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

[scedminc]

well that's what all the banks thought didn't they over bank charges and PPI and people didn't think they could ever take them on as they were far too big to take on..WRONG

 

Indeed correct but look at them now they're not paying out anymore and problem wont have to either. Therefore once we blow this out of the water and expose the mortgage criminals they will shortly be protect in some way.

[Smarterchick]

Indeed correct but look at them now they're not paying out anymore and problem wont have to either. Therefore once we blow this out of the water and expose the mortgage criminals they will shortly be protect in some way.

 

If by what we do on here saves just one person from being wrongly repossessed and it all closes down after that, it's been worth it.

[scedminc]

If by what we do on here saves just one person from being wrongly repossessed and it all closes down after that, it's been worth it.

 

Correct but i think missing my original point i was trying to say maybe.

[Smarterchick]

Correct but i think missing my original point i was trying to say maybe.

 

Not a bit, I am listening to every word, I just like testing the boundaries, that's what makes us so good at all this..we work as one, just test each others minds join them together -then strike!

[scedminc]

Oh ok lol

[enoughisenough]

Anyone on Carmel? This could make a huge difference to everyone!

[JonCris]

I agree with Super the market HAS collapsed we just haven't had the wake yet & pushing what now amounts to Monopoly money around the system isn't going to change a thing............. why because no one trusts either the banks or those who govern them

 

Also this securitisation issue is being used in the States to stop thousands of not 10's of thousands of repo.

 

As I have previously pointed out the largest American repo auctioneer is setting up here............ & why do you think that is........... because they know their goose is cooked in their home market because of this

[enoughisenough]

OK I'll try to put it another way to see if I can get an answer.

 

Carmel Butler, as most of you will know, made a detailed extensive and authoratative submission to the Treasury Select Committee on THIS very subject. I'm sure given her expertise and her views and the fact that she has made several strong recommendations that she would be willing to appear on someone's behalf or as an expert witness. There will be lots of cases in the offing, and we could help hundreds this month and thousands in the months to come if we can get her contact details. Obviously it's her choice. So ANYONE ???obviously do NOT POST ON OPEN!!!

 

Cheers.

[Smarterchick]

Okay, lets up the tempo a bit:

 

I received this letter from my mortgage company's solicitors today (we're in a tussle just now so I just asked a question so I could remind the judge when I went before him ) This, if people have a repossession action going on, is the likely response you're going to get:

 

" We refer to your emails of 5 March 2009 requesting disclosure and documentation regarding whether your account and the further advance has been securitised.

 

We remind you of Civil Procedure Rule 31.6 which sets out the documents parties are required to disclose under Standard Disclosure. This section is set out below:

 

“Standard disclosure — what documents are to be disclosed

31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only —

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which

(I) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

© the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.”

 

Our Client is not obliged to disclose the information you request since it is not information upon which our client relies and it does not affect your liability for the mortgage repayments nor is it relevant to your pleaded case. Accordingly the information does not adversely affect our client’s case, adversely affect your case or support your case. Further, the disclosure you request is not required by any other practice direction.

Accordingly, our client will not be providing the information requested.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Now you might be forgiven for thinking they got something they'd rather I hadn't asked wouldn't you? All I need now is a response

[supersleuth]

Hi Smarterchick,

 

Great post. Turn their words on them!

 

It is noted that the claimant states that they are not disclosing the information because the claimant does not inted to rely on that evidence.

 

However, you will note that CPR 31.6 obliges the claimant to disclose "(b)(i) documents which adversely affect his own case and (b)(ii) support another party's case".

 

The documents that you have requested fall within the scope of those rules and indeed, the information you requested supports your case and therefore falls within CPR 31(b)(i) of the rule. Therefore the claimant is obliged to make the disclosure.

 

Also, it is clear that the real reason for failure to disclose is that the documents requested adversely affects the claimant's case and therefore falls within the scope of CPR 31.6(b)(ii). As such, the claimant is obliged under both rules to make full and frank disclosure. Failure to make the disclosure in compliance with CPR 31.6 renders the claimant in violation of the rule.

 

Therefore, insist that they make the disclosure. Acknowledge that they do not intend to rely on the information that you have requested, but point out that you do intend to rely on the information and they are duty bound at law to provide the information under CPR31.6(b)(i) and (ii).

[Last of the Mohicans]

I agree entirely just thinking of the reality of it and what the government would allow. For example the test case that is with the bank charges will almost certainly result in them being deemed unlawful etc etc etc but I bet your bottom dollar that no one else is going to get paid out indefinately due to the financial implications on these people that are continuously protected. Don't get me wrong I'm in on the fight with all this and will do everything and anything I can to bring them down but I'm also looking at the reality it and how the government will step in regardless!!

 

 

I'm on record as saying this has to be absolutely copper-bottomed Sced. 110% copper bottomed before its wheeled out. I've shut up about it because I have taken it to a government institution for appraisal.

But the beauty of it is, is that *if* we can get it right, this operates in the County Court as a straightforward point in law: "does the "plaintiff" have the right to have a charge on this mortgage and enforce it."

 

Its going to take a lot of effort to get this any higher (where it can be dragged out and obfuscated about for years a'la bank charges) - and thats fine, because we only have to persuade one judge, in a County Court per repo brought.

No need for it to go any higher *if* it's done right, if its copper-bottomed, if the judge cannot argue with the law put before him.

[enoughisenough]

GUYS

 

It's clearly **** or bust. Therefore we need the following:

 

1. Someone with the balls and the nous to take it on. So anyone who has a repo in the next month from any of these sharks should be working flat out to get it 110% copper bottomed as LOTM has suggested. Every i dotted & every t crossed.

 

Superslueths advice is 2nd to none on this but even He/she (sorry supersleuth I haven't read your profile!) can't do everybody's (or even one person's) documentation, assembly of evidence and preparation of bundle. So it needs someone to test the water, because if no-one does then the sad tide of repos will go up and up and up at everyone's (ever long lasting expense)

 

2. No-one should, in the words of the great W Bush 'misunderestimate' the nature of the task. However, this is after all a pilot show, a toe testing of the water. County court decisions are NOT binding either on other County courts or further up the hierarchy. However there is an appeal process if the District Judge is not interested.

 

They're handling more and more repos and don't want complex legal argument and masses of documentation put forward before them as if it were a case in CA or HOL. Treading carefully is therefore of the utmost importance. In fact i regard this of such fundamental importance that we peeps need to keep shtum on this because there will always be a trawler for the oppo.

 

3. More is needed to make this stick but one man challenged the banks on their charges and....

 

 

I have more to say on this but only on PM

[scedminc]

GUYS

 

It's clearly **** or bust. Therefore we need the following:

 

1. Someone with the balls and the nous to take it on. So anyone who has a repo in the next month from any of these sharks should be working flat out to get it 110% copper bottomed as LOTM has suggested. Every i dotted & every t crossed.

 

Superslueths advice is 2nd to none on this but even He/she (sorry supersleuth I haven't read your profile!) can't do everybody's (or even one person's) documentation, assembly of evidence and preparation of bundle. So it needs someone to test the water, because if no-one does then the sad tide of repos will go up and up and up at everyone's (ever long lasting expense)

 

2. No-one should, in the words of the great W Bush 'misunderestimate' the nature of the task. However, this is after all a pilot show, a toe testing of the water. County court decisions are NOT binding either on other County courts or further up the hierarchy. However there is an appeal process if the District Judge is not interested.

 

They're handling more and more repos and don't want complex legal argument and masses of documentation put forward before them as if it were a case in CA or HOL. Treading carefully is therefore of the utmost importance. In fact i regard this of such fundamental importance that we peeps need to keep shtum on this because there will always be a trawler for the oppo.

 

3. More is needed to make this stick but one man challenged the banks on their charges and....

 

 

I have more to say on this but only on PM

 

Just for the record despite my possible controversal comments on the outcome of this becomeing public and the government protection after. I am actually in the process of building a case against my so called lender in respect of the fact they did not have a legal right to issue proceedings against me which resulted in a suspended reposession order. My case it taking sometime to build as I want to be sure that I have everything covered and I understand as much as I can everything I am going to say and everthing that maybe thrown back at me. I am also writing to my so called lender and asking them questions that in turn the responses i get back will be used against them in court. I have a suspended order in which my so called lender breaches every month so when I do finally take this to court they will look stupid from the moment the hearing starts.

[enoughisenough]

Lost sight of your prior controversial comments. will need therefore to go back through the posts. In the initial circumstance could you give some basic details of their claim and your defence, and why it resulted in a suspended order? THIS WOULD BE MOST GRATEFULLY RECEIVED! Your lenderv if you want to PM me would also be good

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the Faith.

[Dangermouse]

Hi Smarterchick

 

That is a very useful letter from the other side's solicitor, I am undertaking a similar exercise myself and will post details here if and when I get a response.

 

Dangermouse

[scedminc]

Lost sight of your prior controversial comments. will need therefore to go back through the posts. In the initial circumstance could you give some basic details of their claim and your defence, and why it resulted in a suspended order? THIS WOULD BE MOST GRATEFULLY RECEIVED! Your lenderv if you want to PM me would also be good

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the Faith.

 

Hi,

 

Read a thread which I started a while ago and gives some details of my situation for your information.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/175426-mortgage-securitisation-preferred.html

 

Out of interest did you ever find your SPV?

[JonCris]

The Law Society website is down, Does anyone know where Carmel Butler who gave evidence to the select committee works???

[supersleuth]

Hi JonCris,

 

According to the House of Commons evidence Carmel is a New York lawyer, not a UK lawyer. So it's not likely you'll find her registered at the Law Society.

[scedminc]

Hi All,

 

Just a thought for those that are asking for Carmel's help then as SuperSleuth suggests the house of commons evidence to point to the fact that she is a New York lawyer. However that said Carmel did reference this website so it maybe likely that she looks at this site and even this thread so again is most likely if this is the case then the help we are all looking for is being done in other ways like the House of Commons evidence as that i'm sure didn't just spring from nowhere. It maybe worth a thought that Carmel is unable to use this site for professional reasons etc.

[supersleuth]

Hi All,

 

Gotta give my vote to JonCris for posting up the TaffyR thread (see post 309 above). TaffyR really knows his stuff. Wonder if anyone knows TaffyR and if he would be willing add to the debate here?

[Smarterchick]

Speaking of knowing your stuff, I've been up half the night digging...I'm not a techo wizzard by any stretch of the imagination, but would this tool help us find anything or is it just a system software where we have to input our own loan portfolio data? http://www.fitchratings.com/web_content/product/resiemea/resiemea_validation_userguide.pdf

[enoughisenough]

I'll check this out but it may take me some time as I'm at work. In the meantime if anybody else checks it out, please let us know. I think this looks promising but as far as SPPL are concerned I think the securitised loans were credit rated by standard and poor. Could still throw up soemthing. Also check Moodys. One of these greedy muppets gave Lehman brothers a clean bill of health on the day it collapsed. Search BBC World Service for the podcast Assignment rating the credit ratings. Very interesting listening and directly relevant to us.

[supersleuth]

Hi Guys,

 

Check out this blog site where the House of Commons Butler evidence is discussed with a barrister that calls himself FatBigot. It relates to the false/imposter lender's legal title to sue.

 

Mark Wadsworth: "Are securitisation companies above the law?"

 

 

Hi All, there's been further discussions with the FatBigot...keep an eye out on this blog

[Last of the Mohicans]

Speaking of knowing your stuff, I've been up half the night digging...I'm not a techo wizzard by any stretch of the imagination, but would this tool help us find anything or is it just a system software where we have to input our own loan portfolio data? http://www.fitchratings.com/web_content/product/resiemea/resiemea_validation_userguide.pdf

 

 

Hiya, I joined up and downloaded it, but it doesnt *seem* to be anything useful without the info to put in it?

 

See if this works for you - I signed up with them to get it LOL http://www.fitchratings.com/jsp/corporate/DownloadModel.faces?context=4&detail=9&model_type_id=18

[enoughisenough]

Excellent Rebuttal to FatBigot from Anononymous on the blogspot. I am now in the process of enforcing Disclosure by writing to the court and shall ask for indefinite adjournment until they fully comply with CPR 31 and my SAR.