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

[enoughisenough]

Yes Bust the Matrix

 

you are of course absolutely correct. When you can find these County Court judgments that is.

Edited December 3, 2009 by enoughisenough
Apologies to Bach and BTM for temporarily confusing you.

[bustthematrix]

wonderman and ryde, like I said a few posts back all Solicitors, Judges etc are all part of the establishment, old boys school etc. I could cry with anger and outrage they are getting away with murder.

Watching your comments with great interest.

Bach

Interesting comment Bach. That's exactly the kind of attitude the PTBs want to engender, the "we can't do anything about so let's not bother!" approach.

I would suggest otherwise and I have it on Divine authority!!! The following text (in italics) is copied from another Forum in response to dealing with the Judiciary etc:-

 

In my opinion, the Bible, when understood, is such a fantastically rich book it's actually mind boggling. For example, on this issue of 'unjust judges', Jesus actually commented about how to obtain justice. Here it is from the Gospel of Luke:-

 

1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart,

2 saying: "There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man {sounds like some people we know!}.

3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, 'Get justice for me from my adversary.'

4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, 'Though I do not fear God nor regard man,

5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.' "

Luke 18:1-5

 

So, here we actually have a biblical solution to the problem of corrupt (unjust) judges. Basically it came down to 'because this widow troubles me' and 'lest....she weary me'. Isn't that interesting?

 

It indicates that the Unjust Judge is entirely selfish from the get go - nothing to do with the individual matter being tried! It also indicates that obtaining 'justice' from such a one, requires actions that compel them to do what is right, even if they still only do it for selfish reasons!

 

That's what we have to do, if ever in this position - whatever that requires. In the case of the lady in the parable, it was her persistent petitioning and demanding of justice.

So there you have it folks, we must never give up. An old friend used to say, and I paraphrase, "if you're willing to fight forever, you won't have to fight very long"!

[wonderman]

Interesting comment Bach. That's exactly the kind of attitude the PTBs want to engender, the "we can't do anything about so let's not bother!" approach.

 

I would suggest otherwise and I have it on Divine authority!!! The following text (in italics) is copied from another Forum in response to dealing with the Judiciary etc:-

 

In my opinion, the Bible, when understood, is such a fantastically rich book it's actually mind boggling. For example, on this issue of 'unjust judges', Jesus actually commented about how to obtain justice. Here it is from the Gospel of Luke:-

 

1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart,

2 saying: "There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man {sounds like some people we know!}.

3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, 'Get justice for me from my adversary.'

4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, 'Though I do not fear God nor regard man,

5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.' "

Luke 18:1-5

 

So, here we actually have a biblical solution to the problem of corrupt (unjust) judges. Basically it came down to 'because this widow troubles me' and 'lest....she weary me'. Isn't that interesting?

 

It indicates that the Unjust Judge is entirely selfish from the get go - nothing to do with the individual matter being tried! It also indicates that obtaining 'justice' from such a one, requires actions that compel them to do what is right, even if they still only do it for selfish reasons!

 

That's what we have to do, if ever in this position - whatever that requires. In the case of the lady in the parable, it was her persistent petitioning and demanding of justice.

 

So there you have it folks, we must never give up. An old friend used to say, and I paraphrase, "if you're willing to fight forever, you won't have to fight very long"!

 

Joy, just pure joy...yes, that is the only strategy. Keep on and on until they are so weary of their linguistic acrobats that they tie themselves up in their inconsistent knots, then there's always the ECHR and the ECJ. Oh never ever give up fighting our "just us" system.

 

Credit to Bustthematrix for the "just us" label because that accurately describes what happens at the Royal Courts of Just us.

 

Wonderman

Edited December 3, 2009 by wonderman

[wot2do?]

Littledotty was it you that had dealings with matlock

 

Shares & Markets - Telegraph

 

Matlock Bank Limited's interest in the Mortgage Sale Agreement is also being

novated to Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited ('SPML') on or after the 31st March

2006. SPML will therefore assume the obligation to repurchase the Mortgage Loans

for breach of a Warranty in place of Matlock Bank Limited (see the Offering

Circular - Title to the Mortgage Pool - Warranties and repurchase) once the

novation has taken place.

[bustthematrix]

Thanks Wonderman. I didn't coin "Just us" though, I picked it up somewhere...

 

Regarding Maxims of Law, I thought I'd post these here, in relation to negative experiences some are having with judges courts etc.

 

 

 

MAXIMS OF LAW. These particular ones were compiled from:-

1. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier, (1856)
   
2. Legal Maxims, by Broom and Bouvier, (1856)
   
3. A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, (1893)
   
4. Black's Law Dictionary, by Henry Campell Black, (3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions, 1933-1990)
   
5. Maxims of Law, by Charles A. Weisman, (1990)
   

Judges and Judgment

 

 

 

· Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.

· One who commands lawfully must be obeyed.

· Whoever does anything by the command of a judge is not reckoned to have done it with an evil intent, because it is necessary to obey. [isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge…"]

· Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounden duty to obey.

· A judgment is always taken as truth.

· If you judge, understand.

· It is the duty of a good judge to remove the cause of litigation. [Acts 18:12-16]

· The end of litigation is justice.

· To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due.

· One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory is not obeyed with impunity.

· A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge.

· A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law.

· Of the credit and duty of a judge, no question can arise; but it is otherwise respecting his knowledge, whether he be mistaken as to the law or fact.

· It is punishment enough for a judge that he is responsible to God. [Psalms 2:10-12, Romans 13]

· That is the best system of law which confides as little as possible to the discretion of the judge.

· That law is the best which leaves the least discretion to the judge; and this is an advantage which results from certainty.

· He is the best judge who relies as little as possible on his own discretion.

· Whenever there is a doubt between liberty and slavery, the decision must be in favor of liberty.

· He who decides anything, a party being unheard, though he should decide right, does wrong.

· He who spares the guilty, punishes the innocent. [Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:17-25, John 18:38-40]

· The judge is condemned when a guilty person escapes punishment.

· What appears not does not exist, and nothing appears judicially before judgment.

· It is improper to pass an opinion on any part of a sentence, without examining the whole.

· Hasty justice is the step-mother of misfortune.

· Faith is the sister of justice.

· Justice knows not father not mother; justice looks at truth alone.

· A judge is not to act upon his personal judgment or from a dictate of private will, but to pronounce according to law and justice.

· No one should be judge in his own cause.

· No one can be at once judge and party.

· A judge is to expound, not to make, the law.

· It is the duty of a judge to declare the law, not to enact the law or make it.

· Definite, legal conclusions cannot be arrived at upon hypothetical averments.

· A judge is the law speaking. [the mouth of the law]

· A judge should have two salts: the salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; and the salt of conscience, lest he be devilish.

· He who flees judgment confesses his guilt.

· No man should be condemned unheard.

· The judge is counsel for the prisoner.

· Everyone is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

· Justice is neither to be denied nor delayed.

· It is the property of a Judge to administer justice, not to give it.

· Justice is an excellent virtue, and pleasing to the Most High.

[ryde]

What exactly happened to the WOOLF reforms and access to justice, I mentioned it once in a heated moment in court and it was all downhill from thereon in!!!

 

Great quote from the hon mr blair 12 years ago in the riley debate when he was a backbencher.

"I think you need some measure of control and regulation to ensure that the unscrupulous aren't lending to the desperate when there's no possibility of repayment."

He has done so much to change this in his 10 years as pm think it may have actually got worse.

Edited December 3, 2009 by ryde

[wonderman]

Bustthematrix,

 

Well it seems that eminent jurists have for centuries recognised that:

 

" A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge."

 

Isn't that exactly the tactic that our judges engage in for which we have adopted EIE's phrase of linguistic acrobats. In principle then, many (or most) of our judges are unworthy judges.

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Blair hmmm....he said that way before J P Morgan offered him some lucrative directorship. See, how they all get bought off.

[JonCris]

Access to Justice! NO such thing just an excuse to scrap legal aid so that firms could ride roughshod over LiP's

[wonderman]

JonCris is right, and its going to get worse. Traditionally law firms could only be owned by the lawyers who were partners i.e., if you were not a qualified lawyer you could not invest in, or own an interest in a law firm. But the law is changing so that non-lawyers may own shares in the law firms. So how do you think that change in the law will turn out in reality? In my view it means that the banks will own the law firms too. And once the banks and other corporates buy up and own the law firms how much access to justice do you think consumers will actually get?....even less that we get now! Plus, even if there is a law firm that represents a consumer defendant to any degree of success, the corporates and the banks can always get rid of the case by merely buying up the law firm to stifle the prospect of an adverse judgment and precedent being set.

 

Again, this change in the law is being made on the basis that it will apparently give us minions more "access to justice", when in practice it will mean more of the "just us"! The banks and corporates will be the gatekeepers whose policies as owners and shareholders will ensure monopolisation of the legal profession. Watch out for a whole lot of merging of different law firms into big firms over the next few years that will concentrate legal power into a few large firms.

 

So the double whammy is to scrap legal aid (that limb has now been substantively achieved) and then monopolise the legal profession. Practical result: Access to justice denied!

Edited December 3, 2009 by wonderman

[enoughisenough]

Hate to go all undergraduate lefty here but didn't Marx more or less spell out the processes of concentration, merger and conglomeration of capital and the resultant polarisation of society?

 

Here even the hitherto middle classes would get sucked into a downward spiral. Not that this should be interpreted as a kind of armchair anarchism on my own behalf. I'm merely curious of ideas.

 

For the benefit of our spies I have also read Rawls, Hayek and Friedman, who very much think that what you do is virtuous because it promotes that all important commodity: FREEDOM.

 

FREEDOM TO DENY OTHERS THEIRS

 

FREEDOM TO LIE CHEAT AND STEAL

 

FREEDOM TO OPPRESS.

 

If in any doubt as to moral chaos this brings please read this very small (one page) thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/232350-possible-barred-old-mortgage.html

[Crapstone]

Do you really think it is a gamble?

 

The fundamental policy of these scummers is to liquidate their assets. That means that you are forced to remortgage (which for most is now an impossibility) or you will be repossessed. You will be repossessed by the scummers increasing and increasing charges and fees to contrive your alleged arrears until such time as they can say you are in default. Once they have contrived your default you will be repossessed. The courts will rubber stamp the possession order. For some of us, the courts will delay and defer the possession date but the upshot is always the same. You will be repossessed. Look at the Pender case! Even 7 years after the possession order, the scummers went in and repossessed and our feckless courts of "justice" rubber stamped (as usual). There are a handful of judges that do apply the rule of law, but in the end, the judicial policy to always give the bank you home will always be the end result. It's up to us to keep trying to break through the rotten "justice" system and attempt to revive both the principle of equaility before the law and most importantly, the rule of law.

 

So what's to gamble? Some choose to vigoursly fight this injustice perpetrated not only by the scummers but also by the ignorant courts. In the meantime, each and every one who has been enslaved by these evil so called "contracts" is put to the 24/7 stress of keeping the fox from your door. Is that the sort of peaceful enjoyment of your home that the public should be forced to endure?

 

The government, the OFT, the FSA, the FOS have all lost public confidence for being ineffectual lame dogs. The courts are the final institution to turn to for justice, but alas, they appear (so far) to be as deliquent in applying their own rules as the other lame dogs.

 

I agree Wonderman..I'm merely pointing out that to try to complicate matters in a 10 minute court slot is asking for trouble when the main sticking point is going to be the continued affordability of the mortgage or secured loan. Ownership and in depth examination of the contract isn't going to happen unless you can afford a legal rep. and if you could afford that then you wouldn't be arrears in the first place.

 

You can stress out making a legal bundle as big as you like but it won't make a difference on the day. Don't let it get that far, complain again and again digging up as much as you can to throw at them out of court. I'm over 6 years down the line and got my charges back so I must be doing something right to keep the wolves away and stop them taking further action.

[Crapstone]

Crapstone, could you perhaps enlighten me on this a little? Where does the rule come from and would this apply to a second charge loan too?

 

Any idea of the penalties or remedies available are?

 

Thanks...also

 

Campari: Hi - thanks. As I recall it we had a £10k secured loan which must have been a second charge therefore. The mortgage was with another company totally. It was suggested I convert the loan into a mortgage as they already had the house on it - so to speak - so we did. Moved it over therefore, from SPPL to SPML and increased, however, the loan had only run for a short while and this was settled in the figures to include all their associated costs.

 

Have you ever thought of using John Story's (Storey and Pallister vs natwest) argument that once a Regulated Agreement always a Regulated Agreement as in s.82 & s.8 CCA...if this was taken over by a company in the same group who knew the loan was CCA regulated it could be argued it should have remained Regulated...? Just a thought you might like to follow.

 

Hi Andrew,

 

It's taken from the MCOB on affordability. It's more of a sticking point if you aren't self-cert.

 

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

 

I can see no difference between that or a secured loan or 2nd charge. The company should have assessed how you would be able to pay beyond the retirement date. It's all the more reason to assume that they didn't expect, or want you to stay on their books until then if they didn't follow through with the affordability.

[JonCris]

Now why would they NOT expect the borrower to go the full term;) prima facia evidence of an intention to foreclose early methinks

[ryde]

94 LANSBURY DRIVE HAYES - Google Maps

 

ITBG

AFTER MUCH MANOUVERING have found the multinational conglomerate "safaro corporation limited group "who own an 80% share in lehmans asset management.

Must be making an absolute fortune to afford these premises.

Its got to be this one, same fax number.

Please everyone look and be gobsmacked,

British equivalent of Wall street.

This is their multimillion pound operational offices.

How are we going to close this lot down?

To quote Blakey("On the buses fame" for those under 50)

ITBG you've made my day.

This is big time newsworthy.

Edited December 4, 2009 by ryde

[iconoclash]

Hi - yes it all more of the same isnt it - as we hear in the news yet again - couldnt help laughing when I read that the government paid Credit Suisse to advise on toxic debt!! so they wont be biased will they...

[JonCris]

They ain't for real are they. Reminds me of the Maddoc British accountant/auditor working out of some dingy little room approving accounts running into billions, any connection??

 

If he hadn't popped his clogs he would have been arrested apparently

Edited December 4, 2009 by JonCris

[scedminc]

94 LANSBURY DRIVE HAYES - Google Maps

 

ITBG

AFTER MUCH MANOUVERING have found the multinational conglomerate "safaro corporation limited group "who own an 80% share in lehmans asset management.

Must be making an absolute fortune to afford these premises.

Its got to be this one, same fax number.

Please everyone look and be gobsmacked,

British equivalent of Wall street.

This is their multimillion pound operational offices.

How are we going to close this lot down?

To quote Blakey("On the buses fame" for those under 50)

ITBG you've made my day.

This is big time newsworthy.

 

Thats the funniest thing I've seen all week. Infact all year lol

[JonCris]

Someone has GOT TO notify the financial press, they'll have a field day

[ryde]

Thanks to ITBG for research and finding it.Their new website which appears to show their corporate offices makes it even better.

[enoughisenough]

Bloody Hell ITBG!

 

Can we get our ducks lined up in a row here.

 

1.Let's Start Here: .:SAFARO CORPORATION:.

 

2. Moving on ------------->

 

.:SAFARO CORPORATION:.

 

"Wait, we are under construction!"

 

3. As is the rest of their horrible little site...so, some lateral thinking and digging required. Moving on...

 

4. SAFARO CORPORATION LIMITED, company number 06688177, credit report, annual accounts and free company monitoring

 

5. Listed on Experian:

 

SAFARO CORPORATION LIMITED, BRISTOL, AVON, BS8 2XN (Company Report) - Experian - AlacraStore.com

 

6. Got this far. Not Registered with the FSA but are listed with CH.

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

7. Guess who is or rather WAS authorised by the FSA:

 

FSA Register

 

8. Disciplinary History None, Individuals None, Contacts Munir Mughal.

 

FSA Register

 

9. Seems to have an interesting rapidly changing history:

 

FSA Register

 

Other companies:

 

FSA Register

 

FSA Register

 

Munir Mughal's name also pops up in respect of Derbyshire based mortgage force

 

mortgageforce - Award Winning Independent Mortgage Adviser - Offering Whole Of Market Mortgage Searches

 

FSA Register

 

However the FSA register does not name him as an individual.

 

Leading back to here:

 

.:SAFARO CORPORATION:.

 

Sorry peeps. Hardly getting the ducks in a row. AT least I've tried to do some digging. And the digging ain't over yet!

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

[JonCris]

Thanks to ITBG for research and finding it.Their new website which appears to show their corporate offices makes it even better.

 

 

Gis a link?

[JonCris]

Sorry spoke to soon

[JonCris]

I appear to be getting redirected so I do hope some computer literate member has taken screen shots as I suspect the site is about to close down

[JonCris]

Still need a link?

[ryde]

.:SAFARO CORPORATION:.

try this originally posted by itbg page 152 post 3022 can someone take some screenshots before the spies have it pulled?