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

[egg-sterminator]

subbing

[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.

 

Hi EiE et al,

 

Just a further update I thought you might be interested in -

 

I have heard back from my lender today (not SPML, but Swift - another subprimer) regarding my request for a refund of charges. This is an extract from their reply -

 

'Your redeemed agreement was Unregulated consequently it does not fall within the remit of the Financial Services Authority nor the Office of Fair Trading. Nevertheless we are satisfied that the agreement was enforceable contrary to your comments. Furthermore, given that this was a secured lending arrangement, it was not a mortgage offer, as you suggest, so the points you have raised about the Key Facts Illustration do not apply. Further, an Unregulated agreement has no prescription for an APR.'

 

Apologies for posting this here (it is also on my own thread) but I thought that it is a good illustration of how these companies believe they are above the law and obviously paying total disregard to the recent fining of GMAC by the FSA - which I did draw their attention to in my letter.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[Gallahad]

Could someone please advise me on two points re unregulated loans over 25k.

1) Does any sections of cca apply to these secured loans and if yes which ones do or do not apply.

2) If FSA and OFT have no jurisdiction over this type of loan who does and who do we appeal to regarding unfair charges or unfair agreements.

Thanks

G

[ryde]

Noticed in the eurosail prospectus that gmac were listed with spml/pml etc as originators of the mortgage pool the loans originated by gmac then sold to spml which was then administered by capstone,so the whole lot are actually in it all trading with each other.

In mr fulchers report the spml sales circular he refers to and provides a footnote is mysteriously unobtainable.

Edited November 11, 2009 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Gallahad

 

I've been trying to establish this for sometime now. No-one wants to give a definitive answer but I'm working on it and will come over with something solid soon. What we do know is the following.

 

Over 25k and it's almost impossible to get the courts to agree that these are regulated under CCA 1974 and the section that has caused all the difficulties for the lenders is s.18 multiple agreements. It looks like precedents are now being set to neuter this provision in the Act. Constitutionally however common law cannot defeat the statute so the judges are ignoring the Act in favour of their own common law construction.

 

Over 25k is no longer a problem from 2008 onwards. Additionally if it is over 25k and a second charge mortgage it is regulated by the OFT.

 

But I will say this. It is an absolute scandal that a regulatory lacuna could exists where loans were bumped up over 25k to avoid CCA regulation, were then secured against property and treated essentially as mortgages but failing to be regulated if indeed that turns out to be the case.

 

Notwithstanding this. Such loans would come under the FSMA 2000. The issue here is which regulator wants to grab the responsibility for these. Don't all rush forward at once will you?

[enoughisenough]

In mr fulchers report the spml sales circular he refers to and provides a footnote is mysteriously unobtainable.

 

Probably been pulled. A couple of senior caggers warned earlier in the year that this was happening. What exactly are they afraid of. There's a ton of prospectuses on the ISE for this shower and they are all identikit anyway. Are they going to pull the lot? Whatever next? Just give the victims of the Lehman's garbage a fair shake. That's all most of us want.

[enoughisenough]

For those with loans in which the total amount of credit exceeded £25,000 and which was taken out before April 2008 I believe that s.2 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 has retrospective effect on those agreements, unless the agreement is an exempt agreement in s.16 of the 1974 Act. These loans are not, nor can they so be deemed, exempt. Additional guidance on the transitional arrangements was published by the OFT, here:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft140.pdf

 

Happy reading!

[midge61]

Recieved a letter with SPML's new charges today.

 

From 1st Jan 2010

 

late payment management fee £25 incurred each month if arrears balance is equal or greater than 1/3 of your current monthly payment due OR

arrears management fee goes up to £85 incurred each month when at close of business on 15th day of month arrears balance is equal to or greater than 1/3 of your monthly payment due or we have received notification from another lender they have taken possession of the secured property

 

failed payment fee £9

referral to sols £50

 

litigation management fee £115 OR repossession management fee £115 charged each month (including the month in which your property is sold) when your property has been taken into possession and remains in possession until sold.

 

Nice to see they have made it all clearer lol

[cagger80]

For those with loans in which the total amount of credit exceeded £25,000 and which was taken out before April 2008 I believe that s.2 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 has retrospective effect on those agreements, unless the agreement is an exempt agreement in s.16 of the 1974 Act. These loans are not, nor can they so be deemed, exempt. Additional guidance on the transitional arrangements was published by the OFT, here:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft140.pdf

 

Happy reading!

 

I posted the following in reply to wonderman's comments

 

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"

 

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)

[Gallahad]

EIE

thank you soo much for your very succinct response I look forward to hearing more.

G

[enoughisenough]

OK

 

Let’s look at the commencement order

 

Citation

 

1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.4 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008.

 

Interpretation

 

2.—(1) In this Order—

 

“existing agreement” means an agreement made before 6th April 2008 by which the creditor provided the debtor with credit exceeding £25,000;

 

Great-that applies. No further discussion. However the next section provides a major problem. It states what the relevant agreements are.

 

“relevant agreement” means a consumer credit agreement of a description set out in Schedule 1;

 

SCHEDULE 1

MEANING OF “RELEVANT AGREEMENT”

 

2. A consumer credit agreement is a relevant agreement if any sums due under it are secured by a land mortgage on land in the United Kingdom where the condition in paragraph 3 is satisfied..

 

3. The condition is that at the time the agreement is entered into less than 40% of the land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling—

 

(a)by the debtor or a person connected with the debtor, or

 

(b)in the case of credit provided to trustees, by an individual who is the beneficiary of the trust or a person connected with such an individual.

 

4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 the area of any land which comprises a building or other structure containing two or more storeys is to be taken to be the aggregate of the floor areas of each of those storeys.

 

5. For the purpose of paragraph 3 a person is “connected with” the debtor or an individual who is the beneficiary of a trust if he is—

 

(a)that person’s spouse or civil partner;

(b)a person (whether or not of the opposite sex) whose relationship with that person has the characteristics of the relationship between husband and wife; or

©that person’s parent, brother, sister, child, grandparent or grandchild.

 

Ok now that seems to be a major sticking point and a likely bone of contention in attempting to apply the CCA 2006 to pre-existing loans. Now a loan is a loan and a mortgage is a mortgage. A loan secured against property is not a mortgage. It is a loan for which security has been given. A mortgage is a provision of a sum of money for a disposition in land. Where there has been no disposition of land or where the facility or credit extended does not pay existing mortgage indebtedness.

 

However, sad to say unless someone can tell me where I am going wrong, secured loans are not mentioned and if recategorised as a mortgage (which a loan isn't anyway) the less than 40% condition stuffs us

 

I think this is what is popularly known as a wrecking provision, watering down substantially the Act's protections.

 

“the 1974 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 1974(2); and

 

“the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

 

(2) Expressions used in articles 2 to 4 and Schedule 1 have the same meaning as they have in the 1974 Act.

 

Commencement

 

3.—(1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2008.

 

(2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 3 shall come into force on 1st October 2008.

 

Just trying to look at this from all sides. We desperately need to know what works and what doesn't, since it looks as we have been abandoned by the ever increasingly useless regulatory institutions and authorities. I bet they'd get a chivvy on if it was their house on the line.

[eagleforms]

Midge61

Had the same letter last week and wrote to them to ask which fee they will be charging me. See earlier message on this thread. No reply of course.

[eagleforms]

Hello guests!!!

[cagger80]

The OFT website:

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Consumer Credit Act 2006 - reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

"For an overview of the 2006 Act and the implementation timetable, please see the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website."

 

 

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Timetable - BERR

 

6 April 2008 (CCD)

 

"Removal of financial limit (section 2) – brings all new consumer credit agreements, regardless of value, into regulation"

[brassed-off-2]

Midge61

Had the same letter last week and wrote to them to ask which fee they will be charging me. See earlier message on this thread. No reply of course.

 

Ditto..got mine today too!!

 

It was the new part that caught my eye though!

 

Third Party Fees - Varies

In addition to the above, you will be required to pay all costs we pay thire parties to recover any money owed to us or to protect our securitty or legal rights. e.g. solicitor's costs. Where applicable we will advise you before we instruct a third party.

 

Apart from the solicitors costs, who are the other third parties ? PWC? Field agents? (debt councilor that was)?

[enoughisenough]

As far as I'm concerned these new charges sheets are nothing more or less than this. A simple and rather crude pseudo psychological attempt to terrorise and intimidate. Capstone are idiots in denial. They either fraudulently enter incorrect information on consumer accounts or they are incompetent and negligent in performance of lawfully mandated duties.

 

Take your pick. The fact is that these charges weren't even permissable after 1995 let alone operable in lawful in 2010. It won't make a great deal of difference but if you are feeling confident just ring them up acknowledging receipt and tell them they can stuff their charges.

 

And if anyone is looking for a simple class action that would win but doesn't actually change the longer term relationship between us and these parasites the unfair charges is a bloody safe bet. If the FSA won't act.... Regulatory cowardice springs to mind - then we must. Trust me with a bit of a push these charges will be dead in the water.

[Crapstone]

I've received the same letter today..Note that under Q1 it says 'reasonable estimate' of the cost incurred of the additional administration.

 

So it's not fixed..

 

Prove the costs Capstone, on an individual basis. Does it cost you £85 per month for the arrears management..gone from £50 to £65 and now £85....in less than 2 years?

 

What a joke...They couldn't justify their last charges so what makes them think we are going to accept this BS?

 

What will they dream up next? A fee for asking permission to decorate...all wallpaper and paint has to be subject to their approval..give me stength. What planet are we on again......please remind me...

Edited November 12, 2009 by Crapstone
You don't want to know

[the thiefs]

We are on earth crapstone,they take us for a bunch of mugs which we were when we took out our mortgages with these cowboys.They are just ripping us off.If we are stuggling with our mortgages the last thing we need is these numptys adding charges.

 

If the banks have been returning the bank charges then surley we should be able to get these charges back.

 

I am hopeing that the end result will be a 30% reduction in what we owe. so we are all able to remortgage with a better lender surley they could look at doing something like this. considering they were going to sell them at 50% of the asking price at one stage.

[enoughisenough]

Seems repossessions have SOARED in the US.

 

UN investigator accuses US of shameful neglect of homeless | World news | guardian.co.uk

[I'm the bad guy?]

IMPORTANT NOTICE

 

As of today, Companies House (compliance team) has begun its prosecution of the last remaing director of SMPL and PML-Ms Amany Attia. This has been confirmed by Mr Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager) of CH. The prosecution will be for failing to deliver accounts, under the Companies Act 1985.

 

They have also been informed, that it is my belief(with evidence) that SMPL is balance sheet insolvent, and 'trading' insolvently.

 

SUCH THAT, I WOULD URGE ANYBODY FACING REPOSSESSION OR OTHERWISE, TO NOW MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE DTI.

Link is:

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

 

This IS YOUR complaint, against any Lehmans lender, which the Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) of the DTI, has a duty to investigate.

 

 

THE MORE COMPLAINTS WE CAN SEND THEM RIGHT NOW, THE STRONGER OUR CASE WILL BE, THAT THESE LENDERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US, BECAUSE OF ITS INSOLVENCY. THIS IS NOW OUR REAL CHANCE TO EXPOSE AND STOP REPOSSESSIONS.

 

 

As a guide, I have shown below some typical answers you can make for this online complaint. These are edited answers, and you can add or subtract to them, as you choose:

 

1 & 2 your details.

 

Who have you dealt with in the company:

I have used the name of Mr John Bentham(manager) of Capstone, as I dealt with this *%!*^!* directly.

PUT the name of your own contact at SPML/Capstone if have one.

 

If there are other individuals connected to the company with whom you have dealt please give their names and role they play within the company in the box below: add or edit

"Ms AMANY ATTIA, now sole director of SOUTHERN PACIFIC MORTGAGE LTD(SPML). Please note, Capstone Mortgage Services Ltd(Capstone), are the third party administrators of SPML. As of today, I have been informed by Mr Kevin Hughes(Companies House-compliance Team), that the sole director is now under prosecution for the failing to return 2 years of accounts(Companies Act 1985)."

 

under 3 :

(a) "I have absolute proof, from written evidence, that SPML is both balance sheet and trading insolvent. The last director, Ms Amany Attia, is now being prosecuted by Companies House, for failing to act in the role of director in providing 2 years of accounts. This can be confirmed by Mr Kevin Hughes, of the Compliance Team-Companies House. SPML, was a mortgage provider, and has no employees, has ceased trading, 1 director(under prosecution), and falsely claimed it is 'trading' at the same registered address as Capstone.

Furthemore, SPML has actively been conducting property repossessions through the courts as SPML, where it has so been in 'wrongful trading'. The courts and general public, are completely unaware of this, except Companies House. I believe this case is of great importance and in the national interest, as families are being evicted from their homes, by effectively a bankrupt company."

 

(b) "SPML last accounts 2006, and sale of mortgage books.

Letter from Companies House on prosecution of director.

Evidence that SPML sold all its mortgages through securitisation, and is no longer the owner of them.

SPML is nothing more than a 'shell', whose sole director is facing prosecution and is in 'wrongful trading'.

Please contact me directly, for the evidence you require, to prevent the illegal activities of SPML."

 

 

If you have any questions, put them up on the board, and pass the word to everyone to file their online complaint to CIB.

 

Can anyone who does this, post up the reply 'SHUT'EM DOWN'.

 

 

ITBG?

covert ops

[landy_alert]

Additionally if it is over 25k and a second charge mortgage it is regulated by the OFT.

 

Thanks for that EiE - does anyone have a link to the actual regs that state this, so that I could quote it back at my lender please?

 

Many thanks,

 

Landy x

[I'm the bad guy?]

Anyone with London Mortgage Company(LMC) or Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd(SPPL), please see below

 

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.

 

CH have confirmed today, both these companies have NO directors, such that dissolution requests have been posted out to them. Anybody facing an action by these, should directly contact CH, as these entities have no call to do so. They have no representatives within the companies, and could constitute fraudulent activity.

 

 

ITBG?

more to follow

[keithybat]

Well done ITBG is Attia a director of Capstone

[gustavius rex]

Woow,

Just walked out of a court room facing 1 solicitor, 1 barrister and 2 clients and l won!!!!!! Contracrs performance at it's worse. Unfortunately it does not relate to this site or even anything that could be useful, with the exception, that you can beat them if you are geared up and know what you are talking about. Even the judge was surprised that he had to find for me in all (to me right now) relevant points. l cannot go in to any details as this case will now continue, however, l proved that what l was saying, was the truth and based on facts. Further, l proved that even a lowely no-good son of a b....h like me can beat a fully black dressed barrister. Not a happy face around, except mine. So, today l'm celebrating, but, tomorrow it's back to work and to find a way to beat them at stage 2 too. Will be back here in full force within a few days l hope. Meanwhile, l like what AlTBG came up with, but, what about PML??

GR

[I'm the bad guy?]

KB,

 

yes she is, last one standing, also accounts overdue. Capstone will continue, because it gets its funding from the SPVs. CH well aware of the what is going on, Attia is the 'fall guy', for SPML & PML.

This Paul Chambers character, was one of the last directors of LMC/SPPL/SPML/PML, he resigned all 4 on the same day! Left Attia as the fall guy, so PWC can string out the administration, while repos continue.

 

 

ITBG?