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

[Suetonius]

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

 

 

Hello h8them, below is a link to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) website.

 

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme - FSCS

 

"The FSCS is the compensation fund of last resort for customers of authorised financial services firms. If a firm becomes insolvent or ceases trading we may be able to pay compensation to its customers."

 

To be able to make a claim under this scheme, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) must have first determine that SPML/LMC/PML etc is/are in default.

 

If this is something that you would like to monitor, you can search the database of authorised financial services firms that are currently in default, by clicking this link:

 

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme - FSCS - Consumer home page - Default information

Edited October 28, 2009 by Suetonius
typo

[enoughisenough]

Thank you for that contribution Sue. Excellent as always.

 

To be able to make a claim under this scheme, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) must have first determine that SPML/LMC/PML etc is/are in default.

 

If this is something that you would like to monitor, you can search the database of authorised financial services firms that are currently in default, by clicking this link:

[enoughisenough]

Since SPPL are not listed (I just thought I'd try this quickly) then presumably the investors have no compensation claim either. Is that right?. I have noticed them claiming against a number of entities I have never heard of.

 

This makes no-sense. If they have a claim against Lehman subsidiaries and if SPPL/SPML etc originated and then sold our mortgages as investment products with an expected redemption of 3-6 years who are the investors making claim against? They are Lehman subsidiaries and the investors invested in our mortgages.

 

Are all the default firms, against whom Financial services compensation claims are being made, merely 'fronts' that brokered the investment and then were placed in default to protect sppl/spml etc from similar compensation claims from us. If that's right this stinks even more than I thought it did.

Edited October 28, 2009 by enoughisenough

[h8them]

Seen this

 

UK's mortgage market finally begins to thaw | Mail Online

[I'm the bad guy?]

all,

 

Just want to ask anyone, does your monthly mortgage rate(as notified by Capstone quarterly) follow the quarterly LIBOR rate exactly, or does it vary. If it did vary, after the fixed rate, is it now recently correct? Mine is all over the place. Having looked at Eurosail accounts I know why.

 

comments?

 

 

ITBG?

[I'm the bad guy?]

EiE,

 

SPPL Ltd, looking at CH, it looks like its being corpsed like the rest of them.

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

Hi ITBG?

 

In my case I tracked the historic 3 month Libor against my payments. Took about 6 hours and I'm very sorry to report that it was more than pretty accurate. It could be the case that since these were issued upon request after the fact there could have been some manipulation going on and there were one or two discrepancies but I found nothing to indicate a substantial cause for concern. That said that doesn't mean this applies to others.

[enoughisenough]

Can you post a link. I couldn't even find a reference on CH website.

[Suetonius]

Since SPPL are not listed (I just thought I'd try this quickly) then presumably the investors have no compensation claim either. Is that right?. I have noticed them claiming against a number of entities I have never heard of.

 

This makes no-sense. If they have a claim against Lehman subsidiaries and if SPPL/SPML etc originated and then sold our mortgages as investment products with an expected redemption of 3-6 years who are the investors making claim against? They are Lehman subsidiaries and the investors invested in our mortgages.

 

Are all the default firms, against whom Financial services compensation claims are being made, merely 'fronts' that brokered the investment and then were placed in default to protect sppl/spml etc from similar compensation claims from us. If that's right this stinks even more than I thought it did.

 

Hello EiE,

 

It is a different type of investor. The posts recently made about investors in this thread are referring to investors such as Mr & Mrs Jones rather than Jones International Financial Services.

 

In September 2008, when Lehmans collapsed around 6,000 investors (who were private individuals) were left with virtually nothing. They had paid for and followed advice of Independent Financial Advisors (IFA's) and agreed to invest money in products that were gauranteed by Lehmans, based upon the recommendations made by the IFA's

 

When Lehmans collapsed, its guarantees for each of these investment products became worthless.

 

There are lots of different structured products. One type of structured product is a Growth Plan.

 

A typical growth plan takes away the risk of whatever happens to the stock market. If it goes down you still get your original capital back at the end of the five-year investment, provided the counter-party underwriting the guarantees doesn't default. In this instance the counter-party was Lehmans.

 

The complaints and claims made against Arc, Meteor etc are also in connection to the information provided to each investor. This relates not only to the guarantees made by Lehams but also the lack of specific information relating to risks by the IFA's.

 

As I understand it Arc have now gone the sameway as Lehmans which means the private investors can potentially make a claim for compensation against the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

[Suetonius]

Can you post a link. I couldn't even find a reference on CH website.

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

[I'm the bad guy?]

EiE,

 

Having seen a mortgage broker, with a mortgage software calulator, they could not figure it out either. However, from the Eurosail accounts, it says different notes, ie A, B, C etc are set at different interest rates eg A1c is LIBOR+0.07%, BUT F notes are LIBOR +6%. If I recall one cag questioned why they were paying 6% above Libor. It appears every individual mortgage(refer to the mortgage pool sheet), is individually rated, so the lowest risk has a lower added interest(class A notes), whilst those borrowers at a higher risk(D, F notes) pay a higher interest rate + Libor.

 

We are dealing with extremely complex financial modelling, which the SPVs use. In the City they have whole departments which create their own programs and computer finance models. As Gus and others said, this raises very serious contract and performance issues.

 

2) Link: WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

 

comments on your Libor mortgage rates, please

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

Thanks for the link both of you. I am lacking some sophistication in Understanding and interpreting this.

 

ITBG? You stated that Attia was the last one standing but the link shows she went before Chambers. I don't doubt for a minute you would make the claims you do without foundation. But i can't interpret from this information anything to suggest that SPPL SPML and Capstone are finished.

 

As far as Libor, yes of course the individual rating must have been shot to attract six +. Mine is 7.7 over. I can't help feeling my credit rating was pillaged by multiple searches and several different applications in the six months it took from start to finish. It was seriously not that bad and I already had a substantial high street loan from a year earlier which was well managed and which was paid off using this loan. Also they were determined to lend over £25K when all I originally wanted was £20K. s.18 Multiple agreements spring to mind here but we'll have to await Heath and Walker.

 

As I say, taking the historic 3 month LIBOR data there was virtually no serious or systematic discrepancy I could identify. Crapstone posted a link to the LIBOR data earlier in this thread. I had been given the rate they charged on a quarterly month basis and it matched the LIBOR + the %age over. Not sure what issue is raised here. Obviously where there is a discrepancy on other accounts there is a serious issue. I will unfortunately not be able to pursue that line of argument on behalf of myself because, astonishingly, it appears above board!

 

Not sure where the investor stuff takes us now. Ultimately however someone somewhere down the line invested in SPPL SPML Preferred etc products. And it only takes one of them to default the originators and we are in. We were more mis-sold than they ever were.

 

Anyone know the outcome of the Lehmans CoA hearing? Has judgment been handed down yet? We will probably need to chew over the implications.

[I'm the bad guy?]

EiE,

 

I have the latest 363 of SPML, Chambers gone, leave Attia sole director. Everything else confirmed to me by CH, but is subject to confidentiality.

 

Your SPPL looks like there are now NO directors!

 

Regards, Libor etc, my contract specifically states it would track the Libor rate after fixed period, which it does not, as explained. Could it be yours is a loan and not a mortgage loan?

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

Hi

 

That's correct. It was a secured loan. Hence SPPL rather than SPML. The contract specifically states the Interest rate over LIBOR. Steep and probably unjustified as if anyone has been delinquent it's them not me. As for the directors that would make sense as SPPL is effectively closed. That they can claim any breach by me is a bit rich to say the least. They've acted perfectly and completely beyond criticism or reproach?

 

I would have thought that they are pushing the title to sue issue a bit far when SPPL bring claim. It's been passed as far as I can tell to SPML.

 

Anyway I've had enough of these clowns. I've completed a very specific complaint, and logged it with the FOS in advance of their posturing and incomplete response. The FOS have confirmed that it's OK to do it like this.

[Suetonius]

Lehman Brothers to close Southern Pacific Personal Loans and London Mortgage Company | News | Money Marketing

 

"Lehman Brothers has announced that it will be withdrawing from the second charge market and will close both Southern Pacific Personal Loans and London Mortgage Company." (September 2007)

 

Lehman may withdraw from UK mortgage and lending market

 

"Last month the lender confirmed that around two hundred jobs across the UK were to go as it scaled back on operations. During last year Lehman Brothers closed its Southern Pacific Personal Loans operation, and its London Mortgage Company brand." (April 2008 )

[enoughisenough]

Hi Sue.

 

Thanks for the sources. For the time and spadework they've caused all of us we should be invoicing them. Big.

[I'm the bad guy?]

EiE,

 

I would wait till SPPL pops, and then tell them to feck off. Your contract was with SPPL, a separate legal entity and not with SPML. Unless, they can prove they assigned the debt to SPML, and all that entails.

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by ITBG?

 

I would wait till SPPL pops, and then tell them to feck off.

 

Nothing would gave me greater satisfaction.

[I'm the bad guy?]

Looks like London Mortgage Company(LMC) is dust too...

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

All these SPML,PML,SPPL, LMC are going into administration- this character Paul Chambers, bailed out all on the same day, 15th October 2009. Capstone still has 2 directors(Attia), and will continue, as it gets its working capital from the SPVs.

 

Capstone has always worked for the SPVs, from the Eurosail accounts, and continue to do so. Its the SPVs who have always dictated everything, interest rates, charges, possessions etc. After the Lehmans collapse, all these companies became nothing more than 'fronts', for the SPVs. They were anyway. All are non-trading, insolvent at best and at worst bankrupt.

 

This was predatory lending with products which were inherently designed to fail. At some stage they know that through economic cycles, a countries economy will faulter, and result in the British people earning less or losing jobs. So they create these products, with that purpose in mind and sell them to us because we are an 'ideal risk'. If not, they make sure you default through, interest rate manipulation and illegal charges. Do you know of any investors of private equity groups or hedge funds that would wait 25 years for the maturity of its investments?

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

Looks like London Mortgage Company(LMC) is dust too...

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

All these SPML,PML,SPPL, LMC are going into administration- this character Paul Chambers, bailed out all on the same day, 15th October 2009. Capstone still has 2 directors(Attia), and will continue, as it gets its working capital from the spvs.

 

ITBG where did you get this info from that this lot had been bailed out on 15/10/09??

[I'm the bad guy?]

Ryde,

 

'bailed out' as he got terminated. See links

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

sorry see what you mean itbg "jumped ship"!

[Crapstone]

Or pushed overboard..

 

I think you saw what I was getting at with the situation we find ourselves in with false credit ratings, LTV being to pot and buyer implications.

 

In contract law it's possible that if a default is inevitable, before it happens, compensation can sought for the breach. If you were due to get married next week and the place you booked had exploded yesterday, you know it's not going to happen............They can't undo what has been done. They can rebuild it but it will never be the same as it was when first seen and decided upon. As said..they can't change the contract..if you are fortunate enough that they haven't lost it...

 

I do think they've played the market and used economic cycles to their advantage and biked their way out with the full backing of the regulators. I'm not an economic expert but even to an idiot it was something that was bound to happen ..so what were the experts doing when this was going on? Insider trading..lining their own pinstripes...anything but look at the data and markets to protect the consumers and do the job they are paid for.

 

I haven't found any LIBOR errors..and am thankful that the rate we are on now is less than what most High St. lenders are offering on mortgages.

 

I'd never heard of them until the cold calling and other advisors thrusting the products forward as the best option. Yes ..the best option for them.

 

A letter to FSA isn't a bad idea..best served through Trading Standards and asked to be put forward as part of a super complaint. The CAB could do it but ....I gave up on them a long time ago..easy money for those employed there as staff and the volunteers get all the...

[enoughisenough]

Take a sneak peek at this

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2009/147.shtmlhttp://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2009/147.shtml

 

In case the link doesn't work I've cut and paste.

 

GMAC-RFC Limited fined £2.8million for unfair treatment of customers in arrears and repossessions and will pay up to £7.7m customer redress

 

FSA/PN/147/2009

29 October 2009

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today announced it has fined GMAC‑RFC Limited (GMAC-RFC) £2.8million for failing to treat customers fairly and secured redress of up to £7.7million (plus interest) for over 46,000 mortgage customers.

 

Between 31 October 2004 and 30 November 2008, a number of serious failings by GMAC-RFC were identified in relation to its dealings with customers experiencing arrears and repossessions. These include:

 

excessive and unfair charges for customers that did not reflect administration costs;

proposing repayment plans that did not always consider a customer’s individual circumstances;

inadequate training of mortgage servicing staff in handling of arrears and repossessions; and

issuing repossession proceedings before fully considering all the alternatives.

The case sets a precedent, with the FSA concluding this investigation in a matter of weeks, and the firm working with the FSA to agree a process to enable customers to receive redress as quickly as possible.

 

As a result of early settlement, the firm qualified for a 30% discount under the FSA’s settlement discount scheme. Without the discount the fine would have been £4million.

 

Margaret Cole, director of Enforcement and Financial Crime, said:

 

“This case shows credible deterrence in action. It is an excellent example of what the FSA’s more intrusive approach can achieve for consumers, and it reflects what we said in our Mortgage Market Review last week about unfair mortgage arrears charges. Mortgage lenders and third party administrators should read this final notice and the Mortgage Market Review and take action in the interests of their customers.”

 

 

 

NOTES FOR EDITORS

 

The Final Notice for GMAC-RFC Ltd is available to view on the FSA website.

The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.

[JonCris]

FSA/PN/147/2009

29 October 2009

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today announced it has fined GMAC‑RFC Limited (GMAC-RFC) £2.8million for failing to treat customers fairly and secured redress of up to £7.7million (plus interest) for over 46,000 mortgage customers.

Between 31 October 2004 and 30 November 2008, a number of serious failings by GMAC-RFC were identified in relation to its dealings with customers experiencing arrears and repossessions. These include:

 

1. excessive and unfair charges for customers that did not reflect administration costs;
   
2. proposing repayment plans that did not always consider a customer’s individual circumstances;
   
3. inadequate training of mortgage servicing staff in handling of arrears and repossessions; and
   
4. issuing repossession proceedings before fully considering all the alternatives.
   

The case sets a precedent, with the FSA concluding this investigation in a matter of weeks, and the firm working with the FSA to agree a process to enable customers to receive redress as quickly as possible.

As a result of early settlement, the firm qualified for a 30% discount under the FSA’s settlement discount scheme. Without the discount the fine would have been £4million.

Margaret Cole, director of Enforcement and Financial Crime, said:

“This case shows credible deterrence in action. It is an excellent example of what the FSA’s more intrusive approach can achieve for consumers, and it reflects what we said in our Mortgage Market Review last week about unfair mortgage arrears charges. Mortgage lenders and third party administrators should read this final notice and the Mortgage Market Review and take action in the interests of their customers.”

 

NOTES FOR EDITORS

 

1. The Final Notice for GMAC-RFC Ltd is available to view on the FSA website.
   

 

1. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.
   

CL;IENTS PAST AND PRESENT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

 

Live Customers

If you still have your mortgage with us you DO NOT need to take any action. If you

are due a refund we will write to you no later than 30th November 2009 and any

redress will automatically be credited to your mortgage account within 30 days of that

letter. You will receive a full credit to your account, no matter how small the amount

is.

 

Repossessed Customers with debt outstanding (with shortfall)

If your home was unfortunately repossessed and sold, leaving an outstanding debt

owed to us, again you do not need to do anything. We will reduce by the amount of

the refund due the outstanding debt owed to us. As we may not know your current

address, it is not possible for us to write to you to confirm this, but if you have any

queries you should call freephone 0800 030 4662.

 

Previous Customers

Repossessed Customers with no debt outstanding (without shortfall) Customers who

have redeemed their mortgage or Customers whose loan was sold to another lender

As you no longer hold a mortgage with us, but had these charges applied to your

account while you did, please can you contact us on freephone 0800 030 4662.

Once we have verified your identity and current address, we will send a cheque to

you for any amount due. We will write to you at your last known address on up to

three occasions in an attempt to get this message to you. For previous customers

only refunds in excess of £10 total of fees and charges, plus interest will be made.

If you have moved from that address hopefully the letter will be forwarded to you. If

you have not received a letter by (30th November) and feel you are due a refund or

have any queries please call freephone 0800 030 4662.

We want to apologise to customers affected. GMAC-RFC has taken this matter very

seriously and worked openly with the FSA to review and revise our procedures for

managing customers in arrears.

 

Full details of the FSA’s findings can be found on

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/[GMACRFCpdf