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

[ryde]

Capstonewatch if youre watching, for your attention ,very important missing part of the jigsaw

SPML Accounts 2008.pdf (751.7 KB, 31 views)

 

Also it would be a great idea to showcase your site on the guardian(am a fan now!) comments page as in the above link.Have posted mine unfortunately accounts won't read off there,see if you recognise it!?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...llapse-critics

 

Doing all I know how.

Edited March 17, 2010 by ryde

[TFD123]

How Does Chapter 11 Work?

 

The U.S. Trustee, the bankruptcy arm of the Justice Department, will appoint one or more committees to represent the interests of creditors and stockholders in working with the company to develop a plan of reorganization to get out of debt. The plan must be accepted by the creditors, bondholders, and stockholders, and confirmed by the court. However, even if creditors or stockholders vote to reject the plan, the court can disregard the vote and still confirm the plan if it finds that the plan treats creditors and stockholders fairly. Once the plan is confirmed, another more detailed report must be filed with the SEC on Form 8-K. This report must contain a summary of the plan, but sometimes a copy of the complete plan is attached.

 

Bankruptcy Protecion Plan ... Wow what a handy item

[enoughisenough]

Yup...great isn't it. It's known as filing for protection...? Imagine that in the criminal system. Yet another reason why corporate crime pays...and why there'll be more and more of this.

[ryde]

mamag1

youre on the right thread to post your problems,so transfer your posts on the other thread to here.

One small piece of advice whatever you do, do not acknowledge or accept or agree to any demands,do not acknowledge any debt or offer to make any repayments whatsoever until you have received advice here,this is vitally important.

The usual situation when a company employs a debt collector rather than take you to court is that they have sold the debt on usually for a nominal payment.

anyway the important thing is to post your details here and do nothing until advised.

[Guest MamaG1]

I am in a very confused situationa at the moment. SPML Repossesed a misold mortgage and now demands £103,729.43 from me.

 

I was mis sold an SPML mortage in 2004, by a mortgage broker, as a self cert mortgage, when I was employed. I Was pressured and influenced into all this.

The mortgage adviser did not explain the mortgage, arrangement and fees and the interest rate and discounted rate implication to me clearly at the time. I was not clearly informed he would be getting me a discounted rate mortgage. I had a first mortgage and my credit rating was good, so there was no need to go to SPML in the 1st place, It was all so hurried, presurrising and confusing that I dont even remember signing the contract for the completion of the mortgage, and I still ended up with the mortgage.

 

I called SPML several times to try and explain to them and nobody listened, just kept being fobbed off. I was then presurised and cohersed into carry on with the mortgage, as the broker said he will speak to SPML on my behalf, to try and resolve the problem to change the mortgage etc. which never came to light. In hind sight I should have said no and gone to the CAB or Ombudsman but I was not aware of this and nobody informed me, instead they kept presurising me to carry on and promising to deal with the issue, At a point I got angry and wanted to really start proceedings, they refered me to the solicitor and my then now former friend who introduced me to these people persuaded me to go to their solicitor who acted on my behalf, I came out still not clear what next to do. Non the wiser.

I was scarred into thinking I could loose our own home I reside in with my family if I pull out now. They will try do something for me.

 

At the point I did not know about this site or the Ombudsman or any other complains process and the broker and SPML never directed me there either all this time I was complaining. The broker just kept telling me he will sort things out and the seller that was known by the person that introduced me my former friend. ( I went through undue influence as a result, from the broker and my ex friend) they all knew each other very well, I will say.

 

When the discounted rate ended, I couldnt afford the mortgage any longer and SPML, Broker, my x friend were not forth coming with any resolution to this problem, and Spml were foreclosing on me, got the reposession order, I gave up, as I was at this point very stressed, but felt I couldnt do anything to help myself and nobody was giving me any advise or support of what to do with this. Original mortgage was £179k.

 

I handed SPML back the keys to the flat when I could not cope with the re-payments anymore. As it was killing me they got the keys on the day the re-posession was planned for. I called them to confirm they had received the keys and they said yes. and that they had gone in on the day to re-possess any way.

 

Every thing then went quite and they have in the last week now written me demanding for £103k from me the letter was sent to me by direct Legal collections at my old address. I had not received any correspondence from them in the last 2 to 3 years on the property in my correspondence address.??? or in my old address. I am still in shalk and dont know what to do.

 

I have written them today asking them to furnish me with further details and contract of their enquiries to me. The letter came from Direct Legal collections stating their client as SPML, client ref ... and Date instructed as the 15/10/2009.

Balance outstanding as £103,729.43.

The letter reads, Your account has been refered to us by Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd for Collection.

The balance must be paid immediately. If you have made any payments to SPML within the last 10 days please contact us with the payment details. failure to respond to this letter may result in legal action.

 

Please advise what can I do please.

Edited March 18, 2010 by MamaG1

[Guest MamaG1]

Thanks ryde,

 

Definately. I sent the letter to them and I will await their responce and then post on the site once recived. In the mean time what shall I do if they ring me or txt me pls.

Edited March 18, 2010 by MamaG1
wording

[ryde]

Tell them you are receiving legal advice and all enquiries must be made only in writing to you directly.If they keep trying to ring or text you tell them you will report them for harassment. Are they sending these letters to your old address and the post is redirected or to your current address and do you know how much the repoed property sold for or what its market value was.?

Do you know the exact date you took out the first mortgage with spml as re the misselling we have to look at statute of limitations ie time limits to bring a claim if necessary,it might be 6 years so the limit could be close,but this needs to be checked to see if it applies as land claims can be 12 years.

Which unfortunately can work both ways.

[Guest MamaG1]

They have sent this one letter to the address I was at when I applied ofr the mortgage, which is where I now leave. they sent the letters to a correspondence address where Ilived when I left the property when it was repossed. I asked the occupyer of the place I lived for a while if they have received any letters fromthem and they said no, as they would have informed me.

I dont know how much the repo was sold for, I dont know any details of the selling or what it was worth at the time it was sold, as I did not get any info from SPML or ??. I dont have the exact date, but will try get that for tomorrow morning.

In the mean time, I will tell them I am getting legal advise, if they call.

 

Just buggling me, they can't put a charge on my current or 1st property or try force me to sell at all can they???

Edited March 18, 2010 by MamaG1

[margaret williams]

You are correct. We have been advised not to sell by 2 estate agents who came round to value the property, one of who had inside knowledge of Lehman Bros London operations

[margaret williams]

I have just completed a 4 page letter to the Chief Executive of Barclays bank, John Varley . Barclays bought SPML. That information was on the front page of the Financial Times earlier this week. I am demanding answers, such as wh holds themortgage deeds on the property and why were SPML collecting arrears payments,after Lehman Bros collapse.

SPML was rebranded Eurosail 4 Firsts UK 2007, in 2007. SPML demanded that Eurosailetc were added to our Bulidings insurance Policy, as mortgagee. This was queried by Swinto because Eurosail was not a registered mortgage company. That is why letters continied to be headed SPML

SPML provided the mortgages for Northern Rock

Capstone is not a registered mortgage company. It is a service provider. Capstone also faced insolvency.

They are service providers and advisors to Barclays Bank.

The collection account that SPML mortgage monies goes into, via Barclays, is London Corporate Banking.

I await confirmation that SPML/Eurosail is insolvent. If they are, then they can't initiate legal action.

Next thing that I am going to do is request title deeds from the Land Registry

[Blue-eyed-girl]

Hi, I have had Welcome & London Mortgage play on my mind for a while and I googled Capstone and found this. I am wary as we have had a letter asking for a copy of our house insurance as they do not currently hold one:

 

Capstone Mortgages – Disgraceful – Ripoff

Capstone Mortgages – Rip Off

UPDATE 12/01/2010

 

I am getting a letter a week at the moment from Capstone Mortgage Services telling me that they are charging me for my arrears. My insurance company have told me in writing that they faxed this years insurance documents directly to Capstone and yet Capstone have still forced me to have their Insurance product.

 

The Ombudsman is weak and inept and companies such as Capstone are able to play on this, Capstone Mortgage Services will not be getting this money and I am now talking to a solicitor to see what my options are for sueing them direct.

I will update on how my capstone action pans out.

 

But ANYONE reading this must avoid using this company at all costs.If you are contemplating using Capstone Mortgages then you may want to read about my experience which is similar to many others, you may well want to think again.

UPDATE I am getting a huge amount of negative feedback on Capstone Mortgage Services, it must be time for some investigation with teeth into the practices deployed by Capstone Mortgage Services by official watchdog bodies.

Capstone have been the worst mortgage company I have ever dealt with and I am amazed they are getting away with the practice of trying to intimidate people into paying twice for home insurance and when they don’t pay twice then Capstone levy charges which I believe must be against the code of conduct.

 

How is this done?

Wellits quite simple -

 

First you must be one of the unlucky people to have taken a mortgage out with them or their other face which is ‘Preferred Mortgages’.

• Then what you do is get your own house insurance because the home insurance they offer is not competitive.
  
• Then on the anniversary of that insurance you renew your policy as normal because its value for money.
  
• About two months later Capstone start sending you letters telling you that your mortgage is in arears.
  
• Your name is then entered on an auto dialing system and their collections department start ringing you night and day but when you answer the phone hangs up immediately and you hear a message to urgently call them.
  
• You call them and stay on hold for up to 30 mins.
  
• When somebody answers you are accused of having mortgage arears and that your house it at risk if you do not pay up.
  
• After 15 mins you find out that what they have done is forced you to have their home insurance without you signing a single document and that the arrears is actually the £300 they have charged you for this privilage.
  
• After explaining that you have your own house insurance you are then told that you should of sent a copy to them and because you didn’t do this they can force their own expensive product choice on you.
  
• When you argue about this practice you are told that it is in the small print of your contract but when pushed they refuse to show you this.
  
• When by chance you discover that Capstone have a copy of your own house insurance on file because your insurance company sent it direct they still refuse to refund the money and continue charging admin costs.
  

When this happened to me I contacted the customer services manager after four months of Capstone telling me not to worry on the phone and then sending demanding letters through the post and threatening answerphone messages left on the phone.

This Capstone manager promised to sort it out and promised that the Capstone Mortgage Auto Dialing service and their collections team would leave me alone. He also promised that the charges that should never have been levied would be rescinded. Now almost a year on I am still getting the same letters, the same threatening phone calls and the same charges being levied, whats more today I had a big suprise!!!!

You guessed it, one year on from the first attempt at extortion Capstone Mortgage Services have sent me a new letter for this years insurance, even though Legal and General faxed the insurance policy DIRECT to the Capstone HQ and Legal and General wrote to me confirming this.

That is another £300 added to my ficticious outstanding account!!!!

I rang them immediately and was told by customer services once again that this was an error and that they would refund the cost of the insurance, however, they cannot refund the charges because that is the collections department who are independent. I then found out that last years insurance was refunded but only to the tune of 50% , the other 50% they requested from Legal and General who quite rightly told them to get stuffed so they levied it back on me.

Now considering that they cannot show me my original contract or where I am bound to take their insurance without signing for it, even though I have asked repeatedly to see this contract, also considering despite this lack of proof I have complied with their wishes and so has a leading insurance provider, how can this practice be legal and not outright extortion?

• When you investigate further it becomes clear that this practice is designed to bully people into giving Capstone Mortgages money under the pretence of mortgage arrears.
  

It does not make sense to avoid factoring this story into your decision making process when looking at mortgage providers – Capstone Mortgages would be the last company I would use and I will not roll over and just accept this immoral and unethical practice either.

Watch this space too

[enoughisenough]

Hi Blue Eyed Girl

 

Anyone looking at that site which can be found here will find dozens of dissatisfied customers of the appalling Capstone.

 

Capstone Mortgages - Disgraceful - Ripoff

 

Shaun is to be commended for his raising of this issue and successfully getting google's search engine to boost his ranking. More people need to be aware of what is going on here. Specifically that this is not an individual failing but is systemic and integral to the way Capstone operate on behalf of the SPiVs.

 

I might be mistaken but I think there are links to one or two other sites as well in Shaun's blog.

 

Keep digging...

[enoughisenough]

In the light of recent developments in the securitisation debate...namely that Capstone have no authorisation from the originator (seems to me a pretty powerful argument. Capstone demand money and issue claim but have no authorisation to do so.)

 

I thought I would resurrect one of supersleuth's finest posts from about a year ago. I think that since a line of argument is developing here that Capstone are a bunch of fraudsters with no proof of claim the following post should be re-examined in the light of this. Give 'em hell!

 

(Hope super has no objections...)

 

Hi Guys,

 

Last of the Mohican - you are totally correct! The Claimant named in the court action is not the person who owns the charge and the judges don't ask for proof - the court process is a rubberstamp affair - and from the borrower perspective - the best it will get as so called "justice" is a deferral of the inevitable i.e. a suspended possession order - they'll let you live in your home for a little while longer.

 

Here's the law: The LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 s. 27(1) says that the Charge (ie. the mortgage charge) does not OPERATE AT LAW until the registration is complete.

 

Section 27(3) and (4) says in effect that it is MANDATORY that where there has been a transfer and assignment of a mortgage charge, that transfer/assignment MUST be registered.

 

So, on the one hand when the false claimant sells to the SPV both s.27(3) and (4) requires that the transfer MUST BE REGISTERED. BUT, s.27(1) says that the transfer will not operate AT LAW until it is registered.

 

This is called the "registration gap". The gap is necessary because, you sign the contracts documents on say 1 jan, but then you have to tell the LR that there has BEEN a transfer which paperwork will take a few weeks to prepare and send (as the law requires). There has to be a registration gap in order to send the Land Registry the information and then time for the Land Registry to update its records.

 

Two points ensue from this registration gap. First the law mandates that YOU DO TELL THE LR, and second, that until you do tell the LR, the transfer will "NOT OPERATE AT LAW" (i.e. s.27(1)

 

There can be no doubt that s.27(3) and (4) are compulsory because s. 123 makes it a criminal offence to suppress and conceal information from the land registry. Thus, whilst the LRA2002 does have a "registration gap", you commit a criminal offence if you deliberately don't tell the LR about the transfer.

 

The SPV's commit a criminal offence because they deliberately don't tell the land registry and they deliberately conceal the transfer from the LR and the Borrowers and the courts and the governement etc. It is deliberate because, the seller/lender and the SPV have made it a term of the contract of sale that THEY WILL CONCEAL THE TRANSFER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY AND IT ALSO SAYS IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WILL NOT TELL THE BORROWER!!! Fact: this deliberate concealment is stated in the Prospectuses. Therefore, the SPV and the false claimant have intended to conceal and suppress the information from the LR, they deliberately intended that the borrower and the LR shall remain ignorant - Hence CRIMINAL OFFENCE committed - absolute no doubt about it.

 

Now over to the s.27(1) issue. The false lender who is the false claimant knows that they have sold the charge, and knows that they are not the legal owner - but they rely and unlawfully abuse s.27(1) - if a Charge does not operate at law until registration is completed- then the courts would consider that it operates in EQUITY.

 

Equity is a particular legal jurisidiction of the court. This means that the false claimant is a BARE TRUSTEE during the registration gap until the mandatory registration of the new owner (the SPV) is completed. The false claimant is not the legal owner, he is only "deemed" to be the legal owner because of his false registration due to his criminal agreement to conceal and suppress the information regarding the transfer from the LR. See s.58(1) which states the registered proprietor is "deemed" to be the legal owner.

 

It is s.27(1) that dupes the moron judges. I say duped, because in order to rely on the false claimant's "deemed" legal ownership, the false Claimant must rely on their criminal act of suppression and concealment of the transfer (s.123), and their unlawful act of failure to comply with the mandatory registration requirement of s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the moron judges allow a criminal act to be purportrated against the borrowers and the Land Registry when they are duped into recognising the false claimant as the legal owner. The courts allow the false claimant to rely on its criminal offences of (i) s.123 suppression and concealment of information from the LR and (ii) failure to comply with the mandatory registration of the transfer pursuant to s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the court order given to a false claimant for repossession is grounded on criminal offences and a court order that is grounded on criminal offences cannot be a valid and lawful court order. Alternatively, it could be deemed that CRIME DOES PAY!!! The court orders prove that crime pays! In other words, without the criminal act of the false claimant, they would not get a repossession order. The criminal act is an essential element that is neccessary such that the false claimant can dupe the court to give it the repossession order.

 

Now for the next legal (or rather illegal) sleight of hand. When the issue comes up, the false claimant will tell the moron judges "oh, yes but we ONLY SOLD AN EQUITABLE INTEREST". Not true, they sold the legal title, but the legal reality is that the legal title, as per s.27(1) does not operate at law until the registration is complete.

 

Again, the courts never ask to see the contract of sale to see exactly WHAT ALLEGED EQUITABLE INTEREST WAS SOLD because in fact, it was the legal title that was sold. But the courts just take their word for it that it was an equitable assignment. If the courts (and the borrower) demanded that the false claimant PROVE that they only sold an alleged "equitable/beneficial interest" then the concealment and falsity of the ruse would be exposed.

 

The fact is that the false claimant has lied again. At law, the reality is that the legal title for the SPV does not "operate at law" until the SPV registers (as the law demands that they do). But the moron judges, believe the false claimant when it says "they only sold the Beneficial title", which puts the concept of equitable juridiction in the moron judges' mind.

 

So the moron judge ASSUMES that the false claimant is a TRUSTEE under a legitmate trust and assumes that as a TRUSTEE the claimant is a bona fide claimant. The moron judge should not make this false assumption because (i) if the false claimant really was a legitimate trustee the law requires that they disclose on the Claim Form that they are claiming in a "representative capacity as a TRUSTEE. None of the claim forms state the claimant as a trustee and therefore, the court should not recognise them as a trustee.

 

Nonetheless, from this the moron judge believes that there is an assignment of the "equitable interest", and the false claimant is a bona fide trustee, when in truth the position is really, that the SPVs legal title is operating in "equity" merely because of its criminal acts and because s.27(1) says that the SPVs legal title "does not operate at law" until it registers its ownership. The false claimant could be said to be a BARE TRUSTEE - but a bare trustee HAS NO LEGAL RIGHTS OTHER THAN TO DO WHAT THE BENEFICIAL TITLE HOLDER TELLS THEM TO DO. In other words, the exploitation and abuse of s.27(1) allows the false claimant to pull the woll over the moron judges eyes and unlawfully pretend they are the legal owner.

 

So there's a catch 22 which works perfect for the false claimant. The false claimant criminally exploits the "registration gap" to pretend that it is the legal owner when in fact (i) it KNOW that it is NOT the legal owner and (ii) KNOW that it has deliberately concealed the real legal owner from the LR through purportrating the criminal act of suppressing and concealing that information from the LR.

 

Until the moron judges can get their dumb head around the fact that it is a criminal offence to suppress information from the LR (s.123), and until the moron judges demand compliance with the LRA s.27(3) and(4), the court will always make an order for the false claimant which is grounded on the criminal acts of the false claimant and the SPV. The registration gap may lawfull exist, but s.123 does not allow the unlawful abuse and explotation of s.27(1) because s.123 makes it a criminal offence to deliberately suppress and conceal the information (which is precisely what the false claimant does!).

 

Here's the final legal reality. Under the human rights act you have the right to be "HEARD". So as a borrower you have the right to state all this to the court, BUT, the courts don't pay any heed to what you say. The courts may HEAR, but they are not LISTENING!!!...the moron judges do not engage brain, they do not consider your legal point because - the false claimant has a qualified lawyer who will lie and cause the court and cause the moron judges to rubberstamp this criminal offences.

 

Any references to moron judges is essentially all of them. They pay NO attention to the law, and pay no attention to what a litigant-in-person says the law is. They will always defer to the powerful bank. If the judge were to pay any attention to a legal argument from a litigant in person, that would require that they do some WORK!! They would have to THINK and do some real legal work and legal analysis. So it's easier just to ignor the Litigant-in-person and accept the false claimant's lies and accept the false legal argument from the claimant's lawyer.

 

Does this mean we have no chance - no, it means that we have got to keep saying it to the moron judges until ONE OF THEM actually listens. There must be at least ONE judge in a district court somewhere that is NOT A MORON!!! One of us will find the intelligent judge who is capable of engaging brain and so the more of us who put this legal argument forward, the more chance there is that one of us will cause the court to enforce the LAW!!

 

Good luck, you've got nothing to loose by trying, and if you're the lucky one that finds the NON-MORONIC judge you may just get the just and correct result - DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION against you on the grounds that the false claimant cannot rely on his criminal manipulation of deliberately causing the Land REgistry to be inaccurate, and having sold its title to your mortgage contract, the false claimant has no contract with you and cannot claim any remedy under the contract when the false claimant is not in contractual privity with you.

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

[ryde]

So having read this before the real issue is the s136 notification to the borrower or deliberate lack of it.The only thing in a courts eyes that prevent the sale being a legal rather than equitable sale.

The big danger for the **** in this of course is that anyone who registers an equitable interest with the LR.

BY WAY OF NOTICE AND OR RESTRICTION WILL TAKE PRIORITY OVER ANY INTEREST THE SPV MAY CLAIM LATER IF THE ORIGINATOR GOES BUST.

Edited March 18, 2010 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Fully getting your drift here Ryde.

 

Now...what got me thinking was Sced's simple question which goes something like this.

 

"The court have told me to pay PML. I have asked for PMLs payee details and none are forthcoming. I could pay Capstone But If I do, how do I know that a) Capstone have been authorised by PML and b) that I am getting good receipt.

 

These are perfectly valid questions. Where is the substantive proof that Capstone have a lawful right rather than an assertion to receive payments in respect of an agreement that I have with SPPL/SPML/Preferred or whoever?

 

Now we all know that Capstone's true authorisation and service contract is with the SPV, NOT the originator for a variety of reasons such as tax avoidance. But that cannot be relied upon because the SPV does not want to come forward, indeed possibly cannot come forward.

 

So. The registration gap was used so that the originator could bring a claim in residual equity (prior to fulfilling or rather not fulfilling the lawful requirement to effect the transfer at law). At most they would need this gap to be about five years before every single mortgage or loan was liquidated and all borrowers were repossessed, so the equity cash grab heist could be completed.

 

BUT Lehmans went TU. And now the originators (who always said "ah yes it may have been securitised but we only transferred the beneficial part) are dead in the water. So, following on from that,

 

1. they never did come to a fall back arrangement with Capstone

2. there is no authorisation between the Originator and Capstone

3. Ergo Capstone lack the locus standi and capacity to lawfully bring claim!

 

And who instructs the solicitors? Why, CAPSTONE, of course!

 

Please tell me I'm wrong...Remember that one DJ has already thrown out a claim asking bluntly who the hell are Capstone to be sticking their noses into this!

 

Peace...

 

or pieces...?

[ryde]

This is quite easily proved by the current sppl situation.

1)absolutely no personel to instruct capstone to conduct any current litigation on their behalf,

AND ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY OF DOING THIS NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.

2)proposed strike off at CH because they have no directors and are in breach of the companies act 2006.

3)FULL EVIDENCE BY THE SPVS NOTICES TO NOTEHOLDERS INSTRUCTING CAPSTONE THEIR ADMINISTRATOR TO NOTIFY THE BORROWER IN COMPLIANCE WITH S136 LOP1925 TO TRANSFER THE LEGAL TITLE TO THEM.

IS THIS A FRAUD UNDER THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986? OR A FRAUD AGAINST THE CROWN?

Edited March 18, 2010 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Probably but will the SFO bite? Or is there too much pinned on them getting away with this as quietly as possible?

 

Blanket media silence despite it being the`hot' financial story of the moment. This cannot be an accident...surely one journalist would have seen this.

 

Total focus on finding the bad apples, rather than a focus on (extending the metaphor) the stinking barrel.

[Gallahad]

The ministry of Justice has closed down Cartel Client review

G

[ryde]

sfo will not bite unless it is referred to them by cib,if cib won't play ball on an operator by operator basis ie charlotte allen,you have to go up to the complaints structure.

The point is they have all committed offences under the companies act 2006 by not having a director for the max allowed which is 3 months and have got away with it.

[supersleuth]

So having read this before the real issue is the s136 notification to the borrower or deliberate lack of it.The only thing in a courts eyes that prevent the sale being a legal rather than equitable sale.

The big danger for the **** in this of course is that anyone who registers an equitable interest with the LR.

BY WAY OF NOTICE AND OR RESTRICTION WILL TAKE PRIORITY OVER ANY INTEREST THE SPV MAY CLAIM LATER IF THE ORIGINATOR GOES BUST.

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Back to that s.136 issue. There is a principle that a statute cannot be used as an instrument of fraud. Here, the SPV's intentionally use s.136 as an instrument of fraud. They say, ha ha, we deliberately won't send a notice and so we believe that we can set up s.136 to defeat the LRA 2002 s.27. Well No. That is to use a 1925 statute in a manner inconsistent with a mandatory provision of a 2002 statute. Plus, s.136 was never intended to be used for the fraudulent purpose to which it is currently being used, and, there is no case law saying that this provision can be used in this manner.

 

Moreover, s.4 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says:

 

4. Creation and disposition of equitable interests.

— (1) Interests in land validly created or arising after the commencement of this Act, which are not capable of subsisting as legal estates, shall take effect as equitable interests, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by statute, interests in land which under the Statute of Uses or otherwise could before the commencement of this Act have been created as legal interests, shall be capable of being created as equitable interests:

 

 

The fact is, that when the originator transfers its legal title to an SPV, the SPV's legal title IS CAPABLE OF SUBSISTING AS A LEGAL ESTATE, and thus, it does NOT TAKE EFFECT AS AN EQUITABLE INTEREST. See bold text.

 

And, only those equitable interests that were capable of being created prior to the 1925 Act, were capable of BEING CREATED as equitable interests AFTER 1925, see underlined text. The sort of "equitable interest" that the originators claim to have created by abusing s.136, did not exist prior to 1925.

 

There is so much to say about the bankers and lawyers absolute abuse of s.136, much of which has already been debated, e.g. remember the distinction between chose in action and chose in possession. But the above is a new line of argument in addition to the other previously debated points.

[ryde]

super

thanks for your always valued and appreciated input will take your info on board.

[freedomofspeech]

According to the FSA site Capstone are not authorised to handle clients money

[ryde]

According to the FSA site Capstone are not authorised to handle clients money

 

THIS LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY IMPORTANT POINT ESPECIALLY IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE,WELL POSTED FOS..

here it is on the fsa register.

 

438372 - Capstone Mortgage Services Limited

Current status: Authorised Effective Date: 03/01/2006 Tied Agent:

Undertakes Insurance Mediation: Y Registered under Money Laundering Regulations:

Address: St. Johns Place

Easton Street

High Wycombe

HP11 1NL

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Website:

44 0845 603 2905

44 0845 603 2906

[email protected]

 

Notices: Unable to hold client money

 

The implications of this need to be carefully examined.

[jetli]

Jet

 

This was not my understanding of your situation. Is this something forced upon you by the court?

 

There will be a necessary payment towards them and your solicitor will have to ensure, on the insistence of the purchaser, that all prior registered charges are cleared. This is where the VULTURES rack it up as well. You can bet after years of paying them on a repayment you owe them more than you started with. And you can bet their latest set of figures are astronomical for legal charges. And you can bet they drag it out until your sale falls through so that the **** can repossess you and start whacking on yet more financial misery.

 

If you have a suspended repo and do not want to sell. DO NOT SELL.

 

Hi Enough is enough Sorry been busy packing! We have to sell as cant keep up with everthing just getting us all down incuding our kids of 22 and 19 years old. Stress just TOO MUCH.

 

Like I said Solicitor understands about Class K charging orders and so do the buyers solicitors. Our solicitors are very caggey about SPPL too so thats good. Look if we can get rented and not live in a box then we can come out of this with advise. I am just so tired of the numerous wolves at the door and phone calls. I look forward even after 27 years of being in my HOME to not have to deal with what we had to over the last 2 years. Sorry but my kids (adults!) as 19 and 22 years old! need me too to carry on guiding them in the right direction to which I have done so well!! just too much for my head as beginning to not think straight. I really take my hat off too all of you that keep going, but maybe you are not self employed like my husband and recession not really bit at your a*** like us. Thanks to all of you coz you are the best XX

[freedomofspeech]

Jetli my heart goes out to you and hope you get yourself sorted. It is for you and the rest of us that we have to get this sordid affair out in the open so that the thieves and soul destroyers get what they deserve. I hope every employee of Capstone from the top to the very bottom loses their job.If they had any sense of a consience they would resign now and blow the whistle on the criminal activities of these companies. It is the decent law abiding folk that are trying their damndest to keep a roof over their head while the **** who work for these companies are probably laughing their heads off at all the little scams they can pull to steal our property from us.

Edited March 18, 2010 by freedomofspeech
spelling