Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1133 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Come on guys,

What we need is a solicitor who would be willing to undertake this on a ''pro bono'' or ''no win no fee'' basis. What needs to be proven is INTENT, i.e. did the lender inform you properly of the intended performance of the contract? No, he did not as l am dead sure they all relied up on the extortionate rate hikes they imposed at the end of the preferential period. Someone who has a sub-prime mortgage runnining at, say 8.25% preferential going up to 4.5% LIBOR knows that he/she needs to re-mortgage after the first 2 years or they will end up in trouble. But, no-one expected the crash of 2007/2008 where all mortgage, save a few prime, lenders simply vanished from the face of the earth. When this occured our friends at Lehmans and others got caught with their knickers in a twist as they could not sustain their loans. This is where intent and contract performance becomes interesting. We should have a close look at how Northern Rock behaved after their collapse, they simply tried to divest and dump their client at any opportunity until our beloved government changed their tune and decided that they would start lending again. lf you, like Lehmans, never intended to engage in any sustained mortgage lending (with or without securitisation) then you are acting dishonesty against your customer and you are selling a contract that you never ever intended to fullfill.

 

A bit esoteric and perhaps a lot of speculation in the obvious, but, difficult to prove (for us normal dudes at least). But, l'm sure l'm on the right track and would dearly love to hear some comments and a lot of speculation re. this.

Gustavius

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GR

 

I've posted extensively on this and other threads. I've seen a few false dawns but have always ran with them because we know that something is rotten in Denmark. This is no exception and I believe the prospectuses hold the key to intent. Tom Brennan might take this on or at least advise someone else who might.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GR

 

I've posted extensively on this and other threads. I've seen a few false dawns but have always ran with them because we know that something is rotten in Denmark. This is no exception and I believe the prospectuses hold the key to intent. Tom Brennan might take this on or at least advise someone else who might.

 

 

Why denmark? A lovely country populated by pigs, lurpak and a few humans on the outskirts. Joke aside, l would love to speak to someone with extensive knowledge of UK contract law. l can only say that in International and US contract law the lehman performance would or could be construed as deceptive if not outright fraudulent. l think, though, that by now or very soon we shall be able to prove that they never intended to fullfill theur part of the contract, hence, they performed or were engaged in mis-selling, something equal to our famous ppi.

Gustavius

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Denmark' refers to where securitisation started although the US changed it. The Danish model works quite well with few defaults and the homeowner can take advantage when the bonds are struggling.

 

Denmark is indeed a lovely country :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again GR

 

I've broken down a couple of prospectuses and posted them up somewhere. I'll have a dig around and then we can chew the fat on the main points. A class action could be brought but we need to consider all the options. Maybe one cagger preferably with clean hands could be sponsored by us caggers to take this on.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again GR

 

I've broken down a couple of prospectuses and posted them up somewhere. I'll have a dig around and then we can chew the fat on the main points. A class action could be brought but we need to consider all the options. Maybe one cagger preferably with clean hands could be sponsored by us caggers to take this on.

 

 

l'm an eager beaver here and look forard to some nice brainstorming. Maybe, just maybe we can find one or two pearls in all the muck, eh?

GR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GR

 

I admire your champing at the bit. I can tell you straight without fear of contradiction that the prospectuses/offering circulars all but guarantee early redemption.

 

Posting on a mobile at the moment but if you go back to about April may on this thread I think a breakdown of a different but virtually identical prospectus may just well be there. If not check out the mortgage securitisation preferred thread. There's just so much unlawful conduct going on. The way I see it is that lehmans can now confidently be labelled pariahs and outcast such that the system is then seen to have cleansed itself. They are effing purpose built for this need.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi EIE, Littledotty and everyone else on this thread:)

 

Apologies for butting in!

 

I have been reading through and trying to inwardly digest as much as I can. I was drawn to this thread because of the sub-prime aspect, not because I have any connections with SPML, Capstone etc.

 

My particular experience was with Swift Advances, but I've been trying to glean as much info as possible about typical dealings of sub-prime lenders, particularly securitisation which I'm still struggling to understand.

 

My and Mr L's situation is in fact rather similar to AngMarie's - I do have my own threads for this but just thought I'd give you good folks an idea of the way a similar subprime lender can ruin someone's life - or at least try to. We had a second charge with Swift (taken out in 2006) which we quickly ran into diffuculties with as we already had a hefty mortgage with C&G - our total repayments were around £2000 per month.

 

Swift hounded us day and night for repayment but unfortunately Mr L had changed jobs and his promised bonuses didn't materialise. Swift started court proceedings against us as we owed £4000+ arrears. Luckily our families helped us out, but Mr L suffered a breakdown as a result of the stress and took an overdose of painkillers. This was all in the middle of our only son's A level exams which wasn't the best of timing. Fortunately Mr L pulled through and thanks to the support of our families he made a full recovery.

 

To cut a long story short after struggling on for several months, by which point we were in arrears with both mortgages, we managed to sell our house at the end of 2007 and luckily as we had plenty of equity still we paid off both mortgages. Having to sell our 'forever' home was a shame, but it saved our sanity.

 

The charges Swift applied at the point of redemption were appalling though - our redemption figure was £69,000+ on a £58,000+ mortgage. We had made over £11,000 of payments and been charged £13,000+ in interest. Because we were naive and hadn't discovered the wonderful CAG back then we knew no better and paid them without question.

 

Now we are trying to get the charges back -we've had no luck as yet. We had PPI too which we believe was mis-sold and I'm hoping to get the FOS to look at that for me.

 

I'm interested to see that you recommended AngMarie to try to get her early redemption charge back EIE - I had thought that this wasn't possible, but like her we have nothing to lose as we don't owe Swift a penny. I do know though that they are reknowned for defending hard with a fleet of barristers which is a somewhat scary prospect.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't mind my temporary hijacking of your very interesting thread - I just feel that even if we are fighting different lenders here our combined knowledge of the subprime method as a whole could be of great use to anyone in the same position.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

Edited by landy_alert
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi landy alert,

 

Well your tale is breath of fresh air for me, you start to think that its only happened to you untill you discover this wonderful forum which is full of wonderful ppl who are willing to give up their time to advise of what could be your best possible next move. There are so many good ppl here:).

 

 

Ang

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi landy

 

this is no hijack. If the mods disagree that is in their power. Your story is appalling, as are many others including mine. Top barristers will run a mile from this sh1t. What swift are then left with is the representation offered by desperate wannabe corporate barristers. So research your stuff get your papers in order, seek legal advice and opinion and then file your claim. They will blast all their big macho guns, realise they haven't got a legal leg to stand on and come begging right at the last moment. They don't want the scrutiny . Of course I could be wrong which is why I suggest a legO opinion before proceeding.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lurker

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys,

What we need is a solicitor who would be willing to undertake this on a ''pro bono'' or ''no win no fee'' basis. What needs to be proven is INTENT, i.e. did the lender inform you properly of the intended performance of the contract? No, he did not as l am dead sure they all relied up on the extortionate rate hikes they imposed at the end of the preferential period. Someone who has a sub-prime mortgage runnining at, say 8.25% preferential going up to 4.5% LIBOR knows that he/she needs to re-mortgage after the first 2 years or they will end up in trouble. But, no-one expected the crash of 2007/2008 where all mortgage, save a few prime, lenders simply vanished from the face of the earth. When this occured our friends at Lehmans and others got caught with their knickers in a twist as they could not sustain their loans. This is where intent and contract performance becomes interesting. We should have a close look at how Northern Rock behaved after their collapse, they simply tried to divest and dump their client at any opportunity until our beloved government changed their tune and decided that they would start lending again. lf you, like Lehmans, never intended to engage in any sustained mortgage lending (with or without securitisation) then you are acting dishonesty against your customer and you are selling a contract that you never ever intended to fullfill.

Gustavius Rex

 

 

In my case I think that SPML deliberately concealed from me the true commercial nature of the contract. I dont know about anyone else but I knew nothing about securitisation & from what I now know about it, the nature & danger of this financial 'device' is of critical importance to a consumer considering taking out a contract.

 

It is simply not good enough for the contract to state "we have the right to assign or sell" the mortgage. It should state honestly and transparantly that the contract will CERTAINLY be sold and describe the nature of the financial structure that the consumer is going to be involved with. it seems clear to me that consumers have sometimes been 'lured' into these contracts, Lehmans particularly by getting ever more punters in. They feed the fee making machine by continually reducing their lending criteria to ensure that consumers are able to remortgage once or maybe twice before being forced to sell or repossesed.

 

I cannot believe that it is lawful to conceal from consumers the real 'nature' of the product being sold. Surely the fact that in 2 or 3 months maximum after signature there would be addional parties to the agreement and this fact was known to one party (including who the additional parties would be) and this fact was deliberatly kept from the other party (I believe the intention not to disclose is detailed in the SPV's prospectuses?) then this cannot be right or fair.

 

In fact, I seem to remember reading somewhere on these threads that eu directives state that deliberate concealment of this sort is considered fraud. Interestingly, if deliberate concealment or other fraud is found, I stand to be corrected, but I think the directors of SPML/ Capstone & possibly Lehman can be held personally liable for the financial losses or damages caused to the consumer.

 

I do not think it is practical to get anyone to do pro-bono work on this. I think that we should get a full barrister's opinion under the direct access scheme. I realise that there have been several opinions sought in the past on ERC's legality etc & several cases in court. But now that we all know a little more about the securitisation process, we may be all victims of this concealment of facts. We also have some prospectae, some of you also have documents from the Ombudsman with ther view etc. I think we should club together and put a fund together to get a QC's opinion. We must do some background work to get together a clear and definitive set of questions prepared to which we need answers. I volunteer to help in that process and I am also prepared to put in £250 to the pot to get it started. I think those of us that out of the clutches of the spml beast can help ourselves and help those who are still struggling.

 

Any thoughts on this? please PM or message on thread. Anybody know if CAG will hold funds in escrow for this purpose? if not I will get a solicitor to hold money on our behalf.

 

Now is the time boys and girls, if we get corroborating legal opinion and we are successful, the directors of Spml/Capstone etc. can be made personally liable, they and anyone else who assists them will not be able to hide behind any future insolvency procedures involving SPML.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangermouse!

 

Welcome back! I couldn't agree more.

 

I'm going to lay out an intinerary for stuffing these turkeys and then see the responses

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps

 

where the bloody hell have you been???:confused:

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK GR

 

We and you and me are going to have to to go a bit quiet now. I've seen your other posts

 

this one in particular

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/199575-bailiffs-enforcement-police-horror.html

 

and that's enough for me.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

GR

 

my immediate and most humble apologies. I totally withdraw my last post. I will however leave it there for the time being as a cautionary tale to ALL of us lest we fall into the temptation of impetuosity . Or in plain English I've Had to be reigned in a few times myself. Sorry dude! I really mean that.

Edited by enoughisenough
Typo

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ang and EIE:)

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post - I know what you mean Ang, the people here are wonderful.......if only Mr L and I had known about this place two years ago we could have possibly prevented an awful lot of s**t from hitting the fan.

 

Like you Ang, I was shocked to discover we were not alone in our plight and can honestly sympathise with what you must have gone through. Similarly for those who are still in the throes of dealing with it all - my heart goes out to them and hope they can avoid the trauma we went through.

 

Hopefully now we are not only stronger mentally, but armed with the wealth of information and support here on Cag we can take this forward and try to get some kind of restitution for what we suffered - that goes for all of us who have been victims of the subprime market.

 

Take care,

 

Landy x

Link to post
Share on other sites

GR

 

my immediate and most humble apologies. I totally withdraw my last post. I will however leave it there for the time being as a cautionary tale to ALL of us lest we fall into the temptation of impetuosity . Or in plain English I've Had to be reigned in a few times myself. Sorry dude! I really mean that.

 

 

 

lt's ok EIE,

l'm, though, not of the opinion that l should have to be reined in, when l, or someone in my family is subjected to, what l was by the bailiffs in question. My background is such, that l just cannot lie down and accept an abborration without reacting to it. lf you read through my thread in whole, you will discover that in fact, l did nothing wrong or unlawful. lt's not unlawful or illegal to inform someone who is thretening me with unlawful entry (break in) to my house, or physically attack me to gain entry, that in case he tries l will, so help me God, blow his effing head off!

This is not shooting someone in the back when running away, it does not necessarily mean shooting at all, only remove his ugly face from the shoulders and neck that carries it.

 

As for the SPML/Preferred business, it is something completely different and cannot be solved by blowing heads off (although l'm sure many a victim would love too), but, only through legal means. Lehman Brothers engaged in speculation and not mortgage lending, this is and must be the main issue here. To concentrate on the securitization will not lead to victory as securitization is not unlawful. The difference between ''normal'' lenders and Lehman's business methods is that Lehman never ever intended to stay on with their customers, but, packaged and sold off the mortgages within a very short span of time. Further, l'm sure that a thorough investigation will reveal that the funds obtained from their securitization never went back to support their lending, but, ended up in bonus payments instead. lt is racketeering at it's worse and a business model built on a pyramid principle that will ultimately fail when there is a downturn in the market. Well, we all saw the result and even major high street banks went technically belly up as they had engaged in this mortgage securitization [problem]. ln the end the directors all went away with their bonuses, parachute deals and super pensions, why, their businesses floundered and had to be bailed out by the tax payers.

 

Now, the greatest obstacle to get some justice for us borrowers and those victims who have lost it all, is the government and establishment. No-one and l mean no-one from the government or judiciary will willingly support us. They are all so bloody embroiled with the bankers that they want to avoid any further banking scandals at any price. And, that price is to be paid by us. We need legal assistance and very very good one at that. lt will not be enough with one barrister, but, needs a teem including financial experts. l maintain that what must be proven here is intent and false representation. Ther was never any intent to engage in mortgage lending as such, but, only to speculate and engage in the soliciting of customers and selling of mortgages to investors, i.e. an investment clearing house and thereby mortgages were sold to clients under false pretence and this with all the various and useless regulators full knowledge and support. The old saying goes that **** flows downwards and nothing could have been more to the point than this case.

Gustavius Rex

Edited by gustavius rex
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GR

 

Getting a first opinion from an experienced barrister is absolutely essential. Once we have that opinion, we then have a starting point to make some sensible decisions. Speaking for myself, I was absent from the site for so long because I was fed up of hearing the same rants over and over again.

 

I of course understand why people feel so strongly, but it must hearten the enemy to follow all of this on the threads.

 

We need to have a considered and unemotional agenda, this must start with an informed legal opinion. Until then, we are all wasting our time.

 

Dangermouse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi EIE

 

I am struggling to start my own thread for this. Also please could you point me as to where I can read up on dsar and anything else I may need need to prepare for. Going up loft later to get my pandora's box out as it contains all relevant paperwork which I will need.

 

Many Thanks

 

 

Ang

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangermouse,

 

I contacted you ages ago about this idea and I posted somewhere about it, but absolutely nothing happened and we are all at fault for that.

 

So, let me make a positive start towards progressing this just a teeeny weeny bit instead of just endless talking about it.

 

Let us start by collecting a list of names from this forum who all say the same thing and want to make a commitment i.e. why don't we commence a class action and our first step is to find a barrister for an initial opinion and advice on how to progress.

 

Then let us organise a means of publicising that list of names and inviting more and more people to join and to lay out a framework of what those names may expect to do/commit/and their obligations etc.

 

Obviously the first thing to ask the entire list of names is to put their collective heads together and make suggestions as to how to find and employ and pay a barrister.

 

Ideally it would be good to have barristers amongst our list of names and get pro bono work done.

 

Alternatively, it is likely that there a barrister somewhere who is so disgusted with financial institutions and the damage they have done said barrister is just itching to get his hands on a case to destroy them with and will therefore do it pro bono.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again GR

 

My utmost and sincere apologies. I have read the thread and that is what prompted the apology. I've felt bad all day because you are so much like me. Not to dissimilar upbringing and I will do whatever I need to do to protect my family. So the apology is 100% sincere. I apologise.

 

Moving forward...

 

 

This is the consumer ACTION group. Rocket 1 count me in. I font even mind going public with my real identity. Not on here though. Not yet until we have names on the list . By golly chaps we sound like the names of lloyds. Lets go effing well get them along the lines suggested. I'm not putting up with God knows how many more years of THIS SH1TE! We agreed? Lets start with tom Brennan and see what he thinks. He'll chip in for free at least for a while I should think though I have absolutely no authority or sound reason for beleiving this. Lets see if we can get some movement on this . For real this time no more effing around.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rocket1

 

Yes, I agree...but I think we have come a long way since we communicated some time ago. We have much more information now.

 

I am not so sure that we can assume that we can obtain a decent opinion for free, I cannot assume that Tom Brennan will offer his services for nothing, afterall we all have to earn a living!

 

We can assume nothing and I think we need to do this in a formal way, I think we should be in control of this and not go off half cocked. I don't know Tom Brennan, all this has been going on so long that we need to be in the driving seat and do it properly.

 

These threads are full of theories from well meaning individuals but no professional lawyer is going to want to get involved in a ramble of uninformed opinion and hearsay. I mean no disrepect to anyone using or contributing to these threads, in fact the contributors offer fantastic support to those who need help.

 

However, we must be absolutely clear when it comes to the way forward (if indeed there is one!) If we do not keep control then 99% of our effort will be wasted & I dont know about you guys but I do not have time to do this with a shotgun approach. If we ask someone to do something Pro Bono, they will also get fed up if we are not completely focussed. I think that we need two people, a maximum of three to work closely in the early stages to get a clear and concise briefing document together (preferably one of these three should have some legal knowledge) I am prepared to meet up with anyone in London to discuss next steps.

 

Dangermouse

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Have Read In This Thread That Preferred Mortgages Part Of Lehman Are In Administration And Are Being Administered By Pricewaterhouse Preferred Are Currently Bringing A Land Registry Claim Against Me I Have Stated That As They Are In Administration They Have No Capacity To Bring A Claim But Preferred Have Denied This. 1)how Can I Obtain Evidence That They Are Actually Being Administered By Price Waterhouse 2)am I Right In Saying They Have No Right To Bring A Claim If They Are In Administration?

These Proceedings Are Time Limited And I Would Greatly Appreciate A Quick Reply So I Could Give Them A Bloody Nose For Everyone

I Thought Trading Whilst Insolvent Was Illegal?i Would Go To The Ends Of The Earth To Nail Them,there Is An Appeal Going Through The High Court At The Moment But As I Am Representing Myself I Need All The Help I Can Get.thanks In Advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ryde

 

I have received a private email with information from someone who was in a similar situation to you. At least they were a customer of SPML and he was unhappy about the erc he paid and other charges. He had an exchange of letters with PriceWaterhouseCoopers & he has copied me. The information you have received from Preferred is correct. Although Lehmans are in administration, neither SMPL nor Preferred are currently in administration and are operating normally. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

Dangermouse

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...