Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I've been reading the invaluable advice on this forum and reading about the problems with Evri and lost delivery of items.  From what I gather the initial steps after having exhausted every's own lost item claim process is to draft a Letter of Claim, I think it is called and to register with the government Money Claims.  I have got a login for Money Claims and have made an initial stab at the letter but I'm not certain I have got it right. Am I right to assume that having exhausted Evri customer service's claims process and having received the denial of any compensation because the laptop I was sending is on the non-compensatory list that my next step would be to send the Letter of Claim to them? Let me provide some basic details which I hopefully have addressed in the letter. I purchased a laptop through Amazon.co.uk which a business in Belfast sold refurbished laptops through.  They had a 30 day money back guarantee for a full refund if you have any issues with the laptop.  I have the invoice from Amazon showing the purchase.  On 27 April, 2024 before the end of the 30 day period I used their ParcelShop (inside a Tesco) to send the laptop back and have the tracking reference mentioned in the letter.  As mentioned in the letter there was they advised they could not give me or sell me any insurance because laptops are on the non-compensatory list so I just paid the normal delivery cost.  It was scanned as leaving the ParcelShop on 29 April and the tracking has been like that ever since.  After a 28 working day Evri claim process they gave the expected response that they could not provide any compensation and simply could not proceed with my claim. I was hoping to get some advice on whether I go ahead now and email this to Customer Services straightaway and should I send a hard-copy to the Evri address as well?  Or are there any steps I have missed out on first?  I believe 14 days is the reasonable period of time for them to respond so if I were to send it tomorrow, for example 12 June then I should expect a reply by 26 June, is that correct and fair?  And assuming they don't reply with a full refund then I would then go down the government Money Claims site to proceed with that? Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I go about it properly.  I'll continue to read through other cases on here so I can get an even better handle on the process. I attached a LOC, happy for any edits or updates that will make it even better. Thanks so much for anyone's help! Regards, Matt Evri letter of claim.docx
    • The date was 3 June. Get on MCOL now. The legal principle is that, even if you defence is late, if the other party hasn't requested judgement, then your defence takes priority and is accepted. You might be in time. When I say now I mean now.  Recently we had someone who was nine days' late and this was pointed out to them at 5:30pm.  They faffed around till 11pm.  When they went on MCOl they saw that judgement had been entered at 7pm. Every minute is vital. File the below standard defence if you still can - 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
    • Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked
    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1133 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

With reference to the above:

Please do not lose sight that the situation everyone is now in appears to be unique in that the instigator of all these securitisations Lehmans has gone bankrupt and has not been bailed out by government as has previously been the case.

Assuming ITBG's and others applications to the insolvency service,fsa,dti companies house etc were successful and spml/pml and others were disqualified or declared insolvent.The spv eurosail to whom they have assigned the equitable and beneficial title would then be entitled to the full legal title under the terms stated in the prospectus.

The borrower would then according to lpa 1925 have to be notified that eurosail intended to register the legal title in its name,have I got this right.

ie:this is a notifiable application.

This would then give the borrower the right to object to the application on the grounds that the original contractual terms must be guaranteed.

This alone would make itbg's actions fully justified and wholly worthwhile.

It would also cause an administrative headache for capstone.

If spml etc were declared insolvent resultingly as per recent high court judgement (perpetual trustee/belmont) the legal tiles would not be the property of the official receiver but the spv.

Thought pwc administration ran out after a year.

Edited by ryde
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's problem enough to get folks to go to the FOS or write a letter of complaint in the first instance. You lot need to get some spherical shaped bits.

 

If you don't go through the right channels to start with then your chances are zero. It's not so much the outcome but the dispute and the trying. All for the record..and ones that you won't lose..

 

We already know the should or shouldn't ...it's been discussed to death but the fact is those terms haven't been inflicted upon us directly. Business as usual in all ways and across the board whoever and whatever, or at least that's what they will have you think.

 

Challenge them ..what have you got to lose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eurosail-UK 2007-5NP - Notice of Meeting - InvestEgate

 

this needs some deciphering but indicates the current health and status of the spv who is now calling extraordinary resolutions,it also reveals how closely capstone are linked to them.There are many notices for all the spv funds.Its all as a result of borrowers defaulting.!

Edited by ryde
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry JonCris, but I will be one that does mention the term/condition of an agreement (contract) that does state (or something with the meaning of).

 

"We have the right to sell assign any/all of our rights under this agreement."

 

It cannot be simply brushed under the carpet.

 

I would strongly urge no one to take that approach in Court.

 

Ownership be it either equitable or legal with regard to securitisation (except wholesale) is transferred via assignment. The right under the contact that is assigned (sold) is the right to payment.

 

As I previously said, within the last 15-20 years virtually every single mortgage, loan, credit card and HP agreement will have this term within the agreement. Admitedly the contract does not mention the word "securitisation" however, it does state in "clear english" that the lender will have the right to assign/sell its rights.

 

Therefore, in my own personal opinion any argument that someone cares to use that they were not told that a lender could assign a right under the agreement, has about as many holes in it as the legal title to sue argument.

 

1) Unless an agreement states that the lender cannot assign its rights, it can.

 

2) If a lender was to tell a borrower after a mortgage had been securitised that it had been, this could be argued to be an express notice as per the LOP 1925.

 

 

  • As it is an equitable assignment, notification(post assignment) to the borrower is not required. (s.136 LOP 1925)
  • As the term/condition is in the agreement contract, the borrowers further permission is not required. (as per above House of Lords)

 

Hi Suetonius,

 

Could you explain something?

 

LOP 1925 is a section that is relevant to Legal assignments only - so if the assignment is only an equitable assignment, then s.136 is not relevant. Why do you keep talking about s.136?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suetonius,

 

Could you explain something?

 

LOP 1925 is a section that is relevant to Legal assignments only - so if the assignment is only an equitable assignment, then s.136 is not relevant. Why do you keep talking about s.136?

 

Good Morning Wonderman,

 

I will glady explain.

 

Certain posters (including ITBG?) maintain that securitisation involves the sale of the legal title. As I am sure you are aware, this is not something that I agree with and have argued the case that it is only the equitable/beneficial title for many, many months.

 

I say this because (for other reasons please see this thread), the legal title, includes the legal right to a "thing" and all legal remedies for the same. The legal right and all legal remedies can only be assigned via a Legal Assignment.

s.136 of the LOP 1925 states:

 

136 Legal assignments of things in action

 

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

Put simply, s.136 of the LOP 1925 details the criteria for a legal assignment ("express notice in writing").

 

Therefore in answer to your question, s.136 of the LOP 1925 confirms that unless an "express notice in writing" has been given to the borrower it is not effectual in law. An assignment that is not effectual in law and does not comply with s.136 of the LOP is an equitable assignment.

 

And that is why I continue to talk about it and will continue do so, to prevent people from relying on a agrument that has more holes in it than a siv. (my personal opinion)

 

That is also the very reason why I started to post in the securitisation threads. I know my posts are not popular and to be honest I don't care. I am not here to win friends.

 

Even if just one person has used a different argument to save their home because of what I have posted, than I am a very happy man.

 

I hope that is ok Wonderman....

Edited by Suetonius
sorry forgot to add "personal opinion" :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suetonius,

 

Thank you for the reply...but I don't see your point. s.136 concerns only a legal assignment. You are saying that the assignment is an equitable assignment. If the assignment is an equitable assignment then s.136 is totally irrelevant. So please could you explain why you are arguing that s.136 is relevant to an equitable assignment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

please lets not go back to this legal title question its dead in the water long ago.

Anybody that goes bankrupt loses their house to the official receiver who will get the beneficial interest.

 

Bankruptcy - What will happen to my home in bankruptcy?

 

If anybody still thinks you need the legal title to do anything please read that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suetonius,

 

Thank you for the reply...but I don't see your point. s.136 concerns only a legal assignment. You are saying that the assignment is an equitable assignment. If the assignment is an equitable assignment then s.136 is totally irrelevant. So please could you explain why you are arguing that s.136 is relevant to an equitable assignment?

 

please lets not go back to this legal title question its dead in the water long ago.

 

I have responded on this thread to you wonderman....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eurosail-UK 2007-5NP - Notice of Meeting - InvestEgate

 

this needs some deciphering but indicates the current health and status of the spv who is now calling extraordinary resolutions,it also reveals how closely capstone are linked to them.There are many notices for all the spv funds.Its all as a result of borrowers defaulting.!

 

This may help

 

http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2008/dec08/24712.pd

Link to post
Share on other sites

CHANGE OF SUBJECT SLIGHTLY

mercyblue the reason they have posted all these notices is because of and as a result of the mortgage defaults.

For the consideration of all.

1)Capstone are the administrators that is the collectors and then distributors to eurosail the spv of the mortgage repayments

2)They are a seperate legal entity and could in fact administrate anyones mortgage.Their object is to survive the current situation.

3)The spv eurosail is legally entitled to the repayments ONLY on your mortgage it is not entitled to any administrative charges,arrears fees etc made by capstone and in fact has to pay them an administrative fee for collecting your mortgage.

4)Capstone levy exorbitant fees even fictional fees on the borrower for anything that deviates from the normal repayment.As has been reported over and over again arrears fees are in many cases more than the arrears.

These fees are NOT paid to the spv they are kept by capstone.

5)Capstones fees and charges come before any repayment to the spv out of your account.

6)What capstone are effectively doing is squeezing everything they can out of the borrower deliberately putting them into arrears to line their own coffers diverting funds to themselves instead of the spv.

This is putting the spv into a situation where they are failing,liquidity funds have been refused hence all the notices to investors.

THIS SITUATION IS DOWNRIGHT CONSPIRATORIAL AND SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO THE INVESTORS IN A POSTING ON THE INTERNET.

What I am saying is the borrower cannot pay off the arrears on their mortgage because the administrators charges are in many cases greater than the actual arrears payments.

I would suggest that someone posts a list of capstones administration charges here.All these posts come up in the google search I will then post if I can a notice to the investors about capstones charges and what they are doing because these big pension funds etc have an awful lot more power than we do and they're being conned,most mortgages are in default as a result of charges made by the administrator who are diverting funds meant for the spv into their own pockets by way of charges.Hope this makes sense.

We'll get the b.....s one way or another.

Edited by ryde
Link to post
Share on other sites

sutonis,

 

I dont' do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Edited by I'm the bad guy?
incorrectly used a capital letter

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6236

 

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

SHUT'EM DOWN!!!!> SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sutonis,

 

I dont' do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG?

 

Am I Mr Popular today ???

 

First it was wonderman, closely followed by IS IT ME? and now it is ITBG? as his alter female ego (must be a weekend thing ;) ) ITGG?

 

I don't know why you keep posting that you don't do drugs.

 

I personally really don't care if you do or you don't.

 

However, your repeated posts that you don't do drugs, does very little to assist anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd have to, to respond to that

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Edited by I'm the bad guy?

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6236

 

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

SHUT'EM DOWN!!!!> SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL

Link to post
Share on other sites

just say NO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

d.a.r.e.

Edited by I'm the bad guy?

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6236

 

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

SHUT'EM DOWN!!!!> SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL

Link to post
Share on other sites

eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6236

 

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

SHUT'EM DOWN!!!!> SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it safe to come out now!

 

 

has ITGG! gone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6236

 

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

SHUT'EM DOWN!!!!> SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suetonius back to serious stuff.

If the equitable titleholder ie eurosail becomes as is increasingly possible the legal titleholder because of default.insolvency etc.

Would they have to apply to the land registry to register their legal charge or would it just entail a change of name?

The application as it is a transfer of the legal title would i assume be notifiable to the mortgagor ie us ,under lpa 1925.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote

ryde

What capstone are effectively doing is squeezing everything they can out of the borrower deliberately putting them into arrears to line their own coffers diverting funds to themselves instead of the spv.

This is putting the spv into a situation where they are failing,liquidity funds have been refused hence all the notices to investors.

THIS SITUATION IS DOWNRIGHT CONSPIRITORIAL AND SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO THE INVESTORS IN A POSTING ON THE INTERNET.

That is a wild statement to make ryde without proof, as to the worlds top financial investors not being aware of such things I doubt that.

And where would that put the posting I made from a internet source that Capstone owe out 60 million pounds [not very good at it]:confused:

kegi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kegi

look at previous posts, a fee of £115 a month because an account is in arrears is preposterous and completely unjustifiable,how much actual extra administrative work does an account in arrears entail.This means for every account in arrears capstone get £115 before anything is paid off the arrears towards the spv's payments.That sort of sum would support something like a £50000 interest only mortgage at normal rates.Don't forget capstone already get paid by the spv for collecting the mortgage.

I hope someone will post capstones current administration charges.This will prove what I am saying.

please post your source that capstone is owed £60000000, as collectors only for someone else ie the spv, I cannot see they are owed anything.They take their cut at source ie from us before it ever gets to the spv/investor.Their cut is now so large that the spvs are failing its as simple as that and their charges are pushing more and more into default resultingly pushing the spv into bigger default with the investor,pretty clever scheme.

Rats filling their bellies in preparation for deserting the sinking ship.

Edited by ryde
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...