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

[not another b----- letter]

I want t go to the FOS to claim over £2000 of arrears ect. charges back but my loan is with SPPL (although I pay SPML), and is unregulated. Can I still claim?

 

Have you asked Capstone for repayment of the charges?, if you ask them now they have eight weeks to respond and that may be to long for you, your loan has been or will very soon be transferred to Mortgage Funding 2008 so you need to get this claim in ASAP. If you have asked for repayment and have the answer in writing just fill in the forms, available I believe on this site or the FOS, if you have not asked for repayment ring the FOS and explain the loan transfer and ask for advice, start your claim today do not put it off.

[andrew1]

For borrowers, securitisation has little direct impact on the individual mortgage. This is as true in the US as the UK: even now two fifths of US mortgages continue to be funded on a traditional basis without a discernible price differential. However, securitisation has a positive impact on competition in the mortgage market, because is allows lenders without retail deposit bases or high unsecured debt ratings to price their mortgages more competitively than they would otherwise be able to. This in turn benefits consumers in general.

 

 

Sadly, this is not true. During the last few years of falls in bank interest rates to record lows and in the Libor rates too, many a sub-prime lender raised their interest charges or never ever reduced them, using the excuse 'as a result of ' Investor pressure and the 'Cost of Funding' - this all because they had fixed a return to investors in their spv securitisation bundles of loans and mortgages and were in no position to reduce them even if they wanted to. Northern Rock syndrome?

 

Securitisation of sub prime lending is a disaster for borrowers and should be written off and consigned to history as one big mistake. It just allows people to borrow more which is not a healthy way to begin life or even live life. Trade your way through life and only buy what you can afford, not give banks licence to find ways for us to borrow more. Live now pay later rarely works for consumers and this is evident with the UK having one of the highest levels of personal debt in the world.

[eagleforms]

Thanks not another....

 

I have asked Capstone for the charges to be returned and have had the usual FO letter. I will put in a claim but will it be accepted as it is an unregulated loan?

[Suetonius]

Hello Eagle if your loan is £25k+ and before 6 April 2008, it maybe outside of the jurisdiction of the FOS as SPPL is CCA and not FSA..

 

The FOS extended it's remit to cca licence holders on 6 April 2007, subject to an under lying regulated agreement

[eagleforms]

Thanks Sue.

The loan was for £35,000 in 2001. Does this mean I can't claim?

[Suetonius]

No doubt following my recent posts, in the days to come a certain level of hostility and anger will head in my direction.

 

And why is this, it is because I have been foolish enough to try and correct a misunderstanding.. Not because I work for a lender but because I consider the misunderstanding should be corrected..

 

Who from?

 

Not sure why but for some reason a line from the Clint Eastwood film "The Outlaw Josey Wales" just popped into my head...

"Don't pee down my back and tell me it is raining"

 

I will have to think about that further...

 

The question still remains if so much is known why has no viable answer ever been promoted other than the FOS and reclaiming charges?Thats pretty basic,they start up again later it seems from stories read anyway once your card is marked so its neverending.

 

I appreciate having your first post deleted was not the warmest of welcomes but for reasons I will go onto, you should not be so disrespectful to the work that has been done by all of the contributers to this thread.

 

I read in the "other place" something about Christina Norgan,what answers did she have when she challenged a decision that meant the arrears she had could not be paid over the term of the loan?This would have been discretion of a county court judge an almost impossiblity to launch an appeal against,yet she was brave or desperate enough to try and look at the result for the consumer against the whole of the mortgage industry.

 

If you have the knowledge give me the ammunition and I'll be your Christina Norgan,it would be interesting to see what response she would have had had she proposed making an appeal against usual court practice and discretion had she posted in a forum..

 

Was it from the "other place" as you call it, that you obtained the template letter and article both containing those mistakes ?

 

As a "newcomer" to CAG, you might not know that you can use the search function to search for keywords. For example, if you search just in this thread you will find posts relating to Norgan made last year...

 

Also to help you be our "Christina Norgan", I will create a thread for you, so that you can tell us more about your situation and the problems that you are having and then everyone can help you with you own particular situation.

 

Suetonius seems to profess extensive knowledge in these matters,whats his suggested course of action?

 

Suetonius?

 

I do not profess to have any knowledge of such matters. I can confirm that the vast majority of my posts - being court cases, extracts from books, Legislation and University Professors are direct quotes with direct links to the actual sources.

 

I respect the intelligence of the average Cagger and provide links so that they can read things for themselves instead of just posting my translation and or interpretation and telling people what I want it to say. As demonstrated by posts relating to the LRA 2002.

 

Also i go to great lengths to ensure that everything that I post can be easily found via a quick google search

Edited September 6, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Thanks Sue.

The loan was for £35,000 in 2001. Does this mean I can't claim?

 

Might be worth sending the FOS a quick email or give them a quick call to see if SPPL is in their Compulsary Jurisdiction or their Consumer Credit Jurisdiction.

[Suetonius]

Also to help you be our "Christina Norgan", I will create a thread for you, so that you can tell us more about your situation and the problems that you are having and then everyone can help you with you own particular situation.

 

Here you go peterjm,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275953-Peterjm-and-SPPL

 

Hope it helps you

Edited September 6, 2010 by Suetonius

[eagleforms]

Thanks Sue, will do.

[patrickq1]

http://www.sidley.com/sidleyupdates/Detail.aspx?news=4293#page=1

[Suetonius]

Thanks Sue, will do.

 

Hello Eagle, can you do me a favour.. When you get the answer from the FOS, can you post it here so that other SPPL borrowers know where they stand.

 

Many Thanks

 

Sue

[Suetonius]

http://www.sidley.com/sidleyupdates/Detail.aspx?news=4293#page=1

 

Good find, I had never seen that before

Edited September 6, 2010 by Suetonius
I can't spell

[eagleforms]

Hello Eagle, can you do me a favour.. When you get the answer from the FOS, can you post it here so that other SPPL borrowers know where they stand.

 

Sue

Will do sue

[Suetonius]

Thank you, I am just concerned that if the FOS say that they can't deal with it, it will directly effect anyone else with an unregulated credit agreement that uses the posted template letter to the Land Registry..

 

Fret, I tried to reply to your last message on Sunday but your inbox was full... Can you delete some messages... Thanks

[peterjm]

Originally Posted by Suetonius

Also to help you be our "Christina Norgan", I will create a thread for you, so that you can tell us more about your situation and the problems that you are having and then everyone can help you with you own particular situation.

Here you go peterjm,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...terjm-and-SPPL

 

Hope it helps you

quote suetonius

This is from my newly created thread but echoes problems common toall,namely capstone.

 

1)Have made a complaint to the Land registry re the imminent transfer of the charge as evidenced by a notice to noteholders (used the mortgagefunding 08-1 notice)

2)Have amended the objection to delete the FSA regulated argument as it may apply only to spml/pml first charge loans as sppl as has been rightly said is in the main CCA regulated.

3)My objection is based on the grounds that I have a monetary claim against SPPL who may be seeking to divest themselves of liability by the transfer and have issued no reply to my question that contracturally will my claim be transferred to the proposed new owners.

4)I have started a complaint with the FOS going through the usual procedure to reclaim the unfair charges levied on my account by capstone in the name of SPPL.

 

I think thats all I can do at present..

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AS YET ANY NOTIFICATION OF TRANSFER.

I feel in bouncingbetty land here ie on my own an on a limb so I will repost this on the spml main thread as the problem lies with capstone so this is common ground to all.

[JonCris]

Just a thought & in an effort to keep it simple how about the following

 

As we know a default is the trigger to repo AND for that repo to be lawful the true creditor MUST then register AND the original owner by way of assignment notify the debtor that it has changed hands

 

When the mortgage was originally entered into certain protections for the debtor where either expressed or implied in the original agreement but when the agreement was sold those protections diminished considerably. In other words the original creditor sold what he did not own namely the right to diminish your legal protection

[peterjm]

Sorry I did not answer your question regarding s.136... It was added to your post after I had already responded..

 

s.136 is to do with legal ownership as broken-down in my post with regard to ownership...

 

It is the legal owner who has all of the legal rights to the charge, including the right to be registered as such.

 

Until the formailities are completed to transfer legal ownership, the SPV does not have legal rights directly against the borrower or the legal right to be registered as the legal title owner.(it uses the originator as proxy,the originator "lends its name")

 

Therefore, it would not be correct to say that right has been concealed, when legally it does not exist at that time...

quote suetonius

 

This still bugs me,the spv is created specifically to sell the loans on,the originator/lender does just that, solely originates a package of loans for the spv in waiting who it sells them to when it has a pool,so the origimator has full knowledge all the time that it is originating loans to sell on to an entity already created for this purpose,the spv gains benefit from concealing the fact that it is the real owner from the world by simply exploiting the loophole to keep the information from the debtor by non notification by contractural agreement with the originator for its own benefits ie fee,registration,tax avoidance etc.The originator is neither going to retain these loans or sell to anyone else,it is solely the spvs tool in this particular securitisation so the right of the spv to be registered is deliberately concealed by use of the s136 loophole.

 

Only one way to find this out for sure,so as its no lose will submit it to the Land Registry.

[frettful38]

Thank you, I am just concerned that if the FOS say that they can't deal with it, it will directly effect anyone else with an unregulated credit agreement that uses the posted template letter to the Land Registry..

 

Fret, I tried to reply to your last message on Sunday but your inbox was full... Can you delete some messages... Thanks

 

 

Hi SUE, I have emptied my inbox, please could you re-send your message.

 

Thank you

[Suetonius]

This will be of interest to quite a few people...

 

Take a look at the Directors report:

"These securitisations are all ultimately legally and beneficially owned by charitable trusts"

[Suetonius]

And for SPPL:

 

Again take a look at the Directors Report:

 

"No loans exist at the current year end"

[Crapstone]

So you use what you know to fight back and don't let them walk over you. Get a grip and start complaining as only you can help yourself, and are best placed to do it. The LR part is easy to do.. ;-)

[Crapstone]

And so is any insurance that they are trying to make you 'note' unfamiliar names on.

[peterjm]

This will be of

interest

to quite a few people...

 

Take a look at the Directors report:

"These securitisations are all ultimately

legally and beneficially

owned by charitable trusts"

 

And for SPPL:

 

Again take a look at the Directors Report:

 

"

No

loans exist at the current year end"

quote suetonius

Excellent information

They must have been leant on heavily as all their other accounts were always submitted late and were nowhere near as detailed or as comprehensive as these.

No wonder the noteholders want paying off as in the recent eurosail case.

 

 

Is there any chance of translating those two statements above into English for the many unenlightened amongst us,myself included?

 

1)At 30 nov 2009 sppl states it has no loans yet it has been actively pursuing litigation against people with sppl loans and charging people for being in arrears and still is!.

Who have I been paying since 30/11/2009 they have no loans!

 

2)spml states that these securitisations are all ultimately legally and beneficially owned by charitable trusts.Does this statement mean that the trustee,Wilmington trust in most cases owns all the spvs.

They cannot hold the legal titles to the mortgage pools because the borrower has not received s136 notification.?

 

These statements and their possible consequences require some translation and I am sure everyone would welcome your opinion Suetonius here given your obvious familiarity and expertise with these structures

Edited September 8, 2010 by peterjm

[Suetonius]

Good Morning PeterJm & others....

 

I will leave translation and interpretation to others, more gifted in those particular skill sets ;-)

 

I only had time yesterday to have a quick read yesterday... Personally for me, it asks more questions than it answers...

 

With regards to SPML, there appears to be a very careful use of terminology.. They have said the bare minimum as you would expect they have said no more than they have too..

 

Now SPPL on the other hand is very interesting.. Look at the 2008 & 2009..

 

After just a quick read, I would not like to jump to any quick conclusions. I don't have much spare time during the week, so I will sit down over the weekend and read them properly.

[frettful38]

Hi SUE,

 

Any chance of re-sending that pm again you was referring to the other day please?