Jump to content


Lenders may be hiding incriminating data for years 2006,2007,2008


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2740 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My apologies if you aren't in arrears. Usually people only question their mortgage if they have an unpleasant experience with it that usually leads on to arrears.

 

As a consumer your buck stops with the lender, and not who provided them with the money. In your case Ascenden seem to be dealing with your account? Establish a contact name with them and ask them to provide all the details you need for your account. It does take a while, and some hammering at them, but a few months later I managed to get all I needed.

 

As bhall has said, you need to get everything together and sit down with a calculator, although there are some online that will help you with the interest etc. I did all mine manually to get an idea and then used several other methods to check. A long process but worth it.

 

Most of my SARs were screen dumps and they can be the most valuable, if you have the patience to read through them all.

 

Not quite sure where you are going with this. Nothing prevents it from being securitized, which I think originally came from Denmark and not America.

 

As for the insurance just refuse to name them. I do and nothing happens.

 

You said you'd lost your documents in a house fire? Were they in the mortgaged property?

I understand nothing can prevent my loan being securitized, and you learn something new every day. I wrongly assumed that America was responsible for inventing it. However I do believe the American banksters are behind the present day perfection of if here in the UK with the likes of lehmans and Ms Amany Attia now CEO of Acenden Ltd leading the way.

 

In respect to the insurance what diffidence does it make if you refuse to include the SPV name on the policy or if you refuse to make your payments in the name of the SPV as I have.

 

As to dealing with Acenden ltd this is another matter as every time I contact them and ask why this or that has happened I am fed a complete bunch of lies which they expect me to believe. I suffer from high blood pressure and my wife is a 64 year old long term diabetic and its very hard for us to except and come to terms with that back in 2005 we got conned by a smart arsed GMAC broker into an agreement and loan which has a POA giving the loan owner every right under the sun to do what ever he needs in relation to our estate which is worth much more than the loan amount lent.

 

Regarding the house fire this was at another property belonging to my eldest daughter.

 

Well we will have to put up with it and as you said stop fussing about what will happen when our interest only loan comes to the end of its life in a few years time.

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes Statements issued before missing period and statements after. And missing one are not within 6yrs from today.

 

They are not saying they have lost them but that they can't retrieve them from their computer system. And pigs can fly. By the way they must keep accounting records for 12 years which would include copies of statements.

 

Hi all

 

This is news to me, my understanding was five years after any contractual relationship expires for document retention.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we will have to put up with it and as you said stop fussing about what will happen when our interest only loan comes to the end of its life in a few years time.

 

Hello RobinHood

 

As this is an interest only mortgage, the balance ( depending on how the interest is calculated (daily, monthly or annually) and when it is applied (monthly or annually) ) should only fluctuate.

 

Is there any significant difference in the balance of the mortgage before the unexplained period of time and after ? If you have not been in arrears and have not incurred any additional charges, the balance should be almost the same.

 

You have a raised a number of concerns but it would look like as a borrower there is only one real concern and that is your mortgage is due to be repaid in a few years time.

 

Do you have a repayment vehicle in place to repay your mortgage ?

 

If you don't, was you asked about a repayment vehicle when you applied for the mortgage ?

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

This is news to me, my understanding was five years after any contractual relationship expires for document retention.

Well as I am still paying for my loan and have been doing so since 2005. And because with the SAR package I received in 2013 came accounting records for 2005 along with copies of many letters for 2006,7,8 I do believe its 12 years, knowing my lender as well as I do, I can assure you if it was indeed only five years they would have dumped every thing as soon as the five years had pasted which in my case they didn't do, When I chased them up for the missing accounting records for 2006,2007,2008 they stated in their written letter reply the following: {We are unable to retrieve the account records from our system} Assuming by retrieve they mean: { get or bring (something) back from somewhere} and system means: {computer} We can assume they are unable to access the data or recover it from their computer system. (and pigs can fly) However i may be wrong as we are dealing with bankers here and they can create new meanings for any thing, they create money out of thin air. Being logical I think it would be OK to assume its longer that 5 years.

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I am still paying for my loan and have been doing so since 2005. And because with the SAR package I received in 2013 came accounting records for 2005 along with copies of many letters for 2006,7,8 I do believe its 12 years, knowing my lender as well as I do, I can assure you if it was indeed only five years they would have dumped every thing as soon as the five years had pasted which in my case they didn't do, When I chased them up for the missing accounting records for 2006,2007,2008 they stated in their written letter reply the following: {We are unable to retrieve the account records from our system} Assuming by retrieve they mean: { get or bring (something) back from somewhere} and system means: {computer} We can assume they are unable to access the data or recover it from their computer system. (and pigs can fly) However i may be wrong as we are dealing with bankers here and they can create new meanings for any thing, they create money out of thin air. Being logical I think it would be OK to assume its longer that 5 years.

 

Not at all, if you noticed I said at the end of the contractual relationship, I presume that if you still have a mortgage then a contractual relationship still exists, there is no 12 year requirement I am aware of regarding document retention. There is a 12 year period concerning the statute of limitations on land mortgages, but that is a different matter.

 

Document retention usually comes under the the remit of the money laundering regulations.

 

You seem to be upset about something, I have read your thread , and to be frank I find it difficult to see what your cause of complaint is. I get the impression that you are looking for something to complain of because your mortgage is reaching its term, and the principle is becoming due, would I be far off the mark ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will no doubt surprise you and you may find it funny that until beginning of 2013 my wife and I did not know any thing at all about the loan which we took out in 2005 using a broker.

 

No we dont have any repayment plan setup for then the loan interest only payments end in a few years time. To busy bringing up four children and keeping a roof over our heads

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will no doubt surprise you and you may find it funny that until beginning of 2013 my wife and I did not know any thing at all about the loan which we took out in 2005 using a broker.

 

No we dont have any repayment plan setup for then the loan interest only payments end in a few years time. To busy bringing up four children and keeping a roof over our heads

 

Strangely you do not surprise me at all.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will no doubt surprise you and you may find it funny that until beginning of 2013 my wife and I did not know any thing at all about the loan which we took out in 2005 using a broker.

 

No we dont have any repayment plan setup for then the loan interest only payments end in a few years time. To busy bringing up four children and keeping a roof over our heads

 

I must apologise I am a little confused.

 

If neither you or wife knew anything about the mortgage between 2005 and 2013, who was paying the monthly payment month after month for 8 years ?

 

Can you also please clarify what it is your lender has done wrong - it doesn't sound like they have tried to repossess you, applied charges to your account or done anything except been unable to provide records, which they should be able to reconstruct by what is sometimes called a 'manual calculation' or you could verify for yourself using a calculator or excel (free versions of similar software is available). As it is an interest only mortgage, it is straight forward to work out as you don't have to take into consideration any capital reduction, resulting from monthly payments.

 

Where is it your going with this ?

What is the end game you are looking for ?

What help are you looking for ?

 

Have you considered (sorry if you have done this already) making a Subject Access Request to the Broker ?

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been few successful claims for miss selling of interest only mortgages at around this period, I am not sure if the OP is saying that has one of these.

 

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40258.html

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will no doubt surprise you and you may find it funny that until beginning of 2013 my wife and I did not know any thing at all about the loan which we took out in 2005 using a broker.

 

No we dont have any repayment plan setup for then the loan interest only payments end in a few years time. To busy bringing up four children and keeping a roof over our heads

 

The idea of keeping a roof over your head is paying the mortgage and knowing what type it is you signed for. But you seem to say that you didn't know and had 4 children to raise as an excuse. Did you have a plan in mind for paying off the capital and it fell through?

 

I've had statements and leaflets from the same company and it does clearly state about interest only mortgages and the importance of having a plan, even though mine is repayment.

 

 

Unless you are honest then there is nothing anyone can do to help. You say you have plenty of equity and at least one child seems to have left home so at least that does give you the opportunity of selling if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, if you noticed I said at the end of the contractual relationship, I presume that if you still have a mortgage then a contractual relationship still exists, there is no 12 year requirement I am aware of regarding document retention. There is a 12 year period concerning the statute of limitations on land mortgages, but that is a different matter.

 

Document retention usually comes under the the remit of the money laundering regulations.

 

You seem to be upset about something, I have read your thread , and to be frank I find it difficult to see what your cause of complaint is. I get the impression that you are looking for something to complain of because your mortgage is reaching its term, and the principle is becoming due, would I be far off the mark ?

 

Yes you are right, and I do not apologize for the fact that I am very frighten after not realizing until 2013 that I will be left to me in a few years time to pay a big lump sum. Yes yes yes many of you will say he should have known better or its his own fault. But is it ? nether myself or my wife understood anything about mortgages at the time of signing and wrongly believed and held images of the friendly bank manager and believed that we would be getting a product not unlike building Societies and Banks use to offer their customers. We did not understand at the time that the loan was in fact a trumped up tenancy agreement in which our property would be used as the holding deposit. And yes yes and yes again we make no apolgizes for being uninformed or re tarted when it comes to mortgages or not understanding the lenders T&C. Just look at all the people who take on loans with Wonga.

 

You suggest I SAR the broker if he is still around, what information if any would that turn up apart from showing he received a big commission payment ?

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

You suggest I SAR the broker if he is still around, what information if any would that turn up apart from showing he received a big commission payment ?

 

Hello Robin

 

I suggested making a subject access request to the broker, in case you was considering a complaint about or if you was looking for some form of recourse (if possible) as a result of the sale of your mortgage to you.

 

Is this a regulated mortgage (first charge residential mortgage post 31 October 2004) ?

 

Did no conversation take place between you and the broker about the difference between an interest only and a repayment mortgage (or even part and part for that matter) ? I don't just mean in terms of lower repayments for an interest only but also about what would happen at the end of the mortgage term ?

 

Was nothing mentioned by the broker at all ?

 

In terms of moving this forward, do you have anything to suggest or indicate that you wanted and/or applied for a repayment mortgage and not an interest only mortgage ?

 

Personally, I would not waste your time with points about Securitisation and Power's of Attorney's.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Robin

 

I suggested making a subject access request to the broker, in case you was considering a complaint about or if you was looking for some form of recourse (if possible) as a result of the sale of your mortgage to you.

I

Is this a regulated mortgage (first charge residential mortgage post 31 October 2004) ?

 

Did no conversation take place between you and the broker about the difference between an interest only and a repayment mortgage (or even part and part for that matter) ? I don't just mean in terms of lower repayments for an interest only but also about what would happen at the end of the mortgage term ?

 

Was nothing mentioned by the broker at all ?

 

In terms of moving this forward, do you have anything to suggest or indicate that you wanted and/or applied for a repayment mortgage and not an interest only mortgage ?

 

Personally, I would not waste your time with points about Securitisation and Power's of Attorney's.

 

Important points all.

 

Also, are you sure that you did not initially enter into an insurance agreement, which should have matured on the completion of the mortgage and which you subsequently let lapse.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are right, and I do not apologize for the fact that I am very frighten after not realizing until 2013 that I will be left to me in a few years time to pay a big lump sum. Yes yes yes many of you will say he should have known better or its his own fault. But is it ? nether myself or my wife understood anything about mortgages at the time of signing and wrongly believed and held images of the friendly bank manager and believed that we would be getting a product not unlike building Societies and Banks use to offer their customers. We did not understand at the time that the loan was in fact a trumped up tenancy agreement in which our property would be used as the holding deposit. And yes yes and yes again we make no apolgizes for being uninformed or re tarted when it comes to mortgages or not understanding the lenders T&C. Just look at all the people who take on loans with Wonga.

 

You suggest I SAR the broker if he is still around, what information if any would that turn up apart from showing he received a big commission payment ?

 

Robin, we do not do guilt or blame on here, but we do need the facts if we are going to offer any useful advice.

 

If you are going to claim miss selling then we are going to have to ensure that the lender cannot say that you were given the opportunity to make arrangements for the principle repayment and that you ignored them.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Crapstone,

Hope you don't mind me messaging you only you seem to know what you are talking about. I noted your about getting your charges back first. Have you done this with them? I am currently trying to do this which they have rebutted my claims twice and would appreciate any help I can get on my next move, any success stories and how they did it etc

Look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bluebirds,

 

Yes I did manage to get all my charges back from them after taking them to the Ombudsman and just by disputing what they say when they claim to have lost payments etc. You will need to have all your statements first and SAR them for both parties if it's a joint mortgage. It helps if you also have all the letters you have sent them and vice-versa, along with any times and dates of phone calls.

 

Write down how it went wrong and when as a sort of timeline. How did you get into arrears, why were you charged and what did you do to address it? I don't mean here but for your own use.

 

It's a bit like fitting a jigsaw together and you need to look at the SAR(s), reference them against the letters and the statements and add up all your charges they have applied. It sounds difficult but it just takes patience, a calculator and an eye for detail as I know their charges aren't labelled clearly at all. The same with the SAR(s), you will have to read through it several times but hopefully you'll spot something such as a payment recorded but not showing as credited/or late or it shows your insurance copy as received but they have then they have denied it and charged you block insurance.

 

 

Mine showed up they had received payments but not cashed them. They were charging me for not paying by DD, even though it was their fault and the fault of the bank that it wasn't set up correctly. Charges were fictitiously applied and they put on legal charges that they could provide no proof of and didn't have receipts or a breakdown for ones that could have been classed as legitimate.

 

It seems a bit of a daunting task faced with a massive pile of paperwork but just work through it at your own pace. It will take a few weeks to do but it is worth it. I always suggest waiting a few weeks, if you can afford it, and sending in another SAR as they may not blank out the same bits as they did before.

 

My claim was rejected twice before pushing it up to the Ombudsman for a final decision. If you are trying to pay off arrears and those charges are eating up what you are trying to repay then I've found that both the Ombudsman and judges see sense and will stop them. I can only speak about my own experience and you do really have to fight at it.

 

Just ask if you need any specific help and if you give your situation then I'm sure others, with more experience than me, will also do their best to advise you.

 

Probably best to start a new thread or post up the link if you have one already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While everyone is going on about trying to do something about their problems with these questionable mortgage lenders,

everyone is carrying on about very technical legal/financial issues and so far describing how these organisations like SPML

just swat every borrower aside like flies, often with the connivance of the courts.

 

I wonder if it might be productive to cut across all this by being able to bring a case (in a class action) on the basis on 'constructive fraud'

or 'conversion' or some other legal concept which is not all about complex financial stuff no courts or anyone else either ever seem to understand.

 

There always seems to be a distinct lack of legal expertise that would be able to point straight away at retrieving loans

and other losses via a legal concept such as constructive fraud' or 'conversion.

 

Any thoughts anyone ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While everyone is going on about trying to do something about their problems with these questionable mortgage lenders,

everyone is carrying on about very technical legal/financial issues and so far describing how these organisations like SPML

just swat every borrower aside like flies, often with the connivance of the courts.

 

I wonder if it might be productive to cut across all this by being able to bring a case (in a class action) on the basis on 'constructive fraud'

or 'conversion' or some other legal concept which is not all about complex financial stuff no courts or anyone else either ever seem to understand.

 

There always seems to be a distinct lack of legal expertise that would be able to point straight away at retrieving loans

and other losses via a legal concept such as constructive fraud' or 'conversion.

 

Any thoughts anyone ?

 

Sounds good to me,

 

Would be easy to obtain from land registry for a small fee, addresses of ever one who has a mortgage with the lender concerned in my case SPML and we then could send out letters to them all explaining whats going down ,offering them to join our class action.

We could play the same games as the mortgage companies play and perhaps set up a charity company to do this. In fact the only way to stand up to them is in a large group. I am ready and willing to offer my time for this, the question is, who else is ? Any one else got the bXlls for this,sign up here.

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinhood,

 

Thanks for the offer. That makes two of us - now we need to get more, add them to a visible list and call their bluff by setting out specific objectives for us to achieve and to get all the members on the list to pull their weight and actually DO what is needed to make this work.

 

Unfortunately, people tend to say one thing but do another and what they do is make wild offers and then do absolutely nothing. Loads of people are on record on CAG threads over years with astonishing tales about SPML and other filthy fraudsters but it seems they have all tried to fight their battles alone and people have just not got together to do things in a coherent or organised way because it requires long term commitment and leadership.

 

A news item this week mentioned the case of one Richard Durkin who was conned by a bank and Durkin couldn't get a mortgage etc. So Durkin took legal action and demanded damages for the damage to his credit record etc. He won & was awarded over £100 000 but Durkin, quite rightly, didn't think that was enough so appealed to a higher court.

 

Eventually, this week he won his case - but it had taken him about 16 years AND it was cocked up because the precise legal rules of pursuing the matter were incorrectly applied. This meant the poor sod won his case but lost nearly all the damages and did not get more money at all and under the odd legal circumstances he would have been better off financially if he had accepted the earlier court ruling which had given him about £100 000.

 

However, the ruling in the Supreme Court is very good news for every other consumer & might even be of help to us in our slightly different context. Google the Durkin case to see what I mean.

 

Our very first objective is to find lawyers who have experience of things like 'constructive fraud' and 'conversion' and then see if they can link things like that to the behaviour of SPML and similar lenders which us lot with our various experiences will have the evidence of. Once we can define the exact legal basis of the legal issue we think has occurred which can be brought before a court, then the next step is to gather the evidence from all our various experiences- much of which is documented on various CAG threads.

 

I started studying for a legal degree recently because it is impossible to obtain legal proper representation unless you are a squillionaire & I really, really need to pursue some issues like SPML. My eyes were very rapidly opened about how 'the Law’ works.

 

Previously I had thought that when I went to court as a litigant in person and tried to present a case, that the relevant people in the court would know the law, know what I was on about - particularly the judge - and as the ignorant layman and non-lawyer that I am, I expected the judge to know the law, see my predicament and be of help. Particularly by adjourning the case and ordering that I have access to proper legal representation because no layman can properly bring his case in a court as you simply need various bits of legal experience & knowledge of court procedures and then about the particular rules of law you have to use to build your case.

 

I was in court to appeal an eviction by SPML. I was invited by the judge to present my case. I then started telling the 'back story' and said SPML had been fraudulent and I mentioned various 'points of law' that I had picked up & quoted them to the judge as reasons why the judge should decide SPML had broken these 'rules of law' I was mentioning and find the case in my favour.

 

The judge interrupted me, sounding sympathetic and supportive and all sweetness and light and reasonable thus: his exact words were: ‘Mr .... stop. Do not spoil what is a very good case by making allegations of fraud’.

 

The judge then suddenly went red in the face as he realised he had made a statement of pre-judgement which the other side could easily use to wreck any judgement then made. It was a silly legal error the judge had made by saying the case is a good case when it had barely started. He was showing a bias.

 

So, he corrected himself by suddenly covering up his embarrassment by being aggressive towards me and repeating what he previously said but saying ’I mean to say do not spoil what may be a very good case by making allegations of fraud, you cannot make allegations of fraud in this court’.

 

So, I said yes I understand your Honour, not actually understanding at all as I thought if you can’t make allegations of fraud in a court where can you make them ? And I began to realise I was going to be just steamrollered over by an arrogant judge who has nothing but instant contempt for litigants in person.

 

As I tried to carry on this pompous judge deliberately interrupted me twice more because I was obviously unable to present my case in the manner a lawyer does. On the last occasion he impatiently said ‘Get to the point, get to the point’.

 

I had been speaking for no more than about five minutes, so he was being ridiculous. I stopped in midflow as the judge’s constant & quite deliberate interruptions had addled my brain and I was struggling to hang on to the presentation of my case which this judge was systematically and deliberately destroying.

 

I paused, trying to collect my wits and work out exactly what on earth I was allowed to say in this court.

 

The judged hurled ‘Well - go on’ at me. And because by now he had completely trashed the contents of my brain in terms of me trying to organise the presentation of my case by effectively repeatedly telling me that I should be saying something different, something that he might choose to say in this presentation rather that what I wished to say, I was lost for words and said in reply ‘I am lost for words, your Honour’.

 

At which point he stared intently at me for a while and then suddenly whisked his head around towards the barrister for the other side and invited her to present her defence. I had not even actually managed to present my case at all. It was a ridiculous stitch up. But it got worse and even more blatant.

 

The barrister for the other side was woffling her way through the mechanics of her backstory without interruption and when she was waving the mortgage contract I had signed I interrupted to say I had not been sent this or any other documents in evidence which the other side are obliged to send before a case.

 

This was important because I needed that document to show just why there was evidence of fraud because I knew that my handwriting had been altered by the mortgage broker who had telephoned me to suggest alterations to the mortgage application which I should should have made& countersigned if I agreed with them (which I didn’t really). The broker then crossed out what I had written and replaced it with something he then wrote and was telling me about this in this ‘phone call to me. He presumably had also forged my signatures on the alterations. Importance evidence, you see. That’s why I really needed that document.

 

The judge should have adjourned the case & ordered the other side to send me this evidence, but he just asked the other side if they had sent it and they xxxxxxxxx said yes and so he ignored me and the case carried on and within about two minutes it was over and I didn’t even ever get a copy of the judgement - which I would have needed to try and appeal or complain about the behaviour of the judge.

 

So, me doing a legal degree still does not enable me to know quite how to assemble a case. But it has so far taught me some valuable lessons about how to go about it and at this stage I still need a lawyer with experience in the particular area we need to bring a case and we always will need that lawyer because that is how the law works.

 

The reasons is this. The law is a vast collection of rules which have recorded in different ways for many centuries. When anyone brings any case to court the process is that you first need an awareness of what ALL of those rules are to be able to find out if you think someone has broken a particular rule. When you have found that rule of law, that legal point, you then compare it with your own issue to see if it fits and then you gather sufficient evidence to go to court to, prove it.

 

You then have to quote that specific rule of law to the judge and show it to him. It might be an old and hidden act of Parliament or a very old bit of case law where a judge made a judgement about something which exactly matches your own case. The point about all this is that you have to argue to the judge, a case that means the judge is persuaded by you that he has an obligation to follow the precedents of law that you are pointing out to him because the judge can see for himself now that you have pointed out the previous case law, act of parliament or whatever which says what the rule about this issue is and that your evidence clearly shows the opposition has not obeyed the rules of law you are pointing out.

 

Nobody, even judges, can be expected to know all the law which is why you are obliged to find it for yourself and then point it out to the judge. That is the process of bringing a case. And that is why you need that expert in that particular area of law. And even that expert will start off by only having a vague idea of possibly being able to bring a case and he will have to delve into endless previous cases and acts of parliament etc to find out how to build the appropriate case which is going to be winnable.

 

This is exactly why the phrase ’constructive fraud’ and ‘conversion’ occurred to me as they might be the basis for a case when those rules are looked at. Which is exactly why you always need a lawyer who knows the particular area of law which will enable you to bring a case.

 

In this case we might go to one such lawyer who might actually say (because he knows more about that area of law than any old lawyer) no you do not have a case for conversion or constructive fraud but actually you do have an entirely different case based on a completely different legal principle and you do have the evidence and let’s go for it because I think we’ve got the bastards by the short & curlies.

 

 

So, there you have it. Meanwhile you and me need to find a lawyer and more people and more of that evidence from those people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinhood,

 

Thanks for the offer. That makes two of us - now we need to get more, add them to a visible list and call their bluff by setting out specific objectives for us to achieve and to get all the members on the list to pull their weight and actually DO what is needed to make this work.

 

Unfortunately, people tend to say one thing but do another and what they do is make wild offers and then do absolutely nothing. Loads of people are on record on CAG threads over years with astonishing tales about SPML and other filthy fraudsters but it seems they have all tried to fight their battles alone and people have just not got together to do things in a coherent or organised way because it requires long term commitment and leadership.

 

A news item this week mentioned the case of one Richard Durkin who was conned by a bank and Durkin couldn't get a mortgage etc. So Durkin took legal action and demanded damages for the damage to his credit record etc. He won & was awarded over £100 000 but Durkin, quite rightly, didn't think that was enough so appealed to a higher court.

 

Eventually, this week he won his case - but it had taken him about 16 years AND it was cocked up because the precise legal rules of pursuing the matter were incorrectly applied. This meant the poor sod won his case but lost nearly all the damages and did not get more money at all and under the odd legal circumstances he would have been better off financially if he had accepted the earlier court ruling which had given him about £100 000.

 

However, the ruling in the Supreme Court is very good news for every other consumer & might even be of help to us in our slightly different context. Google the Durkin case to see what I mean.

 

Our very first objective is to find lawyers who have experience of things like 'constructive fraud' and 'conversion' and then see if they can link things like that to the behaviour of SPML and similar lenders which us lot with our various experiences will have the evidence of. Once we can define the exact legal basis of the legal issue we think has occurred which can be brought before a court, then the next step is to gather the evidence from all our various experiences- much of which is documented on various CAG threads.

 

I started studying for a legal degree recently because it is impossible to obtain legal proper representation unless you are a squillionaire & I really, really need to pursue some issues like SPML. My eyes were very rapidly opened about how 'the Law’ works.

 

Previously I had thought that when I went to court as a litigant in person and tried to present a case, that the relevant people in the court would know the law, know what I was on about - particularly the judge - and as the ignorant layman and non-lawyer that I am, I expected the judge to know the law, see my predicament and be of help. Particularly by adjourning the case and ordering that I have access to proper legal representation because no layman can properly bring his case in a court as you simply need various bits of legal experience & knowledge of court procedures and then about the particular rules of law you have to use to build your case.

 

I was in court to appeal an eviction by SPML. I was invited by the judge to present my case. I then started telling the 'back story' and said SPML had been fraudulent and I mentioned various 'points of law' that I had picked up & quoted them to the judge as reasons why the judge should decide SPML had broken these 'rules of law' I was mentioning and find the case in my favour.

 

The judge interrupted me, sounding sympathetic and supportive and all sweetness and light and reasonable thus: his exact words were: ‘Mr .... stop. Do not spoil what is a very good case by making allegations of fraud’.

 

The judge then suddenly went red in the face as he realised he had made a statement of pre-judgement which the other side could easily use to wreck any judgement then made. It was a silly legal error the judge had made by saying the case is a good case when it had barely started. He was showing a bias.

 

So, he corrected himself by suddenly covering up his embarrassment by being aggressive towards me and repeating what he previously said but saying ’I mean to say do not spoil what may be a very good case by making allegations of fraud, you cannot make allegations of fraud in this court’.

 

So, I said yes I understand your Honour, not actually understanding at all as I thought if you can’t make allegations of fraud in a court where can you make them ? And I began to realise I was going to be just steamrollered over by an arrogant judge who has nothing but instant contempt for litigants in person.

 

As I tried to carry on this pompous judge deliberately interrupted me twice more because I was obviously unable to present my case in the manner a lawyer does. On the last occasion he impatiently said ‘Get to the point, get to the point’.

 

I had been speaking for no more than about five minutes, so he was being ridiculous. I stopped in midflow as the judge’s constant & quite deliberate interruptions had addled my brain and I was struggling to hang on to the presentation of my case which this judge was systematically and deliberately destroying.

 

I paused, trying to collect my wits and work out exactly what on earth I was allowed to say in this court.

 

The judged hurled ‘Well - go on’ at me. And because by now he had completely trashed the contents of my brain in terms of me trying to organise the presentation of my case by effectively repeatedly telling me that I should be saying something different, something that he might choose to say in this presentation rather that what I wished to say, I was lost for words and said in reply ‘I am lost for words, your Honour’.

 

At which point he stared intently at me for a while and then suddenly whisked his head around towards the barrister for the other side and invited her to present her defence. I had not even actually managed to present my case at all. It was a ridiculous stitch up. But it got worse and even more blatant.

 

The barrister for the other side was woffling her way through the mechanics of her backstory without interruption and when she was waving the mortgage contract I had signed I interrupted to say I had not been sent this or any other documents in evidence which the other side are obliged to send before a case.

 

This was important because I needed that document to show just why there was evidence of fraud because I knew that my handwriting had been altered by the mortgage broker who had telephoned me to suggest alterations to the mortgage application which I should should have made& countersigned if I agreed with them (which I didn’t really). The broker then crossed out what I had written and replaced it with something he then wrote and was telling me about this in this ‘phone call to me. He presumably had also forged my signatures on the alterations. Importance evidence, you see. That’s why I really needed that document.

 

The judge should have adjourned the case & ordered the other side to send me this evidence, but he just asked the other side if they had sent it and they xxxxxxxxx said yes and so he ignored me and the case carried on and within about two minutes it was over and I didn’t even ever get a copy of the judgement - which I would have needed to try and appeal or complain about the behaviour of the judge.

 

So, me doing a legal degree still does not enable me to know quite how to assemble a case. But it has so far taught me some valuable lessons about how to go about it and at this stage I still need a lawyer with experience in the particular area we need to bring a case and we always will need that lawyer because that is how the law works.

 

The reasons is this. The law is a vast collection of rules which have recorded in different ways for many centuries. When anyone brings any case to court the process is that you first need an awareness of what ALL of those rules are to be able to find out if you think someone has broken a particular rule. When you have found that rule of law, that legal point, you then compare it with your own issue to see if it fits and then you gather sufficient evidence to go to court to, prove it.

 

You then have to quote that specific rule of law to the judge and show it to him. It might be an old and hidden act of Parliament or a very old bit of case law where a judge made a judgement about something which exactly matches your own case. The point about all this is that you have to argue to the judge, a case that means the judge is persuaded by you that he has an obligation to follow the precedents of law that you are pointing out to him because the judge can see for himself now that you have pointed out the previous case law, act of parliament or whatever which says what the rule about this issue is and that your evidence clearly shows the opposition has not obeyed the rules of law you are pointing out.

 

Nobody, even judges, can be expected to know all the law which is why you are obliged to find it for yourself and then point it out to the judge. That is the process of bringing a case. And that is why you need that expert in that particular area of law. And even that expert will start off by only having a vague idea of possibly being able to bring a case and he will have to delve into endless previous cases and acts of parliament etc to find out how to build the appropriate case which is going to be winnable.

 

This is exactly why the phrase ’constructive fraud’ and ‘conversion’ occurred to me as they might be the basis for a case when those rules are looked at. Which is exactly why you always need a lawyer who knows the particular area of law which will enable you to bring a case.

 

In this case we might go to one such lawyer who might actually say (because he knows more about that area of law than any old lawyer) no you do not have a case for conversion or constructive fraud but actually you do have an entirely different case based on a completely different legal principle and you do have the evidence and let’s go for it because I think we’ve got the bastards by the short & curlies.

 

 

So, there you have it. Meanwhile you and me need to find a lawyer and more people and more of that evidence from those people.

 

Yes I agree with you 100%, I would think that a good barrister is the better way to go. Solicitors/Lawyers are waste of time and space, they are pen pushers. I too have tried it on my own in court, at the time I dont know what made me try, perhaps I had watched to many Perry Mason re runs. Complete madness on my part, Don't know what I was thinking. Anyway to cut a very long story short I was found in-content of the court and a warrant for my arrest was issued after I told the captain where he could put his court, That was a few years ago when I lived in the states.

 

I try my utmost to avoid the courts and Judges at all costs, However they tend to catch you during your life time and I have now got a nice closed illegal county court hearing coming up this June related to council tax arrears, I am doing my best to force the council to back down and I have managed to get them to understand that I not the type to roll over and act dead then they shown complete disregard for civil court rules and procedures.

 

Which town or city do you live in ? I live in London near Shepherds Bush. Do you have to deal with Arseden Ltd ? How long have you had your loan ? Mine was obtain from GMAC RFC in 2005 after which it went run about's for a while and then ended up belonging in so called interest only to SPML, the real owner is of course is one of the Eurosail PLC,s, which just happens to be a so called charity trust setup by lehmans before they went belly up.

 

I dont mind spending some money if we have some chance of winning, But how are we going to get the other folks interested to join us, Perhaps we need to setup a closed forum as this one has its rules and regs which would restrict us a little. Maybe we should try using youtube to make the folks aware how they are being taken to the cleaners by the likes of SPML and other toe rag lenders. By the way the toe rags are not going to just sit back and let it happen, so we would need to have our wits about us. Perhaps we could set up a funny web site to mirror that of Arseden or SPML.

 

I am sorry if there are any mistakes in the above reply, I suffer from being dyslexic which does not help when you have to deal with smart arse lawyers and Judges. By the way one of my daughters is at law school first year and she said some thing very funny today after spending a week working for a firm of solicitors for her work experience part. She said"Dad why would any one wish to become a lawyer then you dont need to be, you only need to know the law to make money"

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinhood2013 

 

CAG

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419241-Lenders-may-be-hiding-incriminating-data-for-years-2006-2007-2008&p=4504483#post4504483

 

Hi,

 

No need to apologise for your dyslexia.

 

Your copy has less mistakes in it than most people without dyslexia. I’m likely to make far more mistakes and even when I spend time correcting one or two always seem to slip through. And that’s me spending years as a journalist & even doing a job as a sub-editor for Reuters where I sat correcting other people’s copy for eight hours every day.

 

When I say lawyer I mean both solicitors & barristers but I agree completely with you that the real lawyers are really the barristers. In my experience this has always caused a problem because the first port of call when you deal with a legal issue is with the solicitor.

 

They generally haven’t a clue about whether you have a case or what rule of law applies to the issue etc & so they often tell you that you can’t bring a case & they just fob you off because they have plenty of simple pen pushing business to earn a good living from. They just can’t be bothered to use their brains to make the mental effort to think their way through many legal issues.

 

I have some stunning experiences of that. Here’s just one example of many. Recently I went to a legal aid lawyer, very nice young black lady from Nigeria or somewhere like that, seemed very bright & pleasant, she spent two hours with me ‘taking my brief’ so to speak which was ‘my local council had a duty to house me & my son as we became homeless which they said they were legally allowed to not do because in their view I had made myself deliberately homeless by virtue of obtaining a mortgage about eight years prior to that’.

 

The council housing person had told me ’they were gobsmacked that I had spent the £80 000 left over from the sale of the previous house to buy another house with a mortgage when I should have realised that as a single parent with an infant, and at my age (50’s) I was unlikely to ever work again’ Instead, they said, I should have spent the £80 k on renting accommodation & then when it ran out I would be able to claim housing benefit for the rent & that way I would never have become homeless. Because of that I was legally at fault & they had a getout”.

 

Now I don’t have to explain to you how it is, that this matter, correctly brought before a court with proper legal representation should result in a big kick in the teeth to the council & HUGE damages to me, particularly when some other connected issues are considered ( I’d have to write a novel here to explain !)

 

So that was the nature of the brief I gave this lovely nice black lady.....

 

Then I got a letter from her which made no reference to any part of anything I had said at all & merely referred to the possibility of me becoming homeless now, in the near future & what are the standard things I might be able to do about it ! ( I was now renting a house and was not homeless & there was no threat of homelessness) & I had not gone to her about that kind of issue but to sue my previous local council for breaching their statutory legal duty in a totally corrupt manner etc as above. (Many councils are doing this to other people I discovered - so I really, really want to bring this case).

 

 

 

I can only imagine this black solicitor had just forgotten everything said in the two hour interview and just remembered it was something about homelessness and just sent a standard computer generated letter to me accordingly, containing the standard basic ‘compterised’ CAB type basic advice designed for people with no more than one brain cell who are made homeless.

 

This seems to be, from my experience, the standard level of intellect solicitors usually demonstrate. They are pathologically useless !

 

I also have some breathtakingly awful council tax experiences to take to court. Mostly my council tax ‘benefit’ being stopped and the council forcibly removing the money from my benefits as a single parent on the basis they had obviously trawled around things like the internet and found I had just appointed myself as a ‘company director’ & therefore must be earning money and fraudulently claiming benefits.

 

Actually, I had just spent £20 to fill in a form to form a Ltd company at companies house with a view to starting work at some point in the future. I had discussed this company forming lark at great length with the DHSS people paying me benefits as I had asked them if I could use this mechanism of putting earned money into a Ltd company until it became sufficient to let me stop claiming benefits. They had said it was OK to do what I outlined but of course that was the future. The fact I had spent £20 forming a Ltd company that wasn’t doing anything at all, was meaningless and did not mean I should have any type of benefits like the council tax one stopped and for me to be accused of fraud etc. Oh they didn’t ever actually accuse me of fraud though, which only goes to show their own mindset was one of pure fraud on their part.

 

 

But, curiously, they didn’t bring any threat of prosecution, or inform the benefits department paying me the other benefits I was living on, or demand any proper financial investigation. So that makes it obvious they were just dreaming up the whole thing to use as an excuse because they knew they could increase their income by corruptly using their powers to milk money from me they were not entitled to under the law of the land, but that I would be able to do nothing about it without a lawyer and that I would not be able to get hold of a lawyer.

 

So far they were right; and the actually owe me several thousand pounds.

 

I live in Tunbridge Wells, 30 miles south of you.

 

I no longer deal with Arsenden as they repossessed. It’s a very long story ! But, I want to take them to court & I think I might be able to retrieve lots of money from them.

 

Anyway, below is my blog which might interest you and in which you can see a number of posts about banks, spml etc. I wanted to direct to the post which I remember as being titled Amany Attia is a liar and thief which was on my blog for at least three years and I can’t find it at all. I think it must have been slyly removed & Wordpress have never told me.

 

Have a look at the latest post about my idea of organising a new model of home buying etc & tell me what you think about it .

 

http://rocketspage.wordpress.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it far too complicated. An easier way is offering a rent to buy scheme in which the tenant can use their deposit and a proportion of their rent they have paid to buy if they choose to when their lease is up. I know it's an option in Canada but realistically the house prices here are above what first time buyers can possibly afford. How can they afford mortgages of even a 100k with interest hikes looming and minimum wages but maximum expenditure on basic services?

 

 

If anyone should know it would be you that it just doesn't pay to own your own home. You get zero help and can lose the lot in the blink of an eye. We put far too much emphasis on owning property and it looks good from the outside but on paper it's a nightmare with all the added costs and having it as an asset.

 

You won't get anywhere with your stance and should re-think it from an outside point of view and why this has happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
As any one received letters for repossession from solicitors base in bradford/bristol? haveing gmac or blamine finance

No sorry, My GMAC loan was sold on to another company far worst that GMAC for which I am in a battle with, Why are they repossessing you? Perhaps I can help point you in the right direction to address the issue.

GOD BLESS AMERICA FOR DRONES & THE DANES FOR MORTGAGE SECURITISATION

Link to post
Share on other sites

I been subject to ID Fraud committed by solicitors and brokers which as been going on years.My evidence will prove how we all been subject to fraud and been covered up by regulators.

Our you aware that FSA closed in April 13

Our you aware that CML closed its books on repossession in June 10

Our you aware FCA resently appointed x director of the leman brothers as adviser

Our you aware rbs was cleared of all fraudulent transactions by Cliford Chance Solicitors who are being investigated for money laundry

Its hard to break the Magic Circle but I am amazed that they are running

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...