Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

[andrew1]

so someone is making money somewhere and taking the consumer for a ride.

.

 

Perish the thought!

[meandbex]

Anyone got any advice in rleation to this please?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?346475-Need-some-advice-please....%28hadenglen%29%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

[bs0lth]

Goodfriday

When you're dealing with people who are habitually deceitful, to the point they've lost any real sense of truthfulness & reality, you simply won't get anywhere relying on them to record phone calls that exonerate you and incriminate them should there be a dispute.

 

You need THE FACTS laid out in black in white - unfortunately, without this it's all "I said, they said, we agreed, no we didn't agree".

Do you have any discussions about this matter with them in writing at all?

You need to issue your mortgage lender with a SARN to get copies of all your up to date statements, payments, charges and copies of previous letters they've sent you. If you've not done this already, please do it ASAP. Then, PLEASE stop talking over the phone, unless YOU are able to record the conversations as well. Always write to them and set out your points, queries, requests, agreements, disputes etc in black & white!

It's much harder for them to deny their own commitments when you have written copies and should things ever go to the FOS/Court etc, the written communication forms your evidence and audit trail.

 

Without it, what can you prove?...no matter how naughty they've been or unfairly they've treated you.

 

This is easier said than done with SPML.. I know it first hand, I did a Subject access request and they are missing loads and loads

of stuff. I wrote and complained and they kept fobbing me off.. had a letter today saying they might have missed a couple of things.. but I know they have missed huge amounts... like all the correspondence with the solicitors etc.. so I have started court

action to get the missing data. I want it all.. but to be honest they are lying cheating ******* s. I stopped talking to them over the phone as they keep saying one thing and then denying it so if its in writing I have a copy..

[Crapstone]

This is easier said than done with SPML.. I know it first hand, I did a Subject access request and they are missing loads and loads

of stuff. I wrote and complained and they kept fobbing me off.. had a letter today saying they might have missed a couple of things.. but I know they have missed huge amounts... like all the correspondence with the solicitors etc.. so I have started court

action to get the missing data. I want it all.. but to be honest they are lying cheating ******* s. I stopped talking to them over the phone as they keep saying one thing and then denying it so if its in writing I have a copy..

 

It was the same with me. They had 'lost ' everything I was seeking but by repeatedly asking they slipped up as different people have the charge of the big black marker pen and that put the files together. How can they 'lose' something but then mention it later? I was told that all the broker and solicitor details were lost in a flood they'd had and I'd have to have their permission to get anything anyway.

 

With 8% above the interest rate you don't need a savings scheme...just let them sit on it and then force them to cough up.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

They've taken insurance money again this month even though they have confirmed they already have a copy of our own insurance! After speaking to them - a big no-no but my other half took it upon himself to call grrrr! - they are going to refund it (again) but it will of course take them at least 14 days. Well this time they are getting the bill for sending me overdrawn and for the interest and if they don't cough up I'll drag their sorry backsides through the court. They can then explain to a judge why they are stealing money that they are not entitled to and also explain why they have taken out a policy that is underinsuring the house and is effectively worthless. :mad2:

[Crapstone]

How can they do that? At the start of the term for insurance they take out a policy if they believe you don't have suitable insurance in place. They then send the policy to you along with the t&c's and start charging. You then prove you have your own insurance and get charged £50 for the privilage. The policy, (is cancelled?), you get refunded and hear nothing further. 2 months down the line you get charged again. Then refunded. Then further on you get charged. Surely for each time they have to supply the insurance policy renewed, and they can't just cancel it and apply it again 2 or 3 months later without notice?

[Crapstone]

What part do they not understand? For some reason they think our insurance is due on a certain date and it's not and never has been in 15 years.

 

They acknowledge no return call. They acknowledge receipt of building insurance and boring apologies that we've all heard before.. They say it was a correct action as instructed by SPML but the next paragraph is:

 

'As a result of an administrative error, amounts equivalant to the premiums due under the above mentioned buildings insurance only policy, continued to be taken by Direct Debit in April and May 2012'.

 

' To rectify the situation we would like offer the following:

 

A payment of £50 in compensation for any inconvienience caused as a result of additional payments being taken in April and May 2012. '

[caro]

Can't you change to a standing order Crapstone or do they insist on DD?

[Crapstone]

It has to be DD from their terms and conditions Caro. I've changed it several times and they don't appreciate it going to SO. It's not a problem as such as I can deal with them, it just gets to me that they are still allowed to operate as they do when companies have been held to task for less than what these muppets get away with. Each time they screw up it means a bit more in a bit more in our favour and I don't mind them having to pay me £50 each time.

[Crapstone]

So the LIBOR rate has been tampered with.. What about the BBA? Why do they just accept the rates given without checks? A whole load of passing the buck and not doing the right thing for the people that have had to pay for the fraud created by the banks. £290m is a drop in the ocean while they enjoyed the champagne lifestyle and still will. What about the people that were squeezed until they took their last breath or made homeless and shattered?

 

I, for one, want my money back as this is just beyond belief and we all know SPML/ Lehmans were in the thick of it and the LIBOR rate cannot be trusted. The contract made was on a reliable rate and not a manufactured one to suit the greed of the banks or coerse borrowers. Any opinions?

[caro]

Never mind just fining the banks. Those responsible need to be held personally responsible. There's already a petition been set up calling for a judicial public enquiry.

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35421

[42man]

It will be interesting to see if any of the sub prime lenders have a claim against any of the after effects of Barclays behaviour....

[andrew1]

It will be interesting to see if any of the sub prime lenders have a claim against any of the after effects of Barclays behaviour....

 

That might depend on how much pressure is put upon them in turn for charging consumers too much - knock-on effect?

 

It's we who end up paying this in interest rate charges hiked up. A few claims made by us might make a difference. Then it will be down to determining how much loss we actually had suffered.

[42man]

Absolutely right A1, if we see court action by these companies against Barclays then it could mean a raft of claims by consumers.....

[Crapstone]

It will be interesting to see if any of the sub prime lenders have a claim against any of the after effects of Barclays behaviour....

 

As Barclays were behind a lot of the backing of Lehmans sub-prime then yes it would be VERY interesting. It's just the tip and they knew it was going on years before that and all of the ratings agencies knew it too. Sub-prime was set up to fail and make a lot of people very rich over a very short term. Forget a judicial review at the tax payers expense, they should be sitting in police cells just like anyone else that commits serious fraud.

 

Whatever next? Are they going to tell us all our money is safely tied up in Nigerian banks and profits are on the horizon from an exiled Col. Zanamamumbo holding billions of dollars?

[Crapstone]

That might depend on how much pressure is put upon them in turn for charging consumers too much - knock-on effect?

 

It's we who end up paying this in interest rate charges hiked up. A few claims made by us might make a difference. Then it will be down to determining how much loss we actually had suffered.

 

The 3m charges were the ones hiked up and at it's peak was around 6.50 compared to the 0.99 now. put the rate on top of that and you have over 10%. Just one pushed up payment could have caused repossession as the likes of SPML didn't do well in the customer friendly approach and charge large fees. Fall short and they'd charge you as well as you also facing bank charges for returned DD's. It really doesn't take make to create a spiral of debt.

 

For me personally it's not about money or chasing ambulances. They can stick their rotten cash where the sun don't shine for all I care as nothing can make up for the misery these companies have caused to ordinary families just scraping by and trying to their best. Paying their taxes, working and trusting that they aren't being manipulated by greedy bankers eager to open the champers at their expense through what only can be seen as FRAUD. I hope they enjoyed it, as through their actions families were made homeless and people have committed suicide.

 

My thoughts are that it's too early to get a true figure on how the LIBOR was affected until all the other banks are looked at. It being fiddled with is enough to bring a case against your lender who then in turn has to go to Barclays and anyone else involved. Trust has been compromised and the contract beached even if they weren't aware of it, which they will have been as they have their fingers in all the pies. It's very tempting to act now but I think things will begin to unfold and regrets could be had.

[andrew1]

Well as I am just preparing a bundle as we speak, it wouldn't take much to slip a line or two in the Witness Statement to a Barclays funded sub-prime lender about this. Any thoughts on the wording might be helpful.....I have just written to that lender asking how, if at all, the Barclays exposure has affected my interest rate. Going to be interesting to see how they reply. I doubt it will be any kind of comprehensive or transparent answer, especially as you say, other banks have been involved too and it is very early days. But answer they must and the more people writing in and asking the better.

 

I don't care about the other banks though, Barclays will do!

[Crapstone]

It takes me a while to come up with exact wording but the trust in the relationship has clearly gone and any tampering with the LIBOR rate is a clear breach of the contract as it's a crucial part. Up or down, it doesn't matter as any changes were clearly in favour of the bank and in their interest regardless of anyone else. It's not just about the affect, it's the loss of trust over the whole term. If I lied to people and told them something that wasn't true in order to make money than I'd be obtaining that money by deception. If you subscribed to the sub-prime during that time then they lured you in at artificially lower rates than what should have been, and if you'd have known the truth, you probably would have walked away.

 

Whatever you put just keep it simple and say that you have no confidence in the bank or the finance sector given the current findings by the FSA on the false accounting by Barclays to the BBA in the periods stipulated in their report. Keep it open and just prepare yourself as things reveal further.

[tudorwin]

Back in 2005/6 Ocean Finance arranged a large mortgage of about 400,000 pounds for me. In late 2007 I was lucky to sell my house & payback Capstone/SPML. Just before they repossed it. I still have all the paperwork. Am I right in thinking I can reclaim all the charges payed to Capstone SPML. which amounted to a lot including court costs etc , & about 25,000 pounds early repayment fees, also are they known to have included PPI in with my monthly payments, & if so can i also reclaim that.

Any help & advice you can give me would be gratefully received. Thanks

[applecart]

Not at all. I just fail to see what point there is in arguing over securities when keeping a roof over your head is the main priority. You have to go that mile to know them and fight and contest and think I pretty much have done as I don't bow to anything they impose and wouldn't suggest that anyone else did.

 

The underlying issue is that people are sapped, broke and can't afford the flights of fancy that some would prefer they take. They just want a home, not be denied the right to a peaceful family life and not to be the subject of extortion.

 

Every journey starts with a single step and we just need that right step to get us going.

 

Karen

 

Hi Crapstone,

 

Thanks for coming back to me and I apologise for not getting back to you sooner..I've been busy spreading the word on securitisation elsewhere....

 

There will be those who go only as far as fighting to keep charges at bay and those that want to go further to remove the mortgage debt itself. Both are feasible options in my opinion. Consumers who wish to go the extra mile should not be deterred from exercising that consumer right.

 

There are no 'flights of fancy' - the fight and arguments for fighting against secuiritisation of the mortgage is directly attached to the very 'uderlying issues' that you point to in your thread.

 

I agree with you that 'every journey starts with a single step and we just need that right step to get us going'

 

We could start by taking on board that the argument is not to do with 'securities' but with 'securitisation of a mortgage debt'

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/spanish-sun-brings-securitisation-cheer/86613.article

 

Is that a good enough arguement to say they were all in it together?

 

I have a theory, and it's my opinion only, based on what has been revealed in the LIBOR scandal.

 

When the sub-prime market came here it was heavily invested in as they knew times were good and just in 6 years, between 1997 and 2003 house prices had tripled and quadrupled. Credit was easily available and when it got too much to handle even the average person that had a ruined credit file could turn to sub-prime without it being unaffordable. After all the cost of living was down, low unemployment and you could always fall back on the value of the house if times got tough without ever thinking that negative equity could occur.

 

Every person that understands econonomics knows the boom never lasts and we subsequently know these were no 'ordinary mortgages'. They were heavily backed by the likes of Barclays and we know they were intended to fail for investment reasons. We were never intended to last the distance and by crikey they sure made it difficult even if it was affordable. They threw in every, and any hurdle, that are still being ignored when complaints are made..all to do with Lehmanns.

 

What better way to end a bust session by forcing the investment forward and upping the LIBOR rate fraudulantly to maximise the profits? I truly believe that went on well before 2005 and they went for the cream. They saw what had gone wrong and the best way forward was to sacrifice Lehmanns as a collective pool. The smaller investment companies such as Northern Rock didn't stand a chance but Barclays already had the heads up and ready to dive in along with the larger banks. Quick to lower the rate and minimise the damage whilst having an eye on what was could be profitable still and painting a picture of health amongst the turmoil. Diamond was all to eager to get his hands on the brokerage part of Lehmanns and in like a robbers dog.

 

The market here was relatively small if you just count sub-prime, roughly 250,000 but in the USA it was huge and so the domino effect happened by upping the rates and creating a decline by foreclosuring to get back what they had securitised when they knew they had reached the end of the line. What happens next isn't their problem as long as the investments are secured and it's kept quiet within the industry long enough to keep the punters happy.

 

The banking system or the rise and fall was of no concern as long as the bankers obtained their goal and are trying to get away from their part in the sub-prime failure.

 

But it's not only them is it? The FSA, the government and the ratings agencies all knew it was get rich quick scheme that wouldn't last but why worry about that when you can make millions and not be held strictly accountable? It's global so no panel could ever touch them all so you end up with scapegoats and everyone connected all in denial.

 

The CEO's didn't even attempt to cover up the traders emails as they knew they were just too stupid to get what was going on in the first place. A minority of young bloods driven by greed are easy to lay the blame on instead of saying you actually orchestrated the whole market and the market is not free.

 

Just my theory..............

Edited July 6, 2012 by Crapstone

[stephen25000]

http://www.economist.com/node/21558281

 

Massive lawsuits will emerge globally.

[applecart]

A mortgage becoming a Mortgage Backed Security was never party to the whole mortgage contract that the majority of consumers entered into... or small business for that matter. (the mass majority have only realised that this is the case since suetonious and stupendous and little dotty got the whole debate underway, soz if I've missed anyone out)

 

Is this why parliament are looking to make arrangements for the 'investment' arm of banks to be wholly separate from the 'retail' arm?

 

and if so...... just what do they intend to do with all those loans, mortgages, credit cards that are in the mix already? Which we have since June 12 found out.... may be linked to a rigged libor rate, regardless of whether is was rigged up or down (libor rate is evidenced and reported to have been rigged since essentially 2005)?

 

Apple

[Joe Kerr]

and if so...... just what do they intend to do with all those loans, mortgages, credit cards that are in the mix already? Which we have since June 12 found out.... may be linked to a rigged libor rate, regardless of whether is was rigged up or down (libor rate is evidenced and reported to have been rigged since essentially 2005)?

 

Apple

 

They might intend to make every credit card, every personal loan, every mortgage, every store card, every Hire Purchase agreement and every other debt that has been securitised over the last 20 years, legally unenforceable.

 

Then again, maybe not

[zither]

This is all beginning to open another can of worms, I was reading today about another possible wrong doing by the banks etc. Having applied for a mortgage some people were refused and passed onto a sub prime dealer. The banks it seems were setting a quota of people to allow/disallow a certain amount of applicants. Some people just accepted the sub prime deal hence the financial institution could " charge what they liked?". It made sense when reading it I hope Ive explained it clearly?.