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

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

you need to go way back to the debate between SuperSleuth and Suetonius, on this thread and then post on Sues.

 

it would take forever to explain this, as it started even before my time, last year. For the record(OP), you need the Mortgage Sale Agreement, not the prospectus(best described as a 'sales pitch').

 

 

ITBG?

with best intentions

[h8them]

what is the evidence that you and your solicitor have ITBG?

[I'm the bad guy?]

h8them,

 

most has been acquired on this thread, the rest I cannot disclose yet, as other posters in CAG have revealed 'Jackals'.

 

 

ITBG?

[h8them]

h8them,

 

most has been acquired on this thread, the rest I cannot disclose yet, as other posters in CAG have revealed 'Jackals'.

 

 

ITBG?

 

i can understand that. does that also mean you are unable at this time to answer the questions sue asked you on his thread a couple of weeks ago?

 

 

So,

 

 

• Have all the sources that I have posted simply misunderstood securitisation in the UK ?
  

 

 

• Can you prove that a legal assignment (compliant with UK law) has taken place ?
  

[I'm the bad guy?]

yes & no, yes

 

 

 

ITBG?

[brassed-off-2]

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

 

count me in GR.

[gustavius rex]

Please, please, can we stop arguing over legal v benefcial ownerships. Beside, it will not be Eurosail that will take over the legal titles, but, the Trustee for the bondholders.

 

Also, l do not mind if you mix me up with EiE, l take that as a vote of confidence, but, l am not here to start any lengthy re-presentation of possible evidence, particularily as we all who have been involved in this thread for some time, know what we hope to achieve. The only possible route is the 1999 No. 2083 Consumer Protection - The Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. The particular provisions would be Contractual Terms That Have Not Been Individually Negotiated. 5. Unfair Terms. 6. Assessment of Unfair terms. 7. Written Contracts. Schedule 2. 1 a, b, e, i, k, o, p - giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latters agreement, and q.

 

GR

[brassed-off-2]

Just come across this,

Click on the witness statement link... makes interesting reading in parts!!

 

Client Assets Update - Scheme of Arrangement - Court of Appeal Jurisdiction Hearing - 26 October 2009 - PwC UK

[gustavius rex]

Just come across this,

Click on the witness statement link... makes interesting reading in parts!!

 

Client Assets Update - Scheme of Arrangement - Court of Appeal Jurisdiction Hearing - 26 October 2009 - PwC UK

 

 

lnteresting, but, does at this point in time not concern affiliated held assets, i.e. PML/SPML/LMC. However, as these companies sits on large chunks of assets it will not take long before the vultures arrive. Dead bodies stink and vultures can smell death a long long way. l wouls hazard to guess that they are mainly dealing with US assets at this point, with a sprinkling of whatever LBE holds here. l do not know how the investors and their trusts will handle our asset pool, but, expects we shall find out shortly.

GR

[Crapstone]

I don't mind getting involved GR, so you can count me in.

 

Just for the record I'm taking my own action against them. Something I know is a gamble, a massive one if I lose, but am looking to cover myself for that.

 

Someone asked what I want from all this as compensation. That will become clear in due course.

[gustavius rex]

I don't mind getting involved GR, so you can count me in.

 

Just for the record I'm taking my own action against them. Something I know is a gamble, a massive one if I lose, but am looking to cover myself for that.

 

Someone asked what I want from all this as compensation. That will become clear in due course.

 

 

This is not to impede anyones private action. What l want is for the solicitors to tell us if they think we have a case, based on the facts we will present. Once l have a, in my and your, opinion a reasonable assessment of our claim, then we shall take formal action. However, let me say it straight out now, l am convinced the unfair terms in consumer contracts more than cover our case. This is a European regulation and we do tend to think more on the lines of the consumers, i.e. the people, than greedy investors in Europe. We shall see what they say, but, the larger the number of victims l can refer to, the more likely is the chance we will get a larger ''no win no fee'' solicitor on board. lt's up to all of you guys and l feel l've done what l can now, to get the circus going.

GR

[wonderman]

GR,

 

You raise an excellent point in your post number 2184. The unfair terms in consumer contracts EU Directive is: Directive 93/13/EEC which EU Directive was transposed into UK law under S.I. 1999/2083, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

The contractual "rights" that the lenders rely on all fall within the Directive in that, they are all imposed on borrowers without the borrowers having any chance of influencing the terms and conditions. Therefore the court must make a determination as to whether the contractual term being enforced is fair or unfair before it enforces the lenders right to rely on the term.

 

Don't forget that even for those borrowers who already have been repossessed, the contractual term that purports to give the lender the "right" to add all its obscene costs to the loan is also a term that should be challenged under UTCC Regs.

 

Here's another pointer. Under ECJ jurisprudence, when a court of the member states is considering the terms of a consumer contract in which the regulations are applicable, the Judge is obliged to first: make a determination as to whether the term is fair or not. Having made this determination, if the term is unfair, then the term is not enforceable against the consumer.

 

The ECJ has held that the Judges of the nation states are under an obligation to decide the question of fairness or unfairnees "of his own motion". Which means, that the Judge must decide the fairness or not, even when the consumer has not asked the Judge to decide whether it's fair or not.

 

The reason that the ECJ have put this duty and obligation on the Judges of the national courts is because, the ECJ reasoned that consumers are usually unrepresented and usually don't have any idea of their rights (all true). So the ECJ said, if the purpose and intention of the Directive is to be achieved, i.e. to protect consumers from unfair terms, then the onus must be on the Judges to make the determination of fairness or unfairness of their own motion. In other words, the consumer does not need to put it in their defence and does not need to expressly need to invoke S.I. 199/2083 to ask for the consumer protection. The British courts must give the consumer the protection that the EU has given its citizens and its down to the British Judges to make sure they get it!

 

To fully appreciate the obligation of the Judges, which (in my opinion, certainly most, if not all) our Judges systematical flout. It follows that whether through ignorance or deliberate, most of our Judges are in violation of EU law. Do a Bailii.org seach for two ECJ cases which are:

 

Oceano Grupo Editorial SA v Quintero (I think this one was decided in the year 2000) and see also,

Pannon GSM Zrt. V Erzsebet, EUECJ C-243/09 (4 June 2009)

[Dangermouse]

l am convinced the unfair terms in consumer contracts more than cover our case. Posted by Gustavius Rex

I agree, I am sure this is what we need to concentrate on, I have raised this with the FOS re: Capstone about 10 months ago.

 

Dangermouse

 

Dangermouse

[wonderman]

Dangermouse - Agreed. The UTCC Regulations cover all consumer contracts where one side of the contract is a consumer and the other side is a provider of goods or services who gives the consumer their pre-printed terms and conditions. Thus it covers financial services as well as other consumer contracts e.g. mobile phone contracts, maybe utility bills etc.

 

Point is, if as EIE has said our courts are irredeemably corrupt, a sentiment with which I agree, then maybe the only way to get some fairness is to take direct action at the EU's Court of First Instance. All citizens of the EU (which includes us) can take direct action to enforce EU law where our instiutions have failed to enforce those EU laws. The ECJ has made it clear that we consumers have that consumer protection - if our courts and other institutions such as FSA etc., won't protect us, then why not consider asking the ECJ?

Edited November 2, 2009 by wonderman

[mollie5549]

Hello GR,

 

Please count me in.

 

I have been subbing with interest whilst awaiting the outcome of my own complaint to Capstone submitted at the end of September.

Received a letter today to say that the 4 week deadline has been extended by three weeks as they are still investigating my complaint.

Interestingly enough my contact telephone number for the investigator is in London not High Wycombe although all communication is on Capstone headed paper.

Can anyone explain the reason for this?

[enoughisenough]

Yes. The Broadgate office. Sometimes happens when they feel the need to 'refer up'. I. E. Not dealing with a monkey.

[enoughisenough]

They'll continue to front and harass but that's all they've got left. It's over for them and they know it. They've now resorted to losing payments in order to force the last few possession orders they are still capable of making. Pity the new lord chief justice only really understands criminal law. Then again maybe not.

[Crapstone]

Is the revolving door stuck again?

 

We've been through the UTCC and countless other laws, directives and codes. Do we really need to go over it all again and have it copied? We should all be able to understand them by now and the options available.

[ryde]

GR

This is purely for clarification; you are proposing a no win no fee action against spml/pml/lmc and their various dervatives ie the LENDERS

with whom our original mortgage contracts were taken out based on unfair contract terms and associated legislation.

In my humble opinion this seems fine but may I respectfully submit for consideration that the unfair charges side etc is also included in this action as per the recent gmac findings by the fsa.for the following reasons.

1)I have always been taught that the more alternatives submitted in any court action,the better chance of success,you only need succeed on one count.

2)The fsa have already found against gmac for exactly the same abuses as perpetrated by capstone who are undoubtedly the agents of the Lenders.

3)Such findings by a regulator against a Lender(gmac) for breeches of the fsa act 2000 would carry enormous precedental weight with any court and would I believe be a cast iron certainty for success on this single count alone.

4)Compensation for their practices would be quantified by the court rather than the fsa or the lender(which is a paltry refund of any overcharge) possibly at a much higher level especially in the light of uneccessary repossessions.

5)These practices were also a continuation of the unfair contract terms enforced on the borrower in the first place and reinforce this argument considerably.

6)It would be a relatively easy task to simply adapt the gmac findings by the fsa and apply them to these Lenders and their agent(capstone)

 

What do you all think?

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde

[Crapstone]

Ryde.

 

It's already a given fact that the charges are unfair. I have been refunded by the FOS and could have enforced it through the courts, so the final ruling should apply to all not just picked and chosen. My situation is nothing different from anyone else here..it's probably worse as payment was witheld.

 

We are being treated like idiots that don't share information. The fact is you never take no for an answer either from the regulatory bodies or the lender. It's not an easy path and grinds you down. Strains your relationships and puts a stop on planning ahead.

 

By planning ahead I mean it all seems pointless if you think you think you lose ..still have charges added and no chance of ever paying back the loan that is ever increasing. How are you supposed to keep the property in good repair or even want to with that s**t hanging over your head, knowing that it could be repossessed?

 

The court option is the best available and you pays your money and takes your chances .

[ryde]

CRAPSTONE

Agree fully that the court option is best just hoping to add a certainty to the claim and get proper compensation for those repossesed instead of some ridiculous offer of refunding any overcharges which probably were a main cause of the repossesion in the first place.The claim would follow the line of unfair contract and then unfair charges once tied into a contract that it was extremely difficult to get out of as exemplified by littledotty and most others.

Edited November 3, 2009 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

Ryde, Crapstone and all others who wonder,

 

l have not proposed to limit anything to one or two specific items. lf you noted in my post, above, l referred to schedule 2, which is the indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. The terms included, among others, term (e) - ''requiring any consumer who fails to fullfil his obligations to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation''. l do not think any statement pertaining to charges for non-payment, arrears, letters, phone calls, ball pens, tissue or whatever else our friends at Capstone claim for can be clearer. Please note that the indicative list is NON-EXHAUSTIVE!!!!! and that means, it is not only limited to what has been included under schedule 2, but, can have items added. In construction contracts we do something similar by stating that a particular work Shall be but not necessarily limited to...

So, time to stop diddling and get on the boat. l shall start to draft my paper today. For your info. l really will get p....d off if l hear anymore rumblings about not doing anything. You all have now an opportunity to actively do something and as far as l can see, there is absolutely nothing to lose, but, everything to gain.

 

GR

 

P.S.

Wonderman, do you think this could include commercial and non- commercial leasehold contract agreements as well?

D.S.

[mollie5549]

Thank you EIE

 

Must admit I refused to be intimidated or given the run around by this lot.

 

I would urge everyone that is in arrears and dealing with this company to request a statement of arrears. I didn't know this existed as I have always only received a quarterly statement which to decipher is a joke....deliberate attempt I believe so that people just do not look at them in any detail.

I received an ad hoc mortgage statement when wanting to check that the blocks building insurance farce had been refunded back onto my account and the arrears statement was included.

My beef is the interest on arrears where I have found the figures do not add up. In short the interest being charged was increasing when the arrears balance was reducing!

I went through it with a fine tooth and it made interesting reading (no pun intended) Part of my complaint is for them to confirm how the interest on arrears is calculated as Capstone said it should be the same rate as my mortgage but my arrears statement says otherwise.

If I had not spotted this despite my agreement to pay an amount each month towards clearing the arrears they would have continued increasing.

[eagleforms]

GR, you aremost certainly translating words into action and we should all applaud you for your forthrightness. You have a very good point about leases, especially assured shorthold tenancy agreements falling under the unfair contracts legislation. I sell an assured shorthold tenacy pack and I was involved in a wrangle with the OFT for over a year regarding clauses in the lease that they considered to be unfair. This all started because a man Germany took his landlord tocourt because his lease prevented him from having pets and he wanted to keep a goldfish! All the companies selling standard leases had togothroughthe hoop, bur letting agents get away with it because the OFT don't know what they have in their leases.

Also, Mollie, thanks for bringing this to our attention and I am now writing to SPML for an arrears statement.

Just one more question, GR, how do we give you support in this action?

[gustavius rex]

GR, you aremost certainly translating words into action and we should all applaud you for your forthrightness. You have a very good point about leases, especially assured shorthold tenancy agreements falling under the unfair contracts legislation. I sell an assured shorthold tenacy pack and I was involved in a wrangle with the OFT for over a year regarding clauses in the lease that they considered to be unfair. This all started because a man Germany took his landlord tocourt because his lease prevented him from having pets and he wanted to keep a goldfish! All the companies selling standard leases had togothroughthe hoop, bur letting agents get away with it because the OFT don't know what they have in their leases.

Also, Mollie, thanks for bringing this to our attention and I am now writing to SPML for an arrears statement.

Just one more question, GR, how do we give you support in this action?

 

 

l need to know if the act is applicable for a commercial property where the leasehold agreement is between two individuals rather than a landlord and a company or between two companies.

 

You do not need to do anything right now, as l'm only interested in tallying up as many affected mortgagoors as possible. When l'm ready, l shall let you all, who are interested know what needs to be done.

 

GR