Jump to content


SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 169 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

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

 

My husband & I took a mortgage out with them in nov 05 reccomended by a financial advisor.

 

We missed 2 payments due to loss of work.

 

Ther original mortgage amount was £96k & was at a discounted rate for 2 years after the 2 years we where free to change lender.

 

We have been since dec 07 trying to change lender.they have been so slow in sending relevant paper work & redemption figures to our solicitor.

 

They have even taken us to court for repossesseion when they know we are moving from them.

 

These are the redemption figures they have sent:

 

Balance of mortgage £98,542.39

interest due to settlement date £10,938.09

Early settlement charge £5,766.55

Legal cost for litigation £352.51

Final repayment charge £129.50

Total to repay on settlement date 31/07/08 £ 115.729.04

Daily rate £29.18

 

An update

 

We now appear in court regularly..once a month.

The above redemption figures have now all changed & the mortgage balance stands at £110k.

What they have done is taken our mortgage payment & paid it off the arrears instead off the mortgage,so in there eyes we now owe more than 12 months payments.

 

The judge gave them until the next hearing date to explain what rights they had on doing this.

We received a copy of what they had sent to the courts:

"If a customer is in arrears we will take what necessary payment towards any arrears".

"We then take off any interest owing"

"We take the capital off the balance of the loan outstanding"

ALL IN THAT ORDER.

This is a repayment mortgage,we have been advised that we are actually only paying an interest only mortgage,yet all paperwork state repayment.

Court hearing was 18th Nov,guess what ...they did a no show,leaving the judge fuming as to no explanation.

He adjourned it till next available date & ordered them to pay £50 for my husbands loss of earnings for half a day.

Next hearing date is 4th Dec & they must give full explaination why they did not attend.

 

I could go forever with regards to this company.

Has anyone else been treated unfairly like we have?

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been to court AGAIN today,was adjourned.

LMC have to explain there negligence & breach of contract.

Judge is appalled,he stated that not one bit of contract made sense & contradicted itself.

 

I have now been in touch with local & national newspapers, I intend to let the whole of the UK of there dirty tactics.

 

Is there anyone out there who has been in the same boat & who would be willing to talk to the press?

 

I am also with this cowboy company and they are threatening me with repossesion, i am £3000 in arrears, i've just come off the fixed rate and they say my payments are going to be £1000 per month which there is no way i can pay, obviously i am exremely worried especially as i have a special needs son and 2 other children plus christmas round the corner, it doesn't matter how many times i have tried to sort this all out i keep getting told different things from different people in the firm, plus i have been paying the arrears off at £50 per month but my arrears haven't gone down but when questioned they can't give me a staight answer in fact they give different answers every time i ring, i know this needs sorting especially since i am struggling to make januarys payment, but they are impossible to sort things out they literally do not know what they are doing which doesn't help me or my situation sorry for going on but i could really do with some advice.

cheers lynne

 

Just an update been contacted by ITN this morning,they want to do a story on the way we have been treated.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I havent a mortgage with this lot. I have tried to claim back my ppi. It went to court yesterday and the case was adjourned by the judge. SPML took over the company I originally had my loan with. The judge said it is so complicated he would advise I think long and hard about taking up the case again and reissuing the N1 as it would get very expensive. Probably due to all of the t/a companies down the line. What a bunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think what also needs to be highlighted is their rates.

 

I am on their svr which is 4.25% plus libor. The only adjustment they make is in line with libor NOT their rate of 4.25%.

 

Considering all the high street banks are being told to alter their svr why are the sub prime being allowed to keep theirs fixed?

 

We are the forgotten ones who REALLY need the help as their svr's are already grossly over inflated.

 

I have been paying 10% for the last three months and have read today that libor is down to 3.3775 so am expecting a letter soon making my rate around 7% (still way above the other banks!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi littledotty27 and all,

 

Iv had some awful problems with SPLM London mortgage. We have now paid them. I am going for the PPI they pu on without us knowing.

 

If people do lose there houses through the current climate, and they have to either sell or repossed then LMC also get they ERC, which they would'nt have got if the loan/mortgage was aloud to continue and finish as normal. They put so much pressure on us to sell, in the end when the final statement came through we were actually made to pay £12.000 more and this did not include any payments that were outstanding.

 

It seems that they make people lose ther homes dilibratly so that the can add all the extras on and make extra money.

 

They make my blood boil. I hope they get there cunupance very soon.

 

Good Luck and will be watching all progress.

 

Lynn

Edited by bach
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading with interest, my ex-partner went mad in 2005 and i had to leave but paid my share of the mortgage to LMC. He didn't, and he also prevented people viewing the place when i wanted to sell so i couldn't win whatever i did - they repossessed (weight of my shoulders i can tell you!).

 

On the phone their solicitors said there was plenty of equity in the property. It was sold at auction for £187 K. The mortgage was £140K. This left a sum of £47K. Do you know how much I got back from that after the solcitors had finished charging me? £4K! They didn't even have to sort out an estate agent as I had already done that for them, and they chose to continue with the same one.

 

As I understand it I cannot reclaim their solicitors fees; however, I have SAR'd them and await with interest their break down of fees.

 

Please get the TV company to contact me by all means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received post today with a letter from court bailiff 'eviction notice' they are coming on 14th jan 2009 at 12pm to evict us.

 

Bearing in mind that the judge has adjourned the last hearing on the 4th dec 2008 for LMC to collate info on where they get there charges from

& he wanted a full breakdown.

 

Surely LMC are now in breach of the judge as they have just gone ahead & put in for possession!!!!

 

We have not yet heard of a next hearing date yet & the judge said the suspended possession order still stands until the next hearing date.

 

Can anyone enlighten me on where we would stand with regards to this situation?

 

Been to court this morning and spoke to bailiff in charge,they have quashed the eviction date as LMC shouldn't have done what they have done,bailiffs told me they are in breach of order made at last hearing.

 

1 to me nil to LMC.

 

I really don't understand how the hell they think they can get away with it.

I'm quite lucky the judge is on our side,but how many others have lost there home to these K**B JOCKEYS?

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi littledotty 27

 

This is what happened to the Olive.Family, but they found out when the baliff's turned up on the door step to throw the family out! Horror of horror....recommend you read her thread ...sounds like this is a shenangin and a habit of these companies.

 

Just gotta watch out at every turn and never assume that these companies will bide by a court order. It is my experience too, that they don't respect or abide by court orders whatever the order is.

 

Take care

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also with regards to the securisation,could you enlighten me on something we have come across.

 

Took out remortgage with Matlock Bank t/a London Mortgage Company on 21/12/2005,received letter in june 06 stating SPML had taken over mortgage.

 

Been on land registry SPML put a charge on land on 30th Jan 2006,but only put details as Proprieter on 20th June 06.

This is what is on the land register deeds

 

(30.01.2006) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered

without a written consent signed by the proprietor for the time

being of the Charge dated 11 January 2006 in favour of Southern

Pacific Mortgage Limited referred to in the Charges Register.

 

NOTE: Original filed.

3 (30.01.2006) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 11 January 2006.

4 (20.06.2006) Proprietor: SOUTHERN PACIFIC MORTGAGE LIMITED (Co.

Regn. No. 3266119) of Deeds Admin Team, St. Johns Place, Easton

Street, High Wycombe, Bucks HP11 1NL and of

{[email protected]{.

 

 

Now are mortgage we took out was for £96k,but on the register it states £50,846 as shown below

 

REGISTER EXTRACT

Title Number :

Address of Property :

Price Stated : £50,846

Registered Owner(s) : Lender(s) : Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You're right. It is a breach of the Judge's order and strictly speaking it is a contempt of court. Think that the answer may be because the borrowers don't complain to the court about the non-compliance with the order. It is understandable, the borrowers are too busy trying to fight off the big issue which is the repossession order itself.

 

In my case I got two (legal) costs orders against my mortgage company and (after a long story), they only bothered to credit back the costs 6 months later. Haven't yet checked the figures yet, but during that time, they would have been charging compound interest on those legal costs(more overcharging). The process for borrowers is an endless uphill battle.

 

Upshot is, that I never assume they will abide by the order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

FAO Supersleuth

 

Could you please look at my post dated 18th Dec with regards to the securisation.

 

I posted our deeds on the post minus personal information.

 

It doesn't make any sense to myself or husband.

 

Our mortgage was with LMC part of Matlock Bank.

In June 2006 we received a letter stating SPML had taken over at the beginning of that month.

So why have they put a charge on the property in Jan 2006 if they only took over in the june?

 

The price is even different to what we paid.

Any help would be appreciated.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Littledotty,

 

Re your question on the "deeds":

 

In order to answer the question it is probably best to go through some of the terminology (most of which you may already know, but it will help avoid confusions).

 

When you take out a mortgage there are two important legal documents (1) the mortgage loan agreement and (2) the Mortgage Deed (sometimes referred to as the Deed of Mortgage or a Legal Charge - it's all the same thing).

 

The lender will send the Mortgage Deed (which you signed) and ask the Land Registry to make an entry on the Land Registry Charges register which will register the fact that you have given them a "Charge" against your property (i.e. the Charge that you granted to the lender when you signed the Mortgage Deed).

 

The Land Register is made up of three parts. The first part is the "Proprietorship" register. You will be registered as the legal owner of the property i.e., the physical property. There is another part called the "Charges" register. This part will record any charges that you have given a lender against your property i.e., a mortgage.

 

The excerpt that you have quoted in your post is actually the text that appears in the Charges Register of your property. It is not an excerpt from the Mortgage Deed.

 

Next, to anwer you query regarding the dates on the Charges Register. When you took out the mortgage in May 2005, you will have signed a Mortgage Deed on or around May 2005.

 

Your instinct is correct - there does appear to be something at odds with your Charges Register. This is because, your register states that the charge (i.e. your Mortgage Deed) is dated 11 January 2006. This is some 7 months after you took out the mortgage and so it seems very odd that the Mortgage Deed is dated 11 January 2006 as it should have been dated 21 May 2005.

 

The date that is in brackets beside note 3 is 30.1.06. That is the date on which the Land Registry actually put the entry on the register. So generally, you don't need to concern yourself with those dates they just tell you on which date the Land Registry administrators did the updating.

 

On the 20 June 2006, SPML informed the Land Registry that they had bought your mortgage contract and mortgage deed from LMC and therefore, SPML are now the "proprietor" i.e. owner of the mortgage that you granted to LMC. Because SPML have informed the Land Registery that they now own your mortgage, the Land Registry administrators have updated the Charges register to reflect that SPML are the "proprietor" (owner) of your Mortgage.

 

Going forward:

 

Call the Land REgistry and ask them for a copy of your Mortgage Deed. The Land Registry will have a copy of your Mortgage Deed on their records. When you get the copy of your Mortgage Deed, check to see that it actually the Mortgage Deed that you signed and check the dates. It looks like there is something wrong with your Mortgage Deed because your deed could not have been dated 11 January 2006.

 

Get the copy of the Mortgage Deed from the Land Registry first before you query the dates with SPML etc. In my experience of securitisations I have known mortgage companies to loose Mortgage Deeds and if that is the case, then they can't have the charge registered at the land registry without you executing a new mortgage deed. You won't find out what's been going on with your Mortgage Deed until you see a copy of it.

 

Second, if you really want to do the paper trial - ask the Land Registry to provide you with a copy of the TR4 that SPML sent to the Land Registry such that they became registered as the proprietor. The Land Registry TR4 form is a form that is used to transfer the legal title of one mortgage proprietor to another. I.e., LMC transferred its legal title to your mortgage to SPML when it signed the TR4. SPML send that TR4 to the Land Register and that's where the administrators get the information to let them know to update SPML as the new owner of the Charge as from 20 June 2006.

 

To understand the TR4 form just remember that it is analogous to the TR1 which you may be more familiar with. The TR1 is used when a homeowner sells their house. The seller signs a TR1 (transfer form) and the buyer uses that form to send to the Land Registry to inform them that they are now the new proprietor i.e. onwer of the (physical) property such that the land registry updates the register to remove the seller's name from the register and the updates the register with the buyer's name to show that the buyer is now the new owner and consequently, they have their name registered on the "Proprietorship" part of the register.

 

In summary, if you've believed that the Land Registry is your Mortgage Deed, that will be the source of confusion. They are entirely separate documents. So call the Land Registry and get a copy of your Mortgage Deed and check that the deed is, in fact, the Deed that you signed.

 

Hope this helps and let me know what happens

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Was sorting out paperwork last night ready for court again on 3rd March & came across an original copy of our mortgage contract we obtained from the solicitors archives back in july,when all this crap started.

 

On the bottom of the contract it has the company name & address & fsa registered number in the name of Matlock Bank t/a London Mortgage company,all letters sent from Jun 06 have spml on the bottom of the letter.

When we sent our letter of complaint to LMC at head office address it came back returned from Royal Mail as unknown addressee.

So last night I typed the fsa number of matlock bank onto there website,it came back with no details found,so I typed into google found matlock bank no longer exists.

 

How will that affect the securisation? as we obtained a mortgage through matlock bank & now spml have there grubby hands on it.

In the process of getting mortgage deeds from land registry,I know we signed them for matlock but not for spml.

 

Does this make our mortgage invalid/unenforcable?

If it does I will be addressing this matter in court.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I have not read all your thread - have you done a full SAR letter?

 

I would have thought it would say in the conditions they are free to sell the loan on. Morally I agree you should have been allowed to sign a new agreement to new terms etc. It seems very wrong but I am not sure it will invalidate the loan.

 

Supersleuth may be able to help.

 

Do a search on his posts and then maybe send him a pm

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Littledotty,

 

If SPML are the Claimant and your contract is with Matlock, then when you get to court, you should tell the judge that you do not have a contract with SPML and therefore SPML have NO CONTRACT THAT THEY CAN ENFORCE AGAINST YOU and consequently, the case that SPML have brought against you should be dismissed.

 

However, SPML will most likely say that Matlock assigned the contract to SPML and therefore they are claiming as an assignee to the contract.

 

Then you say to the Judge, that if that is the case then they must prove it!! They must first show the court and you that the contract was assigned to SPML such that SPML have legal standing (locus standi) to bring a contract claim against you.

 

The must prove the assignment before the court can give them any order against you.

 

In the meantime, DO NOT sign a new contract with anyone else. These contracts are assigned from the original lender and any contract that you may subsequently be offered will more likely be worse that the contract you already have.

 

For full details on the locus standi issue search some of my other posts. I've written quite alot on this subject.

 

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

One final point. It is interesting that the Matlock T&C do not mention any transfer rights. Therefore, point this out to the judge and use it as support for your contention that SPML have no contractual rights that they can assert against you.

 

Chances are the the pleb that is acting for SPML will have no idea what is going on and you may have a chance to get the case dismissed. Try it - go for it.

 

But note, that even though there is no contractual provision, there is a statutory right for the lenders to assign. It is section 33 Land Registration Act 1925 HOWEVER, the LRA 1925 was REPEALED in October 2003. The Land Registration Act 2002 repealed the 1925 act.

 

So from the documents that you have, you must put your argument together and hopefully, you could use this to get the SPML case dismissed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Campari2

 

You raise some very good points. You've hit on an important point in that there is a difference between the legal doctrines of repudiation and recission. One difference is the common-law remedies that can be sought against the breaching party when there is a recission and when there is a repudiation.

 

Another difference is that when contracting party repudiates the contract, neither party is obliged to perform the contract any further.

 

It would need some further legal research, but if the act of bringing a repossession claim was deemed to be a repudiation of the contract, then it would follow that the borrower would be under no obligation to further perform the contract. This means, that for those people who are being chased for alleged shortfalls following the sale of their repossessed property could argue that the repossession was the lender's repudiation of the contract and if so, could tell the lender to take a hike for any further demands.

 

It is interesting to me that in the U.S.A., we hear of Foreclosure actions whereas in the U.K. the action is Repossession. Both the US and the UK are common-law jurisdictions (much of the US law being adopted from England historically anyway). Repossession and Foreclosure are two different remedies that the lenders can choose (out of a possible 5 remedies that the lender can choose to assert against the borrower). In a foreclosure action, the repossession of the property is the end of the matter whereas in England, repossessed borrower are hounded mercilessly for years and years after the repossession.

 

To develop the point about penalty clauses, it is the equity jurisdiction of the courts that has a rule that prohibits the enforcement of penalty clauses. This is because in contract-law, the remedy of damages is a common-law remedy. The equity jurisdiction was developed to aleviate some of the injustices that could result from the strict application of the common-law. The legal maxim is that equity follows the (common) law.

 

Thus, the common-law remedy of damages that are available under contract law are that contracts may make provision for an amount of money payable (in damages) for the termination of a contract BUT that amount of money payable MUST BE a reasonable estimate of the costs that would be incurred by the other party. If the estimate is wildly over estimated, then equity would deem the clause would be deemed to be a penalty clause and by operation of equity's rule prohibiting the penalty clause, equity would not allow the penalty to be enforced.

 

In these cases the ERC is often £20,000 PLUS. It is not possible that the banks could honestly say that 20K is the costs they incurred as a result of the early termination of the contract. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that the clause is a penalty clause and therefore unenforceable at law by operation of the equity rule prohibiting penalty clauses.

 

Got to say: I'm not a solicitor I'm just sharing my legal research with you all.

 

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dangermouse,

 

Had some thoughts on the fact that no money order judgment was made when the repossession order was made. My thoughts are this:

 

The lender's are very experienced and practiced at this game much moreso than any borrower. So why do you think that they don't ask the judge for the money judgment. For sure they would be given a money judgment if the judge was already minded to give the possession order - there can only be one reason - it is better for the lender if the money judgment is NOT given and accordingly, it is obviously to the detriment of the borrower that no money judgment is given.

 

If there was a money judgment, then, when the sale was completed, the lender could only take from the sale proceeds, the amount of money that is stated in the money judgment. If there is no money judgment, then it is an open cheque for the lender to take as much as he pleases. Hence, we have a situation where the borrowers are truly shafted for all the equity in their homes. See for example the many threads on this CAG site where people have been charged virtually all of their equity as so called "costs" following the sale of a repossessed home.

 

The message and warning to everyone who is at a hearing where a repossession order is going to be made against them - at the hearing where a repossession order is made against you, IT IS IN YOUR INTERESTS to make the judge give the money judgment at the same time and have the amount of money specifically stated IN THE SAME ORDER.

 

That way, you know exactly what they can lawfully take from the sale and there is no way the lender can help themselves with impunity to ALL of your equity and worse, the lender will find it more difficult to deliberately create an alleged shortfall that they will demand from you after the sale.

 

The rule of thumb for the lenders (particularly the securisation lenders) is that the Repossession business is far more profitable than the mortgage business. Hence, these lenders are really in the repossession business (disguised as the mortgage business) to screw you out of every penny possible.

 

Take care

Superslueth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supesleuth: thanks - I'm still fighting my lender (Oakwood) re the monthly arrears charges being added to our balance and have asked Welfare Rights solicitor to look at the following:-

MCOB 12 Charges

12.2 Purpose

(1) Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers

and treat them fairly. A firm is also under an obligation, as a consequence

of this sourcebook's disclosure requirements, to make charges transparent

to customers. This chapter reinforces these requirements by preventing a

firm from imposing unfair and excessive charges.

(2) The level of charges under a regulated mortgage contract or home reversion

plan is not typically a matter for regulation. However, in certain limited

circumstances, the FSA believes that customers should be protected from

unfair and excessive charging practices. This chapter considers four specific

circumstances, where:

(a) the charges imposed upon a customer seeking to terminate a regulated

mortgage contract before the end of the term of the contract do not

reflect the cost of termination to the firm;

(b) the charges imposed on a customer in payment difficulties are not based

upon the costs incurred by the firm;

© the charges (including rates of interest) imposed on a customer under a

regulated mortgage contract or home reversion plan are excessive and

contrary to the customer's interests; and

(d) the charges made to a customer in connection with a firm entering into,

making a further advance on, administering, arranging or advising on

a regulated mortgage contract or home reversion plan, or arranging or

advising on a variation to the terms of a regulated mortgage contract

or home reversion plan are excessive.

Arrears charges: regulated mortgage

Contracts

12.4.1 (1) A firm must ensure that any regulated mortgage contract that it

enters into does not impose, and cannot be used to impose, a charge

for arrears on a customer except where that charge is a reasonable

estimate of the cost of the additional administration required as a

result of the customer being in arrears.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not prevent a firm from entering into a

regulated mortgage contract with a customer under which the firm

may change the rate of interest charged to the customer from a

fixed or discounted rate of interest to the firm's standard variable

rate if the customer goes into arrears, providing that this standard

variable rate is not a rate created especially for customers in arrears.

A firm may calculate the same level of arrears charges for all regulated mortgage contracts

where the customer is in arrears, rather than on the basis of the individual regulated

mortgage contract with the particular customer.

12.4.2

Firms are also subject to requirements on information provision and standards relating

to arrears and repossessions (see MCOB 13 (Arrears and repossessions)).

12.4.3

PAGE

7

FSA Handbook Release 064 April 2007 12.4.3.

We are due back in court to enshrine the payments offer but the lender refuses still to look at any other matters, including the MIG charged at 90% LTV rather than OVER 90% as outlined in GMAC papers (original lender - sold on to Oakwood). Have seen some v. interesting cases in U.S. Supreme Courts re Oakwood Homes, re charges, insurance, future/discounted interest on securitised trusts etc.

Thanks.:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - have a particular problem thats arrived today - what d'ya think about the unreasonable costs test in relation to solicitors costs - could they be challenged? - and if a firm states that it will increase its costs in order to send me a breakdown of existing costs is that also unreasonable? -this is turning into a mega nighmare for me and would be grateful for any help - I'm guesing there are lots of people out there who are having all sorts of costs racked up against them with these unfair mortgage contracts -even when they are supposedly Regulated. I believe third party costs would also include firms acting for lenders. ?? .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

How did you request the breakdown of costs? If it has been done by a S.A.R then the £10 fee is all it costs and it is a statutory request that they cannot refuse.

I am sure you can challenge the solicitors costs. Bona is the one that knows about this. Perhaps drop them a pm for some advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My rule of thumb is that if the costs seem unreasonable to you, then it is probably that the costs are "unreasonable".

 

A reasonable cost is the cost YOU would reasonably expect to pay. For example, you might reasonably expect to pay if you had sold the property yourself. E.g. you could reasonably expect to pay an estate agent a 2% fee for selling the property, and you could reasonably expect to pay a solicitor £400-600 for the legal work. Remember, that when you first purchased the property in ordinary circumstances we usually pay the solicitor to act on both the sale (of our old house) and the purchase of the new house. However, in a repossession sale, there is only the legal costs of conveying the SALE.

 

Thus, if the legal fees are out of sync with what you could expect to pay, then DO challenge the solicitor charges. Also remember that you have the right to have a full breakdown of the solicitor's bill and you have the right to have the solicitor's charges "taxed". Which means you can send the bill to the Law Society to ask them for a determination on whether the bill is reasonable.

 

The legal costs of the sale is different from the legal costs of the repossession action. Again, you can challenge the legal costs of the repossession claim if they are unreasonable. There is not usually any costs order on the repossession order and therefore, the court has made NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. Therefore, the legal costs of the repossession are also still open to legal challenge. The Civil Procedures Rules CPR 44 and govern the rules for costs order especially rule 44.3 which are the factors that the court MUST consider when awarding litigation costs.

 

Also, as respects "third party costs", these are actually at law not third parties acting for the lender. These costs are incurred by you. This is the result of your having signed (in the contract) an irrevocable power of attorney to the lender. This POA allows the lender to appoint these third parties ON YOUR BEHALF. Which means that the third parties are acting for you and therefore these third parties have a duty to you.

 

[On this POA issue however, there could be another argument in that, it is questionable at law whether or not the POA that you granted the original lender is transferrable to a new lender - hmm have to think about that - but if it a POA is not transferrable, then all the charges belong to the lender and the lender is responsible to pay them - not you.]

 

This works in your favour in that, these third parties cannot fob you off with the usual "they don't anwer to you, they'll only deal with the lender crap". They fact is that they act for you. So you can get detailed invoices and challenge the costs.

 

The upshot is: Yes the solicitor's costs are open for challenge. Go for it - challenge the extortions where the charges are unreasonable.

 

Interesting that you have a GMAC mortgage as that's where I started from and ended up with a mob called Basinghall. In my case, one of the arguments is that the GMAC contract is void because it was not signed by GMAC at all.

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - thanks for responses. SuperS: sorry to press you but I am very interested in these points AND I hope that this dialogue is not frustrating other members. Since I am in 'due process' I must watch what I say and having left some things in a general context they are not entirely answered. The costs to which I refer have been accrued due to my defence which I must now abandon.......and I have been transferred to multi track.:???:

It has been agreed (generally) that no repo will be 'had' and terms have been reached (using Norgen) but not in relation to the solicitors costs, that will also be added I think to my balance. Hmmmm - is that the same **** mortgage that they could not alter/extend etc -and why ? - been securitised. And, why are these sub-prime firms allowed to start swift legal action that will cost the customer so much despite the government, FSA and CML guidelines, also charge me for their indemnity insurance and then walk away. They already have a premium rate from their alleged bad risk customers plus insurance et al - so no risk anyway - what do they do for this premium exactly?! I believe all right AND responsibilities are transferred from one lender to the next but, as you say, worth checking, this might link back to the assets backed trusts question also.

PS Littledotty; apologies for hijacking your thread:)

Edited by iconoclash
added ps
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, nobody will be adverse to this discussion as everyone may benefit from the knowledge and littledotty hopefully will also be forewarned and forarmed for these sorts of issues that may come up.

 

It sounds like you may be in settlement negotiations in order to avoid a trial of your defence. It is concerning that you say you HAVE TO abandon your defence. That is the last thing you should do UNLESS there is a firm settlement agreement in place. I don't know what your defence is, but from the fact that the lender is avoiding the trial it is likely that your defence is very strong.

 

Anyway, if you do agree a settlement to avoid the trial, it means that settlement terms must include the question of costs (of the lender's solicitors). Do not allow the settlement of solicitors costs to be added to the balance of your loan. You must negotiate that away such that the lender agrees to pay its own costs. You mention "swift legal action" which lead me to believe that if the lender brought the action without attempting to avoid litigation. If so, the lender is in violation of the pre-action protocols and that in itself is grounds for the court refusing the lender's legal costs. Also check the solictor's bill of costs BEFORE agreeing any settlement and negotiate. It's very likely that the solicitor will be excessive with his bill. Say that you want to exercise your right to have the bill either checked by the law society or "taxed" by the costs court (there are special courts that deal with checking the reasonablness of legal bills). Also read the CPR especially rules 44.3 and 44.5. Look at the factor that the court must consider and then use those factors as negotiation arguments against paying the costs.

 

Also use the fact FSA and CML rules as further negotiation leverage against your paying the legal costs (as you paid the premium).

 

I strongly suggest that you do not sign any settlement with them unless the legal costs are agreed. If you allow them to add the legal costs to your mortgage, don't forget that you'll end up paying compound interest on that amount to which will exacerbate your monthly payments. Plus, do not give up your right to your defence - be very careful that it there is any settlement at this stage that you expressly reserve your right to re-assert your defence in the event that they restore the action against you. If you do not reserve the right to your defence, then they WILL restore the action and the next time you'll have no defence. Therefore fait acompli to them. So be very careful of the legal language that these slippery lawyers may dupe you into signing. Look out for language like "full and final settlement" or "all claims whether now or in the future" and watch out for the words "in consideration of" etc., (be especially careful of the word "consideration" . Consideration has a deep legal meaning which is differenct to a lay person's understanding of the word. It does not mean being considerate to others.)

 

If at anytime during the negotiation they make you feel that you have to sign immediately without really thinking it through, bet your bottom dollar there's a catch. And do follow your instinct. If your instinct is telling you to "beware", then your instinct will likely be correct. So take your time and don't feel bullied or threatened into signing. Worst case scenario for not settling is that you get to use your defence (which may be a good defence anyway).

 

Do not worry about the fact that your case has been transferred to multi-track. That is normal for a fully defended repossession case. Like I said, you must have put in a strong defence and the issues you raised have to be determined by a Circuit Judge (rather than a District Judge).

 

Finally if you do agree to settle on the substantive issue, but don't come to an agreement on the costs issue, then say that you want the court to decide the costs issue only. That way, you can get the court to look at the costs and the court will go through the costs bill and the court will decide how much (if any) that you will pay. In which case, you present to the court the same negotiation arguments that you used with the lender. Especially the fact that the lender did not attempt to avoid litigation and did not follow the pre-action protocol.

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

Edited by supersleuth
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...