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

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Suetonius

 

Not at all EIE. I am actually in 100% agreement with you about the reserved judgement.. It appears a lot of judgements are being publically delayed at the moment. There are a couple of big cases, I am waiting on..

 

Mmmm... Heath? Bank Charges/OFT?

 

Give us a clue...or is there something bigger pertaining to this and related threads?

[enoughisenough]

No need to bother with the answer Sue. I think we both know what we are referring to here!

 

What I haven't been able to work out though is how to find out what the CoA have decided in an individual case on line. I tried HMCS and it still won't show Heath as anything other than still listed to be heard. We both know that this is nonsense.

 

Do you have any clue as to the relevant link - that actually works and updates in a reasonable period?

[enoughisenough]

Hello Guests...

[gustavius rex]

GR,

 

I'm not sure if I agree that SPML, LMC.. and Capstone will continue. With a crackdown on their funding methods how will they meet their overheads? The still need to keep up to spec. with their requirement as lenders and admin. companies to the borrower.

 

I can see investors and holders strongly objecting to any reinstatement of Capstone and wanting their returns ASAP after being sold as short as we were. I also think the the whole industry and regulatory authorities will be keen to clear up every last bit of Lehmans as it's a cringing reminder that they would sooner we forget about......until next time......

 

 

Crapstone,

 

l'm not sure l follow your reasoning here. Capstone is a mortgage administrator and not even the prime/main admin. in the case of SPML/LMC, hence, as long as they collect mortgage payments on behalf of their ''clients'' or the trustees for the bondholders they will be paid. Their billing will go to Eurosail and .....etc. As long as they are paid they will function. l do not know exactly how the admin of the various payment functions look, but, as all, save the bondholders, ''belong'' or are controlled by Lehman entities l'm sure prioritising was ensured. lf Crapstone fails there will be a major glitch in the sytem and to such an extent it is not worth the costs. No, l'm pretty sure Capstone will survive and l'm pretty sure PCW thinks along the same lines. lt wouldn't surprise me if this ''makeover'' in Capstones behaviour is the result of a major overhaul and rescue operation worthy a ''living tv'' event.

 

l could be wrong, of course, and you may be far ahead of me in your speculations. lf you are, however, l do not think that will be to any advantage to us. A break down of the current system will make it much more complicated to deal with the issues we have and almost impossible to get a handle on what Capstone's instructions and sop (standard operating procedures) looked like.

 

Gustavius

[Suetonius]

Do you have any clue as to the relevant link - that actually works and updates in a reasonable period?

 

Sadly not

[Crapstone]

Crapstone

 

No letter today. I have been particularly strong in going in at them. Any thoughts following on from your conversation?

 

Any victim of this sub prime garbage please confirm if your charges have been refunded. This is really important.

 

My thoughts...They are keeping their cards close to their chest. Why wouldn't they explain the refund? Should be simple enough as the screen is in front of them and I advised them that I have to inform 'others' including the FOS because of the ongoing dispute that seems to have been partially resolved.

 

I'm still left thinking that my initial thoughts were correct. They are having to go through the accounts and refund any charges that are unfair. Something that will take time, as from my previous SAR, it is done manually and can take several days, contain errors and still have to be done again. I still think it will be filtered and address the highest charges first in a methodical way.

 

I'd suggest you call them and ask them for a balance if your statement isn't due. And if my details can be of any help, (using the theory that if I've been refunded for no reason then all customers should be.) I'll happily oblige. Push them on if your account will be reviewed..I asked the question about other accounts and met with a blank as they have no reason to tell me anything that doesn't relate to myself.

 

GR,

 

It could be possible that Capstone et al are salvaged but I have a gut feeling that a speedy end must be reached and the dog has had its day. Once everything is examined down to the end user we'll see a lot more movement and hasty exits. Like I say it's just an instinct that there's a lot of clutching at straws going on but once the reality kicks in and all the books are PROPERLY audited it's dead in the water, hanging around like a bad smell, and waiting for a predator to pick it clean.

[Crapstone]

I also wonder if they are subject to the Turner Review and are trying to comply with the fundamentals for rescue and resolution.....(in theory)

 

Their liquidity makes no difference if they have such a bad reputation that they have authorisation taken away or any FUTURE authorisation is denied for breaches made.

 

A quick clean up in anticipation..good boys handing back the fees so there's no quibbles that could tarnish them? Strongly worded by ......and steered.

 

That would also tie in and sit in the middle of our collective views.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

Can anyone assist with http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/170607-spml-london-mortgage-company-97.html#post2529988

 

I have read this thread with interest and understand the issues noted however, this does not address the potential (if any!) for speculative discount for settlement purposes (like the deals seen offered by other Lehmans subsidaries/trading companies ?

 

What have you got to lose by asking? I don't think they will go for the full and final..not at all...they will have to account for every penny. But you can ask..they can't hang you for being cheeky and you never know. Just the early redemption knocked off is a bonus.

[bgqs]

Thanks Crapstone ! The ERC has passed now as the fixed period has ended. Should this be addressed to Capstone or SPML's address ? Any idea of the wording of the letter ?

[enoughisenough]

The Address is one and the same - The High Wycombe One.

 

ST. JOHNS PLACE

EASTON STREET

HIGH WYCOMBE

HP11 1NL

 

If you do the draft letter and post it up somebody will probably come along to suggest any amendments.

[gustavius rex]

Thanks Crapstone ! The ERC has passed now as the fixed period has ended. Should this be addressed to Capstone or SPML's address ? Any idea of the wording of the letter ?

 

 

Hi BGQS,

 

lf you hold back a bit you may stand a better chance of redeeming your mortgage at a discounted rate. Should the investment portfolios continue to run at a 30 to 60% arrears rate, the bondholders will be desperate to sell. Right now everything is up in the air as guarantee/security realisation has not been resolved. Should the bondholders be able to claim the legal titles, then there will be fire sales and anyone with alternative mortgages will have a hayday.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Hi All

 

This should be closely watched. It's to do with the investors but at about half way down it shows that the investors were told their policies would last five years!

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Regulator acts on Lehman products

[enoughisenough]

And this is of particular concern:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Administration for finance firm

 

Especially this:

 

The administrators, Robin Davis, Melvyn Carter and John Alexander of Carter Backer Winter (CBW) LLP, will contact all customers who bought products through this firm, setting out what they need to do next.

 

"They will take over the running of the company with a view to achieving a better result for the company's creditors, including investors, than would be likely if the firm were wound up," said the FSA.

 

"The firm's administration will affect investors in ACI products in different ways, depending on when they invested in the product and who provided the underlying securities," the regulator added.

 

CBW said: "[We] are working to offer the business, or part of it, for sale as a going concern in order that investments continue in the way they were originally proposed."

 

Thoughts?

 

Adding FSA link.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2009/144.shtml

 

Nice to see the FSA tripping themselves up over helping the investors. What about us and the implications of all this for our mortgages?

Edited October 27, 2009 by enoughisenough
Adding FSA Link

[JonCris]

My thoughts...They are keeping their cards close to their chest. Why wouldn't they explain the refund? Should be simple enough as the screen is in front of them and I advised them that I have to inform 'others' including the FOS because of the ongoing dispute that seems to have been partially resolved.

 

I'm still left thinking that my initial thoughts were correct. They are having to go through the accounts and refund any charges that are unfair. Something that will take time, as from my previous SAR, it is done manually and can take several days, contain errors and still have to be done again. I still think it will be filtered and address the highest charges first in a methodical way.

 

I'd suggest you call them and ask them for a balance if your statement isn't due. And if my details can be of any help, (using the theory that if I've been refunded for no reason then all customers should be.) I'll happily oblige. Push them on if your account will be reviewed..I asked the question about other accounts and met with a blank as they have no reason to tell me anything that doesn't relate to myself.

 

GR,

 

It could be possible that Capstone et al are salvaged but I have a gut feeling that a speedy end must be reached and the dog has had its day. Once everything is examined down to the end user we'll see a lot more movement and hasty exits. Like I say it's just an instinct that there's a lot of clutching at straws going on but once the reality kicks in and all the books are PROPERLY audited it's dead in the water, hanging around like a bad smell, and waiting for a predator to pick it clean.

 

 

Re refunds My thoughts are that their advisers have now picked up on the unfairness argument being discussed more & more & have decided to get rid of some of the reasons debtors can use to mount effective arguments One of the most obvious elephants in the room was/is their unwarranted charges designed simply to place the debtor in arrears enabling them to enforce repo ........... hence the sudden refunds a task which is simple & straightforward ............ now changing the contract wording that's a whole new thing

Edited October 27, 2009 by JonCris

[bgqs]

If you do the draft letter and post it up somebody will probably come along to suggest any amendments.

 

Here is the first draft...The purpose of the letter is to reduce the LTV to 75% in order that I can move away to an alternative lender...Please let me know what you think ?

 

Following the recent media attention surrounding Lehman Brothers and its subsidiaries and also, in light of no new products being offered by Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited, I would be grateful if you could give consideration to accepting a lower redemption value in respect of the amount owed on the aforementioned account.

 

Subject to successful confirmation of an alternative mortgage offer being in place, I would be happy to consider the settlement of any balances outstanding. However, current markets dictate that the loan to value (LTV) amount of my property would need to be considerably less than it is at present.

 

In order to facilitate any opportunity to repay the amount outstanding, I would request that consideration is given to acceptance of a discounted redemption value by Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited.

 

The discount should be reflective of the current market and in order that this proposition is mutually beneficial to both parties, I would require a discount in the order of £xxx to be deducted from the current mortgage redemption value thus leaving a final balance of £xxx for settlement. This amount would be considered to be nett and inclusive of any fees associated with the release of redemption certificates and administration fees.

 

Whilst I understand that this is a considerable sum of money, I feel it is reflective of current conditions and that the loan to value amount is in accordance with mortgages being offered by alternative lenders.

 

I would be grateful to receive your response to the above proposal by return in order that I can commence enquiries with prospective lenders.

I have thought about Crapstone's point with regard to holding on however, it there is going to be a fire sale, then that will happen with or without my letter being sent !

 

Worth a go !

[I'm the bad guy?]

FSA definition of 'structured products',

 

'typically three to six years',

 

case number: WI-A13

 

NOT 25, NOT 15, NOT 10 years....

 

 

ITBG?

[Crapstone]

Wealthy investors in the products have been told they can claim as being mis-sold. The same should apply to us, being put at risk from the dodgy investments and ourselves being mis-sold.

 

Bgqs has got me thinking....The letter needs to be one that is telling them what the position is ..not politely requesting they consider it.

 

The reason being is that we are on the back foot and losing out. If my house was on the market and the buyer knew it was subject to a Lehmans mortgage would it affect their decision?

 

I know I'd steer well clear.but that's maybe because I'm involved and a little too close to the subject. As a well read buyer I'd still be wary for several reasons ..The main ones being..

 

A. The future is uncertain for SPML and others connected so the sale could fall through. Looking at this thread nothing is beyond the impossible with its twists and turns. Final figures that don't tally and a tortoise like response when paperwork is requested.

 

B. There is no such thing as blacklisting an address but you take the chance of receiving DCA letters by the bucket load and bailiffs stopping by if the previous owners had a sub-prime mortgage by these morons. And we know why..

 

I haven't heard this arguement here before, (apologises if it has ever been mentioned, I'll blush and exit left grabbing my coat on the way) but it should be one to ponder on as I think the asset value will suffer as a result..and lower offers will be made to take advantage.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Also take into account that many of us won't be able to get another mortgage..the sub-prime Lehmans name gives it away and the buyers will think we are desperate. Even if we are, we shouldn't lose out for their mistakes...........get my drift?

Edited October 28, 2009 by Crapstone
My usual spelling mistakes

[Crapstone]

That part over ..........

 

I can only say my thoughts and I DO think that our concerns will be addressed. We already know that securitisation, the repos and charges are recognised as being against the consumer.

 

The filtering down will take some time. I say that but it's going quicker than I expected given the enormity of the task to unravel Lehmans business structure. We will be last in line, not by choice but because of the complexity..we are the kittens at the end of the ball of wool...

the end product with tigers in between, and if they are getting compensated we should too.

 

Re refunds My thoughts are that their advisers have now picked up on the unfairness argument being discussed more & more & have decided to get rid of some of the reasons debtors can use to mount effective arguments One of the most obvious elephants in the room was/is their unwarranted charges designed simply to place the debtor in arrears enabling them to enforce repo ........... hence the sudden refunds a task which is simple & straightforward ............ now changing the contract wording that's a whole new thing

 

It could be but the paper trail is against them. Not open for new business and the damage was already done and is still an arguement regardless of a refund. How desperate do people get when they think they've 'won' the right in court to stay in their homes if they pay £50 on top of their usual payment, only

to find out their payments are swallowed by charges and they are getting deeper in debt and any equity is eaten away?

 

Equity is a keyword..it's cash to be seized, not a figure on paper to be added or taken away on a computer..and future profits if you don't have any equity. They control the redemption sum......a wheel clamp on your property by both name and nature.

 

I dread to think how many peoples lives have been ruined, families split and suicides because of these as .ole s.

 

They lied to everyone and built their business on it.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Crapstone

[ryde]

bggs crapstone is right you don,t ask them to consider they will just throw it in the bin,you tell them that you are prepared to make an offer because of their precarious position,you are doing them a favour.Crapstone is also right on how these greedy b....s have polarised society this is how the nazi type extremists started,ordinary people fed up of being put upon by the corrupt establishment AND TAXED TO HELL BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOSSAL MISMANAGEMENT policiticians and the haves.... have no bloody idea what a struggle it is for the ordinary person and the s...t we have to put up with.The judiciary are downright elitist,prejudiced and speak an entirely different language to the man of the street and look after theirselves and their own greedy profession(all ex solicitors)the law in the book is not the law as far as we are concerned in the court.The tories are at least getting some of the message obviously to win votes but why couldnt a socialist government crack the whip and refuse to bail the b....d banks out if they did not stop the bonus fiasco and put the money back in the economy ITS A BLOODY DISGRACE,they might have cut mortgage rates but how much is the interest on your personal loan or credit card.??????The only thing you can do is change govt every 4 years because every party that gets power starts off ok but after 4 years greed and corruption set in so get em out.

[Crapstone]

LOL..Ryde is having a political rant.. Can't say I blame them ..there isn't a party I believe in to get us through this without lining their own pockets and being self absorbed.

 

We know the judiciary are lining their own pockets, set their own wages and pensions. I was inspired by a judge that seemed not to have ever seen a income /expenditure sheet and asked how they were supposed to know what was spent as it meant nothing to them. Some people can look at a nail and knock it into wood with a hammer ..the rest will sit and stare and think about it.

 

It is a disgrace......by the time this is all sorted the main players will have security from afar..busy planning their retirement and stocking up on their biscuits.

 

Perhaps if they had been through what we have then they'd choke on that rich tea.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Crapstone

[bgqs]

Thanks to the both of you. I did consider making the tone of the letter more demanding however relented on the basis that this would form the basis of the next letter should they refuse my first tentative approach.

 

I feel that although we may feel that we have been deceived, to be forceful in our approach at this stage of the speculative enquiry would not be considered in the same manner as it would if we had approached them with an offer which looks to be mutually beneficial to both parties (i.e lender gets recovery of capital and borrower gets to move to an alternative lender).

 

Any more comments or thoughts appreciated....this is being posted by the end of the day.

 

Thanks

[gustavius rex]

Hi Guys,

 

l think we are actually progressing better than anticipated. When the thought process is allowed to run free,''pearls of wisdom'' filters through. Crapstone is actually on the right way, but, l think we need to expand a bit further on her intelectual ruminations. Let's analyse the situation as it stands and what the various agencies and authorities actually say. Primarily they have been occupied with the potential losses investors face through MISSELLING! Now, if the investors, who mostly are professionals who's primary business is investment, have or will have a claim for misselling of investment products, then what on earth have we poor borrowers been exposed too? We have not even had access to the various prospects that duly inform the investors about the risks involved, but, to a mortgage contract agreement that will not even mention the factual truth that all our mortgages will be sold on and used as securities for risky investments. Nor have we been informed (that is duly informed) that we were all expected to depart within 5 to 6 years, voluntarily or forceably. The fact is that not one of these investors should have a penny back as the only reason they stand to lose money is because Lehman went bankrupt. The main legal issue is if Lehman promised more than they could provide, but, how is that possible when the prospects clearly informs the buyer that it is a risk investment? lt's all bulls..t and an attempt to claw back some of their lost loot through legally obscure reasoning and a frightened governments attempt to sooth large investors. However, if they can do, so can we and with much more reason as we were unknowingly and unwittingly fooled to believe we have been contracted for a set period when we in reality have not. Nor did anyone expect to have their homes subjected to reckless speculations.

 

we really need to get together now and push forward as l'm absolutely sure we do have a true legal claim here.

 

Gustavius

[enoughisenough]

HI Guys:

 

A suggestion.

 

Can we work together on a joint letter to the FSA spelling out all of our concerns?, The FSA...sigh. Yes, I know but I'd rather float the boat than not do it at all. It's a simple start, one that we could all chip in on and it puts the concerns in nice orderly form. We may start of disagreeing but I'm sure with an open mind it can't be beyond the wit of us to get this put on the table. It seems the FSA help for the poor investors has been some kind a catalyst here and it's not something that should be passed up.

 

Maybe then PwC and the OFT can be copied in. It's clearly stated 3-6 years as the typical redemption period. The repossession noose is hanging around our collective necks and in the old phrase we can hang together or we can hang separately.

 

If we can't work collectively on this can I suggest we all make an individual claim to the Compensation Scheme? But if we can't work collectively, then again they must be laughing at us, something chronic.

[h8them]

ain't the compensation scheme for companies that have gone bankrupt. Has SPML gone bankrupt now then

[ryde]

I am currently involved in litigation in the courts with PML trying to register a charge(3 years now!) have used the mis sold argument as part of the defence.What I have noticed once I inspected the documents and correspondence was that all the instructions to solicitors was not coming and has not been coming for some considerable time from PML but from Capstone!who i would have thought are and cannot be involved in this litigation i thought their only authority was to collect mortgage payments but they are actually instructing the solicitors ,if you try and contact PML direct it is impossible to get any reply to the old numbers given.Have capstone the legal right to enforce legal action and give instruction on behalf of PML?