..put them together as requested...

..that is what I meant.. although I guess didn't read quite like it.. in a sense, it was like somebody flicked a switch at their end as soon as we refused to pay for a charge.. ZillaK

..EIE did I say any of what you allege? @ everyone - searches on the Vertex Group might provide some more background info on everything they're involved with... ZillaK

..thanks for the info in your last post EIE.. it's challenging their charges that seems to have gotten us into trouble with this lot in the first place.. @ everyone.. the use of Vertex fits with a disaster limitation and recovery policy as well as outsourcing certain customer relationship activities.. Vertex were always ruthless in terms of sales and collection teams.. as a company they're also ruthless when it comes to acquisitions & stripping of assets prior to liquidation.. ZillaK ps.. I wonder if they're looking for any temp staff

..might see if I can get any headway with the penalty charges & fees in my case.. they all seem to have disappeared on paper.. but they're certainly still there looking at the balance owed etc... ZillaK

ha.. indeed ..how long have you been hounding them?.. also, can you not register a caution at lr to buy yourself some time to object in case they try to pass title on under your nose? ZillaK

@ Suetonius ..loan with LPL Limited executed after the company changed name to Langersal No2 Limited followed up by documents stating 'as of today, your loan has been legally assigned to Southern Pacific Personal Loans (t/a London Personal Loans), this includes all our rights, title and interest.' The above document was on Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited letterhead. A few years later, and about 6 months ago now, I receive default notices served under the appropriate section of CCA1974 that state 'In respect of loan agreement number xxxxx between 'me' and London Personal Loans, a trading name of Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited.' I have noticed that SPML Limited appear to have registered their title to the charge in March, a few months prior to those defaults. I have received 'new' defaults (that aren't executed in the claimants evidence pack) just a few months ago that now state, 'In respect of the loan agreement xxxxx between 'me' and London Personal Loans Limited, and now transfered to Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited trading as London Personal Loans...' No amended terms and conditions - but the second wave of default notices came with a letter advising that 'a revised default notice is attached containing new and up to date information and I would urge you to read the contents and take appropriate action as soon as possible'... Additionally, the claimants allege in the 'particulars of claim' to such an assignment occurring on a date prior to the execution of the original loan agreement by both parties.. ZillaK ps - EIE you're still with SPPL??.. now that is interesting, and no recent change at the land registry?

..indeed.. I follow what you're saying EIE.. and I do understand the system, this is certainly not my first time through it... ..but in most cases none of us have any evidence in our hand to present to the court for certain aspects.. and in some way to directly challenge that of the claimant for example.. ..I'm just trying to get up to speed on all of this as quick as I can.. unfortunately for some of you old troopers that means I'm going to be asking questions and wanting to debate some of the points from earlier on.. ZillaK

@ EIE - I didn't post the link & quote for the benefit of those that had read it.. but for those that are new to the debates & wanting a quick guide on the various background issues.. I figured by the date of the memorandum that it probably was old material for quite a few.. ..but what do you think will force the kind of necessary disclosure? .. sufficient evidence to raise reasonable doubt that the claimant does not have the legal right? ZillaK

I can't see anyone going to prison for this here either.. maybe a fine yes.. more probably a ticking off though.. however in the US it's quite a different story.. so perhaps, in the not too distant future, some of us will relish what we read in the news about various indictments.. ZillaK

@ EIE ..what in particular are you referring to in your last post? just so I know what you mean... ZillaK

I agree in that the fraud angle is present.. not just at lr or upon the consumer but also the manner in which they are moving assets along the chain, and at the times that they do so, leads me to suspect that there is significant tax evasion too.. ZillaK

..long standing bank account?... with Natwest?... then worth asking for a copy of the id records used to open the account and remind them of their obligations under anti-money laundering legislation to maintain such appropriate records for up to six years after account closure.. ..but wait and see what happens on the other issue first..

hi Wheels60.. ..it really depends what they come back with... sometimes it's an agreement, sometimes nothing at all.. given the date of the loan & re-loan I suspect that it will be something in between in a sense.. ..did they ask for identification when you did the first loan, and then again for the second? ZillaK

h8them posted this link on the securitisation thread.. definitely worth a read.. House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence ZillaK ps - quoted from the above link.. 142 Another legal issue arises here. Strictly speaking the claimant should be the SPV, however, the administrator bank will make the claim in its own name. However, at law, the bank has no locus standi to bring the claim in its own name without informing the court that it is claiming in a representative capacity. The court therefore erroneously assumes the bank's legal standing and is wilfully mislead by the legal ruse to conceal the SPV. At law, the bank has no legal right to bring the claim in its own name and no legal right to obtain a possession order against the borrower.

..intentional sleight of hand imo.. ..almost all of the limited companies involved have t/a names that are similar to or exactly like each other.. easily slipped by unsuspecting and busy administrators because all seems in order when details are only inspected/confirmed on the surface.. ..nobody in their right mind would consider that this may have occurred or may still be occurring across the board.. it's almost unthinkable.. hence the 'beauty' of their fraud.. ..the devil is in the detail as they say.. ZillaK

Hi, Have a look at the following links. There's some rather crucial points to make when seeking to change a 'mistake' relating to a charge against your property. Property Law UK And this one is a more in-depth version of one of the cases: Guy v Barclays Bank Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 452 (09 April 2008) ..some points: '..would have to be on the footing that her case fell squarely within the words "For the purposes of correcting a mistake." '..Then the judge quoted a passage from Ruoff and Roper on Registered Conveyancing which takes the view that the reading of "a mistake" is narrow and the concept of mistake is restricted to mistake in registration..' '23. With the greatest of respect to what Judge Langan says there, and I understand perfectly why he took the view that he did, it seems to me that it is necessary to grasp the nettle of what is meant by "mistake". In that respect, while the scope of the phrase "correcting a mistake" is no doubt something that requires to be explored and discussed and developed in the course of future litigation, which will be decided upon the facts and upon the merits of each case, I cannot see that it is arguable that the registration of the charge can be said to have been a mistake, or the result of a mistake, unless at the least Mr Guy can go so far as to show that the bank, the mortgagee, had either actual notice, or what amounts to the same, what is referred to as "Nelsonian" or "blind eye notice", of the defect in the title of the mortgagor, Ten Acre Limited in the present case. I simply cannot see how it could be argued that if the purchaser or chargee knows nothing of the problem underlying the intermediate owner's title, that the registration of the charge or sale to the ultimate purchaser or chargee can be said to be a mistake. That seems to me inconsistent with the structure and terms of the 2002 Act. So the question is whether Mr Guy can show an arguable case, on the evidence, for saying that Barclays Bank had actual notice or was turning a blind eye to matters that it knew, which would if it addressed them properly, have shown it that Ten Acre Limited did not have a good title to the property.' May make some changes to the above as I read through any other available cases... ZillaK ps - remember this too - 'but by virtue of Section 58 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and the other provisions of that Act the register is conclusive, subject only to its rectification pursuant to the provisions of the Act itself.'

..some really good recent posts on here.. thanks!! ..will look into everything and see what I can do.. littledotty - is it possible for you to pm me please - with a breakdown of the steps taken in complaining etc.. so that I can do the same where poss... ..likewise with anyone else who has suggestions.. I have done a little research into some case law re: transfers of charges etc and will start a new thread on it.. there's a couple of key points that must be attended to in order to progress anything in this area.. ..but it may be worthwhile arranging for a personal inspection of your land registry documents (form PIC) & also request that you wish to inspect copies of the applications/supporting documentation relating to the charges in question, and any variations to the charge & supporting documents etc.. ZillaK

.. a link to another article on this: http://www.hammonds.com/FileServer.aspx?oID=22791 I also have a similar agreement albeit with minor variations, wouldn't mind a second opinion on it & as to how relates to the linked case/appeal etc.. ..any one care to lend an eagle-eye? ZillaK

Hi Barracad.. I realised a while after posting that you were probably thinking about broadcast production for network TV.. I was thinking more along the lines of lo-fi & community based projects, perhaps picking up some assistance from the teaching centres... but streamed online.. using sponsorship and suitable advertising to help put some revenue back into it.. Sounds like you've got some worthwhile experience however & today's lo-fi is very high in quality combined with ease of use.. ZillaK

..ha.. I'd certainly consider my contribution yes.. ..perhaps it's something the site team can float about a bit.. maybe the membership might throw up a few surprises..there's enough talent in this forum and more than enough content to be had.. ..maybe they could hook up with some other projects too.. ZillaK

..actually, they can still gain by the time you consider mortgage indemnity insurance, offsetting losses against tax as well as possible sneaky accounting, bleeding you dry and selling off your organs, selling the debt on etc etc.. ..recessions are very profitable indeed unfortunately.. boom and bust by design.. ..hopefully there's some helpful suggestions from other posters later.. ZillaK