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

[I'm the bad guy?]

..Ryde, i see why you have been unsuccessful in court to get disclosure, when in your above post, you still donot understand Supers argument. That the lender through a true sale, sells both the legal & equitable title to the SPV.end of. The SPV then does not, as is mandatory under s.27(3)&(4) LRA 2002, register its titles with the LR.

 

..'learn from wot Super left, and put it into effect..'

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

o.p.p.

[enoughisenough]

In fairness to Ryde (and I'm sure he'll be along to defend himself in person soon) it's not that he has "misunderstood" anything. Rather, he has come to the same conclusion as many others. That conclusion, which I still don't share, but don't yet know how to successfully counter, is that the assignment from originator to spv was equitable.

 

Of course once you accept that then the construction of the case becomes different. I couldn't win on the unfair charges. (At least not in front of the judge who declined his own jurisdiction to hear the argument.) Does that mean I shouldn't use the UTCCRs? That seems to be the logic.

 

If an argument loses in court it's because it's the wrong argument. That's right isn't it? That's what your saying.

 

And then where does that logic leave the thousands including myself who did argue in court that it was sold lock stock and barrel and still lost that point?

 

With respect, there's some tortuous logic here.

[enoughisenough]

Something's rattling the Guestometer...

[I'm the bad guy?]

..at the very least, the starting point would be the correct understanding of a true sale(Supers). then the argument you believe that lender does not own your mortgage. whether the court agrees is another matter. point is if you have chosen that path, make sure you get your facts right and you believe them, and maybe you'll get lucky like IS IT ME? notwithstanding your other defences..

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[ryde]

..Ryde, i see why you have been unsuccessful in court to get disclosure, when in your above post, you still donot understand Supers argument. That the lender through a true sale, sells both the legal & equitable title to the SPV.end of. The SPV then does not, as is mandatory under s.27(3)&(4) LRA 2002, register its titles with the LR.

 

..'learn from wot Super left, and put it into effect..'

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

o.p.p.

 

errhm thought that was exactly the point I was trying to get over L.C.

See this extract of a very complex long post which is attempting to cover every scenario should one fail or be rejected.

 

THE SHAM PERPETRATED BY THE SPV TO PREVENT TRANSFER OF THE LEGAL TITLE WHEN THEY IN FACT COMPLETELY CONTROL THIS AND CAN ORDER THE ADMINISTRATOR CAPSTONE TO TRANSFER THE LEGAL TITLE AS EVIDENCED BY THE NOTICES TO NOTEHOLDERS RE SPPL.(EVIDENCE OF A TRUE SALE)THE PURPOSE BEING a) TO AVOID FEES b)TO AVOID REGULATION.

 

THIS IS A FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT FROM THE BORROWER WHO SIGNED THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE CONTRACT WITH THE ORIGINAL LENDER ON THE PRETEXT THAT THEY WERE SIGNING FOR A REGULATED CONTRACT.

 

Haven't yet been to court yet am still holding the line and trying by every means possible to get disclosure using every available argument in every scenario,only have to succeed on one count.

 

THERE IS ONLY ONE LOOPHOLE THAT PREVENTS THE SPV AS FAR AS THE COURTS ARE CONCERNED NOT BEING THE LEGAL TITLEHOLDER AND THAT IS THE FAILURE UNDER I THINK S136 NOT TO NOTIFY THE BORROWER

 

You have also to consider beyond this:

ok the court grants you disclosure and you find the spv is the real owner,all they then do is instruct the nominee(the original lender) to carry out the litigation for them under the irrevocable power of attorney and as mentioned in the prospectus.

This is where the non enforceability of the contract comes in as the defence because the spv is not regulated by the FSA and in consideration for the legal charge and mortgage contract you signed with the original lender your loan was to be a regulated agreement which it now cannot be as it is being administered by an unauthorised entity ie:the spv.

STILL WORKING ON IT AS I said any input welcome as its a big responsibility with a lot of ifs and buts,so criticism more than welcome.

Edited February 1, 2010 by ryde

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Securitisation for the footy fan

 

ESLJ Volume 4 Number 3 Articles

[enoughisenough]

ITBG?

 

Just a thought but when I linked to company house which you posted above its just the general search page...

 

I then did a search for various Lehman's entities/subsidiaries SPML/SPPL etc and found nothing on Attia. Wotchergot On Attia then...?

[littledotty27]

I contacted the courts this morning with re to solicitors asking us to breach court order.

I spoke to a very nice lady,who told me to forward the letter on to the court & it would be arranged to go in front of the judge with the claimant, for them to explain as to why they have asked us to breach a court order.

Someone is in for a big slap!!!

[enoughisenough]

Top Drawer Dotty...

 

Maybe the courts are getting fed up with these morons...I certainly hope so.

 

[ryde]

ITBG?

 

Just a thought but when I linked to company house which you posted above its just the general search page...

 

I then did a search for various Lehman's entities/subsidiaries SPML/SPPL etc and found nothing on Attia. Wotchergot On Attia then...?

 

When I did same yesterday got first capstone then later eurosail!?

wonder if its feasible to securitise our securitisation,the crackpot govt would probably be the best bet or better still we could form cagger plc with L.C. as CEO, copy the eurosail prospectus substituting our own name and float the whole lot on the irish stock exchange.(then do a runner with the cash generated and start again,ie.normal city practice)

Edited February 1, 2010 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

..tick.tock.tick.tock...attia in the dock..

 

 

 

stand fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[enoughisenough]

What I want to know is when we can safely tell 'em to take a hike and foxtrot oscar up their own firmament.

 

God I HATE THEM.

 

If Attia goes under they are toast.Right?

[I'm the bad guy?]

..if you are with LMC or SPPL, the're dust anyway-no directors etc. if there are no officers in the co's, they have no authority to act upon you in court; correct otherwise...

 

only SPML & PML, have attia, but...not for long...then justice for all?

 

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[littledotty27]

Whats happening with the LMC strike off notice ITBG

[I'm the bad guy?]

LD,

 

CH got a reply from PWC, that they want to keep LMC. So the notice was removed, but they will have to appoint a director asap, or another notice will go out to strike off. PWC just stalling...the insolvency investor notices on SPPL..same will occur with LMC.

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[scedminc]

ITBG?

 

Just a thought but when I linked to company house which you posted above its just the general search page...

 

I then did a search for various Lehman's entities/subsidiaries SPML/SPPL etc and found nothing on Attia. Wotchergot On Attia then...?

 

There is nothing extra on Attia. I believe ITBG was refering to a recent submission that was made to CH which actually turns only to be change in directors details to state that the country of usual residence is the UK.

 

Sced

[scedminc]

I don't believe for one minute that if Attia is struck off that these companies will fold. More likely is that if they think Attia will be struck off that another director will be put in place prior to his happening.

 

Sced

[enoughisenough]

Well what exactly have we got here then? Simple question, probably without any simple answer.

 

Those entities already designated as dust. Right to sue or no right to sue? Preferably with supporting evidence. And in the case of the latter what if any are the prospects for winning this in court if we were to initiate an action on this principle? Probably reverts back to costs doesn't it as it climbs up the court food chain.

[I'm the bad guy?]

Sced,

 

disagree cuz, for the same reason LMC & SPPL have no directors since October 14/15 2009. Also, if they had the intention of keeping them they would filed their latest accounts. As for Attia, she may well be replaced, but again they will have to file their accounts, and 2008 ARE under the 2006 CA and they are bankrupt. Think about it, where are they getting their 'servicing revenues' from, any payments go to the SPVs, lets see their 2009 accounts? There are NO directors(LMC/SPPL), so how can they instruct? 'shadow directors' are illegal, and the accounts you have posted say 'winding down'. This is over & done with, its up to us follow through...

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[I'm the bad guy?]

..to add, its not for me to even suggest what course of action to take. you have homes at stake. but if you are put into court by JAW, either by LMC/SPPL, print off the CH report showing NO directors and ask the court who has instructed the action. Remember, none of JAW-4, are in administration, only parent Mable. So they are all still separate 'legal' entities, that require directors, published accounts etc.

 

point being the instructions have come from Capstone via SPVs, its this fundamental relationship(stated in all SPV accounts), that keeps Capstone alive and repos you.

 

 

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

Edited February 1, 2010 by I'm the bad guy?

[ryde]

ITBG/LC

Is it worth banging this fact into CIB because the apparent write off is the only thing that is keeping all of this lot afloat and as you say they are in reality balance sheet insolvent.There seems to be some almighty great [problem] here.

 

WHAT IS REALLY WORTHY OF SERIOUS INVESTIGATION IS THE FACT THAT MABLE AND STORM FUNDING BOTH WITH MAJOR CREDITORS AND BOTH IN ADMIN HAVE APPARENTLY TEMPORARILY WROTE OFF MILLIONS THAT ALL THIS LOT OWE THEM (WHICH THEY BORROWED TO FUND THE LOANS THEY SOLD TO US) AND BY DOING SO ARE KEEPING AND HAVE KEPT THIS LOT AFLOAT.

CREDITORS ARE GETTING FLEECED FURTHER ALONG THE LINE IN A BIG WAY.

OUR LOT OWE FAR MORE THAN THEY OWN AND TO BUSTED COMPANIES WHO IN THEIR TURN BORROWED FROM SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN PAID AS A RESULT OF THE FIRST OUTSTANDING DEBT WHICH THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CALL IN,INCREDIBLE.

 

Always bear in mind that if the lender/originator goes belly up they've still got another really big play,it isn't the end.

Edited February 1, 2010 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

send it off anyway..I reviewed this awhile back, its legitimate- it shows how devious PWC are though, by placing Storm & Mable into administration to keep the JAWs alive.

 

let's not be complacent peeps!

'Judean People's Front! We're the People's Front of Judea!'

 

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[ZillaK]

I'm interested in hearing of any transfers of assets from SPPL Ltd to whoever for the period September '08 up to present day.. even where that transfer relies on an agreement or contract arising prior to then...

 

I think it's also time for FoI requests to both the lr & hmrc now, has anyone else done this?

 

Zil..

[I'm the bad guy?]

all,

 

would it be possible for everyone here, to list direct telephone no's of all the investigating bodies, CH, CIB etc within their signatures. Reason being, gives new and old caggers, direct access to status of JAWs etc., and to speak to those who can directly answer their concerns.

 

I can provide all the direct tel#s, but they need to be a part of your signature. Anyone?

 

 

..bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[ZillaK]

..if it hasn't already been suggested then something else that can be added to the list of actions:

 

..make complaint to the FSA asking for SPPL's appointed representative relationship under the Principal SPML to be terminated and authorisation withdrawn, also asking for SPPL and Amany Attia to be fined, publicly reprimanded and that if she does not resolve SPPL's solvency and lack of company directors then she has failed to adhere to the regulations and thus fails the fit and proper test and should be disqualified. Subsequently, ask that SPML should be appropriately fined and/or publicly reprimanded for failing to fulfil their regulatory duties and obligations as Principal of SPPL..

 

..apply the above to the other companies where possible/relevant..

 

..rather than digging out the FSA handbooks, here's some quick links to basic factsheets on the above:

 

1. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/factsheet_appointed.pdf

 

2. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/factsheet_approved.pdf

 

Zil..

 

ps - happy to list numbers etc..