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

[supersleuth]

Crapstone,

 

There is a direct debit guarantee system in which if the lender takes the wrong amount, you can recall the payment. It is wrong of them to take more than they are entitled to take and besides, you are supposed to be informed of the amount they will take at least 14 days before the payment. Of course, you could cancel the direct debit mandate altogether if Capstone are going to abuse your account and cause you to incur bank charges or other difficulties with your bank.

 

It seems that in light of Capstone's incompetence, that Midge's suggestion may be a safer method. That way, you control when and how much they are paid rather than leaving it to them in control of access to your bank account. Plus you will have receipted proof of the payments and the dates.

[enoughisenough]

Interesting link:

 

Can a mod move this to Welcome Finance/Cattles for me please. It might garner some interest over there!

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Sub-prime lender facing £700m hit

[enoughisenough]

Contrast with this!

 

Cattles | CR

[Crapstone]

I've just spoken to Capstone again and THEY say they have no record of the letter they sent! That must mean the letter I have in front of dated 9th March is either a fake or it's just an hallucination on my part.

They wouldn't pass me on to a senior advisor and basically told me it wasn't their fault and I'd have to make a written complaint. As you can imagine, I'm not a happy bunny.

 

I have used transfers previously as well as cheques. Every month they kept threatening me that the contract states that I HAVE to pay by DD along with the relevent charges for failed DD when they still kept trying to take it.

 

[midge61]

Hi

 

I have been paying by direct transfer for the last 19months with no problem. I also have an agreement that my payments can be made by the 10th of the month without penalty.

 

You have to be firm and put EVERYTHING in writing by recorded del.

 

When I have questioned things before they have stated that their system only has records of letters I have sent them and they do not carry records of letters they send to me so this may be correct.

 

I would stop the dd and pay by transfer (the payments quoted in their letter) from now on and write a complaint and demand the put your account in order and if they don't sort it out go to the FOS.

[Crapstone]

And finally...

 

I called them again and was told it was a letter that was standard and was sent to everyone. So we all must be paying the same payments then LOL. The next excuse was that I'd come to the end of my fixed period, excuse me but that finished years ago.

 

I faxed a copy over to them and they FINALLY admitted they had made a mistake. It's taken 5 calls, over an hour on the phone and 2 faxes to sort out what should have been obvious. The correct amount was attempted to be taken but for some reason the amount on new payment schedule was wrong. So much for the 14 day advance notice of payment change.

 

So I'll be composing yet another complaint letter to these morons and sitting down to a relaxing couple of glasses (bottles!) of wine as I think I deserve it.

[midge61]

Hi

 

Make sure you double check the figures yourself!

 

enjoy your drink:D

[enoughisenough]

Idiots.

 

Capstone obviously. Not you lovely people. Issue a claim against them and see how they like it. What a bunch of inept t*****s.

 

Just remember that these people were the kids you always hated at school - arrogant, stupid and the bullying type. You'd feel sorry for them if they weren't being employed all day trying to screw hard working people out of their homes.

 

They make me sick. Why don't they get a real job that contributes to the real economy? Greed + avarice = moral failure. Pity not for them. Their conscience (such that they have one) will make their elder years a living hell.

 

Cheers all EIE. and ALWAYS Keep the Faith.

[nappeah]

The fact that people who lose their homes through repossession are being asked to make good the shortfall dipicts the injustices in our society as a whole. In other nations when banks lend against physical assets and when the assets are taken over as result of financial difficulties that is the end of the matter like my dear friend stated in the US we have similar system. What we see in the U.K because is this system of asking borrowers to make good the short fall. Lenders have in many ways acted irresponsibly and it is high time we asked for the change in the law.

[littledotty27]

We are now being hounded by harrassment phonecalls,even at weekend.

I asked politely to put everything in writing and still ignoring our requests.

Sent telephone harrassment letter today,so should receive it tomorrow.

 

Has anyone else had any luck when sending harrassment letter?

[scedminc]

We are now being hounded by harrassment phonecalls,even at weekend.

I asked politely to put everything in writing and still ignoring our requests.

Sent telephone harrassment letter today,so should receive it tomorrow.

 

Has anyone else had any luck when sending harrassment letter?

 

 

Hi LittleDotty,

 

I had the same about 3 weeks ago when I got a call on a Sunday. I too will be sending a letter but have not had time as of yet. Let me what they say and I shall do likewise. I doubt they will care. They recently failed to comply correctly with an SAR so i wrote to them saying I give them a further 7 days to comply as a goodwill gesture otherwise I shall obtain a court order obliging them to. Guess what, they ignore me so I am going to be issusing proceedings within the next week.

[littledotty27]

What are they like??!!

 

When we sent our witness statement,one of our payments went through on a sunday and there response we don't open on a sunday.

You have just proved that by stating they called you on a sunday!

 

There is guidelines on times and days they can call you ie arrears,they are mon-fri 8am-8pm and sat 9am-1pm.

By calling you on a sunday you can contact ofcom,trading standards etc and report them.

[brassed-off-2]

Hi LittleDotty,

 

I had the same about 3 weeks ago when I got a call on a Sunday. I too will be sending a letter but have not had time as of yet. Let me what they say and I shall do likewise. I doubt they will care. They recently failed to comply correctly with an SAR so i wrote to them saying I give them a further 7 days to comply as a goodwill gesture otherwise I shall obtain a court order obliging them to. Guess what, they ignore me so I am going to be issusing proceedings within the next week.

 

For some reason, we haven't had any phonecalls at all.....in fact its quite worrying that all seems to have gone quiet from them, eerily quite...

Anyway, they have failed to comply to sar, have given extra week, still no sar...so we to have filed LBA today, by recorded...will leave it till about Weds, due to easter break, and if still none compliance, then will issue court proceedings.

Also sent about 3 other formal complaint letters also today, all under seperate recorded delivery..we know we cannot trust them, to not loose any!! can we.

 

B-O-2

[brassed-off-2]

BankingCrisisMemos250209[1]

 

Hi Little Dotty,

Reading pages 199 - 220, i thought of you, and how this may help your cause when you go back infront of the judge, it may be worth printing and forwarding on beforehand...it helps explain the securitisation, the wrongdoings with the lRA act 2002 etc...

 

Regards

B-O-2

[Smarterchick]

BankingCrisisMemos250209[1]

 

Hi Little Dotty,

Reading pages 199 - 220, i thought of you, and how this may help your cause when you go back infront of the judge, it may be worth printing and forwarding on beforehand...it helps explain the securitisation, the wrongdoings with the lRA act 2002 etc...

 

Regards

B-O-2

 

May I suggest you don't rely too much on this report other than to put the company/spml to strict proof they own the right to sue you. Much debate has still to be had on this subject. Supersleuth is back again soon I think so we might get more insight into how effective this may be, but looking at prospectus from Abbey which I have been doing, everything relates to equitable assignment and even if Supersleuth is 100% correct and they are all doing this against the law behind smoke screens, it will still take a smart lawyer to sell your case. I doubt some District Judge will just accept the concept, but it will make him/her ask the question over who has the right to bring the action. You need the sales document between spml and the SPV or Trust to get to the nittys so ask for it under CPR 36 Disclosure. We are knocking on the door, but the doors not open quite yet. On the Preferred thread Seutonius has been playing devils advocate along with JonCris and others opening up different avenues such as Unfair Contract, it's slowly opening lines of debate for discussion.

[enoughisenough]

Keep the pressure up on them. I do believe it's beginning to tell. They will not respond to SAR, even with CPR 31.6 if it's already in litigation.

 

If they hadn't been so quick to jump down people's throats they wouldn't have had all this. They must have expected some kind of reaction, but they don't seem that prepared for the one they got.

 

 

The key at the moment is to cast enough doubt before the DJ on the CB securitisation stuff but also to go for other angles such as UTCCRs, CCA 2006. I'm with smarterchick on this one. The door isn't open yet but we should definitely keep knocking. We have only have to get lucky once, they have to be lucky ad infinitum, and the odds are they won't be.

[Smarterchick]

Keep the pressure up on them. I do believe it's beginning to tell. They will not respond to SAR, even with CPR 31.6 if it's already in litigation.

 

If they hadn't been so quick to jump down people's throats they wouldn't have had all this. They must have expected some kind of reaction, but they don't seem that prepared for the one they got.

 

 

The key at the moment is to cast enough doubt before the DJ on the CB securitisation stuff but also to go for other angles such as UTCCRs, CCA 2006. I'm with smarterchick on this one. The door isn't open yet but we should definitely keep knocking. We have only have to get lucky once, they have to be lucky ad infinitum, and the odds are they won't be.

 

Just like the bank charges procedures which unfolded the key to this one is to turn the tables on the banks to prove themselves. For too long they have just used their bully-boy tactics to repossess people, chucking them out on the streets after taking the unsuspecting into court assuming all was in their favour. It is common for we consumers to assume because these are 'respectable' organisatons they will have done everything by the book - well they became complacent and as the synergy grows in people talking to one another on forums like this they find themselves having to answer to the masses, not to just one individual who never told anyone what their letters said. All you need to do as enoughisenough says is to caste doubt in the judges minds as to who owns the rights to do what they are doing, if you doubt it, get them to prove it. If they don't conform to CPR 36 then let the court insist for you.

 

I went into court on a repo claim and when the judge said to me " do you agree with the amount shown as owing on the mortgage as stated by the bank" I said NO...that stopped everything for months while they went back to re assess. I'd had a further advance which said should have been a CCA regulated loan rather than dumped on the mortgage - that's all and it put everything back months...USE THE SYSTEM and do not be threatened..this securitisation business is very very complex, but knock on the door we will continue to do until we find a way to deal with it...

[JonCris]

Keep the pressure up on them. I do believe it's beginning to tell. They will not respond to SAR, even with CPR 31.6 if it's already in litigation.

 

If they hadn't been so quick to jump down people's throats they wouldn't have had all this. They must have expected some kind of reaction, but they don't seem that prepared for the one they got.

 

 

The key at the moment is to cast enough doubt before the DJ on the CB securitisation stuff but also to go for other angles such as UTCCRs, CCA 2006. I'm with smarterchick on this one. The door isn't open yet but we should definitely keep knocking. We have only have to get lucky once, they have to be lucky ad infinitum, and the odds are they won't be.

 

 

Really enough then they should:evil: & here's what to send after amending accordingly

 

Date:

YOUR REF:

OUR REF: Special Delivery

SAR (Subject Access Request) DPA (Data Protection Act) 1998

Their Name & Address

 

Your Name & Address

Dear Madam or Sir:

RE: YOUR CLIENT

As per the DPA 1998 (Date Protection Act) I require that you supply me with any and all data in your possession which, in anyway appertains to myself including true copies of any properly executed agreements including those of securitization, statements of account, default notices, all internal and external correspondence, memo’s, telephone attendance notes, internal and external emails

If your client is not the original creditor please also supply a true copy of their letter of assignment or if acting on behalf of another a true copy of their predated authority to bring this action.

I enclose the statutory fee of £10 by way of a postal order and remind you that you have 40 days in which to comply

Also please note that for the avoidance of doubt and to expedite matters if you claim exemptions from the Data Protection Act under part IV section 35 I would respectfully remind you of the following:

Data Protection Act part IV section 35 (2) states "personal data is not exempt from the non-disclosure provisions" In addition Part II section 7 (legal guidance notes) "There are no exemptions from the right of access where civil legal proceedings are contemplated or ongoing"

If you are unable due to time constraints or refuse I will, after notifying the court of my SAR, ask the court for a continuance to allow time for both yours and your clients compliance and in the case of the latter an order compelling you to comply

I await your responses

Yours faithfully

 

CC To County Court & all other parties

Edited April 14, 2009 by JonCris

[brassed-off-2]

Keep the pressure up on them. I do believe it's beginning to tell. They will not respond to SAR, even with CPR 31.6 if it's already in litigation.

 

If they hadn't been so quick to jump down people's throats they wouldn't have had all this. They must have expected some kind of reaction, but they don't seem that prepared for the one they got.

 

 

The key at the moment is to cast enough doubt before the DJ on the CB securitisation stuff but also to go for other angles such as UTCCRs, CCA 2006. I'm with smarterchick on this one. The door isn't open yet but we should definitely keep knocking. We have only have to get lucky once, they have to be lucky ad infinitum, and the odds are they won't be.

 

 

The reason i posted the CB banking crisis link up and suggested LD, forward a copy to the DJ, who i believe was interested in the LRA aspect of LD'S case adjourned on certain reasons to do with the LRA, so i thought this may help little dotty bring this aspect to the DJ'S attention as we are all well aware they do not quite understand it..this is only my opinion though, please correct me if i am wrong.

 

B-O-2

[enoughisenough]

No not at all...absolutely right. Apologies if my post seemed to suggest anything different. Time and pressure with us all chipping away at various points will reveal their achilles heel. Judges need to be brought up to speed and fast. Maybe it's time to contact the erstwhile Lord Chancellor's department and get some practice directions flowing down to the county courts. Let's get a petition organised. Thoughts anyone?

[enoughisenough]

FROM HMRC

 

CFM20030a - Securitisation: basic structures: example of a true sale/asset- backed securitisation

True sale/asset-backed securitisation

Diagram of a true sale/asset-backed securitisation.

 

Text Alternative

A charitable trust is formed that owns the equity in an issuer SPV.

 

The originator company sells suitable assets to the issuer SPV.

 

The issuer SPV raises the finance to purchase the assets from the originator by issuing bonds to third party investors which represent both interest and principal.

 

Any ongoing surpluses made by the issuer SPV are passed back to the originator.

 

Any residual profit left in the issuer SPV is passed back to the charitable trust.

 

This is exactly what happened to the SPPL/SPML mortgages. Seems very little to doubt it was (and is) a true sale.

 

Over to you Suetonius. (By which I mean pull this apart in the way they might!)

 

Keep up the good work by the way as this is really helping us sharpen all the tools in our toolbox!

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

[Fedupnow]

Please please can somebody help me?... I contacted spml over a year ago now when I knew I was getting into trouble and before I missed a payment. I asked for a payment holiday or to go on an interest only till I got back on my feet........i was told they did neither and I had to go to citizens advice which I did. Altogether last year, I missed 5 payments (not consecutive) and they ook me to court last november where they got a suspended possession order as long as I paid the normal payment (£720)plus £50 off the arrears. I have done this from december to february but have found it very difficult being on my own with 2 kids so I rang them to make my payment in March and told them I would be paying the interest plus the £50 and that I would like them to look at my case and help me. No-one has called me back but I recieved a call on easter sunday asking for the shortfall.........i reiterated that I would pay the interest plus the 50 when they payment is due on the 26th April. I asked about interest only again and the person said it had been looked at but I had been declined that option because it would be classed as new lending and they were not doing any new lending!! I asked if they were going to repossess my house but I couldnt get a straight answer. I rang them back on tuesday this week and I couldnt even speak to a manager or supervisor.

I have read lots of posts on here and I am very comfused as to what people are talking about with all these forms! I need help as I am at my wits end now...........I am a strong person but feel I have been bullied by spml but I will be bullied no longer................... ...please can someone help me?

[Suetonius]

 

Over to you Suetonius. (By which I mean pull this apart in the way they might!)

 

Here you go:

 

 

 

1) Difference Between America & UK securitisation

 

"21. Two of the exceptions are the consequence of US requirements. The first, which the Appellant contends is reflected in substance and in form in the structure which has been achieved, is that the assignment must be a true sale; it may not be an assignment by way of security if US accounting standards are to be respected (necessary because COBE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a US corporation which is subject to US standards). No such requirement is imposed by UK accounting standards, nor by the FSA"

 

It would appear that in the US, securitisation has to be via a true sale. However, that is not a requirement in the UK. Therefore, if the lender retains legal title in law in the UK, securitisation has no effect on the ability of the lender to instigate legal proceedings.

 

2) Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HRMC)

 

Securitisation is a method of raising finance on the capital markets at advantageous rates of interest. Types of businesses likely to use securitisation are financial institutions, insurance companies, trading companies and any other type of business with a regular source of income. If these bodies borrow money from a bank the rate of interest charged will depend on their credit worthiness. Securitisation involves the transfer of their income into a separate trust. This enables money to be borrowed against the security of the income stream in such a way that, if the company goes bankrupt, the investor will still be repaid.

 

In the case of credit card securitisations, the arrangement involves the establishment of a receivables trust, often in Jersey (receivables are the payments due to the credit card company from its customers, including repayment of the principal on a loan or credit arrangement. This can also apply to interchange commission paid by the retailer).

 

"The credit card company transfers the beneficial interest (not the legal interest) in the receivables on a block of accounts to the trust. This is done in return for payment of the principal amount of credit provided plus a proportion of the interest due (known as the excess spread). A separate company is then set up to issue debt securities on to the capital markets to third party investors. The issuer contributes the funds received from investors to trust assets and later receives funds from the trust as necessary when payments of interest and repayments of principal fall due to investors. In the meantime, the credit card company uses the funds received from the investors to fund its business."

 

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs confirm that (in relation to credit cards) it is only the beneficial interest and not the legal interest that is transfered.

 

3) Capital One tribunial

 

As mentioned above. (please see point one)

 

4) MBNA Case

 

"57. The recitals to the RSD refer to the Transferor and Receivables Trustee (MBNA and CCSE respectively) having agreed that for the purposes of facilitating a possible securitisation, the Transferor may from time to time offer to assign all Receivables (existing and future) arising on such accounts of its credit card customers as are nominated to become Designated Accounts. It is acknowledged that upon acceptance of such an offer to assign by the Receivables Trustee, the Receivables will be assigned by way of equitable assignment only unless notice of assignment should later be given. It is also expressly contemplated by the recitals that the Receivables Trustee will appoint the Operating Party for the purpose of giving instructions in relation to any available discretion capable of being exercised by the Receivables Trustee upon the terms of a separate agreement described as the "RT Operating Agreement"."

 

This particular case in the High Court, also confirms equitable assignment.

 

5) s.136 Law of Property Act 1925*

 

"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—"

 

s.136 means that unless a notice has been given to the debtor / borrower, the assignment can only be equitable.

 

6) s.131 Land Regisitration Act 2002

 

"131 “Proprietor in possession”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, land is in the possession of the proprietor of a registered estate in land if it is physically in his possession, or in that of a person who is entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the registered estate.

 

(2) In the case of the following relationships, land which is (or is treated as being) in the possession of the second-mentioned person is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as in the possession of the first-mentioned person—

(a) landlord and tenant;

(b) mortgagor and mortgagee;

© licensor and licensee;"

(d) trustee and beneficiary

 

As legal title in law has not been transferred the relationship is still mortgagor and mortgagee. Therefore the lender is still registered.

 

7) Paragon vs Pender 2005

 

Contrary to the the information previously posted by Supersleuth, this case was not an application to appeal. The application to appeal was the case in 2003

 

Confirmation from the 2005 case:

 

3) On 5 January 1995 Paragon obtained a possession order in respect of the Property. For reasons which are not material to the present appeal the possession order was not enforced, and on 21 January 2002 (some seven years later) Mr and Mrs Pender applied to set it aside. They also sought permission to appeal against the possession order out of time. On 25 November 2003 HHJ Mayer, in the Barnet County Court, dismissed both applications. Mr and Mrs Pender applied to the High Court for permission to appeal against Judge Mayer's dismissal of the application to set aside the possession order (no appeal lay from the judge's dismissal of the application for permission to appeal against the possession order).

 

4) The application for permission to appeal against Judge Mayer's dismissal of the application to set aside the possession order was listed before Peter Smith J, with the substantive appeal to follow were permission to be granted. Peter Smith J accordingly heard full argument. In the event, by his order dated 25 November 2003 he granted limited permission to appeal but went on to dismiss the substantive appeal

 

The below are three of the judgements made in this case:

 

110. It follows, in my judgment, that Paragon, so long as it remains the registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, is a necessary party to any claim to possession of the Property in right of the Legal Charge.

 

111. The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

 

112. In my judgment, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the SPV should have been joined as an additional claimant in the proceedings.

 

8 ) The Publically Avaliable Documentation

 

By using google and yahoo searches we have been able to obtain copies of the presale reports and the base prospectuses. Both of which confirm that is an equitable assignment.

 

In consideration of the above legislation, case law and supporting evidence, I am of the view that the securitisation process within the UK, would not effect the ability of a lender to instigate legal proceedings.

 

Furthermore, I am not convinced the "sales agreement" would have any real effect, I say this because a contract cannot override the legal requirements of s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

In response to the above eight points, can anyone provide one thing to show that the legal title in law has been assigned ?

 

 

 

 

*Disclaimer

 

The above is based upon the assumption that s.136 is the applicable legal process

[Suetonius]

Please please can somebody help me?... I contacted spml over a year ago now when I knew I was getting into trouble and before I missed a payment. I asked for a payment holiday or to go on an interest only till I got back on my feet........i was told they did neither and I had to go to citizens advice which I did. Altogether last year, I missed 5 payments (not consecutive) and they ook me to court last november where they got a suspended possession order as long as I paid the normal payment (£720)plus £50 off the arrears. I have done this from december to february but have found it very difficult being on my own with 2 kids so I rang them to make my payment in March and told them I would be paying the interest plus the £50 and that I would like them to look at my case and help me. No-one has called me back but I recieved a call on easter sunday asking for the shortfall.........i reiterated that I would pay the interest plus the 50 when they payment is due on the 26th April. I asked about interest only again and the person said it had been looked at but I had been declined that option because it would be classed as new lending and they were not doing any new lending!! I asked if they were going to repossess my house but I couldnt get a straight answer. I rang them back on tuesday this week and I couldnt even speak to a manager or supervisor.

I have read lots of posts on here and I am very comfused as to what people are talking about with all these forms! I need help as I am at my wits end now...........I am a strong person but feel I have been bullied by spml but I will be bullied no longer................... ...please can someone help me?

 

Hello, sounds like you have really been going through the mill.

 

We will all do everything we can to help. To start with can you confirm when you originally took out this mortgage. We need to know this to identify which rules apply.

 

Many Thanks

[enoughisenough]

OK Guys and Gals

 

The CB stuff is the big one. We can all agree on that, even allowing for the ever increasingly, but nonetheless welcome, and indeed appreciated, scepticism of Setonius' contributions to the debate.

 

However we need to keep chipping away at these barstewards. So...

 

We put a plan of action together to totally overwhelm them.

 

1. Anybody dealing with these feckers immediately put in an SAR.

 

2. Start giving them a taste of their own medicine by recording any phone calls and logging them. Dictaphones are cheaper than paying these people interest.

 

3. Write, with immediate effect, to the FOS so that they get a flood of complaints about Crapstone (That would be the company not the poster of course) and or any other mortgage company that is screwing you into the ground.

 

4. Petition (but only as a group of crapstone's 28% share of the sub prime market) to stop paying altogether until they start getting their arses in gear as regards fair conduct of their operations. THat will cost them big time and it will mean slowing down their repossession of the more vulnerable.

 

A moment of candour. Uppermost in my mind is my own situation. But behind everyone's own situation is a whole series of other people, less well resourced, more vulnerable and very definitely on the rack. We owe it to these people to get some justice. Please help apply the pressure and feel free to offer other suggestions concerning applying the pressure and turning the tables on every sub prime lender in ways that can bring immediate and practical effects.

 

Cheers EIE. And ALWAYS Keep the faith.