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

[JonCris]

WARNING

To everyone with an interest in securitisation - Please trawl the web & save everything you find that in anyway relates to securitisation (good or bad) because I'm informed the spiders are out & everything possible is being pulled

[enoughisenough]

Got it JC!

 

This has in fact been going on for a while. I had 404 errors on a whole series of documents, quite a while back. I posted at the time that people should be downloading everything asap. You are definitely 100% right on this - get busy peeps and start backing up and storing anywhere you can think of.

 

Cheers. Keep the faith. EIE.

[spartathisis]

Now we know who to blame!

 

Mayer Brown is one of a handful of international law firms that have securitized virtually every asset type that can be securitized

 

"Market Leaders Many securitization transactions that are commonplace today were first initiated by members of our firm. In 1988, we acted as counsel in the first collateralized debt obligation transaction which gave birth to the multi-billion dollar CDO/CBO/CLO market."

 

Pulling info off the net is closing the proverbial barn door, too many sites not beholden to those with interests. You can look at it 2 ways, 1. Stop people getting info to help their case. 2. Something is appearing on the horizon and lets cover up what we can and then deny we said it. I think both but feel 2 is more the reason. Too much is being put into financial institutions to cover up so politicians are having to do something about the dodgy practices. This goes for here and the US.

[nello]

I would just like to say thanks to EIE and Superslueth for all your help and advice regarding my situation, its all been taken on board. Just wish i'd come across this site last year.

[enoughisenough]

A reasoned line of argument.

 

You seem to have an instinctive sense for pumping up the right stuff. Keep this up.

 

We caggers are on our haunches with the rainfall of sh*te we are getting from these ever increasingly desperate and therefore vicious predators. If only they had behaved.

 

But of course they can't - they are automatons doing their master's bidding.

 

Any whistleblowers want to clean their conscience? Bypass the CAG and go straight to the national media. The higher up the foodchain you are the better.

 

You could always write a novel based on the events you took part in and make a real killing! Crunch! An Insider's story. Sounds good to me.

[enoughisenough]

Hey Nello.

 

Glad you are feeling amongst friends. We are all a community here -even if we do get tetchy with one another from time to time - AND we are all in this for one reason - to fight injustice. Welcome on board! Good Luck EIE.

[Crapstone]

Out of interest did anyone use SPMLs' own solicitors on a remortgage and what company did they use? Has anyone yet managed to get a true copy of their application?

 

I'm still trying to work out if my mortgage was securitised or not but I have a statement that shows 2 different changes of interest rate on the same day 1/9/04. One is 8.4% but then shows 8.9% under the LIBOR rate. Which one is correct as the product margin was 3.75%? From their own terms they will not change the interest rate more often than once per month.

 

Their valuation report gives £83,000 for rebuilding insurance but they have only ever asked for £76,000, which I have always complied with and when they have applied their own unwanted and uneeded block insurance the sum was the same. The same is true that they listed under special conditions of the mortgage offer:Solicitor to provide a standard form Certificate of Comprehensive Buildings Insurance confirming that satisfactory cover for the Initial Buildings Insurance Amount of not less than £76,000, being the reinstatement value stated in the Mortgage Report and Valuation, is in place completion and that the Lender's interest is noted.

 

 

 

When they took me to court they only provided one side of the mortgage deed I signed and not the other which states:

 

NOTE: Receipt not to be used for registered charges.

 

The lender acknowledges receipt in full of the Mortgage Debt.

 

Executed as a deed this....day of...

 

Executed as a DEED by

SOUTHERN PACIFIC MORTGAGES )

in the presence of. )

 

I only know this because I've just found a blank copy that they sent before I filled in the original.

[supersleuth]

Hi Crapstone,

 

The Receipt on the back is the receipt that is signed when the mortgage is redeemed. Once they sign the receipt and send it to the LR, the charge will be removed from the register - BUT - clearly their documents are crap because all charges MUST be registered and if the receipt of the back cannot be used for registered charges then there is no point in having the receipt there! Thus, more evidence that the lawyers merely do things in line with their mantra of: "that's the way we did it last time". The lawyers don't think - don't know or abide by the law - and don't know what they're doing. All they know about is making sure they help the bankers screw cash of us.

 

We are all supposed to be in awe of these lawyers - but really they're just schmoozers trying to slide up the greasy pole and will prostitute everything for that end. Oh and not forgetting that law firms ARE COMPANIES that just want to screw a PROFIT. They are in BUSINESS first! Thus, helping the bankers to screw cash off us is THE BUSINESS OF THE LAWYERS! Integrity and law and order -eat your heart out - you won't find any of that in a law firm.

Edited May 1, 2009 by supersleuth

[jimmy147]

hi guys sorry to get off the subject i remortgaged in 2006 and LMC were payed off in full but ive since seen a solicitor who is now taking lmc to court for mis selling ppi to myself has anyone been to court with these cowboys yet and if so has anyone beat them and being payed any monies owed back to them

thanks

[Suetonius]

For those that don't already know

 

Latest Published Report

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/416/416.pdf

 

Securitisation is reviewed

[Suetonius]

SS Can you start a separate thread where we can all discuss in full the Judgments in Pender & at the same time a detailed rebuttal

 

Your wish is my command

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/197424-mortgage-securitisation-paragon-pender.html#post2141168

[enoughisenough]

Excellent.

 

However, I think most people will just tease and pull at the arguments for the moment. Seasoned caggers on this and other related threads will know why!

[enoughisenough]

FORGOT TO BUMP THIS FOR AT LEAST TEN POSTS SHAME ON ME

 

SHAME ON THEM

 

Make sure this is bumped around big style. Capstone ordinary land line number which they have to provide.

 

I swear to post this everytime they charge me and watch a great big dent hit their highly profitable 0845 numbers swindle. They charge - we hit their profits! Remember every time you get charged hit them in the pocket. Keep bumping this along! Until every victim of this bunch dries up that particular revenue stream for them

 

01494 894 200

 

 

If you must call Capstone do not use their rip off lines.

[spartathisis]

Just think they cant get CCA`s right at a couple of pages so why did they think they could get securitisation right?

 

"Professor Buiter similarly told us that some CDOs had “four million pages [of documentation] which even the very well-paid lawyer would not have time to deal with”."

[enoughisenough]

Oh and be sure to record the call. Just don't tell them!

 

It's more fun that way. Play stupid, play weak, play ignorant. Plead for help - give them genuine hard luck stories, not made up ones as it damages your credibility, and JUST LISTEN to the scorn. (and be taping it - goes without saying). Rubbish jobs some people end up with eh?

 

Person A :"What do you do for a living then?"

 

Person B: " Oh I unlawfully manage people's mortgage accounts and then screw them out of their homes"

 

Person A: " Why?"

 

Person B: " Well I need to make as much money as possible by meeting my targets, otherwise I'll be out of a job and the same thing will happen to me"

 

FUNNY OLD WORLD ISN"T IT? WHY DON"T YOU JUST BLOW THE WHISTLE?

[supersleuth]

Hi EIE,

 

Have you seen the web-site "saynoto0870"? I use it all the time to translate 0845 and 0870 numbers into real land line numbers. Might be worth registering Capstones real number on that site.

 

Jimmy147 - you mention that your solicitor is bringing a PPI claim against LMC - worth checking but I think LMC are now defunct - check back through this site and/or check their registration at Companies House and/or Littledotty27 may confirm it for you. There's no point in suing a defunct company as its unlikely they'll pay even if you get a judgment.

 

You may be spending good money on a solicitor and suing a straw man. Not saying that is the case - but it's worth checking....unless it is the case that you'll get the PPI payments credited to your mortgage account, then it may be worth it - but check with your solicitor that that is the case - it may be that you need to bring the claim against SPML - again double check with the solicitor - make sure he is suing the correct entity.

Edited May 2, 2009 by supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

Hi Super. I certainly have. That's where I got THIS number from!

 

01494 894 200

 

 

If you must call Capstone do not use their rip off lines.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

I'm still trying to work out if my mortgage was securitised or not but I have a statement that shows 2 different changes of interest rate on the same day 1/9/04. One is 8.4% but then shows 8.9% under the LIBOR rate. Which one is correct as the product margin was 3.75%? From their own terms they will not change the interest rate more often than once per month.

 

Damn right it was. No need to wonder anymore. If it was 2006 Eurosail was your SPV. Prior to that some entity calling itself various derivatives (get it!) of SOUTHERN SECURITIES 05-03.

[jimmy147]

thanks super for that just found phone no 08450700569 recorded message but was answered as LMC so dont know if still trading or not will find tuesday also do you know if its legal or not to remortgage when your in arrears because GE money did for me when i remortgaged with them but my parents just tryed to remort and was told by 2 advisors that they cant while still in arrears its illegal so theyve got to get a secured loan please let me know asap thanks

[littledotty27]

Jimmy147

 

LMC are still trading as thats who my mortgage is with.

[Suetonius]

but was answered as LMC so dont know if still trading or not

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

Name & Registered Office:

LONDON MORTGAGE COMPANY LIMITED

ST. JOHNS PLACE

EASTON STREET

HIGH WYCOMBE

HP11 1NL

Company No. 05673094

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 12/01/2006

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

 

Accounting Reference Date: 30/11

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/11/2006 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/10/2008 OVERDUE

Last Return Made Up To: 12/01/2009

Next Return Due: 09/02/2010

 

Mortgage Solutions - Lehmans still in 90 day staff consultation

 

The firm is currently in a 90 day consultation period with the staff of LMC and SPPL following a restructure in September which saw Lehmans drop the two brands.

 

Lehman crisis hits Asian bank shares in frantic fight for survival | This is Money

 

LMC was closed in late 2007, with Southern Pacific (personal loans SPPL not SPML) and Preferred Mortgages following suit in spring this year.

[littledotty27]

LMC

PO Box 88

mortgage administration Centre

Cheltenham

 

This is the address I send all correspondence too.

[Suetonius]

SBT you refer to the Pender case as has sue. - As SS has explained Pender is NOT precedent it's a summary judgment. It was an action seeking to appeal against a refusal of the lower court to allow a very old CCJ to be set -aside - The court discussed the merits of the appeal in the context if the case was heard again did it have merit & the court thought perhaps not What the court DID NOT do was form a binding judgment - However as with Rankine lenders have used it successfully to bamboozle the LiP's & I must regrettably say also the courts

 

Are you sure it was an action to seek an appeal JC and not an appeal ?

[supersleuth]

Suetonius,

 

The Pender 2003 case was a permission to appeal case - SMITH J REFUSED THEM PERMSSION.

 

The Penders obviously appealed Smith's decision and that appeal was heard by JACOBS. JACOBS granted the Penders LIMITED PERMISSION -WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THE JACOBS JUDGMENT!!!! where the Pender's were granted permission nor have we seen his reasons for granting the limited permssion.

 

The Pender 2005 case was the Appeal hearing on the LIMITED ISSUES ON WHICH JACOBS GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL.

 

Suetonius - it seems that you are determined to MAKE ME WRONG - FINE - because quite frankly I'm bored of it. So here goes:

 

I have NEVER passed ANY comments on the Pender 2005 case. Therefore you cannot say I am wrong - all I have EVER said on the Pender 2005 case is that it is NOT as perfect as you seem to think it is.

 

I have passed comment on the Pender 2003 case - it IS NOT precendent - it is a summary judgment - You have indicated your knowledge on the doctrine of Stare decisis and therefore you should KNOW what that doctrine holds with respect to INTERLOCUTORY HEARINGS and SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS. Therefore, if and when the Pender 2003 case is cited -the lawyers mis-cited, mis- state the COMMON LAW and abuse the doctrine of stare decisis.

 

With respect to the 2005 case I have NEVER passed comment on the case other than to say two things. Firstly, that the 2005 case is NOT as powerful as you seem to think it is and secondly, that it may not be prudent for some people to discuss this case on an open forum.

 

Your determination to discuss this case to MAKE YOURSELF RIGHT is a luxury for you - it is a pure ACADEMIC exercise for you to pit your wits against others -BUT FOR SOME OF US - it is NOT a mere academic exercise. We are IN THE FIRING LINE with this case and WE ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO THE LAYWERS PURE ABUSE OF THIS "PRECEDENT".

 

Therefore Suetonius, please be contented with your own absolute and unadulterated confidence in your understanding of the case - and in the meantime, please desist from inferring that others "misunderstand" the case merely because they don't fall into line with your understanding of the case.

 

Suetonius, please do not take this post as being hostile - as you input is valued - if you would like to offer the benefit of your abilities, it would be helpful if:

 

1. If you could locate the JACOBS judgment and post that judgment so that we can see WHY Jacobs granted the limited permission; and

 

2. If you would kindly share YOUR analysis of the RATIO DECENDI of the 2005 CASE some of us CAGgers may find that useful and helpful.

 

Suetonius, it really would be a positive step forward if you would kindly accommodate these two requests. Hope to hear from you soon,

Supersleuth

[Suetonius]

Suetonius,

 

The Pender 2003 case was a permission to appeal case - SMITH J REFUSED THEM PERMSSION.

 

The Penders obviously appealed Smith's decision and that appeal was heard by JACOBS. JACOBS granted the Penders LIMITED PERMISSION -WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THE JACOBS JUDGMENT!!!! where the Pender's were granted permission nor have we seen his reasons for granting the limited permssion.

 

The Pender 2005 case was the Appeal hearing on the LIMITED ISSUES ON WHICH JACOBS GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL.

 

Suetonius - it seems that you are determined to MAKE ME WRONG - FINE - because quite frankly I'm bored of it. So here goes:

 

I have NEVER passed ANY comments on the Pender 2005 case. Therefore you cannot say I am wrong - all I have EVER said on the Pender 2005 case is that it is NOT as perfect as you seem to think it is.

 

I have passed comment on the Pender 2003 case - it IS NOT precendent - it is a summary judgment - You have indicated your knowledge on the doctrine of Stare decisis and therefore you should KNOW what that doctrine holds with respect to INTERLOCUTORY HEARINGS and SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS. Therefore, if and when the Pender 2003 case is cited -the lawyers mis-cited, mis- state the COMMON LAW and abuse the doctrine of stare decisis.

 

With respect to the 2005 case I have NEVER passed comment on the case other than to say two things. Firstly, that the 2005 case is NOT as powerful as you seem to think it is and secondly, that it may not be prudent for some people to discuss this case on an open forum.

 

Your determination to discuss this case to MAKE YOURSELF RIGHT is a luxury for you - it is a pure ACADEMIC exercise for you to pit your wits against others -BUT FOR SOME OF US - it is NOT a mere academic exercise. We are IN THE FIRING LINE with this case and WE ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO THE LAYWERS PURE ABUSE OF THIS "PRECEDENT".

 

Therefore Suetonius, please be contented with your own absolute and unadulterated confidence in your understanding of the case - and in the meantime, please desist from inferring that others "misunderstand" the case merely because they don't fall into line with your understanding of the case.

 

Suetonius, please do not take this post as being hostile - as you input is valued - if you would like to offer the benefit of your abilities, it would be helpful if:

 

1. If you could locate the JACOBS judgment and post that judgment so that we can see WHY Jacobs granted the limited permission; and

 

2. If you would kindly share YOUR analysis of the RATIO DECENDI of the 2005 CASE some of us CAGgers may find that useful and helpful.

 

Suetonius, it really would be a positive step forward if you would kindly accommodate these two requests. Hope to hear from you soon,

Supersleuth

 

As not to hijack this thread, I have answered you in part here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/197424-mortgage-securitisation-paragon-pender-2.html#post2143807