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

[ZillaK]

I thought it might be worth posting up part of 'Note 1' which goes with the previously posted auditors section above..

 

 

This would be a good time for investors to try and pull as much money out of the SPVs as possible.. does anyone have a complete list of all the securitisations and to which SPV etc etc?

[eagleforms]

I have now had a reply to my query to Capstone about why is it that the mortgage is with SPPL and the paying-in book they gave me credits the monthly payments to SPML.

They say that the beneficial interest in my loan has been transferred to Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL PLC. Eurosail own a large number of both loans belonging to SPPL and to SPML. They say that as a rule they do not issue paying in books in the name of SPPL which is why I have one in the name of SPML. The monies are transferred on a daily basis to Eurosail's account.

[I'm the bad guy?]

..the 'Group Collection Account', as per SPVs prospectus. thats a letter worth posting up(edited)?

 

you could pay mickey mouse, it would still end up in the SPV account. beneficial my assss, then what do they need the lenders/originators for!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

[enoughisenough]

..the 'Group Collection Account', as per SPVs prospectus. thats a letter worth posting up(edited)?

 

you could pay mickey mouse, it would still end up in the SPV account. beneficial my assss, then what do they need the lenders/originators for!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

 

So they can evade tax?

[I'm the bad guy?]

..indeed, anybody know why cagbot removed the post, for the new tel# for Jeremy Pilcher at CIB?

 

 

its on Rydes' signature, for your signature update.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

the return

of Makaveli

[enoughisenough]

Really...I hadn't even noticed that. Somebody wants to stop this in its tracks.

 

Suppose that's all the encouragement needed to keep moving with this then!

[enoughisenough]

SEVEN GUESTS!

[ryde]

..indeed, anybody know why cagbot removed the post, for the new tel# for Jeremy Pilcher at CIB?

 

 

its on Rydes' signature, for your signature update.

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

the return

of Makaveli

 

Tell me, it took an hour of editing,will try and post it again.

[ryde]

Preferred Mortgages Limited Ownership Structure

 

1)Lehman brothers holdings inc bankrupt

2)Mable Commercial funding in administration and a major creditor of pml

3)Preferred Holdings ltd no directors

4)Preferred Group ltd no directors and a major creditor of pml

 

pml owe £40million + to group undertakings as reported in their latest accounts. If a company is struck off the register its assets become the property of the crown.

Both Preferred Holdings and Group are trading illegally with no directors, CHs attention should be drawn to this and they should both be struck off.Their asset pml it would follow would then become an asset of the crown .This would undoubtedly lead to the collapse of the entire group as pml are the second major player.

 

THIS IS BY FAR THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE HAD SO FAR.

 

In the immortal words of ITBG/LC

 

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

 

SHUT'EM DOWN!!!!> SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL

 

SEIZE THE INITIATIVE AND TURN THE HEAT UP :-x:-x:-x:-x:-x

EVIL SHALL NOT PROFIT

 

Edited February 10, 2010 by ryde

[enoughisenough]

Preferred Mortgages Limited Ownership Structure

 

1)

 

Eh...?

 

Is that a link?

 

Speaking of signatures I decided it would be a good idea to include the GMAC-RFC Final Notice to serve as a reminder to the **** of what is coming when their buddies at the FSA finally pull their fingers out.

[ryde]

eie in progress as deleted previosly by cagbot for reasons unknown.

 

 

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s, of the investigating & prosecuting organisations:

 

DO NOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

 

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 (part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : tel#0207 637 6236

 

Do not wait for something to happen,make it happen .

It's totally in your own interests to contact these people before it becomes too late ,your home is on the line, they are public servants and it is their job to give you assistance.

 

BRING THE PRESSURE AND THE PAIN

NO RESPITE

Edited February 10, 2010 by ryde

[ryde]

I have now had a reply to my query to Capstone about why is it that the mortgage is with SPPL and the paying-in book they gave me credits the monthly payments to SPML.

They say that the beneficial interest in my loan has been transferred to Eurosail-UK 2007-4BL PLC. Eurosail own a large number of both loans belonging to SPPL and to SPML. They say that as a rule they do not issue paying in books in the name of SPPL which is why I have one in the name of SPML. The monies are transferred on a daily basis to Eurosail's account.

This should be treated with extreme caution.Read between the lines ,is this an attempt to craftily transfer the sppl loans to spml without specifically informing the debtor in the form it would be expected , due especially to the current strike off position of sppl,ask yourself what other reason would they do this for.

Will they later claim this is an assignment of the legal title to spml and that they notified you and sent you a payment book in the name of spml as notification.?

Edited February 11, 2010 by ryde

[scedminc]

Hi All,

 

I have spoken with CH to today about Preferred Group and PML. They state that as far as registry is concerned they can both exist however they did say that reminders have been sent to Preferred Group about no directors and if they do not reply then they there will be a proposal to stike off soon. They also suggested that I seek some legal advice on the situation of PML existing without the Groups ability to manage it with no directors.

 

Anyone legal here want to give some freebie advice to us all???

 

Sced

[supersleuth]

Cheers zill sterling work yet again.

 

All note the above statement "the directors of preferred group limited have not been able to confirm they have no current intention to demand payment of the debt in the immediate future"

 

 

Thats because they couldn't be contacted because there are no directors.

 

PREFERRED ACCOUNTS SHOW THEY OWE 40+MILLION TO GROUP UNDERTAKINGS

 

THEY'VE GOT TO GO

 

Top post Ryde!

 

Perhaps its worth asking CH exactly which "directors" E&Y allege that they have spoken to! Just goes to show that the accountants are just as criminal as their ghost clients....and can't even make sure that their lies are logical.

 

Tell CH you want to know which Directors E&Y spoke to when they formed their (so-called) OPINION.

 

BTW - Ryde, a Director must sign the Directors Report and accounts - so, if there are no directors, who signed the accounts?

Edited February 10, 2010 by supersleuth

[scedminc]

Preferred Group Ltd's accounts from 2008

 

Sced

Preferred Group 2008 Accounts.pdf

[brassed-off-2]

Southn Pac Secs 04-1: Notice to Noteholders | Company Announcements | Investegate

 

 

Just came across this...

some announcements made today!!!

[brassed-off-2]

h

tp://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/3852725/pageid/1

 

 

page 2 seems interesting on this one...refers to the mortgage deeds!!

[ryde]

Hi All,

 

I have spoken with CH to today about Preferred Group and PML. They state that as far as registry is concerned they can both exist however they did say that reminders have been sent to Preferred Group about no directors and if they do not reply then they there will be a proposal to stike off soon. They also suggested that I seek some legal advice on the situation of PML existing without the Groups ability to manage it with no directors.

 

Anyone legal here want to give some freebie advice to us all???

 

Sced

sced

THOUGHT IT WAS THE RULE THAT IF A COMPANY WAS STRUCK OFF AND BOTH THE PARENTS IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE IE PREFERRED HOLDINGS AND GROUP HAVE NO DIRECTORS THEIR ASSETS WHICH WOULD BE PML BECOME ASSETS OF THE CROWN.The consequences of this could be far reaching as if the prospectuses are to be believed the crown would hold all the legal titles to our mortgages and have locus standi!!!!!!!!!whereas the spv would just b stuck with the equitable titles!!!!

[littledotty27]

Just been looking on PWC website & come across this,not sure if it has been seen or not.

 

Lehmans - Failed Trades - PwC UK

 

The matters we are currently looking to resolve include the following high priority areas:

 

 

(a) which trades will the bilateral agreements include?

(b) what date is used in determining the valuation of these trades?

© what is the process for paying stamp duty? Who is liable for this?

(d) what is the process for lodging a claim

(e) what information do interested parties need to provide?

(f) has a trade automatically been cancelled if it has failed to settle?

 

I have highlighted the main point in red with re to stamp duty.

 

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s, of the investigating & prosecuting organisations:

 

DO NOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

 

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 (part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : tel#0207 637 6236

[supersleuth]

h

tp://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/3852725/pageid/1

 

 

page 2 seems interesting on this one...refers to the mortgage deeds!!

 

Good find Brassed-off.

 

Anyone who is litigation with SPPL should use these two documents together with LRA 2002 s. 58(2) as evidence to prove that the court cannot rely on the Land Register as proof of SPPL's alleged entitlement to repossess their property.

 

These public notices make it clear that the Land Registry is currently inaccurate and incomplete. It makes it clear that there are s.27 registration requirements that remain to be met (as per the words of the Act - see also Schedule 2 of the act).

 

Moreover, a company that has no directors is not a bona fide company because at law, a company can only lawfully operate through its board of directors. If there are no directors, there is no board and consequently, the company cannot lawfully do any act (until it has a board through which to act) - in particular unless and until it has a lawfully constituted board of directors, it cannot go to court and ask the court for anything!

[scedminc]

sced

THOUGHT IT WAS THE RULE THAT IF A COMPANY WAS STRUCK OFF AND BOTH THE PARENTS IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE IE PREFERRED HOLDINGS AND GROUP HAVE NO DIRECTORS THEIR ASSETS WHICH WOULD BE PML BECOME ASSETS OF THE CROWN.The consequences of this could be far reaching as if the prospectuses are to be believed the crown would hold all the legal titles to our mortgages and have locus standi!!!!!!!!!whereas the spv would just b stuck with the equitable titles!!!!

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Yes that right I believe but remember no one has been struck off yet. It seems to me that for some reason these companies are being given special treatment as CH seems very slow in doing what it should be. I speak from experience, as I have a company that sits dormat and they have jumped all over me without delay and told me that they will prosecute me if I do not file my docs or disolve the company. They have even given me a date for a hearing of 26th March. In my case we are only talking months but for the likes of our friends they are months and years overdue with minimal happening to them.

 

Anyway if the crown take the assets then the truth will be revealed that it was a true sale and then I imagine we all have a claim for the mortgage agreements to be unenforceable due to the nature of what has happened???

 

Sced

[scedminc]

Good find Brassed-off.

 

 

Moreover, a company that has no directors is not a bona fide company because at law, a company can only lawfully operate through its board of directors. If there are no directors, there is no board and consequently, the company cannot lawfully do any act (until it has a board through which to act) - in particular unless and until it has a lawfully constituted board of directors, it cannot go to court and ask the court for anything!

 

 

Hi SS,

 

Do you know how its stands with the parent company having no directors even if PML has a director. Surely the parent company has overall control of the companies below it therefore making PML dead in the water?? I agree with CH I think that PML could still exist as a registered name in its own right but if the parent company cannot control it then it either needs to go or seperate from the group structure??

 

Sced

[supersleuth]

sced

THOUGHT IT WAS THE RULE THAT IF A COMPANY WAS STRUCK OFF AND BOTH THE PARENTS IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE IE PREFERRED HOLDINGS AND GROUP HAVE NO DIRECTORS THEIR ASSETS WHICH WOULD BE PML BECOME ASSETS OF THE CROWN.The consequences of this could be far reaching as if the prospectuses are to be believed the crown would hold all the legal titles to our mortgages and have locus standi!!!!!!!!!whereas the spv would just b stuck with the equitable titles!!!!

 

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Yes, wouldn't it be interesting if the Crown under the doctrines of bonavacantia assumed the legal titles - leaving the SPV's with their "equitable" titles, .....well as per brassed-off's recent posts...just look how quickly the SPV's would come out screaming about their LEGAL TITLE!...bet they won't be shy in proving to the Crown that they really do own the legal title....

[supersleuth]

Hi SS,

 

Do you know how its stands with the parent company having no directors even if PML has a director. Surely the parent company has overall control of the companies below it therefore making PML dead in the water?? I agree with CH I think that PML could still exist as a registered name in its own right but if the parent company cannot control it then it either needs to go or seperate from the group structure??

 

Sced

 

 

Hi Sced,

 

Print off their Memoranda and Articles of Association. In there you will see exactly what Quorum of directors is needed for the board to resolve that the company will do any act. So what if a company is registered. It cannot make any decisions, resolve any board resolutions, trade or transact anything if there is no board to control and direct it. A company that has no Board is in substance and effect, dormant. The only possible reason for leaving it registered may be so as to avoid depriving the shareholders from their shares (- of the assets of the company), but other than that - a company without a board is a nullity.

 

The only claim to the ownership and appointment of a board lies with the shareholders of the company. Have a look at the shareholders. At law, a shareholders meeting must be held annually - and at such meeting a board would be elected (or appointed). If they're not even bothering with a shareholders annual general meeting, the company may be registered in name, but nothing at law. It is not a company that is in "good standing".

 

This means also e.g., that it cannot appoint and instruct solicitors to act on its behalf - from where are the solicitors getting their instructions? if there is no board to manage the company?

 

Can't quote any exact provisions other than to say that the Company's Act 2006 will probably have the answer.

[ryde]

Top post Ryde!

 

Perhaps its worth asking CH exactly which "directors" E&Y allege that they have spoken to! Just goes to show that the accountants are just as criminal as their ghost clients....and can't even make sure that their lies are logical.

 

Tell CH you want to know which Directors E&Y spoke to when they formed their (so-called) OPINION.

 

BTW - Ryde, a Director must sign the Directors Report and accounts - so, if there are no directors, who signed the accounts?

 

This is one huge tuck up as far as I'm concerned.They submit their accounts and then who actually checks them or looks at the whole picture ,no one I bet once they have an auditors signature.Whistleblower said something about sail address and investigation which I can't locate presently; searching CH it seems to have substance as they've all moved to a sail address at about the same date.There is intercompany debt,share issues to create capital between companies,debt write offs between companies all within the same group.This lot stinks to high heaven and should be investigated by the fraud squad.A lot of creditors are going to end up seriously burned here.

And as sced says they are getting preferential treatment from CH who I think if it wasn't for the volume of complaints wouldn't have done anything.

Obviously the PWC old pals cut us some slack we'll sort it out connection.B.stards

Edited February 10, 2010 by ryde