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

[verycatchy7939]

so u really going to put you faith in MP who are guilty of fraud over there expenses to make the FSA do what they should of done ages ago.

I think you got more chance of Gordon Brown becoming Pope.

This country is run by big corporate institutions who basically do what they like when they like.

Capstone are part of a bankrupt bank, yet beacuse they do work for Barclays they are suddenly a stand alone bussiness from the now defunct Lehman Brothers, so why has htis company not been wound up?

[enoughisenough]

Let me try to take those points one by one.

 

so u really going to put you faith in MP who are guilty of fraud over there expenses to make the FSA do what they should of done ages ago.

 

Fraud is a Criminal offence under the Fraud Act of 2006. Of the 14 members of this committee who admittedly are not completely squeeky clean, on their expenses, not one as far as I can see has been officially censured. Some have come in for criticism and some have what appear to be very high expense claims. Most of them seem to claim what might be called legitimately. None of them has been convicted of Fraud and so none of them are therefore guilty of Fraud

 

As for making the FSA do their job. Yes I believe they will. How far the FSA cracks down is a moot point but there will be something done.

 

I think you got more chance of Gordon Brown becoming Pope.

 

I don't care much for either of them, but this is a none argument anyway because I believe that whilst there is no chance of GB as pope there is some chance of the FSA doing something. I admit this may not be as much as we would like.

 

This country is run by big corporate institutions who basically do what they like when they like.

 

This is a counsel of despair. I bet they didn't like refunding all those dodgy PPI claims or bank charges. It's not all a one way street yet you know.

 

Capstone are part of a bankrupt bank, yet beacuse they do work for Barclays they are suddenly a stand alone bussiness from the now defunct Lehman Brothers, so why has htis company not been wound up?

 

You seem informed on this one. Can you post a brief corporate history of Capstone so we can all become a little more clued up on who they are, where they come from and how they work?

 

keep the faith. EiE

[agatha c]

Hi all

 

Mail on Sunday (making profit from hard-up homeowners) by Richard Dyson may be of interest .

 

Agatha c

[Crapstone]

so u really going to put you faith in MP who are guilty of fraud over there expenses to make the FSA do what they should of done ages ago.

I think you got more chance of Gordon Brown becoming Pope.

This country is run by big corporate institutions who basically do what they like when they like.

Capstone are part of a bankrupt bank, yet beacuse they do work for Barclays they are suddenly a stand alone bussiness from the now defunct Lehman Brothers, so why has htis company not been wound up?

 

I don't put my faith in anyone. My aim is to challenge as a consumer and have my voice heard and if I fail then I only have myself to blame for not doing enough. Not only for myself but for others that face the same.

 

What you think, verycatchy, is fading into the background as ignorance and rudeness to those that are trying to make a difference, however small.

[Crapstone]

A small glimmer of hope! Looks like the FSA will have to do something now.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | MPs attack mortgage arrears fees

 

UK Parliament - tc0809pn080809

 

Oh how I pray they are one of the 4! If not they bl**dy well ought to be.

 

I would imagine they are as one of the highest fee chargers. For me, it's not about the charges. It's more on why we were sold these unsuitable mortgages with little information and the treatment we've had from them. But it's a start.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Crapstone

[enoughisenough]

Hi All

 

I have just come across this Statutory Instrument

 

The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991

 

 

…which means that every enforcement of a County Court order for repossession may be entirely unenforceable without an order of the High Court.

 

Enforcement

8.—(1) A judgment or order of a county court for the payment of a sum of money which it is sought to enforce wholly or partially by execution against goods—

(a) shall be enforced only in the High Court where the sum which it is sought to enforce is £5,000 or more and the proceedings in which the judgment or order was obtained did not arise out of an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974[28];

 

(b) shall be enforced only in a county court where the sum which it is sought to enforce is less than £2,000;

 

© in any other case may be enforced in either the High Court or a county court.

 

Basically what this means, in my understanding, is the following

 

1.They repossess your home with a court order.

 

2. They issue a warrant court form 49 which you are never allowed to see, even though it is your right, under CPR 5.

 

3. The warrant is always for seizure of goods (this includes property)

 

4. The value is above the said seizure and above the county Court limit

 

5. The County Court HAS the jurisdiction of ordering the possession but HAS NO jurisdiction of enforcement without an order of the High Court.

 

Anyone want to argue the contrary?

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi All

 

I have just come across this Statutory Instrument

 

The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991

 

 

…which means that every enforcement of a County Court order for repossession may be entirely unenforceable without an order of the High Court.

 

Enforcement

8.—(1) A judgment or order of a county court for the payment of a sum of money which it is sought to enforce wholly or partially by execution against goods—

(a) shall be enforced only in the High Court where the sum which it is sought to enforce is £5,000 or more and the proceedings in which the judgment or order was obtained did not arise out of an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974[28];

 

(b) shall be enforced only in a county court where the sum which it is sought to enforce is less than £2,000;

 

© in any other case may be enforced in either the High Court or a county court.

 

Basically what this means, in my understanding, is the following

 

1.They repossess your home with a court order.

 

2. They issue a warrant court form 49 which you are never allowed to see, even though it is your right, under CPR 5.

 

3. The warrant is always for seizure of goods (this includes property)

 

4. The value is above the said seizure and above the county Court limit

 

5. The County Court HAS the jurisdiction of ordering the possession but HAS NO jurisdiction of enforcement without an order of the High Court.

 

Anyone want to argue the contrary?

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

 

Can't see one on that .......But also it looks like that any claim for possession over £30.000 can only be dealt with by the high Court.

 

sparkie

 

 

 

(3) A county court shall have jurisdiction under the following provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925[19] where the capital value of the land or interest in land which is to be dealt with does not exceed £30,000:

(a) sections 3, 49, 66, 181, and 188;

(b) proviso (iii) to paragraph 3 of Part III of Schedule 1;

© proviso (v) to paragraph 1(3) of Part IV of Schedule 1;

(d) provisos (iii) and (iv) to paragraph 1(4) of Part IV of Schedule 1.

(4) A county court shall have jurisdiction under sections 89, 90, 91 and 92 of the Law of Property Act 1925[20] where the amount owing in respect of the mortgage or charge at the commencement of the proceedings does not exceed £30,000.

 

(5) A county court shall have jurisdiction under the proviso to section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925[21] where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed £30,000.

 

(6) A county court shall have jurisdiction under section 1(6) of the Land Charges Act 1972[22]—

(a) in the case of a land charge of Class C(i), C(ii) or D(i), if the amount does not exceed £30,000;

(b) in the case of a land charge of Class C(iii), if it is for a specified capital sum of money not exceeding £30,000 or, where it is not for a specified capital sum, if the capital value of the land affected does not exceed £30,000;

© in the case of a land charge of Class A, Class B, Class C(iv), Class D(ii), Class D(iii) or Class E, if the capital value of the land affected does not exceed £30,000;

(d) in the case of a land charge of Class F, if the land affected by it is the subject of an order made by the court under section 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983[23] or an application for an order under that section relating to that land has been made to the court;

(e) in a case where an application under section 23 of the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914[24] could be entertained by the court.

[Smarterchick]

But has it been updated, that's the question? Otherwise there's gonna be riots

[Sparkie1723]

But has it been updated, that's the question? Otherwise there's gonna be riots

 

 

Are there any more bloodhounds on the loose to give enoughisenough some help

 

sparkie

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Sparkie

Can't see one on that .......But also it looks like that any claim for possession over £30.000 can only be dealt with by the high Court.

 

Since most possession orders i've ever seen include the whole mortgage value and a money order I don't see that this is a case of can't see one on that...

 

They will never ever let you see the warrant and since the warrant always states goods the high court is the only place for enforcement. Bet you a tenner I'm right!

[enoughisenough]

Does this warrant its own thread or is it a dead duck?

 

If so, why?

 

Suetonius....

Edited August 12, 2009 by enoughisenough

[andrew1]

If so, why?

 

Suetonius....

 

you love tempting fate EIE

[Suetonius]

I did write a counter argument, which I decided to delete.

 

This time I will just post some information and let everyone draw their own conclusions on this one.

The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 (as posted by EIE)

 

"Jurisdiction

2.—(1) A county court shall have jurisdiction under—

(l) sections 15, 16, 21, 25 and 139 of the County Courts Act 1984

 

whatever the amount involved in the proceedings and whatever the value of any fund or asset connected with the proceedings"

 

Section 21 County Courts Act 1984

"21 Actions for recovery of land and actions where title is in question

 

(1)A county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action for the recovery of land."

 

http://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/static/documents/00356_otcs.pdf

 

The County Courts

 

8. The jurisdiction of the county courts is entirely statutory and covers almost the whole field of civil and family law. The general jurisdiction in civil law is mostly concurrent with that of the High Court.

 

9. A number of statutes confer exclusive jurisdiction on the county courts. These cover important areas of work of the county courts, for example virtually all cases under the Consumer Credit Act, actions by mortgage lenders for possession and actions by landlords under the Rent Acts and the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988.

 

10. Since 1 July 1991 (the statutory instrument quoted by EIE) the concurrent jurisdiction has been substantially increased by orders made under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. In common law cases, basically tort including personal injuries, debt and other breaches of contract, there is no monetary limit on the jurisdiction of the county courts.

 

11. In equity proceedings the monetary limit is currently £30,000 (as per Sparkies post). The county courts have unlimited jurisdiction in applications under the Inheritance Act 1975 and s. 30, s. 146 and s. 147 of the Law of Property Act 1925. In Companies Act cases the jurisdiction covers cases where the total paid up share capital of the company is less than £120,000.

 

12. In addition to the general jurisdiction, about 80% of county courts have jurisdiction in insolvency. A few Circuit Judges in a small number of courts also exercise specialist jurisdictions under, for example, the Race Relations Act 1976.

 

Does this warrant its own thread or is it a dead duck?

 

I will let you decide...

Edited August 13, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

I would also say take a look at

 

CPR part 55 Possession Claims

 

and

 

CCR order 25 & 26

[Crapstone]

In amongst all that lot 55.10 (4) is an onus on the mortgagee at the hearing to provide a copy of notice served, 'to the occupiers', and evidence it has been served.

 

Would simple proof of posting suffice as service even under postal rules? A sworn statement that it's been sent out first class post isn't exactly evidence that it's been served either.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Crapstone

[enoughisenough]

Can't believe that thos thread has gone so tame. We are talking here about one of the most vicious and scurrilous sub prime **** bags in the history of mortgage finance.

 

Their acolytes are still actively screwing innocent victims out of their homes. We need to raise the game here or is everyone so paralysed by fear we start with a bang and go down with barely a whimper?

 

Not trying to insult anyone here honestly but posting gives encouragement and support. We are all fighting battles using whatever effective means at our

disposal so I can see the issues involved in not posting. BUT for hope there must be life and this thread needs breath

[iconoclash]

Hi EIE - I agree - I have had my files from SPML and want to take them to court but I have not had any answers to my queries about whether I have a good enough case and am still perplexed

[uneverdid]

Hi EIE, i have now started my own thread and would appreciate your advice, its under 'Capstone, SPML, Preferred, Eurosail its all the same to me'.

 

It does appear to have gone quiet !!!

[enoughisenough]

People are fighting tooth and nail at the moment. The council of mortgage lenders figures are a complete whitewash.

 

Campari2. Whatever your info from SPML they will not answer queries properly.

 

UND - as I said fighting battles. However my advice is based only on the CAG of life. I have no professional qualifications in law. PLease bear this in mind. I will obviously look at your thread though.

 

These relentlessly moronic scumbags need their collective heads examined. They can't even audit properly and I'm seriously thinking of "SOCCER" now. For those who get that fine, for those who don't - don't worry.

[littledotty27]

My reasons for not posting are due to the fact,i've run out of ideas of what to do,i've hit a brick wall!!!

Nobody legal wants to help and the fos have listened to spml's bull but are not interested in our side of things.

 

I'm tired,run out of patience and alot of other things on mind to deal with.

I AM PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY EXHAUSTED BY IT ALL.

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by littledotty27

 

My reasons for not posting are due to the fact,i've run out of ideas of what to do,i've hit a brick wall!!!

Nobody legal wants to help and the fos have listened to spml's bull but are not interested in our side of things.

 

I'm tired,run out of patience and alot of other things on mind to deal with.

I AM PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY EXHAUSTED BY IT ALL.

 

Hi Dotty

 

There was no implied criticism here.

 

I just felt that it was really important to keep this thread going. We are dealing here with the worst **** on the face of the planet. They deal in human misery for money. But they can be beaten and will be held to account for what they have done.

 

I feel for you and your despair but please keep hope.

Edited August 22, 2009 by enoughisenough
Typos

[iconoclash]

Hi - is it possible to set up a petition about this company specifically on the Downing Street web site or is that not allowed?

[enoughisenough]

The No 10 website won't do it for us. However there are already other things in the pipeline that might.

 

Keep posting and keep fighting.

[gustavius rex]

l'll repeat what l've said somewhere else today. Who owns what? Preferred/SPML are nothing more than paper tigers and the real entity is Capstone. On at least one occasion l've had my payment to Preferred end up in SPML's account and when queried, Capstone replied that it's ok as it is the same comapny??? l want to know who is really the legal title holder and who owns Preferred/SPML after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. No-one at Preferred or Capstone will give me any accurate info. All l know is that, at least Preferred are in serious trouble as they cannot sell off their loan books, hence, it is of utmost importance to all of us to know who owns what.

GR

[verycatchy7939]

well from what i have researched out capstone was a 50/50 owned by Lehman and Barclay's. IN 2007 Barclay's sold there share holding to Lehman making capstone 100% by Lehman . We all know the rest and really we are having our mortgages serviced by a company that could have it loan book transferred at any stage as a exchange for repayment of Lehman debt.

SPML cannot sell their loan book as most of it is heavy sub prime and carries a large arrears profile.

SO Preferred/SPML are using the tried and tested method of either repossessing or consolidation.

repossessing= getting money and sell house = write debt down= off the books= added to Lehman insolvency

 

consolidation= make the loan after 6 months a appear a good payment profile= sell it on a light near prime.

 

Really i think at some point Captsone will be absorbed by another servicing copmany like skipton.