Sub Prime Mortgages Call For Evidence Before The Treasury Select Committee

[JonCris]

& again

 

'Foolish' mortgage charges are forcing struggling borrowers further into debt, says Lord Myners | Mail Online

[Crapstone]

ChargeBiter, JonCris, Llloyds Defender,

 

When I needed a solicitor to help with an eviction order it was like looking for hens teeth. Either they weren't interested or wanted a considerable amount just to look at it..after a bout of sighing.

 

In the end I was pointed to Howells Solicitors, by CLS, who did an excellent job above and beyond because the case was interesting. The amount of companies that want to take on civil cases is limited unless it's ambulance chasing or you can afford an arm and a leg (no pun intended).

 

What about sending a solicitors letter as LBA from us all to start with? And a petition. If nothing else it's only the cost of one letter and their response would be amusing reading and something to file for the next step.

 

sweetjane,

 

Good idea..2 problems...I have a broken ankle and I hate heights so count me out but maybe someone else could volunteer.

 

At times I've thought about knocking a few bricks out of my house and taking them down to High Wycombe and bricking their door up with them. And then leaving a note to say it represents their share of my house from their newly invented arrears fee.

 

Thanks for the links. Most interesting that only 6 families have been helped under the MRS but the 'wrong end of the telescope is being looked at'. Quoting the numbers that have received advice is all well and good but how many have had the results they deserve from the judges?

 

If the FSA takes the view of actual costs from arrears and not profit then why do Capstone still get away with charging £115 in arrears fees!

 

I'm sure if we put our minds to it we can win against them.

[rocket1]

ChargeBiter, JonCris, Llloyds Defender,

 

When I needed a solicitor to help with an eviction order it was like looking for hens teeth.

 

I'm sure if we put our minds to it we can win against them.

 

You are right, but we need concerted action from many,many people. Like a 'union'.

 

Unfortunately, it seems few people want to get together in this way. people are too weak minded.

 

Imagine this example. The whole country is up in arms about speed cameras and parking tickets. Courts are clogged with them.

 

Most of the population agree it is government inspired extortion - totally dishonest.

 

All we have to do is all refuse to take any notice of any fine or parking ticket. With everyone refusing to pay, things would instantly change for the better because they just couldn't cope.

 

I have refused to pay a single parking ticket for over ten years and tell the bailiffs to p**s off and go and be a parasite some place else.

 

It seems to work, because they get nothing from me. This actually shows they can't cope already, but it needs a lot, lot more people to do what I am doing.

 

So, what about an enormous number of people getting together to do something similar to the banks/mortgage companies to cause them them so much aggro we can force them to change.?

 

The ideal thing would be to avoid using them when possible, and never, ever deposit ANY savings with them.

[iconoclash]

Hi - found this interesting:

its the written evidence re mortgage arrears taken from the treasury web page

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/mortgagearrearswebfile2.pdf

 

and what about using this barrister for a class action or getting in touch with Tom Brennan

Welcome to Oliver Mishcon

Edited July 8, 2009 by iconoclash
added info

[Crapstone]

Hi Rocket1,

 

You are right, but we need concerted action from many,many people. Like a 'union'.

 

Unfortunately, it seems few people want to get together in this way. people are too weak minded.

 

 

I don't think it's because people don't want to do anything, it's more that they feel repressed, unheard, scared and too skint too follow any action through. By the time you find yourself over a barrel with these companies it's usually too little too late and your sense of self-worth evaporates as fast as your equity.

 

I wish more people would make use of the 'buddy' system on this site and say more about the way they have been treated by the sub-prime ****. We do need to act together and support each other as much as we can.

[Trudy B]

I completely agree and to be effective it needs support, cohesion and coordination

How can I help?

T

[Crapstone]

There is also a file on some oral statements given.

 

Uncorrected Evidence 766

 

It's pretty clear that the FSA is not acting in the consumers interest by not naming and shaming the companies involved in their enforcement action.

 

And well done Mr Fulcher, whoever they may be:D. Well said Sir!

[Trudy B]

There is also a file on some oral statements given.

 

Uncorrected Evidence 766

 

It's pretty clear that the FSA is not acting in the consumers interest by not naming and shaming the companies involved in their enforcement action.

 

And well done Mr Fulcher, whoever they may be:D. Well said Sir!

 

 

That’s the transcripts of what was being shown to the telly on Saturday evening on the BBC Parliament channel

 

T

[JonCris]

I agree Crapstone members should make more use of the buddy system That way at least they won't be going in to the lions den without support

[Crapstone]

JonCris,

 

I wish I'd have had someone there with me at the the time who had gone through the same process! It doesn't matter how much you prepare it all seems to go hazy when the time comes to walk into the court room. Someone to elbow me in the ribs would have been very handy, and also to give me an understanding hug afterwards. You don't know what it's like until you've been through it yourself.

 

As an enthusiastic ad-on: Has anyone heard about the case of a Shropshire couple, Paul and Amanda Jackson that entered a sale and rent back scheme in 2005 after getting into mortgage arrears? 2 years later they faced eviction after Repossessions Stopped failed to keep up with the mortgage. A judge in B'Ham has ruled they can stay there and pay rent in a landmark case. It was on BBC West Midlands text today.

 

Hopefully this will offer a lifeline to a few Caggers who may face or be facing the same. It may also be a sign that some judges may be doing the right thing for once.

[midge61]

there is a report on it on the BBC website

BBC NEWS | England | Shropshire | Couple keep home in landmark case

[sweetjane]

Dominic Savage's drama Freefall to be transmitted next Tuesday on BBC 2 at 9pm will strike a chord with many of us and hopefully bring our issues to a big audience.

[enoughisenough]

Anyone thought of this route regarding mass action?

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Super-complaints

 

One day this will break through. It's our pressure that's getting it as far as the TSC and the FSA have now come in for some serious scrutiny. They are practically being dragged kicking and screaming into the enforcement and compliance end of their duties. F*** 'em!

 

They should have been doing this ever since 2004.

 

Even better if we can also get some pressure put on the courts. Think I'll start a new thread where we can post our court experiences. Get those bar stewards wising up as well.

 

here it is...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/208926-sub-prime-judge-judys.html

Edited July 11, 2009 by enoughisenough
Adding new thread

[Trudy B]

Was anyone else sad enough to watch the TSC on BBC Parliament this evening?

 

Here’s the link to this week’s oral evidence from the FSA, Lord Myners and Rt Hon John Healey MP

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc766-ii/uc76602.htm

 

The bit that interested me was about comments about the fact that the mortgage admin companies can approach the securitisation companies to get waivers to enable them to help struggling homeowners but clearly ones like mine have no intention of doing so :-

 

“Lord Myners: The FSA has been very clear that in future the securitisation process and documentation should not in any way inhibit the ability of the lender or the lender's agents to enter into negotiations with borrowers to help them cope with distress in terms of servicing their obligations. In practice, even when there is a documentary restriction, there are waiver processes, and I believe it is appropriate for the agent, on behalf of the securitisation vehicle, to persuade the lenders, the funders of those schemes, that it is in their interests to support borrowers and that to not do so is actually probably to put the market under more pressure which has consequential collateral negative outcomes for them. Therefore, I believe, Chairman, that there has been an issue in the previous form of securitisation documentation and I believe that that could be addressed by constructive engagement, but the FSA is very clear that in future it will not accept forms of securitisation documents which do not allow appropriate forbearance engagement.”

 

 

T

[Suetonius]

Was anyone else sad enough to watch the TSC on BBC Parliament this evening?

 

Here’s the link to this week’s oral evidence from the FSA, Lord Myners and Rt Hon John Healey MP

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc766-ii/uc76602.htm

 

The bit that interested me was about comments about the fact that the mortgage admin companies can approach the securitisation companies to get waivers to enable them to help struggling homeowners but clearly ones like mine have no intention of doing so :-

 

“Lord Myners: The FSA has been very clear that in future the securitisation process and documentation should not in any way inhibit the ability of the lender or the lender's agents to enter into negotiations with borrowers to help them cope with distress in terms of servicing their obligations. In practice, even when there is a documentary restriction, there are waiver processes, and I believe it is appropriate for the agent, on behalf of the securitisation vehicle, to persuade the lenders, the funders of those schemes, that it is in their interests to support borrowers and that to not do so is actually probably to put the market under more pressure which has consequential collateral negative outcomes for them. Therefore, I believe, Chairman, that there has been an issue in the previous form of securitisation documentation and I believe that that could be addressed by constructive engagement, but the FSA is very clear that in future it will not accept forms of securitisation documents which do not allow appropriate forbearance engagement.”

 

 

T

 

I posted the below yesterday, which I feel is along the same lines

 

As I understand it, the argument is that securitisation of a mortgage by a lender, places limits and restrictions on its ability to provide rate switches and further advances.

 

As you will know Mephistopheles, most prospectuses include a condition stating something along the lines of:

 

"Risk factors

Loans subject to product switches and further advances will be repurchased by the seller from the mortgages trustee, which will affect the prepayment rate of the loans, and this may affect the yield to maturity of the issuer notes and Assignment of the loans and their related security."(1)

 

Therefore, it could be argued that the lender would have to comply with the above requirement before providing either a product switch (which could include conversation from repayment to interest only) or a further advance (which could include capitalisation of arrears).

 

Taking into consideration the current economic climate and that the majority of subprime lenders are in the process of reducing with the intention to close their loan books, would they be want to repurchase the loans ?

 

Admittedly the right to a product switch or a further advance, may not be technically given to a borrower under a standard mortgage agreement. However, the effect of arrears not being capitalised and mortgages not being switched from repayment to interest only, is having a negative impact upon some consumers.

 

Lenders are obligated to treat consumers fairly (2). The effect of securitisation may have a negative effect on a lenders ability or desire to do that.

 

(1) HOLMES FINANCING (NO. 5) PLC prospectus - page 78

(2) Mortgage Code - Section 1.1 (Mortgages provided between 1 July 1997 - 31 October 2004)

FSA Handbook section PRIN 2.1.1 (6) & MCOB 13.3 (Mortgages provided after 31 October 2004)

[JonCris]

Was anyone else sad enough to watch the TSC on BBC Parliament this evening?

 

Here’s the link to this week’s oral evidence from the FSA, Lord Myners and Rt Hon John Healey MP

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc766-ii/uc76602.htm

 

The bit that interested me was about comments about the fact that the mortgage admin companies can approach the securitisation companies to get waivers to enable them to help struggling homeowners but clearly ones like mine have no intention of doing so :-

 

“Lord Myners: The FSA has been very clear that in future the securitisation process and documentation should not in any way inhibit the ability of the lender or the lender's agents to enter into negotiations with borrowers to help them cope with distress in terms of servicing their obligations. In practice, even when there is a documentary restriction, there are waiver processes, and I believe it is appropriate for the agent, on behalf of the securitisation vehicle, to persuade the lenders, the funders of those schemes, that it is in their interests to support borrowers and that to not do so is actually probably to put the market under more pressure which has consequential collateral negative outcomes for them. Therefore, I believe, Chairman, that there has been an issue in the previous form of securitisation documentation and I believe that that could be addressed by constructive engagement, but the FSA is very clear that in future it will not accept forms of securitisation documents which do not allow appropriate forbearance engagement.”

 

 

T

 

 

Great I really do think we have Carmel Butler to thank for this at least in part due to Her earlier evidence to the Committee when she raised these very issues

[Suetonius]

Was anyone else sad enough to watch the TSC on BBC Parliament this evening?

 

Here’s the link to this week’s oral evidence from the FSA, Lord Myners and Rt Hon John Healey MP

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc766-ii/uc76602.htm

 

The bit that interested me was about comments about the fact that the mortgage admin companies can approach the securitisation companies to get waivers to enable them to help struggling homeowners but clearly ones like mine have no intention of doing so :-

 

“Lord Myners: The FSA has been very clear that in future the securitisation process and documentation should not in any way inhibit the ability of the lender or the lender's agents to enter into negotiations with borrowers to help them cope with distress in terms of servicing their obligations. In practice, even when there is a documentary restriction, there are waiver processes, and I believe it is appropriate for the agent, on behalf of the securitisation vehicle, to persuade the lenders, the funders of those schemes, that it is in their interests to support borrowers and that to not do so is actually probably to put the market under more pressure which has consequential collateral negative outcomes for them. Therefore, I believe, Chairman, that there has been an issue in the previous form of securitisation documentation and I believe that that could be addressed by constructive engagement, but the FSA is very clear that in future it will not accept forms of securitisation documents which do not allow appropriate forbearance engagement.”

 

 

T

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/newsletters/MLB1.pdf

 

Fair treatment of customers with securitised mortgages

 

We found that fewer tools are usually available for resolving arrears for securitised loans.

 

For example, securitisation covenants could prevent borrowers being offered the option of extending their mortgage term or switching to interest-only for a short period.

 

We expect all customers to be treated fairly and to be offered a relevant range of options for resolving arrears.

 

New securitisation should not contain provisions that could lead to less fair treatment of borrowers.

[subprimevictim]

I had a telephone conversation today with the adjudicator from the FOS who is dealing with my complaint against unlawful sub prime penalty charges and costs. He told me that the companies are quite within their rights to charge £50 per month for being in arrears, and are entitled to charge what they like. In his words; "They lent you the money; you have to pay it back!"

But, just a minute......I didn't borrow it from the SPV that is now demanding it, I borrowed it from the original lender who has since washed his hands of it!

I asked the adjudicator whether he watched the televisation of the Treasury Select Committee discussion about sub prime. He was totally blank. I doubt if he even has any idea what sub prime means.

I find it demoralising and outrageous that these FOS people, who are meant to be unbiased, are judging on something that they obviously know nothing about. What chance are we ever likely to have?

[enoughisenough]

Which adjudicator? Did you record it? This is wrong on so many levels I can't even speak at the moment.

 

But I will soon.

[subprimevictim]

I don't like to post the adjudicator's name on here for fear of reprisals, and unfortunately I didn't record the call as I don't have the equipment.

I am going to print off the whole of Carmel Butler's testimony and send it to the adjudicator and demand that he reads it.

[enoughisenough]

And you certainly didn't borrow their unlawful charges. And the FOS can't do anything to you. Name and shame this idiot, if not on the threads then to one of these people:

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/65/65-ombudsman-focus.htm

 

Read This The UTCCRs: Schedule 2 (e) and others:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

 

Also Read this: (kindly posted by Suetonius on the GE Charges thread)

 

You might want to add the following extracts to any letters regarding charges being unfair...

 

“ Elsewhere, the present debates about bank charges and the previous action of the OFT on credit-card charges are also relevant. We have already seen some customers raise queries about the level of charges made by lenders when they are in debt. The Citizens Advice report suggests that some lenders’ debt-collection practices are distorted by including steps that involve the customer paying additional fees. The range, complexity and level of these charges may all be matters for consideration. But the central question that will no doubt be raised increasingly with the ombudsman is whether or not the charges levied are lawful.

More generally, as my earlier brief example of the mortgage arrears fee shows, the application of extensive fees for customers already experiencing debt problems may not be fair treatment. Certainly it does not always sit well with the sympathetic and positive treatment of those in hardship.”

 

 

*Source: speech by Tony Boorman, decisions director and principal ombudsman, at the CML's complaints-handling seminar –London, 12 March 2008.

 

 

Lesley Titcomb, FSA Director responsible for the Mortgage Sector, also said*:

 

“As our data shows in these current market conditions more people are struggling to meet their mortgage payments and it is vital that firms treat them fairly. This means paying attention to their individual circumstances and not repossessing their homes when there may be an alternative solution. Repossession has to be the last resort. The FSA’s programme of actions to address the problem areas, includes a closer examination of charges, in particular the circumstances in which these are levied, and whether they are compatible with Treating Customers Fairly”

 

 

*Source: FSA reiterates call for firms to treat customers fairly in current market conditions - FSA/PN/087/2008 - 5August 2008

 

 

If the mortgage was drawn down after 31 October 2004 (you could argue that the spirit of MCOB should apply to mortgages before this date), you could refer to the below and ask them to prove the costs incurred.

 

MCOB 13.3.9

 

A mortgage lender or administratormust make and retain an adequate record of its dealings with a customer whose account is in arrears or who has a sale shortfall, which will enable the firm to show its compliance with this chapter.

 

 

Finally you might also remind the adjudicator that the FOS itself is open to proceedings for failing to implement and give adequate enforcement to a directive of the European Council

 

Community law does not say which national authorities are responsible for any particular rule of Community law: that is for national authorities to decide. But every national authority which has any responsibility in relation to Community law is bound by the obligations which result from Article 5: none are exempt. Parliaments, governments and courts are all bound. It applies to regional and local authorities, to State enterprises (at least when acting jure imperii, as regulatory bodies, though perhaps not when they act jure gestionis as enterprises). It also applies to private bodies insofar as State powers have been delegated to them. All national authorities are, pro tanto, Community authorities.

 

In general, the national authorities decide how to carry out their obligations under Article 5. The obligations are to bring about, or to avoid, particular results. The obligations are therefore rather similar to directives, although some of them have direct effects. In some cases the obligation under Article 5 is quite precise, and the Member State in practice has relatively little discretion as to how to carry it out.

 

However, if there is any doubt as to how the national authority should carry out its duties, Article 5 itself imposes a duty to consult the Commission, and if the State has not done this it cannot rely on the argument that it was difficult to fulfil its duty or that it did not know what it should have done.

 

A State cannot rely on any rule of national law as an excuse for not carrying out its obligations.

 

Article 5 is particularly important when a Member State has a conflict between its duty to enforce Community law and its own interests or the interests of a State-owned or important company. It is especially in such situations in which the obligation to cooperate in good faith with the Community institutions is important.

 

Europa/Competition/THE CORE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE COMMUNITY

 

Carmel Butler's testimony is to do with securitisation. You are tackling the charges. That's what you need to focus on.

 

Only deal with these people in writing. That way if they do say something stupid you have proof.

Edited July 22, 2009 by enoughisenough

[Dougal16T]

I had a telephone conversation today with the adjudicator from the FOS who is dealing with my complaint against unlawful sub prime penalty charges and costs. He told me that the companies are quite within their rights to charge £50 per month for being in arrears, and are entitled to charge what they like. In his words; "They lent you the money; you have to pay it back!"

But, just a minute......I didn't borrow it from the SPV that is now demanding it, I borrowed it from the original lender who has since washed his hands of it!

I asked the adjudicator whether he watched the televisation of the Treasury Select Committee discussion about sub prime. He was totally blank. I doubt if he even has any idea what sub prime means.

I find it demoralising and outrageous that these FOS people, who are meant to be unbiased, are judging on something that they obviously know nothing about. What chance are we ever likely to have?

 

Good morning all,

 

No chance, I am sorry to say - all the time the FOS are funded by the Banking system!

 

Sorry - feeling a bit frustrated with these people, who are supposed to help and protect us!!

 

All the very best as always,

 

Dougal

[enoughisenough]

Morning One and all

 

I'm all for debate and I sympathise with the argument that essentially the FOS are biased.

 

No-one should place all their eggs in one basket. However some caggers have had some success using the ombudsman and if you can get an ombudsman ruling that the the charges should be refunded and they shouldn't apply any more charges this has good swinging power should they decide to try for a possession order. Hell knows anything from the FOS that says they shouldn't be applying the charges might even keep them out of court. The long game is important - at all costs keep the roof over your head.

[enoughisenough]

Back to thread.

 

Any news from the TSC or is that it until recess is over?

 

Bloody November before this lot get back to work.

 

Wonder how many repossessions there'll be before then?

[iconoclash]

HI - what a disgrace the FOS are - I also had the same conversation but with a Community Law Solicitor - arrrgh. I just dont get it - penalty charges are penalty charges - unfair is unfair - guess we just dont wear the right ties or something!!