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

[Suetonius]

oh where is sue when we need her

 

sorry VC,

 

I am dealing with some personal matters at the moment. I am still reading up and will be back towards the end of the week

[Suetonius]

With regard to making a complaint to the FSA. I honestly can't see any harm that this could do.

 

However, when making a complaint I would suggest (without wanting to teach anyone to suck eggs) that you think very carefully about the content of your complaint.

 

Is it usually advisable to break any complaint letter down into three parts.

 

1) What happened.

2) Why was it wrong

3) What you want to resolve your complaint (very important)

 

Withregard to part two, I would suggest detailing how you have been financially disadvantaged and if possible by how much.

 

Part three is often over looked. If you don't tell them how you want your complaint to be resolved, you may not get the outcome that you are looking for.

 

Sorry I know the above is brief, I am just reading through some back posts whilst I have the chance

[Crapstone]

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

 

All yours Mrs.. (cough)

 

It's in kit form with plasters enclosed..bandages are optional and listed on my charges sheet.

[Suetonius]

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?

 

Good idea in theory ITBG?,

 

However, as demonstrated in recent posts two different people have spoken to companies house and have been given two different answers.

 

Different solictors and barristers will also give different answers to the same question.

 

The authenticity is not really the issue. This issue is who is right and who is wrong.

 

However, I would strongly agree that if possible everyone should quote and detail their sources (be it legislation or even publications) which support their opinions and views as I have done in this thread:

Mortgage Securitisation Equitable or Legal assignment

 

Right that is it from me for a few more days.

 

Keep up the fight everyone....

[Suetonius]

All yours Mrs.. (cough)

 

It's in kit form with plasters enclosed..bandages are optional and listed on my charges sheet.

 

lol do have some painkillers aswell ? I feel a headache coming on...

[Crapstone]

Thanks for your input Sue...Take me last aspirin and be gone. Rome needs you

[ryde]

Do you know this is addictive and better than watching the telly,its like reading a book you can't put down,characters change all the time or reappear and storylines long forgotten it appears come back and are restarted again.

crapstone I believe you are a vet what resolution are you hoping for?

 

What I would like to see is a respectable lender(do any exist) take over the mortgage books of the s.......heads everyone has been dealing with and the fsa force the s.......s to refund all their ripoff charges and cut out their predatory practices by statute so they can no longer exist,I utterly despise them if you ran a shop like they have run theirs you'd have no customers only the ones you'd locked in your shop!!(I run a shop),capitalise any arrears,treat all with respect and understanding on a mortgage rate that is tied to the bank of England base rate and use repossession as a last resort.Such lenders did exist once the old corner High st. woolwich for one where you could have a chat with the manager about your problems but then they were taken over by barclays and everyone became a number and money was God.Surely this is what the fsa guidelines state should be happening in any event.Its not that much to ask is it.?

[gustavius rex]

Hi Guys,

Have been in contact with solicitors who specialise in this type of litigation today. They, or other collegues, may be interested in our case and have askedme to send an outline re. complaints, assumed legal possibilities and outcome expected. l can do this for myself, of course, but need as many of you as possible to support me here. lf we end up with too many different cases we will not stand a chance. All that is going to happen is that we will have hundreds of different cases in court. We need to concentrate on a few main issues that may stand a reasonable chance to hold up in court. Any ideas at all will be welcome and l also need to get an approx. figure on the number of mortgagoors that will join the battle. All of you interested pls log in here.

GR

[JonCris]

With regard to making a complaint to the FSA. I honestly can't see any harm that this could do.

 

However, when making a complaint I would suggest (without wanting to teach anyone to suck eggs) that you think very carefully about the content of your complaint.

 

Is it usually advisable to break any complaint letter down into three parts.

 

1) What happened.

2) Why was it wrong

3) What you want to resolve your complaint (very important)

 

Withregard to part two, I would suggest detailing how you have been financially disadvantaged and if possible by how much.

 

Part three is often over looked. If you don't tell them how you want your complaint to be resolved, you may not get the outcome that you are looking for.

 

Sorry I know the above is brief, I am just reading through some back posts whilst I have the chance

 

 

ALSO you need to make it clear that should your mortgage be securitized the many pitfalls & change in protection were NEVER explained. In other words that unknown to you what were sold was not what you got

[JonCris]

PS & as the FSA have already admitted before Parliament they didn't realize the extent to which the consumer would lose out with securitization & will no longer approve such products that offer no real protection to the debtor they can hardly deny now your claim/compliant has merit

[gustavius rex]

This would then meet Regulation 5(1) - Defenition of an unfair term:

 

Contrary to good faith significant imbalance to the detriment of consumer.

 

GR

[JonCris]

Quite gr

[wonderman]

WARNING RE POST NUMBER 2150.

 

Suetonius, being the nice guy as he is, has kindly attached a copy of a Land Registration for the Twenty First Century. THIS IS NOT THE LAW COMMISSION REPORT REFERRED TO IN POST NUMBER 2147. Suetonius has quoted paragraphs from the CONSULTATION DOCUMENT that preceded the drafting of the Act. Parliament had decided to REFORM land registration and accordingly, consulted with various bodies to explore ideas for REFORM. After the consultation, The Law Commission's Report number 271 was presented to Parliament in July 2001, and it is Law Comm 271 that contains the draft Bill that Parliament debated. Also the LAW COMM 271 and the Bill are the public policies of Parliament and are the public policies that Parliament enacted under the LRA 2002.

 

Post number 2147 expressly refers to paras. 9.4 and 9.5 of the Law Commission Report LAW COMM NO. 271 (HC114). That Law Comm 271 at paras. 9.4 and 9.5 states:

 

REGISTRATION AS PROPRIETOR

Conclusiveness

9.4 One of the most fundamental principles of registered conveyancing is that it is registration that vests the legal estate in the registered proprietor. Clause 58(1) of the Bill provides accordingly that if, on the entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate,the legal estate would not otherwise be vested in him or her, it shall be deemed to be vested in him or her as a result of registration. Thus, for example, if a person is registered as proprietor on the strength of a forged transfer, the legal estate will vest in that transferee even though the transfer was a nullity.

 

9.5 In Part IV of this Report it was explained that the Bill lays down the registration requirements for registrable dispositions in Schedule 2. It is therefore necessary for the purposes of the principle set out in paragraph 9.4 for the Bill to make provision for the case where some but not all of those registration requirements are met. It therefore provides that the principle stated in paragraph 9.4 does not

apply where

(1) there is a registrable disposition; and

(2) an entry is made in the register in respect of that disposition; but

(3) some further entry is required to meet the registration requirements in

Schedule 2.

 

But for this exception to the principle in paragraph 9.4, the provisions of

Schedule 2 would not be registration requirements at all.

 

To avoid any further confusion, anyone who wants to use this report i.e., LAW COMM No. 271, please see attached. You will find paras. 9.4 and 9.5 at page 184-5. It is recommended that you read those paragraphs in conjuction with the footnotes contained in those two paragraphs.

 

In plain English (in my opinion), s.58(1) is the principle that the Land Register is conclusive as to title; and s.58(2) disapplies the principle of conclusiveness when there are further s.27 registration requirements that remain to be met. In the context of securitisations, where the SPV (who owns the legal title), has failed to complete its s.27 requirements, the registered proprietor (i.e. the person suing you) cannot rely on the pricinple that the register is conclusive because there are further s.27 requirements that remain unmet. Hope this clarifies matters

 

Nonetheless, our thanks to Suetonius for supplying the consultation document which preceded LAW COMM 271

 

Wonderman

lc271 LAW COMM REPORT ON LRA 2002.pdf

Edited November 2, 2009 by wonderman

[I'm the bad guy?]

Wonderman,

 

many thanks for that, very useful

 

 

ITBG?

[gustavius rex]

Guys,

l need to put a paper together pronto, why, your input is required asap. No more talkie talkie, but, now walkie walkie. All of you need to contribute and l need to get a feeling for the number that will be involved. This is not a binding commitment to anything, rather a cost free feeler for what may be possible. But, it is urgent and those who really want to get involved should note their interest now.

GR

[I'm the bad guy?]

GR,

 

count me in

 

 

ITBG?

[cagger80]

An excellent example as to why cryptic posts are not advisable.

 

They can be easily misunderstood. If you have something to say, it is better to just it than beat around the bush

[wonderman]

Hi ITBG - you're very welcome - I wish you all the very best with your case.

 

Cagger80 - in my defence, I would say that there was nothing cryptic about LAW COMM 271. I do not take responsibility for Suetonius' posting of the wrong report. I did not direct anyone to the wrong report but having seen that Suetonius had inadvertently quoted from the wrong report I did ensure that the mis-guidance was brought to everyone's attention.

[cagger80]

No defence required WM. I am not going to stick up for or defend Suetonius. I expect he will explain how and why he misunderstood your post upon his return.

 

I consider it beneficial that when possible links to sources are provided as nit everyone has time to trawl the net to under the complexity and meanings of each and every obscure post.

 

Just my own personal perspective.

 

May the ****ing contest that is repeated over and over again in this thread long continue.

[littledotty27]

ITBG

Count me in..Where do I start...

[I'm the bad guy?]

Lil'dotty,

 

Its GusRs show, let him know

 

 

ITBG?

[littledotty27]

so it is..sorry GR,had along day with sicky children

[midge61]

I'll help if i can

[verycatchy7939]

Hi Guys,

Have been in contact with solicitors who specialise in this type of litigation today. They, or other collegues, may be interested in our case and have askedme to send an outline re. complaints, assumed legal possibilities and outcome expected. l can do this for myself, of course, but need as many of you as possible to support me here. lf we end up with too many different cases we will not stand a chance. All that is going to happen is that we will have hundreds of different cases in court. We need to concentrate on a few main issues that may stand a reasonable chance to hold up in court. Any ideas at all will be welcome and l also need to get an approx. figure on the number of mortgagoors that will join the battle. All of you interested pls log in here.

GR

 

 

Count me in anything you need pm me and i willgive you my details

[ryde]

In plain English (in my opinion), s.58(1) is the principle that the Land Register is conclusive as to title; and s.58(2) disapplies the principle of conclusiveness when there are further s.27 registration requirements that remain to be met. In the context of securitisations, where the SPV (who owns the legal title), has failed to complete its s.27 requirements, the registered proprietor (i.e. the person suing you) cannot rely on the pricinple that the register is conclusive because there are further s.27 requirements that remain unmet. Hope this clarifies matters.

originally posted by wonderman.

 

Sorry but still don't get this in the context of pml/spml etc the spv ie eurosail clearly does not own the legal title in mortgages securitized by these lenders/originators it clearly states that in all their prospectuses,they only own the equitable or beneficial titles pml/spml hold the legal title thats why they have the right to sue,you cannot be sued by eurosail.

An easy analogy is my wife gives me all the money to buy a house which is registered in my sole name .ie the legal title she has an equitable or beneficial interest of 100% but she cannot sell the property only the legal registered title holder can do this.I would then have a duty as her trustee to pay her the proceeds of sale,this is fundamental.

If the legal title is transferred which is possibly going to happen in the near future from pml etc to eurosail they then have to apply to land registry to register their legal ownership of the charge.

So how does this legislation apply here?

 

GR I cannot be counted in as do not have a mortgage with them as explained but will give you my ex's details who does have a mortgage with them if you like as I know will fully agree with what you are doing

Edited November 2, 2009 by ryde