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

[actionnotwords]

You would have to state exactly what you own and with whom,what its worth and the current liability.

EG:are you the sole owner or joint owner of a property

how much is its value

how much do you owe

[Guest MamaG1]

Do you mean how much do I owe from other debt that are not relating to the mortgage general debt? quite a lot.

 

I do also owe my brother a couple of people in my family. But how do I get this formalised or listed as owed to them as there is no formal or legal agrement between us. we have hand written letters but they were not formalised. is the formalisation necessary anyway?. pls advise.

Edited April 10, 2010 by MamaG1

[actionnotwords]

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS YOUR PROPERTY

1)Is it in your sole name ,do you own it,how much is the mortgage for,whats its estimated value?

[enoughisenough]

That's a shocker dotty.

 

Borderline criminal if you ask me. Make no mistake. These b.stards have regrouped and want blood after being forced to issue SPPL accounts. I'm emailing on the phone and have quite a bit to do today but I'll try to make a proper response later to some of the issues raised. In the next few months these feckers need up close and personally intimate scrutiny.

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

Edited April 10, 2010 by enoughisenough

[littledotty27]

Just checked the bank again & payment has gone out on husbands debitcard,we only gave them sort code & account number & are very puzzled as to how they have hs card details.

 

Think we are going to report this as fraud.

[actionnotwords]

Dotty

I would suggest going to the bank with whom you have your account and informing them that you have not authorised this payment and asking them how they obtained authorisation.

They might do the job of reporting this action for you.

[enoughisenough]

Hi all

 

I cant quite recall who was getting a DCA chase up from thieving liars and money grabbing scoundrels. I'm used to fighting the LEHMAN equity thieves and also used to giving DCA's a kick into touch, one recent example being a DCA trying to chase for a fully paid up account which was closed with an unnamed telecommunications provider.

 

But I have never had to deal with with a capstone/lehman ****** appointed DCA.

 

It either reveals a) that they are absolutely desperate to rinse as much funny money as they can or b) They are no longer desperate, merely reverting to greed and avarice.

 

Anyhow insofar as getting the desperate DCA pleas for cash, like some hard done by worthwhile charity case off your back I have formulated the following. Please be aware that it must be customised to your own circumstances and since this is slightly new territory it may need further amendments.

 

CAPSTONE USING DCAs IN THE NAME OF CORPSED ENTITIES SUCH AS SPPL (Now henceforth to be referred to as Southern Pacific Personal LAZARUS!) is totally beyond my comprehension except in post possession situations.

 

Anyhow here goes but please customise carefully.

 

YOUR ADDRESS

THE DATE

 

 

 

DCA ADDRESS

 

DCA REFERENCE XXXXXX

 

DCA CLIENT REFERENCE XXXXX

 

DCA FSA AUTHORISATION AND OR CH NUMBER XXXXXX

 

First Class recorded delivery.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I have today received your generically signed correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to yourselves or your client. I will not be making any payment to you. The agreement and account you refer to is in SERIOUS dispute and your client has no right of assignment whilst this remains the case.

 

In securing your services your client has acted without due regard for the interests of the consumer as mandated by consumer protection regulations.

 

I will not be calling you. This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone. I do not call premium rate numbers in any event. All business between us must be in writing.

 

You must not telephone me, any calls from you will be recorded and construed as harassment and will be reported to any relevant authorities as a breach of the Telecommunicatons Act 2003. Breaches of this act are subject to both civil and criminal penalties directly for the agent making the call and his or her supervisor. Company directors are subject to civil and criminal penalties where such practices are central to the culture of the firm.

 

(INSERT THIS PARAFRAPH IF THEY HAVE THREATENED YOU WITH COURT ACTION FOR RECOVERY) Your threat of litigation is welcome. If you proceed I will vigorously defend and counterclaim. You will bear your own costs. I will not be liable for recovery of costs incurred by yourselves.

 

You must not send collection staff or any other person acting on your behalf or under your instructions to my residence. If you do so this will be construed as harassment and trespass. For the avoidance of doubt there is no existing right for you to do so under the DCA guidelines FINAL GUIDANCE ON UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (July 2003/ Updated December 2006) Section 2. 12 (g) not giving adequate notice of the date or time of the visit. The term ‘adequate’ is provided by the guidelines to mean what the consumer/debtor regards as adequate. Since your right to collect monies on this account remains unsatisfied there is no period of notice I would regard as adequate.

 

Further, there is only an implied license under common law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission. The High Court authority for this is Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.

 

Therefore take note that I revoke license under common law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass, be in breach of the peace, and civil action may commenced against yourselves. If you fail to heed this and attend my premises the police will be called.

 

You must cease all collection activity forthwith; faliure to do so will result in this matter being notified to the OFT and may constitute a course of conduct constituting harassment contrary to s.40 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970.

 

Please provide me with proof of your lawful right to claim any money from myself/ourselves

 

Please inform your client that IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DEBT CLAIMED, I REQUIRE:

 

1. All records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to:

 

a. A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments made to the account and the date of origination and assignment of this disputed debt to yourselves.

 

b. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company with your client or with any previous DCA

 

c. Details of any and all securitisation processes that this account has been subject to including full details of full or partial consideration your client has received by operation of the securitisation process. Please provide proof that your client retains locus standi in respect of any disputed debt.

 

d. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

 

e. Documents relating to any insurance which is held on the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, and the date it was added or deleted (if applicable). This includes block business insurance, which I have never given express consent to.

 

f. Details of any collection charge added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers.

 

g. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied, and a breakdown of the charge(s).

 

h. A genuine copy of any deed of assignment, or proof that you have a legal right to claim this money.

 

i. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998. Your data controller is under a statutory duty to provide this information. A Subject Access Request is not necessary for these purposes as this request is made under the Civil Procedure Rules 31.16 in respect of planned proceedings. An application for disclosure before proceedings have started is permitted under s.33 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c.54) or s.52 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c.28). Failure to comply leaves you open to sanctions including a costs order by the court

 

j. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

 

k. A copy of your complaints procedure, as required by the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

 

l. Clarification of the date you acquired/purchased the debt, or instructions to act as collection agents; what organisation these were acquired from, their registered office, their company number (if any), and what legal title they had to this debt, and what credit licence number they had at the time that the debt was purchased or entered into.

 

All documents should be readily available as proof of your or your client’s legal right to collect the disputed sums. Your or your client’s failure to provide this documentary proof may imply that you have sought recovery of monies to which you are not entitled.

 

I also reserve the right to make formal complaints against you and/or your client to head of XXXXXX Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman Service to whom I may now send copies of our correspondence as evidence.

 

I trust you will deal with this matter using all due diligence and care as you are required to do as a licensed entity. Firms who breach FSA and OFT rules may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions and have their licence suspended or revoked.

 

 

Yours faithfully.

 

 

 

[Guest MamaG1]

Enough is enough,

 

Many thanks for this letter, when do I send this, I just sent them a SAR a few days ago, as this is not a SAR, its more a DISCLOSURE , please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I am the one being chased by the DCA for the £100k shortfall after sale.

 

 

I wonder who they sold d place to?.

 

The scumbags, they must have sold the place to their mates and then the cycle starts again.

 

They are d **** of the earth.

 

They are up for a fight this time around !!.

Edited April 11, 2010 by MamaG1

[midge61]

Well Kensington have now been given their fine, lets hope capstone are next.

 

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited fined £1.225 million for unfair treatment of some customers in arrears and will pay estimated £1.066 million customer redress

[littledotty27]

Well Kensington have now been given their fine, lets hope capstone are next.

 

 

They usually save the best till last

[THE Mad Hatter]

no doubt, time for our payback

 

 

 

 

TMH

[enoughisenough]

Well Kensington have now been given their fine, lets hope capstone are next.

 

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited fined £1.225 million for unfair treatment of some customers in arrears and will pay estimated £1.066 million customer redress

 

 

That's excellent news midge. Should take pride of place in any defence along with the GMAC RFC FINAL Notice. Gives the judge less wriggle room, here's hoping.

 

Still, it's been six months since GMAC. What have the FSA been doing in all that time?

 

People have had their homes repossessed without it being a last resort. Well we are very aware that repossession is Virtually the first resort with the sub-prime ****.

 

I hope the FSA are very proud of the work they are doing in this important area of consumer protection.

 

Note also that the companies get off the hook on second charges because the FSA don't regulate second charge mortgages. Effectively this means they have a licence to stiff some customers and not others.

 

What a FARCE!

[littledotty27]

Having been through the t&c of mortgage,we signed for the charges of LMC.

As crapstone have now taken over,is it possible to take them on unfair terms of contract? as the arrears fees have changed & not what we originally signed for.

March payment returned from their solicitors,need to get it back in court asap,before they start repo AGAIN!!

[enoughisenough]

Having been through the t&c of mortgage,we signed for the charges of LMC.

As crapstone have now taken over,is it possible to take them on unfair terms of contract? as the arrears fees have changed & not what we originally signed for.

March payment returned from their solicitors,need to get it back in court asap,before they start repo AGAIN!!

 

Oh my goood God. They are just greedy, desperate scavenging vultures aren't they? They are so locked into the repo target culture that they have divested themselves of any moral or ethical barrier (and legal of course-we all knew that) to enforced repossessions. What a job.

 

As to your original question I have often wondered if we got enough people together the OFT could launch an investigation under the following:

 

Unfair relationships Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002

 

The concept of an unfair relationship enables a borrower to challenge a credit agreement in court on the grounds that the relationship between the lender and the borrower in connection with the agreement is unfair to the borrower.

 

Enforcement powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 cover situations where businesses infringe their legal obligations and as a result harm the collective interests of consumers.

 

Section 140A (As inserted by sections 19 to 21 of the 2006 Act, into the 1974 Consumer Credit Act) provides that the court may determine that the relationship between a lender and a borrower arising out of a credit agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the borrower because of:

 

• any of the terms of the credit agreement or any related agreement

 

• the way in which the lender has exercised or enforced any of its rights under the agreement or any related agreement, or

 

• any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of the lender either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement.

 

The unfair relationships provisions apply to credit agreements whether regulated or not. The sole exception is where an agreement is exempt under section 16(6C) of the 1974 Act because it is a regulated mortgage contract under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

 

Section 140B sets out the powers available to the court where it determines that the relationship is unfair to the borrower. An order made by the court may do one or more of the following:

 

• require the lender, or an associate or former associate, to repay (in whole or part) any sum paid by the borrower (or a surety) by virtue of the credit agreement or any related agreement

 

• require the lender, or an associate or former associate, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement

 

• reduce or discharge any sum payable by the borrower (or a surety) by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement

 

• set aside (in whole or part) any duty imposed on the borrower (or a surety) by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement

 

• alter the terms of the agreement or any related agreement

 

• direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security

 

• direct accounts to be taken between any persons.

 

Section 140B (9) provides that if the borrower (or a surety) alleges that the credit relationship is unfair, it is for the lender to prove the contrary. In other words, the onus of proof is on the lender to show that the relationship is not unfair.

 

The unfair relationships provisions are an important additional protection for consumers, and may be especially useful for borrowers facing court proceedings for enforcement or repossession.

[littledotty27]

Thank you for that EIE,in the meantime I don't know what to do with my payment! Court order to send it to their solicitors-returned, LMC-no longer available at cheltenham address, No details to send to crapstone...so you see in a bit of a catch 22 situation.

Going to have to see what the courts say tomorrow when I call them.

[THE Mad Hatter]

take a photocopy of your cheque,

send it recorded delivery,

then get your confirmation off Royal Mail website

 

 

you have good receipt.

 

 

 

TMH

[enoughisenough]

Can anyone please explain How Capstone are still getting away with their new charging regime. What ARE THE FSA DOING?

 

BBC News - Kensington mortgages fined by FSA for unfair fees

 

Dotty. I'd be amazed if ANY judge sanctioned this behaviour.

 

If you do get dragged back into court, I would let them have it with both barrels.

[jetli]

Can someone please help with the wording on this form we are ment to sign? Please note bottom paragraph as it makes no sense!!! File attached

scan0020.pdf

[actionnotwords]

Jetli

I presume they may be worried about their security and so are requesting your authority to contact both your solicitors and the estate agents involved in the proposed sale.

The obvious reason being that as the charge is registered with sppl no one will deal with them(capstone) without your authority.

Further evidence no doubt that they do not have express authority from sppl thats why they require your permission.

You do not want to get into a big argument with them now so it would be wise to sign otherwise the sale will be held up.

You could ask your solicitors to request direct authority from sppl that capstone are acting on their behalf but I think we've been through this before and it will undoubtedly slow up your sale considerably.(would be a good question to ask though especially if they cobbled some forged authority together and its only really a solicitors phone call,would be of huge benefit to some of us here if you were prepared to ask your solicitors to make the call)

 

re KENSINGTON ABOVE

SURELY CAPSTONE HAVE TO BE NEXT OR IS IT ONE EVERY SIX MONTHS TO KEEP PARLIAMENT HAPPY? (actually it would be the lenders(sppl/spml/lmc/pml) not the administrators , that would be a nice little headache for capstone who "act on their behalf")

 

Can anyone please explain How Capstone are still getting away with their new charging regime. What ARE THE FSA DOING? quote enoughisenough

 

Perhaps they are attempting to collect as much revenue and repossess as many properties as possible before they are jumped upon and then will take an age to repay what they owe.

It would also be interesting to note from whose account the fines and repayments are drawn LMC have £1 as their statement of capital.

Who were the actual administrators for Kensington?

Edited April 12, 2010 by actionnotwords

[jetli]

I will ask Solicitors tomorrow but why do they say they need our authority and then say that they will not deal with them through the Solicitors etc?? It does not make any sense! Why say we need to sign and give authority and then say that they wont disclose any info re our mortgage to the Customers meaning Solicitors and Estate agents??

[actionnotwords]

I will ask Solicitors tomorrow but why do they say they need our authority and then say that they will not deal with them through the Solicitors etc?? It does not make any sense! Why say we need to sign and give authority and then say that they wont disclose any info re our mortgage to the Customers meaning Solicitors and Estate agents??

What they are saying is that they will respect the privacy of your account with them and not provide information regarding your account.

eg.you have your house for sale withan estate agent who receives a low offer and asks your lender the status of your mortgage, if they know you have to sell they can push a sale forward as like anyone else in this business they simply want your money.

I believe that is what the disclaimer seeks to address.

[jetli]

What they are saying is that they will respect the privacy of your account with them and not provide information regarding your account.

eg.you have your house for sale withan estate agent who receives a low offer and asks your lender the status of your mortgage, if they know you have to sell they can push a sale forward as like anyone else in this business they simply want your money.

I believe that is what the disclaimer seeks to address.

Great thanks that puts my mind at rest!! He-Ho whatever just hope their redemption figure is not too musch more than i expect or I may be askinf for someone to put us all up X (Truth unfortunatley)

[enoughisenough]

re KENSINGTON ABOVE

SURELY CAPSTONE HAVE TO BE NEXT OR IS IT ONE EVERY SIX MONTHS TO KEEP PARLIAMENT HAPPY? (actually it would be the lenders(sppl/spml/lmc/pml) not the administrators , that would be a nice little headache for capstone who "act on their behalf")

 

Can anyone please explain How Capstone are still getting away with their new charging regime. What ARE THE FSA DOING? quote enoughisenough

 

Perhaps they are attempting to collect as much revenue and repossess as many properties as possible before they are jumped upon and then will take an age to repay what they owe.

It would also be interesting to note from whose account the fines and repayments are drawn LMC have £1 as their statement of capital.

Who were the actual administrators for Kensington?

 

Hi ANW

 

This seems like a quote from myself. However i did not use the words TO KEEP PARLIAMENT HAPPY.

When quoting (It took me a long time to find this out) simply click the quote button at the bottom of the relevant post and it will do so automatically for you. You can still edit and add, though in my view original quotations should be left relatively intact when reposted.

 

I have to take issue with you, when you state, as others have also done that Capstone can't be done. This is in my view wrong.

 

1. They are a licensed entity (a firm in the FSA's language).

 

2. They MUST ABIDE BY the regulations and law that bind their conduct.

 

3. They administer 1st charge mortgages and are bound by the FSMA 2000.

 

4. Back in August 2009 after their savaging from the TSC the FSA made it quite clear that they were investigating TPAs (Third Party Administrators).

 

So although many posters have claimed that it will be SPML etc rather than CRUDSTONE who carry the can for the appalling abuse I disagree on the basis of the arguments outlined above.

 

I COULD ALWAYS BE WRONG OF COURSE, THOUGH THE IDEAL SCENARIO IS THAT THEY WOULD ALL COLLECTIVELY CARRY THE CAN.

 

THE FSA MAY YET BE SAVING THE BEST TILL LAST BUT I WON'T BE HOLDING MY BREATH..

[Guest MamaG1]

Enoughisenough,

 

I second that about getting enough people together so the OFT can launch an investigation into crapstone/ SPML whatever. HOw do we go bout doign this then pls.

 

In the meantime, I am sending my complaint to the FSA, and also sending in a F.O.I. request to the FSA and the CML to get some info from them on this Sub prime lending rubbish, does anyone have any ideas of questions that can go into the F.O.I. request pls.

[actionnotwords]

Thankyou for the information enoughisenough I was unaware of the full extent of the FSA investigation.

In this particular case it would raise very interesting issues.

We are aware that capstone contracturally administer mortgages on behalf of their various client spvs and have yet to see such evidence to support such a role from the originator/lender for whom they also claim to act.

If indeed both lender and administrator are penalised the question then begs to be asked should the same apply to the hidden spv with whom the administrator has a fully evidenced (from the spvs own prospectus) contractural obligation.

Another issue of note is that capstone are applying charges from an apparent newly formulated table of tarifs in the name of the lender.

As the lender is dormant and was/is in 2 cases without any personnel who has actually constituted these new charge structures?

What I am attempting to establish is the direct relationship and instruction between capstone and the spvs rather than capstone and lender ,such proof may render the mortgage contract unenforceable (control and instruction being exerted by a non FSA regulated entity)

I hope you can see the thrust of this argument and would appreciate any comments.