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

[eagleforms]

Thanks onthe case.

I did make me feel better writing the first version though!

[on*the*case]

Thanks on*the*case.

I did make me feel better writing the first version though!

I know, the red mist takes over and then you are reaching for the green pen and writing in large capitals .... Letters to these people should be the cold facts, and your argument presented lucidly and in a straightforward way. The odd spilling mistake and dodgy grammar is not a problem if the letter is straight, has the facts and is clear in what you want.

[ryde]

Don,t forget today heath tomorrow the big one does anyone know when the decisions are posted?

 

take a look at this should provide some interest:will

ultimately concern us I believe.involves lehmans and return of assets to the investors

NOTICES FOR JUDGMENT

 

NOTICE

Take notice that on FRIDAY, 6 NOVEMBER, 2009 in COURT 71, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From The Chancery Division

FINAL DECISIONS

A3/2009/1794 Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd -v- BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & anr.

A3/2009/2037 Butter & Ors -v- BBC Worldwide Limited & Ors.

A3/2009/2043 Butter & ors -v- BBC Worldwide Limited & ors.

A3/2009/2047 Butters & ors -v- BBC Worldwide Limited & ors.

NOTICE

Take notice that on THURSDAY, 5 NOVEMBER, 2009 in COURT 69, at 9:30, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From The Chancery Division

FINAL DECISIONS

A3/2009/0356 Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited -v- Heath.

[cagger80]

Hello, the Heath case is not related to securitisation / trustees. Heath relates to the application of the CCA 1974, in certain circumstances

[JonCris]

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.

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.

 

 

The FSA are part of the problem not the solution. Their readiness to accept what they never understood is mind blowing. They accepted the word of the bankers & look where we are now ..... It doesn't help that most within the FSA come from the very industry they are supposed to police

[enoughisenough]

Heath Result: Lost

 

Here's the judgment.

 

Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd v Heath [2009] EWCA Civ 1135 (05 November 2009)

[ryde]

Mortgages and Unfair Contract Terms (Hansard, 12 January 2000)

This link is well worth a look.

[eagleforms]

Ryde

Did anything happen to prevent these sharp practices. I am currently arguing with my building society about interest they have charged for 5 months on £16,000 that I repaid in May. They have continued to charge interest on it until October! Pure theft.

Edited November 5, 2009 by eagleforms
typo

[ryde]

mortgages and unfair contract terms legislation - Google Search

eagleforms am wading through this so have posted search link,so far seems a lot of pfaffing about with fsa and oft, trying to find a few cases ,have a look see if you can come up with anything all seems to be in line with current discussion here.

[eagleforms]

Will do Ryde

[Crapstone]

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

 

You more than anyone should know that there isn't room for mistakes, however minor you may feel they are. If you are serious about your proposals then you also have to be serious about what you post otherwise you aren't going to get very far if you have a tantrum when faults are picked up on.

 

Your response reminds me of the same bull thrown at me when my broker made 'mistakes' and when SPML have been alerted to their 'errors'.

 

I appreciate you are stressed, but so are we all. If we are going to do this and be constructive then we NEED to get this moved to somewhere dedicated to one line of action.

 

I don't think it was meant in a nasty way, just a twist of humour that did make me smile thinking of a judge searching in vain and puzzled about where Malaysia fits in. You do have to see the funny side, we need something to make us smile now and again

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Crapstone

 

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 truly need hanging don't they? They are just the worst of the worst.

 

And remember everyone out there, whenever one of their phone monkeys calls up. That's all they are - phone monkeys.

 

They can call themselves service manager or litigation team but what they are is phone monkeys.

 

GOODNIGHT!

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by JonCris

 

The FSA are part of the problem not the solution. Their readiness to accept what they never understood is mind blowing. They accepted the word of the bankers & look where we are now ..... It doesn't help that most within the FSA come from the very industry they are supposed to police

 

There is supposed to be some consumer panel. I personally have never been invited to join it.

 

In fact in a democracy such as the one we all inhabit I'm sure one would have to stand and campaign. I must ask the FSA where I could obtain the nomination papers.

 

Or is it reserved only for the great and the good. (amongst the consumer obviously...). I can't say I'm great or good. But I'm learning to be. Perhaps I could just say sorry in front of a committee and have my bonus please.

 

Again I'm unaware of any such procedure facilitating consumer representation. Perhaps one gets one's friends in the banking industry to nominate the members of the consumer's panel and then they get approved by the BBA.

 

I don't know. Perhaps I should withdraw my proposed candidature. It all seems terribly confusing.

[ryde]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/ukpga_20000008_en_1Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/ukpga_20000008_en_1

 

These appear to be the relevant acts please can we all give them our full attention and apply them to the contracts and performance we have with spml/pml etc and post each breach they have made in that performance and the original contract; which I would assume would be almost universal;but we need personal examples and experiences with documentary evidence.We will then have the beginnings of an action, also look at the Hansard link I posted earlier which seems particularly applicable,just trying to move this on and get the ball rolling again.If the breeches can be linked to legislation it will also be extremely useful as a defence in any litigation spml/pml are taking against us personally.

Edited November 6, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

In order to stave off any confusion whatsoever

 

And thanks to ryde for posting this..

 

The UTCA 1977 was never supplanted or replaced by the UTCCRs (1999). They work in tandem. Nonetheless it is important to understand that subsequent legislation and or statutory instruments (which are effective to the same extent) may modify or vary the effect or interpretation placed upon such effect by a court.

 

This is not the appropriate time or place to go into the why and wherefore of the UTCA and the UTCCRs.

 

However it is worth mentioning that the latter does not repeal the former.

 

Ryde. Thank you.

 

Perhaps this is a good opportunity for heads of steam to concentrate on all the main issues from brokerage (yes brokerage...a massive piece in the [problem] jigsaw) through to repossession and post possession activities to examine and determine by collective reasoning the most effective way of getting a consumer barrister to believe there is a strong (very strong) case to be heard?

 

This is my last appeal on open. On this thread anyway. Otherwise I give up all hope of anyone ever walking in a straight line here.

Edited November 6, 2009 by enoughisenough
A final plea to have heard that which needs to be heard.

[ryde]

 

Perhaps this is a good opportunity for heads of steam to concentrate on all the main issues from brokerage (yes brokerage...a massive piece in the [problem] jigsaw) through to repossession and post possession activities to examine and determine by collective reasoning the most effective way of getting a consumer barrister to believe there is a strong (very strong) case to be heard?

 

EIE

Agree fully SPML/PML ETC appeared to use agents/brokers all on fat fees to do all their dirty work so if anything went wrong they could blame them eg:PML took legal action against both brokers(who ended up in jail) and valuers(which they lost).

Lets get this thing moving again for christs sake with individual complaints with evidence of why this is wrong in law.Otherwise it will shoot off again in different directions,we need legal arguments otherwise we're b.......d.

[Crapstone]

Ryde,

 

I for one am all done in by keep having to say the same things over and over again everytime someone asks for breaches to be listed. They are all here on this thread in black and white from start to finish in every format possible.

 

As are everyone elses....

 

What is the point in posting when people aren't listening and we keep going back through the revolving door AGAIN. We already have the legal arguements in front of us...the record hasn't stopped just because some people want to keep raking over the same old ground and trying to look deeper than what is under their noses.

[enoughisenough]

OK...

 

So to start again from the top as to where this all went wrong for us... it started at the beginning, and then moving forward, to eventually encompass all the issues we will deal with the terms and conditions of the contract, the alleged term (short term for the purposes of the investors) of the contract, the fairness of the terms implied or expressed, core or otherwise, the alleged defaults, the litigation procedures, the protocols governing both predating and postdating the Civic justice council's PAPs regarding repossession and then thereafter the horror-show that accompanies possession and its aftermath.

 

Believe me when I say we can nail them from start to finish on each of these stages in the process.

 

From there the salient legal arguments can be correctly identified and a properly drafted set of arguments can be presented to a barrister for a duly considered opinion of the merits and demerits of the case.

 

It needs to be borne in mind that there MUST be unanimity. A single person exercising his or her prejudice against a line of attack rather than making clear legal argument as to why such a line would not work is doing the cause no good at all. This is my final attempt at collective action.

 

I have too many fish to fry in many other directions - all of them equally demanding of my attention. So let's start off on the right foot. How did we end up with these crooked deals. Brokers, that's how. And why does that matter? It matters because the lender remains responsible even if the broker has disappeared into a fox hole in Florida. (Crapstone will get that one...)

 

Here is what is posted originally a while back only for it to be discounted out of hand. It is worth revisiting, even if ultimately it does not get us the foothold we hoped to argue the general principle.

 

p.62 post 1240: by EIE. Thought it was a good place to start. Some said otherwise and referred to an earlier post I made as manure. Hardly the kind of counter argument that is going to win a court case of this standing. We need solidarity. We need cohesion. We need progression. And most of all we need to explore from birth to death these contracts to find the legal basis for challenge - most likely as JC has been screaming for years and myself for months operation & performance. I don't think anybody disputes that.

 

Here for the final time is the origination argument. Those with broker concerns and the evidence to back it up can run with this individually if they want. Oh and by the way a class action can fail for any number of reasons, so if we are going to do this we are going to proceed cautiously and methodically - otherwise we will go down with massive costs to bear.

 

Let's start with origination. How did these mortgages come about? Usually via brokers.

 

In my case Barclays turned me down but helpfully passed me over to some outfit in Slough whose name escapes me. They probably leave footprints all over your credit referencing in the 4-5 months it takes to get an answer by which time they have well and truly duffed up your credit rating. Result much more expensive credit than you might have got at the outset. Nice [problem].

 

Then the brokers come in and this is the first of our references to the prospectus risk assessment. Have a look at this from SPML Offering Circular August 2005.

 

Quote:

The Non-Status Lending Guidelines for Lenders and Brokers issued by the OFT in July 1997 and revised in November 1997 apply to all secured loans made to “non-status borrowers”. The Guidelines provide guidance as to the activities of lenders and brokers in the non-status secured lending market in areas such as advertising and marketing, loan documentation and contract terms, selling methods, underwriting, dual interest rates, flat interest rates and early redemption payments. According to the Guidelines, advertising and other promotional material must be clear and easily legible and should not be misleading, and the Guidelines prohibit unfair sales tactics.

 

Brokers are obliged to disclose at the outset of the transaction their status with regard to the borrower and the lender, together with details of any fee or commission payable to them as broker or if they are tied to a particular lender.

 

Lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that brokers and other intermediaries regularly marketing their products do not engage in unfair business practices or act unlawfully, that they serve the best interests of the borrowers and explain clearly the documentation and consequences of any breach or early repayment by the borrowers.

 

The actions of any broker or other intermediary involved in marketing a lender’s products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, and the Guidelines make clear that lenders must take all reasonable steps to ensure that such brokers and other intermediaries comply with the Guidelines and all relevant statutory requirements. This is so even if the lender has no formal or informal control or influence over the broker.

 

Lets just chew the fat on this for starters.

 

Irrelevant?

Edited November 6, 2009 by enoughisenough

[Crapstone]

I've made my suggestions before...we should start from A and finish at B..as consumers and not wannabe lawyers. Make lists of who was misled by their brokers, LTV, rates offered, mistakes made........the whole shooting match not just sprout laws or try to interpret it at this stage.

 

Don't forget laws change..if the EU have their way we'll be kissing goodbye to the right to not accept goods that are damaged ( within reasonable time) and have only the option of repair or replacement instead of a refund.

[Crapstone]

I did get that one EIE....he's busy playing tennis and has taken a fancy to the CAG style logo.

 

Grand Smash Tennis: Berwood Park Set Up Super Tennis Challenge

 

Edited November 6, 2009 by Crapstone
Wonder if Phil Gills ears are burning?

[ryde]

crapstone

I know the breeches are listed but its over 114 pages and it has to be tied to the applicable legislation otherwise it means nothing.I would just like to see it in an easily compileable format.

eg.post by your own good self.

Crapstone

1)spml have levied unfair charges of £??? this is in breech of paragraph ? of unfair contracts terms act 1977 because ???? we then have a legal argument with evidence .

No one has got time to go through all these posts and collate everyones individual complaint and apply it to the law.If a collective argument is going to be successfully turned into a legal action I can't see any other way of doing it but would welcome all and any ideas.

[Crapstone]

So to clarify EIE did you approach the broker or did Barclays arrange for them to call you?

[ryde]

Eie

I like this idea of a chronological argument starting with the brokers etc and then moving through to repo.How can this be practically conducted through this forum?Each issue be listed from broker onwards and then everyone post any issue they had at this stage and onwards.

eg personally.

Broker x reccommended a mortgage with pml for which unknown to me he received £2000 commission without offering other possible alternatives.

I was asked to sign a mortgage application which the broker or lender then filled in with income figures i was then offered a mortgage the terms of which were never explained to me etc etc

My heads spinning now,please lay it out as you would like to see it done simply for the thickos amongst us,

perhaps list each stage and people post their complaint/experience and tie it to this category with a legal reason as to why this was wrong because only one cast iron example is needed for each category otherwise the process could take forever.eg list

1)brokerage issues

2)terms contained in the original mortgage contract

3)contractual issues caused by mortgage securitization

4)Unfair charges levied by the lender during performance of the contract.

etc etc what format would you suggest?

Edited November 6, 2009 by ryde

[Crapstone]

crapstone

I know the breeches are listed but its over 114 pages and it has to be tied to the applicable legislation otherwise it means nothing.I would just like to see it in an easily compileable format.

eg.post by your own good self.

Crapstone

1)spml have levied unfair charges of £??? this is in breech of paragraph ? of unfair contracts terms act 1977 because ???? we then have a legal argument with evidence .

No one has got time to go through all these posts and collate everyones individual complaint and apply it to the law.If a collective argument is going to be successfully turned into a legal action I can't see any other way of doing it but would welcome all and any ideas.

 

But if you do it that way people will overlook certain points that they hadn't thought of and just think of charges or think a certain part applies to them when it doesn't as the contract was made before that.

 

We either start from beginning to end and spot for each other what is applicable or we just give up now and go our own ways.

[Crapstone]

But did you approach the broker ryde or did they call you? This is all an important part of the issues we have. Did you pick the broker from a phone book, was it through a bank or were you cold called?