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

[littledotty27]

Let them stew Agatha,don't cash it,stick to your guns,they can't force you to do anything.

 

Is the amount of the cheque a great deal more than the original?

[agatha c]

Hi Dotty

 

Thats what I thought, they want to close the books!

 

Agatha c

[littledotty27]

Looks like there trying to tie up loose ends (before an investigation starts maybe)

[agatha c]

Hi Dotty

 

No its for the same amount. They undersold property, we had property looted. Left unlocked, will not give us any breakdown, we had had £350.000 left property, cheque was sent for 129.00, sent sar but everything blanked out. Where has all the mony gone, Our mortgage was 150.000 debt but not true debt (never knew) £50.000. (They say to redeem charge in favour of SPML t/a LMC 393,834.47 Land reg fees £3.00

Interest £2.03 Legal costs £287.50 Credit cards (which were sold on £17,959,31 which needs to be looked at)

 

House sold for £425.00 worth £150.00 more, how can I find out any information.

 

Agatha c

[littledotty27]

If they fail to supply you the data,complain to them in letter & give 7days for them to comply,then if no responce begin a complaint to the Information Commissioner

[I'm the bad guy?]

agatha c, you are a veteran in this thread

 

Anyone with London Mortgage Company(LMC) or Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd(SPPL), please see below-

 

SPML bought all the mortgage assets from Matlock Bank Ltd/ta London Mortgage Company(LMC) on 2nd May 2006. On the 31st May 2006, SPML sold all the LMC mortgage assets to Southern Pacific Funding 5(an UNlimited company). The entire shares of SPF5, is held by Lehman Bros Holding Inc(USA). Anybody with an LMC mortgage has been paying into this 'private fund', through Capstone, and ultimately to a bankrupt company.

 

Companies House have confirmed, both these companies have NO directors, such that dissolution requests have been posted out to them. Anybody facing an action by these, should directly contact CH, as these entities have no call to do so. They have no representatives within the companies, and could constitute fraudulent activity.

 

If you are still having problems, this info is straight from the SPML accounts 2006 and is within their audited accounts, the rest from CH. I would strongly advise you seek legal help, as your mortgages were sold to SPF5 in May 2006.

 

 

 

ITBG?

[agatha c]

Hey ITBG

 

May be a veteran, but still can't get my head aroud it (veteran in age also)

Daughter said when I ask her about computer "it's a wonder you can write your name.

 

So, most solicitors have conflict of interest, very expensive, no idea. So can you spell it out for me, way forward.

 

Agatha c

[ryde]

cagger80 ITBG

 

Originally Posted by I'm the bad guy?

"I have absolute proof, from written evidence, that SPML is both balance sheet and trading insolvent.

THIS IS THE EVIDENCE WE ALL NEED, ALL THE LITIGATION THEN STOPS HERE, NOW.

[ryde]

AGATHA C

can you break this down

1)house repossessed because of arrears? how much

2)amount owed on property including all fees?

3)property sold for?

4)total balance due to you?

5)other issues,sold at an undervalue have you got evidence of similar properties in your area selling for a much higher price?

6)It sounds as though you have been just really stitched up they have all had their cut and now want to get rid of you asap

7)It also sounds as though the only way you could recover these sums is through a claim through the court with a solicitor,if they were threatened with such they might offer a settlement to avoid court.will google a few possibilities for you but need exact details which you have probably repeated over and over but just brief relevant figures to save time.

perhaps this is not the best time so when you feel ready post details and we can look at possibilities here,we will beat the **** eventually.

[I'm the bad guy?]

agatha c,

 

help is on the way. You can contact Citizens Advice, get help through the Community Legal Service, report the matter to trading standards etc.

 

 

ryde,

download the SPML accounts 2006 from CH, and your relevant SPV accounts for the date your securitisation. Though, if I recall you are a sceptical of the true sale to the SPVs.

 

 

ITBG?

respect to

the vets

[littledotty27]

Agatha

 

you have PM

[ryde]

ITBG

thanks for info,the true sale to the spv is still hotly debated but if their has been a true sale all the repos done by pml/spml have been invalid,would like to see this tested in court just don't want to be the one dependent upon it! which could well be the case.

[wonderman]

Agatha C,

 

So sorry to hear of your loss tonight. It must be really hard to suffer a traumatic bereavement and have to fight these criminals.

 

It may be a comfort for you to know that a Senior Costs Judge has recognised the injustice of what is happening to you. He said:

 

Senior Costs Judge, Peter Hurst in his November 2003 update of his Review of the Law of Costs in England and Wales. He said: “the costs payable by a borrower to a mortgage lender had been giving rise to concern from the judiciary who have to deal with debt collection and repossession cases....Recent experience shows that mortgage lenders are becoming far more aggressive in their repossession claims, demanding possession in respect of debtors who have been prompt payers for many years but who then slip briefly into arrear. Then lender is able to add a figure for costs to the mortgage debt which the debtor (having agreed to do so in the original deed) has no option but to pay. The amounts added to mortgage debt in this way are frequently out of all proportion to what is reasonable. In many cases the courts are effectively powerless to intervene.”

 

But, there is a way....

 

Part 48 of the CPR contains practice directions relating to "Part 48-Costs-Special Cases". The Part 48 Practice Directions contain: "Section 50 Amount of costs where costs are payable pursuant to contract".

 

Section 50.4 provides:

50.4(1) Where the contract entitles a mortgagee to-

(a) add the costs of litigation relating to the mortgage to the sum secured by it;

(b) require a mortgagor to pay those costs, or

© both

the mortgagor may make an application for the court to direct that an account of the mortgagee's costs be take. (Rule 25.1(1)(n) provides that the court may direct that a party file an account)

50.4(2) The mortgagor may then dispute an amount in the mortgagee's account on the basis that it has been unreasonably incurred or is unreasonable in amount.

50.4(3) Where a mortgagor disputes an amount, the court may may an order that the disputed costs are assessed under rule 48.3.

 

Therefore, what you may consider doing first, is to write a letter to the thieves and state that unless they provide you with AN ACCOUNT OF THE MORTGAGEE'S COSTS (within say, 21 days) you will make an application to the court that the court direct that they provide an account of the costs. In the event that they cause you to seek such court order pursuant to Section 50.4(1) of the Costs Practice Directions, you will seek costs order against them for their unreasonable refusal to accede to your reasonable request.

 

In fact, when you write this letter, (if I understand correctly), they have sent you a cheque for £129K which you are refusing to cash. That's alot of money to wait for...so, it may be worth starting your letter by saying that you will cash the cheque, but given that they have so far refused all reasonable requests for an account of their costs, they are on written notice that your cashing of the cheque is expressly subject to your reserved right to challenge the amount of costs they have deducted from the proceeds of the sale.

 

They may accede to your request once they know you are aware of s.50.4(1), however, if you have to go to court, it should be a very straight forward application. Just quote section 50 as above and say you want the full and frank detailed account of the costs that were added to the security. The court fee for the application may be around £35 to £75 and you'll only need about 10 minutes of court time.

 

Once you get the account, then you must decide whether any costs are unreasonable. They are not entitled to ANY UNREASONABLE COSTS and it is very very likely that you will find a lot of unreasonable costs.

 

You can then ask them to refund the unreasonable costs and if they don't then you can go back to court to ask the court to assess the costs, i.e. exercise your s.50.4(3) right. But first things first. Send the letter and if that doesn't work, then make the simple application to the court. Then you can decide what you want to do next.

 

Things can only get better for you

Wonderman

[Crapstone]

Hi Ryde,

 

Do not know why on earth you would ''re-evaluate'' old Maggie? She managed, with a few exceptions, to run this country completely down the drain. She was the mother of the industrial wipe-out and focusation on financial and service sectors as the future for old GB. And, concerning Europe, l do not understand your complaint about a ''sell-out'' at all??? Most of the legislation that protects you, me and the rest of the Joe's in this country comes from or originates in Europe. Europe is not saddled with the class system we have here, why, the parliaments and laws of Europe are mainly there to protect the people and not the ''money lenders''. Without Europe and it's human rights act, consumer protection legislation etc. we would be even worse off and (if that's possible) be even less able to defend ourselves against the ''establishment''. Most legislation that has been introduced here has been virtually forced up on us and to the chagrin of the establishment, judiciary and money lenders. l have held you as a knowledgeable fighting spirit and champion of the poor and downtrodden, why your Euro sceptisism come as a bit of a disappointment to me.

GR

 

Just a quick butt in before reading the rest...If the EU has it's way we will lose a lot of the rights we have in consumer law. To name but one, is the loss of the right to a refund for faulty goods..we'll have to make to with repair or replacement. If that's moving forward....We need the lemon laws not melon heads.

[Crapstone]

Ryde was replying to me on a bit of after hours banter when we were setting the world to rights...so his words were not intended as anything to be focused upon. I led him astray..oops...sorry.

 

Gallahad...a bit forceful to state what we should or what we shouldn't be doing. If I'd have listened to everyone, including solicitors, I'd have lost my house before now..instead I used my own initiative and what resources are available to me.

 

The FOS and TS are slated across the boards for being useless, but in the former ..it did the trick for me and in the latter.. I've worked with them and know what goes on behind the scenes that they aren't credited for.

 

Me being a lady (!) EIE was rude in their reply but I fully understand why, as this isn't just a walk in the park. It's cost us a lot of money and stress to get where we are today and to be questioned on anything we do to try to stop this from happening to others, or saving ourselves, is uncalled for.

[ryde]

excellent useful post wonderman and thanks crapstone for getting me off the hook must admit I am a bit of a eurosceptic but there's good and evil in all things ,what I resent is policy being made by unelected officials but look at what our lot have got up to.Mail said today that lenders were angry that fsa proposed reforms were going too far!! also read that council of mortgage lenders had downgraded their repo estimates from 75000 to 48000 also read that all the subprime repos and suspended repos are not included in these figures.

[Crapstone]

Agatha c,

 

So sorry to hear your sad news. It's difficult enough at the best of times to cope and I suggest you notify anyone concerned that you have had a bereavement and will need some time to respond.

 

I'm with wonderman on cashing the cheque. You need to do it but make it clear that you don't consider it as a final settlement. They have to provide you with a full statement of costs and a breakdown of the sale, including arrears and charges.

 

Now is the time to ask for help from the CAB or CLS. As cruel as it seems they have targets to meet from their funding for certain sectors, including those bereaved, terminal illnesses and incapacity.

 

You should be proud of your computer skills..you are a credit to us all.

 

It makes my blood boil to think that I've been through some rough times with Lehmans but others are going through far worse. I just wished I'd have won that £45 million ...I'd have bailed us all out. Can but dream..

[Crapstone]

excellent useful post wonderman and thanks crapstone for getting me off the hook must admit I am a bit of a eurosceptic but there's good and evil in all things ,what I resent is policy being made by unelected officials but look at what our lot have got up to.Mail said today that lenders were angry that fsa proposed reforms were going too far!! also read that council of mortgage lenders had downgraded their repo estimates from 75000 to 48000 also read that all the subprime repos and suspended repos are not included in these figures.

 

Why do, when you can delegate? And you can't legislate for legislation?

 

What really gets to me is that most of us weren't even 'sub-prime' to start with until that lot got their claws in.

 

I can't complain at the moment as LIBOR is low and my repayments are below the High St. Guess they didn't predict that in their ivory towers!

[Crapstone]

Hi Crapstone,

 

Thanks for posting that moneysavingexpert link. Note how Martin Lewis dresses it up as a "Loophole". s.127(3) was not a loophole. Parliament laid down the law on what lenders MUST do when lending to the public. Parliament intended that consumers MUST be given full and frank information about the contract including calculating a comparable interest rate charge so that consumers were given correct information for them to decide on the product. If the lenders did not comply faithfully with providing that information, s.127(3) rendered the contract unenforceable. That provision was there to deter the lenders from breaching their statutory obligations under the CCA. IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE - its a sanction from the lenders point of view and a remedy from the consumers point of view.

 

Consumers who are not given the truth about the interest rate they're being charged and all the fees etc., in faithful compliance with the CCA would have a REMEDY against the lender. Thus, it was not some accidental and unintended "loophole", it was parliament's conscious and expressed intention to make sure the lenders complied with consumer law and the act expressly provided consumers with a REMEDY if lenders did not comply.

 

And SPPL complained to the court that the Walkers would get a "windfall". God that's rich! The C of A should have granted the Walkers the REMEDY that the act (and Parliament) said they can have. Plus, in any event, SPPL have had much more than windfalls of each and every one of its customers but Martin Lewis hasn't mentioned that and Martin Lewis hasn't mentioned any of their criminal conduct either. Martin Lewis knows that one of the only effective deterrents that gave the CCA some bite was s.127, and the court of appeal have overturned PARLIAMENT'S INTENTION. So it's now the court of appeal that legislates for parliament. You can only have parliament's consumer protection if the court of appeal say so, which they did correctly apply in the Wilson case (albeit between gritted teeth and great reluctance). But now, seeing as so many lenders don't abide by the law, the court of appeal negative the only really effective remedy under the act! The court of appeal are WRONG. Martin Lewis is establishment pretending to help consumers. Loophole - he ought to be ashamed of himself.

 

The court of appeal should hang their heads in shame

 

Without much in the way of searching, a few businesses have built upon the original judgement, or 'loophole'. Could they not see what could, would and did happen? I wonder if anyone paid them..

 

The CoA was right in judgement...and the whole case was flimsy to say the least. Unlike our cases that have multiple offences to be considered.. I wonder what those judges would make of no agreement when the company admits to losing the file?

[enoughisenough]

Hi Agatha,

 

I'm very sorry for your loss. Please accept my deepest condolences. May you receive all the help and support you need from wherever it comes. Be strong.

 

Keep the faith. EiE.

[enoughisenough]

There is a high court ruling going to appeal which I am apparently unwilling to discuss. Please enlighten me as to which case this is?

 

I do not recall refusing to discuss any case. Please therefore substantiate or retract the claim.

[not another b----- letter]

EIE and all other readers

 

Many thanks for your advice, I have had a number of heated telephone conversations with them in the past but will try to refrain from doing that in the future (but hard when you are provoked), and can I ask a couple of questions.

 

1. Would like to record my telephone calls any ideas? (has to be cheap).

 

2. Capstone served us with a summons in June, cancelled it a week before the hearing then sent us a letter a couple of weeks ago saying it was all a mistake and have paid back court and legal charges, have we a case for compensation for the worry and stress that we have endured, (or if anyone can think up any other reason for compensation we are all ears).

 

3. If Capstone went down what would happen to our loans?, would we have a letter saying the balance must be paid within twenty eight days or repossession.

 

We thought we had problems but reading some of the postings on this site ours was not that bad, I wish I had found this thread when we were waiting for our court appearance, and to all that are being harrassed, facing repossession, or have been repossessed our thoughts are with you and keep fighting.

 

And now going right off the subject we have been fighting a property developer who has bought land in our village. He has felled trees destroyed wildlife and habitat, diverted a public footpath, and built without planning permission, the local council has served enforcement notices which he ignores, the Forestry Commission said they would prosecute but have not got the resources, Natural England think they should have done something but not sure what!, the Police said its difficult to prosecute in these cases and the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not worth the paper its printed on, we went one month behind with our council tax and ended up in the Magistrates Court (we were up to date before the hearing but the council would not cancel the case) who said there not a law for one and a law for the others.

 

Regards NABL

[Suetonius]

Hopefully, this will not apply only to investors

 

Gordon Brown gives bank victims the right to claim 'instant justice' | Mail Online

 

This also makes for interesting reading

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8358417.stm

[wonderman]

With reference to Suetonis post number 2600 and the link regarding Gordon Brown's announcement (i.e., :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227892/Gordon-Brown-gives-bank-victims-right-claim-instant-justice.html )

 

In reply:

 

Gordon Brown has given bank victims NOTHING!. Consumers already have injustice in abundance and the government are about to give us more injustice.

 

Read it and see just how this is a further tragedy and injustice to bank victims and consumers. It says:

 

Under the plans, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) would charge a levy to banks to pay for 'instant justice' for customers.

A Treasury spokesman said: 'We will give the FSA the power, when it has had a number of complaints about a particular bank or a particular financial product, to set up a one-stop redress mechanism.

'This will mean people will not need to go to court.'

 

Let's translate the propaganda: The FSA are going to be the gatekeeper of the "justice" and the banks are going to pay for that justice for us....oh please, is this really credible? Do you really believe that the FSA is going to get us refunds of all the overcharges. Overcharging will get worse when this legislation is passed.

 

The treasury spokesman has said it will be a one stop redress mechanism which means that people will not need to go to court.

 

Translation - your right to go to court will be removed. You will not have the right to bring an individual action to the court at all! You will HAVE to go to the FSA and we all know that that is no help at all. You will have NO REDRESS. A couple of consumers will have a few pennies from them so that the FSA can do a PR campaign to say how great they are, but I solemnly predict - this legislation will protect the banks from the consumer's access to the court - consumers will have no redress.

 

And why are the government closing off access to the court? Because, the Supreme Court is just about to give a ruling that will favour consumers (only to gain PR and public confidence), but as soon as the consumers start going to collect the £3 billion of overcharges, the new legislation will kick in and you'll all be told to go to the FSA!

 

Prediction: Watch out for the sensational headlines the appear after the Supreme Court ruling - we'll all be led to believe they're there for us minions. Reality - they can give that PR ruling because they already know the new legislation will stop the minions from getting justice. The OFT will no longer be the institution to determine "fairness", it will be the FSA. So even if the Supreme Court does rule that the OFT has jurisdiction to protect consumers on overcharging, that jurisdiction is about to be given to the FSA.

Edited November 15, 2009 by wonderman

[scedminc]

 

1. Would like to record my telephone calls any ideas? (has to be cheap).

 

 

Hi NABL,

 

Are you wanting to record using your Mobile or Landline as I can tell you a cheap way by Mobile especially if you have a Nokia?

 

Sced