunding that which was never really theirs in the first place(don't forget to claim interest as well!) Swift 1st Limi
  4. Back on the subject of authorisation again. Have looked at dotty's letter from LMC which has some scrawled illegible signature on LMC paper transferring administration from LMC to Capstone. If LMC has no directors or personel who is actually giving authorisation for this and who are the mystery administrators for lmc prior to transfer to Capstone.?? Have capstone been the administrators all along and because of the fuss created are now coming out of the woodwork? We really have to start getting some things nailed down now ,give CH one last chance to do something then if they don't g
  5. So the FSA register as we know is completely out of date attia having resigned some time ago last year,arent they under an obligation to tell the FSA this.The second point being that they say spml are responsible under the FSA for the actions of their agent and that sppl is therefore not regulated by them which asks the question that any agreement made with sppl is therefore NOT a regulated agreement?. Aren't all agreements after a certain timeline regulated under some act?
  6. Jet A slightly personal question which it is obviously up to you to answer but after everythings been paid off,how much equity do you think you have left in the property,I'm asking this as it seems to me you've been through a living nightmare for little if any reward and the last thing you want is creditors on your back after going through this lot. There could be ways to back them into a corner.
  7. eie 2 down 2 to go and as sppl are busted out in reality 1 to go.
  8. Dotty, It therefore follows that your current situation and litigation is an identical situation with that of MWSPML and Jetli in that the unauthorised Capstone are actually bringing proceedings against you as LMC have no personel including directors to either bring or in fact authorise any proceedings against you. It would be worth putting this in your defence along with a print out from CH showing this.You could also ask CH directly for confirmation that LMC have no directors which would be even more damming.. LMC and SPPL borrowers have the strongest case of all for this,unfortunately
  9. eie they've all gone,you remind of the great chinese sage and philospher K.YOU reviled in his time, the very mention of his name to a stranger often resulted in violence and fisticuffs,try it in the street or in a pub to a stranger when someone speaks to you and see, it still applies today.There was also his brother K.OFF similary reviled. Enough of these teenage witterings. We need an action plan of objectives. 1)The purpose of this site is to shut 'em down 2)Initiate viable defences against them,as good as done. The objective is to draft a template letter and keep up the
  10. any mention of the "bad" coming back seems to quadruple them,wonder why?wonder if they're frantically scribbling notes for next weeks case list?
  11. Throw the kitchen sink at the b.stards you never know anything might click. eie Bads been renditioned(hopefully temporarily) so are you the "good" or the other one, its been bugging me all day will have to ask ANW assuming of course she means us as we were the last and most prolific posters.
  12. The first step is to ask mwspml to post the text of the letter without personal details then we can see if we can take it any further. Just the mere casting of doubt can be a lifesaver sometimes. Crapstone posted about it being in the mortgage contract that capstone were administrators but both sced and I never found this with PML so if anyone who is with the other 3 ie sppl/spml/lmc and has their contract at hand can they check this. I would think the administrator would have to be actually named.
  13. eie This is a great idea providing mwspml is prepared to have his personal details disclosed as any other court would require case no,court and DJ I would think. There is also the apparent disclaimer proviso that this is not an instruction of the court, that needs careful examination as the **** would jump on this at any other hearing. Don't wish to be a damp squib but it sounds as though this decision may apply particularly to this set of circumstances and this case and DJ but I would love to be wrong,so please correct me.
  14. I have heard from the CC today saying that the statement made by the DJ as regards to capstone was to be dealt with by spml's solicitors before any future cases were presented in front of him. So in fact this means that in future cases he will ask same and not deal until responded to by spml but this was not to be taken as an instruction of the court, im confused, mwspml This is very important because it questions the authorisation of capstone to act in any capacity for the lender. In the case of sppl they are bringing claims illegally when it is physically impossible to have such
  15. The governing body that refers fraud etc to the SFO in our case is CIB who have been hammered god knows how many times with complaints and still apparently do ..kall. How LMC is still active despite having no directors in clear breach of the Companies Act 2006 is anyones guess,Dotty told them about this 5 months ago and according to the Act they are supposed to have 3 months to put it right. Theyre not even on a strike out warning.
  • Create New...