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

[DanDesperate]

Patsy ?? dont think so, was a Lehmans Director I think.....

 

Single... not in 2005 when she sold her condo in NY with partner for $1.9mill

its amazing what integrity, respect and customer focus can get you

[zither]

I dont know if this is of interest to anyone ?

PREFERRED MORTGAGES RESIDUALS 2 LIMITED, LONDON, EC2M 7JH (Company Report) - Experian - AlacraStore.com

It mentions a few things about Preferred that are totally over my head.

[DanDesperate]

From Nov 2001

Attia's mandate is to raise the profile of Lehman Brothers in European securitisation and eventually put it on a par with the bank's status in the US.

That is no easy task in such a diverse and highly competitive market — but Lehman has already won some high profile mandates since her arrival, including a Eu9bn property transaction for the Italian government and a joint bookrunning spot on Abbey National's latest mortgage deal.

What is your mandate in this job?

Lehman has always been very strong in securitisation in the US and if you look at our track record over the last seven or eight years, we have been in the top three. My mandate is really to position ourselves among the market leaders in Europe.

 

Nice to know she is more than a Patsy..... one of the ring-leaders I think... hopefully she, as a director at the end of battle will face all the war crimes !! She was and still is a leading force in this fiasco

[eagleforms]

Following on from my posts about new charges from SPPL, I propose sending the following letter:

3rd November 2009

Director of Servicing

Capstone Mortgage Services Ltd

St John’s Place

Easton Street

High Wycombe

HP11 1NL

Loan account number:

Dear Director of Servicing

I am not able to address you by name, as you have me, because your signature is illegible and you have not afforded me the courtesy of knowing your name. I am less than impressed with your title. It is reminiscent of the oily rag at my local garage who tries to tell me that an unbelievable amount of work will be required to change my light bulb, probably as much as having to lift the bonnet, assuming they can find the catch, which is tricky on a Ford, and then the whole dashboard assembly will need to be taken apart and then put back together again, and this will involve a Ford trained mechanic at £60 an hour for at least 4 hours.

Now, let’s look at your new tariff of charges.

Which one of your either/or’s do you intend to charge me because I can see that all of the first three can be applied equally well.

If you can get away with it, probably the Litigation Management Fee because with that charge, as I am paying an agreed sum of £100 per month to you against the arrears (which do not seem to be decreasing very rapidly, by the way, I wonder why), a charge of £115 a month means that every month I go £15 more into debt with you and you charge me a bit more interest each month on the ever growing debt.

Even as Director of Servicing (must be tough all this servicing, but I found that a paper bag helps for extreme cases, but lack of sleep gets you in the end!) you must by now have heard of the GMAC decision by the FSA and perhaps it might dawn on you that precisely the same ruling might well be made against you.

In view of that, you might like to have another look at the charges that you intend foisting on me on 1st Jan next year. If you insist that they are reasonable and are a true reflection on the cost of whatever it is you do, please let me have your justification for them in writing.

In addition, please send me a copy of my arrears statement. Despite paying you £100 every month against the arrears, they seem to go down very slowly.

Finally, I would be fascinated to learn from you as to how SPPL is an appointed representative of SPML, when SPPL has no directors and how Capstone Mortgage Services operates on behalf of Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd and I have a mortgage with SPML. Has the mortgage been assigned without my knowledge to Capstone or perhaps SPPL or even Eurosail. Whichever, I would really like to know, because, surely, somewhere along the line, someone should have let me know, don’t you think, Mr Service Director?

Please let me have your reply within the next 14 days and your name, as we are fascinated to know, otherwise there will be another complaint going into the OFT, FSA, FOS, Daily Mail? and anybody else I can think of. Do you really want another?

Yours faithfully

Any comments, please?

[eagleforms]

Hi guests!

[ryde]

eagleforms

try and supress your frustration and keep it short,formal and impersonal as a lawyer would respond.Let the regulator put the pressure on, just say you wish to instigate a formal complaint immediately through the fos and you require their response by return.Individual complaints without clout will be tossed in the bin hence they've tried it on with the litigation fee with you, there's nothing in your original contract which gives them the right to levy such a fee.

[enoughisenough]

Eagleforms. You have to give them forty days and receive their final response eff off letter before the FOS will look at it. In the meantime since the FsA and the OFT don't look at individual cases there is no reason why you can't notify them straight away of what you believe is widespread consumer detriment practices contrary to various rules regulations and law.

[eagleforms]

Many thanks Ryde and e-i-e. I will redraft. It would be good to know whether anyone else has received the same letter as me. Interesting that when some are getting their charges refunded, others are getting the charges increased. I wonder why.

[ryde]

Once you have a fos complaint in progress any litigation by the lender is usually adjourned.Despite reports to the contrary I got a wonderful service from them,they even rang me with progress reports but it did take 18 months (but no litigation and a very favourable deal negotiated which I would not have got in court and the lender has to pay their fee! think its £500)

[mollie5549]

Eagleform and Midge 69 if you are being charged a management fee with an agreed arrears payment schedule in place that you have kept to then I would ask Capstone why you are being asked to pay it when not all customers are being charged this fee.

 

I paid these fees for two months as I had missed two mortgage payments and was then three and half months in arrears. After fighting the threat of repossession by refusing to be intimidated by their solicitors and collections team I agreed to pay a set amount each month to clear the arrears as well as my normal monthly mortgage payment. Once this was agreed I was no longer charged an arrears management fee each month.

I have kept to this agreement for the last nine months so I would question these charges as not all Capstone customers in arrears are paying them.

[eagleforms]

Thanks Mollie. As I said earlier, some customers are being given charges refunds and some being charged more. Some being charged Management fees, some not. What is going on?

[on*the*case]

Eagleform and Midge 69 if you are being charged a management fee with an agreed arrears payment schedule in place that you have kept to then I would ask Capstone why you are being asked to pay it when not all customers are being charged this fee..............so I would question these charges as not all Capstone customers in arrears are paying them.

 

With Capstone the key date is the 15th of the month and they apply charges based on the payment/arrears position at that time, and regardless of what payments may be credited during the latter part of the month.

[mollie5549]

OTC,

 

My question then is what is the criteria?

 

If the key date is the 15th of each month then that makes sense when I was charged a late payment fee for paying the balance of one month's payment after that date. I am still over three months in arrears and have not paid this management fee so something is not right as we all should be treated the same one way or the other.

[enoughisenough]

Hi all

 

I may have missed something here so forgive. I've been out of the loop. Has anyone else received a new tariff of charges running to nearly six pages long?

 

I have and will now duly scan and copy to FOS, FSA and OFT along with the FSA's recent decision against GMAC-RFC and the good practice/bad practice guidelines for regulated firms that the FSA has issued. Is it possible (I wonder...) for a ghost company to still have any lending/charges/insurance/claim for breach policy at all?

 

In my own dim way I'm still trying to figure this out.

Edited November 5, 2009 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Gustavius Rex

 

The Consumer Protection Act 1999, 5 (5), Schedule 2 (p) is clear that a seller cannot transfer his rights and/or obligations without the consumers agreement.

 

And which Act of the UK Parliament might you be referring to here.?Extensive digging has revealed to me that a consumer's rights under this act apply in Malaysia having, of course been passed, in Malaysia.

 

I am going to look pretty effing stupid relying on a Malaysian law in a UK jurisdiction aren't I?

 

If one were to google the exact reference GR gives this is what you get. Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. Here's the reference he gives.

 

The Consumer Protection Act 1999, 5 (5), Schedule 2 (p)

 

And here's what you get:

 

The Consumer Protection Act 1999, 5 (5), Schedule 2 (p) - Google Search

 

IF GR meant that he had meant to state the UTCCRs 1999 then the paragraphs and subsections are at best worthless and worse misleading. For anyone who wants the UTCCRs here is the link. The OPSI link that is.

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

If anyone is thinking that it's OK to go on someone else's say so about what you have, to sit in front of a judge with, on the say so of someone you took it from on a forum you deserve to lose. CHECK IT OUT IN FULL! No excuses.

Edited November 5, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos

[enoughisenough]

As a postscript, humility in the face of superior knowledge is something I can easily live with.

 

In vain I have searched (copyright Yoda) for GRs reference: The Consumer Protection Act 1999, 5 (5), Schedule 2 (p)

 

If GR or anyone else can provide me with the official documented source I will gladly withdraw the above post and offer profuse and public apologies to GR.

 

This is meant in the best of faith to all.

Edited November 5, 2009 by enoughisenough
lame star wars joke

[Crapstone]

I haven't received anything yet about new tariffs but from what has been said nothing has changed from Dec. 2008.

 

http://www.capstonemortgageservices.co.uk/capstone/pdfs/Tariffs/74482_SPML_Charges_9.pdf

 

The barstewards backdated arrears fees of £115 to Dec 08 despite not charging them when the complaint was with the FOS. After we won they took off the £60 charges as a refund and then sneaked them back on at £115 for 3 months previous. They were they applied until September this year on the 30th..statement only runs till 20th Oct....But as said they all show refunds against them.

 

Whatever position you are in, keep writing to them and disputing the charges. Pester them and the regulatory bods.

[Crapstone]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/uksi_19992083_en.pdf

 

Perhaps GR is referring to the above.

 

 

© Paragraphs 1(g), (j) and (l) do not apply to:

— transactions in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products

or services where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange

quotation or index or a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not

control.

 

 

I can't find anything that would apply to a mortgage or loan situation as GR suggested ...and Malaysia ? That would be fun to argue under...probably have more success ..

Edited November 5, 2009 by Crapstone
Yoda told me to

[rocket1]

gustavius rex

 

You can absolutely count me in on your joint legal action. And I may be able to be helpful in some ways.

 

The simple fact with me, is that I have known these 'sub-prime' lenders are nothing but thieves for way over ten years.

 

I have been solvent for all this time I have been dealing with my very difficult family circumstances, but deliberately driven to 'mortgage insolvency' only - no other debts, losing about £500 000 of equity in the process of being quite deliberately forced into a row of four sub-prime mortgages and a row of four repossession proceedings.

 

I noticed right from the off that my high street lender (Alliance & Leics) deliberately pushed me into a sub prime lender because of the silly wife running off with someone resulting in inevitable divorce. The sum I had to pay her was only £25 000 which could have easily been added to mortgage of only £100 000 with house value of £400 000, but they refused.

 

I was like a hamster on a treadmill, going faster and faster (i.e. haemorrhaging money by the bucket load as mortgage ballooned in a manner the lenders have quite deliberately engineered)

 

I think this point is extremely important to focus on in any class legal action because the different evidence from difference borrowers will clearly show this recurring pattern and make it obvious to the court.

 

i.e. it is a fact that the high street lenders became deliberately restrictive so as to force their customers to borrow from sub-prime lenders which was always going to be one their own subsidiary owned businesses. Every single one of these sub-prime lenders is owned by high street banks et al. But the sub-prime lenders were able to make vastly increased returns compared to 'high street' lenders.

 

The 'terms' of all these sub-prime mortgages were very cleverly and absolutely deliberately constructed to trap borrowers into punitively unfair and unreasonable contracts designed to be 'churned' so ERC's and other charges could be maximised in order to push the already painfully high subprime 'premium' interest rate up from maybe 8% to way over double that by the time the churning process was concluded.

 

It was an artfully wicked fraud, carefully presented as being within the law. It wasn't. But we need to prove it.

 

Various USA States brought a class action on exactly this basis against lender Americquest in 2006 and Americquest settled with about £300 million rather than go to court.

 

It was cheaper for Americquest to take that rap than blow the whole [problem] apart for all the other lenders by going to court. No doubt Americquest were reimbursed to some extent by other lenders whose interest it was that the matter didn't go to court.

 

The other point to highlight in a class action is the blatant mis-selling by entirely dishonest brokers, many of whom were tied to particular lenders or even employed by them in a subsidiary.

 

There is evidence in this thread of wilful fraud by brokers arranging mortgages for borrowers they knew were on state benefits etc. In my case I have what I think may be 'hot' evidence of broker fraud and, guess what, in the latest case it is a broker that was a subsidiary of Capital One. The broker told me that the spml underwriter came into the Capital One office every week to check over finalised contracts and approved them for lending. A very cosy arrangement.In other words the Capital One Broker was NOT an independent broker, but umbilically tied to spml and Capitial One, which in turn was owned by one of those Wall Street Sharks.

 

The broker company suddenly evaporated when Lehmans exploded, because Capital One (being American) was trying to clean up its act as fast as possible before it was found out.

 

Another broker who fixed a mortgage for me proudly announced how he specialised in getting mortgages for people on state benefits like income support. another thing about me which might help make a more powerful case against spml is two separate mortgages of mine were with them.

 

So, if I was running into difficulty with the first one, how come they lent a second mortgage to someone they knew was a single parent without employment on income support as clearly stated to them by me.

 

Basically, what I am trying to say is that if my whole tale in it's totality is put before a court, with whatever evidence I am able to muster ( that is the bit that is hard work - but do-able)) and loads of other people place similar stories before the court, I am sure we will have them by the short and curlies. A court will not be able to ignore the picture of obvious fraud that will emerge. And the whole thing is a media

circus. Daily publicity about the goings on in court in all media everywhere for months.

 

At the beginning of my experience I thought I was going to have to engage in an impossible battle with this because I was alone and the entire politico/commercial, world would simply squash any case I brought flat.

 

But that was before the entire global financial system was wrecked by the increasingly uncontrollable greed of the banks as they found they could get away with their fraud. But they went too far and now is our opportunity to screw the b****rds.

 

And we have the whole of public opinion behind us and the government too.

 

So, let's go for it !

[ryde]

EIE

In Grs defence think he is under a lot of pressure at the moment trying to get the complaint together and has his own personal affairs to sort out.Goes without saying individually anyone should check and check again any applicable law as you say.

good post rocket my sentiments exactly,brokers played a big role in this on £2000 + commissions a time,very easy money for half an hour filling in a form and apparently no checks by the lender who was only interested in the value of the property for repo purposes.Some brokers got too greedy and got found out and pml could not get away with it with their"guarantees with the spv/investor" but I think it was widespread.

see this link.

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Mortgage-brokers-prison-fraud/article-889356-detail/article.html

Edited November 5, 2009 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

Guys, what is this?

 

You know fully well what l've been referring to, why these Malaysia or wherever dingaling's, are completely unhelpful. You wan't to critisize me for not stating the exact and correct wording in the Stautory Instruments 1999 No. 2083, Consumer Protection, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Terms Regulation 5 (5) Schedule 2, Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of terms Which May be Regarded as Unfair, 1. Terms which have the object or effect of- (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 latter's agreement;

 

l do not have the time, nor am l in the mood for bullsh.t. l am sorry that l used the incorrect wording, Act, as it is not an act, but, a statutory instrument. However, l did expect your own particular interest would be greater and more focused than to nitpick my own humble contributions. As far as l'm concerned it's ok, l have my stuff lined up and will deal with it as l see fit, but, as l said, l;ve got no time over, for bitching and sniping about minor crap, when it would have been as easy for you as it was for me, to find the referenced documents. lt would have been more constructive if, rather than post a 600 word post about Malaysia, you simply pointed out - NOT ACT, GR -

GR

[gustavius rex]

gustavius rex

 

You can absolutely count me in on your joint legal action. And I may be able to be helpful in some ways.

 

The simple fact with me, is that I have known these 'sub-prime' lenders are nothing but thieves for way over ten years.

 

But that was before the entire global financial system was wrecked by the increasingly uncontrollable greed of the banks as they found they could get away with their fraud. But they went too far and now is our opportunity to screw the b****rds.

 

And we have the whole of public opinion behind us and the government too.

 

So, let's go for it !

 

 

Hi Rocket,

 

Sad story this and not unusual l should think. What really surprises me is how we have had this Statutory Instrument for 10 years, but, never used it in any proper way? l can't get my head around it. lt's been there and it is construed to protect the customer against predatory and unfair business methods, but, until the GMAC story this year, it has actually never been enforced. l have to admit, that l did'nt even know of it's existance before the news about GMAC were posted. Sad, sad, sad, but, say's a lot about what is going on and the governments ''commitment'' to the consumers, i.e. the people. This is a country with Euro Sceptics and who is going to vote for the Cameron Conservatives, who are even more sceptic. And still, it is only Europe who protects and enforces normal working stiff's rights, not the government or other parties in the pockets of the capital.

GR

[JonCris]

In the same way that this government is determined to criminalize all of us so they can control us the prime lenders have turned us into a population with a poor credit rating in order to force us into the clutches of their loan shark sub-prime companies

[eagleforms]

Enough is enough

Look back a couple of days threads and you will see I put in message about new tarrifs and then mentioned the main charges for people in arrears. Also put in a draft of a letter that I thought I would send but with some good advice from caggers, have sent a very much modified version to "Director of Servicing" who signed the letter

[on*the*case]

In the same way that this government is determined to criminalize all of us so they can control us the prime lenders have turned us into a population with a poor credit rating in order to force us into the clutches of their loan shark sub-prime companies

 

Sub-prime lending is profitable, which is why the majors wanted a slice of it. The game has changed now, there are no lenders, we have an arrears history/poor status, equity has evaporated and income multiples have changed. We have to accept that we and our mortgages are stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

Fortunately the FSA does seemed determined that the lender(s) will not profit from those in difficulty.

have sent a very much modified version to "Director of Servicing"

Eagleforms, I am glad you modified your letter, a little sarcasm can be good, but too much can swamp a genuine complaint and the letter will be dismissed as cranky.

These people need to fought with fire and cold steel.