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

[brassed-off-2]

collectively to the OFT and trading standards then, is it? Anyone?

Edited June 4, 2009 by brassed-off-2
laptop having a dickie fit!!

[enoughisenough]

Hi B-O-2

 

Defo. It has to be this way. Only enforcement measures can bring them to book. They won't behave. They can't behave. And as such...? Well as we and our kids some of whom might even be disabled watch all this pile of dog pile with growing disbelief at what THEY do with seeming impunity, there is only left one option. Fight with all lawful means at disposal. Notice how I use the word lawful-unlike their conduct.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Get lost troll crawl back under your (cap) stone. Lurking guest for puzzled caggers.

[enoughisenough]

And lo the lurking troll vanishes. Just what is it we say here that concerns them so that we haven't already told them A THOUSAND Times individually. I think they are rather concerned they are up against a community of well resourced, educated and informed peeps. It's rather got their gander up I would say.

[Crapstone]

LittleDotty,

 

It seems you've had the same response as I had. Screen dumps, poorly edited, (we have 2 and both different), and the glossary is a joke as they can't spell and make it up as they go along. We only received about a 1/5 of what they should have sent and they haven't even enclosed their response letters to complaints made. Anything that could be used against them has been left out apart from their big mistake of receiving payment and trying to conceal it.

 

Wait for the full 40 days to pass (just in case they send anything else) and then complain to the IC but I think you'll be behind me in the queue.

 

I trained with Trading Standards ( did the exams a few years ago, but have never worked for them) and from what I know they pass on local complaints to the T.S. in the area where the trader operates from or where their head office is. What we really need is for them to take on a super-complaint but they have to have enough people complaining and sufficient grounds to raise it but by the time it's looked into it and acted upon it could be years from now and won't personally benefit any of us (too little, too late).

 

The CAB can also raise super-complaints but are as much use as a chocolate teapot when it comes to anything in the real world and outside of their basic handbook, bless 'em.

 

I'm more than willing to meet up with anyone that wants to make a case against them as I think mine is fairly strong. Ongoing for at least 6 years and disputed from the first month, 2 years with the Ombudsman and still no nearer to a resolution or at least having an accurate account and treated fairly. Instead it's lies and going back to square one.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

Can anyone name any High Street lenders that have sold SPML products, or any related Lehmanns loans/mortgages?

[enoughisenough]

I was referred by barclays if that helps and funnily enough all the holding and disbursment accounts are with barclays. Also remember that A&L are hooked up this and that all the high street banks securitize.

 

Keep digging . There is going to be a massive upsurge in reps soon enough.

[littledotty27]

Crapstone

 

It is a joke what they send..P*** up,brewery,organise comes to mind..something they can't do!!

Everything in the dump notes contradicts itself..they mention trying to contact us on a landline..we have never had a landline!! two or three times a month it states they have tried to get in touch,then when we complained that they kept on calling at weekend and unsocialable times,they sent a letter to say they didn't class it as harrasment and how they looked back at there notes and had only tried contacting us twice since oct 08...its a joke!!!

I don't care anymore,i've a few little tricks up my sleeve thats going too make them cringe...so you troll make sure you are reading this then bugger off!!

[charlesGGG]

Sorry to interject people,

 

I have been posting on another thread, but have now read some of the issues being discussed here, which are very interesting......

 

"further to my previous post about the SPV and securitisation company for kensington Mortgages...

 

I found this Barclays 2008 research report for All/Most of the UK mortgage companies dealing in securitisation.

 

CLICK HERE

OR

http://www.europeservicing.com/BARCA...vicing2008.pdf

 

My mortgage company is on the list and alot of others mentioned in this forum.

 

open the document and scroll down to pages 16-19.

 

Can anyone give a full break down on what all this data is..????

 

Don't fully grasp it, but have a sense that it answers my innitial query....

 

Will copy and post this request into other Threads aswell (AS IS).

 

Much Thanks"

[truro]

Hi CAGERS

 

I have no choice but to take this further I'm moving forwards. Applied to the court to suspend the eviction, have a hearing soon. we can't all be wrong about these companies, so I need evidence to take on SPML/LMC/LPL.

 

We are all in this together and since we are all sufferers under SPML and its subsidaries these companies need looking at.

 

I have reason to believe that SPML/LPL is not the legal owner of my mortgage and after speaking to someome at LMC they do appear to have a copy of my buildings insurance cover. So therefore, as I understand neither SPML/LMC/LPL do not have interest under the buildings insurance. They have not secured their interest as mortgagees because they were too busy trying to repossess the property. So I need them to prove to the court they are the legal owner and how involved Eurosail is involved in these companies.

 

If SPML is the originator of the mortgages but is trading as EUrosail, then as far as I undersatnd transfers just internal transactions from one compant to the other. I understand that these transaction are not unlawful, but they have deceived me. To date my mortgage have been with 4 different companies not including Eurosail, so how does Eurosail fit into the puzzle.

 

I'm giddy with stress trying to reach an agreement with LMC. They say they dont turndown payments, my Subject Access Request shows they have which I will present to the court as to the arrears. How can I continue paying mortgage when I'm not sure which company is the mortgagee? If I can present evidence that SPML is not the legal owner of my mortgage, let them prove they are.

[Smarterchick]

Sorry to interject people,

 

I have been posting on another thread, but have now read some of the issues being discussed here, which are very interesting......

 

"further to my previous post about the SPV and securitisation company for kensington Mortgages...

 

I found this Barclays 2008 research report for All/Most of the UK mortgage companies dealing in securitisation.

 

CLICK HERE

OR

http://www.europeservicing.com/BARCA...vicing2008.pdf

 

My mortgage company is on the list and alot of others mentioned in this forum.

 

open the document and scroll down to pages 16-19.

 

Can anyone give a full break down on what all this data is..????

 

Don't fully grasp it, but have a sense that it answers my innitial query....

 

Will copy and post this request into other Threads aswell (AS IS).

 

Much Thanks"

 

Can I ask any of you slueths if anyone anywhere has come across a securitisation for Swift Advances plc, FirstPlus or Kestrel Holdings portfolio or know where or through whom they securitise if at all? They use Barclays and Singer & Friedlander as bankers.

 

Swift swear they do not securitise and they retain their portfolio of mortgages on their balance sheet, but hey? where have I heard that one before errr?? Northern Rock for one Carmel Bulters treasury document in the above link for another, so how do these creeps do it we know they all do it, but how? I've done a lot of digging, someone must know

[charlesGGG]

Hi All,

 

regarding my mortgage company Kensington Mortgages and securitisation.

 

I believe I have found my prospectus for the year I bought my house april 2006. via Irish stock Exchange

 

Anyway, my question is:-

kensington (originator) sold my mortage to a created company called DACS-22 (buyer) in equitable title only. this company then resold it to an isssuer (the SPV) which operates under the name of RMS-22.

 

But as I read the prospectus, I find that kinsington have inserted additional or new subsidery companies with their name.

 

In essence, they say DACS 22 is a separate but subsidery company under the banner of Kensington, then it resold to the issuer which is a partnership of kensington again and the trustee (Capita Trust) and this trust allows them to keep legal title but should be prepared to appear in court in cases of repossession.

 

So will the securitisation arguement work here....?????

 

Help needed.

[seville]

I'm dealing with Capstone/SPML for my ex boyfirends ---he died last year

They are horrible nasty people !

He was in arrears and the letters I found after he died were really upsetting----I'm over it now --just VERY ANGRY with that shower of cowboys

 

Good luck with all your fight!

[Crapstone]

Thanks seville,

 

You hit the nail on the head with your description of them. I think there are a lot of angry people here and rightly so but we will keep fighting. If have to post my house back to them brick by brick and sod by sod ..I'd bloomin' well do it than let them take it.

[Crapstone]

My original application form, filled in by a broker (lying ******), has been 'lost' but copies of the forms for SPML, Kensington and a fair few others are still available to look it. If anyone doesn't have their copy then download the blank to show what should have been filled in.

 

Metro Finance: Mortgage Application Downloads

 

My broker didn't ask some of the questions, so it's assumed he must have filled in the blanks to the tune of his own dance.

[Crapstone]

Sample from SPML terms.

 

'IF TWO OR MORE OF YOU ARE APPLYING

 

We will not follow any kind of instruction on your account unless given by both of you in writing'.

 

I beg to differ but they bloomin' well do.

[Crapstone]

201: The mortgage backed securities market in the UK: overview and prospects - Housing - Communities and Local Government

 

The London School of Economics covers large amounts on securitisation.

 

I still don't think the arguement of securitisation would stand up, unless you could prove it harmed you as the borrower directly. A DJ wouldn't give two hoots about the tech. parts of securitisation as the face of it reads lawful. They can't be bothered to read a defence at the best of times.

 

The true value of what it means lies in the way we are being treated to secure possession of our properties. Missing paperwork, missing payments, mis-selling, none compliance of law/codes and lies. Feel free to add to the list.

[truro]

Hi All

 

Do you think we could all use this legislation to argue our cases and get the courts to see that so many of us cannot be wrong about the unfair treament by SPML/LMC to their borrowers. 'where unfair relationships harm the collective interests of consumers'

 

The laws are there to protect consumers and can make these repossessions unenforceable, if the courts can't be fair to individually then it must take account of collective action brought against these companies.

A time order provided in the Consumer credit Act can give borrowers more time to repay a debt, why are these companies not offering to come to an arrangement where we can payoff our debts? And why can't we use the provisions in the law to challenge these companies. If securitisation is illegal in the US, then why has our government allowed these companies to operate in the UK?

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Unfair Relationships

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 enables borrowers to challenge unfair credit agreements in court and obtain redress, if the overall relationship is unfair to the borrower.

This is in addition to an enhanced ability for consumers to take disputes to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

The provisions were introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. They applied to new agreements from 6 April 2007, and to pre-existing agreements from 6 April 2008. Agreements completed before the new provisions took effect remain subject to the previous extortionate credit bargains provisions.

The 2006 Act also enhanced the right to apply for a time order, which is a court procedure that can give borrowers more time to repay a debt.

The unfair relationships provisions

 

Section 140A of the 1974 Act (as amended) provides that a court may determine that the relationship between a lender and a borrower arising out of a credit agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the borrower because of:

• Any of the terms of the credit agreement or a related agreement
  
• The way in which the lender has exercised or enforced its rights under the credit agreement or a related agreement, or
  
• Any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of the lender either before or after the making of the credit agreement or a related agreement.
  

The courts have a wide range of powers where a credit relationship is found to be unfair, including:

• Altering the terms of the credit agreement or a related agreement
  
• Reducing the amount payable by the borrower
  
• Requiring the lender to refund money to the borrower
  
• Removing any duty placed on the borrower under the agreement
  
• Imposing requirements on the lender or an associate.
  

In addition, where unfair relationships harm the collective interests of consumers, the OFT and other enforcers (including local authority trading standards services) can take enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

[enoughisenough]

Well said truro. At last we are beginning to develop a consensus here. There is certainly a list of offences as long as your arm and a list of regs to beat them with. I posted a template letter in very rough form to the fsa for all to customize. I think it's high time all of us got this off to the fsa, the oft, the fos and trading standards. There's enough evidence now of massive consumer detriment.

[lola and cecil]

Hi All

 

Emailed the Irish Stock Exchange, rang them and at every point told no I can't have the prospectus...

 

BUT in court today all been adjourned for 6 weeks as SPML didn't show so all in limbo....us...people who thinnk they've bought house....land registry who want me to provide proof of illegal sale....trading standards who were wanting to hear something more solid....and the reporters who wanted a story....

 

Sorry really fed up not to mention deflated was really sure the judge would want to hear what we had to say but said he wasn't prepared to listen as SPML were not there so straightin straight out...

 

Thanks to all...

 

Lola and Cecil

[enoughisenough]

Glad to hear you guys got an adjournment. Use the fact that they didn't turn up in two complementary ways. 1. They don't know as yet how to argue your case or they do but they've got no faith in their own line of argument. 2. Could also be that they are buckling under pressure. Did they forget to prepare? Did they forget the listing? Mmmmm. Also you've got them for unreasonable behaviour so they can go and get stuffed of they make a costs app. Also they've incurred the displeasure of the DJ and Sttange things have been known to happen as a result of that. Also you have more time to get fired up and ready.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[truro]

Hi lola & cecil

 

Good that SPML didn't turn up, but havn't followed your dispute with them. Would be interested to know what line of arguement you intended to represent to the court as I have a hearing soon.

SPML has never been on my buildings insurance cover, and they have now represented themselves as another company which I was not informed taking over my mortgage, but they say its the limited company that's repossessing me and that's SPML.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Truro

 

Well they would say that, wouldn't they? (Mandy Rice Davies). Forget what they tell you. It's all lies. It's a whole stream of conciousness made up on the fly and a load of bullsh1t. They can't even get their effin' story straight.

 

So don't be letting them confuse you for a moment. Do you think even for a second any aspiring young legal brain would stay there and risk getting struck off before their career had even started? Not a bit of it!

 

That said there's no disputing there may be some clever, unscrupulous and downright bent legal representation lurking there too.

 

The only legal brains they've got working for them in situ are bird brains.

 

They can't (or won't) address fairly non contentious points of law in any adequate fashion at all. I suspect that this is one of the reasons, amongst many others, that it takes them weeks to reply. Perhaps they ARE thick rather than just obstinate, lazy or god bless, overworked.

 

They don't address very simple issues such as: "why do you say x when it was not, could not, cannot or ever could be the case?"

 

They are so busy cutting and pasting stuff left, right and centre that the tail is starting to wag the dog. Even if they'd been even mildly dodgy they might have flown in under the radar. But they declared war, and I don't think they knew why other than that they were ordered to.

 

Mmm... I wonder why that might be? A stream of contradictory ****e is all you're likely to get from these. The proof is in what they send out hoping you and I'll get confused and ooh err, well you're my mortgage company you must be sort of right. C.R.A.P.

 

Stone me, is the art of the correctly used rules of punctuation and grammar completely missing at our friends 'house'? Or had they never really bothered to learn them in the first place?

 

They are not so formidable. I've seen loads of their errors already and they keep on making them.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

Edited June 9, 2009 by enoughisenough
wanted more fun and I never ever make spelling mistakes or construct grammatically incorrect sentences. Typos...

[Crapstone]

Quick update.

 

Capstone hope to respond to my none-existant letter of complaint, which was an ongoing issue knocking down everything they threw at me in their letters, by the 10th July. That should give them plenty of time to fabricate and alter anything they think that could be seen as their fault. How fluffin' long does it take to look at their own print-off and see they have lost the payments? I can lead a horse to water.. I can send a cheque but I can't force either to act. Except a horse can't wite and drop itself in the preverbial poo......

 

LIBOR has now changed to 1.27%, according to what they have sent me, so at least it's dropping and gives a bit more disposable income to put aside to fight the bar stewards when the push comes to shove at closing time.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Crapstone

[iconoclash]

Hi there - just having a moan about my case again. I thought after sleeping on it that I would find some virtue in the justice system lurking in some corner but having re-read CPR rule, pre-action protcols, mcob rules etc etc etc, I am of the opinion that it "don't mean a thing" - having a mortgage with a clause that allows all legal costs to be borne by the consumer seems to be paramount for all - that it is not highlighted, nor explained, before signing seems insignificant to the industry, faxing over revised costs lists to increase my liability to over £6000 on the very morning of the hearing is again fine by the system, none of this notifying the client within blah blah days before seems to matter, having a claim instigated by a company that doesnt even own the product anymore is also ok it seems, being assisted by welfare rights and therefore in financial hardship - what about that one - nope, I can still be made liable for this **** even though it is in fact more than the ****dy arrears they're chasing. And as for capitalising arrears, payment holidays or any other government assumed options; they simply ignore it all. Greed and profiteering still rules.

Hi - following my efforts to get a straight answer from Oakwood about their additonal legal costs added to the account AFTER the hearing - I have finally received said answer today. They simply quote the clauses about third party expenses at me from the mortgage terms and conditions and I do feel that this is not okay. Surely this was all set by the judge - some time was spent going through the solicitors costs at the hearing and there would seem little point in doing this if they can simply submit another account later???? - any advice welcome thanks