Yes, if we can demonstrate that there is case to be made (and that must start with a good legal opinion) then we have a chance of getting a class action going. A good QC will cost us £500 per hour under direct access (I know this because I have done this myself on a different matter) If between us we can distill the points we need an opinion on, then we will need a few hours time to establish if we have a chanace of getting a case running. There is no way to quantify how much a case would cost, if indeed we have a case, but we can probably take a stab at the cost of a getting a legal opinion. If anyone knows Tom Brennan and he is prepared to have a chat then please make the introduction. Is anybody else prepared to make a financial contribution? The time do do this is now. Dangermouse Dangermouse

Hello Ryde I have received a private email with information from someone who was in a similar situation to you. At least they were a customer of SPML and he was unhappy about the erc he paid and other charges. He had an exchange of letters with PriceWaterhouseCoopers & he has copied me. The information you have received from Preferred is correct. Although Lehmans are in administration, neither SMPL nor Preferred are currently in administration and are operating normally. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Dangermouse

Hi Rocket1 Yes, I agree...but I think we have come a long way since we communicated some time ago. We have much more information now. I am not so sure that we can assume that we can obtain a decent opinion for free, I cannot assume that Tom Brennan will offer his services for nothing, afterall we all have to earn a living! We can assume nothing and I think we need to do this in a formal way, I think we should be in control of this and not go off half cocked. I don't know Tom Brennan, all this has been going on so long that we need to be in the driving seat and do it properly. These threads are full of theories from well meaning individuals but no professional lawyer is going to want to get involved in a ramble of uninformed opinion and hearsay. I mean no disrepect to anyone using or contributing to these threads, in fact the contributors offer fantastic support to those who need help. However, we must be absolutely clear when it comes to the way forward (if indeed there is one!) If we do not keep control then 99% of our effort will be wasted & I dont know about you guys but I do not have time to do this with a shotgun approach. If we ask someone to do something Pro Bono, they will also get fed up if we are not completely focussed. I think that we need two people, a maximum of three to work closely in the early stages to get a clear and concise briefing document together (preferably one of these three should have some legal knowledge) I am prepared to meet up with anyone in London to discuss next steps. Dangermouse

Hi GR Getting a first opinion from an experienced barrister is absolutely essential. Once we have that opinion, we then have a starting point to make some sensible decisions. Speaking for myself, I was absent from the site for so long because I was fed up of hearing the same rants over and over again. I of course understand why people feel so strongly, but it must hearten the enemy to follow all of this on the threads. We need to have a considered and unemotional agenda, this must start with an informed legal opinion. Until then, we are all wasting our time. Dangermouse

Another trick these guys play is to send you a letter for a debt that is very obviously not yours (it is not a mistake). People who are in financial trouble tend to give more information away i.e confirm details that they would not normally give regarding a debt they do recognise! Once they have ot all the info out of you they can, they then say that the letter was incorrect and then tell you that the matter relates to a an amount you probably will recognise. my advice is to ignore all letters of this sort. Dangermouse

Come on guys, What we need is a solicitor who would be willing to undertake this on a ''pro bono'' or ''no win no fee'' basis. What needs to be proven is INTENT, i.e. did the lender inform you properly of the intended performance of the contract? No, he did not as l am dead sure they all relied up on the extortionate rate hikes they imposed at the end of the preferential period. Someone who has a sub-prime mortgage runnining at, say 8.25% preferential going up to 4.5% LIBOR knows that he/she needs to re-mortgage after the first 2 years or they will end up in trouble. But, no-one expected the crash of 2007/2008 where all mortgage, save a few prime, lenders simply vanished from the face of the earth. When this occured our friends at Lehmans and others got caught with their knickers in a twist as they could not sustain their loans. This is where intent and contract performance becomes interesting. We should have a close look at how Northern Rock behaved after their collapse, they simply tried to divest and dump their client at any opportunity until our beloved government changed their tune and decided that they would start lending again. lf you, like Lehmans, never intended to engage in any sustained mortgage lending (with or without securitisation) then you are acting dishonesty against your customer and you are selling a contract that you never ever intended to fullfill. Gustavius Rex In my case I think that SPML deliberately concealed from me the true commercial nature of the contract. I dont know about anyone else but I knew nothing about securitisation & from what I now know about it, the nature & danger of this financial 'device' is of critical importance to a consumer considering taking out a contract. It is simply not good enough for the contract to state "we have the right to assign or sell" the mortgage. It should state honestly and transparantly that the contract will CERTAINLY be sold and describe the nature of the financial structure that the consumer is going to be involved with. it seems clear to me that consumers have sometimes been 'lured' into these contracts, Lehmans particularly by getting ever more punters in. They feed the fee making machine by continually reducing their lending criteria to ensure that consumers are able to remortgage once or maybe twice before being forced to sell or repossesed. I cannot believe that it is lawful to conceal from consumers the real 'nature' of the product being sold. Surely the fact that in 2 or 3 months maximum after signature there would be addional parties to the agreement and this fact was known to one party (including who the additional parties would be) and this fact was deliberatly kept from the other party (I believe the intention not to disclose is detailed in the SPV's prospectuses?) then this cannot be right or fair. In fact, I seem to remember reading somewhere on these threads that eu directives state that deliberate concealment of this sort is considered fraud. Interestingly, if deliberate concealment or other fraud is found, I stand to be corrected, but I think the directors of SPML/ Capstone & possibly Lehman can be held personally liable for the financial losses or damages caused to the consumer. I do not think it is practical to get anyone to do pro-bono work on this. I think that we should get a full barrister's opinion under the direct access scheme. I realise that there have been several opinions sought in the past on ERC's legality etc & several cases in court. But now that we all know a little more about the securitisation process, we may be all victims of this concealment of facts. We also have some prospectae, some of you also have documents from the Ombudsman with ther view etc. I think we should club together and put a fund together to get a QC's opinion. We must do some background work to get together a clear and definitive set of questions prepared to which we need answers. I volunteer to help in that process and I am also prepared to put in £250 to the pot to get it started. I think those of us that out of the clutches of the spml beast can help ourselves and help those who are still struggling. Any thoughts on this? please PM or message on thread. Anybody know if CAG will hold funds in escrow for this purpose? if not I will get a solicitor to hold money on our behalf. Now is the time boys and girls, if we get corroborating legal opinion and we are successful, the directors of Spml/Capstone etc. can be made personally liable, they and anyone else who assists them will not be able to hide behind any future insolvency procedures involving SPML.

Does anyone know what the Kensington Standard Variable Rate is at the moment? I am coming off a fixed rate in November? Dangermouse

HI I am so sorry to hear about this. I have been there myself & it was only because I started claiming Jobseekers Allowance that the Council took back the authorities from the Bailiffs. I also emailed my Member of Parliament & copied in the council. I really hope it works out ok for you. Dangermouse

I think I have an electronic copy of the Eurosail-2006 -1 prospectus. Is that what you are looking for? Dangermouse

The bank obviously feel that you have no real prospect of a defence. You should be careful here, even if they are unsuccessful in the claim for summary judgement, the Judge may look at costs and order that they are awarded "in the case". That will mean that if you loose the case at trial, you wiill also end up paying the costs of their failed summary judgement application. Do you not have a solicitor acting for you? Dangermouse

Hi uneverdid You need to check the Libor that applies to your mortgage, I imagine it is the 3 month Libor rate which is probably 3% more or less not the base rate. Not sure though....I would be interested to know myself! Dangermouse

Then you can go to Companieshouse.co.uk and use the free webcheck service to see details of who owns your mortgage. Then, if you take my advice you will write to that company and ask them to provide you with all the details and underlying documents of the charge they have registered under s.395 of the Companies Act. Tell them that you have a right to inspect these documents under section s.423 of the Companies Act & they will have to send you the details. Make sure you ask them for all the underlying documents not just the copy of the s.395 form (although that will be interesting reading for you also!) Regarsd Dangermouse

Hi Nello Eurosail is the generic name for a series of SPVs. Before you go ahead and amend your insurance documents ask Capstone to confirm which Eurosail company it is. That way you will know eaxactly the SPV your mortgage has been sold to and you will be able to obtain the prospectus. For example..it might be something like Eurosail 2007-1 Dangermouse

No it is the SPV itself that registers under s.395. For example if you took out a mortgage with SPML, the mortgage will be pooled with may others and sold to the SPV (in the case of SPML it will be a Eurosail Co.) Then Eurosail will have to register with Companies House a 395 Charge Form. Dangermouse

Hi Littledotty I ahven't got time to read through the whole thread again. Have you managed to get sight of the the legal charge that your SPV will have registered with Companies House? Dangermouse

Hi all I understand what is being stated, i.e that the only difference between an equitable assigment and a legal assignment is that notice has to be given for it to be 'legal'. However, (& I may be a bit thick!) but if that is the only distinction, it is surely clear that not providing a notice is only a 'device' so that the assignment is not registered at the LR. Therefore if equity's 'rule' is that the law considers that "to be done which ought to be done" is it not unlawful for the notice not to be formally given to the borrower? yours confused Dangermouse

I would double and treble check that they have not heard from you within the last 6 years. It is sometimes easy to fotget that you wrote to them....sometimes they will try and trick you by saying that you made a £20 payment in cash. Don'r acknowledge or get into any correspondence with them unless you are absolutely sure that it is statute barred. Good luck Dangermouse

Good work PammyG Dangermouse

Hi Smarterchick That is a very useful letter from the other side's solicitor, I am undertaking a similar exercise myself and will post details here if and when I get a response. Dangermouse

Thanks Scedminc That was what I was thinking of. Dangermouse

Hey Mohican Well done you, that document seems very clear to me. Dangermouse

I was thinking along the following lines Pre-Action Disclosure | Technology litigation lawyers & solicitors | Commercial disputes | Evidence Dangermouse

Hi all I have been thinking about the information we all need to obtain from the 'false' Claimant regarding the SPV & the transaction details, so that we have them to hand to fight repossession. I seem to recall somewhere that there was an alternative to sending in a SAR, and that was to ask the 'fale' lender to to fully disclose the relevant documents that the borrower feels are material to the case against them? I believe that there has been a discussion somewhere on these threads of asking for disclosure of documents 'pre-action' on the basis that they be material. Given that legal action has already started in most of these cases, surely a request for disclosure can be made of the 'False' Claimant? An application to the courts to suspend/hold the action until the material is disclsoed by the lender. An application to the court could made on the basis that there is liklehood of lender having this information and that this has come to light very recently in evidence put before the Treasury Committee on the bnaking crisis. It might put a bit of backbone into a District Judge to agree that the transaction documentation should be disclosed as part of the repossession proceedings, and therefore halted until complied with. Sorry if this has already come up and been answered. Any legal minds out there? Supersleuth? Dangermouse

Pro Bono means for no fees. i.e. free Dangermouse

Hi Supersleuth I have a complaint against SPML/Capstone that has been waiting its turn at the FOS. I am reclaiming charges but have said nothing about the unfairness of the ERC of £20k that was deducted (particularly as i was under a possession order & money order & had no choice but to terminate early). I have also been thinking about this thread and the points that you have raised regarding securitisation. I have called the FOS today and my case is still some months away from being dealt with, they have agreed that I can provide an additional complaint for them to consider. Can you help me put somehting together? it might be useful to get some sort of consideration from them on this point. Dangermouse