Sub Prime Mortgages Call For Evidence Before The Treasury Select Committee

[enoughisenough]

Well done you. A bit of name and shame wouldn't go amiss and not one of these would sue. Maybe we should start a thread but I guess cag management wouldn't like it. I don't see any difference to what we are doing anyway.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all

 

Almost finished my submission....

 

Just a quick thought, I note that in post 44 here it was mentioned trying to get a Solicitor to tackle a fraud case - this is impossible simply because the majority of solicitors are civil practitioners only, those that are criminal practitioners are almost always defence specialists.

 

The only way to take a criminal case forwards is to go to the police - as an ex p..c. myself I can tell you that if your evidence is in order then the Police WILL take it on - if the officer you speak to or a civilian counter clerk says they will not, then remember this, 'an officer (including civilian staff) who neglects his duty will be liable to proceedings under the Police Act, and may be disciplined by the Chief Constable, and are also subject to investigation by the IPCC.' (Independent Police Complaints Commission.)

 

Now I know that certain 'loan/finance companies' would have great problems with the police investigating their actions - I draw your attention (again!) to my old friend the Fraud Act 2006 - [also incorporating the Fraud Act 1968]

This is where the offences being committed are clearly set out, and it makes good reading (......)

 

ALMOST ALL OF THESE SUB-PRIME COMPANIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATES HAVE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO COMMIT OFFENCES UNDER THIS ACT.

 

All it needs is one complaint to the Police and the rest, as they say, may be history.

 

I hope I can help, if you would like me to - you can always PM me if you wish.

 

Kind regards as always

Dougal

[enoughisenough]

Now that Dougal was a post well worth Reading! Lets hope the guest that has popped up is reading carefully. I have been thinking along these lines myself including a referral to the SFO. This was my nuclear option if they came after me again. Since it's now out in open does any cagger who has already been repossessed feel like notifying Hemel Hempstead constabulary of a serious fraud?

Edited June 26, 2009 by enoughisenough
bloody typo!

[enoughisenough]

Anton Piller order at the ready!

 

Not the full Act but the contents make very interesting reading

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

Edited June 26, 2009 by enoughisenough
Added summary of Act

[enoughisenough]

IN THE MEANTIME TO GET BACK ON TOPIC

 

IF YOU HAVE NOT FINISHED YOURS YOU HAVE FIVE DAYS (SAY FOUR TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE)

 

PLEASE SPEND ANY SPARE TIME YOU HAVE GETTING THIS OUT TO AS MANY CAGGERS AS YOU KNOW

 

I HAVE LONG HELD THE OPINION THAT IT IS ONLY HOPELESS IF WE THINK IT IS

 

I WOULD CALL THIS A REAL TEST FOR THE POWERS THAT BE

 

AND I THINK THE SYSTEM WOULD RATHER HAVE A 'FEW BAD APPLES' EXPOSED AND BROUGHT TO ACCOUNT THAN ALLOW THE ILLUSION OF FAIRNESS WHICH SUSTAINS THINGS THEY WAY THEY ARE TO BE THREATENED. LET'S PUT THAT CHOICE BEFORE THEM.

 

[enoughisenough]

and now back to the other point!

 

Serious Crime Prevention Orders

 

The Serious Crime Act 2007, which commenced on April 6 2008, introduced the concept of Serious Crime Prevention Orders – the so called "super ASBOs." In essence, these are civil orders, similar to injunctions, which restrain serious and serial offenders' business and commercial activities. They are available to a Crown Court on either conviction or committal for sentence and can be used for convictions under sections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act (as well as for conspiracy to defraud). The first orders were served in Northern Ireland on April 22, 2008, on four people who were the subject of a HM Revenue & Customs prosecution for revenue evasion in relation to fuel fraud.

[enoughisenough]

And yet more on this...

 

The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, 2002, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

 

"7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

 

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it."

 

Could this mean that the repossessions have to be reversed or fully compensated if they in anyway fall foul of the 2006 Act?

 

Section 4: Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence to commit a fraud by dishonestly abusing one's position. It applies in situations where the defendant has been put in a privileged position, and by virtue of this position is expected to safeguard another's financial interests or not act against those interests.

 

The Law Commission explain the meaning of "position" at paragraph 7.38:

 

"7.38 The necessary relationship will be present between trustee and beneficiary, director and company, professional person and client, agent and principal, employee and employer, or between partners. It may arise otherwise, for example within a family, or in the context of voluntary work, or in any context where the parties are not at arm's length. In nearly all cases where it arises, it will be recognised by the civil law as importing fiduciary duties, and any relationship that is so recognised will suffice. We see no reason, however, why the existence of such duties should be essential. This does not of course mean that it would be entirely a matter for the fact-finders whether the necessary relationship exists. The question whether the particular facts alleged can properly be described as giving rise to that relationship will be an issue capable of being ruled upon by the judge and, if the case goes to the jury, of being the subject of directions."

 

The term "abuse" is not limited by a definition, because it is intended to cover a wide range of conduct. Moreover subsection (2) makes clear that the offence can be committed by omission as well as by positive action.

 

Section 5: "Gain" and "loss"

 

Section 5 defines the meaning of "gain" and "loss" for the purposes of sections 2 to 4. The definitions are essentially the same as those in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 32(2)(b) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under these definitions, "gain" and "loss" are limited to gain and loss in money or other property. The definition of "property" which applies in this context is based on section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (read with section 34(1) of that Act) and section 4(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (read with section 32(1) of that Act). The definition of "property" covers all forms of property, including intellectual property, although in practice intellectual property is rarely "gained" or "lost".

 

I think Dougal has hit on something here...any naysayers in the house so we can start to test the arguments?

 

I'm thinking this needs a separate thread.Will try to do this later.

[enoughisenough]

FRAUD ACT DISCUSSION MOVED HERE!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/206470-fraud-act-2006-a.html

[enoughisenough]

HI CRAPSTONE

 

Did you edit your name and shame post or have the mods done it?

[biddy65]

just read this and found it interesting,where do i ,where do i send my submission to and roughly how should i word it,i've been with kensington,spml and wave.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Biddy65

 

Post number 2 on this thread (page one) had the following link. It gives all the info you need. You might also look at post three (again page one) where I have posted a rough format of how to lay out the submission.

 

IT doesn't have to full of devastating legal argument. Just write your experiences with these sub-prime sharks. The more the committee knows about these practices the better. It will then allow the committee to ask the FSA two very simple questions, which are:

 

1. "Why is this happening when the law mandates it can't?"

 

2. "Why is this not happening when the law mandates it should?"

 

There is a great deal of power in those two very simple simple questions.

 

Good luck. EiE.

 

UK Parliament - TC0809PN47

[hunni2006]

Just read your thread & will be submitting mine asap.

 

couple of quick questions... I'm pretty new hear and only just starting with this legalise stuff:oops:... but I AM learning:)

 

Executive Summary

 

This should be 200-250 words max summarising the main arguments, maybe something along the lines of: (THIS IS NOT PERFECT AND SHOULD NOT BE COPIED AND PASTED. YOU SHOULD PROVIDE YOUR OWN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)

 

The following submission, in response to the Treasury Select Committee's call for submissions, made 17th June, 2009 lays before the committee evidence of widespread consumer detriment experienced as a result of practices in the 'sub-prime' mortgage market which are systemic, and more often than not, unlawful. The overall consequence of these widespread practices is that consumers are being harrassed, serially and unlawfully overcharged, treated with contempt and subject to reprisals when making complaint and are then ultimately and often unlawfully repossessed, in addition to which the equity is then stripped from their homes with hugely disproportionate early redemption charges, following on from repossession. Evidence will also be brought forward to show that The FSA has failed in its duty to regulate effectively these firms, that the FOS is too slow to act on consumer complaints and enforce the regulations in this area, and that the courts themselves consistently fail in their duty to examine the fairness of standard terms in this contracts as they are mandated by virtue of ECJ ruling whatever the number is! (I'll edit this later!)

Forgive my ignorance, but I really don't understand the first bit... are we meant to do something like a synopsis of the story?

 

oh, and have posted this link on facebook... should reach a few more people:)

Edited June 26, 2009 by hunni2006
missed a bit!

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all

 

Just to clarify what my friend said in post number 54:

 

In British and British-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt Anton Pillar order) is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This prevents destruction of incriminating evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements. The order is named for the case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] Ch 55 [1] in 1976, although the first reported such order was granted by Templeman J in EMI Limited v Pandit [1975] 1 All ER 418 in 1975. They are now known as search orders in England and Wales.

 

Because such an order is essentially unfair to the accused party, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in the Anton Piller case:

 

There is an extremely strong prima facie case against the respondent,

The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant, and

There must be clear evidence that the respondents have in their possession incriminating documents or things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before an inter partes application can be made.

 

In the UK, it has been reported that approximately 500 Anton Piller orders were made per year between 1975 and 1980. During the 1990s, this rate had dropped tenfold. Although the name persists in normal usage, the common law application of this order has been largely superseded by a statutory search order under the Civil Procedure Act 1997[2]. A search order under this act "does not affect any right of a person to refuse to do anything on the ground that to do so might tend to expose him or his spouse to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty".

 

But it is vital to complain to the Police - see new thread as before...

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[enoughisenough]

Hi hunni2006.

 

Posted on facebook. You genius!

 

Ok what you should do is a short summary of the things they've done or not done that have brought you to the cag. Number it 1,2,3 etc label it executive summary. Then take each one of those points and provide more detail so that roughly speaking 4, 5, 6 deal with 1, 678 deal with 2 and 9, 10, 11 deal with 3 and so on...

 

Good luck

 

let me know if you are none the wiser.

 

Cheers EiE.

[Crapstone]

Hi EIE,

 

I edited the post ...

 

I've had a reply from SMPL and although they admit serious failings they aren't going to do jack about it but thank me for helping out with their staff training! So it's on to plan B.

 

However, as they are refusing to acknowledge that an attempt was made to pay, i.e. perfectly acceptable cheques, and insist on blackmailing me with extortionate fees from breaking the agreement ,then a call to the police shouldn't do any harm. They are required to keep records by law and they have freely admitted that they have 'lost' many of them, including cheques sent, personal records and all the original signed documents apart from the deed and an offer which was unsigned by them.

 

They have admitted wongly witholding information on my SAR and have now admitted that the mortgage is securitised and have supplied the date and the company involved that receives the beneficial interest.

 

Time to up the game. It's just a pity we don't have a waving smiley to say Hi to the guests and prying eyes....I feel a bit like a muskateer,' all for one and one for all'..cheesy but true.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

Plus they are removing solicitors costs applied that neither they or the solicitors can produce either a reason for or an invoice, as a gesture of goodwill..Corrupt or what?

[hunni2006]

Hi hunni2006.

 

Posted on facebook. You genius!

 

Ok what you should do is a short summary of the things they've done or not done that have brought you to the cag. Number it 1,2,3 etc label it executive summary. Then take each one of those points and provide more detail so that roughly speaking 4, 5, 6 deal with 1, 678 deal with 2 and 9, 10, 11 deal with 3 and so on...

 

Good luck

 

let me know if you are none the wiser.

 

Cheers EiE.

 

much clearer, thank you

[hunni2006]

just an idea... anyone tried putting something on youtube?...

[Crapstone]

Hmmmm.. a youtube of SPML and their antics...Now you've really got me thinking...

[Crapstone]

Wilmington Trust now hold my mortgage under Mortgage Funding 2008-1 PLC. A company formed in a few weeks before the securitisation and one whos' accounts are due on 30/6/2009....

 

I need a bigger umbrella ....

[enoughisenough]

Wilmington Trust are mentioned in just about every prospectus I've seen. My guess is that crapstone take all their orders from them and are their lightning rod taking all the flak.

 

I've absolutely no problems with giving Crapstone a good kicking deserving as they are of it but I wonder whether Wilmington like the glare of publicity. My guess is no- they do not.

Edited June 28, 2009 by enoughisenough

[ChargeBiter]

My Story is here,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/108250-blemain-who-regulates-them.html

 

Im more than happy to go through all of this tomorrow and put my contribution in. Im a little busy today as its my birthday.

 

Blemain havent been in touch in 6 days now...I wonder what theyre up to - probably started legal proceedings to reclaim the arrears.

 

I look forward to doing anything I can to assist in this matter, Ill work my way over it tomorrow and get it off quickly.

 

Many thanks to Magiciansgirl for pointing me over here,

 

Paul

[subprimevictim]

Just sent off my submission.

Subprimevictim

[enoughisenough]

Good on you too...

 

In fact to all who have you are the real superheroes of this world!

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

[magiciansgirl]

Hi mg is your submission in or just done? If it's done but not in go back through carefully to make sure you've said wHat you want to say. If it's already submitted the inquiry will read it but may or may not publish it. Thanks all!

 

Keep the faith. EiE

Tell your fellow posters to tell their fellow posters!

 

Hi, EiE. It was completed and submitted on Friday and I've had an acknowledgement this morning. Don't worry about speed meaning inaccuracy; the facts were at my fingertips and I'm a professional writer anyway. Despite not getting to grips with links I notified all the threads on which I post because of a particular lender.