SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[martdj]

how many of us would up for a picket of FSA CH or Capstones offices. If we did this we would surely get some press coverage

[freedomofspeech]

Martdj has just e amiled me. yet another of his posts being moderated! he suggests we take action and picket the offices of Capstone, FSA Ch and the SFO. Im up for it are you? We would surely get some press attention then

[freedomofspeech]

Hooray it looks like Martdjs posts are getting moderated immediatley!!

[martdj]

Hi everyone it looks as though I can post again as I said to FOS I think an organised picket would help. We could hand out leaflets to the employees etc and maybe one of them might just decide to blow the whistle................. its worth a try!

[enoughisenough]

Hooray it looks like Martdjs posts are getting moderated immediatley!!

 

Well we could call that progress, but if the mods are looking in they might want to consider ITBG'S ONGOING BAN, in the light of JetLi's story.?

 

Oh and after Jet has been effed over and the equity cash grab [problem] is complete can any mod/site team member honestly say to me that that will be the end of the trauma?

 

I refer of course to this...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/252162-repossed-spml-now-being.html

 

http://capstonewatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/a-disgusting-post-possession-habit/

 

Now, thinking about this it would be IMPOSSIBLE under any code of conduct even any code of morality wouldn't it?

 

But it's happening. Now I may know **** all about law but I know a great deal about social psychology.

 

And if there is one thing social psychology teaches us it's this.

 

THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE THIN EDGE OF THE WEDGE.

 

If this is allowed to stand what the feckin hell is next? That's why LC needs to come back. His contributions had them collapsing in disarray. Now they're getting confident and cocky and repoing again left right and centre. Is this a Vichy regime?

 

Martin Niemöller Poem

 

They came for the Communists, and I

 

didn't object - For I wasn't

 

a Communist;

 

They came for the Socialists, and I

 

didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

 

They came for the labor leaders, and I

 

didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;

 

They came for the Jews, and I didn't

 

object - For I wasn't a Jew;

 

Then they came for me -

 

And there was no one left to object.

 

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

 

1892-1984

Edited March 19, 2010 by enoughisenough

[actionnotwords]

Oh dear, I have been nursing a sick friend for the last few weeks and have found reading quickly through the posts to catch up it is apparent so much has happened.

From the triumverate of the Good,the Bad and the Ugly it would appear that the Bad has in his own words been "renditioned",leaving only the Good and the Ugly to hold the fort against an insurmountable siege by a horde of savage hostiles.

Reinforcements are urgently required to prevent capitulation and surrender.

I think I may safely speak for the bad person with the immortal words ;

 

"I'LL BE BACK" then its "HASTA LA VISTA,BABY" to the parasitic leeches.

Edited March 19, 2010 by actionnotwords

[ryde]

Poor FSA cannot cope with the pressure are recruiting another 460 staff.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1258659/FSA-recruit-460-new-staff-beef-regulatory-powers.html

 

ANW

We all know who's the bad but out of curiousity who's the good and who's the ugly?

 

To continue this delightful, if not somewhat frustrating, cultural end to the evening.

 

Do you know, I would like to share with you one of the last things the "bad" said privately to me before he was "renditioned" in the VOJ, fighting alone for justice and for CAG.

It will forever stay in my mind.

 

 

Smell that? You smell that?

 

(me)What?

 

Jackals, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.

 

I love the smell of dead Jackals in the morning.

 

The smell, you know that dead Jackals smell.

 

Smelled like ..........

 

victory.

 

Someday this war's gonna end...

 

 

his last picture before comms severed

rescue squad despatched....reported missing...

Edited March 19, 2010 by ryde
Link correctly added

[enoughisenough]

MEANING OF UNABLE TO CLIENT MONEY

 

Smaller firms - One minute guides

 

Smaller firms online - Your Firm type

[freedomofspeech]

I have just e mailed the SFO to report these companies for possible fraud! I have referred the SFO to this site for further details. It fall right into their remit as being SFO's criteria for taking on a case, they stateBy law we can investigate only those cases where there is evidence to show that serious or complex fraud, and corruption has taken place.To determine the seriousness and complexity of a particular matter then it may be useful to ask yourself the following questions:The key factors we consider before taking on a case:•Does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?•Is there a significant international dimension?•Is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?•Does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?•Is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?Serious and Complex: what do we look for?In addition to the above criteria we look for factors such as:Is it Serious?•Whether the fraud will impact on the integrity of the financial market•Whether there is a wider group than shareholders or creditors who have lost money as a result of the alleged fraud•Whether the fraudsters have targeted financial institutions and government (local or central) or other public serving authoritiesIs it Complex?•Whether the case involves multiple countries•Whether the evidential material to be obtained during the course of the investigation will be found in multiple locations (within the UK or in other countries)•Whether the case involves multiple and complex financial transactions - e.g. involving many companies, accounts, Trusts and countries•Whether the investigation will need to involve a large accountancy analysisIf your case of fraud fits the above criteria, then please submit as much information as possible at: [email protected] or contact us directly through our information hotline on 0207 239 7388

[littledotty27]

I have just e mailed the SFO to report these companies for possible fraud! I have referred the SFO to this site for further details. It fall right into their remit as being SFO's criteria for taking on a case, they stateBy law we can investigate only those cases where there is evidence to show that serious or complex fraud, and corruption has taken place.To determine the seriousness and complexity of a particular matter then it may be useful to ask yourself the following questions:The key factors we consider before taking on a case:•Does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?•Is there a significant international dimension?•Is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?•Does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?•Is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?Serious and Complex: what do we look for?In addition to the above criteria we look for factors such as:Is it Serious?•Whether the fraud will impact on the integrity of the financial market•Whether there is a wider group than shareholders or creditors who have lost money as a result of the alleged fraud•Whether the fraudsters have targeted financial institutions and government (local or central) or other public serving authoritiesIs it Complex?•Whether the case involves multiple countries•Whether the evidential material to be obtained during the course of the investigation will be found in multiple locations (within the UK or in other countries)•Whether the case involves multiple and complex financial transactions - e.g. involving many companies, accounts, Trusts and countries•Whether the investigation will need to involve a large accountancy analysisIf your case of fraud fits the above criteria, then please submit as much information as possible at: [email protected] or contact us directly through our information hotline on 0207 239 7388

 

 

A few of us have been down this route,basically unless one of the governing bodies brings it to their attention,there is not much they can do.

This is the reply I got off them:

After consideration of the information you have provided to us, we have concluded that this is not a matter which is appropriate for investigation by the SFO. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by us and I hope the following will help explain why this is so.

The SFO is a relatively small, highly specialised government department that is permitted by law to investigate only those cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious or complex fraud. For this reason, we take on only a small number of new cases each year and almost all of these are referred to us by the police or other law enforcement agencies.

That is not to say that the matter you have reported is any less important or any less distressing for you as a victim. It is essential that suspected offences are investigated expeditiously and our intention in informing you that this is not a matter for the SFO is to reduce the delay in it being brought to the attention of the appropriate organisation.

If you believe you are the victim of anything other than the most serious or complex fraud, you should normally pursue the matter through your local police force. The police have primary responsibility within the UK for investigating all types of criminality including fraud and other offences of dishonesty.

Contact details for your local constabulary can be found in your telephone directory or online

Alternatively, you may wish to pursue the matter through one of the following organisations who have responsibility for handling specific types of complaints:

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

One of the stated organisational objectives of BIS is ensuring markets work to the benefit of business, investors, employees and consumers. It also works to deter fraud by enforcing the relevant law. This includes dealing with misconduct or unscrupulous practices, whether or not this amounts to fraud. The Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) of BIS is responsible for investigating companies under the relevant company legislation. Where CIB uncovers evidence of criminal conduct the facts are generally referred to the police for investigation or to its own prosecution lawyers. You can contact CIB on 0207 596 6100 or report a matter online at: http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

In addition, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) maintains a list of useful links to organisations that may be appropriate for your concerns. This list can be found online at:

Useful links - The Office of Fair Trading

 

In certain situations the information you have provided may be retained on our intelligence database for future reference. Information which includes any personal data (such as your contact details) will only be processed, retained or disclosed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Data Protection Act 1998. Please be assured that all information you have provided will be handled professionally and with the utmost sensitivity.

Once again, thank you for contacting the SFO and for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel John

[TFD123]

Hi LD How are things going?

By your post it is clear, like you said "unless one of the governing bodies brings it to their attention,there is not much they can do."

 

Soo this seems to be the right way forward, which governing body should we lobby?

 

Who has collated all the facts learnt on here to produce to any governing body?

 

If i knew the way forward i.e. the correct governing body and had all the facts put together i would then like to concetrate our efforts on them.

 

The truth here seems to be that the guys on here have found out soo much useful info that it needs to be put together in the form of a document which would be presentable to the relevant body and this document of FACTs presented to the press, but with soo many threads it would be a hell of a job if it has not already been started.

So i ask, has anyone got the ability to produce a document of the FACTS learnt here as it would be much easier to present.

 

Just a thought guys.

 

You are all doing a great job in finding these facts it would be a shame to waste them or to see LD's Thread comming to an end without proper closure i.e. TO WIN. To prove that capstone are not acting within the law would be my dream.

 

For my own bit updated i told you that i had a phone call from Capstone 30 mins before repo court to say they were seeking adjounment as there was indeed some iregularities on my account i.e. charges, but to cut short i rejected adjounment and DJ asked spml solicitors to explain the involvement of capstone before he would hear any more repos. And i left court with no adjournment

 

I have heard from the CC today saying that the statement made by the DJ as regards to capstone was to be dealt with by spml's solicitors before any future cases were presented in front of him.

So in fact this means that in future cases he will ask same and not deal until responded to by spml but this was not to be taken as an instruction of the court, im confused,

 

I recieved a letter today from Capstone saying that the complaint made by me by phone (30 mins before case) was being dealt with, i rang to ask which complaint i made as i would only complain formally by post, they said because i had asked for the charges on my account to be reviewed this was passed on as a complaint, now they are stalling, They told me that my charges were indeed wrong so thats why they were adjourning, I have today sent an SAR hopefully get to bottom of why they now placed my request to look at my charges down as a complaint, and to find out feed back from thier,spml, solicitors. I will post as the pieces come together and the brains here can pick out the bones and i will pursue them.

 

I will never rest until Capstone are brought down

[ryde]

The governing body that refers fraud etc to the SFO in our case is CIB who have been hammered god knows how many times with complaints and still apparently do ..kall.

How LMC is still active despite having no directors in clear breach of the Companies Act 2006 is anyones guess,Dotty told them about this 5 months ago and according to the Act they are supposed to have 3 months to put it right.

Theyre not even on a strike out warning.

[ryde]

I have heard from the CC today saying that the statement made by the DJ as regards to capstone was to be dealt with by spml's solicitors before any future cases were presented in front of him.

So in fact this means that in future cases he will ask same and not deal until responded to by spml but this was not to be taken as an instruction of the court, im confused,

mwspml

This is very important because it questions the authorisation of capstone to act in any capacity for the lender.

In the case of sppl they are bringing claims illegally when it is physically impossible to have such authorisation as sppl have no one to give it!!!!

jetli's recent case is a perfect illustration of this

Is there any chance of posting up the letter word for word from the CC minus of course your personal details.

It also shows the gross inconsistencies between DJ's, if uneverdid had got the same DJ she would not have ended up with a suspended repo.

The tragedy is that this judgement is not citable being county court.

Edited March 19, 2010 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Ryde

 

Binding? No. You are absolutely correct.

 

However it could be citable as persuasive precedent.

 

Although County Court decisions are not binding on other county courts they may be cited as persuasive.

 

Now think of this. Virtually all of our cases involve in the same points of law and could not be distinguished upon the facts. At this stage that doesn't matter. But if enough DJs started to take the same view a trickle would become a flood and they would then have to start to think seriously about a 'test case'. I'm pretty sure that would be the last thing they would want. Win OR Lose.

 

...if every cagger could raise this as part of their defence. Who issues the instructions? Capstone? On behalf of whom? (SPML let's say). Where is the authorisation from SPML? Capstone haven't got it. Locus standi - game on.

[ryde]

eie

This is a great idea providing mwspml is prepared to have his personal details disclosed as any other court would require case no,court and DJ I would think.

There is also the apparent disclaimer proviso that this is not an instruction of the court, that needs careful examination as the **** would jump on this at any other hearing.

Don't wish to be a damp squib but it sounds as though this decision may apply particularly to this set of circumstances and this case and DJ but I would love to be wrong,so please correct me.

[enoughisenough]

Ryde absolutely

 

I understand the very real cautionary points you raise. However it's a bat to nothing. Either it works or does not work but yes you are right mwspml would need to disclose his or her identity and that is a very big ask.

 

So in that sense persuasive precedent is out of the window. But it doesn't stop the argument being raised. We used to argue that SPML etc didn't have the locus standi because they had sold the mortgages to the SPV who then sold them on again. That generally would not get any hearing at all.

 

Actually I find it strange that on the four separate occasions I raised it, it was ignored or dismissed rather than defended from Sue's position? Why? Why not say that is incorrect because it is equitable? But no it was always ignored or wilfuly misunderstood as if I was thick...(maybe I am!)

 

Moving on though I see no good reason why every cagger cannot demand as of right under 31.6 to see the instructions to the solicitors and then ask for disclosure when it doesn't come as part of the defence.

 

And I see no good reason why we also cannot ask for disclosure of documents authorising the INTERLOPER CAPSTONE to act on behalf of SPPL/SPML/Preferred etc.

 

It's only a paragraph to add to what is now a pretty well formulated defence. And if one Judge has shown that he/she is not a moron who's to say there aren't other non-moronic DJs out there who might say "...actually this is interesting, this isn't the usual yackety BS defence...this LIP really has something to say?

 

Trying to keep the faith...

Edited March 19, 2010 by enoughisenough

[ryde]

The first step is to ask mwspml to post the text of the letter without personal details then we can see if we can take it any further.

Just the mere casting of doubt can be a lifesaver sometimes.

Crapstone posted about it being in the mortgage contract that capstone were administrators but both sced and I never found this with PML so if anyone who is with the other 3 ie sppl/spml/lmc and has their contract at hand can they check this.

I would think the administrator would have to be actually named.

[enoughisenough]

Agreed...I will check when I get home. I repeat. I can't see any harm. If the DJ won't bite then they won't bite. But if they do...

 

As a footnote MWSPML should probably PM on of us with it if MWSPML feels that we are not jackals or shills and can therefore be trusted...

[ryde]

Throw the kitchen sink at the b.stards you never know anything might click.

eie

Bads been renditioned(hopefully temporarily) so are you the "good" or the other one, its been bugging me all day will have to ask ANW assuming of course she means us as we were the last and most prolific posters.

[enoughisenough]

I'm definitely "good" which leaves you...well you know. But perhaps ANW means it in the wider sense of a force to be reckoned with...I'm sure rotarians are very neat people who don't like loose ends and therefore I anticipate this mystery will be cleared up soon.

 

PS Have you seen the guest count?

[ryde]

any mention of the "bad" coming back seems to quadruple them,wonder why?wonder if they're frantically scribbling notes for next weeks case list?

[enoughisenough]

Ah the case list...

 

Bless em! They are soooo locked into their roles aren't they?

 

Like the train driver to Auschwitz who would take great pride in being meticulous and precise over his work, ensuring it arrived on time with its precious cargo intact.

 

The role is everything...nothing can impede the progress of the task.

 

It is a requirement of the role that the duties are fulfilled meticulously, precisely and without question.

 

Individual morality and conscience must be put to one side.

 

When locked in a role it desensitises an individual to the nature of the task, and the consequences of the work.

 

The hierarchy relieves the individual of his or her personal responsibility for the harm that may arise from the performance of the task.

 

Further he is incentivised to put his natural human concerns to one side. He is after all a good person. He is kind, loves his children and undertakes philanthropic work on behalf of the needy. But he is rewarded most when he becomes most mindless.

He is seduced by a graduated commitment to the task until he inflicts maximum harm with less stirring of the conscience that occurred when he first started out.

 

He was troubled, but was reassured that it was alright.

 

He was anxious about the consequences of the task. Would it make him a bad person?

 

He was concerned but lost that concern when he was told we were trailer trash who could never have afforded these mortgages in the first place.

 

He has forgotten how to be human.

 

So when we call him ****. Or when we refer to them collectively as b.stards Or when we insult their integrity, please remember that he is only fulfilling a role.

 

A role just like the train driver on the way to Auswitchz.

Edited March 19, 2010 by enoughisenough

[ryde]

eie

they've all gone,you remind of the great chinese sage and philospher K.YOU

reviled in his time, the very mention of his name to a stranger often resulted in violence and fisticuffs,try it in the street or in a pub to a stranger when someone speaks to you and see, it still applies today.There was also his brother K.OFF similary reviled.

 

Enough of these teenage witterings.

We need an action plan of objectives.

1)The purpose of this site is to shut 'em down

2)Initiate viable defences against them,as good as done.

 

The objective is to draft a template letter and keep up the tirade to CH and now above,the Cable guy etc which all MUST participate in and in the absence of ITBG carry the fight to them,Lord knows we have enough ammunition and Company Law on our side.

I will have a go at drafting something this weekend but since LC'S absence the initiatives gone and been handed back to them.

[littledotty27]

Ive just looked at T&C's for our mortgage with LMC, it only mentions that they can sell your mortgage on,nothing about third party administrators or capstone. I personally don't think any LMC T&C's will mention TPA asit was originally with Matlock who has no connection with SPML.

[enoughisenough]

Nice dotty 2 down 3 to go. Please excuse my rather idealistic notion that conscience be given a better chance. I went all 60s for a moment but I think I'm better now...