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

[enoughisenough]

The offer has validity but only insofar as neither party declines before acceptance. Upon acceptance it stands in law. It has to for a whole variety of reasons such as I might then make an economic decision based on that offer which acts to my detriment if the other party then decides out of blue that they don't want to be bound by the offer.

[enoughisenough]

Nello.

 

You Need to remind them of the following.

 

FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS WEBSITE

 

"David Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner said: “This change in the law sends a very clear signal that data protection must be a priority and that it is completely unacceptable to be cavalier with people’s personal information. The prospect of substantial fines for deliberate or reckless breaches of the Data Protection Principles will act as a strong deterrent and help ensure that organisations take their data protection obligations more seriously.

 

“This new power will enable some of the worst breaches of the Data

Protection Act to be punished. By demonstrating that the law is being taken

seriously tougher sanctions will help to reassure individuals that data

protection matters and give them confidence that organisations have no

choice but to handle personal information properly. "

 

Pretty clear that Data Protection Act has now been beefed up to have real sanctions. Substantial fines anyone? Been looking for the tariffs. Post them up any one sees them.

 

Criminal offences - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

 

Enforcement cases - Data Protection Act (DPA) - ICO

[enoughisenough]

Also what is galling about all of this is that there's really no need for it.

 

Perfectly legitimate and civilised consumer credit arrangements are still hugely profitable. Other highly successful businesses comply with all kinds of laws and regulations properly.

 

What makes them above the law? Their whole parasitical existence is based on the most basic of moral flaws. How do they sleep at night? They are so proud of their products they'd recommend one of these mortgages to their friends and family. Didn't think so. And if not why not?

 

The whole thing is a nightmare of the highest order and everyone will pay for this arbitrary outburst of uncontrollable greed. A feeding frenzy if ever there was one. And we all know what comes after the binge.

[truro]

Asked a barrister(criminal) to look at the info I have of eurosail/spml/lmc but she said there is no proof that eurosail is the SPV for spml. Just that the the companies are assoiciated through transactions of re purchasing of mortgages which is not unlawful. And that it appears that SPML repurchased nonperforming mortgage loans from the issuer Eurosail, but there is no proof that they still owns the mortgages.So unless I can find definate proof that eurosail is the legal ownerof my mortgage, then the court will stop the eviction.

Came across this link -Standards and Poor's -U.K. Nonperforming RMBS Index. Report.Q3.2006

New Issues This Quarter

Transaction size is shown in table 1.

Table 1 U.K. Nonconforming Transactions Closed In 2006

Issue date

Originator

Issuer

Short name

Size (Mil. £)

Ratings on all classes at issuance

February 2006

Preferred Mortgages Ltd.

PRS 06-1

432

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B

February 2006

Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd.

SPF 06-A

430

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

February 2006

Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd.

SPS 06-1

379

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B

March 2006

Mortgages PLC

Newgate 2006-1

575

AAA, AA, A+, BBB, BB

March 2006

GMAC-RFC Ltd.

RMAC Securities 2006-NS1

1128

AAA, AA+, A+, BBB

April 2006

Britannia Building Society

Leek 17

1168

AAA, AA, A, BBB+

May 2006

Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd. and Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd.

Eurosail 2006-1

735

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

May 2006

Money Partners Ltd.

MPS 3

421

AAA, AA, A-,BBB, BB

June 2006

GMAC-RFC Ltd.

Clavis

600

AAA, AA+, A+, BBB+, BB+

June 2006

Mortgages PLC

Newgate Funding PLC

Newgate 2006-1

575

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

June 2006

GMAC-RFC Ltd. and Kensington Mortgage Co. Ltd.

ALBA 2006-1 PLC

ALBA 2006-1

556

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

June-06

Mortgages PLC

Newgate Funding PLC

Newgate 2006-2

534

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

June 2006

GMAC-RFC Ltd.

RMAC Securities No. 1 PLC

RMAC Securities 2006-NS2

700

AAA, AA, A+, BBB+, BBB-

July 2006

Amber Homeloans Ltd./Infinity Mortgages Ltd./Unity Homeloans Ltd.

Landmark Securities No.1 PLC

182

AAA, A, BBB, BB

July 2006

Kensington Mortgages PLC

RMS 22

800

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

August 2006

Amber Homeloans Ltd./Beacon Homeloans Ltd.

Bluestone 2006-1

222

AAA, AAA, A, BBB, BB, B

September 2006

GMAC-RFC Ltd.

RMAC Securities No. 1 PLC

RMAC Securities 2006-NS3

750

AAA, AA+, A+, BBB-

October 2006

Preferred Mortgages Ltd.

Eurosail 2006-2

615

AAA, AA+, A+, BBB, BB-, B

October 2006

Langersal No.2 Ltd./Matlock Bank Ltd./ Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd./ Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd.

Marble Arch 4

840

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B

October 2006

Rooftop Mortgages Ltd.

Mansard 2006-1

500

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

November 2006

Money Partners Ltd.

Money Partners Securities 4 PLC

Money Partners 4

600

AAA, AA, A-, BBB, BB

November 2006

Mortgages PLC

Newgate Funding PLC

Newgate 2003-3

650

AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB

November 2006

Platform Funding Ltd.

Leek 18

1000

AAA, AA, A, BBB

Eurosail 2006-2BL PLC

Eurosail 2006-2BL is the second transaction under the Eurosail program. It was the first transaction from Preferred Mortgages Ltd. under the Eurosail name. The previous Eurosail transaction 2006-1 was backed by mortgages originated by SPML.

 

Breach of warranty: SPML

On November 14, Southern Pacific Securities 04-2 PLC, Southern Pacific Securities 05-1 PLC, Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 PLC, Southern Pacific Securities 06-1 PLC, Eurosail 2006-1 PLC, Southern Pacific Financing 05-B PLC, and Southern Pacific Financing 06-A PLC, notified the market that there had been a breach of warranty in each transaction. The warranties were breached because the LTV ratio conditions for certain loans were not satisfied when the loans were sold to the issuer. These loans were related to one particular counterparty.

Under the mortgage sale agreement terms, the LTV ratio for each loan was to be no higher than 95%, based on the lower of the purchase price and valuation. As a result of the breach, Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd. (SPML), in its capacity as seller of the mortgage loans, is required to repurchase these loans.

We concluded that the repurchase of the loans did not have an affect on the ratings of the notes. See ("Breach Of Warranty Affects Seven Transactions Originated By Southern Pacific" published on RatingsDirect on Nov. 20, 2006).

 

Another site to look at is - Markit European ABS Performance

[enoughisenough]

Hi Truro

 

EUROSAIL ARE THE SPV. THE PROSPECTUS IS QUITE EXPLICIT ABOUT IN IN THE TRANSACTION SUMMARY.

 

Also yes, from time to time they do repurchase, when there has been a breach for a number of different reasons, usually though to do with overshooting the LTV ratio. A number of these were repurchased, mainly in the North Of England but were the packaged up in the next securitisation issue.

 

Very interesting find by the way. I would download this ASAP peeps before it disappears.

[brassed-off-2]

Evening All

 

Just scruitinising the P*ss poor excuse for a dsar...Altough i feel highly honoured as Borrower 2 to have received my copy before my OH Borrower 1, dont know what he has done to upset crapstone..

 

On my mortgage offer it states under the heading of "BRANDED LENDING"

"Solicitors and applicants to note that this Mortgage offer is issued by MORTGAGE PLUS, however the monies will be provided by Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited, who will register first mortgage over the security".

 

Now My broker used a packager called PRAXIS, whom have suddenly (This last month) been rebranded under Melton Intermediary services,(melton mowbray building society) and moved offices...

Praxis shared the exact same address as Mortgage plus which is a trading name of Mortgage master, reg no 2966272, whom have a strike off pending at companies house, are in administration etc..

 

What i want to know is...why Mortgage Plus are making the mortgage offer (which from previous threads, this offer is classed as the contract IF signed charge attatched?) Then why was it not mortgage plus who brought reppo case to court?

 

Thoughts anyone?

b-o-2

[brassed-off-2]

CRAPSTONE

 

Heres one for you off my list on my dsar crap....

 

xx/xx/09 Tallyman: xx/xx09 Standard Memo - exception removed as not contetious.

 

I think this could refer to the LBA they received but not sure?

 

Any ideas what the cretins could mean? Anyone!!

 

b-o-2

[scedminc]

CRAPSTONE

 

Heres one for you off my list on my dsar crap....

 

xx/xx/09 Tallyman: xx/xx09 Standard Memo - exception removed as not contetious.

 

I think this could refer to the LBA they received but not sure?

 

Any ideas what the cretins could mean? Anyone!!

 

b-o-2

 

 

Hi,

 

This maybe something to do with when you illegally get information from your credit report. Take a look at this from experian.

 

Debt collection and recovery software - Tallyman - Experian UK and Ireland

 

Sced

[enoughisenough]

Isn't it about time these agencies were hauled over the coals?

 

Hi,

 

This maybe something to do with when you illegally get information from your credit report. Take a look at this from experian.

 

They are clearly too closely tied to the whole industry in a way that makes it almost a necessity to identify strugglers so they can be not helped but rather exploited until they are screwed into the ground.

 

Wait for the next big cons coming over the horizon. Don't worry though that'll be your kids and your kids' kids.

Edited May 18, 2009 by enoughisenough
typos yet again AAGH!

[Crapstone]

You should have also received a copy of the Mortgage and Lending Conditions at the same time as the offer. I didn't get one with the offer I sent back to them. I had one with a previous offer that was rejected ( so no need to keep or read the conditions) and lapsed but not with subsequent amended offers or the one that was signed some months later.

 

I have have a 2002 copy but the Scottish part says it was witnessed 14/03/97 by William E Cherry and S G Aitken who are named as directors so it doesn't seem to have been reviewed since then.

[Crapstone]

B2B ,

 

No idea what they mean..

 

Mine is full of Tallyman but the list of abbreviations they enclosed doesn't cover most of the crap they have written.

 

'GNL ..pp.closed no post to action'

 

And they refer to me as Miss, Mrs and Ms and sometimes Mr or B2 or something that has been blanked out (hate to think what they put). Most of the stuff is missing and they appear to have tried to contact someone via email and phone about the SAR and a missing invoice but all names have been obscured so it's a 3rd party they don't want me to know about, not just one person but a company.

 

It must be a joke.

[Smarterchick]

Hi Truro

 

EUROSAIL ARE THE SPV. THE PROSPECTUS IS QUITE EXPLICIT ABOUT IN IN THE TRANSACTION SUMMARY.

 

Also yes, from time to time they do repurchase, when there has been a breach for a number of different reasons, usually though to do with overshooting the LTV ratio. A number of these were repurchased, mainly in the North Of England but were the packaged up in the next securitisation issue.

 

Very interesting find by the way. I would download this ASAP peeps before it disappears.

 

I have recently had explained to me by an ex banker who had some involvement with constructing these prospectuses, that the term 'repurchase' is not strictly correct. Be careful people how you explore these documents and transactions and interpret them. I was told that the spv give the money to the bank for the benefits of the income from the mtgs/loans, if the mortgage defaults then the agreement between the bank and the spv defaults and this default can be triggered in numerous ways. The spv then have the right to 'return' said mtg back to the bank 'in exchange' for another mtg/loan of similar value to keep up the status of the original bank/spv arrangement. I was told the mtgs were never 'sold'...? Now don't shoot the messenger, I'm working on this chap to obtain more, be he says each and every prospectus will hold the key to these questions and if you go back over Supersleuths original posts you'll see that's exactly what he/she said. The activities surrounding Lehmans transactions make them somewhat different and care should be taken examining the transactions between their companies. That's what I have been told, I know very little or practically nothing about this process so as I say, don't shoot the messenger, but lets see what else I can find out and I'll come back.

[enoughisenough]

Hi SC

 

No intention of shooting the messenger. At the end of the day we want the truth convenient or otherwise. Mostly the truth is on our side. The prospectus does state clearly however 'Sale of mortgage pool' and 'sale of mortgages'.

 

Regards the term repurchase you are right to point out is not strictly correct. It is a euphemism. Essentially 'repurchase' means a breach in how the various classes of notes were represented in the propsectus.

 

But since THE SPV is an empty shell company it cannot hold them. They will be re-securitised at the earliest convenience.

 

You're right. Care should always be taken. And frankly there's so much other unlawful stuff going on it's not the end of the world if this particular nut cannot be cracked. Won't stop me raising it though. I'm not forcing the pace of this. They are.

 

keep the faith. EIE.

[Smarterchick]

I have recently had explained to me by an ex banker who had some involvement with constructing these prospectuses, that the term 'repurchase' is not strictly correct. Be careful people how you explore these documents and transactions and interpret them. I was told that the spv give the money to the bank for the benefits of the income from the mtgs/loans, if the mortgage defaults then the agreement between the bank and the spv defaults and this default can be triggered in numerous ways. The spv then have the right to 'return' said mtg back to the bank 'in exchange' for another mtg/loan of similar value to keep up the status of the original bank/spv arrangement. I was told the mtgs were never 'sold'...? Now don't shoot the messenger, I'm working on this chap to obtain more, be he says each and every prospectus will hold the key to these questions and if you go back over Supersleuths original posts you'll see that's exactly what he/she said. The activities surrounding Lehmans transactions make them somewhat different and care should be taken examining the transactions between their companies. That's what I have been told, I know very little or practically nothing about this process so as I say, don't shoot the messenger, but lets see what else I can find out and I'll come back.

 

 

I forgot to mention, the bankers excuse for the wording in the prospectus relating to the 'rights to the title' for the spv was that it is put in as their security in the event the bank went bust - perish the thought - a bank going bust???

 

That makes you wonder though in the thought trails.. as UK taxpayer/Gov bailed out banks galore because they were going bust and the individual banks paid the spv's, the spv's would be deemed preferencial creditors if they were paid out of bail-out funds as the banks were technically insolvent, if a company trades whilst insolvent then it's in real trouble unless the directors feel they can trade out...the spv's were clammering for their payments and got paid out first,mmmm??? where am I going with this...?? I could be here all day.. someone else can follow this through more technically able....stinks though !

[enoughisenough]

I've thought for a while actually that the banks kept this stuff on their balance sheets for this very eventuality. Of course they didn't actually have all these 'toxic assets' and therefore there was no real black hole to plug. The securitisation process enabled them to continue lending as they received full consideration for the RMBS packages. In effect then the bail out was really about crying wolf to the government and the government caved in because it didn't want a housing collapse, with an election due. But now they are pushing ahead anyway with the repo actions anyway because it's more lucrative for them to do so. The government must feel very very silly indeed. So they should. They've been conned as well.

[Crapstone]

My OH has just come out with a corker and showing their age! Apparantly an SPV is a 'Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle' used in Captain Scarlett and were hidden away in houses and barns. How true that is but of course I'm too young to remember:D.

 

B2B,

 

The SAR sent to my OH says that.

'We have only released the details of ******** as we were not able to accept the other authority provided'.

 

'Despite extensive searches we are unable to locate the original file'.

 

Against all my usual judgement I called them today asking them to explain just why my 'authority' was not accepted. They explained that they did not have a signature to compare it to and then that changed to it not matching any signature they had . I reminded them that the clock is ticking and the Commissioner will be receiving my complaint if they continue with such ignorance. Hey presto!! Within 2 seconds I was told it would be rushed out by special delivery minus all the important files they have 'lost'.

 

Either way it's going to be a complaint as they have failed to comply with the DPA and sent just the bare minimum.

 

We have an insurance assessor due on Friday so when I know more about the claim I'll be calling Crapstone and asking them which mortgagee is entitled to notification as there seems to be a conflict of interest.

[enoughisenough]

Brilliant stuff Crapstone

 

I would suggest rendering the name of the 'mortgage provider' with whom you took out the mortgage as the beneficiary under buildings insurance. After all who else would be the beneficiary? Seems fairly simple to me.

 

 

 

 

Cheers EIE.

[Crapstone]

'I'm not forcing the pace of this. They are.'

 

Well said EIE. The 'toxic assets' are of their own making as we know they had no intention of long-term investment and have tried every trick in book to ensure default by the mortgagor.

 

Surely the term 'right to title' would have no legal standing even if the bank did go bust as neither the LR or the borrow were informed. It seems akin to putting a sticker on Grannies clock just in case she should perish in the hope you get first dividends regardless of a will being made and the debts associated with her estate.

 

One thing we can be sure of is that we are well and truly being stitched up and the securitisation is just a side-line to explore. I think we have enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that they have and are acting unlawfully.

[Crapstone]

EIE,

 

That's what I intend to do. If Mortgage Holdings are supposed to be the mortgagee then I am owed an explaination at least as to why this should be and I regard it as my right to be able to contact them directly because it's my insurance and in my name. I too can play the game of not disclosing information about or to 3rd parties without expressed permission.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Crapstone

 

You've got this buttoned right on. Unlawful conduct right, left and centre.

 

Regardless of statutes, there are occasions when the courts can act creatively so to speak so as to avoid manifestly absurd or unjust outcomes. Whether they do so of course is a matter for the courts.

 

In respect of which you should have a look at the following which illustrates this point, both historically, and obliquely, admittedly, but with relevance in any event.

 

The point to note is that the court essentially voided their obligation to apply the law as it would have resulted in a perverse outcome. The Courts HAVE this latitude.

 

 

Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son.

 

There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.

 

The literal rule is as implied. The son should have inherited. However given the obvious perversity of any decision in application of the relevant Acts in the son's favour the 'golden rule' was applied.

 

The golden rule may be used in two ways: 1) a narrow sense in which the words of the act are interpreted as leading to an injustice and are therefore reinterpreted or redefined OR 2) in a wider sense in which ANY interpretation of the words so defined leads to a repellant or repugnant outcome. In these circumstances Judges may go wider than the words and refuse strict application.

 

Although this is a criminal case there is everyday application of these principals under civil jurisdiction.

 

Even where they think they have law on their side and even where they do they can still be challenged IF THE OUTCOME IS REPUGNANT.

 

And what is more repugnant than this?

 

A fabricated toxic scandal in the biggest equity cash grab [problem] in the history of humanity. Even the Swiss Gnomes gave back the holocaust gold grab.

Edited May 20, 2009 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Hi Guys

 

Please use and customise the FOS and FSA Template jobby I've been posting around. Get it right under their skins.

 

The following is just a joke honest peeps, including trolls. Everyone needs a release now and then. This is mine.

 

Please be advised:

 

Pressure may cause cracks. Terms and conditions may no longer apply: all warranties given may be void at the discretion of the consumer; you may be subject to the full penalties and remedies availablle under the law of England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland as may apply) and you may not seek recourse through the courts. Should you act in voidance of your lawful obligations you will be subject to penalties and/or fines which may restrict your activities and/or obligations to third parties.

[banker_rhymes_with]

A fabricated toxic scandal in the biggest equity cash grab [problem] in the history of humanity.

Well said.

 

I don't think we have even started to see the scale of it yet, I regret that we have many more years of recession still to go.

 

To sort out this banking mess, we need new politicians. I have been saying that for many months now. New leadership to sort out the idiot bankers.

 

Boy was I pleased when the current crop of self-serving politicians got comprehensively caught with all of their unsavoury pink bits crammed into the honey pot. We hardly needed this extra proof, but they amazed us by leaving no doubt. Clearly, by any standard, they are even more greedy than we thought, and they are every bit as useless as we suspected.

 

Meanwhile, the bankers are raking it in. No real changes at the top of the banking food chain. The ones who got told off appear to have made off with £16m-£28m, or more, to help them get over the trauma of having to say sorry for the benefit of the greater banking good.

 

Meanwhile, the other bankers are out there, right now, poised to grab all that they can. Their budgets are almost unlimited, and the real value of their buying power will rise as property values plummet. They have plenty of Tax Payer's future money to fund the biggest asset and land grab that anyone has ever seen.

 

The one glimmer of hope is the politicians may well have seriously blown the comfy top cover they willingly provide for their friends the bankers.

 

People really want change. People hate the banks. People also now despise the politicians.

 

If ever there was a chance to fix this mess, now could be the time...i.e. before the bankers push ahead with their hidden plans.

 

How about a new Party, and I mean a really new Party, not a mish-mash of play boy financiers, egotists, religious wing nuts and spent celebrities...how about:

 

The Financial Democrats

 

A Party set up to push for financial democracy for the first time in a long time. The main strategy being to work on the steady reduction in debt based money and, in its place, build up debt free money. Virtually everything that matters can be built upon such a strategy. Likewise, virtually everything that does not matter can be discarded by such a policy. A Party determined to put an end to Wage and Debt Slavery, one capable of reintroducing the core values that really matter.

 

 

• A National Wage for all paid via Debt Free money injected by Government. This will help put an end to the benefit culture and the horrendous costs involved, while at the same time growing the stock of debt free money in circulation.
  

 

• Work with the existing system where possible. So, no sudden revolution, but a firm and steady transfer from a debt based system to a financially democratic one.
  

 

• Education, Health, Environment and Defence to take priority. Really look after the population instead of the banking elite. We can clearly afford it, it's only the absurd Debt Industry that is telling us we cannot afford it...while at the same time trousering billions at our expense.
  

 

• Put a crash stop on the banks with immediate effect, no repossessions, no bankruptcies, expose the Securitisation and Fractional Reserve fairy stories and kill them. Remove the fear, and put in place a safety net for all.
  

 

• Close the Stock Exchange, and re-open with all Shares converted into a Government Stock with a set return to protect Savers and Pension Funds. Gradually allow new trading, tightly regulated, that concentrates on the real value of Companies, not the gambling value the bankers pump up or deflate to suit their own purposes.
  

 

• Steer the economy towards quality goods. For example, vehicles must last 40 years not 10. We must cut out the absurd waste and environmental damage that cheap throw away goods geared to a debt based economy promote.
  

 

Serious stuff, and it's about time someone came up with something better than the useless shower we have to choose from at the moment.

 

Maybe I should start another Thread!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Crapstone]

EIE,

 

I get your point as I'm familiar with law, but I have to plead some ignorance otherwise they'll know, that I know so to speak. We wouldn't want them to think that we can actually read and understand the law.... I'd rather give them the rope and let them....you can guess the rest.

 

So far it's working ..dumb consumer v even dumber goliath and associates.

[JonCris]

Everyone as interesting as it is please don't get lost in the minuti of their situation. As well as the present arguments I suggest you remember to include what you were told at the outset of your mortgage & the important fact that all of this was deliberately concealed from you, such as the fact that your interest would rocket probably causing you to default, that the loan was not for the agreed period but a much lesser one & that your defaulting was/is necessary part of that process - in other-words you have been deceived from the outset & that this is something even the least financially sophisticated judge can understand

[enoughisenough]

Well said JonCris.

 

It's all part of building a picture of the unlawful foundations and subsequent unlawful operation of the contract. As you say any DJ can understand the concept of misrepresentation and unlawful conduct.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.