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

[wonderman]

Ryde, many of us share your frustrations so we truly do understand your predicament. If the lender's case is that you have not paid one particular month, then it is for the lender to prove its case. The burden of proof is not on you to show that you did pay, the burden of proof is on them to show that you didn't. You do not have to give them your bank statements to prove that you did pay it - in fact, I strongly believe that they will use your bank statements against you. They will say, "look at his bank statements judge, he can't afford the mortgage anyway and so judge we might as well have the repossession now". Tell them they must identify which payment they allege as unpaid and then ask you bank to write a letter verifying that that particular payment was made.

 

Plus, it is a gross abuse of the court's process to bring an action against you for one (alleged) missed payment. But that's the law when applied to us minions, of course, when its the lender - they don't have to abide by the law.

Edited November 23, 2009 by wonderman

[sherry_d]

I know this may not be the course of action suitable for all but seriously sometimes to let go and get repossessed from SPML can be the most SANE thing to do...

 

I fought with them as much as I could and eventually got round to the fact that letting go was probably the best thing around mid October 2006. It was tough coming to that decision but I felt such a relief and then I had to deal with the buggers at my local council who didnt want to hear...The fact I had a child and repossession letter did not move them a bit. I still wasnt a priority, I would only become a priority on the day of repossesion on the 25th of November when they would put me in B&B and it could be miles away even though I had a child going to a local school

 

Fortunately I found private accomodation in a very nice area (I am still living here) and at that point I was very much known to the council and I was writing to them loads of complaints and visiting them. Finally they offered to pay the deposit which I had to repay back at £15 a month and I also started getting help with Housing Benefit until I was earning more than the threshold.

 

It was tough but I can tell you even dealing with the council wasnt as bad as dealing with SPML, being dragged to court and facing those judges being a nobody is not easy

 

Since then life has never been so good, it was like I was bonded in prison i couldnt escape and finally my life began again after repossession...I must admit I was a bit naive with debts...I had gone through divorce and maybe in my heart wanted to show I could go it alone and ended up with so much debt from all these loansharks including one called Welcome Finance....I have now stayed away from debt and am happy to say since the day of my repossession I have not applied for any form of credit. So if there is anything positive that I got from SPML is they scared the hell out of me about borrowing to this day. It was hard and had to do with driving an old reg micra and not having a credit card. The best card I had was an electron debit card which isnt always accpeted but that was upgraded to a visa card about 2years ago which was a relief. I have a partner now and another baby and things have moved on. At some point I may have to face and get a mortgage but for some reason that repossession doesnt show on my credit file...Is that normal? Actually there is nothing at all about SMPL....I am just working at improving my credit rating so that it will never be with another [EDIT]. I know all these companies arent perfect but SPML is in the TOP league of [problematic]

 

The reason I am here is I still feel i suffered a lot on injustice from SPML and continue to be interested to see what else I could do them for...In a good way it happened before the housing crash so I dont owe them a penny now...

 

So what am I saying if you are struggling and getting no where with these [problematic] it maybe best to let go. For me it certainly was (even though it wasnt my choice)...I had my life back and my sanity back. I could finally concentrate on my daughter who indeed sufered the agony of going through repo as mummy could hardly do anythings else. It really was such a relief and reading these post just seals that really was the best thing for me anyway BUT I am keen to see justice done, these people are just getting away with it and supported by all the privileged man in suits, the Etonian boys and all that

Edited November 23, 2009 by sherry_d

[wonderman]

SherryD, life goes on and I'm happy that it's got better for you and your family and that you survived this vicious ordeal. But just one word of warning for others who survive this ordeal and rebuild their lives, be careful if these thieves say that there was a shortfall.

 

The statute of limitations run for 12 years on a deed. So often what happens, is these loan sharks leave the shortfall to accrue compound interest for up to 12 years after the repossession, and during those 12 years, the repossessed person will rebuild their life and accrue new assets.

 

Then, at some point in the future, these evil characters will reappear to lay claim to your new assets, - your car, business, or new house, inheritance etc. Don't be too complacent, just when you think it's all over and behind you, these greedy monsters may reappear to steal the assets of your new life. There is no end to their evilness.

[I'm the bad guy?]

kill'em all-let Super sort'em out!

 

 

NO MERCY.

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

SSF

[on*the*case]

...........The reason I am here is I still feel i suffered a lot on injustice from SPML and continue to be interested to see what else I could do them for...

 

Sherry, have a look at the other threads regarding Capstone (who administered the mortgage) also look at the latest GMAC threads. GMAC were recently fined by the FSA and ordered to repay certain unfair fees. It is generally accepted that Capstone (SPML, Preferred and London Mortgage) are being investigated now by the FSA. Its early days, a bit like the bank charges, but if the charges are unfair, unjustified or illegal, we want them back.

[ryde]

kill'em all-let Super sort'em out!

NO MERCY.

ITBG?

SSF

Thats what you call fighting talk!!!

ITBG are you a latter day guy fawkes?! if so can I join the plot? I am good under torture.Meet you in High Wycombe at midnight.!

Edited November 23, 2009 by ryde

[I'm the bad guy?]

..feck SPML straight from tha CAG undaground,

young caggers, got tha back to da ground

so the Jackals think they got the authority,

to jack the British majority

feck that s*%t I ain't tha one,

punk maggotfarmas with inbred sons

coz gonna bust a cap in Capstones' ass,

ya'll know I roll wit a 187 buspass?..

 

....tbc..

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Emm-Dee-Kay

[cagger80]

..feck SPML straight from tha CAG undaground,

young caggers, got tha back to da ground

so the Jackals think they got the authority,

to jack the British majority

feck that s*%t I ain't tha one,

punk maggotfarmas with inbred sons

coz gonna bust a cap in Capstones' ass,

ya'll know I roll wit a 187 buspass?..

 

....tbc..

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Emm-Dee-Kay

 

Another useful post. You need to get up to date with latest events my good friend.

[kegi]

just lost another one

 

kegi

[I'm the bad guy?]

say cagger80, why don't you and sutonis get in a bath, and play find the leaf!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

[cagger80]

Leaf ?

 

Your reference escapes me

[I'm the bad guy?]

respect to SherryD, for sharing her story..

 

 

Why We Fight: episode 9

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

Band of Caggers

[scedminc]

Hi All,

 

I had a response to my email from CH about why a dormant company I have is being struck off due to my late filings of accounts. They basically said that they are going to strike off my dormant company for not repsonding to their requests. Well fair enough as I dont want the company any longer but my point was to find out why PML and SPML where allowed to not file their accounts for a lot longer than me and get away with it.

 

This is their response:

 

"In regards to your other query, 7 days after a company is in default for a statutory document (either Accounts or Annual Returns), a notice is automatically issued to the company’s Registered Office address enquiring as to the status of the company. This letter also signifies the beginning of the default action, which starts the process of removing a company from the Register. If the company continues to ignore notices from Companies House, then the company is eventually struck off the Register and Dissolved.

 

If during this process, a company can confirm that the company is required, and they intend to bring the company records up to date, we will immediately begin to pursue the company for the outstanding defaults, which may culminate in Prosecution action for Directors of companies which persist in their refusal to file.

 

In regards to the company numbers you have provided, there is currently no proposed removal action on PREFERRED MORTGAGES LIMITED (03137809) and SOUTHERN PACIFIC MORTGAGE LIMITED (03266119), as we have reminded these companies of their statutory responsibilities under the Companies Act, and are currently pursuing for the outstanding documents.

 

However, should you wish to make a formal public complaint about gaps in the filing history for either of these companies, you may do so, in writing, by addressing an email to Mrs E Cook of the Compliance department (at the usual email address [email protected]), who is currently dealing with these cases. "

 

So if this is true then maybe (not likely of course as they have cant) PML and SPML may produce some accounts. NOT. Or maybe this was a hint for a complaint to be made as they cant reveal any info on this??

 

We have another name to complain to now,

 

Mrs E Cook of the Compliance Department [email protected]

 

Lets see if we can open her eyes a little.

 

Sced

Edited November 23, 2009 by scedminc
Formatting

[I'm the bad guy?]

yo! Sced,

 

unfair treatment if you ask me.

 

PWC got cut some slack for filing the accounts for Lehmans subsidiaries, and they also told CH they required the companies. This bought them more time, until now.

 

Ms Elizabeth Cook, works in the CH Compliance Dept.- the manager is Kevin Hughes, who HAS begun prosecution action against SPML. I would address any correspondence to him, as he's handling the Lehmans bankruptcy.

 

 

 

ITBG?

Edited November 23, 2009 by I'm the bad guy?

[scedminc]

yo! Sced,

 

unfair treatment if you ask me.

 

PWC got cut some slack for filing the accounts for Lehmans subsidiaries, and they also told CH they required the companies. This bought them more time, until now.

 

Ms Elizabeth Cook, works in the CH Compliance Dept.- the mangager is Kevin Hughes, who HAS begun prosecution action against SPML. I would address any correspondence to him, as he's handling the Lehmans bankruptcy.

 

 

 

ITBG?

 

 

ITBG,

 

I was considering responding by saying that I actually do want my dormant company after all if they are going to treat me as nicely as they have our friends at PML and SPML and that I may consider filing after a year or two. lol

 

Sced

[ryde]

scedminc

excellent post and thanks.

What time scales are we talking about here.ie your last accounts as opposed to their last accounts. The last time that lot filed accounts were on 30/11 2006 the next set being due on 30/10/08 and are over a year overdue for gods sake,what about yours.

You're in a better position than most because you're on the inside with a real genuine gripe.

"CH say there is currently no removal action as they have been sent a reminder of their duties",that must have incredibly have been over 2 years ago and they still haven't complied.This is a line and an angle we must pursue especially as they are threatening you with something they are completely unwilling to implement on someone who has continuingly and blatantly ignored their requests and the applicable rules.This must give you and possibly us some real leverage.

Edited November 23, 2009 by ryde

[ryde]

Here is relevant legislation:re late posting of accounts

Updated September 2009

The Companies Act 2006 ('2006 Act') has introduced changes modifying the deadlines for filing and the penalties for the late filing of statutory accounts at Companies House. This new regime of penalty charges and revised deadlines came into effect on 1 February 2009. In light of the changes, a number of points should be borne in mind when considering the preparation and submission of annual accounts.

Revised filing deadlines

Under the 2006 Act the deadline for filing accounts for financial years beginning on or after 6 April 2008 has changed:

 

• Public companies will now have a period of six months (as opposed to seven months under the old regime) from the end of the relevant financial period in which to file accounts at Companies House;
  
• Private companies have a period of nine months (as opposed to 10 months under the old regime) to file the same.
  

Slight changes to these deadlines may occur should the accounting period in question be the company's first or in the event that the company changes its accounting reference date during the financial period in question. It should be noted that limited liability partnerships are treated in the same manner as a private company in this regard, with the time period for filing having also been shortened by one month to nine for financial periods commencing on or after 1 October 2008.

The new penalty regime

Directors may incur personal criminal liability for a failure to file accounts on time. All those persons who were directors of the company during the financial period following which the accounts are filed late are potentially liable to a fine of up to £5,000 and an additional daily default fine of £500.

Should the directors of a company fail to file accounts within the statutory time period, and fail to remedy the default within 14 days of service of a notice to comply, the courts have the power under the 2006 Act to make an order directing the directors to make good the default within a specified period. An application can be made by any member or creditor of the company or by the Registrar of Companies. The 2006 Act also provides for cost sanctions in connection with the application to potentially fall on the defaulting directors.

Directors should also be aware that the failure to file accounts within that specified period could, under certain circumstances, amount to a breach of their newly codified statutory duties under the 2006 Act, in particular:

 

• duty to promote the success of the company; and
  
• duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.
  

Any breach of the above duties could leave directors open to an action being brought against them by the company.

In addition to the directors' personal liability, and the ability of the court to make an order as set out above, companies are also subject to increased penalty charges for late filing. Any such liability will be in addition to any personal liability incurred by the directors.

The penalties are set out in the Companies (Late Filing Penalties) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Filing Periods and Late Filing Penalties) Regulations 2008 and apply as shown in the table below.

Late by Private Company/LLP Public Company Not more than one month £150 £750 More than one month but not more than three months £375 £1,500 More than three months but not more than six months £750 £3,000 More than six months £1,500 £7,500 Companies should be aware that these new charges represent a 50% increase from the previous levels (last set in 1992) and that the penalties for accounts filed more than one month late increase more quickly than under the previous regime. It should also be noted that in an attempt to deter repeated non-compliance, the penalties will double for any company that files its accounts late in the previous two financial periods, where the previous period commenced on or after 6 April 2008.

Practical steps to take

Early consideration should be given to the preparation and filing of annual accounts so that potential difficulties can be identified early and so be less likely to affect the filing date. Wherever possible accounts should be filed well before the applicable statutory deadline. In order to ensure that the accounts have actually been received by the Registrar of Companies, companies should seek confirmation that the accounts have arrived safely by way of a simple telephone call or by the inclusion of a copy letter and request it be endorsed by Companies House by way of receipt.

Other consequences

Beyond the potential personal liability of directors and monetary penalties, companies should consider the negative impression made on their customers and creditors by the filing of late accounts, especially within the present financial climate. This will be of particular relevance in the current financial downturn where a failure to file accounts may trigger defaults under finance or credit agreements. Such a disruption to the flow of credit into the company may have serious consequences for the company's continuing ability to trade and could represent a risk to the immediate future of the business.

Summary

The new penalty regime under the 2006 Act has been designed to reduce the problem of companies filing annual accounts late. In the first instance the penalties potentially represent a significant financial burden (particularly for small companies). However, companies should look beyond this to consider the wider commercial implications of late filing on their image and reputation as well as under any credit agreements.

Directors also need to be increasingly aware of the risk of personal liability arising on their part, which should provide a strong incentive to ensure systems are in place for the timely delivery of annual accounts.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when do you get to the struck off/disolution stage as is scedminc.

If you are insolvent the last thing you're gonna do is file accounts showing that you are as in this case.

Edited November 23, 2009 by ryde

[scedminc]

scedminc

excellent post and thanks.

What time scales are we talking about here.ie your last accounts as opposed to their last accounts. The last time that lot filed accounts were on 30/11 2006 the next set being due on 30/10/08 and are over a year overdue for gods sake,what about yours.

You're in a better position than most because you're on the inside with a real genuine gripe.

"CH say there is currently no removal action as they have been sent a reminder of their duties",that must have incredibly have been over 2 years ago and they still haven't complied.This is a line and an angle we must pursue especially as they are threatening you with something they are completely unwilling to implement on someone who has continuingly and blatantly ignored their requests and the applicable rules.This must give you and possibly us some real leverage.

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Mine is no where near the time scales as our friends.

 

Here is my data and they were on my case the minute I didnt file.

 

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 30/01/2010

Last Return Made Up To:

Next Return Due: 28/05/2009 OVERDUE

 

 

In fact if memory serves correctly I did call them and ask for access codes to file online but they still weren't happy that I didnt file on time. Admittedly I didnt file once I got the codes as I still didnt want the company and started another anyway. Point remains that I think I might want it now just to see the reactions.

 

I'm certainly going to be asking some further questions after their poor response.

 

Sced

[I'm the bad guy?]

Sced, you gibbons

 

it looks like you did not file your 363 annual return 28/5/09(company details)-£15 online. As your accounts are not due til 30/01/2010. If you file your 363, you can still keep your company.

 

**** have filed their 363s, but not their accounts.

 

 

ITBG?

[Suetonius]

say cagger80, why don't you and sutonis get in a bath, and play find the leaf!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

 

Ok ITBG?

 

The personal sniping appears to now be a daily habit for you.

 

Exactly what is your problem with me......

[I'm the bad guy?]

sorry don't do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

[Suetonius]

Ok ITBG?

 

The personal sniping appears to now be a daily habit for you.

 

Exactly what is your problem with me......

 

Seconds thoughts, I don't really care...

 

Good Luck one and all

[scedminc]

Sced, you gibbons

 

it looks like you did not file your 363 annual return 28/5/09(company details)-£15 online. As your accounts are not due til 30/01/2010. If you file your 363, you can still keep your company.

 

**** have filed their 363s, but not their accounts.

 

 

ITBG?

 

 

ITBG,

 

I know what I haven't done and how much it costs as I didnt care and no longer wanted the company. I consider it bad business paying for something when you dont want it. The point is though that a default is a default whether is be an annual return or full accounts.

 

Sced

[ryde]

Can someone tell me when you miss one payment how much you have to pay capstone in total because you are 1 month in arrears? and they have instructed a solicitor,ie what is the maximum amount you,d have to pay.

Also having a quick look at the law seems there is no mandatory striking or dissolution of companies for not filing acounts on time just escalating fines and consequences for the directors.

Edited November 23, 2009 by ryde

[bach]

Hi guys, anymore bedtime reading, fully awake and waiting for more. bring it on.

 

Lynn