Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

CosmosBipinnatus

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CosmosBipinnatus

  1. If you go to the FOS, remember that the assessors are trained to throw most of the complaints out. When a FOS assessor does that to you, you write back and say that their response is not acceptable and that you want your complaint to go to an ombudsman.
  2. Acenden is the sole data controller for SPML-originated mortgages so you write to Acenden, not to SPML. Acenden's address is on the web, isn't it?
  3. To note: since the Appeal Court decision, Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) (2016), they have to obtain the court's permission. Then there has to be a hearing because summary judgments in this sort of proceeding is probibited by the Civil Procedure Rule CPR 24.3 (2) (a) (i). Also, giving you only two weeks notice sounds as if Lloyds have tried to use the High Court route. But, to ‘transfer up’ a County Court possession order for enforcement in the High Court, permission of the court is required pursuant to CPR 83.13(8). And form N293A for transfer to the High Court for enforcement of a possession order of the County Court cannot be used other than for possession orders against trespassers. http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/enforcement-possession-transferring-up-are/ Anyway, the most important thing is to lodge a N244 Application, mentioning that since the Appeal Court decision the lender has to obtain the court's permission to enforce a possession order. This is not advice, just information that may be helpful. Go to Shelter, with this information, too, after you have lodged your N244 Application at the court (AND OBTAIN A RECEIPT). Edited to add: keep your head, and good luck.
  4. If the judge makes a Suspended Possession Order then that is what it is, eviction suspended on terms. An outright possession Order has no terms. I do know of one instance in which Acenden failed to obtain an outright possession Order and then outrageously "scrambled" the dates on the Order that was issued to try make it work as an outright possession Order, at least for long enough to obtain a bailiff's warrant (before this latest Appeal Court decision). this Appeal Court decision does apply to mortgagors https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/blog/housing-blog/permission-required-for-warrant-of-possession
  5. There was an appeal last October that has changed that. They would have to ask the court's permission, first. http://www.owenwhite.com/suspended-possession-orders-permission-apply-warrant/ But this does not apply where the lender has been granted an outright possession order. Edited to add: this was to do with a tenant of a local authority. I assume it also refers to mortgage borrowers (it would be unfair if it didn't) but I am trying to find out for sure. My reading of Civil Procedure Rule 83.2 is that this appeal decision applies to mortgage borrowers, too. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-83-writs-and-warrants-general-provisions#83.2
  6. Hi, your experience is absolutely typical of Acenden's (mis)management of mortgage accounts. Yes, I know of people who have been refunded THOUSANDS in fees/charges. Make sure you send your SAR to the correct postal address for Acenden (they moved in the past year).
  7. Why would you make mortgage repayments to Acenden/Capstone - they are not and never have been the lender. I don't know - try your bank? You need to get up to speed on "due legal process". Acenden routinely misrepresents the facts. Yes, although they may mean that they have decided which date to ask the judge to approve. I think this is to try to force you to make another, different - "better", from their point of view- payment arrangement offer. I haven't checked back through the thread but it may be that your offer was so reasonable that there is some danger of a judge approving it. Very likely, in my experience. They have to get a court Order. Evictions/repossession is meant to be a last resort. Keep a record of your payments. But, above all, you need to get on the front foot. Acenden want your property. In your place, I would write and tell Acenden that you forbid them to have their "specialist team" review the needs of your children, as that would be a breach of their privacy rights. Acenden don't have a specialist team like this, it is just another trick to add even more charges to your account. Yes, do complain to the FOS. Look at the FOS web site, print off or complete the form on-line. Include everything.
  8. In early January 2015, after it was bought out of administration by part of BlackRock, Acenden ceased to be part of the Lehman Group and thus ceased to have any connection with SPML in the company law meaning of connection. That is why they do not have locus standii to instruct solicitors in possession claims against anyone with an SPML-originated mortgage. (SPML is still part of the Lehman Group, although - last time I looked - it had no premises and no employees.) I don't know enough about your circumstances to comment on why they've gone for your ex.
  9. If your mortgage repayments are made to one of the Eurosails, then also tell your solicitor that, as SPML has not been the beneficiary of the legal charge for years (not since the SPML-originated mortgages were securitised), they too do not have locus standii to conduct possession claims unless they are joined as Claimants by the relevant Eurosail. If your mortgage repayments are normally made to Eurosail, then never ever - is my advice - make any payment direct to SPML or Acenden.
  10. Tell your solicitor that, since being bought out of administration in January 2015 by part of the giant equity group BlackRock, Acenden ceased to have locus standii (no longer had "skin in the game") to instruct solicitors in possession proceedings against anyone with an SPML-originated mortgage. That they continued to do so is, I believe, contempt of court and worse. Edited to add: and their solicitors are in contempt for accepting Acenden's instruction in possession proceedings after January 2015 against borrowers with SPML-originated mortgages.
  11. No, not bought them, just won a contract to administer these in their own unique way.
  12. Hi, what sort of mortgage do you have? I've looked back quickly at the start of this thread: is it an SPML-originated first-charge mortgage? The reason I ask is that, as far as I can tell, since January 2015 Acenden have not had locus standii to instruct solicitors to conduct possession proceedings against any borrower with an SPML-originated mortgage.
  13. In case of interest, on this recent blog entry (my embolding) by Professor David Rosen, https://litigantsinperson.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/i-received-a-default-judgment-what-do-i-do/
  14. Makes sense. You've nothing to lose by going to the FOS but do give it your best shot. You can prepare your complaint to FOS and have it all ready to submit. Anyway, better to start the New Year with your complaint. Acenden not acknowledging or replying is another "black mark" against them; be sure to note it in your complaint to FOS, if they still have not done so in the next five weeks; courts don't like organisations not responding.
  15. I said that I had not been able to get much sense out of the FOS but I do know someone who has covered a lot of ground - got £'000s in fees and unfair charges refunded - in the past year. And my situation was a bit unusual. You are contemplating STARTING a court claim which means that all the burden of proving your case is on you. The other side only has to find a technicality that you have overlooked, and you will lose your case; and then you will be forced to pay the other side's costs which, I can assure you, will have been massively inflated. As I say, not only is starting a court claim very expensive and indescribably stressful, you could lose "on a technicality" and then have to pay the other side's enormous legal costs. On the other hand, going to the FOS is free, and if then the FOS found for you but the other side did not comply with whatever the FOS told them to do you would have a much stronger case. The courts take a lot of interest in what the FOS decision is. Lastly, you can go to court after going to the FOS. You cannot go to the FOS after you have gone to court or once you have started legal proceedings. Do yourself a favour and go to the FOS. You have nothing to lose by doing that, whereas you could lose everything by going to court. The other thing is that, in my experience, the other side routinely lies to the court.
  16. I am sorry but this is dangerously misleading. The FCA still exists; its predecessor was the FSA. The FOS will be interested if you make a good case (and, if you are rejected initially by the Assessor, just say his/her decision is not acceptable to you and you wish your complaint to be considered by an ombudsman). The FOS is free. Going to court is NOT QUICKER and if you lose YOU PAY THE OTHER SIDE'S COSTS. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough: If. You. Lose. You. Will. Be. Liable. The compound interest applies, irrespective of how this is dealt with.
  17. Litigation is meant to be a last resort, after you have exhausted all other avenues of coming to an agreement (sometimes referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution). If you go to court without being able to show that you have tried all the other ways, you risk being knocked back by the judge for not having done everything to avoid going to court, and then you will have lost - in which case YOU will have to pay the OTHER SIDE'S COSTS. As Acenden uses both solicitors and barristers, their costs would be astronomical. Only go to court if you are ready to lose. In your place, I would make a formal complaint to the FOS and ask them to make a decision about this.
  18. Dunno, not enough to go on. Whatever their reason for doing so, it is likely it was to make things easier for themselves in the event of wanting possession. As they have used her maiden name, maybe it was to give the impression that she was a commonlaw wife; I am not up to date on these things but I know that for the past 20 years or so no spouse can lock out the other spouse. Commonlaw wives may not have that protection in law.
  19. It looks as if they were trying to save themselves the trouble of having to find out - in the event that they start a possession claim - whether or not your partner had any rights to the property (the "security").
  20. No, of course they cannot lawfully refuse to give you details of fees they are making you or expecting you to pay. Complain to the FOS, as UncleBulgaria67 suggests.
  21. If you do issue a claim in the county court, make sure you are claiming against the correct company. (My emboldening and italics.) And the company that now has "irrevocable power of attorney" in respect of Kensington mortgages securitised to Trinity Square 2006-1 (Special Purpose Vehicle) is Source: prospectus for Trinity Square 2006-1 plc. The "Issue Date" is 24 February 2016 But if your mortgage has been "securitised" to Trinity Square 2006-1 plc (I think all Kensington Mortgages have been but you would need to check), then you'd probably have to issue the claim to three Defendants: 1. Trinity Square 2016-1 plc, registered number is 9939041, registered office is at 35 Great St. Helen's, London EC3A 6AP, who are the "beneficiary of the legal charge" of securitised loans; 2. Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd (see details in my earlier reply), who are the "legal titleholder", ie they own the name of the mortgage. 3. Northview Group, who own Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd. I am not a lawyer, though, so please check everything on your own behalf. Interestingly, Trinity Square 2006-1 plc appears to have directors in common (all of them) with Tulip Mortgages Ltd (company number 09242357, incorporated 30 September 2014). Another securitisation company lined up, perhaps ...? One director of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Trinity Square 2006-1 plc is John Paul Nowacki (aged 37) who has at least 237 other directorships, active and non-active. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/w_M9az91OHWJ2V1jabXjjTKbgek/appointments That is an absurd number of directorships for one person to hold but it looks as if these all have to do with a specialism: siphoning £ billions in equity out of UK property. (See also references elsewhere to Papilio equity release.) I have also found a headshot photo of the weasel but I won't upload it here. To correct one typo: should read
  22. Others have managed to get some sense out of the FCA - I couldn't - and you might, too. But I am sure the same would apply, about legal proceedings. The FCA wouldn't be able to consider your complaint if legal proceedings were already started. No. You have not read SPML's own accounts filed at Companies House.
  23. No because my mortgage was one of those that, after selling it to Eurosail, SPML had not "perfected" the sale in order to give the impression that it still owned the loan.
  24. Yes. But in your covering letter to the FOS, make it very clear that you have not yet initiated legal proceedings and that you are making a complaint to the FOS in order to exhaust all other alternatives to going to court (as everyone is expected to do - litigation is meant to be a last resort). As I say, the FOS will not consider a complaint in which legal proceedings have already started.
  25. The problem here is that the six months period since Acenden's final response letter has elapsed. SPML is not a bank; Acenden is not a bank. In the past, the FOS has upheld the debtor's complaint against SPML/Acenden about penalty charges.
×
×
  • Create New...