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

[rocket1]

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

 

You're absolutely right. It needs exactly the formal structure you mention and needs that small group to organise and lead everyone involved as you describe.

 

I'm certainly willing to play a part as I would be quite happy to take the matter to court myself if I had the legal training necessary. I don't, that's the problem and its the problem for all of us. Equally if I had unlimited money I would simply find and pay a barrister to do my bidding. Again we all have that problem of no unlimited money for such a case.

 

On the other hand, I am sure that if we all knew that by contributing £100 each we could launch a case and be absolutely certain we would all win our ercs back etc, then enough funds would be available for the case. But that isn't going to happen either and no case can be counted on to be a winner, no matter how good it might be !

 

That is why we need a leadership of a small group to lead the larger number of people into a class action. And the first step is to define our case and then get very basic legal opinion about it. If the legal opinion tells us there is a line of logic to follow in law that looks like being a winner, then we can work on building the case and building the access to legal help which will require some sort of funding - but possibly legal aid ???? through an individual group member.

 

there are definitely a lot of possibilities and my gut feel is that there is certainly going to be a suitable case of some kind to pursue. You only have to look at the treasury select committee and the acres of stuff in the media and listen to people like Vince Cable and the Gov of the Bank of England et al to realise that opinion is turning firmly away from the banks/lenders etc and that everyone is just itching to pounce on them.

 

The Govmnt is already making nasty noises and threatening legislation against the banks. But what the entire country wants to see is a class action that is won that goes to root of all the Bank's corruption And yes, it is corruption, as we all well know here.

 

The Govmnt can't do that. Only we can !

 

We can also use such a class action to truly expose the corruption in detail by easily obtaining square miles of media coverage rather than just paltry acres. It is a very newsworthy possibility of breathtaking proportions.

 

It might be that on the basis of that particular possibility, there may be a wealthy bank hating individual who would happily cough up a fortune to fund a case even if it lost just so as to expose the full details and degree of the banks' extortions.

[Dangermouse]

Yes, if we can demonstrate that there is case to be made (and that must start with a good legal opinion) then we have a chance of getting a class action going. A good QC will cost us £500 per hour under direct access (I know this because I have done this myself on a different matter)

 

If between us we can distill the points we need an opinion on, then we will need a few hours time to establish if we have a chanace of getting a case running. There is no way to quantify how much a case would cost, if indeed we have a case, but we can probably take a stab at the cost of a getting a legal opinion.

 

If anyone knows Tom Brennan and he is prepared to have a chat then please make the introduction.

 

Is anybody else prepared to make a financial contribution? The time do do this is now.

 

Dangermouse

 

Dangermouse

[ryde]

thanks for quick reply dangermouse ;

that avenue is closed then.pml have also stated that they have not securitized the mortgage which is impossible to prove otherwise.The whole thing stinks but it is big business which exploits every legal loophole and hides behind a thousand faces.lend to people who are vunerable once theyre signed up charge what you like,make sure valuation is well below a realistic selling price so if things go wrong your legal pals can repossess and everyones on an earner ,securitize the mortgage risk lessened but keep legal title just in case borrower defaults.things can only go wrong when house prices fall dramatically as has happened now.

 

my situation illustrates this perfectly.

my ex had a property to which i made a big financial contribution.it was in her sole name.i had a restriction on the land registry to protect my interest.she had problems maintaining a £65000 mortgage with the woolwich with big arrears. all she wanted to do was consolidate the arrears into a new loan no one reputable would touch the loan application because of the arrears...... so along come pml (PREFERRED) on their instructions she transfers the property into joint names of hers and new boyfriend and applies to pml(preferred) for a mortgage 'they offer her £110000 in joint names!!!!!!!!!!! .pml did no proper checks on the income to support the loan in fact both ex and boyfriend were on the dole and the mortgage was defaulted on within 3 months but they had both got £40000 out of it and the boyfriend blew the whole lot away and disappeared !!!!!

.pml tried to register their charge in 2006 but it was held up by my restriction until it has got to court which is happening now so they could not repossess. Their charge will overreach my restrction ie:step in front of my interest because the capital proceeds were paid to 2 trustees which they insisted on when granting the mortgage, this is legally correct.HOW CYNCICAL IS THAT.they lend to someone on the dole at an undervalue of the property knowing full well they will both default and cynically know that any beneficiary who has a genuine interest is swept away by insisting that the loan is made to joint owners thus being complicit in an out and out fraud against the beneficiary because they know they will get all their money back,costs and interest and a nice little earner for the legal boys Any high street lender would have run a million miles from a loan application like this(AND IN FACT DID) but preferred know exactly how to play the game and all its legal loopholes I would just love to nail them somehow.. BUT ITS DAVID without his sling against goliath and the legal profession treat any litigant in person like absolute dirt....any ideas would be greatly appreciated as this is happening now and preferred(pml) have still to get their charge registered before they can repossess, would it be worth trying to make them complicit in a fraud? ie lending to people on the dole without proper checks(i suppose they are not obligated to do this anyhow),knowing they could repossess and get rid of the beneficiaries interests? please help ryde!!

[Dangermouse]

As starters I think you can still register a caution with the land registry. (they call it something else now). You can register this without notification to preferred or with notification. Either way it might slow up the process (have a look at land registry online)

 

I spent 7 days in the High court as a litigant in person myself....I know how you feel. I am not clear how your ex could have re-mortgaged the property with your restriction in place...surely you must have agreed for it to be subordinated or something?

[Crapstone]

I've no doubts that we could succeed in proving that the intentions of Lehmans were other than honourable at the time these mortgages were 'approved'. And that the whole process from broker to solicitor was knowingly flawed against the interests of the consumer and criminally so.

 

Count me in on any class action, meetings and donations. I can only offer legal advice as per Trading Standards would on contract law and consumer based legislation with legal framework.

[ryde]

THANKS FOR REPLIES a restriction is stronger than a caution because it restricts ie stops the sale or remortgage of the property usually by a sole owner,the only way round this is to appoint another owner which pml insisted on IN THIS TRANSACTION which was all behind my back. In law their charge then takes precedence over the interest registered because the two owners are supposed to look after the proceeds OF THE MORTGAGE for the beneficiaries; which rarely if ever happens as they just scarper with the proceeds but such is the law which reckons 2 owners are more responsible than one(google city of london building society v flegg) if you want to see a real injustice.Point is i have an active ongoing case in the courts with preferred and i will raise any issue or throw any dirt at them i can,so please dish any relevant dirt.I would love to get them investigated by the revenue or the like for tax evasion or money laundering but you need cast iron evidence otherwise you pay the costs and theyll be ruinous you can bet your life on that one!!

[Crapstone]

I'm confused. You say this dates back to at least 2006 when Pml. tried to register their charge after your ex defaulted 3 months after the mortgage and £40,000 went astray courtesy of her BF and joint holder, which I presume was equity. They both took out a mortgage whilst on the dole for £110,000 without you knowing despite you having a restriction with the LR and the £65,000 outstanding would have been settled.

 

You are now involved in court proceedings 2009 and fighting the repossession? What's happened to the property in all that time or am I missing something out?

[ryde]

WE BOUGHT THE PROPERT IN 1988 WITH A £65000 mortgage from woolwich it was in her sole name as i owned a property in birmingham i paid half the deposit and did a lot of work there etc so had an interest in the property which she recognised.she was holding the property on trust for me and herself.i had a formA restriction registered on the property with land registry which states no disposition(ie;sale) by a sole proprietor in which capital money arises is to be registered unless by an order of the court,this protects my interest. her new boyfriend approached preferred to remortgage the property as it was in big arrears with the woolwich.I was living elsewhere. he also disputed the restriction with the land registry which held up its registration .preferred told him to get my ex to make him a joint owner and offered both of them £110000 mortgage despite both of them being on the dole(their income was not checked) the woolwich were paid off but when preferred tried to register their charge for the mortgage they could not because my restriction was still being argued about with the land registry who deal with each matter in turn like a chain.

preferred have been tearing their hair out for 3 years trying to get their charge registered as they have no security over the property and cannot repossess it.the boyfriend has long gone with the proceeds (equity) of £40000 and the mortgage to preferred has not been paid for two and a half years my ex still lives in the property .the argument now with preferred is whether my restriction(which is now registered)prevents registration of their charge which on the face of it it does not.

my argument is that preferred conspired with the boyfriend to defraud me of my interest in the property by not checking the income and insisting on 2 owners so the restriction would be stepped over(no disposition by a SOLE owner in which capital money arises is to be registered)the loophole preferred exploited was to get my ex to transfer the property for nothing (no consideration that is no capital money arose on the transfer) into joint names there are then 2 owners to remortgage the property so the restriction is useless,land registry did not even tell me that it had been transferred.this shows how devious this company are.hope you understand that lot it took me 3 years to grasp it!!!!!!!thanks for the interest.

 

experimental

Edited April 21, 2010 by ryde

[gustavius rex]

Hi Guys,

 

Look, there is no way a few of us can finance a class action, it's just potentially too expensive. At £500 an hour for the barrister and additional charges for experts, solicitors and the rest, we will easily run in to hundreds of thousands if not millions. Preferred/SPML et al are in administration and even should we win there may not be enough funds left to cover court and legal costs. Beside, should it look bad for Lehman they (the administrators) will start to play the delay game and the ''filing of ****e'' game that will keep our barrister/solicitors busy and cost a bloody fortune for nothing. No, the way to approach this is to get every and all Preferred/SPML/London Mortgage Company and so on involved. the victi lt would be real good if we could engage the victims in the US as well and then we may just raise enough interest from the press and eventually government to achieve something. Believe me, l'm involved in a rubbish litigation case re. a workshop and it's now on it's 2:nd year and benefitting no-one, but, the claimants solicitor. We want to achieve something of lasting value and if possible recover some of our losses if not outright have our shady mortgages written off, but, as l said, that will require a giant effort and must involve a lot of Lehman victims to be meaningful.

Gustavius

[gustavius rex]

WE BOUGHT THE PROPERT IN 1988 WITH A £65000 mortgage from woolwich it was in her sole name as i owned a property in birmingham i paid half the deposit and did a lot of work there etc so had an interest in the property which she recognised.she was holding the property on trust for me and herself.i had a formA restriction registered on the property with land registry which states no disposition(ie;sale) by a sole proprietor in which capital money arises is to be registered unless by an order of the court,this protects my interest. her new boyfriend approached preferred to remortgage the property as it was in big arrears with the woolwich.I was living elsewhere. he also disputed the restriction with the land registry which held up its registration .preferred told him to get my ex to make him a joint owner and offered both of them £110000 mortgage despite both of them being on the dole(their income was not checked) the woolwich were paid off but when preferred tried to register their charge for the mortgage they could not because my restriction was still being argued about with the land registry who deal with each matter in turn like a chain.

preferred have been tearing their hair out for 3 years trying to get their charge registered as they have no security over the property and cannot repossess it.the boyfriend has long gone with the proceeds (equity) of £40000 and the mortgage to preferred has not been paid for two and a half years my ex still lives in the property .the argument now with preferred is whether my restriction(which is now registered)prevents registration of their charge which on the face of it it does not.

my argument is that preferred conspired with the boyfriend to defraud me of my interest in the property by not checking the income and insisting on 2 owners so the restriction would be stepped over(no disposition by a SOLE owner in which capital money arises is to be registered)the loophole preferred exploited was to get my ex to transfer the property for nothing (no consideration that is no capital money arose on the transfer) into joint names there are then 2 owners to remortgage the property so the restriction is useless,land registry did not even tell me that it had been transferred.this shows how devious this company are.hope you understand that lot it took me 3 years to grasp it!!!!!!!thanks for the interest.

 

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Now, your contribution is very very interesting, indeed. Take away the conspiracy theory of re-possessioning and stay with the mortgage itself and you will find just the kind of evidence needed. Lehmans was never interested in any re-possessions at all. As a matter of fact, they did not even keep the mortgages long enough to bother about arrears and possible repos. That was something they had to deal with (on behalf of the beneficial owners) later on. For Lehmans, the main issue was to sell mortgages, bundle the mortgages in to tranches and sell them on to investors, the beneficial part that is. lf they sell a mortgage to someone(s) who are on the dole or not, does not matter to the investment banker as he will get his bonus based on the amount of mortgages he sell, package, re-sell and the profit for Lehmans. He could not give a rats ass whether you are on the dole, living on the street, in a carton or almost, if you live at all. You are a quantity and a source for short term profit for him, that's all.

 

Did Lehmans then mis-sell? Of course they did and they did so purposely and with total disregard for the borrowers, investors and lifes they destroyed. That's where the key to any possible action lies.

Gustavius

[gustavius rex]

One thing more, this morning.

Since November 2008 there has been some 37,000 + views. Of course, many are repeat viewers, why, the number of actual people who has read the thread is much lower, but, the figure is significant and if only a fraction, say 15 to 20%, of these viewers have issues with SPML/Preferred and are willing to participate in any future organized action, then, we should be able to really achieve something. Should we also be able to bring some US victims to the table, so much better.

GR

[angmarie]

Hi EIE

 

Is a dsar detailed subject access request please and would I sent it to capstone. What can I expect if anything to get from them.

Need to get the ball rolling on this as the property was sold and erc paid 15 months ago. Does anyone know of time limit for claims if already settled.

 

 

Ang

[gustavius rex]

Hi EIE

 

Is a dsar detailed subject access request please and would I sent it to capstone. What can I expect if anything to get from them.

Need to get the ball rolling on this as the property was sold and erc paid 15 months ago. Does anyone know of time limit for claims if already settled.

 

 

Ang

 

 

Hi Ang,

 

l do'nt think a SAR would do much good here. They would only send you a lot of rubbish they hold on their computer about you, such as; name, current address, phone number and perhaps a statement. As for their realtionship with the spv's, they would just claim third party priveledge and confidentiality. l shall have a chat with my solicitor on Monday about some other issues and then try to get an opinion from him re. the issues above. The same with the time limit. l'm not sure about this, but, shall ask about that too. lf it is anything like other similar issues then l would guess 3 to 6 years.

GR

[Dangermouse]

Well you agree with me GR, that is where I think a possible action lays. These lenders were 'churning' the borrowers to get every drop of lifeblood from them. Having been through the re-mortgage mangle a few times the remaining 'husks' are thrown away. But that doesn't matter since all the juice 'equity' has been extracted by the banks who have filled their boots with fees. The fuel/fodder for this process has always been more and more mugs like us, to keep the gravy train running for them. The banks/brokers were in danger of running out of qualified consumers so to keep the fees being generated they the 'spiral' is designed to continually lower their criteria so that they would effectively lend to anyone (including Ryde's ex and her boyfriend), anyone that is who had some equity/value to be extracted. The banks wouldn't listen when there were warnings that the property prices might drop, they were more interested that the momentum was sustained and the fees kept coming in. So, the saying goes that you only catch out those swimming without trunks when the tide goes out. Property prices start to drop and the failures inevitibly start, failures for consumers who have been 'missold' mortgages that they could not afford or rather that the banks that 'lured' into the downward spiral of lower lending criteria & higher rates until the consumer is an exhausted husk and thrown out of the system (& their home) as they are of have no further use.

 

GR, we cannot eat this elephant whole, we all know how much legal actions of this nature will cost but we have to eat the elephant in little bites and the first bite is to get a firm legal opinion. There are many well meaning people on this site who offer their opinions but we do not know whether they are legally savvy or not. I say lets get a legal opinion first and then decide how we proceed. Remember, if indeed there is evidence of the 'olive press' nature of this being correct, then this maybe the basis of a serious class action against the DIRECTOR'S personally.

 

Dangermouse

[gustavius rex]

Well you agree with me GR, that is where I think a possible action lays. These lenders were 'churning' the borrowers to get every drop of lifeblood from them. Having been through the re-mortgage mangle a few times the remaining 'husks' are thrown away. But that doesn't matter since all the juice 'equity' has been extracted by the banks who have filled their boots with fees. The fuel/fodder for this process has always been more and more mugs like us, to keep the gravy train running for them. The banks/brokers were in danger of running out of qualified consumers so to keep the fees being generated they the 'spiral' is designed to continually lower their criteria so that they would effectively lend to anyone (including Ryde's ex and her boyfriend), anyone that is who had some equity/value to be extracted. The banks wouldn't listen when there were warnings that the property prices might drop, they were more interested that the momentum was sustained and the fees kept coming in. So, the saying goes that you only catch out those swimming without trunks when the tide goes out. Property prices start to drop and the failures inevitibly start, failures for consumers who have been 'missold' mortgages that they could not afford or rather that the banks that 'lured' into the downward spiral of lower lending criteria & higher rates until the consumer is an exhausted husk and thrown out of the system (& their home) as they are of have no further use.

 

GR, we cannot eat this elephant whole, we all know how much legal actions of this nature will cost but we have to eat the elephant in little bites and the first bite is to get a firm legal opinion. There are many well meaning people on this site who offer their opinions but we do not know whether they are legally savvy or not. I say lets get a legal opinion first and then decide how we proceed. Remember, if indeed there is evidence of the 'olive press' nature of this being correct, then this maybe the basis of a serious class action against the DIRECTOR'S personally.

 

Dangermouse

 

 

Hi Dangermouse,

 

Believe you me, when l say l understand your anger, frustration and personal insult. But, as you say yourself, we need a cool head and legal advice to carry on. l, personally do not believe in the argument about bleeding the mortgagees, nor do l believe in the argument about calculated re-possessions, even if it is true. My conclusion is that the one and only way to get to them is to use the argument of intent and mis-selling. All of us who took out mortgages with Preferred or South Pacific knew the rate of interest we agreed to pay and we also knew that after the preferred period of rate, it would go up to a premium of whatever percentage plus libor the lender had set. However, what most of us did not know, was that our mortgages would be sold within a few months and that we would have no way of negotiating these mortgages should problems occurr. We did not know, either, that the lender was not in the business of mortgage lending, but, only mortgage soliciting and selling. The argument regarding equity in the property is also dead, as many of these lenders gave 95 to 125% mortgages and were also willing to top that up with anothr 5 to 10% additional borrowing. l do not see us as mugs, as l'm sure a great many borrowers, like myself, never intended to stay on with Preferred/SPML, but, it was a stop gap solution for one or another reason. That the market driven by the failure of the banking industry would collapse did not come as a surprise to me, but, only the speed of the momentum. lt's when you get stuck with something that's like a dog turd under your shoe, you start to question what did happen with your mortgage. Despite amateurish management, indecent mortgage interest rates and rude staff, l THOUGHT THEY WERE LENDERS!! They were not and there lies the problem and whole issue. They told me and you that they were mortgage lenders who would lend you the money to buy your house under certain conditions. They never told you that they were only agents for spv's and would flog off your mortgage in a tranche with hundreds of other mortgages and thereby deprive you of all control and contractual performance rights. Check out your prosectus and tell me if you can find in any place that they are working as agents rather than lenders.

Gustavius

[angmarie]

GR

 

I would really appreciate any advice, please let me know if there is anything I could do and also if im within the time deadline.

 

Many Thanks

 

Ang

[Dangermouse]

GR

 

I got as far as personal insult....what are you talking about?

 

Dangermouse

[gustavius rex]

GR

 

I would really appreciate any advice, please let me know if there is anything I could do and also if im within the time deadline.

 

Many Thanks

 

Ang

 

Ang, l will come back on Monday or Tuesday and tell you more in detail of what l have been advised. Just hang in there for the moment.

GR

[gustavius rex]

GR

 

I got as far as personal insult....what are you talking about?

 

Dangermouse

 

 

What l'm trying to say is: lt is an insult against you or anyone else if the lender behaves in an un-ethical, un-professional or general rude way. The rest should be selfexplanatory.

GR

[Crapstone]

Hi Dangermouse,

 

Believe you me, when l say l understand your anger, frustration and personal insult. But, as you say yourself, we need a cool head and legal advice to carry on. l, personally do not believe in the argument about bleeding the mortgagees, nor do l believe in the argument about calculated re-possessions, even if it is true. My conclusion is that the one and only way to get to them is to use the argument of intent and mis-selling. All of us who took out mortgages with Preferred or South Pacific knew the rate of interest we agreed to pay and we also knew that after the preferred period of rate, it would go up to a premium of whatever percentage plus libor the lender had set. However, what most of us did not know, was that our mortgages would be sold within a few months and that we would have no way of negotiating these mortgages should problems occurr. We did not know, either, that the lender was not in the business of mortgage lending, but, only mortgage soliciting and selling. The argument regarding equity in the property is also dead, as many of these lenders gave 95 to 125% mortgages and were also willing to top that up with anothr 5 to 10% additional borrowing. l do not see us as mugs, as l'm sure a great many borrowers, like myself, never intended to stay on with Preferred/SPML, but, it was a stop gap solution for one or another reason. That the market driven by the failure of the banking industry would collapse did not come as a surprise to me, but, only the speed of the momentum. lt's when you get stuck with something that's like a dog turd under your shoe, you start to question what did happen with your mortgage. Despite amateurish management, indecent mortgage interest rates and rude staff, l THOUGHT THEY WERE LENDERS!! They were not and there lies the problem and whole issue. They told me and you that they were mortgage lenders who would lend you the money to buy your house under certain conditions. They never told you that they were only agents for spv's and would flog off your mortgage in a tranche with hundreds of other mortgages and thereby deprive you of all control and contractual performance rights. Check out your prosectus and tell me if you can find in any place that they are working as agents rather than lenders.

Gustavius

 

We also didn't know that their house of cards would fall and drive up the LIBOR rate. Talk about a double edged sword...:-|

[zither]

Hi everyone I am totally new at this sort of thing but have read these posts with great interest. I am a sufferer of the Capstone era. To date i havent defaulted on our mortgage with them but the horror stories I read about them and SMPL? are horrifying. My mortgage is linked to the LIBOR rate as is the norm so Iam told. My fixed rate comes to an end in December I await to see what horrors come then:eek:

[WormHasTurned]

Zither

 

- What rate are you paying now? - If you are on a fixed rate you might be pleasantly surprised that a link to Libor might bring it down (as it is a record low) which might give you time to look around and decide the best time to move to a new fixed rate.

 

Good luck

[zither]

Zither

 

- What rate are you paying now? - If you are on a fixed rate you might be pleasantly surprised that a link to Libor might bring it down (as it is a record low) which might give you time to look around and decide the best time to move to a new fixed rate.

 

Good luck

Thanks worm (in the nicest possible way!) Iam on about 8.2% its supposed to change to LIBOR plus 2% but I dont trust em.

[WormHasTurned]

:smile:

 

Libor is currently (on Fri 28 Aug just 0.69% so your new rate is 2.69% !!

 

Believe them, they will charge this rate. Your payments will drop massively.

 

Your luck has just turned!!

 

(I also have a mortgage with Capstone and nearly got re-possessed 2 years ago, life is much rosier now.)

 

you can google "libor 3 month sterling" (advanced search - last 24 hours) and find the day's rate.

 

Best wishes

Edited August 29, 2009 by WormHasTurned

[Dangermouse]

wow that is a turn for you, lucky you. Mine goes to Standard Variable Rate plus 3.9% next march!

 

Dangermouse