Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I don't think that you have told us when you bought the car. However, you have referred to a conversation in which they apparently told you that the MOT had been carried out on 11 November so that suggests to me that you bought it after that date. Although it seems as if you are dealing with quite a dodgy crowd, you may as well go through the paces of asserting your proper rights. Because you have discovered this issue within the first 30 days – you can add to the strength of your position by sending them a letter asserting a right to reject the vehicle under the consumer rights act. If a car manifests a defect within the first 30 days then you are entitled to reject it out of hand with no chance of repair but you must assert your right in writing. Send them a letter immediately – recorded delivery – informing them that you are rejecting the vehicle and telling them on what grounds and say that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act. It won't make a whole lot of difference, but later on if you find yourself having to take court action, then it will all help. Please let us know when you have had the AA check. Meanwhile, I suggest that you contact me at our admin email address and let me know the identity of the garage and any other identity clues that you have unearthed. It may enable us to give you additional help
    • Assuming you're correct about the limitation running from the last date of deferral. The last deferral was in 2013 so the statute barring period would end on 31 August 2019, the money claim was made on 3rd June 2019 so is within the limitation period. Therefore the debt is not statute barred.
    • I agree with my site team colleague @slick132 but with variations. These people have been needing you around and cause you serious harm in terms of the amount of effort that you have been put to as well as the damage to your credit file. You have taken all sorts of different stories and also been misled by them as to their statutory obligations in respect of data disclosures. It has taken the issue of court claim to get them to make any move. You have taken control of the situation and it is you who has the whip hand at the moment. They are now proposing to telephone you to discuss the matter in some way – but you have no idea. Also, you have no idea who you are going to be speaking to and whether they have authority to commit Virgin to anything at all. If you agree to this phone call then you are at risk of handing control back to them because they will partly ask you to withdraw the action and they will also offer to make a payment as a "gesture of goodwill". Now that you have attracted their attention and they realise that something needs to be taken seriously, I don't think you should let go of the initiative. Please can you post up the email which you received from them. He was it from and what is that person's role within the company. I think you should write to them and refuse the call and tell them that you are happy to discuss matters that you will want to know what it is they think they have to discuss and who will it be who will be phoning you – and will that person has any authority to make decisions. I think should also emphasise to virgin that they are already in breach of their statutory duty. That if they decide to file a defence that they will have to sign it is a statement of truth subject to a sanction for contempt of court and that as they are clearly in breach of their statutory obligations, it would not be possible for them to sign off such a statement of truth and if they do, then you will bring the whole thing to the attention of the court and invite the court to express their own opinion on the matter. I think it's very important that they tell you in advance what they propose to discuss. I think you should tell them that if they're not prepared to disclose the purpose of their phone call and the points that they intend to cover and if the phone call is not made by somebody at a suitably elevated managerial level, then you are not prepared to discuss the matter. I'm afraid that I'm struck by the naïveté of your statement which I suppose is intended to be assertive.   Haven't we reached a point yet where you understand that you can't trust these people and although you may discuss various things on the telephone, if they then are required to minute the conversation and provide you with the resume of the conversation, you are handing them carte blanche to present the conversation in a way that suits them together with nuances included or removed, and generally slanted in their favour. They might not – but you are certainly opening up the possibilities and if that's what they do, how are you going to counter them and say that they have not correctly recorded what you discussed and agreed? You seem to be doing everything you can to keep on handing the baton back to Virgin. I have no idea why. You should not get involved in any telephone conversation unless you have first read our customer services guide and you are recording the call for your own benefit. If you cannot do this or you are not prepared to do this then don't take the call at all. Please will you post up the email that you have received, let me have your comments on what I've posted here and if you agree we will draft a response. You might like to start. Apparently they are proposing to telephone today and so we need to get a move on. If they happen to telephone before you have received a written reply to your message, then you should simply tell the caller that you are still waiting for their response to the email which you sent a little while earlier and you're not prepared to discuss anything until you have their written reply to that.
    • Well done on getting your refund and thanks for the update. I understand that you are still out of pocket. If you would like to get that money back and we will help you and I think it will be fairly straightforward. The amount of money outstanding is scarcely worth his while causing any trouble. It would be very helpful if you could post up a link to the new advertisement and also do you have any pics of the car and also its registration number please. I think we owe this to possible new owners in case they come to this forum.
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1519 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

Hi I was just wondering if I could get some advise please for my mother. I will try to explain best that I can, so here goes,

 

I recently found out that my mother currently has an interest only mortgage of £102k from Accord Mortgages, the problem is that back in 2003 she purchased her council house for £28K in which she had a mortgage of £34k from a company called SPML.

 

Now somewhere in between 2003 and 2006 (when she moved to Accord) her mortgage has obviously tripled in size. Getting information from her about where the money has gone is like getting blood from a stone.

 

The only info I can find is that in Dec 2006 there is completion statement from a solicitor with the following.

 

Capstone Mortgage £77k

Kensington Mortgage £20k

Money point 2.5k

Cheque to her £2k

+ some fee =£102k

 

As I said my mother is not very forthcoming with info, but from what I can gather she must have had extra amounts put on to her mortgage (which she denies).

 

Is there anyway I can get all the info from previous transactions from Kensington & Capstone so that I can find what the hell has happened. She is absolutely awful with money and has debts with people like Eurodebt and Carbot which I will look into a bit later on. She is now at retirement age and will be homeless soon if she doesn't find the £102k hence the reason for all of this coming out.

 

I would really appreciate any help given, If more info is needed then I can go through all paperwork that I have.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

sar to each one then

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi just a quick question? having gone through a mountain of paperwork of her's there are documents from people like London Personal Loans Ltd/Central Trust Plc and Money Partner loans Ltd.

 

Should I SAR all of them and does it matter that they are from 2003-2005 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prob all the same group?

 

Yes and there are more in the spml group too!!!

 

Get reading!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They - SPML and Capstone - were both part of the Lehman group (which is still in administration).

 

 

But SPML sold all its mortgages to Eurosail (Special Purpose Vehicles created by Lehman Brothers, who seem to have foreseen the 2008 crash about 18 months before it happened) in January 2009, retaining ownership only of the title not the loan.

 

Capstone became Acenden Limited but was then bought out of (the Lehman Brothers) administration in January 2015 by a joint venture established by global equity company Blackstone and TPG, called Elevate Bidco Limited.

 

 

Acenden's ultimate parent company is now Koala 2 LP registered (by the Irish Stock Exchange, I think) in the Cayman Islands,

owned by funds managed by Blackstone Tactical Opportunities Advisors LLC and TPG Special Situations Partners.

 

 

Which means that,

as I understand it,

since 6 January 2015,

Acenden has not had the locus standi to instruct solicitors in possession claims in respect of SPML- and Preferred Mortgages (who do not have the locus standi to be Claimants on their own in possession claims).

 

As of about two years ago, I think, Acenden Limited also administers Kensington Mortgages.

 

Capstone is now Acenden Limited (see the Companies House web site).

Expect them to be very obstructive about supplying any information from before 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when you can show that a company no longer has locus you sometimes find that a judge will say that as they are all part of the same group of companies then they can assign matters to another co in the same group-either up or down in the chain.

 

 

Apparently breaching the law regarding the reporting of company's activities to CH as they are obliged to doesnt always mean that you will persuade that judge the company has no interest in the matter.

 

 

Laws are made to allow right people to keep their money, not to allow poor people to get theirs back

Link to post
Share on other sites
when you can show that a company no longer has locus you sometimes find that a judge will say that as they are all part of the same group of companies then they can assign matters to another co in the same group-either up or down in the chain.

 

But, since 6 January 2015, that no longer applies to Acenden. Since then, Acenden has had no connection with SPML (or Preferred) in the company law meaning of the word connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But, since 6 January 2015, that no longer applies to Acenden. Since then, Acenden has had no connection with SPML (or Preferred) in the company law meaning of the word connection.

 

Makes no odds whatsoever, Acenden are merely the administrators of the loans you can view it as a type of outsourcing.

 

Oh and SPML didn't sell all their loans in Jan 2009 they were sold off in three month tranches soon after the loan was originated as can easily be determined by the name of the relevant eurosail product e,g eurosail 2007-1NC whose prospectus is dated feb 27th 2007.

All the eurosail products appoint the same trustee to operate the individual products. You can view the company here (presuming the link to bloomberg isn't removed) http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2027401

 

The whole point of securitization is to package up the loan and sell it thus removing it from your own books and any liability. The issuer who is now the owner then issues various notes for investors dependent on the supposed amount of risk.

 

The issuer in these case will be the relevant eurosail product which will be listed at companies house as they are a public limited company (as indeed is stated in the prospectus) the company number for the eurosail I mentioned above is 05999159

which shows the last annual return was the 15th November 2015. It also shows the registered office as Wilmington Trust Sp Services (london) Limited, Third Floor, 1 King'S Arms Yard, London, EC2R 7AF.

 

You will see this ownership structure if you read one of the prospectus's. Directly below the ownership structure is the transaction structure which shows SPML as the sellers "sale of mortgage pool" to the eurosail company.

 

So who are you paying as a borrower? Well again using the above as an example at page 45 of the prospectus

"Payments by Borrowers in respect of amounts due under the SPML Loans will be made, in the majority of cases by direct debit, into (i) the Eurosail-UK 2007-1NC SPML Trust Collection Account;"

 

then a bit further down

"SPML will, by a declaration of trust dated on or about the Closing Date (the “Eurosail-UK 2007-1NC SPMLTrust Collection Account Declaration of Trust”) declare a trust over the Eurosail-UK 2007-1NC SPML Trust Collection Account in favour of the Issuer and the Issuer will be the beneficiary of such trust."

(The issuer been eurosail.) This is then transferred daily to another account in order to service the notes the issuer has issued.

 

Back to Acenden using the prospectus from page 62

"Capstone will be appointed as the Mortgage Administrator pursuant to the Mortgage Administration Agreement and will be responsible for the provision of certain mortgage administration services."

 

later on in the prospectus it goes on about the standby mortgage administrator - homeloan management limited which in turn refers to another section

"Investors are referred above to the section entitled “Title to the Mortgage Pool -Administration of the Mortgage Pool” for a summary of the provisions governing the appointment and termination of the Mortgage. Administrator, the Cash/Bond Administrator, the Standby Mortgage Administrator"

 

So even though capstone/acenden was a subsidiary of an affiliate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) it matters not, all that company is doing, whoever owns them, is providing administration services on behalf of the issuer

Link to post
Share on other sites

llieno162 I seem to have gone a bit off topic in my last post I do apologize. Was your mother aware that it was an interest only mortgage. By the dates you have given some lenders would be throwing money at her considering it was an ex-council house so there would be plenty of equity to grab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes no odds whatsoever, Acenden are merely the administrators of the loans you can view it as a type of outsourcing. ... So even though capstone/acenden was a subsidiary of an affiliate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) it matters not, all that company is doing, whoever owns them, is providing administration services on behalf of the issuer

 

If only that were true. But they are not just administering the mortgages, they are instructing solicitors in possession claims - and since 6 January 2015 they have not had locus standii to do so.

 

Oh and SPML didn't sell all their loans in Jan 2009 they were sold off in three month tranches soon after the loan was originated as can easily be determined by the name of the relevant eurosail product e,g eurosail 2007-1NC whose prospectus is dated feb 27th 2007.

 

Yes, all the loans had been sold by January 2009. You are misunderstanding the process. All the prospectuses were written long before the sale took place.

 

All the eurosail products appoint the same trustee to operate the individual products.

 

It was the other way round: they started with one Eurosail and then created the others, as they parcelled up the loans as their new mortgage-backed securities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point of securitization is to package up the loan and sell it thus removing it from your own books and any liability. The issuer who is now the owner then issues various notes for investors dependent on the supposed amount of risk.

 

Until someone dreamed up a new use for securitisation: siphoning £ billions out of the UK economy under the radar of EU directives and the FCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If only that were true. But they are not just administering the mortgages, they are instructing solicitors in possession claims - and since 6 January 2015 they have not had locus standii to do so..

 

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Clearly part of administrating mortgages could include instructing solicitors.

 

 

 

Yes, all the loans had been sold by January 2009. You are misunderstanding the process. All the prospectuses were written long before the sale took place.

 

No I don't misunderstand it. You seem to be suggesting that everything took place in one big sale? Each set of mortgages were bundled up and offered at around 3 month intervals apart from the name you can tell that by the date of incorporation. The quicker you get this kind of product off your own books the better!

 

 

 

It was the other way round: they started with one Eurosail and then created the others, as they parcelled up the loans as their new mortgage-backed securities.

 

Sort of they created the trust which all the companies assign their rights to.

 

 

Until someone dreamed up a new use for securitisation: siphoning £ billions out of the UK economy under the radar of EU directives and the FCA.

 

Well certain high risk credit cards are bundled into these type of products, in the usa they have started doing it recently to phone contracts!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Clearly part of administrating mortgages could include instructing solicitors.

 

No, read Acenden's most recent accounts filed at Companies House. Acenden no longer part of Lehman group, since 6 January 2015, so no longer have any skin in the game. So cannot instruct solicitors to make homeless borrowers with SPML- or Preferred-originated mortgages.

 

No I don't misunderstand it. You seem to be suggesting that everything took place in one big sale? Each set of mortgages were bundled up and offered at around 3 month intervals apart from the name you can tell that by the date of incorporation. The quicker you get this kind of product off your own books the better!

 

Yes, one big sale of Lehman Brothers mortgage assets. To another part of itself, specially created to put these assets out of reach of the creditors when the 2008 crash happened. Lehman Brothers is still in administration.

 

Sort of they created the trust which all the companies assign their rights to.

 

Depends what you mean by trust. And the other companies are quasi-subsidiaries.

 

Well certain high risk credit cards are bundled into these type of products, in the usa they have started doing it recently to phone contracts!

 

Bundling up mortgages into "mortgage-backed assets" was the main cause of the 2008 crash in the US.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...