Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Littledotty

Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2755 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

ACENDEN CAPSTONE SPML PML LMC SPPL

REPOSSESSION EVICTION ARE YOU ONE OF THEIR VICTIMS FREE HELP HERE

We can help save your home for free if you post your problem here.

I never come across a company in my life like these cowboys.

That was two and a half years ago and they have got worse

I could go forever with regards to this company.

Has anyone else been treated unfairly like we have? 7136 posts on the old spml/london mortgage company thread

seem to agree with me that they have.

The spml thread is locked due to its length but is a wonderful resource with a wealth of experience in beating these pariahs so I am starting a new one.

Many have saved their homes coming here so this updated version will hopefully help many more.

Edited by Littledotty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi little dotty ... i know youve been following my thread .. they are an absoloue nitemare .. ive got another hearing on tuesday x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you need to know about this company is all here in the now closed thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?170607-Spml-london-Mortgage-Company(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Stefaniex...I didn't know you had a thread...what is it under? yes they are a nightmare...hence why myself & others have been fighting them for over 4 years.

  • Confused 1

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s, of the investigating & prosecuting organisations:

 

DO NOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

 

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 (part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : tel#0207 637 6236

 

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Subprimefees/#detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stefaniex user-online.png

 

Am Sure ell enn has mentioned these but here they are in full ,in your particular case the changing of payment date is it seems vital and they should have sent a reply to your requests with valid reasons of why they cannot change it.Read through these carefully, you can be your bottom dollar they haven't complied.Non compliance is supposed to involve a sanction but the courts rarely if ever apply this and acenden know it.

 

Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims based on Mortgage or Home Purchase Plan Arrears in Respect of Residential Property

 

Contents

Title

Number

INTRODUCTION

I

Preamble

1

Aims

2

Scope

3

Definitions

4

ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF A POSSESSION CLAIM

II

Initial contact and provision of information

5

Postponing the start of a possession claim

6

Alternative dispute resolution

7

Complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service

8

Compliance

9

 

I INTRODUCTION

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

1 Preamble

 

1.1

 

This Protocol describes the behaviour the court will normally expect of the parties prior to the start of a possession claim within the scope of paragraph 3.1 below.

 

1.2

 

This Protocol does not alter the parties' rights and obligations.

 

1.3

 

It is in the interests of the parties that mortgage payments or payments under home purchase plans are made promptly and that difficulties are resolved wherever possible without court proceedings. However in some cases an order for possession may be in the interest of both the lender and the borrower.

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

2 Aims

 

2.1

 

The aims of this Protocol are to –

(1) ensure that a lender or home purchase plan provider (in this Protocol collectively referred to as ‘the lender’) and a borrower or home purchase plan customer (in this Protocol collectively referred to as ‘the borrower’) act fairly and reasonably with each other in resolving any matter concerning mortgage or home purchase plan arrears; and

 

(2) encourage more pre-action contact between the lender and the borrower in an effort to seek agreement between the parties, and where this cannot be reached, to enable efficient use of the court's time and resources.

 

 

2.2

 

Where either party is required to communicate and provide information to the other, reasonable steps should be taken to do so in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. If the lender is aware that the borrower may have difficulties in reading or understanding the information provided, the lender should take reasonable steps to ensure that information is communicated in a way that the borrower can understand.

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

3 Scope

 

3.1

 

This Protocol applies to arrears on –

(1) first charge residential mortgages and home purchase plans regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;

 

(2) second charge mortgages over residential property and other secured loans regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on residential property; and

 

(3) unregulated residential mortgages.

 

 

3.2

 

Where a potential claim includes a money claim and a claim for possession this protocol applies to both.

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

4 Definitions

 

4.1

 

In this Protocol –

(1) ‘possession claim’ means a claim for the recovery of possession of property under Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“CPR”);

 

(2) ‘home purchase plan’ means a method of purchasing a property by way of a sale and lease arrangement that does not require the payment of interest;

 

(3) ‘bank holiday’ means a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971; and

 

(4) ‘business day’ means any day except Saturday, Sunday, a bank holiday, Good Friday or Christmas day; and

 

(5) ‘Mortgage Rescue Scheme’ means the shared equity and mortgage to rent scheme established either –

(a) by the UK Government to help certain categories of vulnerable borrowers avoid repossession of their property in England, announced in September 2008 and opened in January 2009; or

 

(b) by the Welsh Assembly Government to help certain categories of vulnerable borrowers avoid repossession of their property in Wales, first announced in June 2008.

 

 

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

II ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF A POSSESSION CLAIM

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

5 Initial contact and provision of information

 

5.1

 

Where the borrower falls into arrears the lender should provide the borrower with –

(1) where appropriate, the required regulatory information sheet or the National Homelessness Advice Service booklet on mortgage arrears; and

 

(2) information concerning the amount of arrears which should include –

(a) the total amount of the arrears;

 

(b) the total outstanding of the mortgage or the home purchase plan; and

 

© whether interest or charges will be added, and if so and where appropriate, details or an estimate of the interest or charges that may be payable.

 

 

 

5.2

 

The parties should take all reasonable steps to discuss with each other, or their representatives, the cause of the arrears, the borrower's financial circumstances and proposals for repayment of the arrears (see 7.1). For example, parties should consider whether the causes of the arrears are temporary or long term and whether the borrower may be able to pay the arrears in a reasonable time.

 

5.3

 

The lender should advise the borrower to make early contact with the housing department of the borrower's Local Authority and, should, where necessary, refer the borrower to appropriate sources of independent debt advice.

 

5.4

 

The lender should consider a reasonable request from the borrower to change the date of regular payment (within the same payment period) or the method by which payment is made. The lender should either agree to such a request or, where it refuses such a request, it should, within a reasonable period of time, give the borrower a written explanation of its reasons for the refusal.

 

5.5

 

The lender should respond promptly to any proposal for payment made by the borrower. If the lender does not agree to such a proposal it should give reasons in writing to the borrower within 10 business days of the proposal.

 

5.6

 

If the lender submits a proposal for payment, the borrower should be given a reasonable period of time in which to consider such proposals. The lender should set out the proposal in sufficient detail to enable the borrower to understand the implications of the proposal.

 

5.7

 

If the borrower fails to comply with an agreement, the lender should warn the borrower, by giving the borrower 15 business days notice in writing, of its intention to start a possession claim unless the borrower remedies the breach in the agreement.

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

6 Postponing the start of a possession claim

 

6.1

 

A lender should consider not starting a possession claim for mortgage arrears where the borrower can demonstrate to the lender that the borrower has –

(1) submitted a claim to –

(a) the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) for Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI); or

 

(b) an insurer under a mortgage payment protection policy; or

 

(c) a participating local authority for support under a Mortgage Rescue Scheme,

 

and has provided all the evidence required to process a claim;

 

(2) a reasonable expectation of eligibility for payment from the DWP or from the insurer or support from the local authority; and

 

(3) an ability to pay a mortgage instalment not covered by a claim to the DWP or the insurerin relation to a claim under paragraph 6.1(1)(a) or (b).

 

 

6.2

 

If a borrower can demonstrate that reasonable steps have been or will be taken to market the property at an appropriate price in accordance with reasonable professional advice, the lender should consider postponing starting a possession claim. The borrower must continue to take all reasonable steps actively to market the property where the lender has agreed to postpone starting a possession claim.

 

6.3

 

Where the lender has agreed to postpone starting a possession claim the borrower should provide the lender with a copy of the particulars of sale, the Home Information Pack and (where relevant) details of purchase offers received within a reasonable period of time specified by the lender. The borrower should give the lender details of the estate agent and the conveyancer instructed to deal with the sale. The borrower should also authorise the estate agent and the conveyancer to communicate with the lender about the progress of the sale and the borrower's conduct during the process.

 

6.4

 

Where the lender decides not to postpone the start of a possession claim it should inform the borrower of the reasons for this decision at least 5 business days before starting proceedings.

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

 

7 Alternative dispute resolution

 

7.1

 

The court takes the view that starting a possession claim is usually a last resort and that such a claim should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored. Discussion between the parties may include options such as:

(1) extending the term of the mortgage;

 

(2) changing the type of a mortgage;

 

(3) deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or

 

(4) capitalising the arrears.

 

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

8 Complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

8.1

 

The lender should consider whether to postpone the start of a possession claim where the borrower has made a genuine complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about the potential possession claim.

 

8.2

 

Where a lender does not intend to await the decision of the FOS it should give notice to the borrower with reasons that it intends to start a possession claim at least 5 business days before doing so.

 

 

top_icon.gif

 

9 Compliance

 

9.1

 

Parties should be able, if requested by the court, to explain the actions that they have taken to comply with this protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before reading this please make preparations to seek urgent medical assistance.

 

 

ASCENDEN: Ascending star

When future generations look for a firm whose fate sums up the credit crunch and its underlying causes they'll be hard-pressed to find a better example than Lehman Brothers.

 

The investment bank's collapse on September 15 2008, the biggest bankruptcy in US history, sent shock waves around the world and resulted in a global downturn as everyone realised that Lehmans fell into the category of 'too big to fail'.

 

With the company having run out of steam, its administrators quickly got to work selling off the bits that were salvageable such as its US investment and trading divisions.

 

Lehmans' three UK brands - Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited, Preferred Mortgages and London Mortgage Services - had pulled out of the market long before Lehmans went under.

 

This left its servicing operation, Capstone Mortgages, which continued to service the mortgages of the three brands. And incredibly, despite the turmoil of recent years the company is still around, and from today is rebranding to Acenden as it throws its services open to the wider market.

 

So when Mortgage Strategy met Acenden's chief executive officer Amany Attia and commercial director Martin Frazer, the first question was - what happened to Capstone when Lehman collapsed and how was it that the firm survived against the odds?

 

"When Lehmans went under Capstone never went into administration," says Attia. "On its own Capstone was financially sound and viable. The administrators initially looked at selling all the businesses including Capstone and a number of assets, and asked me to work with them on that. They ended up putting the businesses up for sale and received a lot of interest."

 

At that point Capstone had about 90,000 accounts, with around pound 8bn worth of servicing assets. Capstone's management team, headed by Attia, tabled its own business offer and management plan, and the administrators liked this so much that they decided that there was more value in keeping Capstone and trying to grow it rather than sell it.

 

"Originally, it was going to be a full management buyout but the administrators decided not to do that because they thought there was a lot of upside," she says. "So they allowed a version of a buyout in which the management retains a significant minority stake in the company."

 

Attia has some 20 years' experience in the securitisation industry. After graduating from Yale University she joined Citibank's asset-backed securities division in the late 1980s, securitising the firm's credit card assets and a small amount of mortgages.

 

She spent six and a half years at Citi and then moved to Lehmans where she worked in its mortgage and ABS groups until 2001. Then in 2001 she came to London to head Lehmans' mortgage and securitisation business in Europe.

 

Frazer, by contrast, has been in the UK mortgage market for 30 years. After school he joined his local mutual, Burnley Building Society, which was subsequently absorbed into Abbey. He went on to work for a number of societies, principally in sales and branch work before a 20-year stint with the Scarborough Building Society group where he was commercial director.

 

In this role he ran the branches and income-generating parts of the society and also, more importantly, North Yorkshire Mortgages, the asset trading company, and SMS, the third party administration arm of the group.

 

When Scarborough merged with Skipton he spent a year with the latter's mortgage servicing arm HML before joining Capstone in February this year.

 

While the administration estate of Lehmans holds the majority stake in Acenden, its people, facilities and IT infrastructure are independent, including its board of directors. The only asset the administrators hold is the majority shareholding.

 

In the current climate, the firm clearly expects there to be an appetite for the services it is offering.

 

Acenden is going head to head with the likes of HML as it opens up its services to other companies. Previously it was a closed shop concentrating on servicing the assets originated by Lehmans. But what Attia and her team have been doing for the past two years is reorientating the business to become a third party outsourcer, which, she says, is why the market hasn't heard much from it.

 

The firm has a new servicing system which replaces two legacy systems. This has increased its scalability as well as its ability to take on new projects.

 

"The new system has enlarged our capacity almost three times," says Attia. "We hired management personnel such as Frazer and a few others who added to the depth of our talent pool.

 

We also improved a lot of our data and reporting - I noted that there was a need for this in the marketplace while I was at Lehmans.

 

"Somebody needed to deliver good accurate data in a timely way so we've spent a lot of time, money and energy in the past years making improvements in that regard."

 

Despite the fact that its parent group went under so spectacularly and the UK economy was thrown into a downturn Attia says staff levels have stayed stable.

 

The firm has around 435 people working in its London and High Wycombe offices, and last October opened an office in Dublin as it expanded into Ireland.

 

"We have lost practically no staff throughout this period, which is something we are quite proud of because it has obviously been a stressful time," says Attia.

 

"But our people stayed focussed and performance, whether judged by loans or service, improved during that time. Going through the downturn made both staff and management stronger. Our employees have seen that by going through a period of turmoil we have become a better company."

 

As a newcomer, Frazer describes the level of enthusiasm, commitment and ownership employees feel for the business as staggering.

 

"Considering the upheaval the market has been through - never mind the company - to hear our people talk about their commitment to the business and how they feel a sense of togetherness is phenomenal," he says.

 

"Having been in the industry for a long time, I know it's rare to find that sort of commitment."

 

The company's employees have also played a key part in its rebranding to Acenden.

 

When Frazer joined the firm one of the first discussions he had with Attia was about the name. The firm's special servicing capabilities had been given the highest possible rating by Standard & Poor's, it was expanding and relaunching its operation as a specialist servicing company for other firms, but did it want to do all this under its old name?

 

"We thought about whether it was right to do this under the Capstone banner which inevitably has associations with Lehmans, or whether it would be better to think about rebranding and relaunching the business," he says. "In fact, that decision took about five seconds to make and we went down the rebranding route."

 

So, working with a London-based brand consultancy the management team set about coming up with a new name. The consultancy spoke to employees at all levels - everyone from the people working the telephones and those dealing with customers right up to senior management.

 

"The consultancy came back and told us it had discovered that our business was all about enthusiasm, dedication, specialisation, knowledge and the development of knowledge," says Frazer. "It said it was about building relationships with customers and helping to find solutions for them. We already thought our business was all of those things but were reassured to hear that this was the case from an outside voice."

 

That led the team to start thinking about a new name.

 

"The name Acenden is a derivation of ascend and forwards, upwards and onwards - the kind of imagery that emerged from discussions with our staff," says Frazer.

 

"We played around with a few options but in the end the name Acenden seemed to represent all the things we think our business is and will become better at.

 

"The name should represent the spirit, the ethos and the culture of a business, and that's what we think Acenden does," he adds.

 

Attia adds that what she noted from the brand consultancy's work was the pride employees took in their jobs, whether that be taking a negative in terms of arrears and turning it into a positive or helping with more general mortgage problems.

And she says she sees that can-do attitude reflected month after month in the numbers. Today, Acenden has just under 80,000 accounts and a loan book approaching pound 7bn, compared with the roughly 90,000 accounts representing an pound 8bn loan book it had when Lehmans collapsed.

 

SO THATS 10000 HOMES REPOED IN 2 YEARS THEN AT A BILLION POUNDS AND MORE THAN 12% OF THE WHOLE LOAN BOOK

The profile of its average customer, as is to be expected with the types of clients that SPML and Preferred catered to, is broadly non-conforming, with some near-prime and light adverse. Most cases are mid to heavy adverse.

 

But where previously the company was inaccessible to other firms it's now making its knowledge and experience available to the wider market.

 

"Strategically, we're clear about what it is we bring to the market and the types of customers and lenders we think would benefit from what we do," says Frazer.

 

If the staff at the Acenden have a can-do attitude a large part of this might have rubbed off on them from their CEO.

 

 

Attia positively radiates good vibes, especially on the subject of arrears.

 

In response to a question on whether there's much that can be done for clients in arrears she immediately fires back with a strident "absolutely, absolutely".

 

"We've done a lot to help borrowers and our philosophy revolves around early and active management, because the easiest arrears to cure are early arrears," she says.

 

"If borrowers are a month or two down they have a much smaller hill to climb than if they are six or 12 months in arrears. That's why we try to work with borrowers at an early stage to come up with programmes they can afford.

 

"When you look at our early arrears borrowers over the past year we've been able to either have them maintain or improve their arrears levels in 80% of cases, which is terrific," she adds.

 

"Even for late arrears borrowers - those who are beyond three months in arrears - we're able to help or maintain arrears levels for 70% of our customers."

 

The main way the firm does this is by carefully combing through borrowers' incomes and expenses, but it has also set up a loss mitigation team that works with borrowers who meet certain criteria to look at ways on modifying their loans to come up with terms they can afford.

 

"We've done more than 5,000 loan modifications in the past year and on average have been able to save about around 40,000 per loan," she says. "That's a pretty significant number. And in contrast to properties being repossessed it's good for our clients, good for the people who own the loans and good for borrowers as it helps them to stay in their homes."

 

Can anyone who has had a loan modified please step forward

Frazer says that what struck him when he joined the company was the degree of personalisation employed with every customer.

 

"We treat people as people, not as numbers," he says. "We make contact literally within a day or two of a payment being missed - we don't wait for a month before we contact borrowers in trouble.

 

EH! can you clarify? Thought you hounded them night and day and slapped on a charge if they were a day late and then bullied and threatened them with eviction unless they came up with a lump sum

"We employ a number of modes of contact with clients such as letters, but the first thing is always a phone call. We want to talk to borrowers and ensure they understand that we want to help them."

 

Attia and Frazer argue that Acenden's third party outsourcing system will give investors and lenders access to more information than ever before in terms of loan book performance. They say their business model offers the market something new.

 

"The servicing models that have existed in the UK until now have been outsourcing models which basically say that 'we can service your loan book cheaper than you can'," says Attia. "It's been predominantly about doing things a little bit cheaper and a little bit more efficiently.

 

"That's valid and we think we can do things pretty efficiently too. In fact, we take nothing away from the model and are set up to achieve it, but what the credit crunch has taught us is that reviewing mortgages and the way you manage them does not stop on the day you make the loan - it never stops. "To control mortgage risk and achieve the value you want from your mortgages you need to be managing them right through the life cycle, and that's what we offer," she adds.

 

And if the securitisation market has any hope of coming back in a meaningful form, managing this type of risk will be integral. For the time being, with growth static in the mortgage market the securitisation of mortgage-backed securities remains depressingly thin on the ground.

 

But true to form, Attia is upbeat about the future of securitisation and sub-prime.

 

"Obviously, the market still can't truly be called a market but there are some green shoots," she says. "Everyone from regulators to issuers, lenders and investors want the market to get going again and it will, but all players are going to be much more aware of mortgage risk and how it is managed."

 

In terms of the role regulators and politicians could play in kickstarting the market she admits that's the question everyone is asking.

 

"Regulators around the world have a significant challenge on their hands because on one hand they're conscious of the fact that they've been widely criticised for the crisis, and for what has been perceived by some as lenient regulation that contributed to the problems," she says.

 

"On the other hand they want to promote lending, the securitisation market and funding, so they've got a tricky tightrope to walk. I'd struggle too if I was in their shoes, but if they don't get it right we'll all have serious problems."

 

But Attia says she firmly believes that markets ultimately get it right, and that should include the reintroduction of sub-prime at some point in the future.

 

"The truth is that if you look at the sub-prime pools that have been created, about 80% are performing," she says. "That means that eight out of 10 of those borrowers now have a foot on the property ladder."

 

"So taking a chopper to the whole sub-prime sector is probably not the way to go. It's more a case of where you find the boundary between what was excessive and what was appropriate."

 

For the time being Attia and Frazer's focus is on the successful launch of Acenden. The company is already servicing the loan book of an unnamed Irish bank and with its launch today it is looking to attract more.

 

The firm may have risen out of the ashes of Lehmans but the fact that it has survived in the face of such adversity makes this one survivor many in the market will be keen to watch.

Edited by peterjm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thread is called stefaniex in home repossesions x ... sorry little dotty ,i got you muddled up

with silly girl lol xx

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?251790-stefaniex-and-capstone&highlight=

Edited by citizenB
added link for stefaniex's thread :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acenden Mortgage Servicing Specialists

 

Victims

 

Yet more exposure theyre even victimising apparently fraudulenty people who haven't taken out a loan with them!

 

Where will it all end can anyone imagine this happening in any other civilized country?

The government stands by and does nothing.

 

Revealed: Reckless lending of UK Lehman arm

 

By Richard Dyson

5 March 2011 Reader comments (5)

Aggressive mortgage lending to high-risk borrowers by a British subsidiary of defunct US investment bank Lehman Brothers at the height of the property boom has been fully revealed for the first time in files obtained by Financial Mail.

pixel.gif

ColinParker_203x150.jpg Fight to save home: Read below how Colin Parker and partner Susan face repossession strife

 

 

 

 

These relate to almost 10,000 mortgages advanced in 2006 by Southern Pacific Mortgage Loans. The loans were quickly sold to investors. This process, on a global scale, triggered Lehman's collapse in September 2008 and was central to the banking crisis.

Investors were persuaded to buy mortgages because they would, supposedly, earn a regular income from the interest paid by borrowers, as well as have security over the property.

Even before the crisis, SPML raised eyebrows for its lax lending. But the scale of recklessness is made public here for the first time.

Our analysis of SPML's 2006 lending has found that three out of five mortgages were 'liar loans' - offered on a 'self-certified' basis where borrowers were not required to prove their income. A third of the mortgages were interest-only, where capital does not have to be repaid until the end of the mortgage term.

One in five borrowers had court judgments against them for uncleared debt elsewhere, averaging £4,400, at the time the mortgages were lent. Mainstream lenders will not advance mortgages to someone with a court judgment who has not paid off the debt.

Two in five of the loans were for 80% of the property's value or more, with some mortgages equating to as much as 95%. Compare this, for example, with a conservative lender such as Nationwide Building Society, whose average outstanding loan is for less than half the value of the property it is secured against.

The data also gives a shocking, if unsurprising, picture of how quickly SPML's borrowers fell into difficulty.

By March 2009, of SPML's mortgages originally lent in 2006 and still in force, 40% were three months or more in arrears. Almost 10% were over 12 months in arrears.

AmanyAttiaFMOS_203x150.jpg

Silent: Acenden's Amany Attia

 

Scores of mortgages had been in arrears for more than 24 months, indicating that some borrowers fell behind as soon as the money was lent. Citizens Advice describes this lending as 'set up to fail' - with lenders cynically advancing money in the knowledge that borrowers couldn't afford the repayments.

Interest rates on remaining SPML mortgages dating from 2006 now average 7.09%, but some unlucky borrowers are paying more than 16%. Two in five borrowers pay 10% or higher.

The files also reveal how relentlessly SPML borrowers have been pursued through the courts, frequently losing their homes. Of borrowers-whose 2006 mortgages remain in force, almost 40% have had some form of litigation brought against them by the business that administers SPML's remaining loans.

This business is called Acenden, but is better known - and reviled by borrowers - as Capstone, a name it ditched last year in a bid to reinvent itself. Capstone was owned by Lehman until the bank's collapse.

Today, Acenden is profitable and managed, and part-owned, by former Lehman bankers who spearheaded the original lending. This includes Acenden chief executive Amany Attia, who came to Britain in 2001 to introduce Lehman's discredited US mortgage lending processes in this country. She declined to comment.

The data that Financial Mail has analysed relates to just one tranche of SPML's lending, but is representative of the billions of pounds lent by SPML and equivalent businesses. Acenden refuses to publish the numbers of repossessions it has secured relating to the mortgages it administers.

However, it is estimated by Citizens Advice, for instance, that such lenders seek ten times the number of repossessions sought by mainstream lenders, even though their share of the total mortgage market is about one twentieth.

 

Forgery victim's five-year ordeal

ColinParker_203x150.jpg

Couple: Case highlights role played by Capstone, now Acenden

 

This couple face having their home repossessed, even though the mortgage secured against it was applied for by a fraudster. The case again highlights the role played by Capstone (now called Acenden), which oversees mortgages lent years ago by offshoots of failed US bank Lehman Brothers. It also illustrates the recklessness with which some lenders were agreeing loans in the boom years of 2005 and 2006 and the huge distress still being suffered as a result.

Colin Parker, 47, a building company director, fell victim to mortgage fraud in 2006 when his signature was forged to borrow £75,000 in his name, against the home where he still lives with his partner, Susan Datson, and their five children.

The lender was Southern Pacific, notorious for its lax checks and easy lending. Its loans are today administered by Acenden. Colin and Susan, 34, have spent much of the past five years fighting off attempts to repossess the £575,000 property in rural Lincolnshire.

It has been acknowledged in court that Colin did not sign for the mortgage or benefit from the money. But because he mistakenly paid a couple of the monthly repayments in 2006 when threatened with repossession, he can legally be seen to have 'ratified' the loan. On this basis, they may lose their house. When Financial Mail first contacted Acenden, it said: 'Our direct involvement in the affair ceased in September 2007.'

This came as news to Colin and Susan.

The solicitor acting against them - the Manchester office of national law firm Cobbetts LLP - told them it was acting on behalf of Southern Pacific.

But what is Southern Pacific? It was simply a brand, now defunct, whose remaining loans are managed by Acenden. Documents obtained by Financial Mail indicate a payment in respect of the mortgage was made in 2008. The payment, it seems, was made by insurer London & European, which underwrote some of Lehman's lending.

Could L&E be behind the drive to possess the home? In the shadowy world of high-risk, US-style lending, where mortgages are traded among investors, it seems impossible to discover. L&E made profits of just £548,000 last year. Chief executive Christopher Taylor and underwriting manager Harsit Nakarja both failed to reply to our questions.

Financial Mail's emails and phone calls to Michael Shaw, Cobbetts managing partner, and two other Manchesterbased partners also went unanswered.

Edited by peterjm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acenden Mortgage Servicing Specialists

victims

still yet more

These are some outfits to work for, what qualifications are required ?apparently moral and ethical bankruptcy springs to mind

 

RECKLESS AND RUTHLESS: Files show how aggressive lenders peddled mortgages borrowers couldn't afford and pursued them when they failed to meet payments

 

 

By Richard Dyson

Last updated at 10:11 PM on 5th March 2011

 

 

 

Aggressive mortgage lending to high-risk borrowers by a British subsidiary of defunct US investment bank Lehman Brothers at the height of the property boom has been fully revealed for the first time in files obtained by Financial Mail.

These relate to almost 10,000 mortgages advanced in 2006 by Southern Pacific Mortgage Loans. The loans were quickly sold to investors. This process, on a global scale, triggered Lehman's collapse in September 2008 and was central to the banking crisis.

Investors were persuaded to buy mortgages because they would, supposedly, earn a regular income from the interest paid by borrowers, as well as have security over the property. Even before the crisis, SPML raised eyebrows for its lax lending. But the scale of recklessness is made public here for the first time.

 

article-0-0BEA17F7000005DC-59_468x286.jpg Silent: Acenden's chief executive Amany Attia declined to comment

 

Our analysis of SPML's 2006 lending has found that three out of five mortgages were 'liar loans' - offered on a 'self-certified' basis where borrowers were not required to prove their income. A third of the mortgages were interestonly, where capital does not have to be repaid until the end of the mortgage term.

One in five borrowers had court judgments against them for uncleared debt elsewhere, averaging £4,400, at the time the mortgages were lent. Mainstream lenders will not advance mortgages to someone with a court judgment who has not paid off the debt.

 

 

 

More...

 

 

 

Two in five of the loans were for 80 per cent of the property's value or more, with some mortgages equating to as much as 95 per cent. Compare this, for example, with a conservative lender such as Nationwide Building Society, whose average outstanding loan is for less than half the value of the property it is secured against.

The data also gives a shocking, if unsurprising, picture of how quickly SPML's borrowers fell into difficulty.

By March 2009, of SPML's mortgages originally lent in 2006 and still in force, 40 per cent were three months or more in arrears. Almost ten per cent were over 12 months in arrears.

Scores of mortgages had been in arrears for more than 24 months, indicating that some borrowers fell behind as soon as the money was lent. Citizens Advice describes this lending as 'set up to fail' - with lenders cynically advancing money in the knowledge that borrowers couldn't afford the repayments.

Interest rates on remaining SPML mortgages dating from 2006 now average 7.09 per cent, but some unlucky borrowers are paying more than 16 per cent. Two in five borrowers pay ten per cent or higher.

The files also reveal how relentlessly SPML borrowers have been pursued through the courts, frequentlylosing their homes. Of borrowers-whose 2006 mortgages remain in force, almost 40 per cent have had some form of litigation brought against them by the business that administers SPML's remaining loans.

This business is called Acenden, but is better known - and reviled by borrowers - as Capstone, a name it ditched last year in a bid to reinvent itself. itself. Capstone was owned by Lehman until the bank's collapse.

 

Today, Acenden is profitable and managed, and part-owned, by former Lehman bankers who spearheaded the original lending. This includes Acenden chief executive Amany Attia, who came to Britain in 2001 to introduce Lehman's discredited US mortgage lending processes in this country. She declined to comment.

The data that Financial Mail has analysed relates to just one tranche of SPML's lending, but is representative of the billions of pounds lent by SPML and equivalent businesses. Acenden refuses to publish the numbers of repossessions it has secured relating to the mortgages it administers.

However, it is estimated by Citizens Advice, for instance, that such lenders seek ten times the number of repossessions sought by mainstream lenders, even though their share of the total mortgage market is about one twentieth.

 

Forgery victim's five-year ordeal

 

article-0-0D7B7512000005DC-882_306x423.jpg Fight to save home: Colin Parker with his partner, Susan Datson

 

This couple face having their home repossessed, even though the mortgage secured against it was applied for by a fraudster. The case again highlights the role played by Capstone (now called Acenden), which oversees mortgages lent years ago by offshoots of failed US bank Lehman Brothers.

It also illustrates the recklessness with which some lenders were agreeing loans in the boom years of 2005 and 2006 and the huge distress still being suffered as a result.

 

Colin Parker, 47, a building company director, fell victim to mortgage fraud in 2006 when his signature was forged to borrow £75,000 in his name, against the home where he still lives with his partner, Susan Datson, and their five children.

 

The lender was Southern Pacific, notorious for its lax checks and easy lending. Its loans are today administered by Acenden. Colin and Susan, 34, have spent much of the past five years fighting off attempts to repossess the £575,000 property in rural Lincolnshire.

 

It has been acknowledged in court that Colin did not sign for the mortgage or benefit from the money. But because he mistakenly paid a couple of the monthly repayments in 2006 when threatened with repossession, he can legally be seen to have 'ratified' the loan.

 

On this basis, they may lose their house. When Financial Mail first contacted Acenden, it said: 'Our direct involvement in the affair ceased in September 2007.'

 

This came as news to Colin and Susan. The solicitor acting against them - the Manchester office of national law firm Cobbetts LLP - told them it was acting on behalf of Southern Pacific.

 

But what is Southern Pacific? It was simply a brand, now defunct, whose remaining loans are managed by Acenden. Documents obtained by Financial Mail indicate a payment in respect of the mortgage was made in 2008. The payment, it seems, was made by insurer London & European, which underwrote some of Lehman's lending.

 

Could L&E be behind the drive to possess the home? In the shadowy world of high-risk, US-style lending, where mortgages are traded among investors, it seems impossible to discover. L&E made profits of just £548,000 last year. Chief executive Christopher Taylor and underwriting manager Harsit Nakarja both failed to reply to our questions.

 

Financial Mail's emails and phone calls to Michael Shaw, Cobbetts managing partner, and two other Manchester-based partners also went unanswered.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1363323/RECKLESS-AND-RUTHLESS-Files-aggressive-lenders-peddled-mortgages-borrowers-afford-pursued-failed-meet-payments.html#ixzz1FqApumqd

Edited by peterjm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone of the 14 guests watching the thread are sick of working for this firm and its regimes and wants to turn whistleblower and become a hero why don't you just join the club and pm us here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys .. i went to court yesterday for my n244 hearing .. they had conveniently lost a payment made by me .. but the judge could see through them .. he added up payments due since nov minused payments made and asked their solicitor why the arrears were 600 more than the last hearing and hoped they were not charges added to arrears . He adjourned and gave them 14 days to explain what this 600 was for and said i would have 7 days to reply ...

im not sure wat this all means .. is there anyone that can explain a bit further wat happens now ?

when he said to her you have 14 days to comply she asked for 7 and he said .. you will be lucky if we get a hearing before 28 days ... does this mean we are going back ?

he also said he needed to deal with them b4 he could decide weather to suspend eviction

any advice would be appreciated xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stef

 

Yes thats good news,basically their solicitors now have a court order to comply with,giving the court the breakdown of the £600 within 14 days from todays date. Do you not know what you had to reply too? If not just ring the courts with your claim number & ask them,they will be able to tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i rang the court and was told wen they comply the listings officer will set another date ... is that right? the lady at the court said it could take

1,2 or even 3 months for them to have time for another hearing as they are very busy or would it be an urgent case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stef

as i understand it they have 14 days to explain how the arrears have gone up,you then have 7 days to respond then they will set a new date for your n244 hearing to make the decision which could be 3 months away all this seems good for you at the moment as the eviction proceedings would have had to have been suspended until then.Make sure you respond to any explanation they offer and confirm with the court that an eviction cannot take place before your hearing just for your own peace of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks i will let you know what their reply is ... if they say they are charges for the 3 months ... surely that will give them rope to hang themselves because the last 26 months they have added 115 each and every month x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stef

You have started an Fos complaint about these charges thats nearly 3k in unjustifiable unfair charges,if you haven't you have to a.s.a.p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi yes i have started one ... the judge didnt even touch on that though x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge at my hearing wasn't interested in my FOS claim either. I think I have been lucky in the respect that the judge's (yes been there more than once lol!) actually reduced my proposal for repayment of arrears and changed my mortgage due date going forward and providing I continue to comply with his order my home is safe.

 

I just hope and pray that soon the necessary authorities will come to their senses and put a stop on Acenden and their vultures once and for all!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where to post this question sorry if this is unsuitable to the thread, but need a quick answer My mum has had a call from National Home Loans legal dept.

She pays a mortgage to them, I believe they are part of a Paragon Finance. They have phoned today to say if we pay £199 which will be refunded if it's in time to claim as the time is running out! they will send out claim forms to refund around £2000 PPI and charges I don't know if they're trying to con us or not and this mortgage is about 20years old we have bought this house twice I'm sure!

I wonder if they are trying to get us to sign up a new agreement that maybe they don't have proper agreement in place .

Is this a normal request we are not in any arrears with payments or anything. I don't trust them have read too much here. She has to phone back today to pay the £199 it doesn't seem right.

Thank you for any advice or anything I don't have a clue about all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that they are trying to con money out of your mother!!

 

If you have been paying PPI then just send a letter or claim form (not sure if there is one) and claim it all back and for that you don't have to pay anything to them to claim it!!

 

I am sure other "Caggers" will confirm this, so do not ring them as they should also give you more time to consider anything like this!

 

To me this is a big con!!

 

 

 

I don't know where to post this question sorry if this is unsuitable to the thread, but need a quick answer My mum has had a call from National Home Loans legal dept.

She pays a mortgage to them, I believe they are part of a Paragon Finance. They have phoned today to say if we pay £199 which will be refunded if it's in time to claim as the time is running out! they will send out claim forms to refund around £2000 PPI and charges I don't know if they're trying to con us or not and this mortgage is about 20years old we have bought this house twice I'm sure!

I wonder if they are trying to get us to sign up a new agreement that maybe they don't have proper agreement in place .

Is this a normal request we are not in any arrears with payments or anything. I don't trust them have read too much here. She has to phone back today to pay the £199 it doesn't seem right.

Thank you for any advice or anything I don't have a clue about all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that they are trying to con money out of your mother!!

 

If you have been paying PPI then just send a letter or claim form (not sure if there is one) and claim it all back and for that you don't have to pay anything to them to claim it!!

 

I am sure other "Caggers" will confirm this, so do not ring them as they should also give you more time to consider anything like this!

 

To me this is a big con!!

 

Thank you jasperpad, for replying,

The PPI was cancelled years ago , at one time there was a lot of charges as well when they were in difficulty.

But I was Suspicious them wanting £199 refundable they said it was to insure She was here to get the documents and the claim was accepted( it didn't add up to me) If the claim was refused the £199 would be refunded.

They said they were National Home loans legal team?? and it would be over £2000 to get back so why didn't they just send her it?

They had all her details and knew my dad's name, but I said to her I would check here first ,as you guys know all the tricks these companies pull and would know if it's right or not. They said she had been informed by letter to sign and send back the claim. She never recieved nothing like that.

They said the time was running out to claim and she had 1week left and it was to be done today or if it's monday then that may be too late??

I was [problem]med before in another issue with this tactic that's what made me suspicious when my mum told us.

It's terrible we have to be so vigilant against so called reputable companies can't trust no-one nowadays.

Thanks again I wasn't sure what to believe but you've confirmed that I think the same .

It's not right, probably just be losing £199. Jeez! ! we can't afford to even pay that anyway, I also wondered if it's one of these dodgy claim firms.

Thank You Jasperpad!! you guys are Brilliant!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately a [problem]!

If you want to claim anything like that,ppi,arrears charges etc,you can do it all here without the help of a costly firm.

There is enough help from members and letter templates.

You were right in clarifying it first,some people dont then end up being ripped off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Definately a [problem]!

If you want to claim anything like that,ppi,arrears charges etc,you can do it all here without the help of a costly firm.

There is enough help from members and letter templates.

You were right in clarifying it first,some people dont then end up being ripped off.

 

Thank you Littledotty, I thought as much thank goodness I knew about this site.

Is there a time limit for claiming ppi back and charges ? Is that just rubbish he was saying to make my mum pay up right now.

Anyway Thank you so much I knew you guys would know!! Much appreciated!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if any case of mis-selling has been brought against any sub-prime lenders ?

 

Can anyone help me urgently draft my appeal against latest judgement & eviction date ? I lack legal knowledge & do not have the time in just two days to find out enough about how to formulate the appeal and what to claim.

 

I need really urgent help because I only have two days left to appeal correctly enough to be allowed to appeal at all and get an eviction set aside for March 22.

 

I also need help because I get the impression that the courts and legal industry is devoted to not taking on mis-selling claims in the sub-prime lending arena and think I need help to avoid being flummoxed by rubbish from the courts.

 

I need to file appeal and get further stay of eviction to give me the time needed to properly formulate appeal and fight mis-selling case.

 

For instance, surely I must be able to set aside the repossession judgement so as to allow my claim for mis-selling. On what grounds can the repossession judgements be set aside ? Help anyone ?

 

Also I need to show I did have ‘clean hands’ How can I do that. On what grounds can my action of incorrectly filling our mortgage application be exonerated to then give me ‘clean hands’ ?

 

I do need a bit of urgent help. I was repossessed and then waited a year going through the mortgage rescue process. I was accepted, ticked all the boxes etc, then it was handed over to the housing association.

 

They sent a surveyor around to see what repairs etc might need doing to bring house up to minimum letting standard. There is a budget of £20 000 for any repairs.

 

The housing association surveyor produced a completely fictional list of items with equally fictional cost estimates to bring the total up to £27 000. It was wickedly dishonest.

 

This was then used by the housing association to refuse mortgage rescue at the last minute, leaving me being evicted soon, March 22nd.

 

The real costs of repair works by the way was about £7000 maximum, and is very easily proved. But the housing association are adamant and have even refused my offer to find the excess cost.

 

I was advised by the government quango that oversees mortgage rescue that this inflated repairs estimate was simply being used as device to allow the housing association to refuse to buy my house because it had run out of funding.

 

So, I managed to stop the last eviction date by making an application to the court asking the court to consider ‘proportionality’ of eviction under Human Rights Act in view of recent Pinnock judgement and also asking the court for leave to file a counterclaim for miss-selling.

 

The judge said I couldn’t make a claim for miss-selling as too much time had elapsed ( the mortgage is only about three years old) and I had also ‘affirmed’ the mortgage by making payments (which apparently also barred me from making and miss-selling claim). Also, a third reason I could not claim miss-selling and equitable relief (compensation in plain English) was that I had ‘unclean hands’ as I had mis-stated income etc on mortgage application and was partly to blame and the law says anyone seeking equitable relief must have ‘clean hands’.

 

The judge did accept his court had a liability to consider proportionality and he did consider whether it was proportionate that I was evicted etc for long winded reasons given in judgement.

 

So I have presumably pushed the legal boundaries of the Pinnock judgement further by establishing that the Pinnock judgement on ‘proportionality’ (human rights act) does in fact apply to private householders as well as local authority tenants. this had not been made clear by Pinnock.

 

I have arranged a transcription of this judgement & will post it here when I get it in a day or two. The judgement will provide a platform stating points on which to fight the case.

 

But, I was mis-sold and thoroughly misled. I told the judge I would appeal ( he had refused leave to appeal, but I can appeal against that & ask for leave to appeal from a higher court.)

 

I have just two days left to lodge that appeal before I am out of time. Some of the reasons for my mis-selling claim are :

 

The mortgage was misrepresented

 

I was taken unfair advantage of by the broker

 

The broker applied duress

 

There was a conflict of interest between broker & lender.

 

Below is a list of mis-selling tests taken from Aventra & other sites. I think just about all of them apply to me.

“How can I tell if I have a mis-sold mortgage?

Can you answer YES to any of the questions below:”

 

• Were you encouraged to self-certify or falsify your income to get a mortgage?

• Did the lender regularly remortgage you to keep on a low rate?

• Did the broker charge you a large finders fee?

• Is the mortgage on an interest-only basis with no repayment vehicle?

• Did the mortgage go past your normal retirement age?

 

• Your mortgage was an interest only mortgage?

 

• Your mortgage runs past your retirement age?

 

• You acquired your mortgage through a sub prime mortgage lender?

 

• You made a Self certification mortgage application?

 

• You had adverse credit when you acquired your mortgage?

 

• You re-mortgage for Debt consolidation purposes?

 

• Your affordability was not considered when you made your application?

 

• You are now in negative equity?

 

• You were advised to switch to another lender?

 

• You have had your property repossessed?

 

Other points of law I have looked up indicate I have other ‘points of law’ grounds for mis-selling, Viz:

 

- Coercion

 

- Misrepresentation

 

- Duress

 

(Economic duress

A contract is voidable if the innocent party can prove that it had no other practical choice (as opposed to legal choice

but to agree to the contract. The elements of economic duress

1. Wrongful or improper threat: No precise definition of what is wrongful or improper. Examples include: morally wrong, criminal, or tortuous conduct; one that is a threat to breach a contract "in bad faith" or threaten to withhold an admitted debt "in bad faith".

2. Lack of reasonable alternative (but to accept the other party's terms). If there is an available legal remedy, an available market substitute (in the form of funds, goods, or services), or any other sources of funds this element is not met.

3. The threat actually induces the making of the contract. This is a subjective standard, and takes into account the victim's age, their background (especially their education), relationship of the parties, and the ability to receive advice.

4. The other party caused the financial distress. The majority opinion is that the other party must have caused the distress, while the minority opinion allows them to merely take advantage of the distress.

 

 

- Unjust enrichment

 

- Lack of fiduciary duty by broker to me

 

I think there are more points of law that SPML & the broker (owned by US bank Capital one) drove their evil bulldozer of fraud right through, but I haven’t the time to list them; but you get the point.

 

Many of the people who were sold mortgages by spml & others will all have some or even all of these points of law to claim against Ascenden & Co.

 

I think virtually all of this list applies to me.

 

 

 

There couldn’t be a more clearer case of mis-selling than in my case as I also informed the broker I was a single parent with sole, unsupported care of a child & I was surviving on State benefits. I also explained the purpose of the mortgage was to repay previous lender who had completed repossession and listed eviction date.

 

Can we ALL get together & use my case to forge a precedent of common law that all the other sub-prime victims cans use too ? Possibly organise it into a class action.

 

I feel the point about my claim ( & I haven’t had the time to tell the whole story here & there is lots more & it is a corker) is that I am such an obvious victim and repeat victim and have so MANY grounds of mis-selling that surely it must succeed and then others can follow ?

 

Has ANYONE yet brought a claim for mis-selling ?

 

Anyone out there ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of your first posts you said you had 3 children and a partner. Call me sceptical but if you have the time to post here, and have been through it before, you will know what is needed to keep from being evicted and it's certainly not an in depth discussion of the legal position 2 days prior. All what you have said in your posts doesn't add up for someone that doesn't appear to be as thick as 2 short planks in what they write. I couldn't write anything with such enthusiasm when talking about these sewer rats, even now, so like I said ..I'm sceptical. Anyone fancy a fishing trip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...