Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

[Sappho54]

Sadly, I have to agree Crapstone. The current evidence is that there is no point complaining to the FSA or the FSO about unfair charges, quoting the MCOB rules or OFT Guidelines. One letter quoted elsewhere on this site is from the FSO in response to a complaint about unfair charges is that as the borrower's loans are high-risk, therefore customers can expect higher interest, greater "supervision" and higher charges in comparison to the high street. So Acenden have the green light to charge what they like, when they like. The Govan Law Centre are entitled to their opinion but really it is a statement of the obvious. It is naive to expect any voluntary reimbursement, it is stupidly naive to think that in the current financial climate (and with the FSA about to be disbanded anyway) the FSA will "require" them to even abide by FSA rules let alone go beyond. Do the Govan Law Centre have the slightest idea about the magnitude of their suggestion, that to reimburse us will cost billions and open themselves to legal action from the investors who signed up for their quick buck? The only hope is political action - google Occupy Justice

[Govan Law Centre]

Tis the season to be optimistic - http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2011/12/glc-progresses-challenge-to-mortgage.html

[Sappho54]

I take my comment back and offer my apologies. Hats off to these guys!

[Govan Law Centre]

Hello GLC, can you name which 'sub-prime lender' it was?

 

 

can you confirm it was one of SPML/PML/SPPL or other Lehman 'lender'?

 

It was SPPL.

[Sappho54]

Write to Acenden, ask to be reimbursed, wait for 40 working days - they'll take every day of this to answer, and if you don't like the final answer apply to the FSO. You can do this online but the FSO will not look at the case until Acenden have delivered their answer or failed to answer within forty days. Make sure you send your original claim to Acenden by recorded delivery so you can base the forty days on when they actually receive it, not when it reaches their customer service dept. When I did this they claimed that it took eight days to reach the customer dept as they didn't seem to realise I knew exactly when it arrived. They sent out a default notice on the day they actually received my letter of complaint. They met me half-way over the charges so I did get a sum back which knocked a fair bit off the arrears, but the default notice and subsequent possession hearing put it all back on again. You really will have to work hard, but good luck, it is possible to succeed.

[Sappho54]

Just had a tilt at this myself. Make a complaint to Acenden, by recorded delivery. They will take the full 40 working days. If you don't like their final answer then put in a complaint to the FSO. You might get Acenden meeting you at least half way. Recorded delivery is essential. When I did it they claimed to have received my letter a week later than I know that they did and in that time they shot off a default notice and followed it up with a repossesion claim. Their offer was then negated by extra legal costs so I then had to complain again. I am now waiting for a response from the FSO. It's hard work and you will have to fight hard, but don't lose heart and never, ever give up. Good luck. Post how you get on.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Sappho54
duplicate entry. post has appeared twice, please remove

[caro]

Never under-estimate GLC.

 

Why do you need to give 40 days Sappho? They're allowed that long to comply with a SAR, and it's usually 56 days to deal with a complaint (unless Ascendon have a different complaints procedure), but that's their time scales. If I were you I'd ask for a response in 14 days, then send an LBA and go to court.

 

Make sure that you understand your arguments though. Looks like GLC will be making info public in due course. .

We believe the law is on the side of consumers, and we will continue to refine

our legal strategy with a view to disseminating free information to empower UK

consumers, and facilitate access to justice".

 

GLC, can you please confirm if you actually went all the way to court, or did SPPL cave before it went that far?

[MARTIN3030]

Mike,thank you for posting that.

 

And I agree 100% with Caroline

Never under-estimate GLC.

[MARTIN3030]

Furian,with due respect there have been questions asked in the preceeding posts.

GLC have always been open and clear when making announcements or giving info on here,and we are always grateful for that.

Whether they are minded or happy to respond to individual questions is a matter for them,and needs to be respected either way.

Insofar as anon dialogue is concerned,there has been nothing to point this out,and neither am I aware that it is, or was the wishes of GLC that we refrain from giving credit to Mike in consideration of the results recently published by them.

[Crapstone]

I believe that it was under Scottish Law? Wrongful service of legal documents rather than just damn wrong in the first place? And possibly after a repo?

 

I have a feeling that everyone 'thinks' it's going to be an easy case of filling in a form and the job is done or that they will get an auto. refund even if it does go our way. Trust me, you still have to do your own maths as they won't do it for you. Don't ever rely on their figures...check it all.

 

I'd get an SAR going, (x2) and the complaint. Check your credit file as well. The idiots can add anything on to suit.

 

I'm still here and have had all my charges back 100%. I'm no lawyer and if I can do it then anyone can. I doubt GLC had heard of Lehmans in 2003! The insurance screw, the broker and the downhill..

[Crapstone]

Capstone and Ascenden have always left things until the last minute to send a final response. It never makes much sense and is just a general brush-off. They quickly remind you of any arrears and their fees...Don't be taken in. Go to the FOS or court but still keep sending letters to them. If you threaten something then do it! The hardest part is working out what you are owed!

Edited December 31, 2011 by Crapstone

[Govan Law Centre]

Caro, settlement was secured after the action was raised and had called several times - and to answer Furian's question, the lender was represented by a firm of solicitors (we had previously challenged them in a SPPL repossession action as to whether they had proper instructions but they were able to show they were instructed, and we could not take that any further at that time).

They ran a competency defence on the basis that we had sued for payment yet the consumer was a net debtor (due to arrears of the first charge mortgage) and we had no right to seek payment per se; that was correct, and so the way round this was to amend, and seek 'implement' instead of 'payment' (an order ad factum praestandum or specific implement in Scotland - there is a similar concept in English law) for the charges as applied to be off-set against the loan account - which then left a case on the merits.

Clearly, the safest and easiest option is of course to use the FOS. However, as noted, we are pursuing a wider strategy with a view to rolling this out if successful.

Mike

Govan Law Centre

[Crapstone]

So all in all it was just a case of a reduction on the amount still owing and a refund of fees, plus legal costs? I can't see that as being any further along in general, The damage had already been done and any Tom, Dick or Harry can argue the costs and process after the event. Something needs to be done far sooner to stop people having such horrendous fees and suffering the abuse of process in the first place. Money isn't everything....as I've seen. You can't make amends for suicide or families that have been torn apart by Lehmans. I hope 2012 brings an overdue kick up the backside for the regulators and regulated.

[caro]

Hello Caro

 

The 40 days mentioned, by Sappho is I believe in regard to the 8 weeks banks have to respond to a complaint before you can go to the FOS rather than a SAR

I've more commonly seen this as 56 days but I guess it's also 40 working days.

 

Thanks for the clarification TC.

[caro]

So all in all it was just a case of a reduction on the amount still owing and a refund of fees, plus legal costs? I can't see that as being any further along in general, The damage had already been done and any Tom, Dick or Harry can argue the costs and process after the event. Something needs to be done far sooner to stop people having such horrendous fees and suffering the abuse of process in the first place. Money isn't everything....as I've seen. You can't make amends for suicide or families that have been torn apart by Lehmans. I hope 2012 brings an overdue kick up the backside for the regulators and regulated.

 

If it can be argued effectively in a court of law that the charges should be refunded, or the lender pays up before reaching that stage, then there is much more likelihood that in time such extortionate charges will not be inflicted on people in the first place, avoiding the kind of horrors you mention. Although FOS may be less risky, cheaper and less arduous for the individual, it is also more time consuming, and less likely to have the same impact to the benefit of everyone in the long term.

 

 

 

The way I have read the comments is that GLC are looking at the bigger picture and working towards and developing arguments that could be used by borrowers to reclaim on mass mortgage fees and charges in a similar way to that of firstly Bank Charges and now PPI. This has to be applauded and encouraged and GLC should be congratulated with its success against SPPL.

 

You appear to say that 'just' reducing the amount owed (arrears fees and charges) is nothing. Yes this one victory will not immediately change the way these fees are applied. However, it may help start the ball rolling so that in the future this can happen.

 

Quite agree.

[Crapstone]

So what's new..?????? So sorry to be dismissive but we are over that and the same was quoted years ago. Applaud? No ..sorry. I fight my own corner and win without someone taking a chunk. It doesn't even touch the securitisation, the fraud or the lies that all can find.

 

Caro .. You don't have a clue as you haven't dealt with them, but correct me if I'm wrong. What court? The lower ones don't count for nowt and who would take a case higher? Just who would get the benefit? The lawyers? It ain't that easy unless you look far deeper and have the funds.

 

I really should know my stuff by now. Securitisation and all the fluff and gubbins to go with them. It's all very time consuming, any which way, and takes years to conclude. Don't you think we don't know the MCOB inside and out by now?

Edited January 1, 2012 by Crapstone

[Sappho54]

My mortgage terms and conditions (with SPPL) include the following:- "You appoint us (and any receiver appointed by us) as your attorney to do the folowing things in your name and on your behalf

. to use any money received by us or the receiver to pay off or reduce the Mortgage Debt"

 

SPPL sold the debt in 2007 when the SPV's took the mortgages. They say they didn't - equitable v legal blah blah - but they definately had sold the loan by the time they transferred the loans to the SPV in 2010. They must have been paid (I haven't yet got the mortgage sale agreement which I hope will say how much the loans were sold for) so why does this clause not apply because it seems plain English to me that they received money for the loan and should have paid off at least part of the loan as this clause says. Has anyone pursued this?

[Sappho54]

Yes, the SPV was substituted for SPPL on the charges register, in December 2010, tho' the actual sale took place with securitisation in 2007. The TR4 is weird as it shows the SPV as both transferor and transferree and the SPV's "beneficial interest" is noted elsewhere in the TR4 document as from 2007 (which is why I want the Mortgage Sale Agreement, which I am trying to get) If they have to use any money they receive to pay off the debt, then surely my loan should have been at least partially redeemed as a consequence of the sale to the SPV if these words mean what they say.

[determindator]

A very big thank you to GLC, our saviour! for all your hard work.

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2011/12/glc-progresses-challenge-to-mortgage.html#comment-form

 

There is no room in society for unethical lending.

Edited January 4, 2012 by determindator

[applecart]

deleted post - too much info

Edited January 5, 2012 by applecart

[applecart]

a number of posts have been erased, why?

 

Whole threads go walkies when it comes to the issues surrounding securitised mortgages.

 

Knowledge is power.....

 

It is so tempting to post the knowledge, but whats the point, consumers would not be able to access it - the CAG just delete it : (

 

Applecart

[applecart]

A very big thank you to GLC, our saviour! for all your hard work.

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2011/12/glc-progresses-challenge-to-mortgage.html#comment-form

 

There is no room in society for unethical lending.

 

Agreed. but is it ethical to claim back the charges whilst ignoring the ethical right to claim back the house?

 

Applecart

[Govan Law Centre]

Agreed. but is it ethical to claim back the charges whilst ignoring the ethical right to claim back the house?

 

Applecart

 

In the case we mentioned the refund of mortgage arrears charges resulted in the balance of mortgage arrears being cleared, so that the repossession action can now be dismissed. A repossession action can only be defended if there is a reasonable plan to meet the ongoing financial liabilities. The point is of courhat is that many people in mortgage arrears have their financial difficulties compounded and exacerbated by unfair charges - and many are tipped over the edge.

[applecart]

In the case we mentioned the refund of mortgage arrears charges resulted in the balance of mortgage arrears being cleared, so that the repossession action can now be dismissed.

 

HI GLC

 

I'm concerned.... the point I was making is this - it's all very well assisting consumers defend charges to stave off possession, but you miss my point - what I am making reference to is; ....... what about the fact that the lender has no right to take proceedings in the first place? Does this not facilitate the need for a defence that goes to the root of the claim for possession so that the purported charges AND the purported right to possession is dismissed? - if you have sold your interest in a property, pray tell, what substantiating right would you have under the applicable Law to seek possession of the property?

It would seem to me, that all you have done is caused a situation where the borrower remains liable to the lender - with the lender free to apply charges - and bring proceedings again, and again and again!!

What consumers need is a Law Practicioner who will go deeper than this.

A repossession action can only be defended if there is a reasonable plan to meet the ongoing financial liabilities. The point is of courhat is that many people in mortgage arrears have their financial difficulties compounded and exacerbated by unfair charges - and many are tipped over the edge.

 

I disagree with you..... as Law Practioners or a firm dealing with such persons, you should make yourselves aware that we are not dealing with conventional lenders seeking possession of property here ..... SPPL is/was a 'Mortgage Originator' - that's not the same meaning as would apply to a conventional lender.... again, I ask you... if you have sold your interest as secured by the property, show me the applicable Law that says you can seek possession of the property?

I further disagree - a defence in such instances is not purely based on 'a reasonable plan to meet the ongoing financial liabilities' - I'll say it again but with a slight amendment............, if you have sold your interest as secured by the property, where is the Law that says you have a right to possession of the property after you have instigated the sale?

 

 

Applecart

[applecart]

GMAC borrowers liquidation concerns..

 

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/mortgages/gmac-rfc-taking-loanbook-admin-in-house/1023695.article

[EDIT]

 

 

Fortress Buying GMAC European Mortgage Biz.

 

[EDIT]

 

Great post Furian - This is what GLC need to start to get to grips with, and the implications of such structures on a consumer rights.

 

Applecart