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

[enoughisenough]

There is also the very useful Unfair Consumer Practices Directive 2008 which has retrospective effect. This is very easy to find and will not be disappearing anytime soon. It mentions that anything that materially distorts the economic behaviour of the consumer or which causes the consumer to take an economic decision which he may not have done is unlawful.

[Crapstone]

The FSA seem to be already looking at the SPV issues.

case number: WI-A13

[enoughisenough]

Yeah but have you seen this. Stitch UP!

 

Accordingly, the FSA wrote to the ombudsman service on 6 May 2009 asking it to consider deferring issuing any adjudicator views or ombudsman decisions in these cases. The FSA said it believed that this would allow it to explore all options to achieve the best outcome for consumers even though this might give rise to some delays in individual cases.

 

http://www.widerimplications.info/assets/pdf/2010_001.pdf

[enoughisenough]

In addition to which...

 

They have argued that the number of complaints is relatively small. Mmmm.

What to make of this?

[Crapstone]

But they do say there are only a 'small amount of cases', so if we all add to that list it's going to bump up the figures and they'll HOPEFULLY realise just what a can of worms they have opened and they've only just touched the surface.

[truro]

Had contact with Chris Choi and he still researching the info regarding these loan sharks. He also mentioned that he's in contact with someone who's got info into the backdoor dealings of these SPV companies to defraud the treasury. Tried to read the House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence - by Carmel Butler on the gov site, but there was too much to take in right away. Its entitled Memorandum from Carmel Butler.

www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl...en...ALL... - 97k -

Hope I've posted the right link right.

[Crapstone]

Obviously very few people have put forward the SPV issues so far for obvious reasons..it's complicated and it's not easy to get all the documents you need to construct a complaint. But now if looks like we don't have to bother as long as we have a reason to believe it's been securitised, then the FSA can do the rest.

 

But it would be good to download those documents and send them to Capstone asking them to elaborate and to release the details related to your mortgage so you can forward them to the FSA.

[Crapstone]

That links dead Truro..

[Suetonius]

I have posted the above on the mortgage preferred thread, but is equally important here.

 

The above is in relation to investment products sold to Joe Public, who have subsequently made complaints to the FOS about the performance and/or any guarantees offered and not about mortgage securitisation or complaints with regard to mortgage securitisation.

 

"At the time of the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, it transpired that a considerable number of UK investors had taken out plans where either a full or partial guarantee had been provided by Lehman's."

 

"In the aftermath of the Lehman's default, the Financial Ombudsman Service has received a number of complaints from investors and other parties involved in the sale of linked products. It has been investigating some cases, but the number of these is comparatively small in relation to the total numbers affected."

 

 

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/news1/investments/financial-advice/fsa-probes-structured-investments-$1294061.htm

 

"MP Edward Vaizey, shadow minister for culture, called for an investigation from FSA this week.

 

His Early Day Motion states: "This House notes that more than 6,000 people invested more than £200 million of their savings in structured products backed by Lehman Brothers; further notes that such products were marketed as 100 per cent secure by the companies that sold them."

 

United Kingdom, Banking and Financial, FSA Wider Implications Referral Lehman-Backed Structured Products - CMS Cameron McKenna LLP - 11/05/2009, Financial Services, Investment

 

"FSA has today announced that it is going to review firms' sales of Lehman backed structured products (Lehman backed products) to retail investors. This raises important issues for affected investors, for firms that sold Lehman backed products, and for the structured product market as a whole."

 

"United Kingdom investors have brought claims against the retail providers who issued Lehman backed products, and against the retail intermediaries who advised them to acquire the products. An investor may claim that he was not warned about counterparty risk, or that the adviser should have been more cautious in selecting the investment. In the first instance an investor will complain to the selling or advising firm and, if their complaint is rejected, refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) who will adjudicate the complaint (up to a ceiling of £100,000) without charge – an attractive alternative to taking court proceedings."

[littledotty27]

Well had a reply to the witness statement today from spml legal spoofs

This is what is quoted

I am a collections specialist in the employ of Vertex mortgage services ltd. Vertex is what is known as a third party servicer in that we administer mortgage accounts on behalf of mortgage companies. We were previously employed in this capacity by Matlock Bank ltd trading as London Mortgage company (LMC) and we are now retained to dod so by the claimant and following their acquisition of the mortgage business of LMC.

 

In this capacity we are responsible for administrating the loan made to the defendants and secured by way of a first legal charge over their property,and have been immediately following the loan advance being made,although had no involvment in the underwriting of the loan itself.

It also goes on how the claimant undeservedly apologises for refusing to take our payment and how the call was terminated by us mid sentance and it is not to say that the payment would not eventually have been taken(what part of my witness statement do they not understand???? their advisor stated "I am not putting your payment through till you give a good explaination why you are in arrears"

Who the hell are Vertex?? Has anybody else heard of them? omg I can not wait to get rid of these **** jockeys,there beginning to get under my skin!!

[enoughisenough]

Vertex Mortgage Services Limited

Vertex is a company incorporated in England and Wales (Registered Number 02042968), is authorised and

regulated by the FSA (Reference Number 306064), and has its registered office at Pegasus House, Kings

Business Park, Liverpool, Prescot, Merseyside, L34 1PJ.

Vertex operates from three sites in the U.K., Cheltenham, Chester and Dudley, and the IT systems at all sites are

fully interchangeable so that in a disaster recovery situation, mortgage loans can be serviced from any location.

Vertex is currently servicing approximately 60,000 loans with an aggregate value of £5,000,000,000.

Vertex has the following servicer ratings: “RPS3+” in respect of its primary servicer rating (prime and subprime)

by Fitch and “Average” as a prime and sub-prime residential mortgage servicer and Special Servicer by

S&P.

[littledotty27]

So they have taken over LMC offices in cheltenham then,because they gave the same address that all correspondance from LMC comes from.

 

The prospectus we found on eurosail mentions vertex.

Edited May 22, 2009 by littledotty27
additional info

[Crapstone]

I've contacted the court that dealt with my SRO in 2005 to obtain a copy of the original order.

 

It seems that after 2 years all the documents were destroyed and all that remains is a note on their computer so they are unable to provide the original judgement. Is this usual practise as it seems I'd have to supply a copy of the judgement for the purpose of N244?

 

2 years for record keeping seems unusually short.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Crapstone
typos

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

You're right. 2 years does seem unusually short. But I believe it may be becoming more commonplace, as an avoidance and cover up strategy. I have just had SAR compliance from a high street lender in which they state:

 

'Please note that historical data can only be retained if there is a legitimate reason for processing the data in accordance with the rights of the individual...some of the original account records may have been destroyed in line with our retentions policy'

 

I haven't been through it all but what I suspect this means is that anything inconvenient HAS been destroyed and all I'll be left with is a glossed over version of my account history as suits them. I will let you know.

[Crapstone]

Capstone have told me that the SAR made in both names and for the one mortgage account should have been 2x£10 and not one. It's one account in joint names so surely it's only one request? Who's right?

[enoughisenough]

This is just more stalling. Contact the information commissioner's office. Absolute rubbish.

[JonCris]

Absolute nonsense However for the avoidance of doubt you should have sent a signed copy of the other parties authority consenting to you acting for them

[Crapstone]

Just to be sure..EIE & JC

 

I sent them an SAR from this site and changed all the the terms to show as we/us. We both signed our names and it was clear that it was a mutual request under one account number jointly held and all contained in one letter. Both our names were included on the address, the account name and finally at the end of the letter which was signed and printed.

 

My OH received his but they said my signature could not validated. I called them and they told me they didn't have a copy of my signature to compare it to and then they changed their story to say it didn't match the ones they had. After threatening them under DPA they agreed to send my copy, which I now have.

 

Capstones covering letter to me says that we should have enclosed £10 per SAR (£20) but on this occasion they are waiving the fee (the extra £10) as a gesture of goodwill!

 

Considering it's both on the same account my OH has entire paragraphs missing from his SAR but mine has very little blacked out. Between us we have a fairly good copy including 3rd parties names that they insisted wouldn't be included under DPA.

 

Can either of you provide a relevent paragraph for the fees saga, which can be included in my next letter? The SAR isn't complete at all by any stretch of the imagination and they have again admitted that they do not have our original file.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Crapstone

[Smarterchick]

Try and avoid providing any signatures you might have used in your usual handwriting - Blue Petered documents seem commonplace when they have 'lost' files and agreements, not that I'd suggest a bank or finance company would ever stoop so low as to fraudulently cut and paste anything onto a document to make it look like an original you understand

[brassed-off-2]

we have experienced similar problems to Crapstone, we provided our signatures, and also put a mark through both in a different coloured pen... i am sending copies of all this to the ICO, with copies of their letters that state we didnot, comply with their signature authority request, even though we have proof it was signed for, along with the copies of the blatantly obvious statement on the mostly blacked out dsar that they had received it, but oh signature doesnt match???anything they have!!!

We can play silly buggers too, just like them...but my patience has worn thin now, so its a case of direct to ico, fsa and fos now...they might realise that they cannot keep treating people in the manner that they are!!!

i will also be using the letter template that eie has posted up here somewhere...

 

b-o-2

[enoughisenough]

Hi B-0-2

 

In using my rather hastily cobbled together template bear in mind any typos. Also any corroborating regs and statutes need to be detailed along with the relevant sanctions. Also remind the Fsa Fos and oft of what they are supposed to do. Detail All their abuses of you. Good luck.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[pt2537]

Absolute nonsense However for the avoidance of doubt you should have sent a signed copy of the other parties authority consenting to you acting for them

actually, you are incorrect, sorry to say,

 

it is the data relating to the data subject that you are entitled to, so, if there are two data subjects , then you need to make two data subject access requests as you are only entitled to the data relating to you.

 

we had exactly this issue recently, both the ICO and our counsel said that the other side were correct if you have a joint account, then two DSARs are required if you want both parties data

[enoughisenough]

MM

 

Bowing to PT 2537's legendary status, then of course if that is what we must do then that is what we must do.

 

Funny how it has never been raised before now though? Also I (we) just had SAR compliance from a high street lender who made no such stipulation.

 

The entitlement may well be there then but it is the exercise of that entitlement which reveals them for what they are.

 

What we can do is therefore insist that they must at all times write to both parties and unless they do we will send it back as not in compliance with the relevant FSA/FOS reg. Time consuming but nonetheless funny.

[pt2537]

it is common with Swift for example, that they will hide certain important things when you do a SAR on them,

 

It can be very useful to compare the two sets of documents very verycarefully as you may find that there are bits which are edited on both, we had this with the underwriting sheets where they tried to hide the commission payments that had been made so you didnt find out what had been paid;)

[enoughisenough]

Just thinking that this creates an awful lot of duplication for THEM, and also a lot more work.

 

Makes you wonder why they would insist upon it except as a strategy for scaring people off and/or covering up stuff.

 

The Information Commissioner's Office is starting to get very peeved with these sorts of tactics. Fine by me.