Thank you for this and for your posting on the other thread. I am getting up to speed on this one, many thanks for your support.

It was for £15000 and taken out in 2006. I was told by Acenden's' customer liaison officer that Acenden were not required to abide by OFT rules or guidelines. I rang the OFT who told me that the OFT does not regulate secured loans as these are the province of the FSA. Both of them were wrong to my mind. Thanks for your response. My game plan now is to appeal the FSO ruling that Acenden were entitled to repossess my house on the basis that we had a late payment as their action breached a number of clauses in OFT "guidance for lenders and brokers" I can see why MCOB rules do not apply as it is a second charge loan but the OFT guidance has very similar wording.

Thanks apple, I think I now get this. So Eurosail 1NC needed a CCL for the very early period when it was floating the Mortgage Notes on the Irish and London Stock Exchange and when the charitable Trust arrangements were being set up. Now that has been done Eurosail 1NC no longer needs it for its current role and the significance of March 2012 is that it was a five year licence which has now lapsed. As 1NC was an early one the rest of the SPV's will presumbably be letting their CCL's lapse as well and we should see this over the coming months. So is this important to us? Well, not on the surface of it, however, in the case of second charge loans, the FSO has jurisdiction only over companies with CCL's, so unless I've missed something the SPV's will be out of the FSO's reach - for the second charge loans anyway. Please tell me I'm wrong......

Thanks for responses. It is a relatively small second charge loan governed by the CCA 1974. As I see it, a CCA 1974 loan should be regulated by the OFT - which means that the Guidelines on Unfair Practice should apply. However, Acenden (and at the moment they are being backed by the FSO) say they are not regulated by the OFT. The OFT themselves disclaim responsibility as it is a secured loan and they say it is regulated by the FSA. The FSA do not regulate second charge loans, so strictly do MCOB rules apply at all? So I have a regulated CCA agreement secured against my property which appears to be neither regulated by the OFT or the FSA. Eurosail as I have mentioned elsewhere do not have a CCL although they say in their prospectus they will obtain one. It is not my strongest argument but I there is a mis-selling point here. When you sign up to a loan and sign a consumer credit agreement at the back of your mind you expect that this agreement would be regulated, ie there is a regulatory body behind it, that it is a legal document that confers rights and duties for both parties. Caro thanks for your post. By all means move this thread. I would have done so but I did not know how. I had a frontloaded PPI and I am hopeful I will have this refunded through the FSCB.

I will post extracts from this decision later on today. The rest of the decision was not good news and I will be challenging it. Acenden started legal proceedings in August 2011 for repossession after we were late paying in May last year. We made the payment up in full within three weeks so we have had no missed payments at all and all arrears solely consist of charges, nearly all of which they have agreed to refund. The FSO have upheld Acenden's right to repossess on the grounds of one late payment. The application for repossession was made one month into the statutory period that Acenden have to answer a complaint from us - which was for the unfair charges to be reimbursed - and under the OFT guidelines for unfair practice, taking legal action whilst they are considering a reasonable complaint is defined as an unfair practice ( according to the OFT. I would argue that if a practice is "unfair" under OFT rules then they are in breach of the FSA requirement to "Treat Customers Fairly") As our complaint was successful it was of course "reasonable"!!!! I also argue they have breached a number of MCOB rules as well as their action was blatantly not after all attempts to negotiate had failed, as we were paying the monthly contractual payment with an overpayment according to an arrangement. Although they agreed to remove many of the charges in response to our complaint (and have subsequently agreed to remove others in response to our complaint through the FSO) and agreed in October last year to adjourn their application for repossession they refused to remove their application from the listings and told us they could only do so in person - which is a lie - so for six weeks the repossession application appeared on the court listings until the day of the hearing in December. We have now been charged £414 for their adjourned application, which presumably includes the cost of travel across the country to remove the application - something they could have done in five minutes on-line - and we do not see why we should pay for an action they should never have taken. Had we gone into court we think the judge would have probably dismissed their case for repossession so it was a vexatious application in any event. Presumably Acenden were hoping we would not defend the case and not attend and they could get our house without a fight. I have complained about their refusal to abide by OFT guidelines and Acenden say they do not have to. I'd like to know why as it is a consumer credit act agreement. I would also like to know why the FSO thinks they neither have to abide by OFT guidelines or MCOB rules and why Eurosail does not have a consumer credit agreement but the FSO to date has refuse to answer these points. Not giving up on this one. anybody out there with any advice or experience with MCOB? Sappho

I will post extracts from this decision later on today. The rest of the decision was not good news and I will be challenging it. Acenden started legal proceedings in August 2011 for repossession after we were late paying in May last year. We made the payment up in full within three weeks so we have had no missed payments at all and all arrears solely consist of charges, nearly all of which they have agreed to refund. The FSO have upheld Acenden's right to repossess on the grounds of one late payment. The application for repossession was made one month into the statutory period that Acenden have to answer a complaint from us - which was for the unfair charges to be reimbursed - and under the OFT guidelines for unfair practice, taking legal action whilst they are considering a reasonable complaint is defined as an unfair practice ( according to the OFT. I would argue that if a practice is "unfair" under OFT rules then they are in breach of the FSA requirement to "Treat Customers Fairly") As our complaint was successful it was of course "reasonable"!!!! I also argue they have breached a number of MCOB rules as well as their action was blatantly not after all attempts to negotiate had failed, as we were paying the monthly contractual payment with an overpayment according to an arrangement. Although they agreed to remove many of the charges in response to our complaint (and have subsequently agreed to remove others in response to our complaint through the FSO) and agreed in October last year to adjourn their application for repossession they refused to remove their application from the listings and told us they could only do so in person - which is a lie - so for six weeks the repossession application appeared on the court listings until the day of the hearing in December. We have now been charged £414 for their adjourned application, which presumably includes the cost of travel across the country to remove the application - something they could have done in five minutes on-line - and we do not see why we should pay for an action they should never have taken. Had we gone into court we think the judge would have probably dismissed their case for repossession so it was a vexatious application in any event. Presumably Acenden were hoping we would not defend the case and not attend and they could get our house without a fight. I have complained about their refusal to abide by OFT guidelines and Acenden say they do not have to. I'd like to know why as it is a consumer credit act agreement. I would also like to know why the FSO thinks they neither have to abide by OFT guidelines or MCOB rules and why Eurosail does not have a consumer credit agreement but the FSO to date has refuse to answer these points. Not giving up on this one. anybody out there with any advice or experience with MCOB? Sappho

Just had a modest victory from the FSO. Had a number of charges refunded on the grounds that when I was making the monthly contractual payment on time they were wrong to impose late arrears fees or litigation fees despite the fact there were uncleared arrears (from past charges)

Just had a modest victory from the FSO. Had a number of charges refunded on the grounds that when I was making the monthly contractual payment on time they were wrong to impose late arrears fees or litigation fees despite the fact there were uncleared arrears (from past charges)

Well, I am in the dark too. Though I live in hope I don't for a minute think this is a magic bullet - though it would be a good one to fling down in front of a judge. Cause a delay if nothing else. i think it is yet another anomaly caused by the nonsense that is securitisation. What exactly is the SPV? It's not a broker, a mortgage company, it services the loans for their own investors but at arm's length, does not engage with the consumer (as you rightly point out Crapstone) other than to take the borrower to court and take their property off them. Indeed we don't even have a loan anymore it's an MBS. Eurosail 1NC did use to have a CCL until it lapsed which implies that it did need one in the past, and the other Eurosails all have CCL's. Acenden themselves say quite firmly that Eurosail 1NC DOES have a licence. Something may come out of this. Sappho

Just got a response from the Office of Fair Trading. The SPV's do need a CCL. They have told me to take it up with the FSO whilst they investigate, so yet another wait for an answer!!!!

Thanks for this. So only the administration company needs to be licensed?

Never got the Mortgage Sale Agreement but the TR4 is interesting. It shows the beneficial interest of the Eurosail from the inception of the loan. It also shows that the transferor and transferee of the loan are both Sunil Masson, a director of Eurosail, signing away the loan with the power of attorney set up when the loan was sold on. So there is nothing to link the Eurosail with SPPL on the TR4. The Land Registry apparently cleared the wholesale transfer of the loans in London and apparently did the checks of the power of attorney and the mortgage sale agreements centrally so the registrars who were in local LR offices never ever saw the agreements which linked SPPL and the SPV and just rubber stamped them. This means that the Land Registry documents for the properties that are used for the security do not have the MSA and the PoA documents with them as they are held elsewhere so you cannot get at them through the LR. Do you think it is worth trying to get hold of the MSA?

i found out today that the SPV with whom I have the loan, Eurosail UK 2007 1NC PLC, lost its credit licence in March of this year, and is down to one director (source Companies House) The OFT told me when I rang them and asked about the lapsed credit licence that the company had more than likely ceased trading! Being without a licence makes it a criminal act to take any legal action, and must surely make the loans and mortgage agreements unenforceable?

Well, the mortgage sale agreement is proof the originator sold the loan for a full consideration. Prospectus spells out in detail the registration gap wrangle. The TR4 (Land Registry transfer document) which names the SPV as having the beneficial interest in the loan following the sale, and also shows that the transferor and transferee are one and the same, as the transferor (the SPV) was been given power of attorney to sign over the loan. Somewhere on the net, and I lost the link, I tracked down the reference that showed my SPV redeemed the loan in 2009, after I had been driven into default. Cannot find the link but it's there somewhere. I assume this was the credit-default swap but I have never got my head around this part of it and I now cannot pick up the trail I followed. The requirement to sell on the house within 90days in the current climate means a very hefty discount to guarantee the sale. The alleged costs of the forced sale - anecdotal evidence on this site and others..... It's all there. But what to do about it? None of it appears to be illegal.

The originator of the loan got paid out in full by the SPV as soon as the loan agreement was signed. The SPV - after manufacturing a default by imposition of charges, "lost" payments and vexatious litigation - got paid out in full by CSDs The SPV continues to receive payouts - LIBOR interest + spurious charges whilst loan in running - getting paid out in full + extras The Investors get a house at a 60% or more discount when property is finally taken off the borrower by the courts, which can be sold on with profit - yet another payout...... I don't really have words for this.

Whereas Applecart's advice is not likely to bring about an effective legal remedy for all the reasons that contributors to this thread have outlined, I for one would be more than happy if Acenden were put under pressure by being inundated with requests for clarification of the current situation regarding LIBOR along the lines that Applecart advised. Otherwise, those of us on LIBOR mortgages are forced to have to sit on our hands and do nothing. It is shocking that Ministers are happy to state that "only" 250 000 loans and mortgages have been affected. That's 250 000 at the time that the LIBOR rate was being fiddled with. A very sizeable percentage, in fact the majority, of these must be Lehmans loans and mortgages. Barclays took over Lehmans. Lehmans victims are at the heart of this scandal.

I am currently paying 51% of my income by an attachment of earnings order on my salary to pay back council tax arrears which built up because when I was unemployed and on JSA. I was on "rapid reclaim" which the council determined as being "back to work" though I only had occasional casual work and my income was at benefit level. My beef is that the legal charges are £1600. Has anyone successfully challenged legal charges because this figure seems excessive and unrelated to actual work done? Can they impose punitive legal charges or are they bound merely to pass on the actual costs of legal action? I am considering asking for a breakdown of their bill and taking them to the Ombudsman if they refuse and I would be interested to know if anyone has been down this route. I wish I had been allowed to go to court to argue the "rapid reclaim" point but I was told that I would not be allowed to speak to the judge.

OK, so SPML sold your loan to Eurosail before the ink was dry. Eurosail floated the notes as part of a portfolio on Irish Stock Exchange and used money raised to pay off SPML, who retained the legal title. All that you have ever paid eventually ended up in the Eurosail company. SPML may not yet have transferred the loan to Eurosail. If they do you will be told and the registration at the Land Registry will be changed. SPML are a shell company. Don't bother trying to contact them, or the Eurosail company, you will just get through to Acenden. This issue of "who owns my loan" is a bit of a red herring and my advice to you is do not allow yourself to get sidetracked. Everything they do is inside the law.

In answer to your post. you need to post what originator you were with - SPPL, SPML, London, Preferred or whatever. And then post what the current owner is, you will have been told when they finally transferred the loan- probably a Eurosail company or Southern Pacific Securities. The answer will probably be that Eurosail "owns" the loan; and the loan is held in trust by the Bank of New York Corporate Trustees Ltd. It's up to you whether you think this is disreputable!!! the originator can sell the loan without telling you but must tell you if the sale is registered with the Land Registry. all this was of course on the website.

Mmmm, definately calls the transfer to the SPV a "true sale" so how can the originator retain legal title and keep suing borrowers?

Thank you Lea for your advice and for showing me the way forward. Will act upon this. Many thanks Sappho

We have 80% equity in the property. We had a 17 year mortgage, and are ten years into it and are currently in the capital repayment period, so we did not think our request was unreasonable.

Yes, we have a smallish loan with Acenden, who threaten us with repossession frequently though we have overpaid on the loan, and we owe council tax. The council is trying to get an attachment of earnings order, and we need to reduce our outgoings otherwise we will not be able to make the secured loan payments.

We have a first mortgage with HSBC. It has run for ten years and we are now in the capital repayment period. We have applied to them to pay interest only whilst we sell our house. It has been on the market since July and we have potential buyers but are waiting for them to complete the sale of their own property. Cutting our mortgage payments at this time would help as we are really struggling at the moment and we do not want to be repossessed. We are currently not in arrears, but have other debts which are causing us difficulties. HSBC's response is that they will only help us if we are going through a divorce or are redundant and will not consider our proposal. Has anybody any advice on how to persuade them? We do not want to be forced to split up but it seems the only option they are giving us.

Acenden's default tools and its use of information sources to predict probabilities of default means that there must be wodges of data over and above what they need to manage the account, which as we know they are bewilderingly incompetent at doing. This info must be subject to the Data Protection Act, which means that it can be requested. I know a lot of victims have done a SAR, but this kind of intelligence gathering I suspect wouldn't turn up as a result of a request unless it was precisely worded.