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

[gustavius rex]

I was thinking more along the lines of seasoned posters, not just those that are dropping by.

 

Perhaps I've become hardened to it as I've been fighting them for so long and forgotton what it was like initially. They don't scare me anymore....I've gone past the crying, sleepless nights and family split they caused.

 

Enough of the soppy bits..Yes, the beauty is the litigation suspension...They daren't breathe whilst the FOS are looking into the case.

 

l think this is such a complicated issue that few know the ins and outs. Do remember that neither lender, borrower, investor or regulator understood the complexities of the derivative instruments they were dealing in. Even today we and they are arguing about the legal v beneficial titles. Having gone through Rydes excellent pieces it becomes clear that not even the law makers understands fully what is going on. The fact of the matter is, that it's an even larger, but, hidden financial catastrophe than what we have recently experienced. No-one knows exactly how big the sub-prime market is. All the major banks and building societies traded their mortgages on the second tier derivatives market. Abbey, Halifax, Alliance & Leicster, Bradford & Bingley, Northern Rock, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, etc etc had their own sub-prime outfits or traded their sub-prime mortgages (sold them off to companies such as SPML/PML/LMC/Mortgage Express, Kensington....). My personal opinion is that it is a financial meltdown in waiting and that is why nothing is done. lt's the old ostrich solution, bury your head in the sand and it will all just go away. Well, l'm afraid it will not go away and by the time we get the Tory's in the governing position, the proverbial merde will really hit the fan. With desperate bankers, investors, pension funds, hedge funds and so on, the pressure on the old Etonians will be too much and they will crack. Suspension of the implementation of Euro-directives, demands to leave Europe and the like will suddenly be the fad of the day and knowing my fellow Brits, it will work, and pop goes the only protection normal people have. This is why l want to ACT NOW, before it's too late. All the various points of views here, are absolutely legitimate and to each very real, but, it will not help us in our fight against the Hydra these lenders really are. We must unite in one single primary action or we will perish as a group and thereby lose the strength and infuence only a group action can bring.

 

Gustavius

[enoughisenough]

Right well let's get this moving forward then Not single direct response yet on no intention to fulfill the contractual term. Arguments and EVIDENCE please. And if a sceptic could give the other side that would be useful. We need to get this tightly defined and quickly. Also we need it to have a realistic prospect of winning. We have to bear in mind the common law judges are fighting a rearguard action at the moment.

[truro]

I have looked at the GMAC-RFC the finding by the FSA - the FSA had decided to impose a financial penalty of £2.8 million on the firm. This penalty is imposed for breaches of Principle 3 (Management and control) and Principle 6 (Customers’ interests) of the Principles for Businesses (“the Principles”) and Rules 12.4.1 R and 13.3.1 R in the Mortgages and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (“MCOB”) in the period between 31 October 2004 and 30 November 2008 (“the Relevant Period”).

Is this not the way forward for all of us? GMAC/SPML have pushed their custimers into arrears to repossess and evict. We collectively have enough evidence to take to the FSA. I believe we should first address the solicitors acting for SPML which I believe is the same company used for litigation 'Lightfoots'. We should start by sending the same letter of complaint to them and a copy to the FSA that we are all going to sue for unfair contract and misrepresentation. The solicitor is tied to the companies, its in the Lehman prospectus. I dont know how many borrowers cases they cover but they would be put under pressure with thousands of complaints, and see how they would respond. They can't repossess while this complaint is ongoing which would give the FSA time enough to investigate their response to our complaints. SPML is the same as GMAC unfairs charges and breaches. Where do you all stand on this suggestion, or is it still more complicated than the precedent set out in the GMAC case?

[gustavius rex]

I have looked at the GMAC-RFC the finding by the FSA - the FSA had decided to impose a financial penalty of £2.8 million on the firm. This penalty is imposed for breaches of Principle 3 (Management and control) and Principle 6 (Customers’ interests) of the Principles for Businesses (“the Principles”) and Rules 12.4.1 R and 13.3.1 R in the Mortgages and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (“MCOB”) in the period between 31 October 2004 and 30 November 2008 (“the Relevant Period”).

Is this not the way forward for all of us? GMAC/SPML have pushed their custimers into arrears to repossess and evict. We collectively have enough evidence to take to the FSA. I believe we should first address the solicitors acting for SPML which I believe is the same company used for litigation 'Lightfoots'. We should start by sending the same letter of complaint to them and a copy to the FSA that we are all going to sue for unfair contract and misrepresentation. The solicitor is tied to the companies, its in the Lehman prospectus. I dont know how many borrowers cases they cover but they would be put under pressure with thousands of complaints, and see how they would respond. They can't repossess while this complaint is ongoing which would give the FSA time enough to investigate their response to our complaints. SPML is the same as GMAC unfairs charges and breaches. Where do you all stand on this suggestion, or is it still more complicated than the precedent set out in the GMAC case?

 

 

Let's reverse that and complain to FSA and the rest first, with a copy to the lenders solicitor. l am still putting together the letter and shpould, hopefully, have it out this week.

GR

[enoughisenough]

Hi Truro

 

yes. I think this is a fine suggestion. Note that the FSA are already well aware of Capstone/preferred/SPML. We made a mass complaint back in May this year and I have had a response from the FSA even though they don't do individual complaints. I have fairly strong grounds for believing that Capstone are going to be one of the four up for final warnings, fines and compensation. However I also agree that these are derisory actions. The FSA should be shutting them down to encourage the others to behave, but we all know they won't. The pressure has to be maintained.

 

In the meantime, believe or not, there's very little difference between GR and myself. the call is to get moving forward and I have bust a gut to do so. Problem with MCOB is it's not binding. But and I say but any and all pressure applied is better than none.

 

As for moving forward with urgency I agree. Let's get the show going. contractual terms anybody. Argument and evidence? Where's the proof they contracted x with us and y with the investors?

[enoughisenough]

One other thing - we need to copy in the OFT as well. A lot of these will be second charges falling within the OFTs jurisdiction. Let's get the pressure mounting again and pull out all the legal arguments on contract and performance while we are doing so. Incidentally there's no reason why we can't complain to them direct as well. I've done so recently and the silence is defeaning. The clock is also ticking for them. They now have less than forty days before I can take it to the FOS. Take it from Crapstone. They can't do a thing once the FOS are looking into it and the FOS nearly always get all of your charges back + interest.I have also raised the contractual issues with the FOS. I am sure to get an opinion back on these, whether useful or not I don't care. What I care about is the noise and chatter surrounding these morons. The more the better.

 

Keep the faith.

[frettful38]

Can someone make a complaint against sub-prime lenders to the FOS? My sub prime lender Blemain Finance Ltd have written to and stated clearly that I cannot make a complaint against them to the FOS as I have a unregulated loan. Nor can I complain to the FOS or anywhere else.

So who do I complain to if I have a grievance with them? Certainly there must be governed or regulated by someone or somewhere and I need to know who.

I would be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction please.

 

ta

[enoughisenough]

I tend to take the view that the lender will tell you the exact and polar opposite of what is actually the case.

 

Complain to the FOS based on the fact that Blemain have already you told you have no right of complaint and let the FOS decide whether there is a jurisdiction. In the event there isn't then you also have the option of court which generally should be avoided and only used as a last resort, especially where you are being threatened with possession.

 

The Term anyone? Thus far we know that the prospectus tells us that the typical redemption period for the notes is around the five year mark and we have corroboration from the CML as posted above. I'm sure there was also something in the GMAC -RFC final notice and I will have another look. Please chip in guys. We need to get the momentum swinging. Can we gather as much evidence as possible on this?

[enoughisenough]

For those who are to contact the FSA here are lightfoots details

 

Lightfoots Solicitors

 

Lightfoots Solicitors is a firm of solicitors operating from its office in Thame, Oxfordshire. The firm consists of 3 partners, 17 assistant solicitors and 1 employed barrister supported by about 100 legal executives, paralegals and others. Their mortgage arrears and debt recovery departments have more than 15 years’ experience of dealing with sub-prime borrowers for a number of mortgage lenders. Lightfoots also have an estate agency and property lettings department.

 

That'll be the arm that sells your repossessed property then.

[frettful38]

Thank EIE, I have written out a very long complaint to Blemain and just waiting for someone to get back to me on a couple of things. If I am not happy with Blemains response then I will take it further, hopefully by that time I will find out where.

 

thanks again

[frettful38]

For those who are to contact the FSA here are lightfoots details

 

Lightfoots Solicitors

 

Lightfoots Solicitors is a firm of solicitors operating from its office in Thame, Oxfordshire. The firm consists of 3 partners, 17 assistant solicitors and 1 employed barrister supported by about 100 legal executives, paralegals and others. Their mortgage arrears and debt recovery departments have more than 15 years’ experience of dealing with sub-prime borrowers for a number of mortgage lenders. Lightfoots also have an estate agency and property lettings department.

 

That'll be the arm that sells your repossessed property then.

 

 

I am not being threatened by repossession, in fact far from it. I just ahve a lot of complaints against them about my loan agreement, commission amongst several other important matters

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Frettful38

 

I am not being threatened by repossession, in fact far from it. I just ahve a lot of complaints against them about my loan agreement, commission amongst several other important matters

 

Excellent. Then get your complaint in.

[frettful38]

Thanks EIE I will do that hopefully in the next few days

[enoughisenough]

1. Securitized - this we know

2. Early redemption.

 

To quote from Mr Fulcher's submission to the TSC kindly posted by Ryde:

 

The typical attraction of these "notes" for the investor are the high rates of interest, and crucially, their early redemption period. To clarify for the committee: early redemption in respect of these mortgages does not usually mean that the borrower is able to pay off the mortgage earlier than the stipulated term. It typically means asset stripping the equity in the mortgagee's home through repossession. The lender thereby has a vested interest in pursuing an aggressive repossession strategy. At no time has any consumer of these mortgage products consented either expressly or otherwise to the subsequent sale of their mortgage, nor typically was he or she ever informed.[37] The issue of securitization and subsequent consumer detriment has been submitted before this committee in prior submissions on the banking crisis.

 

Note 37: 37 "The effect of (i) not giving notice to the Borrowers of the sale of the relevant Loans and their Collateral Security to the Issuer and the charging of the Issuer's interest in the Loans and their Collateral Security to the Trustee and (ii) the charge of the Issuer's rights thereto in favour of the Trustee pursuant to the Deed of Charge taking effect in equity (or extending over the Issuer's beneficial interest) only, is that the rights of the Issuer and the Trustee may be, or may become, subject to equities as well as to the interests of third parties who perfect a legal interest prior to the Issuer or the Trustee acquiring and perfecting a legal interest" SPML Offering Circular to Investors 8 August 2005 p.6

 

Council for Mortgage Lenders

 

Powered by Google Docs

 

Originally posted by enoughisenough

 

The CML has proposed that an additional six-year transitional period be included beyond April 2008 for mortgages affected so that the unfair relationships provisions would not bite until most securitisations had unwound

Is this not proof positive of the intent not to fulfil the term?

 

Originally Posted by Wonderman

 

EIE,

 

Yes, borrower are led to believe that they have a contract where the lender loans the money for 25 years - rubbish. Just look at the company accounts for any of the SPV and/or the registered "lender". You will see in their directors report that their strategy is to settle up within 5 years. The mortgage loans are only 5 year loans. For the borrower this means that you WILL be forced to remortgage within 5 years - which is the experience of ALL borrowers and if you don't - arrears will be fabricated to make it look like "arrears" and you WILL be repossessed. That is the REALITY. Never mind the rule of law, the courts will back up the "lenders" and rubberstamp this strategy

 

3. The prospectus gives us some illustrations.

 

4. Can we get a sale document.

[enoughisenough]

This is from the prospectus.

 

The actual characteristics and performance of the Loans are likely to differ from the assumptions used in constructing the tables set forth below, which are hypothetical in nature and are provided only to give a general sense of how the cash flows might behave under varying prepayment scenarios. For example, it is not expected that the Loans will prepay at a constant rate until maturity, that all of the Loans will prepay at the same rate or that there will be no defaults or delinquencies on the Loans. Any difference between such assumptions and the actual characteristics and performance of the Loans will cause the weighted average life of the Notes to differ (which difference could be material) from the corresponding information in the tables for each indicated percentage of CPR

 

The prepayment maturity illustrations assume a CPR of different %ages. e.g. 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%. The higher the CPR the shorter the term so at about 25% CPR the maturity comes down to about five years. It's there in black and white on p.116. Anyone know what the CPR is here? Not sure about the C but the PR is the prepayment rate/ratio.

Edited November 9, 2009 by enoughisenough

[landy_alert]

Why haven't more people here gone through the FOS first?

 

Yes, it's an annoying process but it is free and lets the beggars know you are serious and it's the first step of many. If nothing else the responses SPML give are worth it. Ad-hoc statements and personal comments that are worthy of an Oscar.

 

Hi Crapstone,

 

Well I for one because the FOS themselves told me they could not investigate my complaint - but like Frettful38 has been advised I intend to go ahead and do so now anyway. I have already sent a letter of complaint to the FSA last week.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[enoughisenough]

Keep pushing at that door. Who regulates these damn loans if the FOS don't? And how come the FOS regulates sometimes and sometimes not? This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

[landy_alert]

Keep pushing at that door. Who regulates these damn loans if the FOS don't? And how come the FOS regulates sometimes and sometimes not? This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

Thank you for the encouragement EiE - I agree, it's totally ridiculous.

 

I will now get out of this incredibly informative and useful thread and leave you guys to get on with your good work, but will pop back to glean advice as and when I need it;)

[enoughisenough]

Hello Guests...'nuff said.

[ryde]

Thanks to GR and EIE for really pushing this on.

We must not lose sight that capstone are on paper at least the mere instruments of spml and pml etc so it will be interesting to see who the fsa actually charge if they ever actually get around to it,they must have so many complaints but it will all be the same thing as gmac.Still cannot see how they(the lenders)can pay a fine or refund any charges when they have no assets(all sold to spvs) or funding,maybe thats their excuse and pricewaterhouse have begged for more time,?

I am going to look at the trading whilst insolvent angle on these lenders,capstone are immune because on paper they just process everyones payments, the lenders are in a constant loss position because they cannot service the spv, and ultimately everyone just wants to get rid of this whole lot and get on a bank of england tied baserate and a normal mortgage, I would think so the quicker we can do this and by whatever means the better, use any tactic to push this lot over the edge.

Someone posted that its a pity we cannot join with the investors who are the other side of the coin and its strange to think that the pension fund you may be paying into if you are that lucky owns a slice of your house!!

[enoughisenough]

Here's the definitive FSA preliminary position on the enforcement action and the problems on unfair terms and securitization covenants. Very interesting.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/newsletters/MLB1.pdf

 

If just one miffed institutional investor would blurt out the sale agreement I think that would be it. Dead in the water.

[ryde]

EIE

noted the report states the Lender is being investigated as well as the third party administrator so it will be spml etc who gets done.

Dont forget the insurance [problem] these bufoons also try on as a prelude to force you into spiralling arrears.When you think about all this its totally outrageous just like the back street loan sharks but on an industrial scale.

They make an agreement then deliberately force you into arrears and wring as much out of you as possible whilst they strip the equity out of your home within a 5 year timescale and because they give the appearance of legitimacy they are supported by every institution that is there to protect us by them turning a blind eye and treating us as the sneaky miscreants trying to worm their way out of paying their dues.

Edited November 9, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

I wish the FSA would get a wriggle on. What the hell is taking them so long...are they trying to work out some sort of stitch up here?

 

With the manufactured arrears cancelled there would be no threat of repossession and we could then take them to court. Believe you me I will be keeping a very close eye on this. Capstone are going to have to take a mighty hit.

 

Incidentally their ICO licence to process data expired 31/10/09. If anyone is speaking to them on the phone ask them if they are authorised to process data.

[ryde]

capstone wont take the hit it will be spml.

[on*the*case]

capstone wont take the hit it will be spml.

 

Capstone are regulated, action against them will be a fine and supervision.

Refunds of charges will come from SPML, SPLL and Preferred, who may also receive some form of 'sanction'.

Refunds will be administered by Capstone.

That's how I read it.