Sorry folks it has been a long time since I have logged in to the site. Can anybody quickly let me know why Capstones are now talking about Eurosail applying for repossession?? I seem to recall there was some discussion a year or so ago about possible fraud when mortgages were originally taken out, due to SPML not disclosing that Eurosail were party to the original agreement? Maybe I got confused or maybe something significant has happened that I have missed. Anyone save me from reading through a years worth of thread! Regards to all

I no longer have a mortgage with SPML but they owe me money for charges and an enormous ERC of £20k+. I want this money back so please count me in GR. Dangermouse

l am convinced the unfair terms in consumer contracts more than cover our case. Posted by Gustavius Rex I agree, I am sure this is what we need to concentrate on, I have raised this with the FOS re: Capstone about 10 months ago. Dangermouse Dangermouse

My darling Crapstone, l think you just nailed it all down in a few beutiful sentences. Better to stay cool and not like me, right now, flaring up in anger. l've stated time after time that there was never any intention of the lender to fullfill his contractual agreement. But, you went around that and formulated the intention better, i.e, intention for the contract to be fullfilled. This is where the entire case rests, if we can prove and we should be able to do so, then we were led to believe we had a straight forward mortgage contract agreement, why, in reality we had a short term loan agreement with the sole intention of either having us to re-mortgage or lose our homes. ln other words, we are the victims of fraud. Super, super Crappis. Gustavius YES YES, You are there now

EIE I am quiet but following with interest! Dangermouse

Hi Correct, it is not that there is 'nothing to show', the fact is that SPML is not in administration. Dangermouse

Hi Crapstone Sorry I haven't read it.....will do it now!

No probs...Sue's link is the first document I have seen mentioning Mable (other than my own) Dangermouse

That looks interesting. Dangermouse

SPML is owned by Mable Commercial Funding Ltd which is part of Lehman. Mable is in receivership. Dangermouse

I wonder if the lawyers who handled the Ameriquest class action are an international firm with offices in London? Dangermouse

Hi Guys I took out an igroup lsecured oan of £30k in 2004 through London & Scottish. I settled it in 2006. Does anyone have any idea whether it is worth sending SAR? Dangermouse

Thanks Spam I feel very happy, the barrister on the other side was very dejected having been quite snotty before we went in. To make me even happier, the solicitors acting for the other side sent me the account for their costs of today's hearing (received when I got home). Presumably they were expecting that I was going to have to pay their £3.5k! Dangermouse

I won Thanks for the advice tx20. Dangermouse

I just had a look at the Ministry of Justice website regarding set aside. It states in section 12.3 Conditions to be satisfied " Rule 6.17 provides that where the claim form is served by the Claimant, the Claimant may not obtain default judgment unless a certificate of service has been filed" When I said that the court may have erred, it was because the court itself served the claim form on the defendant & the defendant received it. When I applied for default judgment, the court office stated that I needed to supply a certificate of service. I explained that the court had served the claim & eventually I was given the judgment. Dangermouse

X20 He has provided no evidence that the money is not due & as I have said paid half what was due after judgment was entered. I don't know for sure that the court messed up, I only say this because I followed the court's instructions to the letter to obtain judgment. The exact phrase of the other side on the N244 application is that judgment should be set aside because ' it was incorrectly entered as the claim had not been properly served and the court had not been provided with a certificate of service' Dangermouse

sorry about that & thanks

Hi I dont want to hijack this thread by I have a quick question about GE. I had a £30k loan with Igroup/GE taken out through London Scottish & with PPI. Ididn't get into arrears or anything but I did settle it after 10 months, payimg a big erc. This was in 2004. Does anyone know whether igroup were involved with secret commissions etc? Dangermouse

Hi all Any help please as I am in court tomorrow afternoon. However, I am the claimant in this case not the defendant. I obtained a default judgment against a citizen of another commonwealth country, I went through all the proper procedures, aplied for permission ex juris etc etc. However, I do think that the court messed up in the advice they gave me. The court served the claim form which I was a bit surprised about, the court then dealt a week later with my application to serve ex-juris. The ex-juris was granted but extended the time for reply to claim form to 21 days. I also sent a copy of the claim form to the defendant. The defendant had his lawyer call the court when he received the documents and this has been acknowledged in his witness statement. He also emailed me when he received it. I eventually applied for judgment in default as the defendant didn't contest jurisdiction or put in a defence. The upshot was that when the defendant received notification of the judgment he sent me through his lawyer £35,000 which was a part payment. That was in April 2008. I have been chasing him for the balance of the money (which is not inconsiderable) and he has now applied to the county court here in the UK to have the judgment set aside on the basis that there was some irregularity in service. The defendant made an ex-parte application for it to be dealt with without a hearing, although the court decided a hearing would have to be held. This is being heard tomorrow at 14:00. I have already written to the court stating 1/ The Defendant has no prospect of a defence (there are signed documents by him and his lawyer about the monies owed) 2/ That if he had a problem with the judgment he should have applied to have t set aside over a year ago. As I understand it, the Defendant is trying to claim that I did not supply the court with a certificate of service. In fact the court would not give me the Judgment until I wrote them a letter statng that the court itself had served the claim but that I had also sent a copy. Does anybody have any idea about the CR rules on this? Is the power to set aside judgment, a discretionary ower of the judge? My argument would be. a) There is no doubt the claim was received. b) There is no doubt that the Defendant new that the ex-juris application had been granted. c) The Defendant has offered no evidence at all that he has already paid the amounts & hasn't (cannot) challenge the fact that there are documents stating that the money is owed. d) The Defendant has not applied in a timely manner. c) The defendant has also accepted liability by paying me half the money. Can anybody help me with a form of words that I can use to 'sum up' my objection to the set aside? Help.... Dangermouse There is no doubt that the defendant received the claim form

"I want to develop the argument here and then refine it...." well said EiE Dangermouse

Some companies like Kensington don't use LIBOR they use SVR (Standard Variable Rate ) plus a %age. I had assumed for a long time that it was LIBOR + and was not at all happy when I checked the documentation! Dangermouse

wow that is a turn for you, lucky you. Mine goes to Standard Variable Rate plus 3.9% next march! Dangermouse

GR I got as far as personal insult....what are you talking about? Dangermouse

Well you agree with me GR, that is where I think a possible action lays. These lenders were 'churning' the borrowers to get every drop of lifeblood from them. Having been through the re-mortgage mangle a few times the remaining 'husks' are thrown away. But that doesn't matter since all the juice 'equity' has been extracted by the banks who have filled their boots with fees. The fuel/fodder for this process has always been more and more mugs like us, to keep the gravy train running for them. The banks/brokers were in danger of running out of qualified consumers so to keep the fees being generated they the 'spiral' is designed to continually lower their criteria so that they would effectively lend to anyone (including Ryde's ex and her boyfriend), anyone that is who had some equity/value to be extracted. The banks wouldn't listen when there were warnings that the property prices might drop, they were more interested that the momentum was sustained and the fees kept coming in. So, the saying goes that you only catch out those swimming without trunks when the tide goes out. Property prices start to drop and the failures inevitibly start, failures for consumers who have been 'missold' mortgages that they could not afford or rather that the banks that 'lured' into the downward spiral of lower lending criteria & higher rates until the consumer is an exhausted husk and thrown out of the system (& their home) as they are of have no further use. GR, we cannot eat this elephant whole, we all know how much legal actions of this nature will cost but we have to eat the elephant in little bites and the first bite is to get a firm legal opinion. There are many well meaning people on this site who offer their opinions but we do not know whether they are legally savvy or not. I say lets get a legal opinion first and then decide how we proceed. Remember, if indeed there is evidence of the 'olive press' nature of this being correct, then this maybe the basis of a serious class action against the DIRECTOR'S personally. Dangermouse

As starters I think you can still register a caution with the land registry. (they call it something else now). You can register this without notification to preferred or with notification. Either way it might slow up the process (have a look at land registry online) I spent 7 days in the High court as a litigant in person myself....I know how you feel. I am not clear how your ex could have re-mortgaged the property with your restriction in place...surely you must have agreed for it to be subordinated or something?