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

[Suetonius]

Hello Fret,

 

Sorry I will resend the pm as soon as I get home...

 

I have spoken to the FOS this morning with regard to SPPL and unregulated agreements...

 

This is what they said:

 

"Following legislative changes businesses operating with a consumer credit licence issued by the Office of Fair Trading became subject to the new consumer credit jurisdiction from 6 April 2007...

 

SPPL is not an FSA authorised firm, it is a consumer credit licensee and is therefore subject to the consumer credit jurisdiction.

 

However, the consumer credit jurisdiction only applies to cca regulated loans and events which have taken place since 6 April 2007"

 

The consultant explained that the FOS could look at complaints with regard to ccs regulated loans applied for before 6 April 2007, only if the event being complained about occurred afterwards...

 

If the agreement was unregulated and not from a fsa regulated business then they could not look at the complaint

[Suetonius]

Above should read cca and not ccs.. Will edit when I get home

[peterjm]

If the agreement was unregulated and not from a fsa regulated business then they could not look at the complaint

quote suetonius

In my case there is no problem,in eagleforms case sppl are regulated by the FSA

see here

403923 - Southern Pacific Personal Loans

Current status: Appointed Representative Effective Date: 31/10/2004I think eagleforms took out the loan before they became regulated but the complaint stems from after they became regulated no doubt due to capstone so in that case the FOS should be able to consider his complaint?

Right?

[peterjm]

1)At 30 nov 2009 sppl states it has no loans yet it has been actively pursuing litigation against people with sppl loans and charging people for being in arrears and still is!.

Who have I been paying since 30/11/2009 they have no loans!

This has to be bordering on criminal if they have sold the loans on which we all know anyway and haven't told the borrower ,yet all repayments have not passed through their accounts but direct to the new owner it has to be a criminal offence on accountancy fraud at least and tax evasion.

sppl borrowers never signed any agreements with new owners although there was a right to assign but as soon as that loan was assigned and payments were diverted into the new owners accounts the borrower should have been notified, not OVER12 months afterwards.

 

IT SEEMS THE SAME THINGS HAPPENING AND HAS HAPPENED WITH ALL THE OTHER LENDERS/ORIGINATORS AS WELL.

[frettful38]

Looks like my ship is sunk then SUE as my loan is unregulated and my Lender is not FSA regulated but FLA regulated.

 

What a bummer hey?

[Suetonius]

If the agreement was unregulated and not from a fsa regulated business then they could not look at the complaint

quote suetonius

In my case there is no problem,in eagleforms case sppl are regulated by the FSA

see here

403923 - Southern Pacific Personal Loans

Current status: Appointed Representative Effective Date: 31/10/2004I think eagleforms took out the loan before they became regulated but the complaint stems from after they became regulated no doubt due to capstone so in that case the FOS should be able to consider his complaint?

Right?

 

 

Hello Peterjm,

 

They actually said no...

 

The reason they gave was because lending money other than as a regulated mortgage contract is not an FSA REGULATED ACTIVITY

Edited September 8, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Fret, except for who your lender is I don't recall the details of your loan... Do you have a thread?

 

I am on a coach for the most of this afternoon, so I can only post by phone, not good for editing or posting links.. I will pm you when I get home..

 

Whatever the situation there are always alternatives..

Edited September 8, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Sorry duplicate post

[peterjm]

This will be of

interest

to quite a few people...

 

Take a look at the Directors report:

"These securitisations are all ultimately

legally and beneficially

owned by charitable trusts"

 

And for SPPL:

 

Again take a look at the Directors Report:

 

"

No

loans exist at the current year end"

quote suetonius

Excellent information

They must have been leant on heavily as all their other accounts were always submitted late and were nowhere near as detailed or as comprehensive as these.

No wonder the noteholders want paying off as in the recent eurosail case.

 

 

Is there any chance of translating those two statements above into English for the many unenlightened amongst us,myself included?

 

1)At 30 nov 2009 sppl states it has no loans yet it has been actively pursuing litigation against people with sppl loans and charging people for being in arrears and still is!.

Who have I been paying since 30/11/2009 they have no loans!

 

2)spml states that these securitisations are all ultimately legally and beneficially owned by charitable trusts.Does this statement mean that the trustee,Wilmington trust in most cases owns all the spvs.

They cannot hold the legal titles to the mortgage pools because the borrower has not received s136 notification.?

 

These statements and their possible consequences require some translation and I am sure everyone would welcome your opinion Suetonius here given your obvious familiarity and expertise with these structures

 

key question,where does s136 figure in all this ,no notification law will see it as only equitable,unless the reason is there is being some massive cover up and fraud being perpetrated here by the originators.

[eagleforms]

Does "no loans" refer to SPPL not having borrowed any money themselves, hence having no loans?

[peterjm]

no ,it reads like they have no (our) loans on their books and their income going through their accounts seems to support this.

So the loans(ours) appear to have gone to the spv the same way as our payments well over a year ago without us hearing a dicky bird.

[patrickq1]

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=118e5404-5cad-4730-9927-c962742bdec9&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-09-08&utm_term=

[Suetonius]

I don't see any need to comment further on section 2 of the template letter, so now move onto section one

 

1) We have an ongoing monetary claim against SPPL through the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning the loan on our property which their Charge secures. It is our belief that as wholly owned subsidiaries of the failed and bankrupt American Investment Bank Lehman Brothers who are subject to global lawsuits from their many creditors their intention is apparently a fraudulent disposal of assets of which the Charge registered on our property securing a mortgage is such. After accomplishment of these transfers they will then in all likelihood be dissolved or disappear leaving their many creditors without any recourse.These activities could amount to fraud and money laundering on a vast scale as this is one of many proposed transfers.

 

Going by what the FOS told me earlier, section 1 of the template letter to the Land Registry may also not be applicable to some SPPL borrowers. Instead of starting a claim with the FOS, it might have to be claim via the court service instead.

 

So if you are an SPPL borrower consider the status of your loan with regard to regulation and submit your claim with the correct body - that being the FOS or Court and amend the template letter as necessary.....

[Suetonius]

1)At 30 nov 2009 sppl states it has no loans yet it has been actively pursuing litigation against people with sppl loans and charging people for being in arrears and still is!.

Who have I been paying since 30/11/2009 they have no loans!

This has to be bordering on criminal if they have sold the loans on which we all know anyway and haven't told the borrower ,yet all repayments have not passed through their accounts but direct to the new owner it has to be a criminal offence on accountancy fraud at least and tax evasion.

sppl borrowers never signed any agreements with new owners although there was a right to assign but as soon as that loan was assigned and payments were diverted into the new owners accounts the borrower should have been notified, not OVER12 months afterwards.

 

IT SEEMS THE SAME THINGS HAPPENING AND HAS HAPPENED WITH ALL THE OTHER LENDERS/ORIGINATORS AS WELL.

 

With regard to SPPL, I would not be so quick to use words such as "fraud" and "criminal offence".. I know they are great for dramatic effect but do they accurately reflect the legalities with regard to OWNERSHIP (remember - benefit & rights - benefit & rights)

 

Consider what was assigned - The benefit of your loan - with the benefit of you loan being your monthly payments.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

2)spml states that these securitisations are all ultimately legally and beneficially owned by charitable trusts.Does this statement mean that the trustee,Wilmington trust in most cases owns all the spvs.

They cannot hold the legal titles to the mortgage pools because the borrower has not received s136 notification.?

 

Trusts (be they charitable or otherwise) have been previously discussed on the securitisation threads. However, to answer your question with regard to the extract from the accounts and if this relates to the ownership of the SPV (the issuer) or legal charges (legal rights) take a look at any Eurosail Prospectus...

 

http://www.ise.ie/debt_documents/Eurosail_7083.pdf

 

Bottom of page 9 Parent and Share Trustee

 

"The Issuer’s entire issued share capital is held by Eurosail-UK 2007-2NP Parent Limited (the “Parent”) except for one share held by Wilmington Trust SP Services (London) Limited (the “Share Trustee”) as nominee of the Parent under the terms of a share trust dated 14 March 2007 (the “Share Trust”). The entire issued share capital of the Parent is held by the Share Trustee under the terms of a trust established under English law by a declaration of trust dated 14 March 2007 (the “Charitable Share Trust”) for the benefit of certain charitable purposes."

 

I will let you decide

 

Here is some interesting reading:

 

http://www.thelawyer.com/charity039s-commercial-edge/95762.article

Edited September 8, 2010 by Suetonius

[peterjm]

With regard to SPPL, I would not be so quick to use words such as "fraud" and "criminal offence".. I know they are great for dramatic effect but do they accurately reflect the legalities with regard to OWNERSHIP (remember - benefit & rights - benefit & rights)

 

Consider what was assigned - The benefit of your loan - with the benefit of you loan being your monthly payments.

quote suetonius.

 

If sppl still retain the legal title of the loans at 30/11/2009 it is a fraudulent statement to say they have no loans.

Payments from borrowers should be directed through sppl's own bank account as they have in the past for tax and accountancy purposes then paid out to the beneficial owners for whom they apparently hold the legal title as trustee.

The accounts simply do not show this so I would assert that this amounts to a tax fraud,sppl are taxed as a company on turnover with corporation tax if they show no income contrary to previous years,no tax,where has the income gone?the loans haven't disappeared yet sppl state they have no loans on their books.

Tax evasion,false statements in accounts and what could amount to money laundering are criminal offences.

 

These activities have been carried out for some time and are now spreading into the other lenders ie payments are missing out the originator/lender and going to some entity the borrower has never heard of.

Sppl cannot redirect borrowers payments(its actually capstone that redirects them) into other entities accounts without ntifying the borrower why they are doing this but such notification would probably amount to s136 notification,ie we sold your loan to eurosail, this has been concealed for far too long from the borrower.

The borrowers contract to repay their loans is with solely the registered legal chargeholder,they are the only people who can give a valid receipt for repayments,the borrowers contractural obligation is to them and with them only unless notified otherwise that their loan has been legally assigned then the obligation would transfer to the new owner with the same rights as they had before.

They cannot have it both ways that is why barclays the account holding have insisted the legal titles to the sppl loans are transferred to whom the payments are being directed.

Edited September 8, 2010 by peterjm

[peterjm]

Trusts (be they charitable or otherwise) have been previously discussed on the securitisation threads. However, to answer your question with regard to the extract from the accounts and if this relates to the ownership of the SPV (the issuer) or legal charges (legal rights) take a look at any Eurosail Prospectus...

 

http://www.ise.ie/debt_documents/Eurosail_7083.pdf

 

Bottom of page 9 Parent and Share Trustee

 

"The Issuer’s entire issued share capital is held by Eurosail-UK 2007-2NP Parent Limited (the “Parent”) except for one share held by Wilmington Trust SP Services (London) Limited (the “Share Trustee”) as nominee of the Parent under the terms of a share trust dated 14 March 2007 (the “Share Trust”). The entire issued share capital of the Parent is held by the Share Trustee under the terms of a trust established under English law by a declaration of trust dated 14 March 2007 (the “Charitable Share Trust”) for the benefit of certain charitable purposes."

 

I will let you decide

 

Here is some interesting reading:

 

http://www.thelawyer.com/charity039s-commercial-edge/95762.article

 

Having read this I must still admit to mystification as would probably most others.

As you appear to have an understanding I would welcome your personal interpretation as I welcomed your exhaustive interpretation of securitisation.

What does it all mean and does it have any significance for us is the simple question at the end of it all.

Edited September 8, 2010 by peterjm

[Suetonius]

I using my phone at moment so this will be brief..

 

With regard to your first post... Please the answer to your post and your apparent concerns is ownership and what actually is the legal title.. My previous posts have covered this point on several occasions..

 

Further to your second post... I am sure you can read the extract from the accounts and from the prospectus and reach your own conclusion.. I have even highlighted the relevant part in red...

 

(in the case of any edits during the night, please note the time of this post and subsequent edit)

[peterjm]

So if none of this has any relevance to any of us at all,what was the purpose of the original post.?

 

If sppl state on30/11/09 they own no loans, who does?and why are they sppl still registered as the legal titleholder on the land registry which is conclusive that sppl is the legal owner still of the loans.

 

They are trustees for the beneficial owners and registered legal titleholders so a statement that they own no loans is materially incorrect.

 

If I am the registered proprietor at the land registry and hold the property as a trustee of my wifes beneficial interest as she contributes to the mortgage,I am exactly that the registered legal owner with power to sell,all she has is an interest with no power to make dispositions the same as the spv.

Edited September 9, 2010 by peterjm

[eagleforms]

My loan is with SPPL, yet I pay SPML. Capstone tell me that the loan has been assigned to Eurosail, so presumably my monthly payments go from SPML to Eurosail somehow.

Edited September 9, 2010 by eagleforms
Late at night

[Suetonius]

Still using my phone, so please excuse any typo's

 

I can't really answer your repeated questions any differently Peterjm... The answer is ownership and what actually is the legal title...

 

The day a loan or mortgage or for that matter credit card is securitised your monthly repayment also referred to as receiveables (which is the true asset) is purchased by the SPV... The SPV funds this purchase by selling notes to various financial institutions..

 

The original lender retains the legal title, the legal title consists of the legal rights, responsibilities etc and etc..

 

Pender, Halsbury's and my previous posts with regard to ownership explain this in more detail...

Edited September 9, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Take a look at pender with a fresh pair if eyes, read what halsbury's has to say and my previous posts about ownership and then you tell me what the answer to your question is...

[patrickq1]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.branko.org.uk%2FGuide_to_Client_Money.pdf&rct=j&q=CASS%20rules&ei=49iITNqKMIu94Ablj5DOBA&usg=AFQjCNFfbnYlPtOaZiTkUHjT-U_QBnyZew&sig2=lR_zdazunqbh-i1aXTLHYw&cad=rja

United Kingdom

September 1 2010

Just as this issue of the Insurance and Reinsurance Review was going to press, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the appeal in CRC Credit Fund Ltd & Ors v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) & Ors (reported at [2010] EWCA Civ 917) against the decision of Mr. Justice Briggs, reported in our March 2010 issue.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Briggs J that the CASS rules created a trust over client money from the date it was received, rather than from the date it was segregated from the firm’s own money. It also agreed that Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) did not hold client money for the purposes of the CASS rules simply because LBIE owed a certain sum to its client under an agreement, for example an obligation to pay a manufactured dividend under a stock lending agreement.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the first instance judgment on two key issues. First, it was held that the trust imposed by the CASS rules applied to money which was identifiably client money whether or not it had actually been segregated by LBIE. It would be unfair for the trust to apply only to those clients whose money happened to have been be placed in segregated accounts. Second, the Court of Appeal held that the effect of the CASS rules was that clients would share in the client money pool according to the amount which ought to have been segregated on their behalf, rather than (as held by Briggs J) on the basis of the sum which had in fact been segregated.

This judgment is highly important, as it will significantly increase the number of creditors who may be entitled to make claims for client money held by LBIE and possibly the amount of their claims. Creditors whose client money was not segregated by LBIE, but ought to have been, may now have a claim to the pool of client money held by LBIE. It is unlikely, however, that the decision will increase the size of the pool because it does not turn the money in LBIE’s house accounts into trust money (and therefore client money) except to the extent that tracing rights can be established over such funds. This would prima facie seem unlikely. Except to that extent, the decision will diminish the share of the client money pool of those creditors whose client money was in fact segregated.

The decision depends heavily on the meaning and interpretation of the CASS rules as they now stand (the FSA has consulted on possible changes to the regime) and should not be taken to apply to trust rights in a non-CASS context. Given the significant effects this decision could have on the distribution of funds by the administrators of LBIE it seems likely that there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court

[peterjm]

repeat post

Edited September 9, 2010 by peterjm

[peterjm]

This will be of

interest

to quite a few people...

 

Take a look at the Directors report:

"These securitisations are all ultimately

legally and beneficially

owned by charitable trusts.

And for SPPL:

 

Again take a look at the Directors Report:

 

"

No

loans exist at the current year end"

 

With the greatest repect Suetonius the question was simply what was the purpose of this post if it has no significance?

 

You later stated it asked more questions than it answered?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SEE BELOW CANNOT GET RID OF THIS ITALIC SCRIPT.

Edited September 9, 2010 by peterjm