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

[ryde]

crapstone

found the best way to try and make them listen is to go through appeal process they hate that,you have to do it carefully on a point of law otherwise if you are refused permission the original order can stand and it can get expensive,but there must be dozens of points in this lot,most judges and the other side don't know what you're talking about they're all ex solicitors in any case.If you represent yourself and are on low income can usually get full fee remission.

 

the thiefs

no way you will lose your home hopefully the reign of terror this lot have inflicted is soon coming to an end the fsa is clamping down and i think our mortgages will be sold on to another lender who has to respect the original contract we signed otherwise we have a right to rescind it.They cannot be any worse than this lot,just got to keep your head above water while all this is going on cos they will pull out all the stops to get as many repos as they can(probably on a bonus payment for amount of repos ,this is where they make the big money)

Thought just occured to me gmac fined and ordered to refund charges to all who have been stitched up they are still trading and selling products,how can spml etc refund charges they are bankrupt and have no assets as all sold on to spvs and money gone ,would we have to make a claim to price waterhouse when it does happen ie fsa fines them same as gmac, because then we will be shoved to the back of the queue and get b...r all.?

Edited November 8, 2009 by ryde

[Crapstone]

I have been reading this thread for weeks im just a bit upset with it all, rates are historically low and banks want to lend at rates of 5%.dont make sense.

 

I was sold my mortgage through a rip off broker who charged me £1000 just to get the mortgage. i think the only reason he used spml was because he got a nice cut off them while fiddling all the paperwork to get it. My credit rating was great before i mortgaged with these guys now i cant even get credit at the local corner shop.I am 8000 in arrears and i have to pay a 100 pound a month towards the arrears by court order. but this happened because i was made redundant about 2 months after getting the mortgage i am okay now but i would like to get the litigation charges back because then i would only be £6000 in arrears.

 

I FULLY SUPPORT YOU GUYS IN WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO

 

You need to write to SPML and ask for the fees back. Send them an SAR, add up all the charges either from that, your statements or both and complain. If they won't budge then go to the FOS.

 

You need to work out what your true arrears are, which should only be the payments you have missed. It's not difficult to do..just takes a lot of patience and time.

[Crapstone]

crapstone

found the best way to try and make them listen is to go through appeal process they hate that,you have to do it carefully on a point of law otherwise if you are refused permission the original order can stand and it can get expensive,but there must be dozens of points in this lot,most judges and the other side don't know what you're talking about they're all ex solicitors in any case.

 

the thiefs

no way you will lose your home hopefully the reign of terror this lot have inflicted is soon coming to an end the fsa is clamping down and i think our mortgages will be sold on to another lender who has to respect the original contract we signed otherwise we have a right to rescind it.They cannot be any worse than this lot,just got to keep your head above water while all this is going on cos they will pull out all the stops to get as many repos as they can(probably on a bonus payment for amount of repos ,this is where they make the big money)

Thought just occured to me gmac fined and ordered to refund charges to all who have been stitched up they are still trading and selling products,how can spml etc refund charges they are bankrupt and have no assets as all sold on to spvs ,would we have to make a claim to price waterhouse when it does happen ie fsa fines them same as gmac, because then we will be shoved to the back of the queue and get b...r all.?

 

SMPL isn't bankrupt and neither is Capstone. The FSA only applies fines in relation to the viability of the company and what it can afford to pay so as not to limit it's trading capability or it's creditors/investors.

[I'm the bad guy?]

SPML bought all the mortgage assets from Matlock Bank Ltd/ta London Mortgage Company(LMC) on 2nd May 2006. On the 31st May 2006, SPML sold all the LMC mortgage assets to Southern Pacific Funding 5(an UNlimited company). The entire shares of SPF5, is held by Lehman Bros Holding Inc(USA). Anybody with an LMC mortgage has been paying into this 'private fund', through Capstone, and ultimately to a bankrupt company.

 

 

ITBG?

[ryde]

crapstone

what assets do spml/pml/capstone etc have?they have no funding from lehmans ,they are selling no products, all the income they have coming in is coming from the securitized mortgage payments from us and then going straight into the spvs to plug the huge shortfalls.If they got a fine from the fsa and an order to refund charges where would they obtain the funding for this when the only funding they receive is from our repayments which are already spoken for.The whole lot is now technically insolvent due to the shortfall on the notes,so they will push for repos for the big returns a la northern rock.

[Crapstone]

 

crapstone

found the best way to try and make them listen is to go through appeal process they hate that,you have to do it carefully on a point of law otherwise if you are refused permission the original order can stand and it can get expensive,but there must be dozens of points in this lot,most judges and the other side don't know what you're talking about they're all ex solicitors in any case.If you represent yourself and are on low income can usually get full fee remission.

 

You'll find most of them were barristers, not always solicitors.

 

Its' a dangerous game to appeal and for those on the breadline, earning too much but not enough to get the fees paid...it's easy to get out of your depth. I'd only suggest it if eviction was imminent and the borrowers circumstances stood a chance of repaying the mortgage AND then only with qualified legal advice.

[Crapstone]

crapstone

what assets do spml/pml/capstone etc have?they have no funding from lehmans ,they are selling no products, all the income they have coming in is coming from the securitized mortgage payments from us and then going straight into the spvs to plug the huge shortfalls.If they got a fine from the fsa and an order to refund charges where would they obtain the funding for this when the only funding they receive is from our repayments which are already spoken for.The whole lot is now technically insolvent due to the shortfall on the notes,so they will push for repos for the big returns a la northern rock.

 

Sit in a quiet corner and think about it...look at the insolvency rules ...look at our position as consumers living in OUR homes. Look at it again and then at the wider picture.

[ryde]

crapstone

have looked at it closely for months sometimes things are staring you straight in your face and you cannot see them,please enlighten me i really need to get a grasp as a vital case in 2 months.

All i can see is a paper company spml/pml with no assets/ products to sell or income.All the income is chanelled through capstone to pay the spv and then the investor.large shortfalls are appearing the spv cannot maintain the level of repayments because interest rates have dropped and many have defaulted hence all the official notices posted for the noteholders..The investor by precedent of the perpetual trustee/belmont judgement now has the right to reclaim the legal and equitable title from the lender spml/pml and the spv etc because of the guarantee in the spv contract in the case of insolvency of lehmans.

The administrators for lehmans are being forced to return assets to the investor.

These assets in one form are our mortgages the whole package,the only way to effectively reimburse the investor in full is to sell these mortgages/assets to the highest bidder but then there is going to be a huge shortfall as no one will buy at face value a sub prime mortgage.,so this gap will have to be filled by other funds contained within the lehman portfolio.Hence the sucessful high court claim by perpetual/belmont they want full repayment because this was guaranteed.

where does that leave us?waiting to be sold to the highest bidder but we have our original contract for 25 years or so and that is the safeguard.

Our mortgages are assets ultimately of lehmans trustee in bankruptcy and are being administerd by pwc,thats how i see it.

this was all just a question of time,liquidity and the law of diminishing returns thats why we now find ourselves in this position and why capstone are trying to squeeze every drop out of us.

If capstone cannot service the spv then the investor on behalf of spml/pml etc these paper companies are trading whilst they are insolvent,they have no assets except paper legal titles(worthless without the beneficial interest which they have already sold to the spv),no liquidity and no way of raising finance.just as if i have 1000 coming in every week which is fixed with no other income but have to pay 1500 a week.i am trading whilst insolvent.i am losing 500 every week with no way of making up the shortfall.

Edited November 8, 2009 by ryde

[Crapstone]

I'll post more tomorrow but remember that Capstone isn't the only servicer and that the chain isn't that simple.

[cagger80]

Well, I hear the cries of persons who may argue that that provision is not retrospective. In answer, take a look at Commencement Order No. 4. S.I. 2008/831.

 

In that commencement order, Parliament ordered that there is only one circumstance in which the CCA 2006 s.2 is NOT retrospective. It is not retrospective when there is a CCA 1974 s.82 in issue. In the Heath case there was no CCA 1974 s.82 issue. As a matter of logic, if Parliament did not intend the CCA 2006 s.2 to have retrospective effect, why bother to mention one circumstance where it is not retrospective. Seems daft to mention one circumstance if s.2 was not retrospective anyway.

 

There's more, the Explanatory Notes to CCA 2006 para. 16 explains:

 

The 1974 Act currently applies only to agreements where credit provided or the hire payments to be made do not exceed £25,000. In future, all consumer credit and consumer hire agreements will be regulated by the 1974 Act unless specifically exempted, regardless of the amount of

the credit or the amount of the hire payments.

 

Note that it says the 74 Act CURRENTLY APPLIES ONLY to agreements under £25K, but IN FUTURE it will apply to all agreements UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED.

 

So now (in my opinion) the CCA 1974 applies to all agreements unless the lender has a s.16 exemption.

 

 

Quick question

 

Doesn't this commencement order say

"Section 2(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 amends section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and removes the £25,000 limit for consumer credit agreements. Article 4 of the Order provides that section 2(1) has no effect where an agreement varies or supplements an agreement made before 6th April 2008 for the provision of credit exceeding £25,000 and either does not itself provide for further credit to be advanced or is itself an exempt agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974."

 

If s.2(1) has no effect on new agreements that either vary or supplement an agreement made before 6th April 2008, I can't understand why in your opinion it would effect an agreement made before 6th April 2008?

 

I will try to explain my logic.

 

To my untrained mind it sounds like it is saying that unless further lending is provided "does not itself provide for further credit to be advanced", any variation or supplement to an exisiting agreement cannot make s.2(1) apply to exisiting agreements "section 2(1) has no effect where an agreement varies or supplements an agreement made before 6th April 2008 for the provision of credit exceeding £25,000"

[cagger80]

SPML v Heath: Court of Appeal

 

As usual, the court held against the borrower (no surprise there). The passage that is of great interest is para. 9 where there is a parenthesis reference "at the relevant time". This obscure little reference is the court's acknowledgement that the CCA was reformed by the CCA 2006.

 

Yes, REFORMED. So the "relevant" time is now. The time at which the Act is being interpreted. The CCA 2006 s.2 states that s.8(2) of the CCA 1974 "shall cease to have effect". So on the 5th November 2009 (the date of the hearing), s.8(2) HAS NO EFFECT.

"9. A consumer credit agreement was defined (at the relevant time) by section 8(2) as a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000. ."

 

Why would the "relevant time" be "now" and not the date of the actual agreement ?

 

I will explain my logic

 

My previous post adds weight to the argument that s.2(1) is not retrospective. The date of the agreement (before or after 6th April 2008 ) would be relevant, would it not ?

[cagger80]

Consumer Credit Act 2006 - BERR

"6 April 2008: the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT’s) new strengthened licensing regime was introduced, the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal (for appeals against the OFT’s licensing decisions) was established, the financial limit (of £25,000) was removed so all new credit agreements (unless specifically exempt) are regulated, and the Unfair Relationships Test was extended to all existing credit agreements."

"all new credit agreements" (not exisiting)

[enoughisenough]

Section 16 of the CCA 2006 seems to be about time limits. Further there is no s.16 on the commencement order. Where can I find the s.16 exemptions?

 

I am having major problems getting a handle on this in my own particular case and a more global understanding. It is critical to get the question of applicability sorted out. The CML were very disturbed by the CCA 2006 when it came out especially into RBMS. I don't think we can proceed meaningfully on contract and performance without a clearer understanding on this akin to the one we have on the UTCCRs.

 

In my case a second charge (regulated by the OFT not the FSA) over the 74 Act limit concluded January 2006. Regulated by the FSMA 2000. Where does that fit in?

[enoughisenough]

GR

 

Please feel free to use our experience in fighting possession orders and bailiffs. I have gathered involuntarily quite a bit of experience of both. Sincerely at your disposal.

 

EiE.

[jansus]

Hi All

 

The statement posted was what I presented to the DJ the last time I had a hearing in June. I'm a law person although I did contract law at university many years ago and after reading information on this site from the caggers, I felt I had to help myself out of the hole I was in, or loose my property to this repossession company SPML.

The consumer credit act and the Lehman prospectus help me put the statement together and I believe that's why SPML could not evict me from my home. This is the section I believe will help us if we are going to fight them - In addition, where unfair relationships harm the collective interests of consumers, the OFT and other enforcers (including local authority trading standards services) can take enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

We have all had bad experiences with these companies under Lehman because of the way in which they traded the mortgages and including holding onto overpayments by borrowers. My mortgage was originally with Matlock Bank t/as LMC, then Spml informed me in May 2006 of the transfer, now they have presented themselves to the court as London Personal Loans when my loan is still with LMC. Is it fair to us consumers to have our loans swtiched from one company to the other as and when they liquidate and re-register under another name and all of this without informing the borrowers?

 

The terms of the agreement is unfair to me and I will not let them take my home without a fight.

 

 

 

Truro

 

Could you start your own thread in the possessions section as well?

 

Not that you seem to need help but we could rate your thread and keep a track of your very interesting defence.

 

Hope you succeed after all your hard work.

[enoughisenough]

Removal of financial limits etc.

 

(1) In section 8 of the 1974 Act (which defines consumer credit agreements)—

 

(a)in subsection (1) for “personal” substitute “consumer”;

 

(b)subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.

 

(2) In section 15(1) of that Act (which defines consumer hire agreements) paragraph © and the “and” immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect.

 

(3)In section 43(3) of that Act (financial and other limits relating to regulation of advertisements) paragraph (a) and the “or” immediately after it shall cease to have effect.

 

Following on from this then:

 

8.—(1) A personal (now reads consumer) credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (" the debtor ") and any other person (" the creditor") by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount. (2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000. (No longer in effect)

 

15.—(1) A consumer hire agreement is an agreement made by a person with an individual (the " hirer ") for the bailment or (in Scotland) the hiring of goods to the hirer, being an agreement which—

(a)is not a hire-purchase agreement, and (b)is capable of subsisting for more than three months, and ©does not require the hirer to make payments exceeding £5,000. (C and the AND before it no longer effective)

 

43(3) - (3)An advertisement does not fall within subsection (l)(a) if it indicates

(a)that the credit must exceed £5,000, and that no security is required, or the security is to consist of property other than land, or

 

(This also ceases to have effect)

 

 

s.16 exemptions under the 1974 Act.[/i][/b]

 

16.—(1) This Act does not regulate a consumer credit agreement where the creditor is a local authority or building society, or a body specified, or of a description specified, in an order made by the Secretary of State, being—

 

(a)an insurance company,

(b)a friendly society,

©an organisation of employers or organisation of workers,

(d)a charity,

(e)a land improvement company, or

(f) a body corporate named or specifically referred to in any public general Act.

 

 

Thus far then nothing to suggest that these mortgages can't come within the scope of the Act. Although a building society is mentioned could a slippery barrister say that this is effectively what the mortgage lenders are. I would not put anything past these barstewards. However I think further digging is required. S.2 Seems silent on the issue of retrospective application.

[enoughisenough]

It seems that the Council of Mortgage Lenders was very concerned about the impact of the CCA 2006 on RBMS structured products. Thank you CML for providing a very handy summary of your concerns.

 

Powered by Google Docs

[landy_alert]

Re: CCA 2006 s.2 means that your mortgage agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement.

 

See OFT leaflet attached. Especially, para. 1.2 which states:

 

The Act was amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 both to bring certain previously exempt agreements into the category of regulated agreements, by removing the upper financial limit beyond which an agreement was not subject to regulation, and to provide for new exemptions, with effect from 6 April 2008. A further exemption, relating to buy-to-let agreements, came into effect from 31 October 2008.

 

Agreements such as your mortage was PREVIOUSLY unregulated under the CCA 1974, but since the CCA 2006 s.2 came into force, as the OFT tells you: agreements that were previously unregulated NOW come into the category of regulated agreements.

 

If you entered into your mortgage agreement BEFORE 31 October 2004, then NOW, your greement is a regulated unless the lender has a s.16 exemption. So the question is for those of you with an SPML agreement dated prior to 31 Oct 2004: DOES SPML HAVE A SECTION S.16 EXEMPTION? Answer: No.

 

Those mortgage agreements that are entered into AFTER 31 Oct 2004 are regulated under the FSA (for what its worth as the FSA is no help to any borrower)

 

Most of the pre-Oct 2004 SPML borrowers probably have a defence under the CCA 1974. But as we all know, trying to get the courts to listen to a borrower and trying to get the courts to enforce legislation against the lender is quite another matter in practice.

 

Hi everyone,

 

Apologies if I have missed the point or if this has been covered already, but our 2006 mortgage was for over £25k and was redeemed in (late) 2007 - I was told by the FOS that they could not investigate my complaint re: charges because it pre-dated 6th April 2007 when the CCA came under their jurisdiction. I had thought that all agreements even if previously unregulated now became included in the regulated bracket.

 

Does this mean it can only be investigated by the FLA?

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Wonderman

 

Those mortgage agreements that are entered into AFTER 31 Oct 2004 are regulated under the FSA (for what its worth as the FSA is no help to any borrower)

 

Not in the case of a second charge I'm afraid which is what many people have. These are regulated by the equally useless OFT.

 

Originally posted by Landy Alert

 

I was told by the FOS that they could not investigate my complaint re: charges because it pre-dated 6th April 2007 when the CCA came under their jurisdiction. I had thought that all agreements even if previously unregulated now became included in the regulated bracket.

Mmm

 

interesting. Did they put this in writing and if so could you post up their exact wording?

 

Thanks. EiE.

[landy_alert]

Not in the case of a second charge I'm afraid which is what many people have. These are regulated by the equally useless OFT.

 

Mmm

 

interesting. Did they put this in writing and if so could you post up their exact wording?

 

Thanks. EiE.

 

Hi EIE,

 

Yes, their exact wording was -

 

'I can confirm that we would be unable to investigate this issue as it is in relation to a consumer credit agreement which was taken out prior to 6th April 2007. Consumer credit only fell within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman as of that date and anything prior to that date, I'm afraid we would be unable to investigate.'

 

Our mortgage ran from May 2006 to November 2007.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[enoughisenough]

Many thanks for this Landy. This is very disturbing. Crapstone and Midge61 should be able to confirm whether their complaints to the FOS relate to agreements before or after 6th April 2007. Hopefully they'll be along soon.

 

Who on earth Adjudicates agreements before this date?

[midge61]

Hi

 

Mine was taken out in 2005 But when I complained about a secured loan taken out in 2006 they wouldn't look at it.

[IS IT ME?]

Hin All,

Its all looking good

Turo, I would like to go down this route as this is what I belive the way it is,

you,= the mortgage company= who then sell it to a bond holder(please bear with me) which has a SMP who looks after the account(?)collecting fees etc.,now YOUR LENDER has been PAID the full amount of your mortgage, so has NO interest in your mortgage But and here's the BUT informs every one courts etc. that they have the equable charge on the mortgage which you and I know is rubbish as it is in THE MORTGAGE SALE agreement that the BOND HOLDERS HAVE FULL TITLE to the MORTGAGE POOL AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE NEED TO GET but as,

Now becuase of the way every things gone belly up NO one is going to let any one see these documents. ALL mortgaes with these company WILL NOT go the FULL trem by their own words so that is some way we can have them,I fully beieve that not one of them are following the court rules with regard to potocal in regard to arrears and the D/Js know it too.

How many people have had there homes repossessed even with the Norgan ruling? D/Js just agree with the lenders what ever

[enoughisenough]

Does anyone anywhere have a copy of the mortgage sale agreement?

[h8them]

Does anyone anywhere have a copy of the mortgage sale agreement?

 

anyone read one