Sub Prime Mortgages Call For Evidence Before The Treasury Select Committee

[enoughisenough]

Your story is an absolute shocker Agatha. And the Sad But True story is that tens of thousands are being turned over like this. I will do my utmost to get this appalling abuse stopped. I can't do it myself because I have no individual influence. But we keep on going because they declared war

[enoughisenough]

Dougal

 

just caught your cryptic post. Any chance of a pm on this. Got mine

in under the radar!

[agatha c]

Hi EIE

 

You don't know the half of it, dodgy estate agent, putting people off of

buying home, putting sale board up when not actually sold. Someone

put in an offer for £25,000 more, have prove of letter offer. BT told me new owners had taken over our phone line, house still for sale.

 

I need to get non complience from SPML. I will take them to court,

nothing to loose.

 

Agatha c (I think I prefer Granmma)

[Crapstone]

Just to let you know the Courts do not have to abide by any decision made by the FOS.

 

The FOS is not a regulatory body, it is a dispute resolution service.

 

As far as I am aware they do only deal with individual complaints. However, I understand that certain types of complaints can be dealt with under a "wider implications" (i will check this further later) criteria. Where an Ombudsman makes a decision about one complaint and that decision is then applied to all identical complaints. Much like the recent Lehman Brothers Inventments.

 

However, the complaints would have to be identical.

 

Hi Suetonius,

 

Perhaps I am wrong but I always thought that the FOS decision would have sufficient weight in court under ADR legislation. The final decision is binding on the company but not on the consumer if they choose not to accept or need to enforce.

 

That's what the ADR legislation is there for and the decision is taken into account. The courts encourage it's use before taking up their valuable time and smile upon those that do. If I'm wrong then I'll have to take that up with Trading Standards as that's what their handbook says and is included in the training.

 

My thoughts are more on what they mean by 'individual'. It can't mean a person in the singular because of joint accounts. It can't mean under one account number as they can consider several under any complaint.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

To use ADR as a group woudn't be that unusual if we all agree to the same points of complaint being raised. It's just a thought as I haven't yet seen it mentioned and if there is a loophole we can use at the least cost to ourselves then it's worth a look at.

[Crapstone]

Agatha c. (granny)

 

We are working on it, all individually and together to bring them down a peg or two.

 

Your experience has been terrible and is shocking. Criminals get treated better with at least a roof over their heads and meals provided. But make the mistake of being in debt then you are out on your own.

 

I don't know about the sane part but if kicking your own a**e was an Olympic sport we'd win a gold for sure and knowing it's a team effort makes it that bit better.

 

Congratulations on your good news! You bloomin' well deserve it and it's something to look forward to. I can't wait 'til it's my turn to be a Gran but I think I'll have to wait a few years.

[supersleuth]

Agatha C,

 

Congratulations granny!

 

An irritating thought sprang to mind when I read your story and Crapstone's truism that "criminals get treated better". How about this story for possibly, the greatest example of ironic 'justice':

 

True story:

A solicitor who works for a law firm that represents repossession lenders gets paid (and takes, lots of money) to use her legal skills to put innocent non-criminals out on the street i.e., she takes money to make people homeless- - - that same solicitor then received a public award in recognition of her kind "charitable work" because she gave her legal skills for free to get homes for criminals when they leave prision!!!!!!

 

It would be funny if it wasn't true, but alas, this is the mindset of the scummy lawyers who assist these lenders and is testament to their skewed sense of justice. In fairness to criminals who have served their sentence, they too deserve and should have, somewhere to live, but equally, innocent people who've committed no crime also deserve to have a home. How incredible it is that a solicitor takes money for making innocent victims of her client banker crimes homeless whilst at the same time being publicly recognised and commended for her pro bono work housing criminals!!! What deprived sense of justice does that solicitor has....

 

So Crapstone is right...criminals ARE treated better.

Edited July 2, 2009 by supersleuth

[landy_alert]

Hi All:)

 

I know what you mean Supersleuth - this is slightly off topic but in a not dissimilar situation, we were forced to sell our dream home which we had spent many years and many thousands personally renovating from scratch, after narrowly escaping repossession by Swift Advances. The buyer was a well-known acquitted criminal who had served many years in prison before a retrial acquitted him. His notoriety in the press led to his being in a position to write his memoirs and marry a millionairess who used her cash to purchase our home (and that's apart from the half a million compensation he is apparently suing for:eek:)

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[JonCris]

His case x 2 was Bit like Colin Stagg's then the police blinded by their own prejudices ........... again

[sweetjane]

This was interesting: link to coverage of Tuesday's Treasury Committee discussing Mortgage arrears - not specifically sub-prime but did include some details.

Player It's about 2 hrs long but great evidence from Shelter, CAB and Which. It made me feel like someone was listening.

I got so angry reading your story Agatha. We will all fight on to stop these crooks destroying lives. Be strong. Victory will be sweet.

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Perhaps I am wrong but I always thought that the FOS decision would have sufficient weight in court under ADR legislation. The final decision is binding on the company but not on the consumer if they choose not to accept or need to enforce.

 

That's what the ADR legislation is there for and the decision is taken into account. The courts encourage it's use before taking up their valuable time and smile upon those that do. If I'm wrong then I'll have to take that up with Trading Standards as that's what their handbook says and is included in the training.

 

My thoughts are more on what they mean by 'individual'. It can't mean a person in the singular because of joint accounts. It can't mean under one account number as they can consider several under any complaint.

 

Sorry, I could have explained myself much better.

 

A Final Decision ( given by an Ombudsman and not an Adjudicator) is legally binding upon the applicable institution, if accepted in full by the person making the complaint.

 

However, that Final Decision would not be binding on a Court in cases of a similar or an exact nature.

 

As far as I am aware, an individual is any person or business with a turnover of less than £1,000,000. Each complaint is dealt with on an individual basis be it a individual person or an individual account (including joint accounts)

 

The FOS will only "bundle" complaints from more than one individual (account or person) under the wider implications banner

[Suetonius]

Just wanted to say welcome back SS. I know given our previous debates, it may sound like I am being sarcastic but I do honestly mean it.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius

 

Good to also have you back making your contributions. They certainly test the argument, which is always in the general good, in addition to which you have an excellent knowledge of the regulatory framework.

 

As all will now know the book is closed. However there are circumstances under which the committee will allow a further seven days, usually by prior agreement I think, and probably only from agencies.

 

AS A MATTER OF URGENCY

IF YOU HAVE HAD YOUR SUBMISSION MARKED AS PERSONAL AND THEREFORE INADMISSABLE...

 

I URGE YOU WITH THE MAXIMUM SPEED YOU CAN GALVANISE

 

TO GET DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL CAB AND ASK THEM TO SUBMIT ON YOUR BEHALF

 

THE CAB MIGHT JUST BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE THAT EXTENSION WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER CANNOT

 

Keep the faith, EiE.

[Crapstone]

Thanks Suetonius,

 

It was worth a look and considering the wider implications avenue.

 

I'd like to ask your thoughts on court orders and waivers of the terms by the claimant. Would a non-waiver clause still be effective or would they have to apply for a variation?

 

As an example; If a claimant was granted a suspended repossession order and the defendent was required to meet the terms imposed by the judge. If the defendent or claimant vary those terms without court consent is it a breach of the order? Particularly in the case of the claimant. Would they still be able to rely on the court order and any previous or post contract non-waivers if they initiated the varied terms either written, orally or via their conduct?

 

I think I know half the answer but would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Hopefully you'll be able to understand what I've written as it's not always easy to convey what you mean, (when it's sweltering hot despite the fan on max!)

[Crapstone]

Welcome back Supersleuth,

 

All I've ever asked for is to be treated fairly and it's just not happening. It's hard to stomache when you have worked hard for what you have but when times get tough you don't fall into safety net provided to people that haven't, don't and never intended to contribute to society one bit when they are capable.

 

There seems to be some unwritten code that says if you could ever afford home ownership in the first place you must have assets and can just pack up and go to rental or downsize if repo'd, or you can afford to defend it.

 

We were encouraged to buy our homes and now we are being punished for it.

 

Totally off topic but we all need to have a moan now and again to keep us sane and united.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Crapstone

[iconoclash]

Hi - my understanding (following valuable info from Carmel) is that breaching the court order applies to both sides. My lender is doing same thing, but, as the breach involves adding more charges I also believe that no-one can get a repo order based on fees and charges, only what is owed in actual payments - which has always had me wondering whether interest is being calculated with these erroneous sums included? (hope that makes sense)....

 

 

We were encouraged to buy our homes and now we are being punished for it.

I used this in my original defence against my lender:

Residential Mortgage Repossessions and The Administration of Justice Acts, 1970 and 1973 – A case for Reform. L. M Clements, B.A., LL.M, Lecturer in Law, University of Hull.

 

“It is widely recognised that mortgage finance is extremely important to our economy and that it should continue to be freely available to persons having a broad spectrum of incomes. In order to ensure that this continues to be the case, Banks, Building Societies and other secured lenders clearly need assurances that their security is relatively safe. Nevertheless, the trend towards owner-occupation and the economic misfortunes of the past raise the issue whether increased protection should be given to mortgagors of residential property. Mortgagors do need protection not only against lenders who use their commercial weight to advantage, but also against external factors such as the consequences of economic recession. This article examines the current problems with mortgage repossessions and argue that reform is needed which will guarantee to mortgagors the protection of a court order in line with the protection afforded to residential tenants, whilst at the same time giving increased powers to the court in possession proceedings”…”There is no doubt that the State has played an important role in encouraging home ownership; but, having been encouraged to enter into home ownership by the State, mortgagors are then reasonably entitled to expect some degree of legal protection from the State. This is particularly the case when outside factors over which individuals have no control lead to wide-spread hardship and homelessness”.

The rights in the tenancy area being different.

Clements, 'Residential Mortgage Repossessions and The Administration of Justice Acts, 1970 and 1973 - A case for Reform.'

[enoughisenough]

A final thanks to all those who submitted and to all those who offered advice on submissions. Whether you were accepted as evidence or not I'm sure all contribtions will be valuable as they are still being made available to committee members and I feel sure that the head of fsa mortgage compliance is going to get a deliciously uncomfortable grilling from some quarters of the committee. Lets hope Angela (something of the) Knight does too.

 

Thanks once again. TSC updates as and when they happen. In the meantime use this thread to post your sub prime abusers (oops sorry mortgage provider's) behaviour RIGHT HERE.

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

[rocket1]

I have just spoken (1300 July 3rd) to the Treasury select committee and you might be interested to hear that they told me they have very few submissions - they mentioned fifteen !.

 

There is still time until July 8 to submit, they said. They are themselves behind time, so the deadline of July 1 was a bit false and they are happy for more submissions.

 

They also said that the reason they would not put personal mortgage stories online and as official evidence is purely for 'safety' or 'hassle' reasons as it is possible to imagine all sorts of problems that might ensue when people identify themselves directly in connection with a particular 'story'.

 

 

However, the very same mortgage story, written differently as a non personal, non identifiable generalised account of a typical example of the 'sort of thing that commonly happens' would be used as official evidence and put online etc by the Treasury Committee.

 

I personally have a slight mental hiccup about how to turn 'my' story into something that abstract, and I'm sure others do too. But perhaps it will become easier when I start writing it.

 

So, it would be a good idea to try and publicise this a bit more and persuade some more submissions out of people.

[enoughisenough]

Thanks for that Rocket1. This is a very useful contribution.

 

THE DEADLINE IS EXTENDED TO JULY 8TH

 

THE COMMITTEE ARE STILL INVITING SUBMISSIONS

 

EVEN IF YOURS HAS BEEN REJECTED YOU CAN RESUBMIT

 

WRITE ABOUT SUB-PRIME LENDERS IN GENERAL

 

DO NOT MENTION YOUR LENDER OR BROKER

 

DO NOT USE 'I' OR 'WE' USE THE TERM CONSUMER/CONSUMERS

 

ADD FOOTNOTES WITH REFERENCE TO RELEVANT ACTS, REGULATIONS OR AUTHORITIES

 

EACH OF US HAS OUR OWN EXPERIENCE. TAKE THAT AND TELL THE COMMITTEE ABOUT WHAT SUB PRIME MEANS FOR USERS IN GENERAL FOCUSING ON YOUR EXPERIENCE

 

ABOVE ALL TRY TO PAINT A GENERAL PICTURE RATHER THAN A THEY DID THIS TO ME TYPE OF APPROACH

 

LOOK AT THE SAMPLE PARAGRAPH BELOW

 

" Upon repossession many consumers of sub prime mortgage products will find that the unfair treatment and aggressive practices they experienced prior to possession continue long after they have been, probably unlawfully, evicted. They are hounded for 'arrears' comprised of charges there was never any lawful basis for (8); often have their goods seized and stored (paying handsomely of course for this 'service'); charged extortionate estate agency marketing fees; experience crippling interest on the 'debt' for so long as the possessed property remains unsold; charged a whole litany of additional fees for locksmiths; property mothballing and maintenance, valuation and management fees; and then ultimately the equity is stripped from the property in the form of an unlawful and unlawfully excessive early redemption charge."

 

(8) Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, 1999

 

OK, so recognising that this is not perfect, it is nonetheless of the style to get your submission in, and past their filters. So guys. As Alf Ramsay said to the winning 1966 World Cup team just before extra time.

 

"You've beaten them once. Now you're going to have to go back out and beat them again!"

Edited July 3, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos

[enoughisenough]

Good luck 2nd time round. I stripped mine of all personal references and it got through.

[ChargeBiter]

Wee need way more publicity than were getting on this forum right now.

[enoughisenough]

Did you read the mail on Sunday. This stuff is starting to get through. nobody even questions the mortgages were securitised anymore. If the tsc accept my evidence then that will be big news.

[ChargeBiter]

Dont usually get the mail, only watch news every other day (so repetetive).

 

Im just taking a look at how easy it would be to raising this to a better level of publicity than we are getting at the moment. Anyone have any ideas?

 

Perhaps a submission to local radio channels wherever we are?

[Trudy B]

That This Is Money article over the weekend said there are 250 reposession orders granted per day and somewhere I read that this was only a small proportion of the amount of cases being brought to court by the lenders.

 

Therefore what about all this Facebook and twittering thing eveyone is apparently using? They seem to get all sorts of public attention.

 

Did a facebook campaign or something not stop of of the banks charging student fees or something a while back?

 

No idea how they work, all a bit beyond me!!

 

T

[enoughisenough]

Hi Chargebiter

 

Here's the link to the Mail on Sunday Story.

 

Haunted by the ghost lenders behind string of repossessions | Mail Online

 

What you have to remember is that the media range from liberal to conservative, in the main the latter, and that stories involving celebrities and car crash tv are the norm.

 

We've been trying for ages with a succession of journos to get this more prominence but their editors are very jumpy about stuff like this, even when the journo is sympathetic. No more sub prime mortgages and bang goes all that juicy advertising revenue, that fills up the scandal sheets and keeps them profitable. No more cash till pay day companies? Bang goes their advertising revenue as well. So it's difficult, but the more serious broadcasters and newspapers will run with it. Heavens above, if the Mail will publish it then there's hope for us all.

 

What would certainly raise the profile is a visit from plod. Now that is newsworthy.

 

Like I said. I share your frustrations but we can't be unrealistic. I even wrote a tabloid style expose on one of the other threads in the hope a journo might pick it up and run with it. It's real slow getting this sort of thing pushed up the agenda because too many powerful groups have a strong vested interest in ensuring it doesn't. Anyway the vast majority of the media are owned and controlled by huge companies with massive cross diversification of interests and holdings including yes...you've guessed it...the financial industries. This is a really tough nut to crack, but it will get through. Do some digging. Find out who owns your local radio station. Then find out who owns the owners of your local radio station. Then find out who owns the owners of who owns your local radio station. And lastly look at how many pies they've got their fingers in. You'll be shocked.