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

[ryde]

This was a pwc memorandum to staff of lehman on the sale of LBIE to nomura,

IT CLEARLY SHOWS CAPSTONE AND CO WERE NOT IN THE PACKAGE

 

With regard to other parts of the Lehman empire fro which we are not responsible, of course we have to deal with Lehman Brothers asset managements where we are continuing our efforts to sell that business either as part of the transaction in America or separately, but at the same time to manage it in the future so that there is a solvent business there. With regard to Capstone and some of the real estate investments and non-performing loans that exists in various parts of the group structure particularly under the UK real estate, we continue to investigate those companies and to explore the future for them and develop information memorandum and so on that we can put out to the market with the hope of being able to sell some of those businesses, so the employees that relate to those businesses of course we continue to need in our efforts to wind down the affairs of the group.

 

so the big question is have their accounts been manipulated under the repo 105 technique to present them as a going concern and as an attractive investment for a potential buyer?

[freedomofspeech]

Having a look at the last set of accounts submitted by SPML something dodgy has gone on and I feel that Ernst & Young as auditors are complicit in this. I tried ringing E & Y on friday but without the name of someone you cannot be put through. I asked for the person who audits the accounts for SPML, they could not find any trace of a company by that name or their full company title. the plot thickens!. I then asked for their complaints dept, and would you beleive it a company as large as theirs dont have one. there is a definate need for a public enquiry into the goings on with these companies. I shall be e mailing my MP but I dont hold out much hope as he is standing down at the next election over the expenses row. Who can we get to take this further as most of our MP's are only interested in feathereing their own nests ( or moats). By the way i have been contacted by Martdj, who still cannot post direct and is having to have his posts moderated. Whoever is moderating this site is taking days to do this and his posts are not being posted. he said he has e mailed alanfromderby several times but is being ignored. Who are the admin & mods helping here?

[scedminc]

Hi Ryde & EIE,

 

As requested I have uploaded all the files I can still find on my computer relating to accounts and other stuff.

 

If there is any other accounts etc that you need then let me know and I can get them for you and upload them.

 

I haven't uploaded them to CAG as it wouldnt surprise me if they delete them so you can find them at this link. Any requests for updates will also be uploaded to the same place.

 

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/accounts

Sced

[JonCris]

News - SECURITISATION IS 100% ILLEGAL UNDER U.S. LEGISLATION

 

AND British apparently ...... Spread it around as it appears that if a mortgage is sold & the lender knows in advance they intend to securitize it it's illegal

 

Perhaps it’s these chaps we need - About the Editor, Author and Publisher: Christopher Story FRSA

Edited March 14, 2010 by JonCris

[ryde]

This is the bit that concerns us in full:

UNITED KINGDOM: THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1925

In the United Kingdom, The Law of Property Act, 1925, particularly Section 136 which deals with assignments, makes it crystal clear that alienation by a mortgage provider of all assets that have been assigned without notice having been issued to, or permission granted by, the debtor, is void and fraudulent. Therefore, ALL SECURITISATION OPERATIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE BRITISH JURISDICTION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY SANCTIONED IN ADVANCE BY THE MORTGAGOR, with the mortgagor fully aware of the situation, are void.

 

Northern Rock and all financial entities engaged in assigning, on-selling, trading and benefiting financially from such activity without notice to or the prior consent of the mortgagor, are engaged in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. These institutions have accordingly been trading worthless paper between themselves within a fraudulent financial carousel, as repeatedly stated in these reports.

 

The Directors of these institutions should be investigated and prosecuted by the UK authorities: and if this does not happen, we will keep asking why not. No doubt Lord Myners [see Appendix below], the ‘City Minister’, knows the score perfectly well, and is being ‘economical with the truth’. In which case he is a co-conspirator in this criminality.

 

The bottom line here is that it is possible in the British jurisdiction to stop anyone who holds a contract for debt (the creditor) from passing that debt to a third party (debt collector) if they have not complied fully with The Law of Property Act 1925 and to hold them to the original contract and, therefore, to their stringent obligations to the debtor under the Consumer Credit Act, 1974. If they do not, the contract is toast and they cannot collect or sue for recovery of the debt. And the debtor is at liberty to counterclaim even if they do sue the debtor: which is another reason why they don't do this. For this reason, no one talks about the The Law of Property Act, 1925. They will now!

RE PASSAGE IN BOLD TYPE

1)Surely it was written into most peoples mortgage contracts unfortunately that there was a right to assign? and such rights don't specify legal or equitable or both.Haven't we been through this lot a thousand times.?

2)s136 notification is only required when the legal title is transferred.

3)What is important is that a regulated fsa contract assigned to a non regulated spv is unenforceable which hasn't even been mentioned in the above article.This fact is made quite clear in the spv prospectus.

Edited March 14, 2010 by ryde

[ukaviator]

Having a look at the last set of accounts submitted by SPML something dodgy has gone on and I feel that Ernst & Young as auditors are complicit in this. I tried ringing E & Y on friday but without the name of someone you cannot be put through. I asked for the person who audits the accounts for SPML, they could not find any trace of a company by that name or their full company title. the plot thickens!. I then asked for their complaints dept, and would you beleive it a company as large as theirs dont have one. there is a definate need for a public enquiry into the goings on with these companies. I shall be e mailing my MP but I dont hold out much hope as he is standing down at the next election over the expenses row. Who can we get to take this further as most of our MP's are only interested in feathereing their own nests ( or moats). By the way i have been contacted by Martdj, who still cannot post direct and is having to have his posts moderated. Whoever is moderating this site is taking days to do this and his posts are not being posted. he said he has e mailed alanfromderby several times but is being ignored. Who are the admin & mods helping here?

 

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, i have been looking at all Moderated posts over the last few days and Martdj has not posted anything. If he had it would appear in the Moderated posts section of the forum to be looked at by a Mod or Admin. I will send a message to Admin about his Moderation..

[ryde]

sceds accounts for mortgage funding 2008-1 the spv which bought a billion pounds worth of loans from spml/pml in their last ever securitization shows they have posted a loss of 114 million in just a year!!

Thanks again sced

ukaviator

Would you also please confirm the current status of I'm the bad guy?,

things are reaching a critical stage here and he is our expert on company law and accounts, he also has direct connections with personel at companies house and we need his expertise urgently back here unrestricted and with freedom to post so as to pursue these urgent matters.He is responsible for a collective action on this site which has resulted in one of the miscreant firms being now put on a strike off notice by companies house. This was a great victory in the fight for justice against these companies which could be attributed directly to the existence of this site.Many people will be potentially affected and benefit from this action.

Edited March 14, 2010 by ryde

[MARTIN3030]

Ditto.

No posts made to approve.

The specifics and issues relating to any moderation are not open for discussion on this thread,as was previously advised.

Any user who is subject to moderation,will have been informed as to why,and if appropriate,what measures will be required to end it or else make a review of the decision possible.

[Suetonius]

This is the bit that concerns us in full:

UNITED KINGDOM: THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1925

In the United Kingdom, The Law of Property Act, 1925, particularly Section 136 which deals with assignments, makes it crystal clear that alienation by a mortgage provider of all assets that have been assigned without notice having been issued to, or permission granted by, the debtor, is void and fraudulent. Therefore, ALL SECURITISATION OPERATIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE BRITISH JURISDICTION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY SANCTIONED IN ADVANCE BY THE MORTGAGOR, with the mortgagor fully aware of the situation, are void.

 

Northern Rock and all financial entities engaged in assigning, on-selling, trading and benefiting financially from such activity without notice to or the prior consent of the mortgagor, are engaged in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. These institutions have accordingly been trading worthless paper between themselves within a fraudulent financial carousel, as repeatedly stated in these reports.

 

The Directors of these institutions should be investigated and prosecuted by the UK authorities: and if this does not happen, we will keep asking why not. No doubt Lord Myners [see Appendix below], the ‘City Minister’, knows the score perfectly well, and is being ‘economical with the truth’. In which case he is a co-conspirator in this criminality.

 

Judgments - Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward (FC)) (Appellant)

v.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand) (a firm) (Respondents)

 

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

 

If it is not effective in law, it is an equitable assignment

[freedomofspeech]

I agree but how many of have received this notice martdj informs me he has made 3 posts in the last 3 days none of which have appeared on this forum. What is happening.We are reaching an important stage here and if people cannot post valuable information wil be lost

[JonCris]

Judgments - Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward (FC)) (Appellant)

v.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand) (a firm) (Respondents)

 

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

 

If it is not effective in law, it is an equitable assignment

 

'without consent' does NOT mean without knowledge

[ryde]

JC

as much as I would love to agree with you if you look at your original mortgage contract as I am looking at the one that relates to me now,it states the mortgagee has a right to assign and once you sign the contract you are agreeing to that right.

I see where you're coming from,they assigned without our knowledge but are they obliged to notify us in the light of the above?

They deliberately don't notify us so the assignment remains equitable and they retain the power to repo.

The classic real time example is the sppl strike out and the spv notices to noteholders instructing their administrators capstone to notify the borrowers of the transfer of the legal charge from sppl to the spvs.

"our knowledge" equates to their notification

applicable law

136 Legal assignments of things in action

 

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

(2)This section does not affect the provisions of the M2Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

[F1(3)The county court has jurisdiction (including power to receive payment of money or securities into court) under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed [F2£30,000].]

Edited March 14, 2010 by ryde

[JonCris]

Ryde None of this eliminates the 'rights' of the borrower to know prior to entering into the loan contract that securitization is intended thereby not allowing the borrower to make an well informed decision as to whether to continue.

 

I know they have a right to dispose/sell the mortgage on but there is no mention of securitization which as we have seen has many unpleasant drawbacks for the borrower

Edited March 14, 2010 by JonCris

[ryde]

JC

I am of the firm conviction that the challenge to securitisation lies in the fact that a fsa regulated agreement has been transferred to a non regulated entity who is as is now being proved by the actions of their contractural administrators, enforcing litigation on their behalf through the courts as has proved by the actions falsely stated as being on behalf of the now abandoned and defunct directorless sppl.sppl because of their directorless/personelless state being unable logically to authorise such litigation.

SO WHO IS GIVING CAPSTONE THE ORDERS??

IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENT

 

spv prospectus 2008 EXTRACT as originally posted by eie on a legal/equitable thread 9 months ago.

 

p.105: Any person carrying out a regulated activity, unless an exemption is available, must be authorised by the FSA, with specific permission required from the FSA to engage in the activity. If requirements as to authorisation and permission of lenders and brokers or as to issue and approval of financial promotions are not complied with, a regulated mortgage contract will be unenforceable against the borrower except with the approval of a court.

 

direct intervention of the unauthorised spv needs to be proved in instructing their authorised administrators capstone.

Edited March 14, 2010 by ryde

[freedomofspeech]

Martdj informs me that 3 of his posts dated 8th March have just been accepted!! Only 8 days after ne posted them. What is the point if it takes this long. ADMIN & MODS if you are reading this please let him have his full account back as without him being able to post we are not going to get anywhere

[mrsiphone]

Can't wait to read these posts you keep talking about Freedom, they must be explosive

[martdj]

Can't wait to read these posts you keep talking about Freedom, they must be explosive

 

he informs me that they are informative not expposive, but if the admin dont get their act together they will be lost in the annals of time!!

 

BRING BACK IATBG & MARTDJ

[freedomofspeech]

Can't wait to read these posts you keep talking about Freedom, they must be explosive

 

More informative than explosive

[TFD123]

Thinking back on a comment made here about the cost of dialling 0845 numbers to contact CAPSTONE, this was attached to an email i recieved from them 3 days ago. It may be cheaper on us if this guy can redirect us to the appropriate department:)

 

Christopher Garrett

Customer Service Officer

Capstone Mortgage Services Ltd

A Lehman Brothers Company

1st Floor, St Johns Place,

Easton Street, High Wycombe,

Buckinghamshire, HP11 2NL

Direct Phone & Fax: 0207 532 9527

Switchboard: 0207 7532 9000

Web: http://capstonemortgageservices.co.uk

[email protected]

 

 

I am sure it is not meant to be his private number as he makes it public in Emails, so it cannot harm to use it.

Just a thought

 

We need to drop one of the 7's from the switch board number i.e. 0207 532 9000

[JonCris]

Switchboard: 0207 7532 9000 aren't there to many 7's in this No.

[TFD123]

Switchboard: 0207 7532 9000 aren't there to many 7's in this No.

 

Yeah JC as i said at the bottom of my post,,we need to drop one of the 7's to get through.

Maybe they think it will not be noticed and we will not try it assumming its a discontinued number

 

Still nice to have a number which is not 0845

[rocket1]

There seem to be lots of little snippets of potentially useful law mentioned on various posts but they just get lost in amongst the 5673 posts.

 

Someone else posted recently how it would be useful to look at the 'bullet points' of the various issues that might be brought to bear in any court case.

 

 

But, there are no 'bullet points' and nowhere are the really useful bits and pieces collated for people to look at and use and further verify etc.

 

If all these were collated, as individuals investigate them further, our knowledge of law relating to these SPML et al issues would rise exponentially and reach a point where any reader could look at our collection of law and just use it to win hands down in every case .

 

After all, we are complaining about not having access to a hot lawyer because we don't have the money, but, over time if we collected all the relevant law into one place we would have just as much knowledge as that hot, experienced lawyer (theoretically).

 

For example, it has sometimes crossed my mind in the past that there is a potential for a money making website whose function is to provide all that legal information that lawyers spend years learning about so they can charge extortionate fees to act for non lawyers who need lawyers to take cases to court - only because lawyers know the law and lay people don't.

 

 

If you had a website vaguely along the lines of Wikipedia, but confined to law, any reader could just look up things relevant to them ( like how to fight a sub-prime mortgage lender, for instance) and see all the bits and pieces of arguments that could be relevant to them for use in court.

 

That way, people would be able to completely bypass the need for relying on lawyers. All you are doing when employing a lawyer is employing that body of useful legal knowledge needed to deal with a case.

 

People may think this idea is fanciful, but I don't think so. Wikipedia has its critics, but it works well up to a point. So would a similar thing for law because at the end of the day law is really quite simple. It's all about a filing system to quote what Parliament and other regulatory bodies have put into a package of words that defines what must or must not be done.

 

If you know where to find it, you just connect it all in a logical argument that applies to your own case.

 

That is simply what any lawyer does.

 

In the days before computers it is what the successful and switched on litigant in person, initially ignorant of the law, would do themselves.

 

They would go to a library with the right law books, look up the law relating to their problem, understand the arguments needed and win.

 

Why can't we get a bit more organised and sort out all the body of useful knowledge we are acquiring and put it into some sort of vague order so it becomes more useable. It seems to me at the moment that it is far from useable without reading through 5700 posts at least.

 

There are all sorts of thing here which are just getting drowned in the thousands of posts.

 

I would imagine the best way to do this is to take the useful info away from a forum and onto another website where it could be filed and organised more easily.

 

If something like this is not done, it effectively means that an awful lot of effort made by people on this thread is simply wasted as it disappears into internet oblivion.

 

That's what I think !

 

What does anyone else think ?

[ZillaK]

bye bye Ernst & Young..

 

Regulators demand detailed Lehman Brothers' papers from Ernst & Young | Business | guardian.co.uk

[enoughisenough]

bye bye Ernst & Young..

 

Regulators demand detailed Lehman Brothers' papers from Ernst & Young | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

Excellent...if one tumbles the rest will scream for protection...

 

and once that happens who knows where it leads. Ultimately all the jackals in the pack will start tearing chunks out of each other.

 

Neat. I like that...

 

Incidentally...Why did it take the publication of an investigation taking place in the US to alert the authorities? Did they think we were plebs who could be ignored when these very questions were being raised by us?

 

That's the feckin' problem with this country. Too much about who says something, too little notice of WHAT is being said.

[ZillaK]

Perhaps it's time we took action from the other side of the pond... if that is possible?