Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please would you give us the name of the appeals company which you went with. I'm curious but alos there may be others who have been let down by them and I think that it would be helpful to know. Thanks   I see also that you have been asked to post up certain information/documents and you haven't done so yet
    • The boiler had started losing pressure. I was getting concerned about it. ASG sent me  a letter saying that to keep the warranty valid I needed to power flush.  On the morning of the power flush the boiler failed completely and I turned it off.  The flush technician decided not to flush through the boiler as he was unable to get it to work and reported it as leaking.  I then got ASG to come out the next day. ASG refused to mend the boiler stating that the power flush had damaged it.  I have spoken to the flush technician who has explained he did not flush hot. He has done power flushes for many years and has never seen the damage alleged caused by a power flush.  An independent gas safe engineer has also stated that the damage could not be caused by a power flush.  The boiler was maintained annually by ASG according to the contract. It includes a fifteen year maintenance contract.  I was g I NG to sar them and try going either via the FSA or possibly court. 
    • The Royal Mint has struck a special 50p coin to celebrate 50 years since decimalisation. This coin won't be released into circulation, but what are the rarest and most valuable ones which have? View the full article
    • Thanks very much that makes absolute sense. That’s exactly my aim at the minute to secure my vehicle. That has to be priority before I worry bout unfair payments etc. I sent the letter of complaint in the hope they may enter into a payment plan still. If I thought I had the time until the 31st January then it allows me time to prepare next steps etc.  only problem is If there is a ban on repossessions why were they attempting to do it the other day and saying they still are. 
    • Yes ban ends  31Jan Time order would be good  but Just suggesting a free urgent alternative to buy a 30 day stay BOS are still the Wild West of lending  Law Commissions proposals were dropped by the Government  However once you have secured your car you have grounds for complaints IRL, unfair treatment ,etc Problem is once you sign a bos you have effectively transferred ownership of your vehicle 
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3048 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

Thanks apple, I think I now get this. So Eurosail 1NC needed a CCL for the very early period when it was floating the Mortgage Notes on the Irish and London Stock Exchange and when the charitable Trust arrangements were being set up. Now that has been done Eurosail 1NC no longer needs it for its current role and the significance of March 2012 is that it was a five year licence which has now lapsed. As 1NC was an early one the rest of the SPV's will presumbably be letting their CCL's lapse as well and we should see this over the coming months.


So is this important to us? Well, not on the surface of it, however, in the case of second charge loans, the FSO has jurisdiction only over companies with CCL's, so unless I've missed something the SPV's will be out of the FSO's reach - for the second charge loans anyway. Please tell me I'm wrong......


Acenden administer the loan's (2nd charge) on behalf of the spv's - being the sales that have been completed by registration. Acenden have a CCA licence (0579989) one of the catagories of their licence is debt administration.


That may mean these specific loans are not out of the scope of the Consumer Credit Jurisdiction (CCJ) of the FOS.


The earlier Eurosail's from 2006 (2BL, 4NP and 3NC) all have 10 year licences which aren't due to expire until 2016.


Eurosail 2007 2NP also has a 10 year licence.

Eurosail 2007 4BL has a five year licence (12 Oct 2012)

Eurosail Prime UK 2007 also has a five year licence (6 Dec 2012)

Eurosail 2007 5NP also five years (15 Nov 2012)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In addition to the above the FOS does not only have jurisdiction over companies with a CCL.


s.226,226a and 227 of the FSMA 2000 confirm that the FOS has three area's of jurisdiction.


s.226 Compulsory Jurisdiction

s.226a Consumer Credit Jurisdiction

s.227 Voluntary Jurisdiction


I don't think in any of the threads in regard to SPPL originated loans, a complaint has been rejected by the FOS on the basis that it is out of it's jurisdiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course in terms of SPML, none of the sales of loans have been completed by registration and both Acenden and SPML are authorised by the FSA and both fall clearly within the jurisdiction of the FOS

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will post extracts from this decision later on today.


The rest of the decision was not good news and I will be challenging it. Acenden started legal proceedings in August 2011 for repossession after we were late paying in May last year. We made the payment up in full within three weeks so we have had no missed payments at all and all arrears solely consist of charges, nearly all of which they have agreed to refund. The FSO have upheld Acenden's right to repossess on the grounds of one late payment. The application for repossession was made one month into the statutory period that Acenden have to answer a complaint from us - which was for the unfair charges to be reimbursed - and under the OFT guidelines for unfair practice, taking legal action whilst they are considering a reasonable complaint is defined as an unfair practice ( according to the OFT. I would argue that if a practice is "unfair" under OFT rules then they are in breach of the FSA requirement to "Treat Customers Fairly") As our complaint was successful it was of course "reasonable"!!!! I also argue they have breached a number of MCOB rules as well as their action was blatantly not after all attempts to negotiate had failed, as we were paying the monthly contractual payment with an overpayment according to an arrangement. Although they agreed to remove many of the charges in response to our complaint (and have subsequently agreed to remove others in response to our complaint through the FSO) and agreed in October last year to adjourn their application for repossession they refused to remove their application from the listings and told us they could only do so in person - which is a lie - so for six weeks the repossession application appeared on the court listings until the day of the hearing in December. We have now been charged £414 for their adjourned application, which presumably includes the cost of travel across the country to remove the application - something they could have done in five minutes on-line - and we do not see why we should pay for an action they should never have taken. Had we gone into court we think the judge would have probably dismissed their case for repossession so it was a vexatious application in any event. Presumably Acenden were hoping we would not defend the case and not attend and they could get our house without a fight. I have complained about their refusal to abide by OFT guidelines and Acenden say they do not have to. I'd like to know why as it is a consumer credit act agreement. I would also like to know why the FSO thinks they neither have to abide by OFT guidelines or MCOB rules and why Eurosail does not have a consumer credit agreement but the FSO to date has refuse to answer these points.


Not giving up on this one. anybody out there with any advice or experience with MCOB?




In terms of your questions about MCOB, MCOB 1.6.1, provides you with your answer




However, some parts of MCOB can also be found in section 7 of the Pre-action Protocol for possession claims based on Mortgage or Home Purchase Plan Arrears in Respect of Residential Property





section 3 confirms that section 7 will and does apply to you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a letter out the blue saying they are willing to refund me over 2 grands worth of charges but only from the time Ascenden took over,i complained back in 2010 about this.

Im not accepting it as it then leaves me no hope for claiming back PPI as the letter says it sold the loan different company etc etc etc ..........so i feel that they will use this to their advantage as i have signed to say yes they changed company kind of thing.


Has anyone had any luck in claiming back PPI from them or have they fobbed everyone off with the we are a different company line...........does that mean i could sell my loan on for a £1 and let them chase the new person :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

kopchoir, who was your original loan with and who is it now with? Acenden would have been the administrator for both companies. (Capstone is the same as Acenden just a name change). You presumably went for the current owner who replied saying that you can only have a refund of charges that were imposed in their time. You now need to pursue the original owner. It is weird and looks very odd indeed because it's Acenden imposing the charges all along however, they do so in the name of the original loan owner and later the company who took it over. So you need to accept what you have been offered by the current company, assuming they have refunded everything you think they should.


Now PPI is a different matter. They didn't sell you the loan, a broker did, so they will argue that PPI is not their problem. You need to claim to the original broker who organised your loan. If they are no longer in business, and they won't be, you need to forward your complaint to the financial services compensation board, providing that the broker is in default. You can check this on their website. It takes ages to get a refund.


congratulations on getting £2000 back! Well done! and you said it was out of the blue? Amazing!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Original Loan was LMC Matlock i reckon they owe me about 7 grand in charges all in all plus PPI thieves i tell yer thieves.

They did say chase the broker but i had advice from here to say i should go stright for Acenden and not the broker,yeah i spoke to them a few weeks ago and i say the same stuff i alwyas tell them.

These are not arrears these are charges when was the last time i missed a payment er 4 years ago so these are charges then dufus,how much is that actually arrears er £190 so youve charged me thousands for £190 jog on.

Ive told them to repo me loads of times but they wont though my main mortgage have first refusal,18 months ago they phoned up an estate agent for an independant valuation on my house,just so happens they phoned my best mate.

We made it so that the valuation would just scrape my main mortgage, so they would get nothing,i tell them im not paying it and continue to pay my monthly amount plus £20 just in case.

I would just like some help in actually proving they are the same company,i know this might seem odd but why cant i just sell my loan on like they have done??

I havent accepted the offer yet im going to ask for more but i really need to prove that they are indeed the same company,it just doesnt add up how a new company can take over and say take over any arrears but have no commitment for the chagres levied.

Got to be a loophole somewhere either for us or to stop them from doing this,i watche don the news today the euro millions winners,if that was me id be taking these jokers to court and hiring the best in the land

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that you should not accept the offer. When they took over people's loans I have no doubt that they will have been pursuing their charges too. Don't be fobbed off.


TBH I would have thought it should be the broker you should pursue for the mis-sold PPI, as it was they who mis-sold it to you. I know others have had problems reclaiming because the brokers have gone bust.


What's Best for You?



The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.


Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007



Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acenden are not your mortgage company, they are just debt collectors and are not even licensed to hold their clients money. So you can't complain to them. You need to complain to LMC Matlock if you have not already AND to whoever now has the loan. you haven't said which one it was that offered you £2000. Separate companies, separate claims, both will be handled by Acenden. If you don't get the agreement(s) you want then take it to the FSO. You can accept or reject the current offer as it will not affect your claim against the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites



You can at least try. If you have the paperwork then you should be able to challenge anything that you think is wrong on it. I doubt you will get everything back but you have the right to ask the questions and put up a fight if you think they've made errors, you've been treated unfairly, they have charged you more than is reasonable or charged you for PPI that wasn't suitable.


It's worth sending a SAR to see if you can get more from them including receipts for court costs and any internal notes they have. Go through all the papers you have and make notes on each point you need to take up with them. Make copies of the papers you have so you can write on them or highlight points rather than using the originals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I complained to the FSO that Acenden had varied the tarif of charges four times and that there was no clause in the CCA nor in the conditions that said they could vary the tarif of charges. The FSO adjudicator responded today and quoted three clauses that were not in the CCA nor in the conditions on the back of the deed we signed (and is witnessed) Apparently there is a second "terms and conditions" which Acenden sent the FSO and is different, apparently, to the mortgage conditions we signed. I don't have a copy of this and I don't think we were ever sent one.


Has anyone any thoughts about a loan with two different sets of terms and conditions? One of which is in a document we signed and had witnessed? Which applies?


FSO had no real thoughts on this. He said the terms and conditions were "reasonable" and that was all that mattered........

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a clause that they can vary the charges. Have you challenged the actual cost of these charges and how they are not proportionate? The focus has to be on how your account is conducted and not how the company operates. Now you are with the FSO request everything and you should get copies. Don't take no for an answer and get it up for an Ombudsman to consider .


Go through everything you have and find the mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's been well over a month and still no new statement after they ******* the last one up. It's tough at the top and they are getting a pretty sweet letter to dictate that. It's not a massive company and yet they can't add up or find the software to do it! Never take it for granted that your statements are correct, use a calculator and a LIBOR guide to check everything. They will put charges on without reason. get the rate wrong or add things twice. They will remove mistakes but not always the interest they have accrued or your own banking costs for money they have taken without permission. They are pathetic and I relish every opportunity to claim anything back from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New statement from Acenden today and it seems that although we have been paying in an arrangement with £30 extra since 2009 the extra has been coming off the capital and not the arrears. When we do the corrections we are not in arrears at all.

that means most of the charges are unlawful £2000 and an attempted repo. (over £400)


We have an FSO claim running so its back to the adjudicator.


I wish i could charge THEM for my time. At a rough guess it has been 500 hours since this time last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Have received a FSO ruling which says that the clause which allows them to impose a new set of charges when they feel like it is not in the credit agreement which we signed, nor in the "mortgage conditions" which were on the back of the mortgage charge - which of course, we also signed but in a separate Loan Terms and Conditions - which the company sent the FSO and which we have never seen and the FSO say were neither signed by us or dated. So they have two sets of loan conditions - mortgage conditions and loan conditions, which seems a bit sneaky. no idea what is actually in the Terms and conditions - guess I will just have to send a CCA request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they actually offered a 'remedy' or any idea as to how this will be resolved ?

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.


DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation






IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.


Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if the last post was directed to me. The FSO simply say that I have agreed to the terms and conditions, although they were a separate document to the one I thought I was signing. Over my signature it says that I have seen the booklet and the Loan Terms and conditions. It's presumably my mistake that I thought the Loan Terms and Conditions were the Mortgage Conditions. It is annoying but I don't think significant. If they can have Terms spread over several documents, then what they have done is sneaky bu not illegal. If the document accompanying the agreement has to be a single all embracing sheet of terms and conditions - which really it ought to be surely - then what they did is naughty and it gives me something I can argue with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have received a FSO ruling which says that the clause which allows them to impose a new set of charges when they feel like it is not in the credit agreement which we signed, nor in the "mortgage conditions" which were on the back of the mortgage charge - which of course, we also signed but in a separate Loan Terms and Conditions - which the company sent the FSO and which we have never seen and the FSO say were neither signed by us or dated. So they have two sets of loan conditions - mortgage conditions and loan conditions, which seems a bit sneaky. no idea what is actually in the Terms and conditions - guess I will just have to send a CCA request.


Hi sappho54

I have all the copies of their terms and conditions in a file somewhereincluding what we signed etc i will dig it out for u and let u know what we signed when we took out our loan with them. all i can say is barstewards sums this company up in one. take care hun will be back to u soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...