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

[Crapstone]

I don't think I'd be voting BNP anytime soon, just for the record. I want to see eyes on the consumer and our real world, day in and day out, not just overnight scandals that slip in and out of the media. Unfortunately I can't get all dramatic and say it's all too much for me so I'm going back home or stepping down from Office. I'm stuck with this.

 

Rocket1,

 

You have to dig your heels in and not give up at the first letter. The local authority has a legal duty to house you despite what they will tell you, although it may only be temporary. Not being able to able to repay your mortgage is not making yourself intentionally homeless unless you had the funds to pay it but didn't.

.......................

The only people I have seen prosper is those that lie, screw and abuse the system. Honesty gets you nowhere but I'd rather live like that and at peace with myself than having guilt on my shoulders.

.......................

EIE,

 

'11. JUST THROW THE BLOODY KITCHEN SINK AT THEM WHILE YOUVE STILL GOT A HOUSE WITH A KITCHEN.'

 

Lol, too true! Don't forget to add that after 2 years of investigations into the initial complaints to the FOS, you then have to start again for anything outside of that and make a fresh complaint. In this game the ladders are very short and the snakes are very, very long.

 

It costs nothing to say a 'please' or a 'thank you' and be polite. It's a value we have lost as a nation and has been replaced by the 2 fingers up sign in all sectors.

 

I've sent Capstone a LBA for them to gleefully peruse and they aren't going to be happy bunnies. It's not acceptable that they have given a final response to a complaint and then want to start the whole process again when proof was given that they were lying. Do they honestly think I'm going to sit back and do nothing or follow their ever decreasing circles?

[Crapstone]

Make the government ministers squirm when all this is put to them. We don't have second homes and we no longer even enjoy the protection of the courts.

 

On a lighter note....with the amount of motions passed in the House of Commons in the past month, they could hire all the sacked Total employees as cleaners and they still couldn't get to the bottom of the s***.

 

Did I say I was rubbish at making up jokes?

 

I used to be terrified of the postman bringing letters from Capstone and SPML but this far in it's nothing that can't be dealt with, so I can afford to smile now and again.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Crapstone

[truro]

Hi Folks

 

Just would like to tell you guys about my hearing on Friday. My server has been giving me problems for days now and I've just logged on again.

 

I get to stay in my house ordered by the judge with strong arguments against provide by SPML t/as London Personal Loans which claimed the court made an error by sending out Eviction notice with LPL as the claimant.

 

Although the DJ did not openly say he thought there was something not quite right about the company I'm sure he listened to my argument concerning securitisation with Eurosail, SPML,LMC,LPL,Capstones, and Preferred Mortgages. Plus the Subject Access Request showed they were lying when they said I did not offer to make any payments for months. I get a chance to pay the monthly installment and an amount for the arrears.

 

I now get the chance to take things further to see which company owns my mortgage. They had better not asked to include Eurosail as the owner as they have said SPML is the mortgagee.

 

SPML brief on Monday said that my mortgage is not one of those that was sold to Eurosail, admitting that mortgages are sold. Yet the info from the prospectus I presented in court showed that the original Mortgage pool started with Matlock Bank.

 

I think its time to pressure them now, the politicians are not that concerned, they are all stealing what they can from the tax payers so how can they help us when they are as guilty as the bankers and the rest of the legal crooks in place to stop consumers from getting justice.

 

I will try to contact the ITN reporter with my good news and hope he will now consider going public with his findings. If we can figure out the [problem] with these companies I don't understand why the legal team he's got looking at securitisation cannot understand it.

[enoughisenough]

Truro

 

You must let the TSC know what has been happening. You don't trust the politicians. who does? But you trust the cag, right? And the caggers who know are all of the opinion that this has go out to as wide an audience as possible and that includes the politicians. The journos keep wanting to meet and keep wanting it put back. I know this. What the hell would have happened at your hearing if CB hadn't raised her arguments before the TSC in February. You Must make a submission.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

Please help to disseminate this.

 

I can't go through every sub prime thread myself. If just one of you can find time to post it to the various mortgage jockey threads this would be really helpful.

 

Just for ease - here's what to send.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/170607-spml-london-mortgage-company-43.html#post2241392

 

POST 849 through 851.

 

Keep the faith. EIE.

[enoughisenough]

By the way peeps. The clock is ticking.

WEDNESDAY 1ST JULY 2009

 

300O WORDS OF YOUR GLORIOUS SUB PRIME GARBAGE EXPERIENCE

 

Use it or lose it. The banks' biggest story will be how few people actually complain

[JonCris]

LIP's may wish to add the following to their arguments courtesy of OUT-LAW News, 04/06/2009

 

On a lesser note this could spell the death knell for borrowers being responsible for both sides court costs win or lose

 

Courts in the EU must examine and rule on terms in consumer contracts that may be unfair even if no consumer has complained about them, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said. The duty will exist when a company seeks to enforce a consumer contract.

The European Union's Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts governs contracts because consumers have no bargaining power when presented with pre-written contracts to sign. It says that any term that is unfair will not be binding.

A Hungarian woman was taken to court by her mobile phone provider Pannon. It enforced a term of its contract with her which said that the court in Budaörsi had jurisdiction over the contract. The woman, Sustikné Győrfi, lived 275 kilometres away from Budaörsi. She receives invalidity benefit and there is no direct public transport between where she lives and Budaörsi.

The Budaörsi court said that the normal place of jurisdiction would be the court where Győrfi lives, and asked the ECJ whether it had the right or an obligation to examine the contract term governing jurisdiction for unfairness, even if the consumer in question had not raised an objection to its fairness.

The ECJ, the European Union's highest court, said that the court had not only the right to make its own analysis of the contract's fairness, but an obligation to do so. Only if courts do that, it said, are consumers protected in the way the EU legislation envisages.

"The system of protection introduced by the Directive is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge," said the ECJ ruling. "This leads to the consumer agreeing to terms drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier without being able to influence the content of those terms."

Referring to an earlier ECJ ruling involving Salvat Editores, the ruling said that "the aim of Article 6 of the Directive would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfairness of contractual terms, and that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion".

"Article 6(1) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand," it said.

The ruling said that previous ECJ decisions indicated that courts had not only a right but a duty to assess terms on behalf of consumers.

"The nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which the Directive confers on consumers justify the national court being required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term is unfair, compensating in this way for the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller or supplier," it said.

"The court seised [i.e. having ownership] of the action is therefore required to ensure the effectiveness of the protection intended to be given by the provisions of the Directive. Consequently, the role thus attributed to the national court by Community law in this area is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion," it said.

The ECJ was also asked what factors should be taken into account to determine fairness. It said that distance, which was the primary concern in Győrfi's case, could itself deny people access to justice.

Referring again to the Salvat Editores case, the ruling said that: "a term [deciding jurisdiction] obliges the consumer to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which may be a long way from his domicile. This may make it difficult for him to enter an appearance. In the case of disputes concerning limited amounts of money, the costs relating to the consumer’s entering an appearance could be a deterrent and cause him to forgo any legal remedy or defence".

"The Court therefore concluded that such a term falls within the category of terms which have the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action," it said.

The ECJ did say, though, that it could not rule generally on whether a term was unfair, that national courts had to make decisions based on the facts of the case in hand.

Edited June 22, 2009 by JonCris

[enoughisenough]

Sterling work JC. Pretty much nails the courts to their duty, the fsa to theirs and these sub prime mongrels to the wall. I'll say this again Francovich Damages.

 

Keep the faith. EiE

[enoughisenough]

Can someone have a quick look at this and try and get to the bottom of this. I'm tied up at the moment but will have a look later if no-one beats me to it!

 

Thanks. KTF.

 

EiE.

 

IntroducerUK - UK Finance Industry News - FSA refers firms to enforcement in clampdown on poor mortgage arrears handling

[enoughisenough]

PS Any news from the HOL bank charges decision. Can't seem to find anything.

[mercyblue]

the bank charge case is scheduled for tomorrow at 10.30

[enoughisenough]

Thanks mercyblue. I had thought it was today. Must have got my wires crossed.

[Crapstone]

It's just outlining that FSA are looking at how mortgage lenders are treating customers with arrears in prep. for a paper to be issued in September. Nothing we haven't heard before. By the time they get their backsides into gear hundreds more have been repo'd.

 

I'm wondering if our arguements are going to be looked on less favourably now the LIBOR has fallen and the High Street are increasing their fixed rates? It's putting us on an even keel, although a rocky one as rates were up past 10% including product margins. I can just picture Capstone saying, 'You've never had it so good'.

 

Although I think I'm right in saying it's not about the money, it's the principle of the way we have been treated. Hung, drawn, quartered and left out to dry..

[andrew1]

It's just outlining that FSA are looking at how mortgage lenders are treating customers with arrears in prep. for a paper to be issued in September. Nothing we haven't heard before. By the time they get their backsides into gear hundreds more have been repo'd.

 

I'm wondering if our arguements are going to be looked on less favourably now the LIBOR has fallen and the High Street are increasing their fixed rates? It's putting us on an even keel, although a rocky one as rates were up past 10% including product margins. I can just picture Capstone saying, 'You've never had it so good'.

 

Although I think I'm right in saying it's not about the money, it's the principle of the way we have been treated. Hung, drawn, quartered and left out to dry..

 

I think this article is worthy of posting Crapstone as it demonstrates to the wider public that the balance of power is moving on to their side. This through people like your good self hammering home to the people that matter things just ain't right! It also picks up on issues relating to securitised mortgages which is worth penciling in to your note books..Here we go - Quoted from the link above post 861 by EIE:

 

 

FSA refers firms to enforcement in clampdown on poor mortgage arrears handling

 

The latest review from the Financial Services Authority has found continued weaknesses in the way specialist lending firms and third party administrators are handling mortgage arrears and repossessions

 

Four firms have been referred to enforcement for investigation and several more firms are being assessed for referral. In many cases the FSA found a high incidence of mortgages moving straight into arrears and potential breaches of responsible lending rules. All firms investigated will be required to take action to remedy failures identified in the arrears review.

 

This action comes as new data on mortgage lending, published today by the FSA, shows the number of consumers facing arrears and repossessions continues to increase. It also follows two warnings by the FSA last year that failing to treat customers in arrears fairly was unacceptable. The warnings were set out in an earlier survey of arrears handling and in a letter sent to the chief executives of all mortgage lenders and administrators

 

The latest review focused on specialist lenders to the impaired credit market who are no longer lending, and on third party administrators (TPAs) contracted to handle mortgage arrears and repossessions work on behalf of lenders. It also looked at arrears charges and the treatment of borrowers whose mortgages have been securitised.

 

The review found that poor practice was still prevalent among specialist lenders and TPAs

 

Which includes:

 

- operating an approach focused too strongly on recovering arrears without reference to the borrower's individual circumstances;

 

- being too ready to take court action;

 

- imposing arrears-related charges unfairly;

 

- specialist lenders not exercising sufficient oversight of contracted TPAs

 

And it identified terms in securitisation covenants which could lead to inequitable treatment of borrowers in arrears, by restricting the scope for the lender to exercise flexibility and forbearance, for example by prohibiting an extension of the loan term, or conversion to interest only for a period.

 

Lesley Titcomb, FSA director responsible for the Mortgage Sector, said:

 

“In current market conditions, with our data showing more people struggling to meet their mortgage payments, it is vital that firms treat customers who get into arrears fairly. It is unacceptable that some firms are applying fees unfairly and pushing customers towards repossession without considering alternatives. The steps we are announcing today demonstrate that proper handling of arrears is still a high priority for us and will continue to be so until the necessary progress has been made.

 

“The focus of today’s report was specialist lending but the messages apply equally to other mortgage firms. As a result of the Dear CEO letter sent to all lenders and lenders and administrators last November, follow up action is underway with a number of firms and the industry as a whole can expect continued intensive scrutiny of its arrears handling processes.”

 

To help firms with their mortgage and repossession handling, the FSA has outlined some examples of good and poor practice on its website.

 

The FSA understands that customers in arrears are a vulnerable group who need help and advice. It has a wide range of mortgage material on the Moneymadeclear website, including the "What to do when you can’t pay your mortgage" guide, which offers practical help for people who are struggling with mortgage repayments. The FSA requires firms to send this guide to consumers who fall into arrears. Consumers who are having difficulties meeting mortgage payments should talk to their lender immediately and may also wish to contact a free independent advice agency.

 

If a borrower believes they have been treated unfairly by their mortgage lender, they should pursue their complaint through the firm’s internal complaints procedures. If they are not satisfied with the firm’s response, they may refer the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

The arrears review is part of the FSA’s ongoing programme of work designed to monitor the effectiveness of its regulation of mortgage lending, to address key issues in the mortgage sector and to ensure that consumers are treated fairly and can make informed decisions. The issues identified during the review are being factored into the FSA’s comprehensive Mortgage Market Review on which a Discussion Paper is due to be published in September.

Edited June 23, 2009 by andrew1

[Suetonius]

And it identified terms in securitisation covenants which could lead to inequitable treatment of borrowers in arrears, by restricting the scope for the lender to exercise flexibility and forbearance, for example by prohibiting an extension of the loan term, or conversion to interest only for a period.

 

If you read some of JonCris's earlier posts, you will see this is exactly what he has been saying. In one of my previous posts (I will find it later), I quoted an extract from one prospectus that confirms that the lender is not at liberty to freely make changes once a mortgage has been securitised, without first paying back the SPV.

 

(this is a seperate argument to the title to sue)

[rocket1]

As many of you posters here seem to have a good grasp of legal issues, I wonder if you could answer this little query that keeps rambling around inside my head.

 

 

Due to seriously demanding family problems I have been repeatedly taken to the cleaners by the sub prime fraudsters and been reduced over a ten year period from owning £800 000 equity in largish London house to currently owning no equity and being chucked out of the ex council house I now 'own' (joke).

 

I really,really want to fight back - in the legal arena, which is where it will count.

 

With this in mind can anyone tell me :

 

a) if a mortgage is unenforceable if it was proved to be mis-sold ?

 

b) was a mortgage mis-sold by a broker if, when the broker arranged it and introduced it to the lender, the broker was expressly told by the mortgage applicant (me) that I was in receipt of state benefits of about £100 per week as a single parent and that was the only income I currently had at the time of taking out the mortgage for £171 000 !!! on the ex council house I had bought for only £161 000 four years previously.

 

And that I was expressly re-mortgaging because I was already going through a re-possession and the purpose of the re-mortgage was to borrow extra funds to avoid repossession and eviction and to have spare funds to make future mortgage payments on the new mortgage until such time as I became employed.

 

My explanation to the broker was that I 'hoped' and 'intended' to seek 'self employment after family tragedy had forced me into unemployed single parenthood.

 

This hasn't yet happened, as it was always a 'high risk' situation and will take time to materialise. Anybody could see that, which seems to make the broker's advice just to invent an income and self certify to be mis-selling ?

 

I think I might have some of these specific conversations with the broker on tape. Ergo, evidence. The broker was Capital one !!, the lender spml. The broker said spml were 'in house' and maintained a presence in the broker's office, making them virtually one and the same financial entity. (I think they are all part of the same USA financial group - you know, that bunch of cowboys which included Lehmans ?).

 

Also, the previous mortgage I had to that was sold to me by another broker who openly boasted to me about how he specialised in obtaining mortgages for people on state benefits ! Do you think I should make a complaint about him too?

 

I should add that I know I am complicit in all this, but only because I was forced into it by the unprincipled actions of the high street lender I had started out with.

 

I was left with the choice of not owning any house at all if I played honest and did not seek a mortgage because I was currently unemployed, or taking the risk of taking on a sub prime mortgage (dishonestly ??!!) that the high street lenders deliberately collude with each other to force people into, and to be able to bail myself out of it when I got back on my feet with proper employment.

 

This was what ALL the brokers I ever spoke to advised me to do, it was clearly 'the system' they were selling. I just didn't realise at the time how dishonest the whole market - including (particularly) the lenders, were.

 

I think I have evidence to prove all this if it is something that is worth proving. My motivation is pretty much about 99% to expose the brokers, lenders and 'system’, rather than any personal compensation or redress because I am Soooooo very,very,very angry with all the deceit, lies and theft the b*****ds have inflicted on everyone, not just me !

 

My further understanding of this situation would be that, prima fasciae, I am open to criminal prosecution by virtue of making a false declaration on my mortgage application to obtain monies by means of a false declaration, deceit, or something like that.

 

But, if that is the case, then both the broker and lenders were and are party to it, and that further, it is the case they are routinely party to many similar such dishonest (on both sides) transactions; and that they actively encourage and entice borrowers into pretty identical borrowings by the tens of thousand of cases countrywide !.

 

Ergo, again, they are all routinely acting with fraudulent intent and forcing consumers to be complicit with their dishonesty.

 

I very strongly feel that that has been my personal experience. I never wanted a subprime mortgage, I never deserved to be pushed into that arena, and I certainly never wanted to act dishonestly and have always felt uncomfortable about it; and I certainly feel I had no choice in the matter as I was actively forced into it by the actions of the lenders.

 

What a lot of publicity that would generate !

 

any advice/opinions on this very welcome

Edited June 23, 2009 by rocket1

[midge61]

hi

 

This was in the notes to editor on the article posted by Andrew 1

 

Impaired credit history means at the time of the new loan application the borrower had: arrears of three months or more on a previous loan in the last two years; County Court Judgements over £500 in last three years; or is subject to a bankruptcy order or Individual Voluntary Arrangements at any time in the last three years.

 

 

Shame the lenders and CRA don't see it like that!

[enoughisenough]

Afternoon all

 

Just a thought on another line of attack. Say you draw the attention of their sols to the fact that the claim is constituted of:

 

1. Unlawful charges and unlawful interest applied on those charges

 

2. That there is an issue of their locus standi

 

3. That they are in breach of DPA, MCOB, CCA, UTCCRs, UCPD, etc.

 

You the draw the solicitor's attention to these facts

 

They then present their claim to the courts knowing that their client has falsely made claim (assisted by the sols)...

 

Is there cause for genuine complaint to the Law Society? I think there may be. I'm not definitely saying there is and any breach of of Law society rules would have to be clear and fundamental but there may be a way of marrying up the conduct of Capstone with the solicitors in such a way as to bring complaint against the sols. Any thoughts?

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: contents

[enoughisenough]

On closer examination some of the above does seem interesting.

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: Rule 10

[enoughisenough]

Hi Midge

 

Are you saying that this then constitutes irresponsible lending practices?

 

Cheers. EiE

[agatha c]

Hi all

 

Had a reply today from SPML Solicitors, they say that they returned my postal order in the sum of £10.00 in a letter that they sent to me but was never received, saying they act for Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd trading as London Mortgage Company. As such legal professional privilege and/or litigation privilege applies. Further more the data held by this firm does not constitute "personal data" for the purpose of the Data protection Act)

 

As we were repossessed I asked for details of the sale of our home, they sent a completion statement and but no breakdown. They have taken all

our money apart from a cheque for just over £100.00 (which I do not accept) We thought at least £100.000 they had already sold our home for

£150.000 less than it was worth.

 

SPML sent back the SAR with black outs all over pages, telling us nothing.

 

We need to have breakdown and details, to see what they have done.

 

Would do a submission and attend. Im sure they pushed us into repossession and have treated my family like **** since they evicted us.

 

We had our home for 24 years and they have cleaned us out.

 

 

Agatha C

[enoughisenough]

Hi Agatha

 

I'm really sorry to hear how they have treated you but I'm afraid to say thY I'm far from surprised. This huge underselling of your asset for negligible arrears is yet further evidence of their conduct which is largely driven by the logic of securitisation. The fsa are belatedly beginning to take these matters far more seriously but whether the bark becomes a bite is far from certain.

 

Please write to the treasury select committee with information about your circumstances. I'm certain that spml don't want you to do this and therefore equally as certain that you should.

 

The more we raise this the more something will have to be done and it may even mean that since they continue to persecute you after repossession that you have some justice restored. Especially let the committee know what has happened since you were repossessed but also give them something about how the repo action was conducted.

 

Who are their solicitors?

 

Good luck.

[midge61]

Hi eie

 

The note I posted was on the FSA document that Andrew1 posted. It is the FSA definition of "impaired credit history".

 

I was just thinking that if that is all they class as impaired credit then most of us have been stitched up. I know that when I took out my mort I had had 1 months arrears on my previous mort which was down to poor communication from them and I have just had a complaint against that company settled by the FOS.

[agatha c]

lightfoots. I need this information as main partner e.mailed me with details of my objections to them selling my home, plus leaving my home unsecured and items missing and blamed me for not removing them before eviction. Estate agents also need to be questioned, he was putting people off buying the house. Have witness, who put in offer. Ive been told I cant complain, house did not belong to me anymore.......

 

Agatha c

[enoughisenough]

Hi agatha

 

again typical but sadly the case with these increasingly desperate outlaws. I thought the morally flexible lightfoots might be involved. The question is whether they have been flexible in their application of the law. Only one way to test that out. Make a submission to the tsc and thereafter the fsa. Although the fsa cannot investigate individual complaints they can add it to their case file on the particularly virulent scumbags that we are dealing with here.