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

[Dangermouse]

Hi Littledotty

 

I ahven't got time to read through the whole thread again. Have you managed to get sight of the the legal charge that your SPV will have registered with Companies House?

 

Dangermouse

[SadButTrue]

Superslueth,

 

It is simply not a matter of prefering the law according to Suetonius.

 

The law according to Superslueth is different to the law according to Suetonius.

 

Both of you have posted great arguments. I am not interested in becoming involved in the pettiness of the personal squabbles between.

 

I am interested in the facts not who can beat their chest the loudest.

 

It does not really take an Einstein to figure out why you have a vested interest in Suetonius being being wrong.

 

I just want to learn as much as I can, just in case I can't clear my arrears next month !

[JonCris]

Hi Littledotty,

 

Re: the ITN reporter who put you in touch with another lady with the same issue as you and the subsequent email you received from her.

 

Excellent!...so now the ITN reporter knows that this issue is coming from many different sources and now we know that others are bringing forward this issue to court.

 

The lady is spot on where she says in her email that she asked the so-called "lender": therefore my mortgage was not transferred from Matlock Bank as it was already owned by SPML. If this is the case, then why is it SPML is registered as the proprietor of the property the date my contract started with Matlock bank. I also mention something about my mortgage was securitised and my understanding was that the SPV Eurosail was the legal owner of my mortgage and as such SPML do not have the right to repossess the property."

 

 

 

She is factually correct and it is the right question - obviously the question was too hard for the dope on the other end of the phone so he thinks she's "confused" because HE doesn't understand! The ladys DOES know what she's talking about, the problem is that the idiot on the other end of the phone is IGNORANT...probably blissfully ignorant.

 

Well now that ITN know that there is a real legal issue with this, have they said they will report is - or - are ITN having difficulty in understanding the issue too?

 

As for sadbuttrue, it's fine with me if you prefer the law according to Suetonius, you have, and must make your own decisions - BTW: are you currently fighting against a repossession claim yourself?

 

 

I'm expecting to be contacted by a reporter on another matter but I do know this reporter has expressed an interest in the secularization issue - the problem with many of the press I've come into contact with is the moment you start to explain the detail their eyes sort of glaze over & you know they ain't taking it in - basically they are looking for the sound bite & an argument that the man (or woman) on the Clapham Omnibus will understand - therefore I suggest we pick the bones from it in order they can at least understand the basics - that together with stories of human interest, evictions, lying lenders etc will be the best way to get the message out & possibly, when they stop bashing the politicians, the story onto the front pages where it belongs IMHO

[littledotty27]

what's the reporter called Joncrisis?

Is it Chris Choi?

[littledotty27]

Dangermouse no not managed to find it on companies houses yet!!

[littledotty27]

Ive just been sent this aswell from my email friend

 

LMC registration no. 05673094 comes up as LMC ltd. Before it was - EBONYWAY ltd- date changed 02/05/06. The registration number for this is. 01281316.

 

When I looked at this number 01281316 this comapny is also registered - LANGERSAL No.3 (proposal to struck off). Also CANDA Int. date changed 08/05/02

 

01282366 - LMC Ltd was dissolved 25/02/1992

Matlock Bank Ltd is now Matlock London name changed 14/05/07 - No. 00603511

[JonCris]

what's the reporter called Joncrisis?

Is it Chris Choi?

 

I have no idea I was simply asked by another Cagger to speak to this person who I think is female

[littledotty27]

maybe you should direct the repoter to the forum if they have a keen interest.

 

I am still waiting for itn to get back to me,I know he has been busy lately.

[enoughisenough]

OK WELL I AM going to try and put a little Journalistic type piece together which cystallises the issues for the man or woman on the bendy bus I''l start it and other peeps can chip.

 

REPO CHEATO! in the style of the mirror or the sun. We can other paper styles later.

 

THOUSANDS of repossessions against hard hit families may actually be UNLAWFUL because the original LENDERS no longer OWN the mortgage consumer groups claimed yesterday. And as the tide of repossession action grows in credit crunch Britain, thouands of families could be forced onto the streets because the lenders have been told to show no sympathy to borrowers in arrears. It is also claimed the lenders are trying to CASH IN by stripping the all the equity out of the repossessed homes.

[JonCris]

SBT you refer to the Pender case as has sue. - As SS has explained Pender is NOT precedent it's a summary judgment. It was an action seeking to appeal against a refusal of the lower court to allow a very old CCJ to be set -aside - The court discussed the merits of the appeal in the context if the case was heard again did it have merit & the court thought perhaps not What the court DID NOT do was form a binding judgment - However as with Rankine lenders have used it successfully to bamboozle the LiP's & I must regrettably say also the courts

Edited April 24, 2009 by JonCris

[enoughisenough]

County courts are claiming that they are at breaking point in dealing with a surge of claims which have risen by almost 600% in the LAST FOUR MONTHS ALONE

[enoughisenough]

Very few District Judges are making PROPER CHECKS to ensure the lender still owns the charge against the homes, and in many cases, homes are being repossessed for arrears less than TWO THOUSAND POUNDS

 

Hard pressed borrowers have also been claiming that the poor accounting standards, especially in the SUB PRIME MORTGAGE market may mean that the arrears are often exaggerated. If true this could be the biggest SCANDAL yet to emerge in the economic crisis

[littledotty27]

This is brilliant news especially from a national newspaper!!

 

This could be a turning point we all need!!

 

How did you get on today EIE?

Edited April 24, 2009 by littledotty27
add on

[enoughisenough]

And if repossessions continue to soar local authorities are admitting that they will not have the cash to step in

[enoughisenough]

No it's just me trying to grab some journo's attention in away that grabs!

[littledotty27]

oh right sorry crossed wires again!!

[SadButTrue]

I only referred to it JonCris as I wanted to know who was right and who was wrong.

 

So Suetonius was wrong then, the 2003 case was not the application to appeal it was the 2005.

 

Thanks, that is all I wanted to know..

[supersleuth]

Sadbuttrue,

 

Why do you keep asking who is right and who is wrong? YOU DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!

 

You have already indicated a preference for Suetonius' argument - so be happy with YOUR CHOICE.

 

There is NO answer to your question.

[roony]

Dangermouse no not managed to find it on companies houses yet!!

 

Did you find the trustee after you SAR'd your bank?

The trustee from my experience doesnt have any form 395's registered at companies, you need to find the spv in the trustee's prospectus

 

The spv will have the charges registered at companies house

[SadButTrue]

I am just saying sorry for every post I make at the moment. I have read your evidence to the treasury several times. I just wanted find out more. My Mother always used to say, if you don't know, ask

 

Thanks for the warm welcome. Way to elitest for me

[supersleuth]

Sadbuttrue,

 

But you're not asking about the evidence to the treasury committee - you're asking about whether Suetonius or Supersleuth is right aren't you?...and you've already indicated that you've already decided that Suetonius is right - haven't you? So that's you answering your own queston.

 

If you have a different question about the treasury committee evidence then make your question clear....plus, you may want to ask that question on the correct thread, which is not this thread.

[JonCris]

DBT Understandably perhaps as a LiP you appear to be asking for guarantees, guarantees we can't give in fact the most qualified most respected lawyer in the land could NOT give you a guarantee when it comes to litigation.

 

The law is & always has been a moving feast what might be true today might not tomorrow.- For various reasons I'm not going to rehash here I support SS in fact during the various discussions I believe I have added to those arguments such as no loss no claim or unfair relationship etc.

 

Judges, particularly in the lower count courts have considerable discretion to interprete the arguments as they see fit & it's up to the litigants, unfairly in my view when the parties include a LiP, to make the best argument based as far as possible on settled law.

 

Therefore I hope this explanation helps you understand that what your asking is as SS has stated impossible to answer in a definitive way - I'm afraid much like the rest of us you pays your money & you takes your choice.

[supersleuth]

Sadbuttrue in my view is a fraudster that is wasting everyone's time. See his/her attack on the Carmel Butler/House of Commons thread. In my opinion, there has never been a troll so obviously exposed for what they are - a time waster and a fraud.

[enoughisenough]

Disapointed my tabloid style expose didn't get more hits. Should i write a more DAily Mail type rant. I can do that as well! Ooh and jus see the angle I take on that. You guys will think I'm More scarey!

[littledotty27]

I thought it was good..how did you get on today EIE?