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

[enoughisenough]

Just to try and breathe some life back into this thread...

 

peeps should check out the latest EU regulations/directives etc here:

 

Fulsome reading but no less satisfying it for it. The EU is probably our last best chance since the FSA FOS etc are USELESS!

 

The Law Society - Areas of law

[nello]

Had a letter from sols representing SPML?Capstone/Eurosail or whoever it is to say that the warrant for eviction due later this month has been withdrawn. Maybe its because i have a complaint in or because i've questioned as to why Eurosail must be on the insurance as mortgagee.

[enoughisenough]

That's good news Nello

 

HOWEVER. Double check with the court. Nothing is beyond these slippery swines.

 

They may be being hauled into check - I've noticed far fewer posts about abusive phone calls lately for example.

 

However always be on the safe side and if you do not hear officially from the court itself turn up with letter in hand. I've heard of all kinds of abuses going on.

 

Whoever the solicitors are they should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe they will be when the law society get wind of the stunts being pulled.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sue

 

Hope you are well. Could you enlighten upon the following and any implications said closure may have for recovery?

 

LMC was closed (my emphasis - hope you don't mind!) in late 2007, with Southern Pacific (personal loans SPPL not SPML) and Preferred Mortgages following suit in spring this year

 

In effect what does 'closed' actually mean? Also SPPL always did offer mortgages hence the distinction between SPPL and SPML has been nothing more than a semantic one. My guess is that they dealt with different mortgage risk - one being riskier than the other but always nonetheless packaged up and sold on as various 'classes' of notes.

 

Cheers EIE.

[Devlin81]

Hey all reading this thread, having found this thread is rather worrying..

 

I unfortunately have my mortgage with SPML/Capstone or whomever they are now as recommended by a financial advisor at the estate agents where i found my property. Being a first time buyer i just went with what was recommended by those you trust obviously.

 

Got this mortgage in August 07, and fortunately have not had any problems with them so far, as ive been able to make all payments so far, however having a fixed rate of 7.04% for 2 years this fixed rate period will soon be up and i'll be looking to move this mortgage elsewhere.

 

My post is to ask, as i havent read this thread in its entirity yet as many posts relate to specific cases etc, what should i be on the look out for as possible problems before they appear in getting my mortgage moved. Hopefully i won't have the unfortunate problems many have had.

 

Many thanks in advance for any advice that can be offered.

 

Regards

Mark

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

Mark in reply to your post and in my view:

 

1.Do not remortgage until the redemption period has expired - this could be up to 4 years.This is because the redemption amount could be high and as much as 6% of the mortgage balance owed.

 

2.Make sure to have 12 months mortgage history with no arrears.

 

3.If you have no adverse credit and can verify your income with wage slips or bank statements,go to a high street lender rather than a broker.

 

By the way,these three points are applicable to any mortgage company that

you remortgaging from.

 

I hope you find this information useful.

 

If you have any more questions,just ask.

 

Keep us posted.

 

All the best!

 

Nightmare4banks

Edited May 6, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

Enough is Enough,in reply to your last post:

 

1.SPPL was a Second Charge Lender belonging to Southern Pacific and withdrew further lending last year.Capstone currently deals with the existing loan accounts,dealing with the customers and possession orders etc.

 

2.SPML was a specialist adverse lender orginally from Australia and ended up being purchased by Lehman together with London Mortgage Company(Matlock Bank) and Preferred Mortgages.

 

3.SPML had also at one time offered Second Charge Loans and mortgages at sensible rates for people with/without adverse credit.

 

4.London Mortgage Company(LMC) was a mortgage lender that took on mainly adverse credit applicants.It also had a seperate arm that dealt with Second Charge Loans - I think that it was called London Loans Limited.

 

5.Currently,as far as I am aware SPML is still Trading as London Mortgage Company.

 

6.All the mortages and loans have been securitised from all these companies over the years.

 

I hope this helps.

 

If you have any more questions,just ask.

 

Nightmare4banks

Edited May 6, 2009 by Nightmare4banks

[supersleuth]

Hi Nello,

 

Great news for you BUT do heed EIE's advice. Check with the court to ensure that it has been withdrawn and do not rest until you get confirmation FROM THE COURT. If no confirmation is received from the court, then make sure that you turn up to any hearing date that has been listed. Never trust the lender - they do give misinformation and put you to believe in a false sense of security.

 

In short - don't believe it until the court CONFIRM IT IN WRITING.

[enoughisenough]

CAPSTONE LAND LINE WHICH THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE

 

01494 894 200

 

 

Is no longer valid. Instead you have to use their rip off line. I wonder if OFCOM OTELO are aware of this development? Soon will be no doubt...

[brassed-off-2]

CAPSTONE LAND LINE WHICH THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE

 

01494 894 200

 

 

Is no longer valid. Instead you have to use their rip off line. I wonder if OFCOM OTELO are aware of this development? Soon will be no doubt...

 

ooooooh Do you think they have been closed down for good?? Heres hoping!!

 

 

Nello,

Well done to you. Did they give you any clues as to why they have withdrawn? Maybe now is the time to try and catch the numptey on the phone (recorded of course)to see if they give anything away!!

 

Ball in your court..so to speak, excuse the pun...

 

Good luck...dont forget to check with the court, as per EIE and SS's advice though!

 

B-O-2

[enoughisenough]

Unfortunately they haven't been closed down...but if they don't start cleaning up their act who knows?

 

Depends if the FSA/FOS MoJ etc grow some balls. Unfortunately they are all too busy with their own snouts in the trough to notice - no wonder there's been an outbreak of swine flu.

[enoughisenough]

Ok Peeps

 

I'm finally getting back into gear now. I emailed The consumer affairs editor at ITN yesterday and I am awaiting a reply. I sent them my ABC of securitisation and also a list of laws these muppets violate on a consistent basis so that when the editor asks the reporter to make the story stand up he/she has it chpter and verse. Having worked in this area myself editors will run most things if A) they know they aren't flying a kite and B) will not get their ars*s sued off.

 

If Dotty could PM me we could discuss this further. Hope you are OK Dotty.

 

Cheers. EIE. Keep the faith.

[truro]

Hi there

 

had an appointment with a solicitor at the CAB today. He was a bit confuse about the companies, but will look at my situation to see if he can represent me. Asked hin to take a look at LMC and now trading as LMC Ltd and the date on my contract which is differnet to the date SPML states my mortgage started with Matlock. He will also be geting an up to date copy of the land registry to find out the mortgagee. Need to forward proof of that Eurosail is the legal owner of the mortgage and not SPML. Also gave him a copy of info on secrutisation - Carmel Butler for him to read.

Email Chris Choi at the weekend telling him of my findings on SPML and of the company records at Company House. He seem to agreed that this might be significant and that he is researching. I think he need to have absolute evidence before reporting his findings.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius - disappointed by your absence - but I guess you were requested to launch a debate on a specific issue and then got diversionary/ irrelevant posts. So I understand.

 

In respect of the following previously posted post, are you in a position to offer any clarification. If closed what does that actually mean?

 

 

Hi Sue

 

Hope you are well. Could you enlighten upon the following and any implications said closure may have for recovery?

 

Quote:

LMC was closed (my emphasis - hope you don't mind!) in late 2007, with Southern Pacific (personal loans SPPL not SPML) and Preferred Mortgages following suit in spring this year

In effect what does 'closed' actually mean? Also SPPL always did offer mortgages hence the distinction between SPPL and SPML has been nothing more than a semantic one. My guess is that they dealt with different mortgage risk - one being riskier than the other but always nonetheless packaged up and sold on as various 'classes' of notes.

 

Cheers EIE.

 

Thanks. EIE. Keep the faith.

[supersleuth]

Truro,

 

With respect to the fact that the lenders do not intend to honour the material term of the contract to lend to the borrowers for 25 years - tell your reporter to look at the "pricing information" given to the investors. The "pricing" the Notes gives a column showing the "average life" of the Notes and the pricing information will also state the "legal maturity" of the Notes. The Legal maturity of the Notes will reflect the 25 year term of the borrowers contacts and thus will be stated as maturing in say 2031 BUT THE AVERAGE LIFE of the notes will be stated as being say 4.85 years (i.e. 5 years on average). This means that the SPV INTENDS to redeem its Notes within 5 years - hence - all us borrowers will either be FORCED to remortgage or be FORCE into repossession. Both the forced remortgage and the forced repossession involves the lender OVERCHARGING the borrowers.

 

Some borrowers escape the overcharging through remortgaging - but they have suffered too as they are forced to incur all the fees and costs of the remortgage (and the lender's often grab an extortionate and illegal ERC) and other borrowers don't escape the overcharging and they suffer through being put through the torture of a repossession.

 

Your reporter researcher will have access to the investor "pricing" information tell them to look at it and to understand it from the borrower/consumer perspective. In short, the lender's MATERIAL breach of the 25 year term is the cause of the consumer plight and the cause of the repossession scandal.

 

For extra support for this fact tell your reporter researcher to look at companies house and see how many of the SPVs are wound-down after 5 years!

 

The borrowers are led to believe they have 25 years to repay their loans and yet the fact is that the lenders DEMAND YOU REPAY WITHIN 5 YEARS.

Supersleuth

Edited May 12, 2009 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Truro and EIE,

 

Your contacts will need angles to report on because the whole story is too much to digest in one hit. Here's some suggestions to break it down into small bites:

 

1. The overcharging issue - this directly involves the lender's capricious ability to charge what the hell it likes. The true cost of the loan IS NEVER DISCLOSED at the outset. (contrary to all the CCA and FSA regs). A general principle of contract law is that if a material term of a contract is uncertain (i.e.The cost of the loan is uncertain), then at law, the contract is void for uncertainty. Look at the terms of the contract where the "lender" is contractually permitted to vary its rates and then compare that to the contractual circumstances on which they can exercise that power - the fact is that the borrower has NO WAY of knowing whether the power is being lawfully exercised or not - the lender has all the information and never discloses the manner in which it exercises its absolute power - (and as we know absolute power corrupts absolutely). It is this "power" that causes the overcharging that leads to the next point which is the material breach of the lenders contractual obligation to lend to the borrower for 25 years.

 

2. Then the next point is the breach of the 25 year term (discussed in the post above)

 

3. Then the next point is the criminal failure of the SPV to register its legal title at the LR. This criminal conduct not only has effect on the borrowers through the court system where essentially, the borrowers ARE UNLAWFULLY SUBJECTED TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL MORTGAGEES, one which asserts its purported "legal" right to possession and the other, the SPV exercises its legal rights to create a sub-charge on your mortgage AND exercises its legal right to vary your interest rates etc. (which is the real source of the overcharging issue) BUT THERE IS A SECOND REASON FOR THIS ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL CONDUCT which is: TAX EVASION!!

 

4. Then it could go on to show the illegality of the ERC charges

 

5. Then it could go on to show the illegality of all the other charges that are dumped on the borrowers ETC., ETC.,

 

6. Then it could go on to show how the lenders NEVER comply with the court orders - they trick people into getting a consensual suspended order and then, without a court order lifting the suspension - the lenders instruct the bailiffs to evict. It could also show that the system is unjust to borrowers because the borrowers NEVER (or very very rarely), have LEGAL ADVICE AND REPRESENTATION. Thus, for the lenders, it's like taking candy from a baby!

 

7. Then it could show the systemic violations of the FSA "treating the customer fairly" - (this one is pure rot - they NEVER treat the customers fairly). Breaking the MCOB rules is the norm, not the exception.

 

8 etc., etc., etc.,

Edited May 12, 2009 by supersleuth

[Crapstone]

Hi all,

 

Just had SAR back from Capstones minus anything to do with securitisation. The SAR was signed and requested for by both mortgage holders yet they have only addressed it my OH and have blacked out all my details!

 

They will not provide MIRAS details as they do not hold any relation to the loan. They will also not pride any agreements between lender/broker/packager as it's not considered data relating to the account holders!

 

Although there is a reference to SPSH First charges in 2007 and this changes to Mortgage Funding 2008-1 BL in 2008.

 

Despite Capstone always denying that they had been sent a payment in 2007, it is clearly listed on their computer log that they received an 'unsigned' cheque. From their own records of letters sent they have never returned it as I would have expected them to should that have been the case. Looks like someone has been telling porkies and trying to put the blame on us for failing to pay.

[enoughisenough]

Mmmm....

 

Are there no depths to which these people will defer to stoop? Either they are totally incompetent (almost certainly) or willfully fraudulent (highly likely). I suspect a fair mix of both, especially the latter where they think they can get away with it i.e. all those poor sods who don't have any idea how to fight.

 

A picture has developed quite quickly here and it is enough now to take a risk free 'class action' (so to speak) with the FSA and FOS. We can't be ignored on this if the deluge on their heads is equal to the deluge on theirs. If they studied physics properly at school they would recognise Newton's law:

 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

 

In pursuit of such I will look back through the threads to find my post on the multiple abusess they perform. I confess to not having done so yet but some of you other caggers may have done so. It's time to get high and mighty and pile the pressure on.

 

In regards your stuff as you will know its par for the course. They will behave in the most outrageous of ways. I'll PM you with something even more outrageous. SAR non compliance.

 

They are basically admitting they securitise by saying it is NOT your privileged information. This is interesting because they debate has moved on now. They are not even disputing it was securitised.

 

So in further pursuit of this I think they need to be brought back into line. And there are many ways of doing this. Their unlawful abuse has gone on for far too long. As I have said before they could have had it rather cushy. But they got all macho and now they've got the backlash. Keep digging. The more you dig the more you will find.

 

Cheers. Keep the faith. EIE.

[truro]

Hi Superslueth

 

Had problem with connection and just read your thread. I will make be passing on as much info to the sol at the CAB. I know we just need to have a breakthrough and not have to worry about the roofs over our heads, which is the most basis need for all of us. Once we can stop worrying about these legal crooks we can get on with others matters, that are important to us.

 

Most of this stuff is baffling to the lay person and thats why I'm hoping the CAB and Chris Choi can help to shed some light on all of this for us.

 

I have been in touch with Chris again and he would like to interview me soon, maybe tomorrow but I'm not sure I'm the best person to explain most of what I learned from you guys. But I will do my best to pass on the info on. I believe he has been looking at info I pass onto him about the companies and its obvious there is a problem with the way in which they are trying to defraud ordinary working people, some of us our only assets are our homes.

[enoughisenough]

HI Truro

 

I'm in touch with Chris and he has promised to get back to me this week.

 

I can definitely meet and explain in a way that helps a journalist prepare their story for public consumption but also stands up to much closer scrutiny to satisfy the editor.

 

Please go ahead with your stuff to Chris and I will be contacting him tomorrow.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Super

 

By the way odd though it is I never received the usual notification of post in regards to the post above that you made. Just read it now though.

 

Interesting wouldn't you say? Advice and content gratefully received and heeded.

 

Cheers. Keep the faith. EIE.

[littledotty27]

Hi All

 

Looks like Chris is helping alot of us out and taking note of our dire situation!! It's just a shame the government don't have the same empathy.

I too am waiting on SAR and have received the same blah blah blah,have received the info on LIBOR rate etc,should receive it on 26th june,can't wait to see what they come up with!!

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius

 

Again I'm puzzled by your absence. We all know why the nitty gritty of Pender shouldn't be spilled out on open forum just yet.

 

What does closed actually mean. This is really important. A repo case brought in the name of a closed company would have no legal standing would it? The mortgage would then actually in full have been passed on and the borrower would then have to have been notified and expressly agreed. Is this not right?

 

Cheers. EIE.

[supersleuth]

Hi Truro and EIE,

 

In addition to the points raised in post number 668 above, the most pertinent point that I didn't expressly clearly - is that all those things are happening to the borrower in secret! The borrower is never told that it is the SPV that is performing the contract and it is the SPV's costs base and profits that the borrower has to support. So not only is the borrower NEVER informed of the basis on which the interest rates are set the borrower doesn't even know that it is the SPV's that decide the interest rate policy!

[Smarterchick]

Hi Truro and EIE,

 

In addition to the points raised in post number 668 above, the most pertinent point that I didn't expressly clearly - is that all those things are happening to the borrower in secret! The borrower is never told that it is the SPV that is performing the contract and it is the SPV's costs base and profits that the borrower has to support. So not only is the borrower NEVER informed of the basis on which the interest rates are set the borrower doesn't even know that it is the SPV's that decide the interest rate policy!

 

HI SS,

 

This might sound daft as we all know now that the High Streets securitise too, but does this also apply to these High Street lenders with regards to interest rate policies? I ask as most sub-prime lenders keep their rates at extortionate levels, but the High St's generally keep them lower and in line with BOE or LIBOR rates don't they?