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

[not another b----- letter]

O T C & E i E

 

Never spoke to the same person twice in their litigation department so I new there must be a hell of a lot of people in the same boat as us.

Have asked them recently who our loan was with?, they said SPPL my reply was I don't think they exist or they may be a company on paper only, they still say its with SPPL, so will now put that question in writing.

Very happy to hear of the £2.8M fine for GMAC, hope this crowd go the same way, they are still trying it on, paid them using debit card on Monday the 2nd was told its a late payment it should have been paid on the first, but the first was a Sunday I said, then you should have paid it on Friday was the reply, felt like saying f--- off but thats what they would want me to say so kept it polite but if I am fined for a late payment its going to the FOS.

Regards NABL

[enoughisenough]

Hi not another b----- letter.

 

I hope you don't mind if I give you a few pointers when dealing with these idiots. And I do mean idiots. Anyone who can 'enjoy' this sort of work needs serious psychiatric intervention.

 

1. In general it's never a good idea to speak to these fools on the phone. Any temporary loss of control under their provocation could be used against you. If you must speak to them on the phone always have the facts relevant to the phone call at your fingertips and any relevant regulations and or legislation. If you must speak with them ensure you are recording it. As far as I understand it, any such recording is admissable in court even they aren't aware that you are doing so. I stand to be corrected here though. Put everything in writing and others will help fill you in. Never a better time to start. Do your formal letter of complaint and Post it up minus numbers and other personal details. Someone will then pop along and suggest stuff that supports your argument. At the outset make it clear that you want their full investigation and due diligence of your complaint and that any complaint not addressed will be considered (for the purposes of referring to the FOS) their full and final response.

 

2. As for the outrageous charges I would take this view. They are simply dumped onto your alleged arrears and then compound interest is applied thereon. This means that a small shortfall will quickly balloon as you have already found out. It's not like your current account when the charges hit you in the pocket directly and you have lost real money. Therefore my view is that charges deemed unfair by operation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999 SI 2083) are simply yet another nail in their coffin. The real effect of course is that such charges manufacture an 'unacceptable' arrears level for presentation to the court. Any court action MUST be challenged under the general defence that the claim is falsely premised. (Don't worry, it always is!)

 

3. To challenge these it would be beautiful if you could just go to the FOS. However it doesn't work that way. What I have learnt above all else here is that procedure matters enormously. IN the case of the FOS you have to give Capstone 8 weeks to "resolve" your complaint (40 working days). You can only go to the FOS once Capstone tell you our charges are fair blah blah blah so get stuffed. In other words you need a full and final response, before the Ombudsman will consider your complaint.

 

4. Never be afraid to ask for anything here. The only stupid question is the question you never ask....

 

5. They are under serious pressure which is why by and large they have been behaving themselves lately. However if this, their current conduct, is their definition of behaving, they are even more useless than I thought. It is not unusual to be quoted several different figures due for payment. NOne of their accounting adds up and if they were audited independently the directors would be up before the beak for lax if not false accounting procedures. The evidence is in black and white. They cannot get a series of numbers straight and my concern is that they are now just changing balances without adding it on to the statements. A simple comparison of arrears at point x, - deduction of payments made, followed by a letter notifying arrears at point y do not tally. A £90 + discrepancy which does not appear on the statement. In short their calculations cannot be trusted.

 

There's tons of stuff out there to help you. MCOB, UTCCRs, CCA 2006 (where applicable) CPRs etc. This sounds confusing but I have used an obscure Civil Procedure Rule to strangle a repo claim at birth. Remember that it was the IRS that brought down Al Capone!

 

Good luck and welcome to the fight. Keep the faith. EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Hello Guest

 

Why don't you sign up and tell us whether you are left or right footed?

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Gallahad

 

GR

I wholeheartedly concur with your observations and think we must all try to refocus on what are the really relevant issues.

G

 

Gallahad

 

thank you for your contributions thus far. I would be grateful if you could enlighten us as to what constitutes in YOUR VIEW thereally relevant issues. Or, alternatively you may be able to tell us where this thread is going wrong in discussing irrelevant issues. Thereafter of course we can all stop wasting our time posting things that are irrelevant in your considered opinion.

 

are the following relevant?

 

1. Being led up the garden path and deceived in these contracts by brokers, whose operation is the responsibility of SPPL/SPML etc. Yes or no?

 

2. Missing pages from title deeds. Yes or no?

 

3. No signature on the deeds. Yes or no?

 

4. Contractual terms reserving the right to sell the mortgage as a RMBS. Yes or no?

 

5. Equitable v legal assignment. Yes or no?

 

6. Lehman's bankruptcy and the implications thereof for the administration of SPPL/SPML and other Lehman's subsidiaries. Yes or no.

 

7. The tax friendly ROI. Yes or no?

 

8. Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. Yes or no?

 

9. The Consumer Credit Act 1974. Yes or no?

 

10. The Consumer Credit Act 2006. Yes or no?

 

11. MCOB. Yes or no?

 

12. The FSMA 2000 (particularly s.150). Yes or no?

 

13. Intention to serve the contractual term. Yes or no?

 

14. The FSA Investigations and fine of GMAC-RFC. Yes or no?

 

15. How to complain to the FOS. Yes or no?

 

16. Contacting your MP. Yes or no?

 

17. Contacting BERR. Yes or no?

 

18. Contacting the Treasury Select Committee in respect of their Report on the Sub Prime crisis. Yes or no.

 

19. Complaint to local trading standards in High Wycombe. Yes or no?

 

20. Exploration of the possibility that the courts, the FSA, the OFT and others may be subject to compensation claims under the francovich principle. Yes or no?

 

21. Highlighting this in the media, insofar as the media may be interested. Yes or no?

 

22. Raising the issue of the importance of Civil Procedure Rules when challenging a repossession order. Yes or no?

 

Maybe I've missed something off the list. After all we're all human and all fallible. However I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position. NO one has a monopoly over what is in or out on this thread except for the site team. And I have never seen the site team warn that they are considering action against this thread because some arguments were not relevant or that it was going off topic. My suggestion is you start your own thread on the really essential issues as you see them. After all this is a general thread devoted to those who have suffered at the hands of Capstone. Please enlighten us all in our wisdom as to the really essential issues.

Edited November 14, 2009 by enoughisenough
Trying to establish what others think we are allowed to concentrate on. Never did like censorship.

[I'm the bad guy?]

This sounds confusing but I have used an obscure Civil Procedure Rule to strangle a repo claim at birth

 

EiE,

 

which CPR rule did you use to do this?

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

ITBG

as you can see this lot are still trying to repo people if you have any surefire evidence they are insolvent or trading whilst insolvent please post as this will stop the **** in their tracks.

[Gallahad]

Gallahad

 

thank you for your contributions thus far. I would be grateful if you could enlighten us as to what constitute thereally relevant issues. Or, alternatively you may be able to tell us where this thread is going wrong in discussing irrelevant issues. Thereafter of course we can all stop wasting our time posting things that are irrelevant in your considered opinion.

 

are the following relevant?

 

1. Being led up the garden path and deceived in these contracts by brokers, whose operation is the responsibility of SPPL/SPML etc. Yes or no?

 

2. Missing pages from title deeds. Yes or no?

 

3. No signature on the deeds. Yes or no?

 

4. Contractual terms reserving the right to sell the mortgage as a RMBS. Yes or no?

 

5. Equitable v legal assignment. Yes or no?

 

6. Lehman's bankruptcy and the implications thereof for the administration of SPPL/SPML and other Lehman's subsidiaries.

 

7. The tax friendly ROI. Yes or no?

 

8. Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. Yes or no?

 

9. The Consumer Credit Act 1974. Yes or no?

 

10. The Consumer Credit Act 2006. Yes or no?

 

11. MCOB. Yes or no?

 

12. The FSMA 2000 (particularly s.150). Yes or no?

 

13. Intention to serve the contractual term. Yes or no?

 

14. The FSA Investigations and fine of GMAC-RFC. Yes or no?

 

15. How to complain to the FOS. Yes or no?

 

16. Contacting your MP. Yes or no?

 

17. Contacting BERR. Yes or no?

 

18. Contacting the Treasury Select Committee in respect of their Report on the Sub Prime crisis. Yes or no.

 

19. Complaint to local trading standards in High Wycombe. Yes or no?

 

20. Exploration of the possibility that the courts, the FSA, the OFT and others may be subject to compensation claims under the francovich principle. Yes or no?

 

21. Highlighting this in the media, insofar as the media may be interested. Yes or no?

 

22. Raising the issue of the importance of Civil Procedure Rules when challenging a repossession order. Yes or no?

 

Maybe I've missed something off the list. After all we're all human and all fallible. However I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position. NO one has a monopoly over what is in or out on this thread except for the site team. And I have never seen the site team warn that they are considering action against this thread because some arguments were not relevant or that it was going off topic. My suggestion is you start your own thread on the really essential issues as you see them. After all this is a general thread devoted to those who have suffered at the hands of Capstone.

In my humble opinion number 19 could well be awaste of time but it is your time of course. My point was not to stop discussion but to avoid keeping the focus on what is now (at least until appeal) a mute point. As this related to a judgement on just one issue of unenforcability (namely charges being added to loan amount) I believe discussion on the remaining, non mute possibilities, including your extensive list, would prove to be more positive.

G

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Gallahad

 

In my humble opinion number 19 could well be awaste of time but it is your time of course. My point was not to stop discussion but to avoid keeping the focus on what is now (at least until appeal) a mute point. As this related to a judgement on just one issue of unenforcability (namely charges being added to loan amount) I believe discussion on the remaining, non mute possibilities, including your extensive list, would prove to be more positive.

 

And which moot point would you like us all to focus upon? Mute of course means something entirely different - an error of occurernce for which a decent barrister would tear your heart out.

[cagger80]

ITBG

as you can see this lot are still trying to repo people if you have any surefire evidence they are insolvent or trading whilst insolvent please post as this will stop the **** in their tracks.

 

do you mean this evidence ?

 

Lil'dotty, all

 

If you are going to court, and have filed your witness statement, stating your mortgage has been sold to the SPV in a true-sale securitisation(eg Eurosail), then you have a chance to set aside the possession. I did and the lender is to appeal. They tried the Pender ploy, but the evidence my solicitor and I had was enough.

 

ITBG?

on air

 

 

or this evidence ?

 

"I have absolute proof, from written evidence, that SPML is both balance sheet and trading insolvent.

 

Or maybe this?

 

Letter from Companies House on prosecution of director.

Evidence that SPML sold all its mortgages through securitisation, and is no longer the owner of them.

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by ITBG

 

EiE,

 

which CPR rule did you use to do this?

 

Which part applies to possessions? Do your own digging. Part 55 if you are asking!

 

PART 55 - POSSESSION CLAIMS - Ministry of Justice

 

Lately everyone seems to want to tell me I'm wrong. Well, my response is simple. I'm not wrong. And the latecomers who suggest such who may have an agenda of their own are of course free to suggest whatever they want.

 

I am equally free to decide what I want to post.

 

Take the UTCCR's. If I hadn't been distracted pusrsuing the ABC of this nonsensne by others who subsequently discovered this and then told me not to pursue the things I do., they would have known about it far earlier.

 

In short. As few and far as they are between.... trust no one posting on this site at the moment. The honourable exceptions will be self evident.

Edited November 14, 2009 by enoughisenough

[Gallahad]

EIE

You appear to be very hostile to any opinion other than your own maybe a chip on the other shoulder would bring some balance.

[enoughisenough]

Get stuffed Gallahad

 

Which opinion I am hostile to? Identify the opinion I need to 'chill out' on. If you are talking about the opinion that this should be examined in full, don't worry the chip is firmly in place on both shoulders

 

Which legal opinion are you bringing forward to help those who are being screwed out of their houses? I don't need, nor do I possess, a chip on any of my shoulders.

 

I fight these **** with every bit of armoury at my disposal. I help others to do likewise. As for you intruders what exactly is your agenda? 30 posts and you try and take over. I don't think so. I've put my heart and soul into helping others and have sought advice when I've needed to. I really resent newbies coming along and saying where we are going all wrong. What is YOUR situation? Or to ask a straight question - are you a mole for the lenders. WHy exactly are you here? Have you a difficulty with SPML etc.? You make 30 posts and start criticising ? Give me a break.

Edited November 14, 2009 by enoughisenough
nuance. A concept barristers have no difficulty with.

[Gallahad]

Get stuffed Gallahad

 

Which opinion I am hostile to? Identify the opinion I need to 'chill out' on. If you are talking about the opinion that this should be examined in full, don't worry the chip is firmly in place on both shoulders

 

Which legal opinion are you bringing forward to help those who are being screwed out of their houses? I don't need, nor do I possess, a chip on any of my shoulders.

 

I fight these **** with every bit of armoury at my disposal. I help others to do likewise. As for you intruders what exactly is your agenda? 30 posts and you try and take over. I don't think so. I've put my heart and soul into helping others and have sought advice when I've needed to. I really resent newbies coming along and saying where we are going all wrong. What is YOUR situation? Or to ask a straight question - are you a mole for the lenders. WHy exactly are you here? Have you a difficulty with SPML etc.? You make 30 posts and start criticising ? Give me a break.

 

Very eloquent EIE

the opinion you are hostile to is that discussing a high court ruling before it has been appealed is non productive while there are so many other fronts to be fighting on. My daughter and grandchildren will shortly be at risk of losing their home due to the sharp practices of Blemain finance and I am on here to learn anything which may assist their cause. However having you highlight the shortcomings of my english language education and put forward conspiracy theories on any new people on here does nothing to assist me educate me or indeed aid any one else on the thread in their cause. In fact it only gives vent to your spleen and and apparently boosts your ego. The only break I can give you in the face of such aggressive conduct is send you a roll of duct tape if you promise to use it positively.

[scedminc]

Gallahad,

 

Pretty sure many would agree that your acting an idiot and will learn nothing from anyone here if you use that tone. There are many people that are willing to help others that deserve and appreciate such help.

 

Maybe if you want to learn something and indeed get some help then a. you should read the entire thread and b. go away and come back with a different approach!!!

[Gallahad]

Oh I see and would I learn to to tell people to get stuffed very enlightening that would be me educated and all because I tried to support a suggestion by another cagger. I have read the whole thread and suggest that if you care to do thr same you will see that it was not I that started the abuse merely responded to it. I do not take kindly to bullying be it by crooked institutions or egotistical individuals or their henchmen scedminc

[littledotty27]

Come on guys

the last thing we all want is people at loggerheads!!

Gallahad, we've all had a rough ride & whilst we do appreciate your input,you must understand other members have put over 18 months worth of research into this thread.

[agatha c]

Hi EIE

 

You have been so helpful to me to fight LMC without all your help I would have given up. Sadly my mum passed away tonight. I honestly believe that these thieves contributed to her death. The shock of all this and not being able to be with me.

 

Agatha c

[midge61]

Gallahad

 

There are many threads on Blemain. Use the search facility and you will find plenty of us struggling with them.

[I'm the bad guy?]

Beware!

 

we have been infiltrated. Jackals in this thread

 

 

 

ITBG?

[littledotty27]

I'm so sorry to hear your sad news Agatha C

[Gallahad]

Thank you LD i do appreciate what you are saying and the assistance given on here is priceless.

Agatha my sincere condolences on your loss.

[Gallahad]

Thank you Midge but I do already subscribe to those threads and on this one to try to broaden my learning.

[I'm the bad guy?]

To agatha c,

 

my condolences on your loss.

 

 

 

ITBG?

[zither]

I knew it would all turn to tears. I may not have said anything to contribute but this thread has helped me recently thanks lads.

[agatha c]

Thank you guys

 

One thing, Lightfoots wrote to us because we never cashed cheque for piddly amount wanted a few more noughts. So they have sent us another cheque saying we must cash it, don't want to as in dipute, any thoughts??

 

 

Agatha c