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

[I'm the bad guy?]

second that, Ell-en is a chilla, she answers all your PMs

 

 

 

ITBG?

[Suetonius]

Just a note that I may not be posting very much in the next few days. My Dad had a heart attack today (his 4th) and isn't doing too well.

 

Love and respect you all. Just knowing you aren't alone does wonders for your moral.

 

I am really sorry to read that Crapstone. I really hope that he recovers quickly. You will be in my thoughts...

[enoughisenough]

Mods

 

Any chance of a moderation intervention here. This is beginning to smell of hijack and character assassination here.

 

Sue's well argued stuff may not be popular, but it's getting too close to personal now. There's not really any room for this. It diverts from the issues whatever they may be and though Sue and I have often been at loggerheads there is really no need or justification for this. And NO I"M NOT A BANKER"S MOLE. I"M AN ORDINARY CONSUMER OF A GARBAGE PRODUCT.

[I'm the bad guy?]

CP respect cuz

 

 

 

ITBG?

[Suetonius]

APB: the suspect known as ITGG! is known to be female..

 

 

 

ITBG?

 

Next time you speak to her, might be an idea to say to her that she really should try not make things personal. It is a waste of time and just looks pathetic.

 

Please also let her know that I am very sorry if I have put her nose out of joint at all.

 

Lets just concentrate on the issues at hand. Everything else (including personality clashes) is totally irrelevant.

[Suetonius]

Mods

 

Any chance of a moderation intervention here. This is beginning to smell of hijack and character assassination here.

 

Sue's well argued stuff may not be popular, but it's getting too close to personal now. There's not really any room for this. It diverts from the issues whatever they may be and though Sue and I have often been at loggerheads there is really no need or justification for this. And NO I"M NOT A BANKER"S MOLE. I"M AN ORDINARY CONSUMER OF A GARBAGE PRODUCT.

 

You sure your not a mole ????

 

I agree though, can anything non-topic related be moved to the beer garden.

[Suetonius]

You sure your not a mole ????

 

The is to indicate that this was a sarcastic comment and that I am fully aware that EIE is not a mole.

[enoughisenough]

I'm really Sorry to hear about that Crapstone.

 

All our thoughts and prayers are with you. I wish you, and those dear to you, the very best.

[I'm the bad guy?]

i'd have to, to respond to that request.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

d.a.r.e.

[enoughisenough]

Just as well you cleared the previous comment then Sue!

 

Otherwise i might have taken offence! Been doing too much of that myself lately.

 

Agreed. Can we get back to the issues.

 

In much embarrassment concerning my OTT remarks directed at gallahad I stand by the points I made.

 

Let's go through these and examine whether they are relevant to a prospect of getting these evil feckers called to account: And bearing in mind the hostility that's been here in the last few days can we please keep it clean and civil? Excluding Capstone Mortgage 'Services' of course. KEEP AN EYE ON THE ENEMY

 

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?

Edited November 19, 2009 by enoughisenough

[Gallahad]

Our stuff is water under bridge EIE

[enoughisenough]

Hi Gallahad.

 

I checked out some of our earlier exchanges and we had quite a positive, if tentative relationship. Because a spat occurred is as much down to me (if not more so) than you.

 

Given that your daughter and grandchildren are under this vile and most likely unlawful threat you can be assured of my support. I hate these barstewards with a vengeance and if I can stop a repo here and another there I'll live with that small satisfaction until these **** their get their real come-uppance.

 

I'm sorry we crossed swords but I get really frustrated with arguments about what is in and what is is out. Everything is in until the facts of particular case rule it in or out. There are too many here hunting for the holy grail, the silver bullet or the axe to grind. There is nothing here yet but time and pressure, time and pressure....

[Gallahad]

I have learnt so much in a short time on here but realise I have only scratched the surface and have so much more to learn. There is so much for an old brain to assimilate. I do think the support and advice on here is awesome and have come to realise just how parasitic the world of finance is. Every small blow against these animals brings cheer to my heart.

G

[Crapstone]

The wit against the wisdom is wearing a bit thin. There is no need for personal comments. We have enough to deal with without all this.

 

I haven't always got on with Suetonius, but I conceed that I was wrong to judge. Everything helps and he inspired me take things further and question what isn't always obvious. Anything that makes the old grey matter think can only be positive.

 

Stress does funny things to folks and they aren't always welcome attributes. Just another sign how far these companies have impacted on our lives.

 

 

Forgive, forget, listen and learn...

Edited November 19, 2009 by Crapstone
Yet more spelling...I'm hopeless..

[midge61]

Hope your Dad pulls through crapstone. I went through the same thing 4 years ago with my dad but unfortunately he he had one too mny.

 

My thoughts are with you.

[on*the*case]

Right Guys, Anyone who have a bit to contribute to solving my current problems is very welcome to do so. ......... Now my lender has decided that he's had enough and called in the bailiffs for repossession by virtue of the suspended repo. from last year. This despite the fact that l did pay all of the arrears off. ............ l've lodged an application for a suspension based on a forthcoming application to set aside the previous suspended reposession using the Norgan Case Law and a complain to FSA, FOS, OFT et al. But, but, but, have only 6 days in front of me, with a weekend included. Advice and support guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gustavius

 

GR Sorry to hear of your present trouble. I repeat the advice from others, that is to contact Ell-enn from the site team. Ell-enn assisted me greatly a week or two back when I found myself in a similar situation.

 

Regards

[enoughisenough]

In my experience you need to batter the lender's solicitors for information on a drip by drip basis. i.e 4-5 times a day. If you bring a general defence that the claim is Falsely premised and therefore vexatious, the judge will want to know why.

 

1. The remedy they seek for the breach is disproportionate. The breach was remedied IN FULL and the terms of the original suspension no longer apply.

 

2. The arrears claimed are falsely stated - UTCCRs

3. Compound interest thereon exaggerating the arrears

4. They may not add previous and current legal costs to alleged arrears without a court order for costs. These must be separately itemised

5. 'Arrears' interest levied upon such costs.

6. Application not a last resort in respect of CJC Pre-action protocols.

7. Breach of TCF (FSA- Treating customers fairly initiative - deadline for implementation December 2008)

8. GMAC-RFC similar practices. Further firms being investigated for similar breaches by the FSA - one could be yours.

9. In Summary UNwarranted (no basis terms of original order fulfilled) UNfair (in legal sense) and vexatious.

10. Court obliged by Community law to examine fairness of charges - however complaint currently with FOS, OFT and therefore no court order should prejudice these ongoing investigations.

11. EX107 if necessary. Transcript of hearings if you sense the court is getting hostile (keep this under your belt...)

 

I can advise further but don't only take mine. Ell-en is a whizz!

[not another b----- letter]

Kegi,

 

 

Can anyone say, in whose name they are currently paying LMC/SPPL ie on the cheques/DD etc. Is it made out to LMC/SPPL or SPML?

 

 

ITBG?

 

I have paid by cheque made payable to SPPL, that was earlier this year, also paid by debit card that went to SPML.

 

Regards NABL

[enoughisenough]

I'm reminded here of the advice given by supersleuth way back.

 

For those of you not yet subject to a suspended repo order - these must be resisted at all costs

 

The suspended repo is a repo albeit suspended. Thereafter the lender can allege breach and the court cave in and grant eviction notices without a hearing, without notice and without evidence.

 

You must not see a suspended repo as in anyway a victory. It is a prelude to a real repossession horrorshow.

[eagleforms]

Someone asked who our mortgage payments were being paid to. SPML sent me a paying in book (I refuse to let them dip their grubby fingers into my bank account) and it is paid to SPML through Barclays London Corporate Banking.

By the way, this sniping backwards and forwards in getting on my nerves, and it seems to come from a couple of Caggers who seem to think that this thread is their own. More people might join in the discussion if, like me, they felt that they wouldn't get the rough side of someone's keyboard. Someone was saying that we need concerted action against this low life, let's do it in harmony, please. If someone posts a reply that someone else disagrees, please just give the reason for the disagreement, don't try to make the other party look like an idiot, so you can show the rest of us what a clever person you are.

[ryde]

A possibility occured to me which may be worthy of consideration and exploration and concerns current events.In the eurosail prospectus in the case of the insolvency of the source of liquidity ie back up funds to the spv(eurosail)I think there is a guarantee that the legal title is transferred from the originator lender spml pml etc to the spv eurosail this was recently part of the high court actions in which lehman etc appealed and lost.Perpetual trustee belmont etc.

The significance being that if this guarantee is automatic because of the lehman insolvency now upheld by the high court spml pml are no longer the legal titleholders of the mortgage and technically lose the right to litigate because the legal titles have passed to eurosail under the guarantee given by the parent lehman in the case of their insolvency.Will trawl yet again through a eurosail prospectus.

Edited November 19, 2009 by ryde

[sailor579]

Info...

Had this reply from Support Unit

Companies Investigation Branch

Ground Floor 21 Bloomsbury Street

LONDON, WC1B 3SS

 

Dear Sailor578

 

Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd - Our Ref: ********* - please quote

this in any reply.

 

Thank you for your communication dated 14 November 2009.

 

Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) has the responsibility for

conducting investigations into companies using the statutory powers of

enquiry contained in the Companies Act 1985. When we receive a

complaint it goes through a vetting process to decide whether it merits

an investigation. I enclose an information sheet on our work.

 

We will be considering your complaint, taking into account any other

information we have, will decide whether to carry out a formal

investigation. As part of that consideration we may contact you to seek

more information.

 

Where the company about which you are complaining is subject to formal

insolvency proceedings - that is, administrative receivership,

administration or creditors voluntary liquidation - you may, separately,

wish to consider bringing your complaint to the attention of the

responsible Insolvency Practitioner(s).

 

You will appreciate that for the investigative process to be effective

it is essential to maintain confidentiality at all stages. This

includes the process whereby we reach decisions regarding the use of our

investigation powers. We cannot enter into public debate on the merits

of complaints, and we do not confirm or deny whether an investigation of

a particular company is taking, or has taken place. Therefore, you will

understand that we will not tell you what the outcome of your complaint

is.

 

Under most circumstances it is not possible to disclose the results of

our investigations beyond a narrow range of other regulators (though if

we take action in the public interest there will usually be some

publicity). I therefore regret that we would not be able to provide you

with any information that we obtained.

 

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

 

 

 

Suggest we get as many of these on the go as possible BRING EM DOWN!!!!

[sailor579]

In addition had a letter today requesting that I put SPML on the insurance as well as Eurosail. This was in response to my request as to who I actually had a mortgage with.

 

Bunch of halfwits

[enoughisenough]

Harsh on halfwits.

 

sailor this is a very interesting development. If you read between the lines I think what this means is that a) you can be damn sure they will fully investigate and b) they will throw the damn book at them.

 

Bring em down, discharge our 'obligations' and let the investors slug it out with pwc and the irredeembly useless FSA.

[enoughisenough]

Hello guests