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

[ryde]

GR thanks for post.

My problem is unusual in that I am involved in litigation with preferred because I have a restriction on the property which has prevented them registering their charge on it for the last 3 years!!!!!

I am now involved in fighting them on 2 fronts 1)my own interest 2)my ex to whom they completely missold the mortgage using the same solicitor to represent 3 parties(huge conflict of interest) and operating remotely through a broker to give her a completely unaffordable mortgage and amongst other things filling in the income forms themselves without any checks(she was on the dole!!!) she was just given a blank form to sign for a remortgage to get rid of arrears.They then undervalued the property knowing she would default and werent bothered because the loan would be securitized anyway.Problem for them was that the bozos never checked the Register until the mortgage had completed then found they could not register their charge because of my restriction! They therefore only have what amounts to an unsecured loan.This is why I keep stressing the importance of the Register it guarantees title,if someone applies to change the name of the chargeholder and you object on the grounds that you have not had any guarantee that your contract with the new chargeholder will be the same exactly as the previous one this will stop them being registered until they fulfill the previous contractual obligation by undertaking the same legal contractual obligations,does this make sense?In other words its a guarantee.(They just cannot legally sell it on to some vulture fund unless your contratural rights are left intact)

You are right, started with barlow robbins no pre action letter because could not register the charge all litigation in the name of pml.I have now received all the correspondence between solicitors which has all been at the instigation of capstone and is on their headed paper.I have asked the court to determine who is actually bringing this claim and by what authority but have yet to receive any reply.barlow robbins now replaced by tlt once lehmans went bust.

Hence request to catchy.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

GR thanks for post.

My problem is unusual in that I am involved in litigation with preferred because I have a restriction on the property which has prevented them registering their charge on it for the last 3 years!!!!!

I am now involved in fighting them on 2 fronts 1)my own interest 2)my ex to whom they completely missold the mortgage using the same solicitor to represent 3 parties(huge conflict of interest) and operating remotely through a broker to give her a completely unaffordable mortgage and amongst other things filling in the income forms themselves without any checks(she was on the dole!!!) she was just given a blank form to sign for a remortgage to get rid of arrears.They then undervalued the property knowing she would default and werent bothered because the loan would be securitized anyway.Problem for them was that the bozos never checked the Register until the mortgage had completed then found they could not register their charge because of my restriction! They therefore only have what amounts to an unsecured loan.This is why I keep stressing the importance of the Register it guarantees title,if someone applies to change the name of the chargeholder and you object on the grounds that you have not had any guarantee that your contract with the new chargeholder will be the same exactly as the previous one this will stop them being registered until they fulfill the previous contractual obligation by undertaking the same legal contractual obligations,does this make sense?In other words its a guarantee.

You are right, started with barlow robbins no pre action letter because could not register the charge all litigation in the name of pml.I have now received all the correspondence between solicitors which has all been at the instigation of capstone and is on their headed paper.I have asked the court to determine who is actually bringing this claim and by what authority but have yet to receive any reply.barlow robbins now replaced by tlt once lehmans went bust.

Hence request to catchy.

 

Hi Ryde,

 

l'm in a similar situation myself. l have the title and mortgage to a property that actually been paid for by my wife. We are now separated and as l have quite a bit of financial problems my wifes house is at risk. We have a deed of trust going back to when the property was bought, but, unfortunately for my wife, there is a smaller charging order on her house that is mine. l brought the entire situation up in court, but, the judge dismissed it as something that was ''behind the curtain''. lt does not mean that the claimant can force me to sell the house as in the end the entire beneficial part of a sale would go to my wife. What the claimants a..h..e of a solicitor done, is just to put added pressure on me. Regarding PML l also have a problem as l want to transfer the mortgage to my wife. We (she) had some problems. but, it's all sorted and there should be no obstacle to either transfer the mortgage, or, add my wife to the mortgage. But, like you, who the hell do you talk to? Who can make any decision? ln the end, we will suffer and will not have the contractual flexibility we normally should have, as the mortgage is, in reality, controlled outside PML by the Trustee for the bondholders. lt is a terrible situation and in truth the result of unfair and predatory lending

GR

[ryde]

GR

your situation sounds even more complex than mine.When the judge says behind the curtain he means I assume legal and beneficial interests the same old story,ie a legal interest will overreach that is step over a beneficial interest .You have probably studied william and glyns v boland and city of london building society v flegg and the principles of overreaching,if you haven,t tell me I can recite it in my bloody sleep.

If you're the sole registered owner she could use a boland defence I was sucessful once as my position sounds the same as your wife's.,a beneficial interest by way of trust,if she is in occupation and was prior to the charge being created that is an overriding interest under 70 (1)(g)lra 1925 and may beat the charge as in boland.You must have been through all this but if you haven,t please tell me the exact circumstances would love to put my knowledge and experience to use.

[littledotty27]

With regards to Land Registry, refer to p3 #41 of this thread,details of LR for our property.

 

If the mortgage was took out with Matlock Bank in Nov 05,then assigned to SPML in May 06...

How can a company register a charge on a property 4 months before it ever took over?

Had copy of deeds & it all states Matlock Bank.

[ryde]

Sorry to hog the debate but on a lighter note and in no way meaning to be disrespectful I am intrigued by the gender questions raised by our esteemed

sage suetonius and the various references as describing said sage as either him or her.Is this because people think the pseudonym is Sue-Tonius!? I thought he was a Roman Historian and the link here is because this is a forum so et al Gustavius Rex means King Gus am I right,barking up the wrong tree or just downright barking?!

[ryde]

littledotty

you seem to have been with this from the start.Did Matlock bank ever actually register their charge on your property?looking at your extract it appears it was assigned before they ever did and a restriction was put on by spml to stop you selling the property to someone else or remortgaging without their consent while they were finalising the assigment.If the only charge on the property is to spml for 56k and you took out a 90+k mortgage with matlock sounds like an almighty cockup by spml as their charge only secures the monies therein mentioned ie 56k,can you elaborate on this.?Because the register is final ie definitive.

[gustavius rex]

Sorry to hog the debate but on a lighter note and in no way meaning to be disrespectful I am intrigued by the gender questions raised by our esteemed

sage suetonius and the various references as describing said sage as either him or her.Is this because people think the pseudonym is Sue-Tonius!? I thought he was a Roman Historian and the link here is because this is a forum so et al Gustavius Rex means King Gus am I right,barking up the wrong tree or just downright barking?!

 

 

l believe (Sue)tonius is a she as the other was a historian but spelled his name differently. Gustavius Rex was the name given to King Gustav the second of Sweden who belted the German and Austrian Catholics during the 30 year war. He is often referred to as the greatest Swedish King after Gustav Eriksson Wasa, who united the original 3 countries of todays Sweden (roughly translated as Svealand, i.e. land of Swedes, Gotaland, i.e land of goths and dalarna, land of Dalesmen). So, you're right my friend.

Second, l really need all the help you can give me as l'm in the process of filing for a set aside.

Regards

GR

[littledotty27]

you seem to have been with this from the start.Did Matlock bank ever actually register their charge on your property?looking at your extract it appears it was assigned before they ever did and a restriction was put on by spml to stop you selling the property to someone else or remortgaging without their consent while they were finalising the assigment.If the only charge on the property is to spml for 56k and you took out a 90+k mortgage with matlock sounds like an almighty cockup by spml as their charge only secures the monies therein mentioned ie 56k,can you elaborate on this.?Because the register is final ie definitive.

 

Ryde

Yes I have been on this from the start,with no answers to it..hence why I brought up the subject again,with re to the LR being mentioned.

 

Matlock never mentioned on LR,but another thought ive had is we signed paperwork in nov 05,received the advance from remortgage in dec,but deeds were signed in jan 06,how can the advance be released if deeds had not been signed? Surely,we all know a mortgage is not complete if no deeds are signed.

 

The figure of £50k is stated on the charges register at the LR,which was shown to myself when I payed a visit to my local office.

 

Are you telling me,because they c****d up,the amount on the register is the only amount they can claim back?

[I'm the bad guy?]

I would like to make a serious recommendation for this thread, as I am not a veteran, I do so with respect to the Vets.

 

The situation with our mortgages/loans with any Lehmans entities, SPML/PML/SPPL etc is now at at critical juncture. It could be at the scale of the unlawful bank charges. In light of this, the CAG originators, are NOT laymen, but ex-lawyers or with expert legal knowledge. Recent posters, are making statements without any verification from lawyers or actual legal advice. Debate aside, I am posting after I have sought either legal or financial advice from either lawyers or accountants. I am not referring to the knowledge base, regarding FSA regulations, SARs, various templates etc., and the excellent letters posted up here.

 

So to avoid any confusion to new or even old cags in this thread, I suggest within our posts, we use a code to relate the 'credibility' of your post and source.

 

For example:

(S) solicitor; (B) barrister, (A) accountant ; (CH) Companies House, (CAB) Citizen Advice Bureau; (SLA) seek legal advice; (SFF) seek financial advice;

(OP) own opinion ; (PO) posters opinion ; (UN) unauthenticated......

 

Too many of us, and I include myself until recently, are regurgitating other posters and posts. These posts may or may not be credible, on specifically a legal or financial level. I have quoted SuperSleuth in the past, because Super is a lawyer, after I checked Supers' info(S&B). We must take caution to avoid giving mis-information which has not been authenticated.

 

comments?

 

 

ITBG?

Edited November 1, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?

[ryde]

GR

In an attempt to show off my "A" level history achieved over 30 years ago do you mean gustavus adolphus king of sweden at the time of charles 5 the holy roman emperor,haven,t looked it up honest.If you can tell me your exact circumstances I can tell you I'm sure if your wifes interest in the property you own is actually overreached by the charge if this is what you are referring to.

Littledotty usually says on the register. charge in favour of spml in order to secure the sums therein mentioned.So if SPML state that the charge secures the sum of 50k thats all it secures how can it secure any other figure?Your property is charged to spml for the amount of 50k if that is whats on the register but dont forget they also have a restriction on there which means you cannot remortgage or otherwise dispose of the property without their consent.The only amount secured on your property is the amount stated in the charge document if this has been stated as 50k that is all thats secured the balance of the 96k would be an unsecured debt.You really need to get hold of the land registry and confirm that their charge secures this amount.They might be able to tell you over the phone or you can search the register online for a small fee but it doesn't usually tell you the amount that the charge secures in the charges register this will be held by the documents lodged at the land registry.

Another thought it says price paid 50k this isn't what you originally paid for the property is it? then you remortgaged with matlock for 96k because this is entirely different.

[I'm the bad guy?]

Lil'dotty,

 

This is (OP). SuperSleuth way back gave quite a bit of information on your Matlock transfer. I would get legal advice on it from CAB or other if you can, because it looks like(from Supers posts), your property registration was all wrong.

 

 

ITBG?

[littledotty27]

I have been in the LR & that is what it states on there system,that a charge for £50k is registered for spml.

 

The house was purchased for £35k then remortged for £51k all with RBS.

When remortgage with these idiots £45k was paid back to RBS.

 

In what way is it, thats entirely different?

[littledotty27]

I have been in the LR & that is what it states on there system,that a charge for £50k is registered for spml.

 

The house was purchased for £35k then remortged for £51k all with RBS.

When remortgage with these idiots £45k was paid back to RBS.

 

In what way is it, thats entirely different?

 

This is (OP). SuperSleuth way back gave quite a bit of information on your Matlock transfer. I would get legal advice on it from CAB or other if you can, because it looks like(from Supers posts), your property registration was all wrong.

 

On what terms could I proceed with this?

If you see from previous posts the LR wasn't interested back in March & admitted aslong as there was a charge on it didn't affect them,the only way to get the restriction lifted was through a court order,either given by a DJ or through a solicitor.

Been down both of those routes & still keep on hitting those brick walls.

[ryde]

ITBG

respect fully what you are saying from my perspective studied Land law at college for 3 years and have been involved in property litigation intensely on and off for 20 years.Even fully qualified lawyers would have to refer some of the issues discussed here to counsel.Look at the legal/equitable title to sue debate alone where in my humble opinion the lawyer was proved wrong as Pender is precedentally fundamental.My experience with the courts is that if you are a litigant in person whatever precedents you state or book law you are immediately prejudiced by your position,that is the constant barrier that you have to get over.The old boys club.

These debates are all opinion whether qualified or unqualified and we all get it wrong even the lawyers,I have dealt with and had experience with solicitors for years and I cannot tell you the number of times they get it wrong.The only opinion I would truly trust is a specialised barrister and look at whats going on in the high court now with lehmans, 2 top line barristers and one of them is going to be wrong big time.You have to look at the advice and do your own research to validate that advice if you are planning to take it on board.Most of the time you only know part of the story.

[I'm the bad guy?]

LD,

 

(OP). I would make an application to the court on an N244 to get at least a hearing for the restriction to be removed. I think the cost is £75. The LR cannot remove a 'legitimate' charge without a court order(LR).

 

 

ITBG?

Edited November 1, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

I acknowledge your experience. But, I cite you as an example, where you have recently come to this thread, and accepted the argument of Suetonius, on the title issue and then conveyed this as 'fact' to other cags. I accept Sue is a lawyer, as is SuperSleuth(have you read?). Was this your opinion, or another posters, or on legal advice? I accept through legal doctrine, you can have multiple outcomes, but as correctly stated to me, 'it is dangerous' to act on the advice of any poster. Posts provide us with info and ideas to authenticate with professionals or organisations.

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

ld

Your predicament is that you cannot remortgage with another lender because spml,s restriction prevents this without their agreement thus tying you to them and their redemption fee which on the face of it is exorbitant ,if this is your situation then these are the grounds to apply for removal of the restriction which would no doubt be done by mediation between you the dj and the agreement of spml .your grounds being the unfairness of the redemption figure and charges(which are the current hot topic with the gmac decision)Would you be able to remortgage for about the same figure?

ITBG, TITLE ISSUE.

posted from first hand experience from land registry adjudicator(equivalent to a high court judge).I advanced the argument that PML had no title to sue as had securitized the mortgage answer straight back was who owns the legal title to the charge.PML as stated in the eurosail prospectus.end of argument.Argument dismissed by adjudicator and believe me I was praying that they would accept this.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

Well the LR, I contacted said otherwise, and that I had a legitmate case esp.under s27 LRA 2002part4. I was represented by a solicitor and is now at a high level. So its not the end...just the beginning of the end.

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

ITBG

please please let me know the outcome nothing would please me more than for you to be right especially coming from another area of the land registry which would be quotable.(adjudicator is independent of the land registry so any dispute is automatically referred to him by them they don't go into the dispute as long as there are arguable grounds )I am facing months of litigation and if you are right it could be ended,thats why the title being transferred to the bondholders concerns me so much it cannot happen quick enough.My case will soon be set down for a hearing so any conclusive info would be vital.Will look at lra 2002 again.

[wonderman]

Hi ITBG,

 

Do you have a hearing date in the High Court? Is it soon?

 

PS. Make sure that your legal team read the Law Commission Report No. 271 (HC114). Especially para. 9.4 and 9.5 of that report. And make sure that the use the interpretation of "registrable disposition" as defined at s.132(1) LRA 2002 when they interpret s.58(2). This may sound cryptic, but it is vital to the correct interpretation of the Act.

 

Wonderman

Edited November 1, 2009 by wonderman

[Crapstone]

Strange that Capstone have refunded me but the mortgage payment they have taken is more..not by much..The last 3 payments have all differed from what their statement of quarterly payments stated. Again not by much ..and £3 at the most.

 

BTW I do believe Suetonius is a he.

 

Does anyone even know what resolution they want from all this and researched what options are available? I can only say to look ahead and keep it as realistic as you can to your losses.

[Suetonius]

BTW I do believe Suetonius is a he.

 

Cough Cough (drop).. Yes I can confirm that Suetonius is a he

[Suetonius]

Hi ITBG,

 

Do you have a hearing date in the High Court? Is it soon?

 

PS. Make sure that your legal team read the Law Commission Report No. 271 (HC114). Especially para. 9.4 and 9.5 of that report. And make sure that the use the interpretation of "registrable disposition" as defined at s.132(1) LRA 2002 when they interpret s.58(2). This may sound cryptic, but it is vital to the correct interpretation of the Act.

 

Wonderman

 

I don't really go for cryptic messages on a public forum, so I will post the information, as referred to above.

 

As I understand it Law Commission Report No.271 was entitled: "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century"

 

(please bear in mind when this report was written (2001) and the subseuqent implementation of the LRA 2002)

 

Being the nice friendly person that I am I have attached a copy of that report to this post.

Registered charges as charges by way of legal mortgage

 

9.4 At present, there are two ways of creating a legal mortgage, whether of registered or unregistered land.8 The first method is a mortgage by demise (in the case of freeholds) or subdemise (where the property is leasehold). Such a mortgage operates as a lease (or, in the case of leasehold property, a sub-lease) by the mortgagor to the mortgagee.

 

The second method is a charge by way of legal mortgage, which gives the mortgagee the same rights as if he or she had been granted a mortgage term under a mortgage by

demise or subdemise. In practice, a charge by way of legal mortgage is invariably used, and mortgages by demise are virtually obsolete.

 

There are a number of reasons for this. For example, a charge by way of legal mortgage is a simpler transaction than a mortgage by demise or subdemise, and can be employed to charge both freehold and leasehold properties in one document. If a mortgage by demise is employed, the

freeholds and leaseholds have to be charged separately.

 

9.5 Under the Land Registration Act 1925, there is, in effect, a presumption that a registered charge takes effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage. It will have such

effect unless—

 

(1) there is a provision to the contrary; or

(2) it is made or takes effect as a mortgage by demise or subdemise.

 

Given that mortgages by demise or subdemise are so seldom employed, there seems little point in retaining the option of employing them in any new legislation. We

therefore provisionally recommend that a registered charge should always take effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage and that it should no longer be possible to create a mortgage of registered land by demise or subdemise.

 

Section 132 (1) of the LRA 2002 states:

 

“registrable disposition” means a disposition which is required to be completed by registration under section 27;

Section 58 (2) of the LRA 2002 states:

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the entry is made in pursuance of a registrable disposition in relation to which some other registration requirement remains to be met.

[Suetonius]

Pass me the brick wall when you've finished with it please.

 

Can I please have it when you are done Crapstone, I will give it back I promise

[Suetonius]

following from Crapstone above...

 

1. Many families have been saved from repossession by the simple fact of this thread and the good and kind people who contribute on a very regular basis to it.

 

2. Many of the posters are deeply involved in difficult high pressure lobbying where it is not always productive to scream from the rooftops, and certainly not conducive to any outcome in the general good. For the avoidance of doubt this includes extensive searches to find a top law firm willing to take this on. Further it involves high intensity pressure on the authorities.

 

3. Some argue it does no good. That the FSA, the OFT, the FOS, Trading Standards (The CPS if you want to go down a criminal route which would fail) Parliament and the Treasury Select Committee and the Courts (might as well chuck in the media too) are all so in thrall to the banking system that there can be no justice. Oh? All well and good then! We'll just bend over and kiss our backsides good-bye. The fact is that landscapes change when time and patient pressure is applied. And the fact is that the vested interests of the banking industry will find new ways to assert themselves. If the system is so irredeemably corrupt can anyone tell me what the point of taking this before the courts is?

 

4. I know that there are people on this thread doing their bit to raise this up. And they have had some success in pushing hard at what we know is an open door. We need to keep pushing. Put the pressure on the barstewards who sold you your dodgy mortgage. Send in a letter of complaint. SAR them. Issue claims against them (but only after careful consideration of your own position). Harass their solicitors with endless requests for information. Complain to OFCOM and Otelo about the frequency and nature of the phone calls. Complain to to the ICO when they don't comply with the SAR. Write to your MP. Lodge a complaint to the OFT and FSA, recognising they don't deal with individual complaints but you have noticed that your firm acts in a way similar to GMAC. Contact Watchdog. Contact Moneybox Radio 4. Write to the times the telegraph, the mail & the guardian. Contact your local MEP and ask them to raise the issue with the EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner. Write to the Treasury Select Committee who have been investigating all this sub-prime garbage. Complain to your firm's local Trading Standards. Get the CAB involved, and if you're desperate for a high level barrister to become involved you could always contact your local Free Representation Unitas well. In short raise a stink about this. The most difficult point you raise is that we wouldn't have to worry about costs. Trust me, in a case of this nature, anyone not worrying about costs is about to have their ars*s kicked

 

5. Final point. They were successful in the US on a very simple premise. Most of the securitizations in the US involved wholesale legal sale of the title.

That has never been proved to be the case here, but I live in hope of one day demonstrating such. Until that day arrives I'll settle for what I have always done. I'll keep pushing at that open door.

 

Good post

 

I would tick your scales for this post but CAG says I can't until I share the love around first.