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

[gustavius rex]

Come on guys,

What we need is a solicitor who would be willing to undertake this on a ''pro bono'' or ''no win no fee'' basis. What needs to be proven is INTENT, i.e. did the lender inform you properly of the intended performance of the contract? No, he did not as l am dead sure they all relied up on the extortionate rate hikes they imposed at the end of the preferential period. Someone who has a sub-prime mortgage runnining at, say 8.25% preferential going up to 4.5% LIBOR knows that he/she needs to re-mortgage after the first 2 years or they will end up in trouble. But, no-one expected the crash of 2007/2008 where all mortgage, save a few prime, lenders simply vanished from the face of the earth. When this occured our friends at Lehmans and others got caught with their knickers in a twist as they could not sustain their loans. This is where intent and contract performance becomes interesting. We should have a close look at how Northern Rock behaved after their collapse, they simply tried to divest and dump their client at any opportunity until our beloved government changed their tune and decided that they would start lending again. lf you, like Lehmans, never intended to engage in any sustained mortgage lending (with or without securitisation) then you are acting dishonesty against your customer and you are selling a contract that you never ever intended to fullfill.

 

A bit esoteric and perhaps a lot of speculation in the obvious, but, difficult to prove (for us normal dudes at least). But, l'm sure l'm on the right track and would dearly love to hear some comments and a lot of speculation re. this.

Gustavius

[enoughisenough]

Hi GR

 

I've posted extensively on this and other threads. I've seen a few false dawns but have always ran with them because we know that something is rotten in Denmark. This is no exception and I believe the prospectuses hold the key to intent. Tom Brennan might take this on or at least advise someone else who might.

[gustavius rex]

Hi GR

 

I've posted extensively on this and other threads. I've seen a few false dawns but have always ran with them because we know that something is rotten in Denmark. This is no exception and I believe the prospectuses hold the key to intent. Tom Brennan might take this on or at least advise someone else who might.

 

 

Why denmark? A lovely country populated by pigs, lurpak and a few humans on the outskirts. Joke aside, l would love to speak to someone with extensive knowledge of UK contract law. l can only say that in International and US contract law the lehman performance would or could be construed as deceptive if not outright fraudulent. l think, though, that by now or very soon we shall be able to prove that they never intended to fullfill theur part of the contract, hence, they performed or were engaged in mis-selling, something equal to our famous ppi.

Gustavius

[Crapstone]

The 'Denmark' refers to where securitisation started although the US changed it. The Danish model works quite well with few defaults and the homeowner can take advantage when the bonds are struggling.

 

Denmark is indeed a lovely country

[enoughisenough]

Hi again GR

 

I've broken down a couple of prospectuses and posted them up somewhere. I'll have a dig around and then we can chew the fat on the main points. A class action could be brought but we need to consider all the options. Maybe one cagger preferably with clean hands could be sponsored by us caggers to take this on.

[gustavius rex]

Hi again GR

 

I've broken down a couple of prospectuses and posted them up somewhere. I'll have a dig around and then we can chew the fat on the main points. A class action could be brought but we need to consider all the options. Maybe one cagger preferably with clean hands could be sponsored by us caggers to take this on.

 

 

l'm an eager beaver here and look forard to some nice brainstorming. Maybe, just maybe we can find one or two pearls in all the muck, eh?

GR

[enoughisenough]

Hi GR

 

I admire your champing at the bit. I can tell you straight without fear of contradiction that the prospectuses/offering circulars all but guarantee early redemption.

 

Posting on a mobile at the moment but if you go back to about April may on this thread I think a breakdown of a different but virtually identical prospectus may just well be there. If not check out the mortgage securitisation preferred thread. There's just so much unlawful conduct going on. The way I see it is that lehmans can now confidently be labelled pariahs and outcast such that the system is then seen to have cleansed itself. They are effing purpose built for this need.

[landy_alert]

Hi EIE, Littledotty and everyone else on this thread:)

 

Apologies for butting in!

 

I have been reading through and trying to inwardly digest as much as I can. I was drawn to this thread because of the sub-prime aspect, not because I have any connections with SPML, Capstone etc.

 

My particular experience was with Swift Advances, but I've been trying to glean as much info as possible about typical dealings of sub-prime lenders, particularly securitisation which I'm still struggling to understand.

 

My and Mr L's situation is in fact rather similar to AngMarie's - I do have my own threads for this but just thought I'd give you good folks an idea of the way a similar subprime lender can ruin someone's life - or at least try to. We had a second charge with Swift (taken out in 2006) which we quickly ran into diffuculties with as we already had a hefty mortgage with C&G - our total repayments were around £2000 per month.

 

Swift hounded us day and night for repayment but unfortunately Mr L had changed jobs and his promised bonuses didn't materialise. Swift started court proceedings against us as we owed £4000+ arrears. Luckily our families helped us out, but Mr L suffered a breakdown as a result of the stress and took an overdose of painkillers. This was all in the middle of our only son's A level exams which wasn't the best of timing. Fortunately Mr L pulled through and thanks to the support of our families he made a full recovery.

 

To cut a long story short after struggling on for several months, by which point we were in arrears with both mortgages, we managed to sell our house at the end of 2007 and luckily as we had plenty of equity still we paid off both mortgages. Having to sell our 'forever' home was a shame, but it saved our sanity.

 

The charges Swift applied at the point of redemption were appalling though - our redemption figure was £69,000+ on a £58,000+ mortgage. We had made over £11,000 of payments and been charged £13,000+ in interest. Because we were naive and hadn't discovered the wonderful CAG back then we knew no better and paid them without question.

 

Now we are trying to get the charges back -we've had no luck as yet. We had PPI too which we believe was mis-sold and I'm hoping to get the FOS to look at that for me.

 

I'm interested to see that you recommended AngMarie to try to get her early redemption charge back EIE - I had thought that this wasn't possible, but like her we have nothing to lose as we don't owe Swift a penny. I do know though that they are reknowned for defending hard with a fleet of barristers which is a somewhat scary prospect.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't mind my temporary hijacking of your very interesting thread - I just feel that even if we are fighting different lenders here our combined knowledge of the subprime method as a whole could be of great use to anyone in the same position.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

Edited August 27, 2009 by landy_alert

[angmarie]

hi landy alert,

 

Well your tale is breath of fresh air for me, you start to think that its only happened to you untill you discover this wonderful forum which is full of wonderful ppl who are willing to give up their time to advise of what could be your best possible next move. There are so many good ppl here:).

 

 

Ang

[enoughisenough]

Hi landy

 

this is no hijack. If the mods disagree that is in their power. Your story is appalling, as are many others including mine. Top barristers will run a mile from this sh1t. What swift are then left with is the representation offered by desperate wannabe corporate barristers. So research your stuff get your papers in order, seek legal advice and opinion and then file your claim. They will blast all their big macho guns, realise they haven't got a legal leg to stand on and come begging right at the last moment. They don't want the scrutiny . Of course I could be wrong which is why I suggest a legO opinion before proceeding.

[enoughisenough]

Lurker

[Dangermouse]

Come on guys,

What we need is a solicitor who would be willing to undertake this on a ''pro bono'' or ''no win no fee'' basis. What needs to be proven is INTENT, i.e. did the lender inform you properly of the intended performance of the contract? No, he did not as l am dead sure they all relied up on the extortionate rate hikes they imposed at the end of the preferential period. Someone who has a sub-prime mortgage runnining at, say 8.25% preferential going up to 4.5% LIBOR knows that he/she needs to re-mortgage after the first 2 years or they will end up in trouble. But, no-one expected the crash of 2007/2008 where all mortgage, save a few prime, lenders simply vanished from the face of the earth. When this occured our friends at Lehmans and others got caught with their knickers in a twist as they could not sustain their loans. This is where intent and contract performance becomes interesting. We should have a close look at how Northern Rock behaved after their collapse, they simply tried to divest and dump their client at any opportunity until our beloved government changed their tune and decided that they would start lending again. lf you, like Lehmans, never intended to engage in any sustained mortgage lending (with or without securitisation) then you are acting dishonesty against your customer and you are selling a contract that you never ever intended to fullfill.

Gustavius Rex

 

 

In my case I think that SPML deliberately concealed from me the true commercial nature of the contract. I dont know about anyone else but I knew nothing about securitisation & from what I now know about it, the nature & danger of this financial 'device' is of critical importance to a consumer considering taking out a contract.

 

It is simply not good enough for the contract to state "we have the right to assign or sell" the mortgage. It should state honestly and transparantly that the contract will CERTAINLY be sold and describe the nature of the financial structure that the consumer is going to be involved with. it seems clear to me that consumers have sometimes been 'lured' into these contracts, Lehmans particularly by getting ever more punters in. They feed the fee making machine by continually reducing their lending criteria to ensure that consumers are able to remortgage once or maybe twice before being forced to sell or repossesed.

 

I cannot believe that it is lawful to conceal from consumers the real 'nature' of the product being sold. Surely the fact that in 2 or 3 months maximum after signature there would be addional parties to the agreement and this fact was known to one party (including who the additional parties would be) and this fact was deliberatly kept from the other party (I believe the intention not to disclose is detailed in the SPV's prospectuses?) then this cannot be right or fair.

 

In fact, I seem to remember reading somewhere on these threads that eu directives state that deliberate concealment of this sort is considered fraud. Interestingly, if deliberate concealment or other fraud is found, I stand to be corrected, but I think the directors of SPML/ Capstone & possibly Lehman can be held personally liable for the financial losses or damages caused to the consumer.

 

I do not think it is practical to get anyone to do pro-bono work on this. I think that we should get a full barrister's opinion under the direct access scheme. I realise that there have been several opinions sought in the past on ERC's legality etc & several cases in court. But now that we all know a little more about the securitisation process, we may be all victims of this concealment of facts. We also have some prospectae, some of you also have documents from the Ombudsman with ther view etc. I think we should club together and put a fund together to get a QC's opinion. We must do some background work to get together a clear and definitive set of questions prepared to which we need answers. I volunteer to help in that process and I am also prepared to put in £250 to the pot to get it started. I think those of us that out of the clutches of the spml beast can help ourselves and help those who are still struggling.

 

Any thoughts on this? please PM or message on thread. Anybody know if CAG will hold funds in escrow for this purpose? if not I will get a solicitor to hold money on our behalf.

 

Now is the time boys and girls, if we get corroborating legal opinion and we are successful, the directors of Spml/Capstone etc. can be made personally liable, they and anyone else who assists them will not be able to hide behind any future insolvency procedures involving SPML.

[enoughisenough]

Dangermouse!

 

Welcome back! I couldn't agree more.

 

I'm going to lay out an intinerary for stuffing these turkeys and then see the responses

[enoughisenough]

Ps

 

where the bloody hell have you been???

[enoughisenough]

OK GR

 

We and you and me are going to have to to go a bit quiet now. I've seen your other posts

 

this one in particular

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/199575-bailiffs-enforcement-police-horror.html

 

and that's enough for me.

[enoughisenough]

GR

 

my immediate and most humble apologies. I totally withdraw my last post. I will however leave it there for the time being as a cautionary tale to ALL of us lest we fall into the temptation of impetuosity . Or in plain English I've Had to be reigned in a few times myself. Sorry dude! I really mean that.

Edited August 28, 2009 by enoughisenough
Typo

[landy_alert]

Hi Ang and EIE:)

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post - I know what you mean Ang, the people here are wonderful.......if only Mr L and I had known about this place two years ago we could have possibly prevented an awful lot of s**t from hitting the fan.

 

Like you Ang, I was shocked to discover we were not alone in our plight and can honestly sympathise with what you must have gone through. Similarly for those who are still in the throes of dealing with it all - my heart goes out to them and hope they can avoid the trauma we went through.

 

Hopefully now we are not only stronger mentally, but armed with the wealth of information and support here on Cag we can take this forward and try to get some kind of restitution for what we suffered - that goes for all of us who have been victims of the subprime market.

 

Take care,

 

Landy x

[gustavius rex]

GR

 

my immediate and most humble apologies. I totally withdraw my last post. I will however leave it there for the time being as a cautionary tale to ALL of us lest we fall into the temptation of impetuosity . Or in plain English I've Had to be reigned in a few times myself. Sorry dude! I really mean that.

 

 

 

lt's ok EIE,

l'm, though, not of the opinion that l should have to be reined in, when l, or someone in my family is subjected to, what l was by the bailiffs in question. My background is such, that l just cannot lie down and accept an abborration without reacting to it. lf you read through my thread in whole, you will discover that in fact, l did nothing wrong or unlawful. lt's not unlawful or illegal to inform someone who is thretening me with unlawful entry (break in) to my house, or physically attack me to gain entry, that in case he tries l will, so help me God, blow his effing head off!

This is not shooting someone in the back when running away, it does not necessarily mean shooting at all, only remove his ugly face from the shoulders and neck that carries it.

 

As for the SPML/Preferred business, it is something completely different and cannot be solved by blowing heads off (although l'm sure many a victim would love too), but, only through legal means. Lehman Brothers engaged in speculation and not mortgage lending, this is and must be the main issue here. To concentrate on the securitization will not lead to victory as securitization is not unlawful. The difference between ''normal'' lenders and Lehman's business methods is that Lehman never ever intended to stay on with their customers, but, packaged and sold off the mortgages within a very short span of time. Further, l'm sure that a thorough investigation will reveal that the funds obtained from their securitization never went back to support their lending, but, ended up in bonus payments instead. lt is racketeering at it's worse and a business model built on a pyramid principle that will ultimately fail when there is a downturn in the market. Well, we all saw the result and even major high street banks went technically belly up as they had engaged in this mortgage securitization [problem]. ln the end the directors all went away with their bonuses, parachute deals and super pensions, why, their businesses floundered and had to be bailed out by the tax payers.

 

Now, the greatest obstacle to get some justice for us borrowers and those victims who have lost it all, is the government and establishment. No-one and l mean no-one from the government or judiciary will willingly support us. They are all so bloody embroiled with the bankers that they want to avoid any further banking scandals at any price. And, that price is to be paid by us. We need legal assistance and very very good one at that. lt will not be enough with one barrister, but, needs a teem including financial experts. l maintain that what must be proven here is intent and false representation. Ther was never any intent to engage in mortgage lending as such, but, only to speculate and engage in the soliciting of customers and selling of mortgages to investors, i.e. an investment clearing house and thereby mortgages were sold to clients under false pretence and this with all the various and useless regulators full knowledge and support. The old saying goes that **** flows downwards and nothing could have been more to the point than this case.

Gustavius Rex

Edited August 28, 2009 by gustavius rex

[Dangermouse]

Hi GR

 

Getting a first opinion from an experienced barrister is absolutely essential. Once we have that opinion, we then have a starting point to make some sensible decisions. Speaking for myself, I was absent from the site for so long because I was fed up of hearing the same rants over and over again.

 

I of course understand why people feel so strongly, but it must hearten the enemy to follow all of this on the threads.

 

We need to have a considered and unemotional agenda, this must start with an informed legal opinion. Until then, we are all wasting our time.

 

Dangermouse

[angmarie]

Hi EIE

 

I am struggling to start my own thread for this. Also please could you point me as to where I can read up on dsar and anything else I may need need to prepare for. Going up loft later to get my pandora's box out as it contains all relevant paperwork which I will need.

 

Many Thanks

 

 

Ang

[rocket1]

Dangermouse,

 

I contacted you ages ago about this idea and I posted somewhere about it, but absolutely nothing happened and we are all at fault for that.

 

So, let me make a positive start towards progressing this just a teeeny weeny bit instead of just endless talking about it.

 

Let us start by collecting a list of names from this forum who all say the same thing and want to make a commitment i.e. why don't we commence a class action and our first step is to find a barrister for an initial opinion and advice on how to progress.

 

Then let us organise a means of publicising that list of names and inviting more and more people to join and to lay out a framework of what those names may expect to do/commit/and their obligations etc.

 

Obviously the first thing to ask the entire list of names is to put their collective heads together and make suggestions as to how to find and employ and pay a barrister.

 

Ideally it would be good to have barristers amongst our list of names and get pro bono work done.

 

Alternatively, it is likely that there a barrister somewhere who is so disgusted with financial institutions and the damage they have done said barrister is just itching to get his hands on a case to destroy them with and will therefore do it pro bono.

[enoughisenough]

Once again GR

 

My utmost and sincere apologies. I have read the thread and that is what prompted the apology. I've felt bad all day because you are so much like me. Not to dissimilar upbringing and I will do whatever I need to do to protect my family. So the apology is 100% sincere. I apologise.

 

Moving forward...

 

 

This is the consumer ACTION group. Rocket 1 count me in. I font even mind going public with my real identity. Not on here though. Not yet until we have names on the list . By golly chaps we sound like the names of lloyds. Lets go effing well get them along the lines suggested. I'm not putting up with God knows how many more years of THIS SH1TE! We agreed? Lets start with tom Brennan and see what he thinks. He'll chip in for free at least for a while I should think though I have absolutely no authority or sound reason for beleiving this. Lets see if we can get some movement on this . For real this time no more effing around.

[Dangermouse]

Hi Rocket1

 

Yes, I agree...but I think we have come a long way since we communicated some time ago. We have much more information now.

 

I am not so sure that we can assume that we can obtain a decent opinion for free, I cannot assume that Tom Brennan will offer his services for nothing, afterall we all have to earn a living!

 

We can assume nothing and I think we need to do this in a formal way, I think we should be in control of this and not go off half cocked. I don't know Tom Brennan, all this has been going on so long that we need to be in the driving seat and do it properly.

 

These threads are full of theories from well meaning individuals but no professional lawyer is going to want to get involved in a ramble of uninformed opinion and hearsay. I mean no disrepect to anyone using or contributing to these threads, in fact the contributors offer fantastic support to those who need help.

 

However, we must be absolutely clear when it comes to the way forward (if indeed there is one!) If we do not keep control then 99% of our effort will be wasted & I dont know about you guys but I do not have time to do this with a shotgun approach. If we ask someone to do something Pro Bono, they will also get fed up if we are not completely focussed. I think that we need two people, a maximum of three to work closely in the early stages to get a clear and concise briefing document together (preferably one of these three should have some legal knowledge) I am prepared to meet up with anyone in London to discuss next steps.

 

Dangermouse

[ryde]

I Have Read In This Thread That Preferred Mortgages Part Of Lehman Are In Administration And Are Being Administered By Pricewaterhouse Preferred Are Currently Bringing A Land Registry Claim Against Me I Have Stated That As They Are In Administration They Have No Capacity To Bring A Claim But Preferred Have Denied This. 1)how Can I Obtain Evidence That They Are Actually Being Administered By Price Waterhouse 2)am I Right In Saying They Have No Right To Bring A Claim If They Are In Administration?

These Proceedings Are Time Limited And I Would Greatly Appreciate A Quick Reply So I Could Give Them A Bloody Nose For Everyone

I Thought Trading Whilst Insolvent Was Illegal?i Would Go To The Ends Of The Earth To Nail Them,there Is An Appeal Going Through The High Court At The Moment But As I Am Representing Myself I Need All The Help I Can Get.thanks In Advance

[Dangermouse]

Hello Ryde

 

I have received a private email with information from someone who was in a similar situation to you. At least they were a customer of SPML and he was unhappy about the erc he paid and other charges. He had an exchange of letters with PriceWaterhouseCoopers & he has copied me. The information you have received from Preferred is correct. Although Lehmans are in administration, neither SMPL nor Preferred are currently in administration and are operating normally. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

Dangermouse