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

[brassed-off-2]

Hi all,

 

Just had SAR back from Capstones minus anything to do with securitisation. The SAR was signed and requested for by both mortgage holders yet they have only addressed it my OH and have blacked out all my details! SNAP, ME TOO SAME THING HAPPENED THIS WEEK!!

 

They will not provide MIRAS details as they do not hold any relation to the loan. They will also not pride any agreements between lender/broker/packager as it's not considered data relating to the account holders! FOLLOWED MY GUT INSTINCT ON THIS ONE, AND HAVE JUST RECENTLY SENT DSAR TO PACKAGER AND BROKER!!!

 

Although there is a reference to SPSH First charges in 2007 and this changes to Mortgage Funding 2008-1 BL in 2008. couldnt find anything relevant in mine..will carry on scrutinising it!!

 

Despite Capstone always denying that they had been sent a payment in 2007, it is clearly listed on their computer log that they received an 'unsigned' cheque. From their own records of letters sent they have never returned it as I would have expected them to should that have been the case. Looks like someone has been telling porkies and trying to put the blame on us for failing to pay.

 

Like we have all said before, the sleeze balls cannot and should not ever be trusted...

[enoughisenough]

Yes ditto.

 

Full of cr*p. This is why there are 34 pages of their abuse on this thread alone. FOS immediately.

 

If we can post it here we can post it there. Get their licence revoked or at least get them under serious investigation. The abuses are multiple.

 

I have posted elsewhere the following and want to keep bumping it until we get it out there.

 

Repossessions and suspended repos (which with this lot mean full repo shortly thereafter) are rocketing.

 

So here we go again. Nobody has yet let me know whether they have used this and fired it off. It's about pressure. Time and pressure. Then the landscape can change. Please guys and gals. It's comforting to seek validation for our views and seek advice but we must bring pressure to bear. So here it is. Use, customise and send!

 

Your Address

 

Date

 

Financial Services Authority (FSA)

25 The North Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London E14 5HS

 

Dear Sirs

 

I wish to bring to your attention the following matters of grave concern with regards Capstone Mortgage Services, Southern Pacific Personal Loans and Southern Pacific Mortgage Loans.

 

Whilst I am aware you have no authority to intervene or adjudicate in individual disputes I am equally aware that you possess jurisdiction to investigate, and where necessary, revoke licence to trade of companies you believe may have not observed the various statutory and regulatory frameworks which bind their operation. It is submitted that these entities which operate under licence have not operated in accordance with law.

 

1. They apply terms which are unfair and unrecoverable at law by operation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999)

 

2. They fail to apply the Civil Justice Council’s Pre Action protocols (Issued October 2008 before seeking repossession of mortgaged premises.

 

3. They are in breach of the CCA (1974) and the CCA (2006) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2008.

 

4. They have failed to follow MCOB rules.

 

5. They do not follow the FMSA (2000) in respect of s.150

 

6. They consistently ineffectually process payments made to the effect that they claim arrears and add charges against payments which have been made.

 

7. They refuse to change payment dates for consumers in difficulty in meeting their only due payment date, which is currently the first of the month.

 

8. They falsely allege arrears by refusing to do so and charge unlawful arrears fees on those who pay on the tenth (or subsequent days) of the month, even if their account is not in arrears.

 

9. In arrears management they violate the Telecommunications Act 2003.

 

 

10. In arrears management they exploit their position as a licenced entity

by receiving and processing monthly credit referencing reports on all of their customers in order to ascertain other areas in which consumers may be struggling.

 

11. They adopt an adversarial approach to arrears management

 

12. In cases which have proceeded to litigation they refuse to comply with CPR 31.6 as they are under legal obligation to do so.

 

13. In cases that have proceeded to litigation, or are in the pre-litigation stage, they obstruct the consumers right to have subject access requests fully or even partially complied with.

 

14. In cases of litigation they manufacture evidence, for example by exaggerating the true level of arrears, to lay before the court in order to exploit the more vulnerable, who are unable to challenge such abuses of process.

 

15. They have, as a matter of routine, instigated monthly checks of consumers credit reference files I order to ascertain consumer difficulty in regards their other obligations.

 

16. They consistently violate the Telecommunications act 2003, by calling persistently, at a consumers place of work, or at home on Sundays or on public holidays such as Easter Sunday.

 

17. IN such calls they have verbally threatened consumers with repossession over the phone, claiming that they can take possession of any property when they so wish. This is a matter for the courts, not a mere collector or originator of mortgages.

 

18. They call consumers at inappropriate times and are invariably rude and harassing in their telephone manner

 

19. They have refused to respond appropriately to legitimate consumer concerns or complaints.

 

20. They are tardy or completely avoidant in response to such complaints or concerns when raised.

 

21. They frequently void their own policies towards complaints, and arrears management.

 

22. They litigate unnecessarily, and often with haste.

 

23. They do not comply with directions after proceeding with litigation.

 

 

24. They adopt an adversarial approach to arrears management for example by threatening possession over the phone before a claim has even been issued.

 

25. They refuse to acknowledge receipt of correspondence, indeed denying receipt, even when sent by registered post. Only when presented with proof do they acknowledge receipt.

 

26. They capriciously charge non contractual rates of interest voiding their duty of the good, proper and lawful conduct of the mortgage account.

 

 

YOUR SIGNATURE.

Edited May 17, 2009 by enoughisenough
Typos and additional regs.

[truro]

Hi All

 

Did not do interview with Chris on Friday because I had another appointment. Not sure I want to face the camera, this repossession is getting to me and I know there are so many others who have already been repossessed. Received eviction date from court today for the end of this month but trying to be positive.

I tend to agree with Supersleuth that the lenders do not intend to honour the material term of the contract to lend borrowers for 25 yrs. Just after a year of my remortgage with Matlock the mortgage was transferred to SPML which started repossession proceedings.

The courts are also for the lenders in most part because the contract usually have clauses the borrower do not fully understand because like myself, we remortgage so as not to loose our homes. And thats why these companies are operating in the UK to take advantage of borrowers who are having difficulties. Just as the banks did with unfair bank charges.

Lending at high rates of interest and overcharging forcing us into repossession, the reason they offered the mortgages knowing the courts will give them possession if we can't keep up with the outrageous increased repayments.

 

Although I have a letter stating my mortgage was transferred to SPML I do not believe it was a transfer as the companies are all subsidiaries of Lehman Bros. I believe the companies just get rid of their liabilities on behalf of the other and reoganise setting up under a new business name.

Eurosail/Matlock/SPML/SPPL/Capstones etc are all the subsidaries set up to defraud the UK borrowers and to evade paying tax. They buy up non-performing loans under one company, then liquidate, repackage the loans and sell them. Its just business and the borrowers are not privity to these transactions they just get ripped off in the process.

 

If my mortgage was transferred to another company not associated with my remortgage with Matlock, it would have been a legal transfer but it was transferred to SPML which is listed as a subsidiary of Eurosail as is all the others. That is why the advisor at LMC said the mortgage was not tranferred when I questioned the transfer letter I received.

 

I hope the sol at the CAB will represent me in court as there is enough evidence to prove the companies are subsidaries and they tranfer the mortgages from one to the other, these transactions the borrowers are not made aware of because of their unlawful conduct.

Has anyone read in the mortgage booklet and understand - Part 28 - Third Party Rights. - No term of the mortgage or our mortgage offer is enforcable under the contracts(Rights of Third Parties) Act 19999 by a person other than us or you but this does not affect any right of any person which exists other than by virtue of the Act.

 

I read this several times and I'm confused by -but this does not affect any right of (any person which exists other than by virtue of the Act).

 

Please let me know if any of you have this written on the mortgage offer booklet.

 

Kind regards to you all and all the best in your fight for justice, my prayers are with you.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Truro

 

I'm sorry to hear that you have had an eviction date set.

 

Can you confirm whether it was ordered by the court or just another letter (unlawful I my add without the court's say so) from these horrible scumbags?

 

Just let us know and we will try to get onto it.

 

Cheers. There may still be hope. Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Sorry Truro

 

Misread your post. So it was from the court. I can't contemplate your feelings at the moment but we are all fighting this, on behalf of ourselves (obviously) but also on behalf of the community.

 

The important thing now is to explore your options and your feelings about this notice. If you feel like fighting it we can give it a damn good go. You Were with Matlock... is that right? OK That's a start. Then there's the issue of your case history. If you are fighting we will need to deal with this. However downside they will get more and more aggressive over the next few months as their paymasters start calling.

 

It will be vicious long and bloody. Also if you have kids this is another consideration. I'm in the same boat just a bit behind where you are, sailing downstream into the same choppy waters. They are already falsifying my statements - the equivalent of getting the goose fat before the slaughter. Super has been right all along.

 

PM me with a bit more chronology of your case (just basics) and I'll see what there is that we can do. And obviously do not post public with details. But you know that already!

[Crapstone]

Give me a sec Truro and I'll flick through my mortgage offer.

[Crapstone]

Can't find that clause.. but mine is SPML 2002

[Crapstone]

When they applied for repossession against us we came to an agreement before the court date. We applied to have the date changed as we wouldn't be able to attend, the amount was disputed and it wouldn't give us enough time to prepare a defence due to SPML dragging their feet and reluctance in providing info. All the legal advice we had said 'not to worry about it and it was a good outcome as we had kept our house', prior to that is was, 'they will get a SR so just make an offer'.

 

The court didn't reply and the hearing went ahead without us but it was suspended +£50. Problem is we can't recall receiving anything from the courts to say that, only letters from SPML telling us what we had been ordered to pay by the court. I asked Capstone a while ago for a copy of the Court Order when I contested their ridiculous fees and they said they didn't have one.

 

At the time we had something else going through the courts and through all the stress I've mixed a few things up in my head. I was sure we went to a hearing but my OH and the paperwork we have shows it was for something entirely different.

 

I realise now that we haven't seen the order or what terms are on it and all I know is that we have to pay £50. We were 'accidently' sent an eviction notice but all that shows it alleged non-compliance with the suspended repo and not the terms.

 

Someone please kick me! I have copies of their claim and the figures on it are way out as we were ahead on payments because they took block insurance payments by DD even though we had our own and they were refunded against the balance owed and not off future payments.

 

Is it just me or are all the free legal places, CAB, National Debtline, etc..just opting for the easy life and telling people not to defend and just make an offer. They boil it down to you either owe the debt or you don't and anything inbetween is just too complex or too time consuming to bother with. Don't get me wrong, they serve a purpose but only when an issue is black and white.

 

Kick me again for good measure just to make sure I get my behind into gear and make a request to the court for a copy of the SR order and anything they have on the case.

 

Luckily we can afford the payments but it doesn't stop Capstone inventing arrears, losing payments and making more mistakes than your average MP followed shortly by letters threatening eviction, more fees and just sheer rudeness and ignorance.

 

Like everyone else here, you initially think it's all your fault until you find out that they have burnt the rulebook and from day 1 their intention was to take your house or force you to sell and pay their extortionate fees.

 

Scedminc provided a link to a mortgage calculator with a 14 day trial. I've been using it and it's awkward at first (as anything new is) but I've got the hang of it now. It's time consuming and you have to remember to put each date on the statement exactly as it's easy to forget and just put them under the 1st of the month which throws the interest rate out.

Mortgage Audit Software - Home Loan Interest Manager

 

 

Good luck everyone and keep digging for info.

 

CS

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

Is it just me or are all the free legal places, CAB, National Debtline, etc..just opting for the easy life and telling people not to defend and just make an offer. They boil it down to you either owe the debt or you don't and anything inbetween is just too complex or too time consuming to bother with. Don't get me wrong, they serve a purpose but only when an issue is black and white

 

 

It is unfortunately true that these well meaning people are taking far to lax a view of the situation as it stands on the ground. They do so on outmoded and irrelevant presumptions which have long since lost all their validity. These presumptions are as follows:

 

1. That repossession doesn't benefit the lender and that therefore the lender will avoid it when they can.

 

2. That the courts are experienced, efficient & fair in the handling of such cases.

 

3. That only people who have built up unsustainable arrears will be repossessed.

 

4. That the alleged arrears are give or take a few quid always accurate.

 

5. That the CJC MCOB FSA FOS and various other legislation regulations and regulators are also effective in ensuring consumer rights in these matters.

 

Clearly we can all agree that these should be in operation. However it is equally clear that they ARE NOT. It's a fiction and a fantasy to believe that this is the case. For if it were there would be virtually zero possession actions, after all there can't be too many of us who conduct their account such that repo amounts to the genuine last resort for the lender. Finally they are all keen to tell us to go to CAB, Consumer Credit Counselling Service, National Debtline etc. How convenient. They get to look all caring and we get to be repossessed. It is nothing more the attendance of a doctor at an execution.

 

That's my 10p worth.

 

Truro get on line! There are immediate and practical things we can do to stop this. No guarantee it will work but I guarantee we will try our damnedest. It's in all our interests to do so.

 

Crapstone consider yourself Kicked - get your ar*e and arguments in gear. If we go down we MUST go down fighting.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

Edited May 17, 2009 by enoughisenough
Quotes missing

[enoughisenough]

Hi peeps.

 

Finally they are all keen to tell us to go to CAB, Consumer Credit Counselling Service, National Debtline etc. How convenient. They get to look all caring and we get to be repossessed. It is nothing more the attendance of a doctor at an execution.

 

Bad form quoting myself I know. But I just want to clarify my position. I am not saying these points of access to justice and remedy are in hoc with the criminal bankers. Nor am I saying they are totally useless. Far from it. We can to an extent defend ourselves and we know that it's an uphill battle. Often the majority of peeps will be clueless and so these agencies represent their only opportunity to fight back.

 

The people who staff these agencies and give up their free time are the salt of the earth as far as I'm concerned. If I am permitted one criticism however it is this. They need to raise their game get fully wised up on what is really happening and use all their clout and access to get a stop put to this scandal. If I had their access and clout everything else would go out of the window in pursuit of this.

[enoughisenough]

Hi guys

 

I'm very interested in this interest rate overcharging lark. I've been about 7-8 points over the libor since the loan began. It's just one more line of attack that I've been keeping in reserve.

 

I have been paying massive rates in the region of 14%. They say the Libor only changes once every three months but we know it changes daily, in fact hourly. I think and I'm sure the figures will back me up here that there is capricious, extortionate and serial overcharging going on. They have probably unlawfully screwed me for thousands and I know that this is a no contest line or argument given that they can get seriously screwed over by the FSA if it is true. Which it almost certainly is.

 

Can anyone let me know what I'm in for here. I can do figures (just) and then I would get them audited to confirm what I think. Where it gets tricky is in the compound interest accrual as a direct consequence of the initial overcharging. Maybe that's for the auditor. This is cool because I just happen to work with one who owes me a couple a favours and is more than willing to help!

 

 

Oops I've just answered my own question. How convenient!!

 

PS NO one should infer from the fact that I work with an auditor that I am in anyway connected with these vile scumbags or their criminal lawyer and accounting associates. I AM NOT!

Edited May 17, 2009 by enoughisenough
Typos

[vickson]

EIE, you should check your mortgage offer it will tell you which rate they will use to set your interest rate, the LIBOR rate that sub primers often use is the 3 month Libor rate.

Mine was with Gmac and it said 2% above 3 month libor.

there are many libor rates in practice but your offer would have specified which one they will use

[enoughisenough]

EIE, you should check your mortgage offer it will tell you which rate they will use to set your interest rate, the LIBOR rate that sub primers often use is the 3 month Libor rate. Mine was with Gmac and it said 2% above 3 month libor.

 

Ah but there's the rub. I used to be a completely disorganised numpty with this stuff. I can't for the life of me find it and they won't stump it up. Not saying I definitely don't have it though.

 

However I could bring a claim anyway because this would force them to stump up if they wanted to contest.

 

Even if I'm paying what it says on the tin, which I doubt very much there's the question of it being an extortionate and unfair contractual term. Interest is charged capriciously as industry standard in this income and equity fleecing [problem]. SO I have been massively overcharged. I just have to prove it!

 

2% above 3 month Libor. Bloody hell that's generous. As I said before I was usually 7,8 or even nine points above the Libor. If they argue that I was a particular category of risk justifying the higher charge well that becomes irresponsible lending by them and a whole host of others when I tried to 'reorganise' (sic) my finances.

 

Interesting stuff. Thanks very much for the bump!

[enoughisenough]

Teen Robs Shop With Banana Then Eats Evidence - Yahoo! News UK

 

Sounds like our friends eh? Eating evidence and such like.

[enoughisenough]

Just found this very useful and revealing link which proves my lot HAVE been capriciously overcharging.

 

3 Month LIBOR - Rate, Definition & Historical Graph

 

They not even quoting the correct Libor. Weasels.

[vickson]

EIE, how often does your rate change

mine changes every 3 months, and to set the rate they use 3mnth libor on the 1st day of the month before the change, so for example my rate changed in May and they used the libor on 1 April, they also wrote to me in April to tell me what the new payments in May would be.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Vickson

 

Trust: - they never ever changed it except upwards. But that was not their worst abuse. Oh no not by a long walk!

 

I may well have to PM on this stuff. It is combustible.

 

Cheers. Keep the faith. EIE.

[Crapstone]

EIE Don't forget they can argue that the 3 month fixed LIBOR protects you and although the rate could have dipped it could have also risen in between. But they do round it up or down when it suits them without anything in the offer or terms to say they can.

 

I'm still using the mortgage calculator on my LATEST statement which shows they have added things on twice but only refunded one and have yet to get to the juicy bit were they say they have refunded evreything including interest. So far it adds up with a minor £1.88 difference in their favour but that's only pg. 3. It's slow going..

 

One line of attack could be just how 'sub-prime you were and was the interest rate justified? One CCJ and a couple of defaults shouldn't exclude you from the whole of market or warrant a rate of 8. + above LIBOR. Another point is that it could be argued that you were under duress by other creditors to do something to pay them hence a remortgage at extortionate rates and your trust of the broker/packager/lender.

 

Who in their 'right' mind would have played into SPMLs' hands if they weren't under severe stress to do something at that time? You don't wake up and think, 'OK. I'm on a 5% mortgage and I'm bored of it so I'll change to a lender that will charge me 10% instead and I'll do it today'.

 

The LTV was minimal, usually underestimated, leaving not much in the kitty for extravagance, but probably just enough to keep the wolves at bay but pay for it long term and don't we know it! Frying pan and fire comes to mind.

 

Hindsight is an exact science once your head clears.

 

CS

[Crapstone]

After going through my SAR, again slow because , 'I don't want to miss a thing'...sorry Aerosmith moment but I should be allowed that as I've had numbers swimming before my eyes and a kitchen full of water ( different thread).

 

It's good to see that the numpties haven't logged all of the calls made to them and have just selected a few. In one day I called them 4 times and faxed them but there is no record of that and on paper it seems that they resolved it on the first call. It's also full of B1 (borrower 1) or Mr XXXX who called them but 'wouldn't comply with DPA to say who they were.' In that case how do they know it was B1 or Mr XXXX enough to log it on the computer under that name or title as being them and make notes of the conversation and act on it? Isn't that a contradiction?

 

Mr Malek will have a very nice letter landing on his desk in the morning, let's see him wriggle out of the facts placed before him in black and white from his own records.

[Crapstone]

This ar*e is well and truly geared up for a fight.

 

I could perhaps also invoke their clause that they have the right to put the property in good repair, they have the the right to be informed of any insurance claim and any money received is money is held in trust or perhaps throw a spanner in the works when the name of the 'mortgagee' that should be named on the insurance isn't and they still validated it.

 

We've sprung a leak and need to inform our insurance company so we could also raise an issue of title with numpties and what claim they could possibly have when the previous docs. have given the name of a different mortgagee to be noted.

 

Obviously we consider it's our legal and moral obligation to contact the interested party, as mortgagee, directly to advise them of the above mentioned insurance claim and will require all of the contact details to keep them fully abreast of the situation and to preserve their ASSet.

[enoughisenough]

Good stuff Crapstone. Keep up the pressure.

[nello]

Does a mortgage offer double up as an agreement? Again Capstone have refused to send our agreement stating that i'm not entitled to it and i only need the mortgage offer.

[nello]

They've also said that they dont charge for taking out my own building insurance...but they do!!! In the mortgage offer it states what charges will be applied and why. They obviously dont know what they charge for!!!

[littledotty27]

Nello

 

The mortgage offer only becomes valid when the mortgage deed has been signed,so your contract is the offer and the deed together.

[enoughisenough]

Not a contract lawyer (or even a lawyer) but here's my understanding. The mortgage offer and the contract cannot be 'distant cousins.' The offer forms the basis of the contract and the contract should merely specify more closely what is in the mortgage offer. The terms can be developed in more detail but they must arise from the offer. The only sense in which a contract could vary substantially and materially from the offer would be if the offer was redrafted to reflect those terms.

 

In essence when the offeror makes the offer and offeree accepts that offer then the contract has to be in substance the same. Only if upon receiving the offer the offeree makes a counter offer (nullifying the original offer) or the offeror repudiates before acceptance can any subsequent contract vary significantly from the terms of the original mortgage offer.

 

In very plain English the mortgage offer and the subsequent contract must be substantially the same or it becomes misrepresentation and the contract becomes unenforceable. Which leads us neatly back to Super and why there is a battle royal going on here. The stakes are of such mind boggling enormity that we must not be allowed to succeed.

Edited May 18, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos