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

[peterjm]

Crapstone are you with sppl or with spml ?

I don't understand how they can ask you to note the interest of Mortgage Funding 2008-1 BL as mortgagee.

This would indicate the loan has been transferred to them without them giving you notice?

It doesn't even state equitable interest but seems to imply that they are the legal mortgagee ?

If so when did this event supposedly occur? and how if you weren't notified?

[peterjm]

Thanks Sue,

 

I am confusing unsecured and unregulated. can a loan of £35,000 be unregulated? If it can, am I able to claim back the charges?

 

As far as I am aware ,yes it can be unregulated,the date it was taken out is the determining factor.

Unfair charges could be claimed back by using small claims procedure as could those of regulated agreements if you choose this course.

As stated above FOS cannot deal with unregulated agreements.

[peterjm]

Bouncingbetty can you please bounce back so we can vent all of our frustrations on you?

It's difficult to understand how there is so little activity here compared to just a few months ago when there were several posts per day,this is especially so considering what is and could be about to happen ie:the transfer of your most important liability and the serious question of what may happen to your debt and consequently your home.

Perhaps there are few left to bother now,but the lack of apparent concern considering past concerns is truly remarkable.

Have people received notification of the transfer of their SPPL loans or other lenders in this group proposed transfers,its impossible to determine as no one posts,yet 90% were supposed to be transferred by the end of August according to the spv notices.

The "other place"has had similar apparent apathy it seems also on this subject.

I would have thought the main question would be are my contractural rights with SPPL guaranteed,will my loan carry on as before administered by the dreadful capstone or will it be sold on yet again.

These questions cannot be answered unless there is some sort of debate.

There are 80000 accounts out there all these lenders are interlinked,surely someone must be worried and facing litigation?

I have read that the spml accounts show now only 45 loans on their books.

How is this possible they must hold the legal title of hundreds of first charges,so why are these not declared in the accounts?These questions which I find highly relevant and important are being asked elsewhere but not here on the SPML thread 338 pages long.

So the old question resurfaces if they don't own them who does?

It has been stated the SPML accounts show they own 45 loans so how have they been litigating and taking repossession actions for the past 10 months on loans their accounts seem to show they no longer own.?

"The loans are kept legal for litigation and equitable for accounting purposes!quote.

This is a question I would like to see answered.

Unless the borrower has received the statutory s136 notice SPML is still the registered propritor of the legal charge and as such thier accounts should show this,they cannot deny this fact.

If I used a similar analogy if I was the registered owner of a fleet of cars but sold all the rights to drive and enjoy them,I would still have to declare in my accounts that I owned a fleet of cars because I was registered as the legal owner.Any claims would come to me.

These statements in these accounts have to be a falsehood and show the exploitation of s136.The borrower has not been informed yet the loan is no longer on the legal owners books?

 

Can anyone explain how this is otherwise as I and I would hope many others would like to hear how such a statement can be made.

[Crapstone]

Crapstone are you with sppl or with spml ?

I don't understand how they can ask you to note the interest of Mortgage Funding 2008-1 BL as mortgagee.

This would indicate the loan has been transferred to them without them giving you notice?

It doesn't even state equitable interest but seems to imply that they are the legal mortgagee ?

If so when did this event supposedly occur? and how if you weren't notified?

 

It's with SPML. I have refused to put anyone, other than SPML, on the insurance as that is in the original T & C's and as far as I am aware they haven't provided anything that should alter that. This is something that was mentioned a while back in this thread. Should any insurance claim occur, it's noted in the the original contract that SPML should be notified..obviously as they have an interest in the property. But some unknown entity with an unwritten contract? If the house was destroyed and they are named on the policy, would they just claim their money and run? I'm paying the insurance and I haven't budged on this issue for 2 years now. They either like it or lump it. They will lose the faxed copy I send to them, then they will follow it up with a charge. Lose the sent copy and send a letter..and another charge. Oops I forgot ..the FOS warned them on doing that trick again :o)

[Crapstone]

The only official letter received has been the usual one that Capstone will be dealing with SPML, SPPL. In a private letter Capstone revealed the securitisation deal after giving me the run around and pretending they thought I was referring to something else to do with equity schemes from past times..

[not another b----- letter]

peterjm

Agree with you about lack of activity on this thread would contribute a bit more myself but very busy at the moment and cannot get my head around some of the legal argument, but I have kept up to date and read all the latest posts.

I have had notification of my loan being transferred from SPPL to Mortgage Funding 2008 and I am concerned and I think everybody else should be, just remember who we are dealing with?, not sure where we go from here don't want to leave LD but a new thread for SPPL victims?.

I think we need to keep pressure on the FSA, and OFT, have been fighting a mis-sold PPI case for two years and got nowhere then came recent FSA announcement on PPI and now I think a settlements in sight.

nabl

[peterjm]

nabl

I have an SPPL thread but only suetonius contributed so I came back here.I think this is the start of things to come for everyone so it would be best to stay here rather than be isolated.

I have received no notification yet for some reason but have made a complaint to them about their ridiculous charges which it was their mistake in the first place as they said they had not received my payment on time for the first time ever,it has since then escalated from there.

I have also made an objection to the land registry about any proposed transfer and have asked capstone if my terms and conditions will remain exactly the same if my loan is transferred and insisted that this is confirmed by SPPL in writing.

Surprisingly still awaiting an answer

[Crapstone]

Just a random thought that struck me and haven't yet though it through but I'll write it down anyway before I forget. If you have a suspended repo. order with SPPL/SPML/Capstone named on it, can that legally pass to any 'new' owner or would they have to apply to the court for a variation?

[Crapstone]

As far as I'm concerned SPML don't own a bean and never did. All their properties were gained from money they borrowed and then they lured investors in to cover it. They have a fleet of cars in their name, but all on HP.

[peterjm]

Just a random thought that struck me and haven't yet though it through but I'll write it down anyway before I forget. If you have a suspended repo. order with SPPL/SPML/Capstone named on it, can that legally pass to any 'new' owner or would they have to apply to the court for a variation?

 

This is a very interesting and very important point crapstone.

I have read about the substitution of SPPL by the spv SP5(or the like) in the Walker case,if they took repo action it would have to be the same.

Its a moot point whether a suspended order would still stand when it is in the name of the previous owner,the reverse side of the coin being would an FOS claim be valid against the new owner as would any sanctions applied by the FSA?

Would the crimes of the trustee transfer to the trustor,cannot see how that could happen unless they were complicit(which WE all know they were)

[peterjm]

mail online

 

COMMENT by ALEX BRUMMER: Truth behind the great panic

 

 

By Alex Brummer

Last updated at 10:12 PM on 17th September 2010

 

• Comments (1)
  
• Add to My Stories
  

 

This week marks the second anniversary of the collapse of the American investment bank Lehman Brothers, bringing the world financial system to a shuddering halt and ushering in the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Yet despite the calamitous consequences for this country – one million lost jobs, the nationalisation of swathes of the banking system and the disastrous impact on the public finances – none of us is any the wiser as to the real causes.

For, scandalously, there has been no proper investigation into what went wrong.

 

Legacy: Two years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and there has still been no proper investigation into what went wrong

 

By contrast, in the United States, there has been a ‘Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’, which was established by the White House and is now beavering away to establish causes and apportion blame.

It has collected millions of pages of internal documents from the banks and is taking daily testimony, under oath, from all those involved.

Nothing of the sort has happened in Britain.

Yes, there was a lengthy probe by the Treasury Select Committee which produced some dazzling headlines – most notably when the bosses of the high street banks were forced to give public testimony.

 

More...

 

 

• Your guide to the economy {thisismoney.co.uk}
  

 

But this fell far short of the forensic examination required. The Commons committee did not have the resources to employ the investigating accountants required to analyse evidence.

The only proper probe is the one being carried out by the accountancy firms PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte, who have been hired by the Financial Services Authority. But this inquiry is being held in private and there are no plans to publish findings.

The key figures behind the crisis have escaped censure. Adam Applegarth, the former boss of Northern Rock, has since found a new job working in finance. Andy Hornby, who brought Halifax Bank of Scotland to its knees, is running Boots.

And even RBS’s Sir Fred Goodwin, who presided over £28billion of losses, was able to find a job.

What makes this lack of a proper inquiry more disgraceful is that Britain has a good record of learning from the City’s mistakes.

Every financial debacle of the last two decades, including the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International in 1991 and the failure of Barings in 1995 has been followed by an official inquiry.

These sought to establish the causes of the debacle, apportion blame, bring to justice those culpable and to try and prevent mistakes being repeated.

But despite the 2007-2009 financial crisis being far bigger than these previous incidents, there has been no effort to get at the truth. This rightly has fuelled public disgust.

As Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, observed at the TUC, people ‘are entitled to be angry.’

So, why have the politicians and City fathers closed ranks and offered such a pusillanimous response?

The Labour government, which presided over much of this mess, refused to be honest about the debacle.

It was terrified of being fatally associated with the banking collapse in the same way the Tories’ reputation for economic competence was destroyed for a generation after the Major government’s humiliating withdrawal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.

Gordon Brown’s government refused to take any responsibility for the meltdown, and repeatedly trotted out the mantra that the credit crunch was a global meltdown

that unfortunately contaminated the British economy.

Certainly, the UK government could not be blamed for the sub-prime mortgage lending in the American housing market that was at the root of the crunch. However, what is indisputable is that Britain’s soft-touch regulation meant that some of the worse excesses occurred at institutions based in London.

The American International Group (AIG), which provided insurance for the toxic loans, devised this product in its London office because it would never have been approved by U.S. regulators.

Labour allowed this lax system to survive because it wanted to reap the large tax bonanza from the deals and profits to fund its expenditure on education and the NHS.

 

The FSA did nothing to prevent Royal Bank of Scotland paying £48bn for the disastrous merger with the Dutch bank ABN Amro. And it was Gordon Brown’s personal intervention which almost destroyed Lloyds TSB when it was dragooned into a merger with HBOS.

Many hoped that with the advent of the Coalition government that a more rigorous approach would be taken.

First signs were good. It announced it would switch financial regulation back to the Bank of England and established a Banking Commission to look at whether big banks such as RBS and Barclays should be broken up so their ‘trading’ arms would be separated from their retail operations.

However, like its predecessor, the government has failed to authorise an examination of the mistakes of the past.

Only when an independent judicial inquiry or tribunal is finally established, with the right to examine City grandees and policymakers and to review the trail of evidence, will there be any hope of quelling the anger of the British public.

In the meantime, bankers are running rings around politicians and regulators leading to a return of the grotesque bonus culture.

The choice of Bob Diamond, Britain’s highest-paid banker, to be the next chief executive of Barclays, is vivid evidence of the contempt in which the bankers hold politicians.

On the second anniversary of the most searing financial catastrophe of modern times, we still look to our leaders to begin to take responsibility for the credit crisis which they allowed to happen.

 

This was posted in the "other place" the staggering thing for people involved with the residual Lehman Empire ,in other words the people involved here are that the very Administrators of the European operations are advising the FSA on the debacle their very administration is continuing to keep alive,a total conflict of interest in itself..

It has been impossible to understand how this group of lenders with their running mates capstone have managed to escape sanction for so long and carry on unabated with invulnerability yet charge the highest charges ,ignore mcob rules and the preaction protocols amongst many other breaches of justice,the phone scams and harassment,the insurance [problem] and invented arrears to mention but a few.Breaches of Company law and the companies Act 2006,submission of accounts over a year overdue.

The complicity is downright conspiratorial.

It is unbelievable that the FSA employed the very firm involed in the Administration PWC how could they in any way declare their independence when their income derived from the management of these entities runs into many millions and continues to flow as long as they operate.

Do something,complain to your MP or the TSC

BEFORE YOU BECOME THE NEXT VICTIM.

Let the press know,but at least do something even if its a comment on the article itself,this continued apathy is incomprehensible, or is there no one left?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1313100/COMMENT-ALEX-BRUMMER-Truth-great-panic.html#ixzz0zysGZD9t

Edited September 19, 2010 by peterjm

[peterjm]

This comment concerns the continued operation of Capstone Mortgage Services, Preferred Mortgages ,Southern Pacific Mortgages and Southern Pacific Personal Loans all wholly owned UK subsidiaries of the collapsed Lehman Investment Bank the catalysts for the credit crunch and the apparent complicity of the Administrators PWC and the FSA in these Companies continued existence and impunity from sanction in wholesale breaches of the law and regulations.Capstone administers some 80000 residential mortgage loans in the UK for the aforementioned lenders and has and is currently pursuing a repossession overdive through the courts in order to liquidate residential mortgage assets that are peoples homes,unchecked by the Regulators and governing Authorities,the figures run into thousands of homeowners dispossessed,many without representation and many illegally.

This article throws up many questions.

Why are the very Administrators of the Lehman European operations Price Waterhouse Coopers advising and being engaged by the FSA on the crises their very administration of the major culprit is continuing to keep alive and foster when there is such an apparent total conflict of interest,to the calamitous cost to the British homeowner and taxpayer and when their very agenda is to profit hugely at the continuing Administration,.

It has been impossible to understand how this group of mortgage lenders the residuals of the Lehman Empire with their mortgage loan administrators Capstone have managed to escape sanction for so long from their regulators the FSA and to carry on unabated with invulnerability, when other companies who have committed lesser offences have been punished by large fines, yet Capstone charge the highest arrears charges in the industry ,ignore with impunity FSA Mortgage Code of Business Rules and the Civil Procedure Rules preaction protocols when involved in Litigation with borrowers this alongside many other breaches of justice,these Companies have been allowed to commit breaches of Company law and the Companies Act 2006,and allowed to submit accounts over a year overdue without apparent punishment.Inter Company debts have not been called in deliberately from funding arms of the Lehman group denying their creditors in order to keep these Companies afloat so they can liquidate British residential mortgage assets.

The complicity between PWC and the FSA is downright conspiratorial and cries out for thorough investigation

It is beyond belief that the FSA employed the very firm invovled in the Administration, PWC ,how could they in any way declare their independence when their income derived from the management of these entities runs into many millions and continues to flow so long as they continue to operate.

It is a national scandal that this has been and is being allowed to continue for so long.

When will someone investigate this and reveal the real story?

 

Edited September 19, 2010 by peterjm

[Gallahad]

Very succinctly put PJ

G

[Crapstone]

They get away with it because you let them. You don't stand and fight them off ..What do you have to lose? You're already facing the loss of your home or poverty to keep it. Get on their backs and get the charges taken off! If you aren't on that train then stop complaining, as you've been told time and time again how to get your money back.

[peterjm]

Crapstone is a glowing example of how to survive by keeping on questioning and fighting them over a sustained period,its quite clear the FSA is not going to step in from the above article and the period of time people have been waiting for it to take action.

So you have to do it yourself,there are various websites offering easy help and templates for complaints to the FOS including here so don't wait for it to happen,take action ,save your home,make a nuisance of yourself and they will leave you alone.

RECLAIM YOUR RIGHTS

[Crapstone]

I did everything myself and before I found CAG, I typed in SPML and not a lot came back on them in 2003. It took a few years but it was bloomin' well worth it. Financial gain is nothing to speak of but peace of mind, and the charges back, without the threat of more, is as they say 'priceless'.

[Suetonius]

 

I have read that the spml accounts show now only 45 loans on their books.

 

How is this possible they must hold the legal title of hundreds of first charges,so why are these not declared in the accounts?These questions which I find highly relevant and important are being asked elsewhere but not here on the SPML thread 338 pages long.

 

So the old question resurfaces if they don't own them who does?

 

It has been stated the SPML accounts show they own 45 loans so how have they been litigating and taking repossession actions for the past 10 months on loans their accounts seem to show they no longer own.?

 

"The loans are kept legal for litigation and equitable for accounting purposes!quote.

 

This is a question I would like to see answered.

 

 

 

Can anyone explain how this is otherwise as I and I would hope many others would like to hear how such a statement can be made.

 

The answers to the above appear to have been posted on the site you refer to as "the other place"

 

ryde says: September 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm

 

"Hate to be a damp squib but looking at the spml accounts in detail.

.

1)The 45 loans they own are the ones not securitised.

2)They sold the mortgage pools to the various securitisation vehicles this shows clearly in the accounts

as funds in and out.

3)As would be expected the financiers of the loans mable/storm will not call in intercompany debts whilst securitised operations are continuing.

(It would break spml/pml and simply entail legal transfer of the mortgage pool titles to the spvs as in sppl’s case anyway)

The conclusion is that spml/pml hold the legal titles on trust for the spvs,so the argument that they are not legally entitled to repo peeps again swings down to the old cherry,legal v equitable assignment.

THe **** do have a written agreement in many contracts especially so with spml to bring the claims on their behalf.(have never seen such an agreement with pml)

..

So where’s the complaint realistically?

..

I honestly don’t think they can be nailed on the 45 loans although doubt could certainly be cast and explanations demanded but they will simply say they are trustees for the spvs,a sympathetic court may even order disclosure."

[patrickq1]

http://rocketspage.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/southern-pacific-mortgage-limited-spml-hides-money-from-lemans-creditors-in-charitable-trusts/

[rocket1]

SOUTHERN PACIFIC MORTGAGE LIMITED HIDES MONEY FROM LEHMANS CREDITORS IN CHARITABLE TRUSTS

 

By Boz

 

Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited is a subsidiary of the devious, rather nasty bunch of bankers who were called Lehmans until they went bust recently owing vast sums of money and wrecking the World economy in the process.

 

Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited, SPML, to all those unfortunate enough to be its victims, is one of those rip-off subprime mortgage lenders that specialise in fleecing borrowers and generally employing trickery to convert other people’s money into their own by any immoral, dishonest and devious means they can get away with.

 

SPML are still trading here in the UK, apparently. They have two principle activities at present. One seems to be repossessing as many of its borrowers as possible to evict them from their houses and destroy their lives.

 

The purpose of this is so SPML can get their greedy little hands on as much of those unfortunate householders property as quickly as possible so that SPML can sell it off quick and cheap grab the money and run before someone realises they are part of a bankrupt bunch of thieves and stops them stealing any more money and ruining more people’s lives.

 

The other main activity of this charmless bunch of financial confidence tricksters is to put all that money they are forcing homeowners to give them by selling their homes and charging extortionate ‘penalty’ fees of one sort or another, into an intricate web of other companies and, wait for it, charitable trusts, to make sure it will be as safe as possible from all those people owed billions by this dishonest bunch of loan sharks.

[peterjm]

The answers to the above appear to have been posted on the site you refer to as "the other place"

 

ryde says: September 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm

 

"Hate to be a damp squib but looking at the spml accounts in detail.

.

1)The 45 loans they own are the ones not securitised.

2)They sold the mortgage pools to the various securitisation vehicles this shows clearly in the accounts

as funds in and out.

3)As would be expected the financiers of the loans mable/storm will not call in intercompany debts whilst securitised operations are continuing.

(It would break spml/pml and simply entail legal transfer of the mortgage pool titles to the spvs as in sppl’s case anyway)

The conclusion is that spml/pml hold the legal titles on trust for the spvs,so the argument that they are not legally entitled to repo peeps again swings down to the old cherry,legal v equitable assignment.

THe **** do have a written agreement in many contracts especially so with spml to bring the claims on their behalf.(have never seen such an agreement with pml)

..

So where’s the complaint realistically?

..

I honestly don’t think they can be nailed on the 45 loans although doubt could certainly be cast and explanations demanded but they will simply say they are trustees for the spvs,a sympathetic court may even order disclosure."

 

Thanks for reply,I have seen this which answers the spml question,however sppl have stated they have no loans so can it be assumed this statement can be made because the loans they had were securitised?

 

Of interest to others on this thread is also this.

 

ryde says: September 28, 2010 at 1:37 am

AN OPEN QUESTION TO THE FSA.

..

1)WHY HAVE SPML/PML/SPPL through their so called Administrators Capstone escaped any penalty or censure?

..

2)Why has their been no penalty when FOS statistics themselves over the last 2 years clearly show that this group have had more complaints and more complaints upheld than the companies fined and penalised GMAC,Kensington and Redstone COMBINED.Yet their charges and offences are greater?

..

3)Why are they allowed continually to breach MCOB Regulatory Rules and the Civil procedure rules pre action protocols without sanction.Repossession is a means of first not last resort in their case.

..

4)Why are they allowed to use arrears charges as a profit stream when they are supposed to reflect only real costs of arrears management and why are they continually allowed to breach FSA stated directives by adding such charges to the true arrears figures presenting a wholly false and untrue picture of borrower delinquency to the Courts aiding and abetting falsely their claims ;in many cases successfully ;for possession.?

..

5)Why have they been given this special dispensation to carry on these activities,involving on average 100 homeowners per week attending court in many cases unnecessarily and in many cases to take away their homes on falsely premised claims.

..

HAVE WE AN ANSWER HERE OR JUST THE STONY WALL OF SILENCE.

..

LETS MAKE THIS QUESTION OFFICIAL THEN AND HAVE IT AS THE SUBJECT OF A PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION JUST TO START WITH.

[patrickq1]

FSA has fined the investment advisory arm of a law firm and one of its partners for failure to give suitable advice in respect of Lehman-backed structured products and for not having in place adequate compliance monitoring procedures. Separately, it fined a financial adviser for failing to understand structured products and giving unsuitable advice, keeping inadequate records and not having proper compliance procedures.

[andrew1]

FSA has fined the investment advisory arm of a law firm and one of its partners for failure to give suitable advice in respect of Lehman-backed structured products and for not having in place adequate compliance monitoring procedures. Separately, it fined a financial adviser for failing to understand structured products and giving unsuitable advice, keeping inadequate records and not having proper compliance procedures.

 

Patrick, can you point me to where this information can be found -or any further details of these actions please?

[jasperpad]

HMMM

I have read and re-read a lot of these posts and I am once again in that un-eviable position of receiving that dreaded letter informing me that Capstone/SPML are now "forced" into placing my home into the hands of their solicitors and are now proceeding in going for possession of my home. I am on Pension Credits of £132 per week and applied for mortgage assistance and this was granted at the rate of £25.00 per week which is to go down to £14 per week when the rate change comes into action.

 

I did re-mortgage twice and the DWP have used my original mortgage for their calculations! It doesn't take a genius to see that I am about £100 per month under what I need to pay the mortgage much less eat have heating etc.

 

My partner has now joined me so the increase goes to £202 per week paying the balance of £600 per month out of £875 is impossible to do.

 

my questions are:

 

1. how can I get the DWP to up my mortgage payments to the outstanding percentage of to days mortgage (£45,000).

 

2. How to stop SPML/Capstone to stop re-possessing my house.

 

3. I feel (like sooo many others) that the penalties imposed by Capstone/SPML are way to high and would like to see if there was any way of reducing them and retrieving the charges.

 

I am now so desperate I am at my wits end and can now fully understand why some people resort to suicide (I am in no way in that position!), and need as much help and advice I can get.

 

Short note; if the DWP or the local council did have to help for the correct amount of a rent they would be paying more that £300 per month, not the paltry £25 per week!

[peterjm]

JASPER

Probably too late now but you'd have probably been better off renting part of your home to your companion.

answers to your questions own opinion.

 

 

my questions are:

 

1. how can I get the DWP to up my mortgage payments to the outstanding percentage of to days mortgage (£45,000).

If the above is not possible you are in between a rock and a hard place,did you remortgage before or after you received DWP benefits,if after how come they gave you a remortgage knowing your fixed income,they are supposed under FSA regulation to make an affordability calculation and offer you a product that suits your means,was the remortgage arranged through a broker?if so there are possible missale issues?

 

Is it capital and interest repayments,if so, request in writing it is switched to interest only,send recorded delivery and keep copies.

 

Apply for the Mortgage Rescue Scheme and get rid of them for good.But do it now.

2. How to stop SPML/Capstone to stop re-possessing my house.

as stated above, these are the preliminary steps to take now don't delay

 

3. I feel (like sooo many others) that the penalties imposed by Capstone/SPML are way to high and would like to see if there was any way of reducing them and retrieving the charges.

FOS complaint the only way and trying through negotiation to come to some agreement with them asap they cannot keep levying charges if an agreement is made,this will stand you in good stead if it proceeds further,remember recorded delivery,keep copies

 

I am now so desperate I am at my wits end and can now fully understand why some people resort to suicide (I am in no way in that position!), and need as much help and advice I can get.

 

Short note; if the DWP or the local council did have to help for the correct amount of a rent they would be paying more that £300 per month, not the paltry £25 per week!

Edited September 29, 2010 by peterjm

[patrickq1]

http://www.lexology.com/library/results.aspx?q=FSA+FINES&j=United+Kingdom&w=&f=

ok andrew data in lexoligy