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

[Smarterchick]

This raises an interesting point. I am about to renew my buildings insurance policy and my mtg is with a high St bank and I have a second charge loan with Mr Sub Prime Lender....would I be able to find out who they securitise with just by writing and asking who I should make the beneficiary? To date they just had we poor gremlins Mr & Mrs on the policy...should it have the mortgage holder AND the 2nd Charge lender?

 

SC

[enoughisenough]

Seems like a fairly easy maze to work through. The prospectus will tell you who is running the block buildings insurance. I could go back and check which one it is but I haven't the time at the mo.It's easy though. I know it's there. Then you just SAR the insurance company and bingo - you've been placed on the block without knowledge or consent and are paying through the nose for it.

 

Neither Mr High street or Mr Sub Prime is listed on mine. Block buildings insurance added to the mortgage and charged interest for the (sic) lifetime of the mortgage without ascertaining whether I had buildings insurance and without telling me. Sounds like yet another fast [problem] to me. Boy do they really try and grab the cash. I work for mine. They [problem] for theirs - so I don't ever want them to talk to me about my 'moral' obligations to them.

[enoughisenough]

Nello

 

This is rubbish. It is your data. They have to give it. NO amount of cobblers from them can disguise this. Tell them to send the agreement and if they don't write to the information commissioner. They are starting to beef up their fines for non-compliance. Each failed disclosure is another fine. Hit em where it hurts!

[littledotty27]

I have my own buildings insuranse policy through more than,but spml took it on there own knowledge to take out there own insurance for buildings only,(without informing) even though they have seen the policy with more than they still take out the monthly premium along with mortgage payment.

 

The insurance company are sterling direct..is anybody else got these as there insurance?

 

Well been back to court today,suspended possession,judge stated it wasn't the 1st time he had heard of mortgage company refusing payment and if they carry on refusing the outcome would look bad in spml.

[enoughisenough]

Sounds like you've got a good District Judge. My faith in justice is almost renewed. Keep going dotty. You've lived to fight another day. Did their lot turn up?

[littledotty27]

Yes they turned up,it was a barrister not a solicitor,we have had the sameone before,who didn't seem impressed with spml when I told them what they had done with the payments and what they had said.

[truro]

HI littledotty

 

Very pleased you got a suspended possession order which means the courts are taking notice of this company. Went to CAB today, not sure how they can help but I've been advised to do so. Made an appointment to see a solicitor.

Havn't heard anything from LMC about eviction date, hope they are taking notice of my letter about Eurosail as SPV. And since I don't have a contract with SPML, and the completion date is different from the date they state my contract started, with Matlock. Thinking back now I dont believe they produced a contract in court, so they have obviously got the date wrong. How can they claim repossession without proof of contract?

[littledotty27]

Hi Truro

The judge stated he wasnt taking sides,but yes I think they are now starting to take notice.

 

When I queried my contract they stated it was only an offer and the offer turned into a contract once the mortgage deed had been signed.

So yours will or should be the same.

[JonCris]

Quote [The policy schedule must note the interest of Eurosail 2006-3 First Client as Mortgagee] unquote .................that last word sorta nails it don't you think

[nello]

This is what the letter said...

 

Building insurance policies should fulfill the following requirements:

 

1. The policy schedule must note the interest of Eurosail 2006-3 First Client as Mortgagee

 

 

BTW i'm still waiting for my agreement to be sent after i requested it via a SAR. They only sent the mortgage offer and said they didnt have to send the agreement. I wonder if there is an agreement???

 

I am due to go to court in 2 weeks time as i have been given an eviction date. Do you think presenting this evidence will help avoid the eviction?

[enoughisenough]

In my opinion it won't.

 

It's just another line of attack that can be used to lay bare the whole unlawful/dodgy operations that these [problem] merchants conduct. An eviction notice can be fought off but if it has got to this stage my feeling is (and I'm sorry to say this) you didn't get your case together well enough in the first instance.

 

Have you received any prior help before hand? In order to help further us caggers are going to need to know a hell of a lot more about your case history.

 

BUT IN PROVIDING THIS PLEASE DO NOT PROVIDE ANY DETAILS THAT COULD IDENTIFY YOU. JUST A ROUGH OUTLINE OF WHAT HAPPENED, WHEN PREVIOUS HEARINGS WERE AND WHAT WAS ORDERED AND HOW MUCH (NOT EXACT) YOU FELL BEHIND ETC

[nello]

Spent most of the last year in and out of the court. Managed to fight off one eviction attempt, agreed a monthly figure then major family problems intervened. Eventually SPML/Capstone or whoever it is agreed to capitalize our arrears (8,000 approx) in December. We were offered a new monthly payment but with a slightly extended term, although we never had that in writing. Since then we have not missed a payment. Yet we had a letter from their sols saying that because the £8000 was still outstanding they were going for eviction. As far as i'm concerned our current arrears are £0.00.

[enoughisenough]

Oh Bugger!

 

 

Did the court see this and approve via an order?

[nello]

There was an order for this at a Hearing in December. I was unable to attend that hearing because of the afore mentioned family problems. So i've been paying this for the last 4 months and they're still not happy.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Nello

 

Harsh words first - but read on. There may be some light

 

I have no idea on how to help your case. It's too far down the road. I'm surprised that the order was made in December and they are only enforcing it now. I'm keeping my payments and they keep on trying to drag me back into court. All the ammo I have is used up in keeping OUT of court.

 

I'm guessing you got a suspended order - these are fatal by the way and should be resisted at all costs - and then they either manufacture a breach or you create one by not paying (probably in December or January).

 

You can only fight it on fairly limited grounds.

 

1. The arrears are comprised of missed payments which were then recapitalised and therefore there are no arrears - Pity you didn't get the letter. Was this agreed in court in front of a judge or over the phone with these wickless wonders? I truly believe I know the answer already.

 

2. The eviction notice has not been presented before a court and only the court is able to decide upon any such order. In which case if the court has not ordered it it is threatening and harrrassing by its nature. Most likely they are seeking an eviction order in the attempt to think that you will try to magic eight grand out the air to avoid this. Some hope of that!

 

3. the arrears will be in any case at this level of arrears comprised of multiple unlawful charges and therefore irrecoverable at law.QUote OFT REPORT APRIL 2006 number 842 or was it 642?) it dealt with credit card terms but stated the principles were applicable to mortgages and current accounts.

 

Good luck. And keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

PS

 

The wickless wonders in question MUST have sent you by now a staement. Check it carefully and particularly watch out for charges other than arrears interest. Add these up and say to the court these are unlawful. You culd also go down the route of asking them to STRICTLY PROVE their ownership of the mortgage. They have in fact sold it on. See this thread for further details.

 

The law and language is complex but the principles are **** easy. If I sell you my car and Mr Third party totals that car who has the claim? you or me?

 

Here's the link. Points of law are inevitably complex. Don't use this unless ABSOLUTELY confident.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/186867-carmel-butler-house-commons.html

[supersleuth]

This is what the letter said...

 

Building insurance policies should fulfill the following requirements:

 

1. The policy schedule must note the interest of Eurosail 2006-3 First Client as Mortgagee

 

 

BTW i'm still waiting for my agreement to be sent after i requested it via a SAR. They only sent the mortgage offer and said they didnt have to send the agreement. I wonder if there is an agreement???

 

 

Nello,

 

Receiving a letter telling you that your MORTGAGEE is Eurosail sounds to me like the s.136 LPA act notice! It's the notice that Suetonius was going on about. Capstone has in FACT given you notice that your MORTGAGEE IS NOT SPML but is in FACT EUROSAIL.

 

If you're up for an eviction hearing you should use ALL the defences that you can and if you don't have a defence then you have got nothing to loose by arguing that SPML have no lawful claim given that SPML are NOT your mortgagee - you could argue that SPML have misrepresented themselves to the court as the Mortgagee by virtue of their failure to inform the court that they SOLD the mortgage to Eurosail and by virute of the fact that Eurosail have not complied with s.27 of the LRA and registered itself as the legal owner.

 

Point out to the court that Eurosail are not only the LEGAL owners of your mortgage Eurosail have also ensured that they are noted on your buildings policy as having a LEGAL interest of any proceeds under your insurance policy. It is proof positive of their LEGAL OWNERSHIP of your mortgage and proof positive of the erroreous registration of SPML at the Land Registry.

 

It is entirely up to you to decide whether or not you use the defence but if you don't have any other defences that might assist you then you've got NOTHING to loose by trying this defence and everything to gain. The decision is yours.

 

It is also worth pointing out to the court that YOU are LAWFULLY registered at the LR as the OWNER and PROPRIETOR of the LR and therefore, if the court should deprive you of your peaceful enjoyment of YOUR possessions, it must ensure that the principle of lawfulness is satisfied under Article 1 of the First Protocol (see HRA 1998).

 

As SPML's registration at the land registry is unlawful, the court cannot enforce your deprivation of your home in favour of SPML grounded on SPML's registration. This is because SPML's registration is unlawful on the grounds that:

(1) SPML know that they sold the mortgage to Eurosail

(2)) know that they have misrepresented themselves to the court as mortgagees and thereby deceived the court

(3) know that Eurosail should be registered as the Legal Owner of the mortgage at the LR, and know that Eurosail have failed to comply with the s.27 LRA 2002

(4) know that they have suffered no loss in that, it has been fully compensated for the debt through the consideration that SPML received from Eurosail when it sold the mortgages and, therefore SPML have unlawfully sought to make a double recovery when it knows that the law does not provide a remedy where the claimant has suffered no lossS

 

which means...that SPML does not satify the principle of lawfulness.

 

Accordingly, SPML have attempted to cause the court to act in contravention of Article 1 of the First Protocol rights and therefore the court should not allow SPML to be granted the eviction order that it seeks. And moreover, your legal right to possession of your home which is evident from the Land Registry is LAWFUL and therefore, SPML's UNLAWFUL registration cannot be asserted as prevailing over your lawful registration at the LR as the legal owner and proprietor.

 

Additionally, you could ask the court to make an order for full discovery with respect to this new evidence (i.e. your insurance letter) and/or ask the court to suspend indefinitely SPMLs suspended possession order pending the correction to the Land Registry.

 

Just a few thoughts and suggestions that you may find helpful...you've got to fight these thieves...but use whatever defences you are comfortable to use in your defence. Good luck

 

PS you could use this defence IN ADDITION to any other defences that you may have. Use whatever defences you are applicable and you are comfortable in asserting - but do fight on - we're here to help

Edited April 30, 2009 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Spent most of the last year in and out of the court. Managed to fight off one eviction attempt, agreed a monthly figure then major family problems intervened. Eventually SPML/Capstone or whoever it is agreed to capitalize our arrears (8,000 approx) in December. We were offered a new monthly payment but with a slightly extended term, although we never had that in writing. Since then we have not missed a payment. Yet we had a letter from their sols saying that because the £8000 was still outstanding they were going for eviction. As far as i'm concerned our current arrears are £0.00.

 

 

So once the arrears were captialised by agreement, there were no arrears AND since then all your payments are up to date and current. Correct?

 

But, you never got rid of the original suspended possession order. Correct?

 

So now these evil theives are reneging on the compromise agreement, and going back to the original £8K arrears, which in fact were capitalised by agreement Correct.

 

These people make me SICK!

 

OK, you must explain this to the judge. Your primary grounds are that SPML cannot have an eviction order because THERE ARE NO ARREARS.

 

There is legal authority for the proposition that the original agreement to capitalise the arrears is binding and enforceable against SPML - (and/or Eurosail). The case is Target Holdings Limited v Priestly 1999 (high Court Chancery). It is a difficult case to read, but it essentially states that the compromise agreement to avoid repossession is enforceable and SML are "estopped" from asserting the suspended possession order against you on the grounds that that suspended possession order was compromised under the agreement to capitalise the arrears. Tell the court that is an abuse of process for SPML to now come to court and renege on their agreement for settlement on the suspended possession order.

 

You should (and MUST) ask the court to set aside the suspended possession order on the grounds that:

(1) the suspended order was subject to a compromise agreement;

(2) it is an abuse of process to enter into a compromise agreement and then renege on that agreement following your reliance in good faith on that agreement;

(3) the compromise agreement is binding and enforceable against SPML and SPML are ESTOPPED from asserting their alleged right to an eviction order grounded on a suspended order which is subject to the compromise agreement.

 

Then make sure you ask that the judge make an order to SET ASIDE the original suspended possession order on the grounds that SPML have compromised that order by mutal agreement with you.

[supersleuth]

Warning to all CAGgers

 

Suspended possession order ARE POSSESSION ORDERS - they are merely SUSPENDED. Which means that the day of reckoning is merely deferred BUT take note, that there WILL be a day of reckoning.

 

You should never agree to a suspended possession order AND if you do have a suspended possession order -ALWAYS MAKE SURE you get rid of it!!! It WILL come back to haunt you sooner or later - even up to 7 years later - see the Pender case 2003.

 

To reiterate the point: See how there IS no possession order against Nello, just a suspended one. BUT SPML are going for eviction based on the suspended possession order. Therefore, it does not matter whether it is an immediate possession order or a suspended possession order - the next stage is ALWAYS the eviction order. Resist and defend against suspended orders to the extent that you would resist and defend against an immediate possession order - they are BOTH POSSESSION ORDERS and the next stage, irrspective of whether its an immediate or a suspended order, will be the eviction hearing.

Edited April 30, 2009 by supersleuth

[spartathisis]

Superslueth pretty obvious you know the law a "bit". Dont know if this may help or for reference, it is US focussed, but sect G pg 38 presents arguments that look to stand over here. The paper is heavy going but interesting.

 

Do you know how to find out if your Credit Card debt has been wrapped up into a security vehicle(securitisation)?

 

SSRN-Securitization is Illegal: RICO, Usury, Antitrust, and Tax Issues by Michael Nwogugu

[supersleuth]

Hi Spartathisis,

 

Thanks for the link - it's an excellent article (although so far I've only read it briefly) AND I couldn't agree more with Michael Nwogugu - especially section B "All “True-Sale”, “Disguised Loan” And “Assignment” Securitizations Are Essentially Tax-Evasion Schemes."

 

He is absolutely right - and whilst people may say but US and UK laws are different - they actually are not that different. The same principles are in play and therefore the same tax evasion principles that are used in the US are used UK here too. In fact, I would go as far to say that it's probably easier to evade tax here in the UK than it is in the US. Note how the US are prosecuting companies for tax evasion whilst we have never heard of our authorities prosecuting any companies for tax evasion.

 

In addition, the tax evasion techniques also serve to conceal from the borrower the entity that is really performing their contract (the SPV) and criminally overcharging interest to the borrower which it then calls "arrears" so as to repossess.

 

Unfortunately our media, government and courts haven't got to grips with exposing the worst financial fraud EVER and in the meantime, our courts are yet to recognise the criminality of these so-called "lenders". Hence our county is not only faced with the greatest public purse robbery ever, but also the social carnage caused through repossession thefts at the hand of the banks and their so-called "reputable" lawyers who assist these crimes.

 

Justice? law and order? Not when it comes to the money men and those who earn from it (politicians and lawyers too?). Seems (so far) that they get to break the law with impunity.

[supersleuth]

Spartathisis,

 

In answer to your question regarding whether or not your credit card debt has been securitised - you can bet your bottom dollar IT HAS. The whole reason that the credit card industry started all those offers to give you interest free balance transfers for X no. of months - is because they wanted the balances so that they could securitised them.

 

The banks are there to screw you over - but we're all lead to believe that the banks were giving us "interest-free" credit - not on your nelly! The banks don't give anything - they take everything! BTW: without going into deep discussion, the banks are also screwing over the investors - it's a double whammy WIN-WIN for the banks - they rob the borrowers AND rob the investors.....oh an then they get to rob the Treasury too.

[spartathisis]

Well said. I will be emailing a copy of this and a couple of others to Andrew Mckinley MP to give him more bullets to fire;) Its a pity that it takes an MP who, being cynical here, has found a cause to raise his profile to bring DCA`s and the industry to the public eye.

 

I have written a letter regarding securitisation to a DCA`s solicitor asking them to provide proof of the debt (already know there is only an App form) as I have given details of the Trusts that the OC (HFC) put the debt into, I think! I have put forward the argument that the OC didnt own the debt after the Securitisation and therefore couldnt sell it on to the DCA. This means by rights you should give me all the money I have paid + interest. I await their reply.

 

Who deals with cases of tax evasion, HMRC?

 

This is where I got the link to the article, specialises in Securitisation:

Articles on securitization

[supersleuth]

Spartathisis,

 

Couldn't help but find humour in the question "who deals with cases of tax evasion? Well yes, if it was me or you it probably is HM Revenue and Customs - but who knows if they ever would investigate tax evasion by the banks. The Guardian has written some excellent articles about tax evasion eg. articles re Barclays Bank tax evasion (google Richard Brooks). So HMRC should already know about these things but don't do anything about it. Conclusion: banks get to break the law with impunity.

[enoughisenough]

Yes. And we all know why.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Will Blair be value for money?